[ Page 1029 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Mussallem — 1029

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

6) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lea — 1033

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1033

Mr. Lea — 1034

Mr. Nicolson — 1034

Mr. D'Arcy — 1035

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1035

Mr. Lockstead — 1035

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1036

Mr. D'Arcy — 1036

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1036

Mr. D'Arcy — 1036

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1037

Mr. D'Arcy — 1037

Mr. Lockstead — 1037

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1037

Mr. Lauk — 1037

Mr. Nicolson — 1038

Mr. Wallace — 1039

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1040

Mr. Wallace — 1041

Report and third reading — 1041

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 14) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1041

Mr. Nicolson — 1041

Mr. Gibson — 1043

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: Someone just used up five minutes of your time, Hon. Member.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, if the applause had carried on a little longer my speech could have been done in very nicely and the House would have been none the poorer.

I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your ascension to the stratosphere of this House and I know that none will do the job better nor have any done the job better than you.

I remember full well the days when you and I...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM:...sat in the back bench together and you wondered then, as some do now, what on earth was it necessary to have a back bench for, anyway. They never did anything. I am sure that the experience you have gained in the meantime has shown you well how important a back bench is and how much you'd like to be back here. But once you have left there is no way back.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I wouldn't want to bet on it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would like to tell some of our hon. friends the great responsibility of these benches which some of us forget. We have a tremendous responsibility of setting up the treasury benches — both sides of the House — and giving them the right to spend the money that is given to them by the public, frugally and properly. That is democracy in action. If they do not do it frugally and properly they will hear from us, from both sides. But at the present time I say they have done very well; and continue as they are doing and you'll see our plaudits and our encouragement.

I rise to speak on the budget debate and it's no secret to any of you that I am tremendously in favour of the budget because you know I have thumped the desk loudly and well at every opportunity signifying my approval, as well as all hon. members have done in this House at one time or another. Even the members opposite have done this as well, and it's good judgment, and they are all honourable men. I know that as I rise to speak you will not be disappointed. You expect very little and you'll get the same.

(Laughter.)

It will come as no surprise to you, I know, on both sides of the House, that the great priority of this government is No. 1, health and No. 2, education. These are the great priorities. It is interesting for me to readjust the other day that 10 years ago, when I came to this House first, and was offered a sabbatical for three years — a short time only.... My public thought it best that I have a rest for those years. When I was away those few years, which now makes it 10, it is interesting to note that the budget for education itself is greater than the total budget was then. That's not quite 10 years ago. When anyone says the government is not interested in education, they have to have some careless way of mathematics because it would be impossible for any government in any jurisdiction to pay out more for that important responsibility than this government is doing. That portion of the budget is a very healthy slice, the only thing that we had retained of the opposition's government.

I know that instead of that $836 million today it would have been the one-third we had then, which would have been nearly $1 billion. That is what education would have been because that was the course we were bent on. That was the situation we were faced with when we saw the cost of education escalating beyond the 30 per cent mark, and that is when the government called a halt — the previous Social Credit government to this.

We said that it was impossible to go beyond this point and we put on restraints which were very unpopular — 6.5 per cent where government was responsible for payment, or for wages or for responsibility. We were turned out of office because we were three years ahead of our time. Today, in this hon. House when they were government, they thundered applause for their leader when he said: "I hereby make the declaration that we must have restraint and we order everyone back to work."

I really would savour the guidelines and thunderous applause. The people applauded, but they only applauded because.... Yes, we know what you said, but you're too late.

I heard the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) today and he referred to a dam, and he got the word mixed up with what seemed to me a dam and a damn, but I understand what he meant. He was referring to the McGregor diversion, a Hydro dam. This government is interested in people. We're interested in education, we're interested in health, but above all people.

Does that hon. member know that the McGregor diversion, the dam that can produce power for the McGregor river, is vital security for the lower mainland of British Columbia? Does that member know, whether he likes the dam or not, that it is of vital importance to the security of the lower

[ Page 1030 ]

mainland, from Chilliwack to Richmond, that that dam on the McGregor be built? It must be built.

I call on the government today to take immediate steps to pursue that with all haste, because the time will come, and it must come if we do not take this action, that Chilliwack, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Agassiz and Coquitlam could well be under 15 feet of water, and there is no dike that could ever hold it. The threat and the dark cloud of danger has hung over the Fraser Valley for the past 76 years, since the flood of 1896. And it will come again — how soon no one knows, but it will come unless the McGregor Dam and the Clearwater Dam were waiting for impending disaster. It is time they were done.

That is for people — not only for power but for the security of two million people who will be here in the lower mainland in the next 15 years.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Tell them again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I tell them again.

MR. SCHROEDER: Tell them one more time.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In addition to that, to people who do not believe in dams, we must have another source of power. I urge the government to consider this in the interest of people: the power from the coal deposits at Hat Creek. Now is there any relationship between the two? There is none, but there is a vital difference. The difference is this: the power from the McGregor, from Revelstoke, from the Peace and all this, is sustaining power. But the only place that we have peak power — and I'm sure that you all understand what that is — is from the Burrard thermal plant, a very costly oil- and gas-consuming plant that burns up oil in vast amounts for the production of power. When everybody starts cooking and washing or turning the lights on at the same time, we must have peak power.

So we must have a plant closer to Vancouver, and these rivers are far away. That is why, in connection with the McGregor diversion, the Hat Creek development must go, because the Hat Creek coal development is larger than all the power presently on the line with the B.C. Hydro. It's vital for the future and for the further greatness of British Columbia industrially.

You know, it is interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear hon. members opposite say with a great deal of truth: "You know, you can't blame us; there was an economic downturn." There was. I've heard them say with honesty: "But how could we help it? Things went wrong the whole world over — nothing we could do about it."

But may I tell these hon. members that what they could have done about it was judiciously use up money built by 20 years of our previous government. Then when the storm of 1976 came, and we knew it had to come, they would be ready with that money and those resources to keep the economy of British Columbia moving in the proper and developing direction. Instead of wallowing in the public cash and buying everything in sight, that government could have been husbanding the cash to meet the challenge of 1976, which they did not do.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If we even had the cash today, which we don't, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — my home town, by the way — for intermediate care, for chronic care, for housing, for reduction of taxes and, above all, for the needy.... But where is it? Gone! Gone in places and areas that you do no know.

Mr. former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), I hate to mention the $100 million overrun. I shouldn't mention it because it's been hackneyed to death, but when you talk about $100 million, you can't say it too often, because I have great difficulty in visualizing $100,000. It's a great amount. But buying ships in the harbour — great idea, mind you — buying poultry plants, lumber plants, chickens — great businessmen, but businessmen not sufficient to husband the resources of British Columbia at a time when it was essential that we have the resources for the difficulty we now have and now see.

The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) talked a little while ago. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard referred to the poor and the rich, but she did not define the poor or the rich. Who is poor and who is rich? I can think of no more apt line than that from Shakespeare, and I cannot say it correctly, but something like this it went: "He who takes my purse takes trash, but he who takes my good name makes himself no richer, and me the poorer." Shakespeare said it better than that, but that's what he said.

So it is not the poor or the rich in money; it's the poor or the rich in honourable name. That is who is poor and who is rich. Richness is only the resources of the people put together for the purposes of the people.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I believe you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, that's right, and when you roll away the money and shoot it down the drain, it isn't there to help anyone. Instead of being a force for good, it is a power for evil.

Interjections.

[ Page 1031 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: There is dignity in working. An hon. leader on that side of the House one day said in this House that he believed in the principle that anyone was entitled to do their thing when they wished, and do it the way they wished. If they needed to work, let them work. If they didn't want to work, let the public keep them. I'm going to tell you this, hon. friends: there is no such thing as the public keeping. It's just like a man going out with a tin cup if he can work and asking for a donation from his neighbour. That would be the best way to do it. I know that the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) got plastered pretty hard for the shovel, but I join myself with you in that same word: everyone must work to live if they are able to work.

The same hon. member asked: "What is socialism?" He said it across to us, but no one answered because there was no need to answer. But I want to tell him now what is socialism: socialism is the antithesis of the dignity of work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Socialism is the Waffle Manifesto that members of that side when they were government — the leaders — adhered to. They'd like to deny it, but their names are on it. That is a depressing, terrifying instrument which would degrade this country, and I hardly can believe that some of them would say: "Yes, we signed it. I know we signed it, but we only did it to get it on the floor." But it took six of them to get it on the floor. That is socialism. It is the heavy hand of rule of the few and subservience of the many. It is failure, That is what socialism is — failure!

One little example: that great nation of Russia, fine, honest, hard-working people but, by the heavy hand of socialism, they can't even grow enough wheat to feed themselves and they're buying it from us and from the United States today. They were one day the breadbasket of the world, and now they cannot feed themselves. That is socialism. It is the anaesthesia of the mind and soul. It is a depressant, and I hope that British Columbia, no matter what happens, no matter where we go, will adhere to the conclusion that this cannot be,

Here we have today...and we are moving along very significant lines toward a proper way in British Columbia. We are moving along the lines of proper labour and management working together. No more of those gung-ho settlements...no, not gung ho, gun-to-head settlements. (Laughter.) By the way, where is that gun-to-head? Where did he go?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's in London.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): He's in Blighty.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Oh, he's in London. Is he still there? I am shocked to hear it! If our Minister of Finance was here, I would say to him: "Mr. Minister of Finance, cut off his pay, and if any minister wants to keep him there, let him pay him himself." That's all I want to say, but I guess you're not supposed to say that. (Laughter.) But I was certainly shocked to hear that that man is still there. I'm surprised and I wouldn't have mentioned it had I remembered. (Laughter.)

But all this small talk pales into insignificance when we come to the true issues that are before us today: the problem is management and labour maturity. That is the problem that British Columbia has. That is the only problem we've got. The rest we can handle. The rest we can work with.

But that one requires the wisdom of our best men, our ablest administrators and all this House working together on both sides in the one purpose. Let us not talk about socialism or free enterprise; let us talk about the only system that works by proof — the process of initiative. The only system that will work is personal initiative, not socialism. We must solve the problem of management and labour; we must bring both forces into a process of maturity.

The socialists have reduced this province to a position in which it has never stood before and in which it cannot continue. The system which established our way of life in British Columbia was built by free enterprise. We were able to live independently, but that independence was eroded during the past three years by the socialists, through the socialism and inconsistency and magical strutting of their people while all the time they were hand-feeding and spoon-feeding the province into bankruptcy.

We were given the responsibility to act with the single purpose of dealing with the difficulties by practical measures without regard to the interests of any class or group. When this government assumed office it also inherited a number of serious labour-management disputes which were left over from the term of the former government. Bill 146 had put these disputes on ice, but upon the expiration of a three-month-plus cooling-off period allowed by the bill, the disputes were still before us. No settlements had been achieved. Yet during the period in which this government has been in office, settlements have been reached in all four of these disputes: pulp and paper, British Columbia Railway, propane and the food industry. As well, there have been settlements reached in other strike and lockout situations, most notably in the recent dispute between the Teamsters and transport labour relations.

Only the dispute between BCR and the United Transport Union remains outstanding, but it is

[ Page 1032 ]

noteworthy that a strike has not resulted from this dispute. In fact the parties will soon be back at the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, all of this has been accomplished in less than 120 days. It has been accomplished without the need for further stopgap legislation in this House. It is therefore a record of which we can all be proud.

I suggest to you that one of the reasons why these settlements have been concluded so early in the term of the new government is the respect which both labour and management have indicated for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who has made his good offices available to parties in the disputes at those times when impasses have been reached or when the negotiating parties seemed confronted by insurmountable difficulties. Without involving himself in direct mediation of disputes, the Minister of Labour has shown his willingness and his capacity to find ways of nailing down formulas leading to the achievement of settlements. I would hope that all parties in this House would join with me in congratulating the minister for the contribution that he has made at the expense of so much of his own time and effort.

We must get away from the idea that there must be an unavoidable conflict between the interests of employers and the employed. It can never be done by socialism, which simply makes the employer more powerful, more impersonal and more removed from the workers. We must encourage payment by results so that the worker can not only earn more but take more home. We must be careful to stabilize the economy and reduce inflation so that take-home money can purchase more. We must provide greater facilities for education and training in industry. We must encourage joint consultation and co-partnership between employers and employed; they must share in the knowledge of their common problems and accomplishments. While the authority of management must be maintained because leadership in industry is needed, much can be gained if workers and management can develop the greatest possible understanding and respect for the functions and responsibilities of the other.

That is life: we must work together. Unless we do, British Columbia's problems are greater and will ever be greater. Recovery will not be swift or easy. We need no extravagant promises; we will not try to buy power with promises that cannot be fulfilled.

When I hear the socialists denounce capitalism in all its forms, mocking with derision and contempt the tremendous free enterprise system on which this province was founded, I cannot help but feel that they are not acting honourable or even honestly. I am at a loss to understand how the former socialist leaders went around the country bragging of reform which had been made, or the highways which had been paved, or any of those expenses which the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) boasted that the socialists were taking proudly in their stride. Anyone can take some money proudly in their stride. But all that time they knew that their attempt at socialism had largely undermined our productive power and financial status.

Never under a socialist government, or while we follow socialist doctrines of restriction, incompetent planning, wasteful managements and a demonstrated incompetence, will this province regain its independence and its pride.

The NDP tried to spread two gross panaceas. First, that before they got their majority, British Columbia was a backward and miserable province to live in, Secondly, they are the authors and originators of all socialist forms. The truth is that the system in British Columbia was far in advance of any other province in its social services and standards of living.

MR. LEA: I like your writing style, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Member.

The standards were set and maintained by the previous Social Credit government. All the socialists have done in their cramping and disastrous role was to substitute order for chaos. Dispensers and muddlers have dissipated every asset they inherited and we have sunk from the best to our present position of third best. Never before in the history of this great province has such general havoc been raised by such little men.

We intend to humanize rather than nationalize industry. We offer security and incentive to the status of the individual.

We in our party regard the trade union movement, which we have always fostered, as a characteristic feature of British Columbia life. We believe in collective bargaining. We believe in the right to strike. We believe in the independence of unions from government policy. It is our aim to maintain the closest contact with trusted and able trade union leaders, to discuss with them the means for improving working conditions. We shall not ask them to compromise their position with their members by becoming agents of government-owned monopolies. Our own aim is to maintain the value, responsibility and independence of the unions. We urge all people to join unions and take an active part in their organization. More than 40 per cent of the union members are non-socialists. The more this process continues....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): What's your source?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've got a source. It's very simple to find the source; read the facts in the Department of Labour — it's a very simple source.

[ Page 1033 ]

The more this process continues, the more the trade union movement will become truly provincial and cease to be invidiously associated with one political party. The main aim of our party is to restore stability to British Columbia. We mean to set people free from, as soon as possible, wrong-headed planning and official interference. We shall return to a system which provides incentives for effort, enterprise, initiative and good housekeeping.

We cannot uphold the principle that the rewards in society must be equal for those who try and those who shirk, for those who succeed and those who fail. But we must strive to maintain the services which our Social Credit government initiated, and which assure all citizens of a standard of living which is the highest in Canada.

I'd like to say to you here that it is very easy to make these grand statements, but what is the way? Any one of you could have said even better what I've said, But there is a way; and the way is not to be found in fancy, muddled thinking, but the way is to be found in the return to the ways of our forefathers who built this country. The way is to be found in the return to morality, when the honourable word of men becomes of value, when the purpose has but one purpose: to keep a place for people to live in honour and to work in peace. That is what our government stands for.

We believe in the sanctity and honour of the individual. We do not believe in the power and the heavy hand of the state. We believe, above all, that we will succeed in labour-and-management maturity when the time comes, and when we will have returned our faith to the faith of our fathers.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 6.

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

The House in committee on Bill 6-1 Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, this bill, consisting of one section, section 1, which will allow the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964, to be amended by increasing the amount of borrowing by $0.5 billion, from $3 billion to $3.5 billion.... I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we could get some commitment from the government, from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that there will be proper environmental studies done in the spending of this money.

This House, of course, doesn't know exactly what projects this money is going to be spent on, but we can assume that some of this money will be spent possibly for new generating plants, possibly on looking at different sites to build possibly new dams or other methods of generating electricity.

I believe that the Legislature and the people of the province do have the right to be concerned about the future spending of B.C. Hydro in light of statements which were made recently by Robert Bonner, who is the man in charge of B.C. Hydro at the moment, and his statements around environment matters, stating that people should not have to conserve, in the future; that people in British Columbia can use as much electricity as they want; that they shouldn't be looking at means of conservation in terms of using either hydro-electric power or other generated forms of electricity.

I think we should have some commitment before passing this section, Mr. Chairman, that any project that B.C. Hydro is looking at, either for future projects or for the expansion of projects already in existence, should come to this government, to the Environment and Land Use Committee, and the secretariat of that committee, to be examined by that committee so that at least there will be two different structures, two different organizations, one within the government and one within that Crown corporation, looking at environmental matters.

I think that the opposition — and, I would assume, all British Columbians who are concerned about the environment — would ask no less than that. Any project that is done through B.C. Hydro, since we've heard the statement of Robert Bonner, who doesn't see that environmental matters should be of much concern to him or to B.C. Hydro.... I would ask that the government safeguard the environment of this province by making sure that any project of B.C. Hydro come back to this government and the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee, to be examined and have the okay of that cabinet committee and of cabinet, before any project proceeds.

I don't think that would be asking too much, and I would assume that the government would agree with that and give us that assurance tonight.

HON. L.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any question but we can assure the member that with all projects of this nature, particularly the new ones that are coming up, full and comprehensive environmental studies are contemplated, and always are carried out.

He mentioned cabinet approval; they always have to receive cabinet approval. I think that to the

[ Page 1034 ]

greatest degree the increase in the borrowing power asked for here is primarily with, you know, ongoing projects that are already committed, that we are locked into for the coming year — and that is for the coming year alone.

I think he can be well satisfied as far as the environmental aspects of it are concerned.

MR. LEA: The projects themselves do come to cabinet for the approval, but the environmental part.... What I was asking is if it wouldn't be possible to run those projects as a double safeguard, to run those projects through that agency of government, to the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee, a senior committee of cabinet, and to have that committee approve or disapprove, and bring those recommendations to cabinet. I think the government would be well advised to go that route and to have that double check of having it come to the committee of cabinet, the Environment and Land Use Committee with report from the secretariat, and then approved by cabinet as a whole.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, this one-section bill is an opportunity for us to try to get some reassurance for the people of British Columbia who are concerned about the statements of the new chairman of B.C. Hydro.

You know, we have to borrow each year, of course. We passed increases in the borrowing limit of B.C. Hydro last year, and I think it's right that it should have to be reviewed and should come under public scrutiny.

There have been three studies commissioned outside of Hydro, independent of Hydro. The Department of Economic Development surveyed the demand for hydro-electric power. They said that the in-house demand — as projected by B.C. Hydro engineers and the people who, perhaps, have a little bit of empire-building interest in terms of activity with their own departments — was 30 per cent higher than necessary and that we could get along with a growth rate of 30 per cent less.

Other studies were done independently. I don't know if we should even talk about it, as we may be doing away with the Economic Analysis Policy Institute, but they did a study and brought in some expertise, and they also came up with the 30 per cent figure. In addition, the B.C. Energy Commission did a study. They did not compare with Hydro; they compared with the other two studies. Then on becoming chairman, Mr. Bonner, I understand, said that the projected figures were not great enough and that it would take even 30 per cent more. It appears to me that we are looking at a discrepancy of 60 per cent. I tend to go along with the three independent studies.

1 would like some reassurance from the minister that they will rely upon independent outside studies and that they will spend a fair amount of money on these independent, outside studies, as they could be saving us at least $150 million per year in terms of capital costs and the interest thereon. We are asked by the Minister of Finance to extend this borrowing power. It is a finance bill, and yet we have this alarming discrepancy.

We also have the concern as to how we will be proceeding. Looking at the B.C. energy board's schedule for project development, going from 1980 to 1990, they include the Hat Creek coal development, and they say that in the years 1986 and 1987 we could put in units 1 and 2 at a rated capacity of 1,000 megawatts. Then in 1987 and 1988 they could put in units 3 and 4, with another 1,000 megawatts, and in 1988 and 1989 another 1,000. This compares with projects like the Revelstoke project at 300 megawatts. This is a fantastic source of energy.

When we look at the comparison of this project in terms of environmental impact, the Peace River Dam, for instance, flooded about 700 square miles of land — I don't know the exact figure. It was valuable valley-bottom land. There are timber and wildlife resources, and we might have flooded some mineral claims, too, in that area, which we will never know much about.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Have you ever been there?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, my friend, I was up there before that dam was built. I was up in Hudson Hope. I knew Uncle Dudley and Bill Carter — he's been in there since 1905. Yes, my friend, I've been around this province a little bit.

We are quite concerned about this area. Really, with the direction in which this province is going to go in the next few years we could irrevocably launch a flooding of hundreds of square miles of land which government four years hence could not reverse. I would like to know what the intentions are, especially when I hear some of the alarming statements of the member down the row here in the government party that we take some consideration of what we've lost already.

We've lost 700 square miles of valley bottom behind the Bennett Dam alone. We've lost a great deal on the Columbia River Treaty, but you're not allowed to speak about that, my friend — and don't you step out of line. Give up talking about the Columbia River Treaty.

Not only is there the environmental factor, but had B.C. Hydro proceeded with the plans of the former B.C. Electric Company, the plans that it had under Dal Grauer, they would have developed the Hat Creek project. That was their intention. They would

[ Page 1035 ]

not have flooded the 700 square miles behind the Peace dam and, of course, this fantastic environmental problem would have been avoided. How much area would you despoil by developing Hat Creek coal?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I do know. About 10 square miles, Mr. Minister of Economic Development.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. NICOLSON: Ten square miles, and I must admit that there are, Mr. Chairman, some trade-offs that have to be made, because none of us are yet willing to go without electricity. But we do have to make intelligent choices. So what are we voting for in terms of direction? Are we voting for more flooding of valley-bottom? Are we voting for a programme where they're perhaps going to continue with the rivers that have already been ruined and run on the stream dams, which is of a marginal type of a...well, still can create some environmental damage? Or are we going to look at alternative power sources? Maybe we could start with coal, which we have proven reserves for for about 1,000 years as opposed to the date when we're going to reach the end of our available rivers and they'll be dammed — with the loss of salmon and aesthetic as well as environmental damage.

So I would like some statement, maybe not from the Minister of Finance, maybe from the Minister of Environment — no, I think I'll take a statement from the Minister of Finance, if I have my druthers.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I've already got my shoes off.

I wanted to ask the minister.... I see the Minister of Transport is in his chair. He might want to talk about this too. I am wondering if any of this half a billion dollars may be used for possible sport fishery mitigation on the Columbia reservoir behind the Arrow dam. I would note to the House that to date, to my knowledge, not a penny has been spent by the Crown corporation on this particular item, although funds have been extended on studies and biological and engineering work by the fish and wildlife branch of the province, which, in my opinion, is a cost which should be charged against the Columbia River Treaty.

However, to date there has been absolutely no mitigation done at all, and perhaps with good reason, because I think that the power authority was waiting until the fish and wildlife biologists and engineers were absolutely sure they had a series of projects which had pretty well fool-proof, guaranteed success, because there would be no point in spending a lot of money unless they were sure.

There was an ongoing commitment from before 1972, and between 1972 and 1975 by B.C. Hydro management, that when and if the fish and wildlife branch had a proposal, particularly on the Inonoakiin River, and possibly others such as the Illecillewaet and the Box Lake outlet, there would be money spent on fisheries mitigation, and I'm sure that the gentlemen across the way, who apparently in debates here pride themselves on their business ability, would note that the sport fishery is of both a recreational and a commercial value in the West Kootenays. We would note that the British Columbia Hydro under its former, former management, spent a substantial sum of money in the Middle Creek area and the Duncan reservoir to enhance and restore the Kootenay Lake fishery, but, as I pointed out, there has been absolutely nothing done on the Arrow, and I would note that the money that we're talking about here would be a maximum of $200,000. I'm not saying what's $200,000, but I am suggesting that it's a small proportion of $500 million and an even smaller proportion of the $1.5 billion which has already been spent on the Columbia River Treat Projects.

I would like some indication from one of the two ministers across the way about whether in fact we are going to see a carry-through of this commitment by two management teams of B.C. Hydro on in to the 1970s.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the questions raised on the load growth as it affects the estimated requirement of the debt, I think it should be said that of the three opinions that have been expressed on the estimated load growth, it wouldn't really matter which one you took insofar as the coming year's requirement for a $500 million increase. These will be built regardless of which of the three estimates you used. They are all laid on, committed, et cetera, so it wouldn't really matter insofar as this is concerned.

I might say, by way of explanation, that I have here an estimate of major expenditures, you might say, for the coming year alone. They total $605 million, including major generating facilities, transmission and transformation facilities, miscellaneous generating and transmission, and other miscellaneous items totalling $605 million, which includes an amount which will be raised from more or less the general revenues of Hydro as well as the capital borrowing which is added on to that.

M R. D. F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, just a short note on section 1 of Bill 6. I would wish to bring to the minister's attention, through you, Mr. Chairman, an article in The Vancouver Sun dated April 9,1976, by Mike

[ Page 1036 ]

Halloran. I direct my remarks specifically to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who mentioned this a short time ago in his address. It says: "Bonner says that the McGregor diversion on the upper Fraser is another proposal currently under consideration by Hydro." To quote Mr. Halloran, he says:

"Like hell it is. It has been planned for years. The basin is being logged now to make way for it. When the Gordon Shrum powerhouse was built at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam 10 years ago, provision was made for the extra head McGregor division energy would provide. Does Mr. Bonner know that by proceeding with the McGregor we could be activating an ecological time-bomb? The McGregor would be made to flow uphill into the Parsnip, an Arctic river. Aquatic parasites and their hosts in that arctic watershed pose a threat to the Fraser salmon that was identified and publicized 20 years ago. It is a matter of public record which Hydro is either dismissing or ignores."

One other item, Mr. Minister, in regard to this proposed borrowing fund. I would very much like to know if B.C. Hydro is considering the proposed Dean River diversion, which affects my constituency and the Bella Coola area to a great extent. It is well known and based on a report I have by the northern operations branch, fisheries service, Department of the Environment, dated 1972. This study points out that that proposed diversion would seriously affect the fishery in that area, particularly in the Dean River. I should point out to you as well, Mr. Minister of Finance, that should you proceed with this diversion, as I said, the fisheries would be affected. But certainly all the fishermen in that area — and I have met with them all, Mr. Minister of Finance — are very much opposed to this particular project.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Finance has said, there have been several forecasts of demand for electricity prepared: one of the B.C. Energy Commission, one by the Economic Development people here, and one by B.C. Hydro. The B.C. Hydro one is the highest — around 9 per cent — and the other two in the order of 7 per cent. Regardless of that rate of growth out through the next few years, the projects which are contemplated within this $500 million expenditure would be needed anyway.

Now to list them: there is a continuing expenditure on generators and transmission from the large Mica Creek project that needs to be completed — the decisions, environmental and otherwise, were made long ago. There is the Kootenay canal project — that will be completed but that requires funds; there is the 7-mile site on the Pend-d'Oreille — again, it is underway and there is no major environmental concern there; site C on the Peace River downstream of the Bennett Dam is a site under very active investigation — there are some environmental concerns there but they are not major.

The large new site which must be of some concern because of its scale is the one three miles from the city of Revelstoke. The Revelstoke site is perhaps the most contentious in that the preliminary moneys are being spent on it during the coming 12 months. Nevertheless, it has a minimum of environmental concern in contrast, for example, to Hat Creek, or particularly diversions such as the McGregor or the diversion from the Homathko into the Pacific or, indeed, the diversion on the Kootenay flats of the Kootenay River into the upper Columbia.

Those are all projects which have been considered again and again by B.C. Hydro, but no one of them has been nominated to proceed and no substantial amount of money would be spent on any of those environmentally contentious projects in the coming 12 months. In other words, no substantial part of the $500 million guarantee would be used to pursue in any substantial way developments which would harm the environment in those areas.

On the question of sports fishing on the Arrow Lakes, I think a very important principle must be observed in the future to the extent that the power dams damage other values. The moneys employed in the power developments must be at least sufficient to offset the damage that takes place as a result of power development. Indeed, enhancement programmes of various kinds should be such as to, in effect, improve on nature and leave the total environment in better shape than it was originally before the power development itself took place. I think that is a fundamental principle which has to be observed from now on in respect to energy developments in this province.

MR. DARCY: I appreciate the remarks of the Transport minister very much. I want to make very sure, though, that I don't misunderstand him. Is he saying that the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority does have a continuing commitment for reasonable — and I emphasize the word reasonable — mitigation of the sport fishery on the Arrow Lakes, similar to the work that was done on the Kootenay Lakes?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to take the detail of that question as notice because I don't know first hand, but I'll find out what the answer is to that inquiry.

MR. DARCY: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Further on the Arrow reservoir, something which has been of

[ Page 1037 ]

tremendous concern to me, representing Rossland-Trail and living in the city of Castlegar, is the fact that a great deal, as I'm sure you know, has been made of the manner in which a number of people living in the region flooded by the Hugh Keenleyside Dam vacated their property. Some had to go physically because their land and their homes were below the flood line. Others simply moved off, or were required to move off because it was the policy of British Columbia Hydro at the time....

Interjections.

MR. DARCY: Would my hon. colleagues please restrain themselves for a few minutes?

It was the policy that everybody as much as possible would be removed, whether they lived above the flood line or not.

That policy was reversed in 1972 — before August, 1972, in the spring of 1972 — and the authority at that time began to take steps to prepare subdivision proposals and make honest and sincere efforts to resettle those people who had been displaced and who wished to be displaced, although it was made clear, and I agree, that they would have to buy property at current market value. They weren't going to get it back at the original price; they would get it at current market value less 10 or 20 per cent, something like that.

At this time I believe a proposal by a resource committee of the civil service in the region, a report by them, is in the hands of the secretariat. However, it's been my advice, and I'm wondering if the minister could substantiate it or not, or one way or the other, that the Hydro authority is not so well disposed at this time to returning this land to its former owners and turning over what is left to the Crown, as had been proposed before.

I would like some advice from the minister as to whether or not this policy will be followed, because I can assure the House and the minister that should British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority adopt a policy of simply selling land that it acquired because of the Columbia River Treaty, because of the flooding of the Arrow Lakes Valley, if it's simply going to sell that land on the open market, possibly to foreigners, I'm sure the people of British Columbia, many of them, would be very disturbed, because it's felt that this land should be returned to its former owners, those who want to get back on the land, and what's left over be turned over to the Crown for disposition by the various Crown agencies whether they be the secretariat, parks branch or whatever.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I do know that some further moneys have been earmarked for the Columbia River — completion of the obligations under the Columbia River Treaty. I expect that some part of those funds will be available for the purposes that the hon. member has in mind, but I would want to substantiate that.

MR. DARCY: Again, I appreciate the minister's remarks. I would note that the obligation to resettle those who were displaced is a moral one; it's not a legal one. So the authority is not bound by any law or any stipulation of the treaty. It is merely a moral one, and that's why I am asking in the House. If it were a legal one, I wouldn't be so concerned,

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would very much appreciate an answer, Mr. Chairman, from the minister on the proposed Dean River diversion — if you do have the answer. It's of vital importance to the people in my riding.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro, like other power authorities across the country, looks at all the possibilities, and there have been investigations from time to time of the Dean River project, but I would say that it has always been under the cloud of environmental concern, and many more answers would have to be obtained by B.C. Hydro before that project was likely to proceed.

MR. LAUK: I was just passed a note by one of the Clerks saying that I hadn't spoken yet in committee on this bill. I thought I'd rise. I'm not going to say which Clerk....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you having an affair? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: With George? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I think it is quite right, as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport and Communications have said, that the borrowing authority extended under this amendment to the bill will not be affected by the low-growth projections made by any of the three groups. That's certainly understood. That was understood when they were undertaken under the previous administration.

Certainly this side of the House does agree that the extension to the borrowing authority is necessary, and perhaps absolutely necessary.

The necessity of the continuing growth for Hydro, whatever sources are used, hydro-electric or thermal coal or so on, have to be taken into consideration. These growth projections will have to be taken into consideration. Moves will have to be made now corporate plans are being set now, and so on. Economic development is in the balance. Jobs and

[ Page 1038 ]

social development are also in the balance.

The point that should be made, all of these low-growth projections with which all of our experts have advised the previous administration — the same experts are now advising you — really doesn't amount to what the basic underlying assumptions for economic growth — and ergo, power growth — in this province are all about.

I think it might be important, in the light of recent statements by the new chairman of Hydro that we pause briefly and reflect on where the province is going in the next 25 years. The projections for power by Mr. Bonner, I suggest to you, are a little bit of an overkill. I think what's happening in terms of the direction of the economy in North America and in Europe is not that bigger is better, not for economies of scale, because economies of scale are becoming too costly and wasteful. Economists all over the world are saying that. I think that we've got to pull in our horns, and this is why the previous administration asked for other than Hydro's projections, which were always rather high, for safety purposes.

We asked for Economic Development to do a study, and part of the criteria for this study was that the attitudes of people, entrepreneurs, business, and ordinary people was that growth, for growth's sake, is no longer desirable.

I'm glad that Premier's back in the House. I hope he doesn't leave, because I was going to remark about the difference in generations. Mr. Bonner is a little bit older than the Premier and me....

MR. LEA: The Premier and I.

MR. LAUK: He's talking about a world of unlimited growth. He understands a business, an economic world where growth was the order of the day. I think that all sides of the House can come together on this point, particularly people of such youth as the Premier, who understands that the people of this province are not substantially different from elsewhere in North America and Europe, where they are looking for quality in life and not necessarily quantity.

We must ask ourselves what is going to happen in the next 25 years, discussing not just the extending of the borrowing of this bill, but discussing where the direction of the economy of this province is going to go, and whether economies of scale are really going to be the rule. Certainly it's now not the rule; it's becoming less the rule. Smaller units of production are becoming necessary. Productivity, more than related to economics of scale or to the size of the workplace, is relating to the working conditions, or the workplace itself. Community-sized enterprises are being proposed. People are looking for quality, Mr. Chairman, and not just quantity.

Bonner, as I say, is not of this generation, because his statements are really unlimited-growth statements, and they're disappointing to us because we thought we had achieved something in the last five to eight years, that the controversy around growth had achieved something in the thinking of these executive officers, the heads of major Hydro and large multinational corporations.

People, I believe, of our generation believe in, as I say, quality not quantity. They are looking for more meaning in the community and their family life and not just yet another brand of toothpaste. I think this is essential. This is why we asked the Department of Economic Development and the new Energy Commission to provide projections based on different underlying assumptions.

Thank you for remaining, Mr. Premier. That's all I had to deal with as far as you are concerned. I'll call you in when I have another matter.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's essential that we understand why those different projections were put forward. If the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and his government think in terms of modern approaches to growth, then I think that he should have a luncheon or a little chat with Mr. Bonner and explain to him that times have changed. I know, Mr. Minister, that you understand that.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Who appointed Mr. Bonner?

MR. LAUK: You don't speak about it as often as I would like to hear you, but I am sure you understand what I'm getting at. I don't think it's growth for growth's sake. I don't think that anyone in this province accepts that any more. It is no longer the bulldozer type of an economy. It is a more subtle thing today. Really, our survival is most dependent upon those kind of choices. It doesn't really on philosophy or political approach; it relies on good sense and modern thinking.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for saying what I think we agree with — that there's nothing we can do. We have to pay the bills. We are committed. We brought in a similar bill last year. My memory doesn't serve me that well whether we brought one in before, but we probably did.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The ombudsman bill. It was buried.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, but we brought one in last year. we're bringing in one this year, and I daresay the minister will bring in another one next year and maybe the year after that.

As long as we are growing in population, there are

[ Page 1039 ]

going to be increased demands for capital expansion of B.C. Hydro — and it's an asset that we're getting. I think that power demand and attitudes towards power consumption are very important, and I am maybe speaking to both ministers right now. For instance, I am informed that in our headlong haste to build the Mica dam, not thinking about building a Revelstoke dam, we relocated the highway, and today if we build the Revelstoke dam we will have to spend approximately $43 million to once again relocate that highway.

Now it isn't your fault, Mr. Minister. You weren't a part of that previous Social Credit government.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. NICOLSON: The member for Columbia River says "nonsense." We'll see if that comes to be. It depends on what kind of a dam is built — if it's one or if it's done in two stages and so on.

We found that when Hydro came face to face with public opinion they had to come up with answers about whether power lines were really necessary. If you fly over the Kootenays you will see that the topography is just scarred with power lines going every which way, with West Kootenay Power and Light and B.C. Hydro. Of course, if the power were shut off we'd all be very concerned. We need power. But it is of grave concern to us in the Creston Valley as to whether or not in the first place the power line must be built. We have had it demonstrated to us in the last three years that certain power lines that Hydro was proposing to build did not have to be built and could be put off indefinitely or maybe forever. If they have to be built in certain places, what will have the least impact in the area? Also there is the type of power that we use. We might be able, certainly, if we make a choice of building at Hat Creek, to cut down on power line development which tends to serve a lot of the major centres.

It was our impression, as laymen in government, that the professionals use mystique, and about this mystique they tend to build, maybe, a little over-safe. We have costs here. If we are going to build our hydro-electric power 30 per cent safe and at the same time not put capital costs, perhaps, into programmes that the Minister of Health wants to get going on in intermediate care, then what are we losing there in terms of a total cost accountability between government departments and Crown corporations? What are we aiming toward? I am informed, but maybe the Minister of Highways or maybe yourself can put me straight on this matter, that a projected cost would be $45 million to relocate a highway if we go ahead with that Revelstoke thing. Let's not make this type of decision again.

Power lines: it's been proven that if you second-guess them they can sometimes come up with.... Suddenly two absolutely necessary power lines dissolved into one and led to a fantastic reduction in terms of both aesthetic and environmental disruption. I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are some good examples of use of power lines: in the Fraser Valley a golf course goes under one; corn has been planted in one area that was never cultivated before; deer browse on power lines, and so on. I would like some reassurance that we are going to second-guess the engineers and the technical people in B.C. Hydro. Of course they should know. They are the experts. But we also have to have outside, independent scrutiny of these decisions.

I would hope to have some reassurance; otherwise next year we're going to come here with another fait accompli, and maybe it'll be to increase borrowing by $1 billion next year, and so on. Maybe we can keep this down a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask...perhaps the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) would care to respond, or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Last night I asked for a few comments and I was out of the House when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) answered part of my question, but I think the very significant part of the Minister of Transport's statement was that electricity is just about the cheapest bargain the consumer gets these days. I wonder if this kind of borrowing that we're undertaking is just another frantic treadmill pace, as it were, to keep up with providing people with all the power that they ask and want, as a good bargain, regardless of whether they need it, and whether or not the government's given any consideration to perhaps not frantically attempting to maintain the pace of production of new electricity.

Now this is not a negative argument, to suggest that we should purposefully aim at having brownouts or blackouts. The member who just spoke talked about the fact that obviously if we're not putting money into this kind of project it would be available for other services to people. Again, as the minister himself said last night, it is a question of priorities. Do we go on spending these vast sums of money for one specific type of service to people, which they seem to be getting — according to the Minister of Transport — at a very low rate, when, in point of fact, at least some of that funding could be otherwise diverted to other services, such as the three basic ones we all know take up 75 per cent of our operating budget?

It really struck me as being very significant last night when the Minister of Transport made the point that we have two estimates of requirement, one of which exceeds the other by as much as 30 per cent. I'm not sure — I stand to be corrected — but I didn't

[ Page 1040 ]

get the impression that the minister was making any kind of personal judgment as to which of these two percentage figures was the one that to him seemed most accurate and, even more importantly, the one along which the government in its planning.... And in its planning, of course, it has to come to the House asking for appropriate amounts of borrowing. So obviously the precise or the accurate amount of borrowing will depend on the very precise figure that the government decides as probably being the one closest to the need of the province in the years ahead.

The minister mentioned that both figures show little difference in the immediate years ahead, but several years down the road the percentage estimate as between the low figure and the high figure will result in very substantial larger amounts of capital being required, if the larger figure is adjudged to be the more accurate.

As I mentioned last night, it seems to me that this is a sort of Alice in Wonderland situation in our province these days that we all debate with great intensity the operating budget and argue about whether $5 million is too much or too little for agricultural aid to foreign countries, but borrowing capacity for $500 million seems to be looked upon as just something almost akin to motherhood because the population has to have electricity. And I haven't even touched on the environmental aspect of the developments of these kinds of programmes.

I don't mean to make a long harangue about it tonight, Mr. Chairman, but every week at least, if not every day, some very thoughtful articles appear in our newspapers and in our magazines — and not only about British Columbia. As the minister mentioned a moment ago, all across Canada the electorate has to start making judgments as to what it wants. On the one hand we have people quite justifiably expressing concern about the environmental impact of something like the proposed dam at Revelstoke, but on the other hand they still want all the power to do all the things the minister listed last night.

I think governments have a real responsibility to tell it like it is: that the people of B.C., the people of Manitoba, or the people of Quebec or Newfoundland can't have their cake and eat it as well.

I wonder — and it's the point I am trying to make — whether this government sees, as part of the leadership role of a new government, the challenge perhaps to decide the amount of increased electricity that will be generated, and to have that as the cause and the public response as the effect, rather than anticipating that the public wants to go on having all the power they've been having at bargain-basement prices and in the process plunge...at least not plunge B.C. Hydro into debt; it is already in about $3 billion debt, or almost.

Perhaps before we pass this section I wonder if the minister could answer these two questions in particular: which of the two percentage estimates of increased demand per year does the minister feel more accurately represents the need of the province?

I know we're dealing with projections and I know it depends, as the minister said last night, on the degree by which the economy expands. He used the words: "The lower figures seem to be a pessimistic outlook on our economy and the upper figure optimistic." Could I ask him if it seems as though perhaps the truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere in the middle?

If that is the case and that is the figure that the government is following, can we hopefully look two or three years down the road and not come to this Legislature every spring debating another bill for another half billion dollars? It seems to me that almost annually in this House we are increasing borrowing by that amount.

I am wondering if we are rather going all out to perpetuate something — namely a response to a demand when, in fact, government should perhaps be showing leadership and put some ceiling on the amount of expansion of generating facility and have the community at large be brought face-to-face with the fact that you just cannot endlessly go on assuming that if this is what you want as a community, in terms of electricity, then this is what the government will give you.

I am not trying to make a simplistic appraisal of what is obviously a very complex problem, but I for one have sat through several debates on this size or dimension of borrowing — $500 million. It does seem to me that there is no end to this if, in fact, the House just simply approves without some pretty in-depth discussion as to what some of the alternatives might be, particularly the alternative of the government deciding that perhaps there should be some reasonable ceiling set on the average increase of generating capacity each year, and perhaps try and encourage by increased prices, which the government is already doing, or B.C. Hydro is already doing....

Also, in much the same way as we were told there was a gasoline shortage not too many months ago, people suddenly were brought face-to-face with the fact that there just isn't an endless supply of petroleum products. Should we not, in fact, by trying to engender the same kind of thinking in terms of electrical generation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, briefly, the hon. member for Oak Bay really asked two questions: first, how do we live with uncontrolled demand, whether it be 7 per cent a year or 8 per cent or 9 per cent? Alternatively, he said: "How do we control demand?"

First, on the matter of the forecasts: let's say there is no rationing, no controls and demand may grow at a low rate of, say, 7 per cent — a pessimistic forecast

[ Page 1041 ]

if you like — or alternatively at 9 or 10 per cent, an optimistic forecast. I think the best way to spend the $500 million is to spend it on relatively small projects, projects which can be postponed — any one which can be postponed if the lower growth rate materializes, or speeded up if the higher growth rate develops.

If, instead of spending this money on several relatively small projects, you were to spend it on one very large one, you are committed to build the very large one even if the low rate of growth materializes.

Hat Creek is a very large project. It is several times the scale of the several projects which are, in fact, contemplated for this $500 million expenditure. The previous government was close to nominating Hat Creek, if it hadn't in fact named Hat Creek for development in the immediate future. The present plan is not to develop Hat Creek immediately. It is not, in any substantial amount — at least in a substantial number of dollars — involved in this planning for this current year.

So by going a small step at a time we are able to live with either a low or pessimistic forecast or a much higher forecast. It is a more rational approach to what I will call uncontrolled or unregulated demand.

It may materialize at a high rate or develop more slowly. Nowhere in Canada has there been any really effective measures taken to control the demand itself. However, in some parts of the United States, and more notably California, for example, it's now illegal to use electricity or natural gas, or even oil, to heat swimming pools in the summer time. There are a variety of uses which have been ruled illegal.

We may be some distance from that kind of regulation in this country, because we have inside at least this province a number of sources of supply fairly readily available at reasonable prices. Alternatively, and the more traditional way of regulating demand, is to raise the price. Rate structures in this country, rate structures across the world really, have encouraged further consumption. They've trailed downwards; the more you bought the lower the rate of the last kilowatt-hour you used. In the future, these rate schedules have to start turning up: the more you consume the higher the rate. I can see this kind of rate structure developing, and I hope we see it shortly, especially in respect to space heating in this province, in B.C. Hydro in the not too distant future.

Mr. WALLACE: I very much appreciate the minister's answer. Just one quick final question: do we foresee that this $500 million borrowing is only for about the period of the next 12 months, or is it likely that 12 months from now we'll be back here in committee debating the wisdom or otherwise of further borrowing? Or is that something that nobody knows at the present time?

I think the figures we're dealing with — and, as I pointed out last night, the interest carrying charges — will be up around close to $100 per capita of the population of the province if we borrow this $500 million. As I said a moment ago, this is not an unfamiliar kind of bill that we're debating tonight. Could the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport and Communications tell us whether there's any breathing space in the next year or two, or is this likely to be the kind of bill we will have annually?

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Speech, speech!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that was really quite a performance.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly was. Just a disgrace!

MR. NICOLSON: You know, this, I think, is a very regrettable move, perhaps made necessary by the actions, the irresponsible actions, of some of the members that sit in the government executive benches.

Interjection.

MR, NICOLSON: Well, if that member would not give.... He's impugning the reputation of the

[ Page 1042 ]

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), Mr. Speaker. I'd like people in the gallery...if they're using their little directory of members, that is not the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. That's the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who's breaking a standing order and moving out of his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister, if he wishes to interject in debate, knows that it must be done from his own seat in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't object to the interjection. It's just that I'm concerned about my friend from Burnaby-Willingdon, and some persons do use the directory and it causes a false impression. Somebody might be over here from Burnaby-Willingdon and they could be suffering under a false impression.

But to get back to this bill, and if the minister is going to treat this thing so lightly, I would submit, having re-read the Hansard — and I'm not going to quote everything that was said in Hansard — but having re-read the Hansard debate of second and third reading, there were a lot of statements made, Mr. Speaker, attacking the director, and then attacking the possible directors. They attacked the directors and said that, oh, all these directors will just be a bunch of wild types and they'll get a bunch of radical economists.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: In Hansard. So who are the directors? Mr. Alistair Crerar, and I don't think anyone would attack his reputation. Your deputy, Mr. Minister, is a director — Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams).

Interjection:

MR. NICOLSON: Hm? Well he was attacked before he was ever appointed. Mr. Alexander Peel, Sandy Peel, former Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development, and I don't think anyone would attack him.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean, former? He still is.

MR. NICOLSON: Pardon? I didn't say former. I know, you've had the wisdom to keep him on and....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, you're now speaking to the principle of Bill 14.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but you know, in the previous debate, Mr. Speaker, someone paid some homage to the Minister of Labour, what a fine job he is doing. I would submit that some of that is due to the deputy minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are not on a previous debate. We're on second reading of Bill 14.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm not out to debate with you on that either, but getting back to this, the interjection came from the hon. minister, not from myself. Mary Rawson and Walter Young — Walter Young, a professor at the University of Victoria. Now the functions of the institute are research, training, consulting, disseminating information in the House, then hosting professional conferences, research papers, fellowships, research assistanceships for graduate students and the publication of papers which are done through the University of British Columbia and also to facilitate contacts between professional economists and provincial agencies of which there are many.

There's in-house research and they focus on things like economic pricing of public services. They made recommendations, for instance, on ferry rates, also on minerals economics. They made recommendations on copper which I don't think our government would have accepted, but it was independent research, Mr. Speaker. There was also research on topics such as public finance. I'm sure the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) might have found ammunition within that independently researched information with which to put forward his views, for instance, on mineral royalties. So it was operating as it should, as an independent institute for economic research.

Six major conferences were held, one on B.C. forest policy, one on mineral leasing as an instrument of public policy, one on pollution-control policies, energy industry and public policy and pricing policies for municipal services, natural resource revenues and Canadian inter-governmental relations and one on class action suits for environmental protection.

Believe me, I think that something that should be looked into is ways and means for launching class action suits for environmental protection, because individuals are in no way equipped to go up against large industrial concerns which can afford environmental studies. It would be good that such expertise could be put in the hands of people.

So reports and manuscripts were made available at cost. I think one of the reasons why this government doesn't want to see the institute continue might be that institute research is never held confidential; it is independent and it is released.

While we were government I don't know of too many reports that were suppressed. I can't, offhand, think of any, but I can certainly think of some of the reports that were suppressed by the former Social

[ Page 1043 ]

Credit government — reports like the Hall report, I believe, on the civil service....

MR. WALLACE: The Chant report.

MR. NICOLSON: The Chant report? No, that wasn't suppressed, but maybe it should have been. Well, which Chant report? I'm thinking of one on education.

MR. WALLACE: I'm thinking of the one on the building.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, yes, on this building. Right! That was suppressed.

But this institute research is never held confidential. This is in the bylaws of the institute: the institute is independent and does not enter into agreements to work with material that cannot be released for public inspection. It's open. It's above-board. It's a halfway house between the academic community and action. The institute does not endorse viewpoints; it is not there to promulgate or inculcate a particular philosophy. The only restrictions on work done under its auspices are that it bear constructively on the public policy and be of high professional competence.

The institute sought to perform a forum where many doctrines could be tried. I can't say people are paranoid about it, but people made up their minds about the institute before it was ever founded, It is rather ironic that people attacked what they supposed to be the political leanings of the director, and I'm sure that nothing could be much further from the truth than to accuse Mason Gaffney of being a socialist. That's a rather preposterous accusation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say that it's very regrettable that the minister has not even got up and given any reasoning here. I'm sure that he's going to come in with some sort of a swashbuckling attack or rebuttal of everything that is said by any members who might get up and speak on this, but really freedom of academic thought and expression and access to high-quality research by the public are the things that are going to be repealed by this bill.

I can honestly say that I've been impressed with the way in which the research has gone ahead, and with the fact that it is independent. If they don't like the board of directors, it calls for the replacement of one board director every year, and by the time they finish their term I suppose they could maybe appoint people more to their liking. But if the Deputy Minister of Labour isn't to their liking, Mr. Speaker, on this board.... I find that ironic if a well-respected professor in British Columbia and a member of the faculty of the University of Victoria doesn't meet with their pleasure. I'm surprised if the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development, who I've heard most of those people speak in praise of, doesn't meet with their pleasure. I'm surprised that they have not reconsidered.

I don't intend to dredge up some of the irrational statements that were made in attacking this institution before it ever got off the ground, but now it is off the ground there are a lot of policy papers out there. They have been produced, they're of fine calibre, and they certainly don't all reinforce the New Democratic Party viewpoint on economic matters. It is independent research, it is important research, and I think that it's very regrettable that it will not be allowed to continue if this Act passes.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would like to open my remarks by quoting the entirety of the minister's remarks in opening debate on this bill.

He said, "I move second reading of Bill 14," and he sat down. Mr. Speaker, I nominate him for the All-time Bush League Award on Second Reading Introductions. It was just an incredible opening.

There are two possibilities, Mr. Speaker: either he plans to save his remarks until after all the opposition speakers have made their statements in ignorance of the reasons for the government's move or else he doesn't plan to talk at all.

MR. WALLACE: That would be unusual.

MR. GIBSON: Either possibility, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, would be equally reprehensible.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could we return now to the principle of the bill?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am commenting on the minister's opening remarks — or rather lack of them,

MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, Hon. Member. The hon. member who now has the floor is speaking to the principle of the bill, not to the remarks particularly made by other members.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that it would be a good deal easier to divine the principle of the bill if the minister responsible for shepherding it through the House had had the good grace to explain it to us, which he did not.

On April 8, order-in-council 1140 appointed Alexander L. Peel to the board of directors of the institute for five years, commencing February 20 of this year. On April 12, Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced to abolish that institute.

This bill, in my view, is a breach of faith. I just

[ Page 1044 ]

finished reading a book of that name, but the comparison between the book and this bill would be hyperbolic, odious and overblown. Nevertheless, it is a breach of faith.

An inevitability of this kind I find saddening in this House, Mr. Speaker — and it is inevitable. This bill is somewhat different in kind than some of the others we have seen in the last couple of weeks. Some of the financial bills, it's possible to argue, were forced by the circumstances of this province; that's not possible to argue on this bill. The result is inevitable: the government majority is going to abolish this institute. But hopefully the words spoken on the debate on this question may do something to sensitize the public of this province to the need for some kind of continuing, ongoing, independent economic analysis and research organization in this province.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is to me a product of small, frightened minds who see socialists under every rock in this province and who think of every emanation of the former socialist government as being socialists by association. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the people of the Economic Policy Analysis Institute that is being abolished by this bill are socialists. There may be a socialist or two down there — I don't know. There may be a Liberal or two down there — I hope so. There's probably a Social Crediter or two there. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the government knows the history of the foundation of that organization. It wasn't particularly congenial for the people who are currently involved in it.

The current director was summoned to British Columbia by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and he was kept waiting for a number of months with no terms of reference, with no authority, cooling his heels, having been given a lot of promises. Then the government really didn't follow through on it and then the government paid no attention to him after that.

That's not surprising, in a way, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the advice that that institute gave wasn't in line with government policy. It put out a paper last fall that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) may have seen — I don't know. It was very clear. It should have been used during the election campaign. What it said, with all respect to hon. members to my right, geographically, was that the taxation of minerals by royalties was goofy, which it is. That was certainly not congenial to the previous government. I would have thought it was right in line with what the current Minister of Mines believes and, hopefully, will legislate some time this session.

That was the kind of advice that the government was getting from that institute, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't notice any socialist line out of there.

On the board of directors described by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson): Mr. Crerar, late departed of this government for a term in Ottawa; Mr. Matkin, a respected deputy minister to the Minister of Labour, and no socialist, in my opinion; Mr. Peel, a respected deputy minister to the minister who introduced this bill. I don't want to second-guess public servants, Mr. Speaker, but it must be of some pain to these public servants who are on this board to see this group, which they had served with good faith and energy, being disbanded so callously. Mary Rawson, a member of the Land Commission — I don't want to malign anyone, but to the best of my knowledge Mary Rawson hasn't been known as a socialist and has, as far as I know, been known as a Conservative, which, I would say, is a compliment to that good lady.

MR. WALLACE: Every little plug helps. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Walter Young — well, he will have to speak for his own politics. But clearly there is a non-socialist majority on that board, so that can't be the explanation, Mr. Speaker.

How about the argument of cost? The cost is around $400,000 a year. Just looking quickly through the estimate books to see what falls in that kind of category, I see that under the energy resource evaluation programme, the budget for that is $460,000 — that is to say, more than the entire budget of the institute for advice across the whole range of provincial policy. Just looking under vote 168 — the leisure services branch, special programmes — $594,000, well over $100,000 more than this institute which is giving good advice across the range of economic policy in British Columbia. I can't believe it is a question of cost, Mr. Speaker.

I am prepared to believe that it is a question of getting the government's mitts on that $5 million for the budget this year. That is fair enough, if they really feel they have to do that. But continue the programme. You should continue the fund, too, but at least continue the programme.

What is the philosophy of this body which this bill proposes to disband? Let me read for a moment from the report — as far as I know, the first report — of the B.C. Institute for Economic Policy Analysis, March, 1976, page 9, under "Philosophy of the Institute".

"The Institute for Economic Policy Analysis exists to foster independent research in public policy and to bring the scholarly resources of the universities to bear on problems of government in specific areas: unemployment" — perhaps the government doesn't need advice on unemployment — "public finance...." They certainly need advice on public finance when they are washing all those millions back and forth between ICBC, and I refer the House to a marvelous Norris cartoon in the Sun tonight.

[ Page 1045 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's not very scholarly, though.

MR. GIBSON: No, it's certainly not scholarly, but they need scholarly advice, Mr. Member — that's the point.

"Industrial organization" — certainly one of the questions of which the Minister of Labour must be most seized these days, and properly so. "Natural resource use" — a fundamental bedrock of the economy of British Columbia. These are the objects of research, Mr. Minister. Where else is it being done in this province and in this government? It is being done to some extent in our universities.

Here is a group that was open to public questioning, public criticism, public inquiry and public meetings. It was willing to bring this kind of thought together and was paid by the government to bring this kind of thought together. I continue from the report: "It is a halfway house between academe and action."

"The institute was established by the provincial government, but is independent of it." How naive were the authors of those words, Mr. Speaker. They meant well, but obviously they didn't know too much about politics, because far from being independent of government they are being abolished by this bill. It is a little bit like the Parliament of Canada bringing in a bill to abolish the Economic Council of Canada, or like the parliament of Ontario bringing in a bill to abolish the Economic Council of Ontario, because this is the closest body that we have in this province to that kind of independent advice.

In its short life what kind of work has the institute done? It has held a number of conferences, in-house research and so on. Let me cite some of them. I refer, hon. members, for greater detail to pages 4 to 7 in the institute's annual report — the first and, presumably, last annual report. Six major conferences; one on B.C. forest policy. Was the minister there? Has he read the report of what transpired?

"Minimal leasing as an instrument of public policy." Has the minister heard of it? "Pollution Control Policies," chaired by Irving Fox. Has the minister heard of Irving Fox, head of the Westwater Institute at the University of British Columbia, certainly one of the most fit academics in this province to chair a meeting on pollution control policies?

"The Energy Industry and Public Policy" — I wonder if the minister responsible for energy has either read or might not find useful this sort of dissertation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he has read, and has found useful, the institute's analysis of B.C. Ferries' pricing policy, a highly practical document that I suggest he's going to carry into action within the next few weeks.

"Pricing Policies for Municipal Services" — perhaps worthwhile reading for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Have you read any of them?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm asked by the minister opposite if I've read any of them. Yes, I have, and I'll quote to you from them at length, Mr. Minister, if you wish. If that's the wish of the House, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I just wanted to be helpful to the minister. I'll send him over copies of these reports afterwards if he wishes, but I'll gladly read to him at any length he wishes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I need to go to sleep.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: "Natural Resource Revenues in Canadian Inter-governmental Relations" — a conference of some usefulness to this province, I would have thought, in view of our constant battles — and properly so — with the federal government in terms of retaining our jurisdiction over our natural resource revenues.

Finally, under the conference-programme heading, "Class Action Suits For Environmental Protection," something which we might usefully refer to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for his greater attention.

Then we look at the work of the research staff, and these are papers published by the various research staff of the institute, including the following titles: "Employment Policy Public Finance and Benefit Cost Analysis" — exactly the kind of thing that the Treasury Board of British Columbia ought to be paying some attention to. Our Treasury Board, over the past few years, has not had the kind of terms of reference and standards and criteria that allow that group to judge the benefit of public programmes. It's been evident in the estimates year after year. Here is a piece of paper that would have been of some assistance to them, read in conjunction with such things as the thick report on cost-benefit analysis recently published by the federal Treasury Board, for example.

Another report is called "Pricing Policy for Public Services." Mr. Speaker, we were told in the throne speech that sometime this spring we are going to receive legislation which will bear on exactly this topic, Would the government propose to tell this House that that legislation was written without some kind of reference to this particular document which was free in their hands — which was produced to them? If they didn't pay any attention to it, they ought to have done.

[ Page 1046 ]

Another publication on mineral economics.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): There's nobody in the press gallery.

MR. GIBSON: Another publication on local finance grants and land-use controls.

These are the kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, that this government ought to concern itself with, and on which it was receiving advice from this agency. It wasn't just inside research. There were visiting research associates who looked after things like capital waste in urban sprawl. You know, when you have a zoning policy that encourages checkerboard development and high cost — for example, sewer and water distribution far out from your usual services — how much is the cost of that and what can governments do to control it? That kind of paper was produced.

Outside contracts and grants were given out of this $400,000 which, to me, Mr. Speaker, is sounding a good deal more productive than, say, $400,000 to run the average minister's office around this province.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: "Studies in Copper Mining Costs and Returns," by Paul Bradley. An item that should be of interest to the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) — "Regional Growth and Prince George" — a study that, to the hon. member for Fort George, of itself should vindicate the usefulness of this institute.

A paper by Milton Moore on sustained-yield forest management.

A paper on the economic theory of mineral leasing and the case for government involvement in mineral exploration, which I happen to think is not a terribly good case, but it's perfectly proper to have it made. It should be argued.

Anthony Scott and Peter Pearse as authors of papers, and authors which will not come as any strangers to this House, particularly the distinguished Dr. Peter Pearse, currently sole commissioner to our forest industry: "On British Columbia Water Law and Allocation" — one of our most precious resources; this was a paper written and printed under the auspices of this institute which is to be phased out by this bill facing us tonight.

A paper by Gerald Walter entitled "Community Centre Regional Growth" and another programme of theses and dissertations support a programme, Mr. Speaker, clearly not generally capable of such spectacular results as the works of better-known authors, but, in terms of the value of seed money, capable of contributing mightily to the academic performance in the economic field in this province.

I challenge the minister, if he chooses to close second reading: which of these reports has he read? Which of these people has he met with? How much time has he spent with institute staff? How many conferences has he attended? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the proper answer will be a phrase that I learned when I was studying mathematics at university. It's a concept which is called "almost zero". Maybe not quite zero; the minister may have waved to the director of the institute one day as either the director or the minister was riding his bicycle to work, and that's probably about the size of it.

There is a clear need in our province for an independent body which will perform certain functions in the economic field. First of all it will provide public information about economics, because failing that, Mr. Speaker, information in the economic field tends to be locked up within government service, brought forward only by the grace and favour of the government in ways to suit them, and in order to prove theories and propositions that they put forward. It may be awkward to have a counter-bureaucracy in the economic sense abroad in the land, but it's likely to lead to better advice and better conclusions.

A public body of this kind can provide for debate on economic issues through the kinds of conferences I have cited — debate of a level of complexity and depth and technicality that, in the absence of a functioning committee system in this Legislature, it is difficult to carry on in any other way in this province. That mechanism is being shafted this evening, being put down the tube by the government opposite.

It can provide for a specific economic institution with a focus on British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, our problems are but partially dealt with by the great national institutions such as the Economic Council of Canada, or the publications put out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, or the C.D. Howe Research Institute, or any of these other great national bodies that look at things in Canada on the large scale.

We in British Columbia have a very specialized economy. It's a natural resource-based economy. It's an economy that has an enormously large trade with the rest of the world, and with the rest of Canada, and it's an economy that has a very strong balance of payments. It's an economy moreover that, perhaps, puts more into the Confederation barrel than it takes out, and it's exactly this kind of body, the Institute for Economic Policy Analysis, that can undertake the kinds of studies to indicate those things that are peculiar to the British Columbia economy, and indicate how we can benefit from those peculiarities, problems and opportunities.

I have here a file of studies done by this institute. I'm somewhat tempted by the offer of the hon.

[ Page 1047 ]

minister, or the challenge of the hon. Minister of Health, to read at some length from them. Look at this one here which hasn't been mentioned yet in the list of publications to date, because some of these publications have been released very recently: "Future Coking Coal Prices and the Economies of British Columbia Coal."

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a tremendous amount from the Premier of this province and the Minister of Economic Development about the importance of the coal industry to our province, and as Your Honour will realize, most of our export coal is metallurgical coal, destined for the coke ovens of Japan. Future coking coal prices are important to our province. Here we have a scholarly study on it. You aren't going to get that anywhere else at twice the price, Mr. Minister.

"Mineral Leasing and Taxation" — good advice on how not to put royalties on the mineral properties.

Another title here: "Exclusionary Municipal Policies in the Supply of Housing," by Geoffrey Young. I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) were in his seat because I know how concerned he is about these subjects, and how hard he is working to devise policies which will encourage municipalities to free up their policies — these policies here described as exclusionary — and more ably permit the introduction of housing within their boundaries, as the inexorable growth of British Columbia continues, at least in the absence of a growth policy by the current government.

Another paper: "Labour Productivity Technology and Capital; Labour Substitution in B.C. Metal Mining." Surely this is of interest to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), a scholarly minister, and I would assume he's read it. I'll send you a copy, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEA: Don't bother — he can't read.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know it all, eh?

MR. GIBSON: I can't believe that any ministers on that side would consider themselves so wise that they could not wish to read any kind of advice from any reasonably scholarly quarter. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they even listen to their backbenchers on these subjects.

MR. LEA: It sounds like it.

MR. GIBSON: So I think that any additional scholarly input they can achieve has to be of merit.

"Full Employment and the Environment" — another title — "A Review of the Report of the British Columbia Copper Task Force." Reference to this particular paper was made by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). He made it quite clear in his remarks that this review was one that was not congenial to the conclusions of the previous government. This is additional evidence which may be adduced that this was not a socialist institute; this was a group that was trying to be a straightforward, objective institute and let the chips fall where they may, no matter what was the government in power.

MR. LEA: That's what they are afraid of.

MR. GIBSON: I have to inquire of myself, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member says, if this is indeed what they are afraid of, because nothing can be more terrifying to a group of people who are sure they know the answers than somebody else who might rigorously question those answers that they are sure they know, or, on occasion, prove them wrong. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that nothing will more fully contribute to the longevity of a government than the ability to receive good advice, and, in the first instance, the fortitude to underwrite the research that goes into providing good advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure did for us.

MR. GIBSON: I don't think you took all the advice you got there. (Laughter.)

If the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) were here, it would be possible for him to rise in his place before this debate concluded and tell us to what extent he found the survey of the B.C. ferry pricing system a useful one.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for Mackenzie says that it was obnoxious. That's because perhaps, hon. member, it reached conclusions different than you might have, or different than other hon. members in this House might have. But that's not the question. The question is not whether or not the work of this research group agrees with what any of us say. It remains always to the government, and ultimately to members of this House, to say: "We'll take that or we'll leave it." That's one of the inputs. But let it remain as one of the inputs; don't remove it entirely from the field, because I say to hon. members opposite, you aren't so smart that you don't need some advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: There is not a government on the face of this fair earth that doesn't need some advice. Your government will be no different, and it will last no longer than your ability to receive advice, and to provide the mechanisms of advice in the first instance.

[ Page 1048 ]

1 used the word "bush league" in my opening remarks about the minister's statement which consisted of one line saying: "I move second reading of Bill 14." I suggest that any province the size of British Columbia, and with the problems of British Columbia, that does not have an independent economic advisory institution qualifies for that description in the same way that the terms in which the budget speech was couched qualified for that description.

I say that the number of things that can be studied by such a body are legion. The terms of reference of the existing institution may have been too narrow. They may have been too closely related to natural resource industries. There was, in particular, no mandate to search a field and say, how can we in British Columbia, as our economy develops, diversify and look for other ways for our people to make their living upon this earth. Because, Mr. Speaker, one of the central facts....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Some things are printable and some not.

One of the central facts of our economy is that our natural resource base is not expanding at the rate that's required to provide for our growth in terms of employment.

We know, despite the best efforts of the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — and I wish him very well — that our mining industry in this province is in great difficulty and in a no-growth situation, except for the coal sector.

We know that our forest industry, despite the best efforts of the same minister — and again I wish him well — is in a no-growth situation because of our high costs, and in between those two industries, Mr. Speaker, you have well over 50 cents of every dollar in this province. Yet we are growing at 3 per cent a year. So where are the new jobs to come from? That's a challenge for the minister who has introduced this bill, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). That minister, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, needs every little bit of economic advice that he can possibly find, and here he is taking one of the sources of economic advice and, if I may strain a metaphor, wringing its neck with an ill-chosen phrase at the beginning of the debate.

I think that what the minister is proposing to do in this bill is very, very improper, and I note with interest that the institute is to continue until October 1. That's a continuation to October 1 of a group that was set up on the basis of a perpetual fund, a group that's had one year of real operation, has produced some good results, and perhaps some bad results. I'm not going to judge the academic merits of what they put forth. But results were there where there were none before, and I say to this minister that it is tremendously improper to remove this source of advice while proposing absolutely nothing in its place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Himself!

MR. GIBSON: One of the hon. members is suggesting that the minister is putting himself in the place of the institute. I can hardly believe that the minister, competent as he is.... I would suggest that hon. members opposite consider that statement carefully before they applaud.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have!

MR. GIBSON: I said competent as he is... could really put himself in the place of a detached, objective group of people who are able to take some time back from the hurly-burly of politics and look at problems on reference from the minister or the Premier or anyone in this province who has reason to believe that there are fundamental economic problems which ought to be examined. The minister cannot put himself in the place of such a group.

Mr. Speaker, I beg of the minister to reconsider in this particular case. If he does not, the loser will, I fear, not be the government, because the government won't be around long enough to feel the long-range effects of this kind of move. The loser certainly will not be the opposition, except in the sense that we are all British Columbians. But that is the sense that we are all British Columbians. But that is the sense in which I plead to that minister: that all British Columbians require, because of the unusual nature of our economy, because of the nature of the problems and the nature of the potential, some kind of economic group standing to the side with the opportunity of receiving advice and putting forth opinions of a broad spectrum, not just the opinions that are congenial to the government of the day, not just the opinions of the Social Credit government or the New Democratic government or, God willing, a Liberal government in the fullness of time — not just those.

MR. LEA: Gordon, you've convinced me; I'm going to vote for you.

MR. GIBSON: You'll only have to wait three years. (Laughter.)

Not just those, but rather a broader spectrum of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, with all of these things said, I will say once again to the minister....

Who said aye? That's not my vote — not by any means. My vote is that it's 11 o'clock.

[ Page 1049 ]

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, I am still speaking, but it's 11 o'clock. I think, Mr. Speaker, that somehow because the Premier has a different angle on the clock — he is looking at it from the right, which is characteristic of that government — that he doesn't feel that it's 11 o'clock. But I am quite prepared to give quotations to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who earlier on requested them....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I surrender. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Well, I will just draw attention to be clock, because that's sufficient of itself.

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.