[ Page 953 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Lady Jackson presented to the House. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 953

Mr. King — 953

Routine proceedings

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 17) .

Hon. Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 953

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 953

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 958

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill

6) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 958

Mr. Stupich — 959

Mr. Wallace — 959

Mr. Macdonald — 963

Hon. Mr. Davis — 966

Mr. King — 966

Hon. Mr. Williams — 969

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 971

Division on second reading — 971

Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976 (Bill 7) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich — 971

Mr. Wallace — 971

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 972

Ms. Brown — 972

Mr. Cocke — 972

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 972

Mr. King — 973

Ms. Brown — 973

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 973

Mr. King — 973

Mr. Stupich — 973

Mr. King — 974

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 974

Mr. Levi — 974

Point of order

Hours of legislative sittings. Mr. King — 974

Mr. Wallace — 975

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 975

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this evening we are very honoured to have in our House Lady Jackson and her secretary, Irene Hunter, who are here from England. Lady Jackson has many well-known publications to her credit, among which I will name The West Bay, which was Miss Ward's first book published in America, and it appeared in 1948; Policy for the West, which was published in 1950; Faith and Freedom in 1954; Interplay of East and West, published in 1957; Five Ideas That Change The World in 1959; India and the West in 1961; The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations in 1962; Nationalism and Ideology in 1966; and The Lopsided World, which was published in 1968. Spaceship Earth was published by Columbia University Press in 1966. Only One Earth was written in collaboration with Rene Dubos in 1972, and her latest publication is Who Speaks for Earth?

I am sure that you will recognize that the very many publications that Lady Jackson, who writes under her own signature of Barbara Ward It is a great honour to have her with us.

She is here on a cross-country tour to recognize the Habitat which will take place in British Columbia. It is her first free weekend, Mr. Speaker, in three weeks of very heavy cross-country touring and lectures, and we are privileged indeed that she has chosen British Columbia to spend that free weekend.

I would ask all members of the House to welcome her.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition takes great pleasure in extending our most warm welcome to Lady Jackson and her secretary. We hope, indeed, that they have an enjoyable and pleasant stay in British Columbia, and we are looking forward to hosting nations from around the world in Habitat. We trust that this will be a good start for the festivities that will be held in Vancouver over the coming year. I welcome her.

Introduction of bills.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER
GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to stand in my place to support this budget of the first session of this new government under the leadership of our Premier, Bill Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure for the first time to say to you my sincere congratulations, and to the Deputy Speaker, that the House has placed in each of you their faith, and I see from your deliberations in these past few weeks that you are going to be a very fair Speaker, and we are indeed pleased that you are in your place, and the Deputy Speaker, and we congratulate you on that position.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, in the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. King's) address — I believe it was in the address to the throne debate — he made mention of a previous Provincial Secretary of this House, who served this House well and was known for his presentations. I would think that I would be remiss in following the tradition of the House, and all good Provincial Secretaries, if I didn't do a little bit of that myself this evening, and, if I may, just not give presentations of practical substance — I know the members will not want me to trouble the attendants in the House — but in a symbolic way, as did the Leader of the Opposition in the throne debate.

I would like to just make a few presentations here this evening, because I do believe that they are fitting to some of the members in this House, and to some of the members who aren't in this House, and apparently don't intend to be here.

I would like to suggest that the former Minister of Industrial Development, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), could perhaps use a gift coupon to Vancouver and return for any moving company of his choice. (Laughter.)

Then to the Minister of Housing in the previous government, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who isn't here this evening, I think we should provide him a house plan with instructions on how to read it. (Laughter.)

It's really a pleasure to make a presentation to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) . The Leader of the Opposition isn't here so perhaps I can make that presentation later.

The former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) — I see that he is in his place this evening — we thought that 100 memberships in the C.D. Howe "what's a million?" club might be suitable. (Laughter.)

To the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) I see that the hon. member for Burnaby North is in her place this evening — we should really provide for her the home telephone numbers of John Bremer and

[ Page 954 ]

Stanley Knight in case she ever wants to offer them jobs.

The former Minister of Finance, although he is not in his place, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I think we should present to him an adding machine, one that proves conclusively that one and one makes three. (Laughter.)

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) I would think would appreciate an autographed picture of David Barrett, along with a letter offering unqualified support in any leadership campaign.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Endorsed by Doug Fisher. (Laughter.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The former Attorney-General is not in his place, but I think that it would be suitable if we give to the only member for Vancouver East in this House (Mr. Macdonald) the bus tokens to enable him to commute between his waterfront home in Point Grey and his constituency office in Vancouver East.

Then we shouldn't forget the member who was once in this House. To the former Premier of the province (Mr. Barrett), a set of mirrors that prove that his waterfront home in Esquimalt is actually in Vancouver East. (Laughter.)

Speaking of Vancouver East, and I'll finish my presentations at this point, Mr. Speaker, I think we shouldn't forget the member who gave up his seat to let the former Premier seek a place in this House, Mr. Bob Williams, who for a very few weeks — two weeks, I believe it was — was a member for Vancouver East, and now has given up that position. I think we really should give him a development permit to build townhouses in Stanley Park, because he seemed to be bent on that kind of development. Those are the end of my presentations, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say something to the hon. member who spoke yesterday, before I get into my department, because the hon. member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) made reference in her address to a young child in her constituency who, as she said, because of the imposition of the sales tax was going to be suffering. She made some reference to some of the taxation. I believe the child's name was Aaron.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was going to make this mention in his address earlier today, but because of the import of that particular case I would like to say that the Minister of Health has assured me and assures the members of this House, that cases such as Aaron's, which are a hardship on the family, will be exempted and will be taken care of. I want to assure this House that in all cases of hardship, as she did demonstrate earlier today or yesterday in the debate, this government will listen and will look after those cases.

It reminds me, and it reminded me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, of a case of a young boy in Coquitlam whose case was drawn to my attention some years ago. He was one of the autistic children of this province, and I'm sure you'll realize that in this past few years the autistic child was one who was unknown, and his or her symptoms and the problems of the autistic child were unknown in this province until just a very few years ago. Medical science knew nothing of the problems; medical science could do nothing for them. For some years then, even though under the former Social Credit administration we started the first autistic child programme in this province, there were a series of children who were put into the homes for the retarded and were put away into places which gave no education and no rehabilitation. They were put into areas that did not suit their particular problem because we did not understand it.

The problem was overcome for the younger children but a whole generation of young people grew up, and in 1970-1971 we got together a group of parents of the older autistic children in this province. Just as we left government — the Social Credit administration — we had finalized in that year of 1972 a proper facility for these very active young people, ages 10 and 12 and 9 and 13 — of that age group — that had missed the attention of the younger children. The attention that they're getting today had been started under the former Social Credit administration. That autistic child centre was ready. It was ready to go in 1972, and the children were ready to move into it shortly after. It would have been opened in 1973.

I mention this because of the dramatic statement in the House, and I know it was a sincere statement by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) in regard to the child named Aaron. There's a child named Buddy in British Columbia today, and he has approximately eight or nine other young autistic children between the ages of 12 and 16, going on to 17, who have been denied the services of the older autistic children because, following the 1972 change of government — the NDP government — because it was a Social Credit idea, they decided to do away with the service for the older autistic child. Those children are all over the province today without services for the older autistic child. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Aarons and the Buddys of this world will be looked after by the Social Credit administration.

Mr. Speaker, when British Columbia first became a province in 1871, John Foster McCreight was sworn in as first Premier and Charles Goode was sworn in as first Provincial Secretary. At the time, there were only four members of the executive council. My, how we have grown. The office of the Provincial Secretary was essential for the orderly change from colonial to provincial government, and Mr. Goode's office was

[ Page 955 ]

charged with the duties and the responsibilities of the colonial secretary in earlier days. In fact, Mr. Goode was actually sworn in as the colonial secretary for the Province of British Columbia.

In those days, all the correspondence with the government went through the department of the Provincial Secretary and, though responsibilities have changed dramatically through all of these years, my department still provides many services both to the government and to the people of this beautiful province. While we are no longer responsible for finance, for education, for mines, health, housing, there are some 20 distinct sections in this department providing scores of different functions and services for the province. Now I don't plan to give a detailed account of all the responsibilities of this department, but I would like to mention some of the programmes that are being carried out now and are being planned for the near future.

The general public will not be as aware of some of the activities of the department as government employees and members of this House are. These are service sections handling government mail, microfilming and printing, and there are other vital functions such as appeals, public inquiries, and the processing, indexing, filing, storage and retrieval on demand of orders-in-council. The Public Service Commission is responsible for government employment policies and procedures, and the superannuation branch looks after the retirement funds not only of public servants, but also of teachers, municipal employees, and even members of this House.

These responsibilities are of great importance in ensuring the efficient operation of government in this province but they are not widely known or appreciated outside of the government service. Other sections, however, have a much more direct impact on the people either dealing with them personally or providing services and facilities for public use. An example can be seen right from the front steps of this building, where the Capital Improvement District Commission, since its inception in 1956, has been responsible for the many beautification projects in this area. This year the commission will be asked to increase its efforts in the Inner Harbour beautification programme. Provincially owned lands within the area will be transferred to the commission and the relocation of industrial installations in the harbour area will be commenced. Projects on the Saanich Peninsula, now within the jurisdiction of the commission, will also be considered.

The leisure services branch of this Department of the Provincial Secretary is even more directly involved with the people of British Columbia, helping to ensure that anyone, anywhere, in British Columbia has the opportunity to take part in sports, recreation and cultural activities, no matter where they live.

The Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund and the British Columbia Cultural Fund established in the '60s have proven to be sound investments. The interest earned by the funds is now supplemented by moneys raised through the Western Canada Lottery, another branch of the department. Grants from the physical fitness fund are made available primarily to provincial sports associations for the purpose of furthering the development of their particular activities.

At the present time assistance is being channelled into two major avenues. Firstly, the leisure services branch, in close cooperation with the provincial sports association, is promoting the British Columbia coaching development programme, part of a national programme designed to assist the development and upgrading of amateur coaches and leaders in all sports. The provincial development co-ordinators in various sports and leisure services branch area consultants, working with officers of provincial sports associations, are ensuring that courses within the coaching development programme are offered in all areas of this province.

Secondly, emphasis is placed in ensuring that opportunities for participation and developing additional coaching expertise are available in every corner of the province.

To further the development of activities as a way of life, the run-walk-cycle-swim-skate programme, which has served us well for several years, is being updated and expanded, and the concept of regional games pioneered in British Columbia by the Northern Winter Games, is being implemented more widely. To encourage more public participation in lifetime sports, the leisure services branch is cooperating closely with both the Department of Education and the Department of Health.

There is a cultural section to the leisure services branch which encourages the development of the artistic life of our province through grants to over 65 community arts councils, to many non-profit organizations involving music, drama and dancing, and through scores of scholarships to promising young British Columbians.

In regard to the past programmes of winter and summer sports festivals, I would like to mention to the members that this particular programme will be stopped in this year; we'll not undertake it any longer. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a change in philosophy. It is not a change particularly because of the money spent, although considerable moneys have been spent in that particular area; it's a question of directing funds in a more meaningful way. I would like to say that with the $600,000 — and I'm just using round figures — that was used for advertising for the festivals, I frankly believe that we can bring to young people and allow young people to work more and to play and to have a proper sports

[ Page 956 ]

recreation experience in the community by spending the money right at the community. I know you will agree with me that ads in the paper are not contributing to the health of a youngster in any area of the province, whether it be in a poor area or a rich one.

In that regard I would like to say that it is my philosophy — and I hope that you will join with me — that we must do more to train young people and to encourage young people to have a lifetime experience of sports, fitness and recreation in our province. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce this evening that I have asked a very outstanding person in the field of physical education, recreation and sport in this province to undertake a close liaison with our department for the next few months to advise me and to advise the departments of government which have responsibility for recreation in this province. I have asked Harry Jerome and he has accepted.

This fine Canadian and fine athlete has accepted the responsibility and the challenge of giving to this government an organized programme, a presentation, which will meld the departments responsible for recreation in our province — Health, Provincial Secretary, Education, Recreation and Travel Industry — and to incorporate such things as the outdoor recreation branch of the Recreation department where we are committed to developing the outdoor recreation towards greater effectiveness in co-ordinating governmental, involvement in outdoor recreation in British Columbia.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the involvement of Harry Jerome in giving advice to me and to our departments, and in finding out where we can much better involve young people in a lifetime recreational activity, will see in the future no longer empty ball parks and empty parks, but involvement at the schools, involvement at the park level and involvement at the home level in a lifetime sports activity.

Also of a cultural nature are a number of provincial resources, either direct functions of the department or actively encouraged by it. I refer, for example, to the Library Development Commission which provides grants and expert advice and guidance to local libraries as well as library service by Bookmobile and mail to people not served by local facilities. One of the most interesting areas of that department of library service, and a growing one, is our recorded-book service for people who are unable to read. This has been a very ambitious programme and has had wide acceptance. I am very particularly pleased with that one.

Other valuable resources administered by the Provincial Secretary's department are: the Legislative Library, which all members, I know, use and appreciate — it's the best one in the country; the Provincial Archives, and more recently the Provincial Museum.

The museum, part of the 1966-67 centennial Heritage Court complex now attracts over one million visitors each year. This figure is sure to increase with the official opening this summer of the second permanent exhibition, the Indian gallery.

The very diversity of the Department of the Provincial Secretary helps to make it probably the most fascinating in government — I imagine my colleagues would perhaps differ in that, but I think it is — and provides tremendous opportunities for meaningful service to the government and people of the province of British Columbia.

Now I would like to talk about one of the equally fascinating departments of government, and one for which I have responsibility, and that is the Department of Recreation and Parks.

Mr. Speaker, one of the very contentious problems that has been before every government, I would think, particularly those of the last 20 years, has been the problem of mining in parks. It has been a long, stormy issue and it is an issue to which there is no simplistic solution in meeting the concerns of the conservationists and the long-established rights of the valid claim-holders.

However, I am happy to say that this government will not allow any more new staking in provincial parks, and that is a bound and determined policy. I want the members in this House to know that we are working to provide an acceptable approach to resolving those claims which are in good standing, and we will have a formula and a report in a very few months on that contentious problem.

I want to speak, too, about our very good fish and wildlife branch of our department. It has an especially important role to ensure that the resource base of this province is protected as much as possible, in spite of the intensive resources utilization. This is essential not only to ensure a suitable habitat for fish and wildlife, which is the branch's specific responsibility, but it is also in keeping with our fundamental belief that a land fit for wildlife is a land fit for people.

As minister of this department, I will continue to support the involvement of these specialists through the interdepartmental resource referral system and the folio system of the Forestry department in guiding sound and sensitive development of this province.

The success story of our fish and wildlife branch is the conservation and outdoor recreation programme. It has developed public understanding of resource interrelationships, and in developing skill and responsibility in gun-handling as a requirement for licensing hunters.

Last year, in 1975 alone, 5,000 people in British Columbia completed these courses. In total, since this course was initiated over five years ago, 18,000

[ Page 957 ]

British Columbians have taken the course and this has resulted in a significant drop in hunting accidents which I believe is a direct result of this programme.

I would like to also address my remarks to another contentious problem which I think the House would like to hear my views on, as a new minister in charge of this portfolio. The leg-hold trap has had a great deal of debate in this province and in every province in Canada. I said in answer to the very many people who have written to me on the leg-hold trap that I was very pleased to be the Minister of Recreation because now I would have an opportunity to do something about it. I say that to you tonight because I am sincere in that.

This government is committed to developing as quickly as practicable a more humane approach to trapping of fur-bearers. The solution is not going to be an easy one and no single solution other than to ban all of trapping would be the one that would be the most simple and probably, in some quarters, the most popular — but in some quarters very much debated. I speak particularly to the members of the north who will recognize that we are reluctant to make that step. Because although the industry of trapping is not a large one, it nevertheless provides a livelihood or supplements marginal income for several thousand of our citizens, a large proportion of whom are native people.

This year we will be passing new regulations with several provisions to reduce the stress in trapped animals. It will not be the total answer but will be a significant step in the right direction without placing undue hardships on the trapper or the trapping industry.

Complementary to this, Mr. Speaker, is our continuing trapper education programme also aimed at expediting more humane trapping techniques. Our goal is this: that by 1978 there will be humane traps in use by the 2,500 non-Indian and 3,000 Indian trappers in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to say a few words about the marine resources branch of the Department of Recreation. Our new government made a significant commitment to planning of the federally sponsored salmon enhancement programme. This year we have allocated $300,000 to a special funding of this programme, and through involvement of our staff of both the marine resources branch and our fish and wildlife branch we will see it at last begun in this province. It will have an objective, Mr. Speaker and members of this House, of doubling the salmon production of this province and it promises to be a model for joint provincial-federal relations and cooperation.

I believe that the salmon enhancement programme will be one of the highlights of the first term of this new government and I know that all members of the House will be pleased to see, both from a recreational and a fishing industry point of view, the success of that programme.

Our marine resources branch also has a full-time adviser at the Law of the Sea Conference. It is currently in session in New York City, Mr. Speaker, and the implications to the fishing industry and to the mineral resources of the continental shelf of this major conference are very profound indeed, and are of particular significance to a maritime province such as ours.

The same marine resources branch cooperates with the federal agencies on a cost-sharing basis in the development of new fisheries and improved fisheries technology. Due to these efforts, I'd like to tell you that the future looks particularly bright in our developing oyster industry, and further down the road is a promising future for our infant marine plant industry.

Now I'd like to address a few remarks — and because of the time I am not going to cover all of the things in the Recreation and parks department — but I would address a few remarks to another area of that responsibility and that is Travel Industry.

In our province, travel industry last year exceeded $960 million, and, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, we will exceed, for the first time in history, a travel industry of $1 billion this year.

As you know, we now combine Travel Industry under our new government with the Department of Recreation. I am pleased to tell you that in a very few weeks our Deputy Minister, Dick Colby, who is on retirement leave at this point in time, will be honoured by the Travel Industry Association of Canada for his contributions to travel over his very many years of service, and may I pay tribute to that deputy minister at this time.

I would like to say right here, Mr. Speaker, that I have been very much pleased by the very many good people in that department, the Department of Recreation, the Department of the Provincial Secretary, to which I am very grateful for the assistance I have had in these few short weeks of being minister of those departments.

Mr. Colby is one of those kinds of people who have helped not only the ministers that he has served, and he has served under many in his many years in this province and in this government service, but he has also served the people of British Columbia well.

Last year, conventions brought $50 million to the travel industry in this province. I'd like to say too — I'd like to put on record — that I believe that the convention business and the convention industry can bring many, many more millions to this province. It is one area of the travel industry that I would like to see personally bolstered, and I plan to do so.

I know that many members of this House have had in the very last few days in particular many letters from information centres throughout the province asking for more funds. Some of the appeals, in fact all

[ Page 958 ]

of the appeals for more funds, have come to us since bringing down the budget and all of the estimates have been in.

I want to just assure the members that we are giving consideration in the fall of this year to bolstering those hospitality centres which, in some cases, are the first contact to the traveller in coming into British Columbia.

I have not, Mr. Speaker, attempted in this short time to cover all of the things in my department that I foresee in the future, but just a few of them. I know that many of them and all of them will be covered in my estimates, and I look forward to that time when I can explain the new policies of this new government under these new estimates under this new budget.

In conclusion on the budget address, I want to say that I look forward in this House to the new directions of this government, the new directions and these great commitments that we have made to the people of British Columbia and which we will see, we will meet.

We have made commitments in housing, and we will meet them. Social Credit in this province, and the Social Credit government in the past, always led all other provinces, Mr. Speaker, in social reform.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was in this province under the previous Social Credit administration...it was that administration, Mr. Speaker, that cleaned up the B.C. hospital insurance in this province and put it into a proper service for the people. It was this previous Social Credit administration that brought the highest benefits to the elderly and the handicapped; the Human Resources welfare benefits were the highest in the country to those who lived in British Columbia.

It was the previous Social Credit administration that saw the establishment of three universities, the community colleges, the educational system that was second to none in Canada, and it was the first in the world, Mr. Speaker, to establish the homeowner grant — the first in the world. Social reform!

This is a period of restraint, Mr. Speaker, which the dominion government has recognized, all governments in Canada have recognized, and because of many things, including the record of the government that we followed, we are forced to recognize in British Columbia. But in spite of that, in spite of the period of restraint in which we find ourselves, in spite of the fact that we have followed a government that has been Saturday night rich and Monday morning poor, and has left Monday morning to us, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we're ready to meet that. We're ready to meet Monday morning; we're ready to meet this whole new administration and this whole new thrust for British Columbia.

We have done so in this budget by increasing Education, Human Resources and Health. In every area of people-services we have increased. We have said to the people of British Columbia that where people count we are spending the money and we are putting in the programmes that count, and we are bringing a proper efficient administration to the rest.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a great budget for this time, and I say to the people of British Columbia the greatest era. We are going forward in planning and, Mr. Speaker, we have a great British Columbia, but under this new government it's going to be a greater British Columbia.

Mr. Schroeder moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before the House rose at 6 o'clock tonight, the sole purpose of this bill, the B.C. Power & Hydro Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976, is to increase the borrowing authorization of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $3 billion to $3.5 billion. The borrowing is necessary to carry on the authority's dam-generating and transmission-expansion projects to ensure that ongoing electricity and power will be available for the

[ Page 959 ]

future. Mr. Speaker, I now move the bill be read a second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us more than that.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the explanations offered by the hon. Minister of Finance for most of these bills are something less than adequate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with what he's said, but there's a good deal more that could be said about the need for B.C. Hydro to borrow at this time.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in the last three years it has been the custom for the official opposition to use legislation such as this for a long debate about the policy of B.C. Hydro and all the sins of the past and the imagined sins of the future. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, even the hon. member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) indulged in such debates at times like this.

However, it is not the intention of the official opposition to hold up this particular legislation with that kind of a dissertation. We believe that a discussion of Hydro policy more properly belongs when we come to discussing the estimates of the ministers responsible for conducting the affairs of B.C. Hydro, and certainly at that time we will get into much more of a discussion of B.C. Hydro.

At this time, I think it would suffice simply to add to the very brief explanation the minister has offered one more reason why it is necessary to increase the borrowing authority. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is before us in Votes and Proceedings No. 26, when questions were asked about the financing of B.C. Hydro with respect to one particular project. This was a question asked by myself of the hon. minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . No. 1: What is the total expenditure in construction of storage projects that is to do with the Columbia River project, Mr. Speaker — to date? Answer: $584,357,124. Question No. 2: What are the total expenditures on generation, transformation and transmission facilities? Answer: $449,231,370. Question: What is the total estimate of the total amount required to complete the project? Answer: $434,838,029. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you add all those figures together — and without an adding machine, Mr. Speaker — you get $1,468,426,523. That's almost $1.5 billion on that one project.

One more question: What is the total amount, including interest, received under the Columbia River treaty? Answer: $479,107,523. That's a shortfall on this one project of $989,319, almost $1 billion on that one project. It's alarming not only in that it is a lot of money — twice as much almost as we are being asked for in this particular bill — but alarming also, Mr. Speaker, in that it is almost $145 million more of a shortfall than was projected when the B.C. Financial Review was published last summer. It would seem, at this rate, that there is some urgency to complete this project before it breaks the province under the present administration.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in getting into the history of the Columbia River debate all over again. We told the House at the time that it was a bad deal, from this side of the House. We didn't like it. We didn't want it signed the way it was. However, we are stuck with it. We know B.C. Hydro has plans that have to be continued. They need the financing for the projects that are currently underway, and they will need more projects.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will support this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The whole question of energy is one that concerns not only British Columbia or even Canada, but all the industrialized nations. In fact, the public, by and large, have become much more aware of the fact that with a growing population and the ever-increasing demand for appliances of one kind of another, industrialization and diversification of the economy. that there seems to be an insatiable demand for more and more electricity. That has to be equated with various other factors such as security, if we go to nuclear power, or the damming of every river in British Columbia, if we decide to continue with hydro-electric power, or if we go to the use of Hat Creek coal.

There's just such a vast subject for debate that I agree with the former speaker for the official opposition that there will be a more appropriate time under the estimates of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro to debate these issues, but I would like to raise the question that was raised so eloquently on many occasions by the now Attorney-General of this province (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who I think must be even more stunned tonight than he was in his days as a Liberal on this side of the House, because we have a two-line bill. The Attorney-General and the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) used to wax eloquent about the fact that the opposition was being asked to write a blank cheque to the government to permit the raising of large sums of money without any explanation whatever. This is why I was really disappointed in the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) tonight when he made the bland, simple, all-embracing statement that we need to borrow $500 million for the continued dam and generating expansion in British Columbia to provide electricity.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

After all the debate we've had in this House for many days about much smaller sums in relation to the operating expenditure of the province of British

[ Page 960 ]

Columbia, it seems as though we are being asked, without very much comment at all, to put the province on the line as being a guarantor for another $500 million worth of borrowing by a Crown corporation, and there is not a single detail given by the Minister of Finance in introducing second reading as to what the $500 million will be borrowed for.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that it is, in general terms, to be used to finance expansion of generating capacity to provide electricity for a hungry and growing province. But I really do have to echo the words of the Attorney-General, when he was on this side of the House, in saying that really the opposition deserves some kind of general outline of the Hydro expense and planning for the next 12 months. In introducing second reading the minister hasn't even mentioned whether the $500 million will all be borrowed in the next 12 months of the fiscal year. He's given no indication of which particular projects have priority. We have to assume from information from other sources that Site 1 will likely be a source of much of the expenditure of the borrowed money, and there are many other projects.

One can assume from statements from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) the other day that the engineering studies on the Hat Creek coal project presumably have to be financed. He is looking as though maybe it isn't part of this $500 million, but that's my whole point. Doesn't the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, feel that we, the opposition, are entitled to some kind of outline as to the next 12 months' projected spending of B.C. Hydro — on which projects he would justify coming to the House and asking to extend the borrowing capacity by $500 million? It is a particularly unusual contrast that, after all the bitter debate we've had on this side of the House, particularly between the government and the official opposition, about what a terrible thing it is to get into any kind of deficit on operating expenditure, apparently you expect to have little or no debate on the question of having one of the Crown corporations borrow $500 million.

The government has time and time again taken money out of operating expenditures of the province and made it available to Hydro, and this side of the House has frequently criticized the spending of money on capital expenditures out of operating dollars. But here, in this case, we are certainly talking about capital expansion.

There is, no doubt, also from the Clarkson, Gordon report, that the auditors in looking at the situation with B.C. Hydro...on page 29 they say: "Purchase commitments and contracts amount to $507 million for which further financing will be required."

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that the Minister of Finance or someone answer the question that I asked earlier in the House, also from the Clarkson, Gordon report. An actuarial survey of the employees' pension plan indicated a deficit of $41 million at December 31, 1974, and conditions which caused the deficit together with subsequent changes in the plan will result in an additional deficit, the amount of which has not been determined. Now is this $500 million that we are borrowing, or the permission to borrow another $500 million...in calculating the sum that is required, does that include straightening out the mess or finding money to...? If this isn't the case, where's this $41 million going to come from to put into the pension fund which should be there? This $41 million apparently is not the final figure. We've also got the recent judgment delivered in a lawsuit against Hydro to the tune of $36 million, and I gather that, although the judgment has been appealed by B.C. Hydro, the court has ordered that B.C. Hydro place the money in court. This, I believe, has been done.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with large sums of money, and the debt of B.C. Hydro continues to increase. Again, it's very interesting, if I might quote the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) when he sat on this side of the House. I'm just quoting from Hansard on February 16, 1972, at page 558:

"The government this afternoon at quarter to six is asking the 55 members of this House to make a decision concerning $ 500 million. A judgment decision without facts, without statements, without economic projections as to how this money is to be applied, when it's to be applied, as to where it's going to be applied, or as to why it is needed."

That is the statement of the now Attorney-General when he stood on this side of the House, and I couldn't choose more apt and accurate questions myself, Mr. Minister of Finance. The Attorney-General then went on to say:

"There's not one single solitary explanation given to this House in this request for $500 million, as to why it's needed or where it's going to go. There hasn't been one reason advanced to anyone and (on this occasion) the Leader of the Opposition stressed this in his remarks."

The then Attorney-General went on throughout his speech to emphasize the point that I think it's very fair to emphasize tonight. He mentions on a subsequent page:

"The debt position of this province is growing like Topsy. I say it is alarming, not only because it's so high, but because it's a runaway increase. I'm going to inform some of the hon. members of five years' figures here, and I want you to listen to the way they escalate."

The member at that time for Vancouver–Point Grey went on to outline the figures, and I'm not going to repeat all these figures, Mr. Speaker, but there's no doubt that the debt of B.C. Hydro has been increasing steadily over the last five years by an

[ Page 961 ]

amount of 61 per cent. That's assuming the figure of Clarkson, Gordon, which if projected to the end of March, 1976, gave a net debt of $3.147 billion. It seems to me, as I said earlier on, when we've discussed the difficulties that the province might be in by getting into a deficit position on its operating budget....

I don't dispute the fact that we should try to operate in the black. I never have. I've only said that sometimes the insistence on black ink prejudices many other very legitimate concerns of people in this province. But it seems that with gay abandon we decide that because it's presented on the books in a slightly different way under the budget of a Crown corporation, somehow or other the debt is at arm's length or somehow or other, since it's a debt that we have once removed, that makes it a little easier to bear, or that it's not quite such a serious problem. It's all centred in one particular area of provincial affairs — namely the generation of electricity.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not greatly relieved to think that just because it's sort of one step removed from the taxpayer directly, we can at all happily envisage the net debt of B.C. Hydro at the end of the fiscal year 1976 as being $3.147 billion.

I recognize that this province cannot expand, it cannot, perhaps, diversify the economy and it can't satisfy everyone unless judicious and far-sighted policies are developed as to the generation of electricity. With that, I'm sure all members of the House would agree. Not in a great amount of detail, but I think what we are entitled to is some very general outline by the Minister of Finance tonight — and maybe he plans to do this when he closes the debate — of the basic projects in the next 12 months which make it necessary for up to $500 million to be borrowed.

Even in the colloquial phrase of ballpark figures, it would be very useful.... In fact, I think it's a responsibility of the opposition to try and insist that we get something in the way of an outline of the sums of money that are to be spent on this expansion programme in the next 12 months and touching on some of the projects I have mentioned — Site 1 in the Pend-d'Oreille, the Hat Coal project and similar other projects. B.C. Hydro was reported in the press a week or two ago as seeking to build a dam at Revelstoke which would cost $1 billion. Now where does that fit into the overall planning of B.C. Hydro? Mr. Speaker, I don't want to unduly delay this debate and go into a lot of detail on one particular aspect of B.C. Hydro planning, but certainly the publicity which was given to the dam at Revelstoke included, for example, a statement by a member of the wildlife branch that tenders would be called late this year and that construction would start next year. The appraisal of that employee of the government was that any so-called environmental impact review had been carried out was really just very much a pretence, and the construction of the Revelstoke dam at a cost of $1 million would go ahead anyway.

Now I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if that's a fair criticism or not. But it's certain that the people of British Columbia realize that the government is trying to look ahead and provide the annual increase in electrical output that this province requires, but they don't feel that it should be done at any price and with disregard to the environment.

We've heard statements by members of this government at different times this session that they are aware of the need to minimize damage to the environment and to try and equate the real need for increased electricity production year by year with the obvious desire to do as little damage as possible to the environment. But when we get large headlines like this, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that construction on a dam costing $1 billion might get started as early as next year, and then a bill like this is presented to the House, and we're supposed simply to go along with giving authority for the borrowing of half a billion dollars, I think we're entitled to know, in some very general way at the very least, just how this $500 million is to be spent.

It may be that it is more appropriate to leave some of the detailed questioning to the debate on the minister's estimates, but I think it would be very wrong if we were to just simply give glib approval to second reading at this stage, then find out later on that some of the money is to be spent on projects with which we very much disagree.

In borrowing another $500 million, I think another statistic is just worth quoting. If you calculate the interest paid on debt by B.C. Hydro for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, even after allowing for the income from the sinking fund investments, the interest was $160 million, which amounts, by my calculation, to about $65 per capita of the population of British Columbia.

As I say, we now read in the newspapers that another dam is proposed which might involve the expenditure of $1 billion. Presumably, if you start talking about interest on this kind of money, the interest on that would probably be another $90 million annually, which means another $37 per capita of the population on interest charges for hydro expansion alone.

Mr. Speaker, we've talked about many things: health, education and human resources. We've talked during the budget about the terrible thing it is if the government should get into an operating deficit on its annual account, on its annual operating expenditures. We've talked about $10 million more coming from cigarette tax, and about $5 million here, and $20 million there, but really it's just absolute peanuts when you start talking about borrowing another half a billion dollars where the per capita cost on interest

[ Page 962 ]

charges alone is $37 per head of the population. Where is our sense of balance in all this?

I'm not disputing for a moment the conscientious wish of this government to present a balanced budget to this House, and to try to equate a great deal of human needs in the departments I've mentioned with a wish to minimize the tax burden on the people who produce the revenue in the first place — or the need to develop our resources in order to get more revenue from resources and less revenue from people. But really the sums that we seem to have been talking about during the budget debate compared to this kind of money that we're talking about under B.C. Hydro to me almost pale into relative insignificance.

Year by year by year, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) so eloquently put it two or three years ago, the debt just grows like Topsy and B.C. Hydro becomes committed to a larger and larger debt year by year. In the long run, the taxpayers of B.C. are still responsible for that debt, even though in technical terms they may be one step removed from it.

At this point in time I'm not sure, frankly, whether I'm going to support this bill or vote against it, because I don't know anything about it. Until I have some idea where this $500 million is going I don't think it shows much intelligence on the part of the opposition to vote one way or the other. We know in general terms what is intended, but one of the statements that came out just, I think, a week ago — and I don't have the details in front of me — was the fact that perhaps the Hat Creek coal project wasn't such a primary requirement after all, and that it would still be much better to go ahead and dam various rivers in various parts of British Columbia rather than to go for a coal-fired plant at Cache Creek.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia read these reports in the newspaper just like the members of this House, and very often the reports seem to be in conflict. At least, the impression one gets is that B.C. Hydro itself isn't quite sure what the long-term programme should be. Should it be a question of damming the rivers and not being too concerned with interference with fish and wildlife, or should it be a coal-fired plant, using Hat Creek coal? One thing that does seem to be reasonably certain is that it will be a long time, if ever, before British Columbia chooses to go to nuclear power. That's about the one theme that I can detect from the statements issuing from B.C. Hydro. But it's quite clear that no matter which particular form of energy is used, there does require to be a great deal of borrowing to develop the projects and to ensure that the annual 9 per cent increase — or whatever is required — is available year by year.

Publicity was given to the possibility of damming various rivers such as the Stikine and the Homathko. I can't remember how many others — and to the diversion of the McGregor River into the Columbia. Suggestions of this nature just make the average person boggle at the long-range potential complications of damming all these rivers. It seems, from the particular information that's been released about the Revelstoke proposal, that B.C. Hydro gets pretty far down the road with its planning before the public and interested groups have a chance to realistically know what is intended and to intervene if they object.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is shaking his head. I may be overstating the case, and he nods, which suggests that I am overstating the case. Well, a part of the reason we're all in this House, Mr. Speaker, is for people like myself and the Minister of Labour to get into debate and get the facts on the table, so that everyone can understand.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): They were given last spring in detail in this House.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we're now here this year to find out what is involved. The cost of money changes, the programmes change and we get statements which seem to contradict statements that were made a year ago.

I have statements, Mr. Speaker, that the Hat Creek coal project was one of the most attractive ways in which we could generate electricity, and already there's an engineering study underway which the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has referred to in this House.

Then I discover another statement in the media the other day that it may not be now or in the immediate future, that maybe we should go ahead and dam the rivers.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm very interested that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) should interject his feelings into the debate because he, like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), was one of the strongest critics on this side of the House, and I admired them for it and learned a great deal from both these gentlemen when they sat over here because they taught me to be a little more alert as to what was going on in this House than I would otherwise have been. I give them credit for that.

But here we are tonight. We're still looking at the same kind of bill. It's even worse because there's only two lines in this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it to them!

MR. WALLACE: I won't bother the House by going back and quoting from the Attorney-General, but I think there were three lines in the bill, and he

[ Page 963 ]

worked it out at $600,000 or something a line and so much a word.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He spoke half again as long, too.

MR. WALLACE: The thing is that the Attorney-General at that time, when he was on this side of the House, made a clear impression on my memory. I've never quite forgotten how eloquently and clearly he demonstrated the fact that the opposition should always be questioning the expenditure of public funds. Whether it's done directly by a minister of this House, or whether it's done by a Crown corporation acting under the responsibility of a minister really doesn't alter the fact that John Q. Public is the person that finishes up paying the interest on the debt.

I'm just pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular situation, as I calculate from the figures that have been revealed over annual reports in the last few years, we paid $65 per capita on debt charges last year, and if we go ahead with the Revelstoke Dam it will be $65 plus $37 — $102 per head of the population of British Columbia which will be spent annually on one item, debt charges on B.C. Hydro.

I think these comments cover the general outline of the bill as I see it, and I would hope, particularly in the light of the comments from the Minister of Labour, that when the Minister of Finance winds up second reading we will have an outline of the way in which that $500 million is to be compiled.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a word or two on this bill which is increasing the borrowing power very substantially of B.C. Hydro where, frankly, the debt ratio to assets is extremely high in terms of any other corporation. It has a tremendous burden of debt, and it is for that reason that we should be more particularly careful than ever before, and that government should be, Mr. Speaker, of the projected power plans of B.C. Hydro, one of which I understand is to be announced tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

The Columbia River has been a financial disaster for British Columbia, as has been pointed out, and I won't say more except that we were told in this House, and the Liberals in the cabinet opposite will certainly recall these words even if some of the Social Credit members in the government don't, where W.A.C. Bennett assured us that the American payments and the interest thereon would make the Columbia River project cheaper than.... "What is freer than free, my friends?" he said. The overrun is $ 1,000 million on the Columbia Treaty, and yet they get after the Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) for a $100 million overrun, all of which went to the people of the province of B.C. in programmes like Pharmacare and Mincome and other things to help the needy people of this province. But a $1,000 million overrun on the Columbia River project by these Social Credit businessmen-governmental officials, that's nothing. That does not count.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Shame! Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that they will repeat. They will repeat these mistakes of the past unless they listen to the good people who are available to counsel the government. I'm thinking particularly of the B.C. Energy Commission, because the B.C. Energy Commission by its nature — and the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is sitting there and listening — has to survey not only the immediate needs of Hydro to serve its market and to develop its power potential, but it has to look at the total picture of the energy resources of the province of British Columbia, whether it be coal or oil or gas or water power or steam power. They have to think, and they do think, in terms of conservation practices and environmental damage that might occur from this or that project.

But I have the distinct impression, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. Hydro, under Robert Bonner, is dam-crazy.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not being unparliamentary.

They intend to announce tomorrow the damming of the McGregor River...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

MR. MACDONALD:...which presents important and very serious environmental and conservation dangers to the whole future of the province of B.C.

We've had, you know, in a very short space of a couple of months the announcement of a whole project of new dam construction in the province of B.C. without consultation with the Energy Commission, and I say that no new dam projects should be embarked upon in this province unless with the.... It's all right, George. It's all right. But I do say this: Don't dam the McGregor; damn the government!

But really we have in B.C. Light and Hydro unquestionably a hydro complex which is projecting the electric power needs of British Columbia at far more than the B.C. Energy Commission. The B.C. Energy Commission has consistently come in with estimates of power growth over a period of time that

[ Page 964 ]

curves up and down between 6.5 and 7 per cent per year, while B.C. Hydro, thinking big and with a tremendous debt ratio, as I pointed out, is talking about a burgeoning power-generating demand in the area of 9 per cent per year. The difference between those figures, which is roughly 25 to 30 per cent, means millions of dollars of capital charges that will be levied in the B.C. Hydro debt picture and paid by by the ratepayers and become part of the B.C. provincial debt.

So it is very important that we get the true perspective as to our future power needs. Once again I say that this capital sum, that B.C. Hydro will be able to borrow for future projects, should not be used without recommendation of the B.C. Energy Commission which, as I say, has the power to look and the ability to look at the total picture in terms of electric needs, in terms of conservation of resources and in terms of preventing irreparable environmental damage. That's the course you're embarked upon at the present time. That's the course that is going to be announced in one further stage tomorrow, and I say that it's a big mistake that these....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're not talking....

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm talking about what can be done under this bill to increase Hydro's borrowing authority, and I say stop and check with the Energy Commission and don't make those demand projections so high that this province will be swallowed up in debt created by a Social Credit administration, as the Columbia River debt which we are paying for dearly in our rates and taxes and the load on our industry. It will be paid for, for years to come in this province.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important piece of legislation. It is important not only because of the numbers of dollars involved, but also because of the detailed planning that is necessary and the disruption which can occur in various parts of the province, especially if the planning goes awry. As the hon. member for Oak Bay said, the guaranteed debt of B.C. Hydro is of the order of $3 billion. That's $3,000 million. And this bill requests that the province guarantee the borrowing, or guarantee an additional debt of B.C. Hydro of the order of $500 million, In other words, when this legislation passes the debt guaranteed by the people of British Columbia, the debt of B.C. Hydro will rise to approximately $3.5 billion or $3,500 million.

This is a great deal of money and obviously if anything goes wrong with the affairs of B.C. Hydro, it can have a very serious impact on the finances of the province, indeed on the economy of the entire province. It's a very important authority. It has a very considerable borrowing power. It has a very great responsibility to ensure that its planning is right.

Why is B.C. Hydro so large? Why are the hydro authorities across this country, indeed across this continent, so large? The fundamental reason really is that electricity is a fantastic bargain. The price that you or I, Mr. Speaker, would pay for the energy which is supplied to us over wires, if we had to pay for it in terms of human effort, is many, many times the price we actually pay when we pay our monthly power bills.

Power over power lines will do many, many jobs that human beings individually or even collectively in relatively large numbers cannot do. It does fantastic things. It's a very low-priced substitute for men's toil and women's toil. It's a bargain. It is a tremendous bargain. Because it is such a great bargain, the people of this province are demanding it as fast as they can accumulate appliances, devices of one kind or another that use electricity. They demand that they get it. It saves them their own labour. It saves them the labour of others. It's a fantastic labour-saving enterprise.

Therefore we are going to see a continuation of these kinds of demands — demands on B.C. Hydro to install more generation, build more transmission lines, more distribution systems in our cities. Remember, please, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. Hydro also distributes natural gas, and gas does a number of jobs effectively as well, so B.C. Hydro will be borrowing and using this $500 million also, in a much lesser amount, for the expansion of its gas system.

There are a number of projects which must be undertaken soon. The previous government left us in the position where new generating capacity was urgently needed. Indeed, there was an announcement, or a half-announcement, that a very expensive project at Hat Creek, burning coal, would proceed as a first priority. Hat Creek is one of the numerous projects still being considered very seriously by B.C. Hydro.

But there are various alternatives. British Columbians are indeed fortunate; we have many choices — many alternative courses we can pursue in order to provide the additional energy we need.

Contrast our position with that of Ontario. Ontario has to look outside of that province for its natural gas and for its oil which it uses in part to generate electricity. It has to import from the United States all the coal it uses in its thermal plants. It is having to build expensive nuclear plants because this is the only way it can generate power using in part its own resources. It's so dependent upon alternatives at a great distance whose price is rising that it has a special commission of inquiry right at this moment trying to determine what is the best course in its case. Right up on very urgent consideration: how can it limit the demands of its people for electricity? By contrast, we have choice and we don't have an immediate urgency to limit by physical restrictions

[ Page 965 ]

the demands for electricity by our people in this province.

I have in front of me, Mr. Speaker, a chart which has been published several times in several different publications by B.C. Hydro, and which lists various projects which are being seriously considered — one or two which are now being undertaken, and it lists them in order of their cost. The lowest-cost projects immediately being considered are: the Revelstoke power dam, three miles from the municipality of Revelstoke, very close to the Trans-Canada Highway; the Seven Mile Site on the Pend-d'Oreille; Site 1 on the Peace River; and the McGregor diversion which was mentioned a few minutes' ago. Those are the lowest-cost Hydro sites available for development in the province at the present time. Hat Creek is somewhat more expensive, but larger than any one of them — roughly, the same scale of all of them together.

The present course with B.C. Hydro is to begin to develop, in a sequential way, several of those Hydro developments, holding Hat Creek as an interesting alternative, but not one which is going to be immediately undertaken. There are a number of other Hydro sites which are comparable in costs to Hat Creek: Homathko, Elaho, Iskut, Stikine and Cutoff Mountain. There are others more expensive and higher up the cost scale still is nuclear power. All those alternatives exist. They are not being considered now for development in the next decade or so, but they stand there in reserve. I have listed the various sites or a number of the sites or projects, most of them hydro-electric, which are available for development.

The hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) raised a very important question, that of forecasting the rising requirement for electricity. Last year two forecasts were available, both prepared by eminent authorities — one, B.C. Hydro itself, and the other, the B.C. Energy Commission.

Roughly speaking, the B.C. Energy Commission saw the demand for electricity increasing at two-thirds the rate that B.C. Hydro forecast. There has been a continuing debate, at least between them as to which is right for the future. I might say that for the next few years they are both relatively close, one to the other, and the projects chosen for immediate development — the hydro development, especially the smaller ones — would be called for, using either forecast.

But obviously these projections — one, roughly 6 per cent a year and the other, B.C. Hydro's, 9 per cent a year — do diverge. As we get into the 1980s they begin to indicate that certain projects would have to be accelerated, were we to be using the B.C. Energy Commission's forecast, or possibly delayed if we used the B.C. Hydro forecast, and then demand did not emerge at the rate which B.C. Hydro forecast.

But I would like to indicate in a very summary way why these two authorities differ. One is, relatively speaking, pessimistic about the future of British Columbia, and the other is optimistic. Perhaps being both optimistic and being rather careful, B.C. Hydro does not want to be caught out in the sense of our experiencing brownouts and condemning B.C. Hydro for lack of forward planning. The argument from the power authority people is that if we start building a plant and it isn't needed as soon as we had forecast, we can slow down the construction, we can slow down subsequent projects, we could even sell some of the surplus energy across the international boundary line for a period of a couple of years, if our optimistic forecast is not borne out by events.

The pessimistic forecast of the B.C. Energy Commission is pessimistic first as to the rate of population growth in this province. It sees the population of B.C. growing at half its historic rate, growing at a rate comparable to that of Canada as a whole, a rate which we certainly never experienced in our history. That's one very fundamental reason why its forecast is low. It also does not envisage a high rate of economic development in the province. It doesn't see anything like as many new industries coming into the province as has been our experience over the last 20 or 30 years. So it depends a great deal on the rather subjective viewpoints of those economists who prepare these forecasts.

If you are pessimistic about the province you side with the B.C. Energy Commission; if you are optimistic and want to play it safe with respect to planning and in respect to the availability of plants to make sure we have electricity on line, you buy the B.C. Hydro forecast. As I say, those forecasts are similar for the first few years; they diverge in later years. The $500 million that this bill requests at the present time bears in on the first few years. Therefore the first two forecasts, while they are different, do not give us grounds for hesitating in providing the guarantee of the people of this province for this additional money.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to refer to one other subject before closing, and it's really the cost of energy from the Columbia. The Columbia River Treaty put an obligation on B.C. Hydro, and that was to build three dams in British Columbia — not to put generating units on those dams, not to put transmission lines across British Columbia to Vancouver, for example, but merely to build the dams.

The Columbia treaty saw dams built in Canada — three of them — the purpose of which was to control the rapid runoffs in the spring months, to hold the water back and let it down more evenly, to prevent flooding in the United States, to save property and lives, and from a power point of view, to make energy available around the year in the United States.

[ Page 966 ]

What British Columbia sold was additional energy produced on existing dams in the United States. There was no agreement in the treaty and no reference whatsoever in the treaty to the United States compensating British Columbia for the cost of the dams. There is no point in comparing the cost of the dams with the compensation under the treaty, because the compensation under the treaty was for power generated in the United States and flood control generated in the United States.

The basic reason for divorcing the compensation from the cost of the dams was that Canada and British Columbia, certainly would never want Americans to be able to say that they owned real estate in Canada — that the government of the United States, for example, should move in and protect its property in this country. We've had one sad experience along those lines with the Hell's Gate fishway, built to overcome the big slide of 1914 on the Fraser. The United States put up half the money for the fishway, Canada put up the other half. Ever since then the United States has demanded half the fish on the Fraser.

We must never do that kind of thing again. A lesson, having been learned, was taken to heart in respect to the Columbia treaty. There is no relationship in the treaty between the money paid under the treaty to Canada, and through Canada to British Columbia and British Columbia Hydro, and the cost of the dam.

Mr. Speaker, the treaty is very clear. What was sold was downstream power benefits and flood control benefits and that is all. They were sold for 30 years, not forever, so that at the end of 30 years more money will be available, but we'll leave that aside.

I tabled information in answer to a question a day or so ago posed by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . He asked what was the cost of the storage dams and reservoirs. The cost of the storage dams and reservoirs was $584 million. Now that is all that is relevant in his question on that order paper. The rest of it had to do with transmission lines and generators, which had nothing to do with the treaty.

There is no such thing as $1.4 billion of expenditure relative to the Columbia River Treaty in British Columbia. There is only $584 million worth of expenditure in British Columbia relative to the treaty. Offsetting that were moneys paid to Canada, British Columbia and B.C. Hydro of $479 million, so there is a shortfall, but the figures that must be compared if one reads the treaty with any care whatsoever are $584 million cost and $579 million income.

As I said, there was no relationship in the treaty between the income and the cost of the dams. It was explicit. It was a matter of determined policy, that the Americans never owned and never paid for any dam in Canada, so it's a total misconception to compare those figures on any other basis than income and outgo. It's convenient that we were able to get the Americans to help pay for dams, to pay for concrete in Canada, in British Columbia, and because the dams are there, paid for largely by income that happened to come from the United States, we have the cheapest power we'll ever get in British Columbia coming from the Columbia project.

MR. MACDONALD: Ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) what he thinks.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There's a headline on the front page of The Vancouver Sun today which says "Columbia Deficit Close to $1 Billion." Well, it's totally erroneous; it's a misconception. I can see how those who put the article together came to that conclusion simply because of the way the questions were posed, but there is no requirement under the treaty for generators or transmission lines to be installed. Indeed, the treaty saw all generation in Canada delivering energy produced in Canada, only to Canadians, so there is no power whatsoever exported from Canada to the United States. We merely sold additional power made in the United States and flood-control benefits in the United States.

We haven't seen the end of the benefits to the Columbia River Treaty. The Revelstoke dam, the one that may well be built shortly close to Revelstoke city, would not have been economic, would not have been practical, without a large reservoir immediately upstream — the Mica Creek reservoir. The Mica Creek reservoir is there, largely paid for because of that influx of money from the United States getting on to 15 years ago; and because that reservoir exists and is largely free, we've got another very large block of relatively low-cost power available to us in Canada.

There are a few other developments possible downstream of Mica Creek. They'll be undertaken in the next 10 or 15 years, I'm sure, but the treaty did give us low-cost storage, did give us low-cost dams, and we got those dams without any commitment to the United States. The U.S. In no way owns them. We totally divorced the downstream benefits from the dams. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that it would be worth mentioning that because we do have coming on stream in the next few years some of the cheapest power we'll ever get from hydro in this country.

MR. LAUK: Have you ever read Politics in Paradise?

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I had not intended to participate in this debate, but after the interesting remarks of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) on the benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, both past and projected for the future, I felt it would be

[ Page 967 ]

appropriate for me to make a few comments at least.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it might be well to introduce that Minister of Transport and Communications to the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), because he certainly holds a different view on the benefits of the Columbia River Treaty. He dealt with that in his book, Politics in Paradise, but since that time he seems to have been able to swallow his pride and get on the bandwagon of those who, in his own words, "perpetrated one of the most colossal sellouts in the history of Canada."

Mr. Speaker, we're not just dealing with dollars when it comes to the Columbia River Treaty. The return in dollars from the United States is certainly not the prime concern that I hold, as bad and as abhorrent as that financial deal was. I think if the minister wants to be accurate, though, in dealing with dollar value incident to the Columbia River Treaty, he should have a hard look, and he should compute the $20 billion in benefits which were generated south of the border, not only in terms of flood control, not only in terms of increased generating capacity in all of the dams south of the border, but in terms of a constant supply of water for irrigation of land that heretofore had been non-arable land, land that is now irrigated so that it might compete with regions in Canada which previously did not face that kind of competition.

Mr. Speaker, I think the most colossal sellout — incident to the Columbia River Treaty, however — was the loss of control of one of our major waterways in the province of British Columbia and in this nation of Canada because, contrary to the advice of General McNaughton who advocated the Low Arrow Dam and the Mica as the main key to that development, the High Arrow Dam — commonly known now as the Keenleyside Dam — was constructed at a point so close to the American border that it for all time pre-empted Canada's ability to ever divert any of the water from the Columbia River chain.

The elevation between the dam and the border of the USA, just south of the city of Trail, is so small and the, distance so short, that for all intents and purposes that river is under the permanent control of the United States of America and not for the independent use of Canadians in the future. This is the most shocking part of it, because we, in fact, are dictated to on a day-to-day basis as to what the elevation of the reservoirs will be, both at Mica and in the Arrow Lakes reservoir. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, ministers of the former Social Credit government coming to Revelstoke and telling the people what a wonderful recreational reservoir we would have surrounding the perimeter of the city.

Mr. Speaker, I was up there on the weekend and I travelled from Burton on the Arrow Lakes to the city of Revelstoke, and it's a heartbreak; it's an absolute heartbreak to look at what was once beautiful lakeshore, beautiful country. It's now a sea of mud flats with the elevation of the lake some 40 feet down. The city of Revelstoke is surrounded by mud flats with stumps protruding from them. Talk about a recreational reservoir — what a hoax! What a sorry hoax on the people of British Columbia.

That's the record and the legacy of the Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker. I hope that if this additional borrowing power is granted to Hydro, it will not result in the prognostications of the new chairman of B.C. Hydro which seems madly bent on continued damming of rivers and streams in this province without any respect to the environmental damage, without any respect for the loss of arable land, of which we have such precious little. It looks like we're falling back into that same old mould.

I couldn't let the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) go by with that rather bland rationalization of benefits that allegedly accrued to British Columbia when I live in that area. I live in what was once a beautiful city with beautiful waterways surrounding it. Now I'm reminded daily of the terrible sellout that happened and the terrible desecration of that beautiful country that once surrounded the city of Revelstoke.

I'll point out too, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps many people don't know, that on the perimeter of the Arrow Lakes at the little villages of Renata and Deer Park we have some of the best fruit-growing country in the whole of British Columbia. Indeed, when I was a boy I picked fruit at Deer Park, and they shipped cherries ahead of Osoyoos. It was one of the first fruit-ripening areas in the province of British Columbia, and it was a major trade. There was a whole shipping trade based on the fruit industry of the Arrow Lakes. All gone, all wiped out. What for?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It's still there.

MR. KING: There's not a fruit industry on the Arrow Lakes any more — not a fruit industry at all.

And what for? To provide downstream benefits; to provide flood control; to provide increased power generation and to provide irrigation for the Americans so they can compete with our own agricultural industries in this province.

Mr. Speaker, to add insult to industry, that little sellout — not only an insult to the people of British Columbia, not only a monument to the ineptitude and the shocking way in which the former Social Credit government was fleeced by the Americans south of the border — is there for all time to remind people that we not only had to surrender all that prime land in British Columbia to the benefit of the U.S.A. but we also had to subsidize it to the tune of

[ Page 968 ]

$1 billion. That is something that I would have thought any minister in the Social Credit government would have been ashamed to get up and talk about in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I get a little bit emotional about that issue because I remember that country well and it really is an eyesore when you go down there now and see the abominable mess that's left.

In the village of Nakusp last year, which is also in my riding, they had to use aircraft, water bombers, to go along the perimeter of the reservoir, keeping the dust down so the town wasn't overwhelmed with dust.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. KING: That's the kind of mess that's been left. I want to remind the government that they're planning another development on the perimeter of Revelstoke, and the minister talks about the benefits that will accrue to the city. I want to serve notice now, Mr. Speaker, that if this government and B.C. Hydro plan to subject that city to additional strains and stresses in terms of providing educational services to the influx of people incident to that dam construction, if they want to impose upon them the additional cost of educational facilities, health care, recreation and what have you, that they are going to have to be prepared to not only give a commitment on behalf of Hydro, but to give a political commitment concomitant with Hydro's commitment that will guarantee that the people of that area do not undergo additional suffering, because they are certainly not persuaded at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

I attended a public meeting in Revelstoke about a month ago, a little over a month ago, where the firm of PR people who were doing the advance work for Hydro were going to explain the project to the people of Revelstoke. We had a turnout of over 500 people at that public meeting, people who represented the whole sphere of the Revelstoke community: businessmen, workers, senior citizens, all concerned not only about the social and economic impact of another major undertaking, but concerned about their physical environment, concerned about the lifestyle of the town where many people have lived all their lives. There was a complete undertaking and a complete spirit of opposing any project that laid waste the country like the projects on that river have so far.

There was a complete distrust of Hydro commitments based on the experience of bygone days, because I saw the terrible spectacle, Mr. Speaker, of people expropriated from their properties and, when they were not prepared to sign an agreement with Hydro, saw actually bulldozers go onto their properties, push over their barns and buildings and burn them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: And that's in a democracy. That's true. That's absolutely true.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Under Social Credit, that free enterprise government that respects private property and individual liberties, that happened. That happened, my friends.

The people of Revelstoke and the surrounding area are not prepared to live with that kind of threat again, and, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to make sure that they do not face that kind of threat again. So when the Minister of Transport and Communications gets up and talks in a blithe way about the benefits that accrued to British Columbia from the development of the Columbia River Treaty, I say, who's he trying to kid? Certainly the people who live in that area don't buy that story at all.

I went to serve notice on the minister, Mr. Speaker, and on the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), because we are suggesting and we are debating here the extension of an additional $500 million to Hydro, presumably partly for the purpose of undertaking another project on the Columbia River. I want to serve notice that I will be seeking commitments, firm commitments, from this government and from B.C. Hydro, with regard to the safety of the structure that's proposed at Revelstoke Canyon. There are some questions on that that I will have to be satisfied with, as well as the people of my riding. I will have to have some assurance from Hydro — engineering data and political commitments — that the city of Revelstoke is not going to bear the burden of the increased population costs, particularly with respect to health, education and recreational needs.

I'm going to have to have some assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the government will commit itself to supporting their fair share of the additional burden that is imposed upon the city of Revelstoke by this new dam structure, and I say that advisedly and in the engineering sense, Mr. Speaker.

The other consideration which groups have expressed extreme concern about — and I have yet to see a plan offered for — is the ecological damage that is imminent to the fishery of the Columbia River. The wildlife is pretty well gone. They were the first victims of the Mica Creek Dam, and I regret to say that that used to be an excellent area for moose, caribou and so on. I hunted it many years ago. They're largely gone now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You shot them!

MR. KING: Yes, indeed. Under the provincial laws of British Columbia, I helped harvest the wildlife of

[ Page 969 ]

this province and I find it strange'that the Premier objects to that, because the government draws pretty fair revenue from a lot of sportsmen in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I just asked you if you shot them.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the fishery is a problem. Many of the spawning grounds were inundated by the original reservoir, and we're going to have to have some assurance that action will be taken to either save the existing spawning grounds or to provide alternate ones, and that can be done if the government and if B.C. Hydro are committed to putting up the dollars.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: we've been told in the Revelstoke area that B.C. Hydro is anxious to level with the people, to take them into their confidence and to have them participate in the planning of this new development on our doorstep. It sounds great. But it's very difficult for the people to participate and offer their criticisms in an educated way when the impact studies on which Hydro is basing their approach are not available to the public

I find it indeed curious and somewhat alarming that Hydro has applied for a water licence — in other words, the permission to go ahead with the dam structure — prior to the social and economic impact studies being completed. They are not due for completion until May. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this government: is that a really serious attempt to involve the people in planning, or is it a snow job? Is it a fait accompli that they are being asked to participate in? Were the licences already granted, the authority approved and then they are being asked for their comments and for their participation in determining what the needs of the community are and what the effects will be?

Presumably, Mr. Speaker, when the application is made, and it was made, I understand, last month.... By their own reports, the impact studies will not be completed until May, and the public meeting when I questioned the officials on this point, they said they expected it would be granted in a matter of some six weeks to two months. So I do have apprehensions, and the people of Revelstoke have apprehensions, about the sincerity of Hydro and about the commitment of this government in terms of what is going to happen in Revelstoke.

I want to serve notice that I'll certainly be dealing with this matter under the minister's estimates, and the people of Revelstoke are going to be very active in this whole proposition. They have demonstrated that, and they are not going to stand by and have a project thrust on them while they remain silent in the dark.

I want to assure the government that the people of Revelstoke are very concerned about this whole project on the basis of concerns I've expressed tonight. They are going to be asking for answers, and so am I, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Thank you for that applause. I'm overjoyed and it's very nice. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the previous speaker would be so kind as to withdraw those obnoxious words "snow job". It's on your list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before I refer that request to the member who has just spoken, maybe I should clarify just for the members of the House that the list was not constructed to be a guideline for future decisions. The list was not even constructed to be a list. Indeed, the words which appear there are merely a digest of decisions made by previous Speakers.

The House needs to know that complete autonomy is given to the Speaker of this House to rule words parliamentary or unparliamentary as he sees fit, with or without any guidelines. But if the member found the phrase or the words "snow job" offensive, then I will ask the member if he would please withdraw the words.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It doesn't offend me one bit, but I just thought you had a list. That's fine — I don't care if he snows all day. I don't care. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Then there is no request, Mr. Member?

MR. MUSSALLEM: All is well.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in consistency, and it certainly wasn't my intention to accuse anyone in the House of a snow job. I used it in the general sense, but I'm glad to withdraw that reference in any event.

I know the House is interested in consistency too. That's why I wonder, if we're going to guided by the list, why I see the word "cowardly" on it, and why the Speaker of the House rules that kind of word "political cowardice" as completely parliamentary when it was contained in the budget speech of the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I repeat again: the list is not intended to be a guideline, it is merely a digest of decisions made previous to today.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity of speaking in favour of Bill 6 on second reading. I hope

[ Page 970 ]

1 won't incur your displeasure if we come back to order and deal with the principle of Bill 6, which is to afford the opportunity of B.C. Hydro to increase its borrowing power by $500 million.

It was interesting to hear a replay of speeches that I heard in this House 10 years ago. They were made better in that day, Mr. Speaker, by members who were more acutely aware of what was taking place at that particular time than is the Leader of the Opposition. I think of Mr. Harding who addressed himself at length and often to the subject, and did it very well. But that's not what we are debating tonight, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not in his place, and I am also sorry that the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) didn't remain, because he felt himself compelled to give a speech tonight and we always enjoy that. I wanted to draw his attention to a couple of facts concerning the B.C. Energy Commission and the assessments made with respect to power requirements in this province. It seems to me that that member, when he was a minister on this side of the House, had a responsibility for energy matters in this province, but he did not ensure that B.C. Hydro and Power Authority was subjected to the regulation and control of the B.C. Energy Commission when he was the Attorney-General and had the power to do it. Now he thinks it's so important that it be done. Mind you, he had a little difficulty that time because the other member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams), the one who has run away, was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and was a director of Hydro. Maybe that's why he wasn't able to subject Hydro to the regulatory powers of the B.C. Energy Commission.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, it is interesting that that member who has run away, and another distinguished member who were directors of B.C. Hydro, had the opportunity to do all the things that have so much concerned the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) . They didn't change the expropriating powers of B.C. Hydro, not when they were government. The same laws apply. You'd think, somehow or other, that during the three years they would have had the opportunity to correct some of the concerns that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has addressed himself to tonight, but they didn't. No, it seems to me that the two cabinet ministers who were directors of B.C. Hydro had other things on their minds, and the other directors were more concerned with their pensions than they were with carrying on with the business of that Crown corporation.

You know, when we consider the debates that have taken place in this House about the limits that we have of energy resources that are available in this province, about the finite nature of the fossil fuels which we are using at fantastic rates, I would have thought that all members on all sides of this House would be taking their place in this debate to applaud the actions of B.C. Hydro in ensuring that, for the years to come, we at least are going to have the electric energy that we will require in order to sustain the society which we consider appropriate.

We will be the envy of many jurisdictions in this world in years to come when hydrocarbons and other fossil fuels are gone. It's all very well to have emotional debates about decisions that were made decades ago, but the fact of the matter is that we happen to be reaping the benefit today, and we will reap the benefit in the decades which are yet to come, because of decisions which have been made by former governments.

MR. KING: Gulp!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not "gulp" at all. (Laughter.) You may speak mostly for the people of Revelstoke-Slocan, but, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), the people of Revelstoke don't want their lights to go out either.

MR. KING: The city of Revelstoke was doing very fine with their old plant.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they were doing very fine with the old plant, and decisions made by the NDP government have had very significant effects upon what is taking place in that very region of the province that you represent.

Mr. Speaker, if I can address myself for a few moments to the question of this $500 million borrowing. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said: "Why are we borrowing this money?" I made reference to debates which took place in this House just over a year ago when the Premier and Minister of Finance of that day (Mr. Barrett) made it clear in the course of debates in which he and I engaged for some considerable time, that B.C. Hydro was then already committed to capital programmes which by 1980 would require the capital expenditure of in excess of $3 billion. These aren't decisions which are being made by this government; they were already committed a year ago to those programmes, and documents were filed in this House and can be found in the office of the Clerk of this Legislature which clearly show what projects were being undertaken that required that money.

The Premier of the day and Minister of Finance

[ Page 971 ]

made it clear in the course of those debates, in response to questions put directly to him, that only $600 million of that $3.3 billion could be provided out of funds available to this government from its own resources. About $2.7 billion would have to be borrowed in the public money market by 1980 — already committed projects. Those decisions have not been made by this government. We are simply carrying out the requirements of that Crown corporation, requirements for capital projects which that previous government undertook.

Look at the list: Site 1 on the Peace; Pend-d'Oreille; transmission lines which accompanied those two projects, just for starters. The documents are on file, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) didn't recollect the debates, because what was made clear in the course of those debates was that decisions made by B.C. Hydro, acknowledged by that previous government, would double the capital debt of B.C. Hydro inside the capital of B.C. Hydro inside of four years. That's the problem which we face as government, that's the problem which the former government faced and accepted, and that's the problem that faces the people of British Columbia. When we proceed with the bill this year to increase its borrowing power by $500 million, all we are doing is making the annual commitment to sustain, financially, those decisions which have already been made by governments prior to this.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. This is a very important bill, as we all know, increasing the borrowing authority of the Hydro another $500 million to the amount of $3.5 billion, and, as we all realize, there will be further opportunity to explain and to debate this matter during the estimates, as well as in committee stage of the bill.

I appreciated the contribution by the various members in the debate on this amendment, and also particularly from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Fraser), giving us explanations of the concern over the power demands and the estimates of power demands for the future, and how they bear on the problems of Hydro, and particularly from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), with his contribution on the past debates on this same bill. So, without further ado, Mr. Speaker, realizing that we can file more detailed information on the ongoing commitments of Hydro perhaps in committee stage, I move second reading of this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

CLERK: Nemine contradicente.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Pax vobiscum.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver East): Post elli cutem.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Tuum est.

MR. LAUK: Quo vadis? Per arduo ad astra.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Non illegitimis carborundum!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: I presume that bill passed, Mr. Speaker?

MR. WALLACE: With a little bit of Latin banter.

Bill 6, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would think there'd be no point of privilege on that banter. I would like to ask for committee on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS REVENUE
RECOVERY ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund, since this is a perpetual fund, I wonder how it is that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) proposes to pay money into the consolidated revenue fund. Where does he propose to get the funds?

I just wonder whether the Minister of Finance heard the question, Mr. Chairman. I know I can't insist on an answer but....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No money in the fund.

MR. STUPICH: There's money in the fund, a perpetual fund, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment again on the recapture of the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World

[ Page 972 ]

Disaster Areas Fund. I'm wondering if we can have some commitment from the Minister that at least in the life of this government.... I know that governments can't commit other governments, but I think the recapture of the fund for agricultural aid to developing countries was, as I said in the earlier debate, unnecessary. Once it is taken out of a specific fund and put in the departmental estimate of the Department of Agriculture.... I know it's there this year. But it's, in my view, a very symbolic act that a province like British Columbia takes in making some contribution towards less fortunate developing countries, and I wonder if we can have some commitment from the government that this will be maintained and, hopefully, maybe even increased as the need obviously increases.

It's a relatively small sum of money of $5 million out of this enormous budget, particularly after talking about borrowing $500 million just five minutes ago. I hope on section 1, that maybe the minister could give us a commitment that it is the government's intention to maintain this year by year and this is not just a transitional year, and that next year the departmental estimate will not contain any such allocation for foreign aid.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's been well established long before now as the ongoing policy of the previous government and of this government. You should not expect that such a policy of contributing to the agricultural aid to foreign countries would ever stop. We've provided in the estimates an amount of $350,000, which is the equivalent of what has been provided before. You can be assured that this will be the case.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to ask about that agricultural aid to developing countries, too, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman.

This year I understand the amount allocated in the budget is equivalent to the interest that would be accrued on the $5 million. How are you going to decide how much to put aside in future years for this fund? What kind of criteria are you going to use in terms of allocating in future budgets, since you have indicated that it will turn up in future budgets?

The other thing is that there was an additional sum of money set aside out of which funds went to education to fund a project called IDERA, which was responsible for educating the community at large about the agricultural aid to developing countries fund and the kinds of reasons why there was a need for this kind of fund. What is going to happen to funding for IDERA? Is that project now going to be allowed to die, or is there some provision made to continue funding it?

The third thing: what kinds of criteria are you going to use in terms of deciding who gets this aid, what countries get it, and under what sort of circumstances?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I believe there's a committee which sits to decide on these matters. The specific question you raised about the individual item. I really can't answer at this stage, Mr. Chairman. If you care to put the question on the order paper or something I might try to obtain it for you.

MS. BROWN: I'm really kind of anxious about what's going to happen to this. Once this bill goes through and the fund has been recaptured, what would be the point of my putting a question on the order paper? I just want to know whether the funding for this particular group known as IDERA is going to be terminated once this fund is recaptured.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly wish that the minister could answer the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and I'd also like to ask a question with respect to the Green Belt Protection Fund.

Mr. Chairman, the Green Belt Protection Fund is somewhat different than some of the other funds in that it is not a perpetual fund, and it would seem to me that with pretty well demolishing the Green Belt Protection Fund, as we're doing here, there would be no commitment under these circumstances to that kind of activity in the future.

In the Green Belt Protection Fund we were encroaching upon capital. It would strike me that what we would be doing, if in fact we wanted to perpetuate the protection of greenbelts, would be to increase the fund in order to assure that greenbelts are, in fact, protected. We have a new government here, and it strikes me that during a recent election campaign there was a great deal of attention paid by developers and others to their future, and I would worry that their future may not be in entire harmony with the best future of this province.

We have very little greenbelt in this province left — a province with many mountaintops, many gorges, many areas of impossible access — and it strikes me that what we should be doing is assuring the people in British Columbia that greenbelts will in fact be protected. I would just like to hear some assurance with respect to section 1(c), Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked a question regarding greenbelt protection. Just by way of review, that fund was established in 1972 at $25 million, and it now has a balance of $2.8 million, which we are taking back into general revenue. There is an amount provided in the votes for greenbelt protection in the Environment department,

[ Page 973 ]

and you can assume we will be carrying on our commitment to that activity.

MR. KING: The Minister of Finance, I appreciate his comment about the funds being placed in the Environment department under the land management branch — vote 50 I believe it is. But I'm a bit confused by that and I wonder if the Minister could help me. In the description it mentions the acquisition of lands under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, but I see nothing in the vote which specifically identifies the amount of money which will be available for that. Presumably, I would imagine it would now be under special programmes. Can the Minister tell me if that would be true?

Also, it would be helpful to the opposition if we could be given some indication of precisely where these funds will be placed in the relevant estimates, and some indication to what extent they shall be funded for the continuing purposes that the Minister has assured us will be undertaken by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe I should just interrupt the proceedings to say that perhaps those questions which relate to the estimates in their departments might better be asked during the discussion and the debate on the estimates.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of dealing with the estimates now. But surely if we're being asked to pass this bill for the recapture, recovery, of the special funds, and at one and the same time we're being assured by the minister that the funds will be continued under other departmental estimates, surely before we can pass an Act surrendering these funds we're entitled to know precisely where we can gain the information so we have some assurance that, indeed, they are provided for in the other departments. Now that's a pretty simple question, and I think it's a fundamental one that we need to have answered before we can pass the bill before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman — and I hope the word "Chairman" is not on your list. It is permissible in this House, isn't it? Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no list.

MS. BROWN: I have two concerns about section 1 of the bill, and I really want to ask the Minister of Finance again, through you, whether he would answer these two concerns for me.

The first one is that he has guaranteed there will be future funding, and I want to know: is this going to be at the same level as the present one, the $350,000, which is the interest accrued on $500 million? Or is there going to be a COLA clause or something built into it so that it increases each year? I don't know. But that is the first question I'm asking.

The second question. Maybe I can jog your memory just a bit, Mr. Minister of Finance. In addition to the $5 million, an additional sum of money was allotted to finance a community-based group known as IDERA which took upon itself the responsibility of educating the community at large as to the need for this kind of fund, the Aid to Developing Countries Fund, and the sorts of things that the fund would be doing. Now that you are recapturing the fund, Mr. Minister, all I'm asking is: does this mean that funding to IDERA will be terminated? Or do you intend to continue funding this community-based group so that it can carry on its work of educating the community at large about developing countries and their need for the kind of assistance from this government, which they have come to expect under the New Democratic Party when it was the government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered the member's question earlier and indicated, of course, with regard to IDERA. It is a specific item under the contributions that are made to agricultural aid to foreign countries. I'm not able to answer that question, but I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), if you posed the question to him, could probably help you out with that.

I've indicated earlier in regard to the total appropriation which we've set aside, and which is commensurate with what we've given before. I think you can assume it will continue. We can't indicate on behalf of future governments which will be the case.

MS. BROWN: Just your own government.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance seems singularly unable to answer many questions, either on this bill or any other that's been before the House. A number of important and rather fundamental questions have been asked and he simply hasn't dealt with them. I wonder if the former Minister of Finance could answer any of the questions from the opposition that have been put forward tonight, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think perhaps I'll rise to the offer of the Leader of the Opposition in order to ask another question.

Mr. Chairman, we're dealing here with five funds, all of them special funds, all of them set up by

[ Page 974 ]

appropriations from consolidated revenue at one time or another. In the case of three of these special funds, they are special other than perpetual. In the case of the special, other than perpetual, a sum of money was set aside and was invested in short-term securities. Now that money is available almost immediately by simply doing as we're doing here, wiping out the funds. The cash is sitting there in current funds and ready to be brought into revenue, and is available.

But in the case of two of these funds, they are the perpetual funds where the capital was not intended to be spent. The money set aside out of consolidated revenue for those funds was invested in long-term securities.

Now that money is not available. It is likely invested in school board bonds, or hospital bonds or even Hydro bonds, about which there was discussion earlier. So that cash is not available. It can be replaced by using pension funds. There is likely pension fund money in there already. So it could be replaced from some source like that. But not by.... I think the Premier said, it's in estimates or in consolidated revenue or something. It's already been taken out of consolidated revenue. That is exhausted. The point of my question, Mr. Chairman, is that of this apparent $28.3 million, I believe, that was supposed to be available to help balance the budget this year, only $18 million will be available from current funds. The balance of $10 million will have to come from pension funds or some such source. I wondered whether the Minister of Finance was able to tell us how he was going to replace this long-term investment money and from what source he was going to get the money.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have some sympathy for the Minister of Finance. He's been through a lot in the last few weeks. I don't know where he hurts most, but gee whiz, I think the opposition is entitled to some attempt to answer the questions. We are dealing with recovery of purportedly $28 million here. If the minister doesn't know where that money is coming from, whether the entire amount is available or not, then I question the whole purpose of introducing this bill at this time. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the minister can't answer some of these fundamental questions, he had better recognize that he is going to require a lot of help in his estimates. I can understand it. He is new and it's a complex department that he has, but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he has staff available that could be in the House with him to offer advice, to answer the kind of questions that the opposition legitimately must ask. It's not good enough to sit there mute in the face of these questions that are put forward in all sincerity and all seriousness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I remind the committee again that we, as a committee, can ask questions. We can ask them one at a time. We can ask them six at a time. The minister may choose to answer them, as he sees fit. He may choose not to answer them and we cannot insist on an answer.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that may be so but the opposition has an obligation to query the expenditure and the appropriation of funds and I hope that the Chairman in his sensitivity to the minister's rights is equally sensitive to the obligations of the opposition, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the question posed by the member from Nanaimo represents any serious problem. He indicates that because certain funds have long-term investments, as opposed to short-term or cash, that this represents a problem of transferring the funds into general revenue.

If he wants the specifics of how this will be done, I'll have to get that for him. I can't give it to him tonight, but I can't see where it poses a problem in the transfer of these funds into general revenue.

MR. H. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance indicates that he is really not able at the moment to make available the information and, therefore, in order to give him the chance, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. KING: Fine, 10 a.m. in the morning. I would hope that the government would see fit to return to the normal hours of sitting. While I don't want to belabour the point unduly, I do think it's a bit much when the government violates basic labour standards that are accepted in this province by conducting three sittings a day. I'm sure the Minister of Labour is concerned because he administers and enforces minimum standards in the private sector.

I want to remind the House in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that all members, not only the opposition but I'm sure the government backbenchers and the ministers, have serious problems in their own ridings to tend to, they have demands on them incident to doing constituency business with departments of

[ Page 975 ]

government and so on, and it makes it very difficult when your first obligation is to attendance in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: On occasion, Mr. Speaker, that may well be justified, but when we see such a scant amount of legislation on the order paper in this House, when we're making reasonable progress with the debate on the budget speech — indeed, there's only I believe about five speakers left on it — then I fail to understand the need for three sessions a day which completely disrupts the lives of the Clerks and other staff in this House, as well as the members. I'm sure if the government doesn't have sensitivity to the opposition, they should have some for the staff of the House.

Now I would invite the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, in all good conscience, to give us some valid reason: what is the purpose of these three sessions? Is it a state of pique at the opposition for some unknown reason — the most cooperative opposition this House has ever seen? (Laughter.) Or is it simply some obsession with a deadline that the government has which is a mystery to the opposition? I'd appreciate some answers, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Conservative caucus is in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. (Laughter.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think that we were all sent here by the people of British Columbia...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Provincial Secretary has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...to do the public business, the people's business. We are here for that purpose. We have spent nine hours a day for the past two days on business of the people, and tomorrow we'll be putting in the whole nine hours once again, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that's too much to expect from the Members of the Legislative Assembly, each of whom receives a very liberal, if you'll pardon the expression, salary for being in this House for a few months each year.

I don't think that it is too much to expect for $24,000 a year, albeit that it may be a little less this year because of legislation that is proposed; however it isn't too much. The people of the province today have gone to work much earlier than 10 a.m. and they expect to put a full day's work in, I suggest that we should do no less.

We do not have committees in this House at the present time — although we hope to have those in place fairly soon, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, and when that time comes I am sure that we will not have to call the House at that point — but, at any rate, I think there's no imposition on the House at this point in time. We're looking forward, hopefully, to a long Easter weekend which will take time away from the House, and I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't mind earning that either. Certainly, on behalf of the members of our side of the House, we're here to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and we will so do.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.