[ Page 1203 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Oral questions

Status of Ralph Gillen with ICBC. Mr. Barrett — 1204

Public service collective bargaining structure study. Mr. Wallace — 1205

Lay representation on Legal Services Commission. Mr. Macdonald — 1205

Joint housing committee hearings. Mr. Skelly — 1206

Elk hunting rights. Mrs. Wallace — 1206

Beer price increase. Mr. Macdonald — 1206

RCMP evidence-gathering methods. Mr. Wallace — 1206

Rent controls. Mr. Barnes — 1207

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 4).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1207

Mr. King — 1208

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1216

Mr. Lauk — 1220

Mr. Barrett — 1224

Mr. Stupich — 1230

Mr. Skelly — 1233

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 1236

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it will interest members to know that in the gallery today we have Prof. Matthew Smith and Mr. Douglas King, a student, from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. They are here interviewing members of the Legislature and other people in British Columbia in relation to an analysis of the 1972 election in British Columbia and the result. They might find more interest in the '75 election, but I think they'll do that later. I'd ask all members to give them a warm welcome.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to finally have my wife, Elizabeth, attend here in the gallery, and I have a sister, Helen Barr, visiting me from Cranbrook. The two young ladies are right up there, Pat. I would appreciate very much if the House would welcome them.

I also have one constituent, Elizabeth Caldwell, from Cranbrook, and Cheryl Watts, from Penticton, I think she comes from the Minister of Agriculture's part of the constituency. Would the House please welcome them here?

If I may, I also have an announcement I'd like to make. I'm quite proud of this. The East Kootenay Old Timers' Hockey Association of Kimberley, B.C., which is in the great constituency of Kootenay, won their final game last night in Saint John, New Brunswick, and became the National Old Timers champions, according to a message I've just received from Mr. Bud Buckle, of the East Kootenay Old Timers' Hockey Association. They were awarded the prestigious Heritage Cup, symbolic of the National Old Timers Competition. Dick Vincent, Chuck Passmore and Pick Beatty scored the goals that led the team to a 3-1 win over the team from Dundas, Ontario.

This Old Timers' hockey team was able to compete in the competition thanks to an assistance — it was a small assistance — of a $1,000 grant made available to them by the province of British Columbia through the Provincial Secretary.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have two visitors in the gallery today — Mrs. Ellison, from Richmond, and Mrs. Thomas, from Saanich and the Islands. I'd ask the House to make them welcome, please.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of the House will be saddened to learn that the mother of one of the members of our House has passed away. I would like, on behalf of the members, to extend our sincere sympathy to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) who has lost her mother, Mrs. Mary Gilmore.

Introduction of bills.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Bill 17, Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at, the next sitting of the House after today.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 8, intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House having in charge Bill 8.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant — Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 1204 ]

Oral questions.

STATUS OF RALPH GILLEN WITH ICBC

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Minister of Education a question regarding the Crown corporation of which he is one of the official spokespersons. I'd like to ask the minister if there is a contractual relationship between Mr. Gillen and ICBC, or if his employment was handled by an internal memo.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It was handled by a minute of the board of ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to table with the House the minutes of that particular board meeting?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be delighted to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to ask the minister if the money that Mr. Gillen received is paid to MacMillan Bloedel or to Mr. Gillen.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's paid to Mr. Gillen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Gillen have a leave of absence from MacMillan Bloedel for the time that he receives the money that he's being paid from ICBC, or is that a matter of concern to the minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's a matter for MacMillan Bloedel.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. There has to be some limit to the number of supplementary questions that we can allow in order to allow other people to enter into the debate. I am prepared to take a final supplementary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to supplementaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dowding set the precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a limit, hon. member, to the number of times I can recognize a member on supplementals when it's obvious other people would like to get into the debate as well. I've been fairly generous, I think you'll have to agree.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but I'd like to know what rule says there is a limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dowding's rules.

MR. BARRETT: What is the limit?

MR. SPEAKER: In Ottawa it would be two.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not in Ottawa; I'm in Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: In Victoria it's a matter of whether the subject has been exhausted...

MR. BARRETT: That's for me to determine.

MR. SPEAKER: ...or whether it's a matter that the Speaker determines that there are other people who wish to get into the debate as well at this time.

MR. BARRETT: But the number of supplementals is up to the member to determine.

MR. SPEAKER: It's up to the Speaker to determine, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: What rule, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you'd better read the rules of question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister: was there any discussion with Mr. Gillen as to the expected hours of work or time to put in for the $3,750-per-month stipend?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I've explained, it's in lieu of directors' fees of $250 a day, which was the rate set under the former administration. Mr. Speaker, we didn't want to have the kinds of situations that developed under the NDP where some people who were former directors were making five times and of that order during one month, working for ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. member for Oak Bay, unless he wishes to defer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll defer to the member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Education and the minister responsible

[ Page 1205 ]

for ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor on.a question.

MR. KING: Could the Minister of Education inform the House as to whether Mr. Gillen, the director, receives any other gratuities in addition to the $3,700-per-month stipend?

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. McGEER: From ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: Does he pay his own car insurance, for example?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's just cheap. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. May I repeat for the Leader of the Opposition and for the former Minister of Labour that the objective is to put a cap on the fees that directors receive from the corporation? That's the sole objective of having a monthly limit in the lieu of directors' fees. As I say, the directors' fees were set under the NDP administration; we saw fit not to change them. But we did seek, because of former precedent, to put a cap on the amount that a director could receive.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister understood my question. I'm simply asking whether or not Mr. Gillen receives any other gratuities or any other payments whatsoever — any other benefits in addition to the $3,700-a-month stipend.

HON. MR. McGEER: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING STRUCTURE STUDY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary, with regard to the review of the public service collective bargaining structure being carried out by Mr. Richard Higgins, a public service employee presently on pre-retirement leave, if Mr. Higgins was appointed by order-in-council and what his terms of reference were.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Higgins was brought in as a consultant to the Government Employee Relations Board and to the Public Service Commission to give a report on the new legislation which was put through the House last year. As a consultant giving that advice, it was not through order-in-council but by an order through my office.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary? The minister did not mention whether he is on pre-retirement leave, but this is my understanding. Can the minister tell the House what stipend Mr. Higgins will receive for his study and over what period of time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will have to bring that information to the House, Mr. Speaker, and I'd be pleased to do so. Those arrangements were made through my deputy and I can't give it to you right off the top, but I'd be glad to bring it to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I presume that Mr. Higgins is receiving some payment while on pre-retirement leave. I'd like to ask the minister if this conflicts with the policy outlined in a memorandum which the minister sent to all members of cabinet discouraging the practice of double-funding where consultants such as university professors are drawing salaries both from the university and from the government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I'd like to take the question as notice because, as I say, I don't have the information at hand. I'd be very pleased to bring it back to the House.

LAY REPRESENTATION ON
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. In view of the appointment of Wilfred John Wallace, Q.C. and a bencher, to the Legal Services Commission, making four lawyers on the commission now and only one lay representative or public representative, is this appointment made as a replacement for Walter Young, who was a public representative? If so, is that not certainly contrary to the intention of the Act to have lay representation there?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): The appointment was made to fill a vacancy, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: As a supplementary, I put it to the Attorney-General that under the Act the intention is that there would be two public representatives there, and that the appointment of a bencher, since the law society already appoints two, is in breach of the Act. You're destroying lay representation on the Legal Services Commission, the public watchdogs, and putting it in the hands of the profession. That's the question.

[ Page 1206 ]

MR. BARRETT: We have enough lawyers. Check the law.

JOINT HOUSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: will the minister be willing to table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee report?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll take the matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: As a supplementary, the minister has taken this matter under advisement previously. I wonder if the minister would also be willing to table the expenses of the joint provincial UBCM committee on housing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be possible for me to provide the member with the expenses incurred by the MLAs who served on the committee. The UBCM expenses, however, were borne by that organization. You would have to obtain those from that group.

ELK HUNTING RIGHTS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. It relates to what I understand is to be an opening-up of hunting rights for elk in the North Island area and in the Nanaimo Lakes area. I understand that some guides and some of the people in the fish and game society have been advised of this and that the normal procedure for hunters to get this information is in the game regulations. Now is the minister intending to do any public advertising in order to ensure that all hunters will have an equal opportunity to participate?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I thank the member for the question. I'll take the matter as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, while he is looking into that, would also find out where the draw will be held and when, whether or not it will be a public draw, and whether or not the winners will be announced.

BEER PRICE INCREASE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: in view of the announced increase in the price of beer, has the minister undertaken any real examination of the profits of the brewing companies before authorizing that increase? Secondly, why has he not absorbed it in view of the tremendous increase in, revenues for the liquor administration branch in this so-called period of restraint?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the increases to the beer industry were granted only after extensive investigations, and I think I have absorbed enough beer without absorbing any more.

MR, MACDONALD: I have a supplementary for the minister. Who made the investigation? Who did the checking of the books of the brewery companies? Did you have any independent appraisal?

HON. MR. MAIR: The whole question was canvassed to the satisfaction of my department and, in particular, the general manager of the liquor distribution section.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary: is 50 cents a barrel going back into Social Credit campaign funds, as it used to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I certainly will! It's true! It's absolutely true!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll say it outside the House!

RCMP EVIDENCE-GATHERING METHODS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Orrrrrder! (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, if I could just get the Attorney-General's attention — he seems a little agitated today — since he promised us a report by February 21 about the very serious allegations in relation to RCMP techniques and he said he was still not in possession of the complete information, can he tell the House when we might anticipate that information will be available?

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I mentioned yesterday, as soon as possible. I still don't have it, sir. When it arrives I'll let you know.

[ Page 1207 ]

RENT CONTROLS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): This is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has indicated that he has discussed the matter of rent control removal with the federal Minister of Urban Affairs, and he indicates that his cabinet committee may report its findings in April. I'm wondering if the minister has also consulted with local tenant groups that also have an interest in the removal of rent controls and if he could explain to the House who these committees are.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of rent control is a matter of government policy, and I'm not in the position to enunciate government policy at this stage.

HON. MR. MeGEER: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) regarding a Mr. Godfrey and I wonder whether I might be permitted to reply now.

Mr. Godfrey appeared before the legislative committee in Ontario as a private citizen. He did not make ICBC aware of the nature of the testimony he would give. He did not present any report to ICBC before or after. The management of ICBC is unable to confirm the substance of his testimony, either from knowledge of their own or from reports submitted by the gentleman, but that information is being sought at the present time and if it, indeed, is factual we would be pleased to pass it on to the House.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is always nice to be able to move second reading of a bill as popular as this British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977. Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to increase the borrowing authority of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $3.5 billion to $4.15 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to the members of the House in moving second reading of this bill to elucidate the major projects and their estimated costs for the forthcoming fiscal year 1977-78. These are as follows: first of all, Mica Creek. The underground powerhouse at Mica will ultimately house six generating units with a capacity of 2.61 million kilowatts. The first three generating units are planned for service in fiscal 1977. That work, plus the 500-kilovolt transmission lines from Mica to the greater Vancouver area, are expected to cost $50 million in the 1977-78 year.

Secondly, the Kootenay Canal. Mr. Speaker, this hydro-electric development includes a three-mile-long canal and an above-ground powerhouse with four 132,300-kilowatt generating units. The first two units are now in service and the other two are scheduled in fiscal 1977 at an estimated cost of $5 million.

Next is Site 1. This project is on the Peace River downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. Mr. Speaker, the main contract for dam and powerhouse construction and equipment installation has been awarded. This work, plus the transmission line preparation, is budgeted for $104 million in 1977-78.

Then there is Seven Mile. This project on the Pend-d'Oreille River includes a concrete dam and a surface powerhouse. Turbines and generators have been ordered, and a contract awarded for construction of the dam and powerhouse. Including the transmission preparation, $100 million is expected to be spent in 1977-78 on this project.

Then there is Hat Creek. Plans for development of certain coal reserves are underway, and an electric generating plant is to be constructed at a cost of $18 million in 1977-78.

Next, other generation facilities make up $16 million in 1977-78. Other additions in transmission facilities, including the Williston-Skeena line in 1977-78, make up $81 million. Transformation substations all over the province to break down the power from high voltage to subtransmission and distribution voltage as part of the general system expansion in 1977-78 amount to $105 million.

Upgrading of distribution circuits all over the province to accommodate the growth in 1977-78 amount to $84 million. Other electric facilities, communication and control at laboratories, and service centres amount to $70 million. Gas facility plant additions are $42 million, estimated. Transportation and miscellaneous plant additions in 1977-78 amount to $33 million.

Mr. Speaker, this is an estimated list of the major projects and their estimated costs for the coming fiscal year. At this time, $161,456,000 of the present borrowing authority remains. This amount, plus the additional sum proposed in this bill, will enable the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to proceed with its projects and leave a minimal borrowing power available for any unforeseen events.

There has been some discussion recently over the forecast rate of demand for electricity as to the accuracy of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's forecast when compared with that of the

[ Page 1208 ]

British Columbia Energy Commission. I am advised that the difference in the two forecasts is due to British Columbia Energy Commission's inclusion of other utilities and private industrial generation, and their starting from a higher base estimate.

Without arguing which is right at the moment, both estimates agree that from 1976 to the year 1986 the gross energy requirement will rise from about 26,000 billion kilowatt hours now to about 52,000 billion kilowatt hours in 1986.

MR. WALLACE: In 1986.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In 1986. It is apparent from these figures that the electricity capacity will have to double in the 10-year period to meet the demand.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's electric system expansion programme is designed to handle the anticipated demand and is based on the most economic sequence of plant additions to meet the probable forecast. The programme has been tested against various water conditions and thermal capacities. The government believes in having a borrowing restriction in the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act so that any increase must come before this House. The Authority actually requested a greater increase but, after study, the government is only prepared to recommend this amount of $650 million to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, with demand for electricity continuing to grow, it is essential that the Authority be provided with sufficient borrowing power to enable it to carry out the necessary projects to meet the expected demand. Any shortage of power would adversely effect not only industry and employment, but also all persons in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the Minister of Finance's opening remarks with respect to the justification for what is a two-line bill. Just two lines essentially compose this bill which provides for an increase in the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro of some $150 million. No, it's $3.5 billion to $4 billion — I beg your pardon.

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. I was most interested to hear the Minister of Finance's justification for this application to the Legislature to authorize yet greater Hydro borrowing authority. The Minister of Finance introduced a whole variety of projects into this discussion which, he claims, justify the application for increased borrowing power.

He talked about the Revelstoke Canyon Dam and he talked about the Mica Creek Dam, both on the Columbia River. He talked about the Seven Mile Canyon Dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River, and a variety of other power developments which we have only received any indication of now. There is nothing contained in the bill to explain the nature of the need for this increased borrowing power.

The bill has been on the order paper for some time, but there's certainly nothing in the bill to give any indication to members of the opposition in this House as to what purpose that borrowing power was sought. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's a disservice to this House — and particularly to the opposition — to ask them to prepare for and to indulge in debate on something as significant as this and something that certainly generates very, very broad public interest throughout the province of British Columbia, without any prior indication of just what the borrowing power is sought for.

The minister has introduced in his remarks a wide variety of projects which he now indicates justify this borrowing power. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's not only discourteous to the opposition,, but it's irresponsible in terms of the minister's obligation to provide for adequate public debate on an issue such as this.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in participating in this debate because the minister dealt with a number of projects that reside not only in my riding, but virtually on my doorstep in the city of Revelstoke. So I'm quite prepared to indulge in the discussion of the proposition before the House that the borrowing power of Hydro be yet increased an enormous amount to the detriment of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'm prepared to indulge in this debate — for a couple of hours in any event.

Perhaps the most distressing thing about this blanket request for virtually unlimited borrowing power is that it's for that great bureaucracy over in Vancouver, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority — even the very name of it strikes one with awe, as some all-powerful bureaucracy that is out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I was very, very interested in comments made by the Premier of the province, just a month or so ago, when he indicated in a speech — I believe it was up in Cranbrook — that he too was concerned about the unyielding and the unwieldy and the uncontrollable bureaucracy that is British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

The Premier indicated that the corporation was virtually out of control, not really accountable to the government, and certainly not accountable to the public of the province of British Columbia. That's a profound thing for the Premier of the province to say, Mr. Speaker. I find it extremely curious when the Premier gives that kind of indication in a statement, presumably a statement of concern that the government has to do something to take over some control of B.C. Hydro to the extent that it is made accountable to the people of the province of British Columbia, and not an authority unto itself. I find it inconsistent with that intimation that the Premier

[ Page 1209 ]

gave when I find a bill before the House that proposes to allow the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to increase their borrowing power from $3.5 billion to $4.15 billion.

The Premier is, on the one hand, espousing his concern that here is a runaway bureaucracy out of control. Yet he's prepared to come into this House through one of his ministers and in subservient fashion allow this giant corporation to increase its imposed debt, which is a millstone around the neck of the people of British Columbia because they must stand behind and guarantee that debt, Mr. Speaker. This is of grave concern to me.

1 would have much preferred to see the Premier, in light of his position and in light of his concern, come before the Legislature and tell us what he is going to do, what he and his government intend to do to bring this giant albatross under control. There has been no such statement, no such indication, that the government is, in fact, prepared to grapple with the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and make it sensitive and accountable to the public of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no other agency in Canada, certainly no other agency in the province of British Columbia, that has the kind of arbitrary power possessed by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Believe me, I've had a great deal of experience with that agency. I represent a riding in this province which I think has been subjected to more disruption, social and economic, more despoilation of the land and the environment than any other single area in the province. The entire project of the Columbia River Treaty took place within the boundaries of my riding, affecting the Arrow Lakes, affecting the Columbia River, affecting the Duncan Lake and the Kootenay Lake through the Duncan Dam, and certainly affecting the upper reaches of the Columbia River north of Revelstoke with the construction of the Mica Creek Dam.

What price the generation of power? What price the provision, Mr. Speaker, of flood control for our American neighbours south of the border? What price, in terms of British Columbia land and disruption to our citizens, the provision of irrigation potential to our neighbours south of the border? These were the inherent issues in the Columbia River Treaty. As a result of what I honestly believe to be the largest and most scandalous sellout in the history of this nation — not only this province — we have, through the Columbia River Treaty, surrendered for all time effective control of one of the major waterways in this nation.

The result has not been creation of jobs in British Columbia, the creation of any new industry within the area affected, the protection of our right to control the river, the enhancement of any of our agricultural areas. In fact, conversely, Mr. Speaker, those are the very factors that have accrued as benefits to our American neighbours south of the border.

I think it's good and appropriate that from time to time in this Legislature those people who perhaps were not here during the days of the debate and the discussion of the great Columbia River scandal should be reminded. Because today we have witnessed the development of pulp mills and aluminum plants on the periphery of the Columbia River directly south of the 49th parallel, some 14 of them, all based on the increased power generated through the flood control and the water storage in British Columbia. We have witnessed the irrigation and development of a vast new arable area south of the border, based on the continuity of our water storage and the steady flow to the American south, which has come into competition with our Okanagan Valley in terms of provision of garden produce and fruit, all of which was impossible.

I am the designated speaker and I intend to be here for an unlimited period of time, in conformity with the rules of this House.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I don't think I could really tell the story as well as Ran Harding, quite frankly, my friend. But I was there. I know many of the people who were disrupted. Perhaps to one who represents West Vancouver–Howe Sound it's hard to understand; it's hard to understand the feelings of a farmer who was faced with expropriation from a little farm down in the Arrow Lakes somewhere. He had farmed there for 40 years, raised a family and found it a fine way of life. He arbitrarily had his land seized from him and, if he failed to agree with the price offered by this monstrosity called British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, on more than one occasion, my friend, these people had their barns pushed down and set fire to. They were burned out and then challenged to go to court for redress. Mr. Speaker, that is the arrogant fashion in which British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority dealt with people in my riding.

I am not quite as articulate as my predecessor, Randolph Harding, who was the MLA in this House for many, many years. He was one of the best debaters who ever sat in this Legislature. I only wish I were. Sometimes I become stuck for words, but I am not stuck for emotion, Mr. Speaker, because I've witnessed many of these things. I've fought for many of the people who are adversely affected in this way in the hopes of finding fair treatment and fair redress for them. Believe it or not, many of those disputes are still going on and have not been settled as yet. Under these circumstances I find it extremely galling that I am asked to stand in this House and vote for the increase of further, almost unlimited, borrowing

[ Page 1210 ]

power to that Dracula which squeezed the life out of healthy farming areas in my riding. In arrogant fashion, in steamroller fashion, it rolled over their private property rights, bulldozed down their buildings and set them afire.

1 can recall on one occasion, Mr. Speaker, going down to visit an old gentleman in his 70s who had raised his family on a little plot of land, perhaps 20 acres or so, and being met with a shotgun because he thought I was a Hydro representative. And here was the spectre of a little old gentleman, a veteran of the First World War, who raised his family and had a sentimental attachment to the property. He had a good life. But his rights were not recognized; his rights were not dealt with in any sensitive fashion.

Let me tell you what the formula was. Hydro would come in and make an offer. They would tell the individual who owned the farm or the property: "We've visited all of your neighbours in this area and they have come to an agreement, so you are the last one we are dealing with." That wouldn't be true at all. That wouldn't be true, and yet here's a government agency, dealing like some Mississippi riverboat trader, actually telling falsehoods to people so they could get a superior lever in bargaining for the value of that property. And they would tell him: "Okay, this is our final offer, and you have two ways to go. Either you can submit to the offer that we have made for your land or you can go to court."

There were a few who tried to go to court, Mr. Speaker. But it's pretty obvious when an agency like B.C. Hydro has in their continuous employ soil analysts, hydrologists, engineers, a battery of lawyers, accountants — the whole range of professional expertise which is necessary to support their claim — some poor farmer, some poor homeowner, hasn't got the chance of the proverbial snowball in the Arrow Lakes. No way can he afford to buy the professional expertise that would put him on an equal judicial footing with that agency, that overpowering agency that threatens and jeopardizes his right to the enjoyment of personal property. No way!

So most of the people got the message. They surrendered and succumbed to the pressure of Hydro, this public agency that victimized citizens. And do you know what? In that Social Credit era the landholder didn't even have the right to sue Hydro, not without first coming to the affable Attorney-General. I think you know, my friends, that it's the same Attorney-General who was in office at that time who somehow coincidentally now is the chairman of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. There seems to be some affinity between Social Credit Attorneys-General and British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

My friend who is the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) used to rail loud and long in this House about the injustice and the impropriety of an aggrieved citizen having to come to that, Attorney-General of the province to ask for a fiat, the right to sue the Crown, to recover their damages and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a great speech.

MR. KING: Yes, it was one of the great speeches that the Attorney-General used to make, and I compliment him for that. But that was when he was a Liberal, Mr. Speaker. He had a heart then, he cared a little bit about people. He left his heart behind him. He carried it on his sleeve for a while between this side of the House and that, but as soon as he got to the other side, it fell off his sleeve even.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How long are you going to be nice, Bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: About six seconds.

MR. KING: I hope my friend is recovering from that stab wound.

Mr. Speaker, these are the things that gall me. It was a personal experience which I, quite frankly, will never forget. I want you to know that I do not exaggerate. There are many, many people in my riding, up and down the Arrow Lakes, in the riding of Nelson-Crest on and in the riding of Rossland-Trail, who can substantiate and quote chapter and verse of the raw, inhumane, overbearing treatment which they received from that huge, unyielding, insensitive bureaucracy. I just find it shocking that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) comes into this House and with a few short comments — kind of a blase introduction — asks for the right to increase the borrowing power of that institution by $500 million He made no government statement on how the government is going to move to make the institution more accountable.

There are many other areas, Mr. Speaker, that concern me. This is the only agency in Canada that I know of — certainly the only agency in the province of British Columbia — that has the right to increase their monthly rates to consumers, be they domestic residential consumers or be they corporate consumers, without ever having to go before any board or tribunal and justify their right to increase rates. I ask the government members: does anyone on that side know of any other agency that is in that admirable position? Certainly the railroads are not; certainly not truck lines or any other business that I know of. They have to go before the Motor Carrier Commission. They have to go before some independent agency to show just cause and to provide reasonably well-documented and accountable reasons why they can justify a cost increase to consumers But B.C. Hydro doesn't.

[ Page 1211 ]

We have the man who used to protect them when he was Attorney-General. I don't think he ever did issue a fiat, which was an application for the right to sue against B.C. Hydro; I don't believe he ever did. Now he's the chairman of that vast octopus. Although the Premier rails that it's out of control, we see the same players, the same scenario that occurred when the Duncan Lake Dam was being constructed, when the Keenleyside Dam was being constructed and when the Mica Dam was being constructed.

We have the potential for precisely the same re-run. The same scenario is developing again. The man who was then Attorney-General is now chairman of the octopus. The man who used to condemn him for lack of respect for the judicial process has moved from the Liberals to the coalition and is now the Attorney-General who is going to support and protect the new chairman of B.C. Hydro. What a sweet little game it is, Mr. Speaker.

But I ask: what about the people of British Columbia? What about those people who have their lifestyle jeopardized, who have their very community jeopardized, by yet another major construction project undertaken by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority? I don't know how many of you are aware of what the circumstances of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam are. The Little Dalles Canyon is about three miles out of the city centre of Revelstoke. The proposal is to build a dam at that location which will raise the reservoir elevation to 1,880 feet — almost 86 miles of reservoir backed up to Mica Dam.

Many of us were concerned in that community, primarily with respect to safety because we have seen the failure of other dams over the past few years — the Vajont Dam in Italy, the dam in Idaho last year, I believe it was. In other parts of the world there have been dam failures too.

It's hard to use any focal point in this building which would give people- some indication of the height of that reservoir level looming over the city of Revelstoke, two miles or three miles from city centre, but if you said it would be something at least twice as high as the parliament buildings, that would give you some appraisal of the body of water that is looming over the city. I think we have some justification in that community for being concerned with respect to the absolutely safest and most assured engineering processes that could be developed prior to undertaking construction. That's one concern.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have many other concerns. Revelstoke is a small city — about 9,000 people in total — and here we now face the potential of an influx of about 4,000 workers, at the height of the dam construction, in addition to their families and their children, and while we in Revelstoke are a friendly community and certainly welcome people and growth, the reality is that that puts pressures on the taxation ability of the community, which we can in no way face and shoulder, with respect to accommodating educational needs; with respect to accommodating new homes; with respect to the hard-core services, such as sewers and the provision of water; with respect to recreation and cultural opportunities for a spectacular population increase such as that. We were concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I spent almost three weeks last year at the water licence hearings in the city of Revelstoke helping to put the case of our community before the water comptroller when he received testimony with respect to Hydro's application for a water licence to construct the dam.

I would like to read into the record some of the contents of the brief that I submitted to the water comptroller at that time, Mr. Speaker:

"Safety of the community. The paramount concern which I hold with respect to the application before you relates to the hazard some 40 miles upstream from the proposed dam site identified as the Downie Slide. Ample data exists at your disposal describing the history, volume, movement, and geological makeup of this slide. Its very existence, and Hydro's attention to it, has inevitably created, and will continue to create, concern and anxiety for those living downstream should this water licence be granted. Just how real and justified the basis for this concern is becomes the crucial question which you, as provincial water comptroller, must consider in deciding upon the application before you.

"While a layman political representative of the people in this constituency, I am also conscious of the imperfection of virtually all scientific disciplines in use today. Medical science can weigh and analyse data relating to disease and physical deficiencies, but there are few absolutes. Invariably conflicting professional opinions can be readily found with respect to the interpretation of data in the medical science field. The same imprecise field of varying opinion exists within the engineering profession. Without any intent of being unduly cynical or implying distrust, it is noteworthy that qualified experts, with appropriate credentials, seem readily available to support the objectives and viewpoints of those who retain them.

"Indeed, the retention of qualified professionals in widely varied fields has become the hallmark of numerous court cases and trials in modern society. Just as surely as the prosecution establishes the expert status of a witness to support their case, the defence usually finds little difficulty in obtaining a similarly well-qualified expert to repudiate his conclusions. Unfortunately, the balance

[ Page 1212 ]

attained in the judicial system is absent in the application at hand. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is similar to the prosecutor in that they are initiating the action. Accordingly, they have had unrestricted opportunity to obtain expert specialists to validate and support the proposed dam construction proposal with respect to technical and safety considerations.

"Conversely, the people in this area, who might be likened to the defence, have not had access to the technical data until a few short weeks ago, and hence have been deprived of the opportunity to retain experts for private analysis in support of any objections. Indeed, the local body politic lacks the means and financial wherewithal to retain the variety of specialists necessary in any event.

"The aforementioned circumstances are drawn to your attention so that you might recognize the natural disadvantage in which the community and its representatives are placed in pursuing the duty to effectively represent community interest. A rather bitter irony attends the community's inability to afford the independent technical and professional expertise which would match that of Hydro's staff and consultants. This irony relates to the fact that Hydro, as a public Crown corporation, has access to the tax dollars of all British Columbia citizens.

"In this instance, I submit that public policy conflicts with local preference and interest, and yet the aggrieved community is required, at least to some extent, to fund our adversary. There is an old adage, with reference to disputes, that holds that it is wise to disarm one's opponent. In the instant application, the people of Revelstoke cannot afford the sophisticated armaments enjoyed by their opponent. But at the same time, they are statutorily obliged to participate in funding the armament of their opponent. I know of no other situation where the ground rules for settling a conflict so seriously and deeply violate modern concepts of natural justice.

"In the realm of British jurisprudence the inequity of this procedure must surely predate the Magna Carta. Since the defence of our community is, to a large degree, rendered impotent by the system and procedure, an awesome responsibility falls to the provincial water comptroller. Only this office can take account of the imbalance inherent in the proceedings before this hearing in arriving at a judgment on the application. If I appear to be calling upon the judge and adjudicator to assist in the defence of our community, the impression is correct. The feeling of futility and inevitability held by large numbers of local people can only be assuaged by strong independent action in your response to this application."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to read the whole submission. But I think the point should be made that the whole procedure by which B.C. Hydro and Power Authority determines energy priorities in this province and by which they undertake specific construction priorities and sites is one that is completely arbitrary. It is one that is completely inequitable. It is one that provides no fair basis to the affected people in the affected area to do an adequate job of representing their own community interest. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government has an obligation to change the ground rules.

The Premier has recognized that this is a bureaucracy out of control. He has tacitly admitted that they are accountable to no one. Certainly the history is clear from the area I represent. Certainly the history is clear from the results of the water licence hearings held in Revelstoke this year, where virtually every community group did not oppose the project per se. I did not oppose the project per se, because the Columbia River had already been destroyed anyway. I simply sought assurance that the people I represent in that community should first be protected beyond any reasonable doubt and, within the realm of the best and most sure engineering principles possible, that their safety was guaranteed, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, that there be a system of justice in terms of measuring the social, the economic and the environmental impact on that community which would oblige B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to provide proper and just mitigation for the damage that they inevitably wreak on the community. This is what we ask.

Mr. Speaker, I'm terribly disappointed to say that the water licence was granted — as everyone expected it would be. Instead of the independent arbitration agency that the city of Revelstoke requested, that I as the MLA for the community requested, and that virtually every interest group within that community requested — senior citizens, rod and gun clubs — we received no independent agency to adjudicate fair compensation and fair mitigation. We received, instead, a conditional approval of the water licence that will allow Hydro to undertake construction of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam.

We received that approval and, in an unprecedented move, the provincial water comptroller decided to retain unto himself the authority to act, in effect, as the arbitrator of any dispute that developed between the community — or between aggrieved citizens of that area — and the monolithic British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

I must ask the question, Mr. Speaker: does anyone

[ Page 1213 ]

in this House honestly believe that a public servant — despite his good intentions, despite the honour the man may possess personally — from within the water rights branch has the independence and the clout to make appraisals and adjudications that would impose any hardship on the policy of the government in the first instance and certainly on the policy of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in the second? I say nonsense; no public servant can stand in a truly independent and judicious fashion in that kind of situation.

The agency would have to be at arm's length from government, Mr. Speaker; it would have to be an agency composed of highly visible people from the community who had some experience in the judicial process, I believe, and who had some respect for the enormity of the disruption facing the community of Revelstoke.

But that is not what we received. We received simply a green light for B.C. Hydro to go ahead and build the dam with no reasonable assurance at all that damage to the community, demands on educational facilities, demands on the schools and the recreational and educational facilities and so on would be shared equally even by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. No such assurance.

Mr. Speaker, the most appalling and the most disturbing aspect to me was that Hydro was authorized to go ahead with construction of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam despite testimony relating to the Downie Creek Slide. And to give the House some indication of what Downie Creek Slide is all about, Mr. Speaker, I want to t, ell you that this slide exists at a point about 40 miles north of the dam site. It is a natural and long-existing slide location. It is an active slide; it is moving down the mountain about one foot a year. It's measurable. It contains, I believe, in the area of two billion cubic yards of material, extends 3,300 feet up the Selkirk Mountain, and it's approximately two miles across. It runs right to the Columbia River.

The fear and the concern of not only local residents but of competent engineers who took an interest in this project was that when the reservoir level is elevated to the 1,880-foot level, the toe of the slide would then become saturated with water. As a consequence, this would precipitate a very, very quick slippage 1nto the newly filled reservoir, with the potential of creating a tidal wave of gigantic proportions that could travel downstream in a matter of just a few minutes, top the dam and in all probability, due to the type of dam construction that is anticipated there — an earth-filled dam — there would be a 50-50 chance that the dam structure itself would collapse. This is one engineering point of view, and I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct one. But this is one point of view, supported by people who are professional engineers.

I also have engineering advice that if this calamity occurred, virtually every dam structure on the Columbia River chain would be wiped out between Revelstoke Canyon and the Pacific Oregon coast. This would mean some 14 dams south of the border in addition to the Revelstoke and Keenleyside Dams in British Columbia.

This, in my view, Mr. Speaker, as a possibility, however remote, poses the potential for one of the all-time world calamities — not only a disaster in terms of British Columbia history but, both in terms of potential loss of life and certainly in terms of property damage, one of the all-time calamities of world history.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority was so concerned about this slide that they brought in a special panel of engineers, world-renowned engineers all three of them, from the United States of America. All three had impeccable and undeniably unusual qualifications. That panel gave their opinion before the hearings in Revelstoke, and they were cross-examined by members of the community and parties of interest for many, many days. But the key to the whole thing was, Mr. Speaker, that the Downie Slide panel, however eminent, however brilliant, however experienced, dealt only with the assumption that the Downie Creek Slide could in fact be secured and stabilized from an engineering point of view.

I cross-examined the Downie Slide panel. I played lawyer, like my friend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . I asked them this question: without having a precise engineering plan for the stabilization of Downie Slide, can you guarantee that that slide would not be activated by filling the reservoir to the 1,880-foot level?

After about an hour and a half of insistence, all three members of that Downie Slide panel admitted to me that they could not give such assurance. They simply pointed out that from an engineering and technical viewpoint, the slide can be stabilized. I think from an engineering and technical point of view we can probably reach Jupiter. The question is: at what cost? At what point does the whole project become economically unfeasible because of the tremendous cost of stabilizing the Downie Slide?

There were indications given to the hearing by the Downie Creek Slide panel that drainage was the way to secure the slide, and that drainage tunnels to the extent of some 10 miles — as a minimum — would be required to stabilize the slide. This was an estimate because engineering work was not complete. There was an indication that additional work may have to be done at the toe of the slide to stabilize it. I forget what the engineering term is, but a more or less "blanket" of cement or something would be put over the toe of the slide to try to stabilize it. But there was no absolute assurance that any of these devices would

[ Page 1214 ]

represent the maximum output of funds necessary to do the job.

In effect, what we have is the water licence approval for construction of the Revelstoke Dam without any precise engineering plan completed, without any complete cost estimate regarding the stabilization, the securing, and the absolute safety of the Downie Slide. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is a strange way to do business. I submit that this is a strange basis upon which to grant a water licence to anyone. The water comptroller did grant the licence without ever seeing any engineering plan that was proposed to secure this slide and guarantee the safety of the downstream citizens. But he said that if the engineering plan, when it is ultimately designed, is not satisfactory, he will stop the projects.

Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a situation where the taxpayers' dollars of this province are squandered for a year in preparation for a dam site at Revelstoke Canyon without any assurance that the project will ever be completed? Either they are committed to going ahead and completing it at any cost, or there has to be a real possibility that out of respect for safety and respect for sound engineering principles, the cost of stabilizing Downie Creek Slide may be too high, and the whole project will have to be abandoned.

Talk about a white Social Credit elephant then. Perhaps the dam would be 200 feet high and sitting there. All the drilling and tunnelling would be done and the diversion of the river undertaken. Then the government and B.C. Hydro are telling me seriously — and telling the people of British Columbia seriously — that they have full regard for safety and engineering principles. But we're taking the chance that we'll be left in that position to allow B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to go ahead now on construction without ever having completed the engineering work to determine the cost of stabilizing Downie Creek Slide if, indeed, it can be stabilized at any cost.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a scandalous way to do business. It is no wonder that the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is being raised to the skies. It is no wonder that that monolithic, unyielding bureaucracy is arbitrarily increasing its rates two or three times a year, and imposing service charges, if you will, of $3. Carrying charges? What does he call them?

Interjection.

MR. KING: A $3 billing charge. A Social Credit coalition billing charge.

MR. BARRETT: A soak-the-elderly charge.

MR. KING: All of this without justifying their position before any agency. All of this to support and buy projects of the questionable nature which I have outlined to this House this afternoon. All of this based on a bill, Mr. Speaker, with two lines in it that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) comes and introduces with a few comments to this House.

How would you like half a billion dollars of the public money spent on a two-line bill without any justification or any explanation? I doubt if the Minister of Finance knows what it's all about.

Mr. Speaker, I've just given one side of the story as it affects my area. I could recite chapter and verse, and many of my colleagues could, from other parts of the province where other citizens face the disruption and loss of valuable farmland, the trammelling of their rights without redress to any reasonably independent and judicial agency to make sure that there is fair treatment and fair compensation.

B.C. Hydro reminds me of the mentality of the old west, when the rustler gang took control of the town and everyone had to knuckle under. It's the same kind of mentality; it's the same kind of respect for the law. It's mob rule in terms of any conflict between a private citizen and B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

I want to tell you that with Robert Bonner back at the helm I see things deteriorating rather than improving. I'm sorry to say that but I can only draw that conclusion after recalling that he sat in this House as Attorney-General for many years and did nothing to curb the power and the clout of that institution. I can hold out no hope to the people I represent that there's going to be a change in the policy so that property rights and a lifestyle can be preserved or at least paid for.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I had a friend who had a little store at old East Arrow Park. It's gone now. It's flooded; it doesn't exist any longer. It's a nice little community. He's a little Scottish guy, a first-class individual. He had a few cabins and a little general store on the Arrow Lakes. He had a farm in addition to that. The property went back about a mile from the lake up a hill.

Hydro came along and they said: "We're sorry, Buster, we need your land." They expropriated it all. My little Scottish friend said: "How come you need all of my land when the neighbours on both sides of me.... Their farms adjoin mine and run back the same distance and you're only taking a part of theirs and leaving them some flowage easement to the water." They said: "Well, sorry about that. We have to take it all." They expropriated it. They paid him $12,000, which wouldn't even buy him a home in Revelstoke, never mind the city, and away he went.http://www.transatholidays.com/web2/offerlist/Package/default.asp?SID=133438786014495323102346607894256466989712525688232675778992670407&LangID=EN&REFWHATID=1&THEME=&SPECIAL=&ENFORCEHOTELID=&DESTNAME=&HOTELNAME=&TOLEVEL=3&TOSELECTED=PVR&FROMLEVEL=2&FROMSELECTED=YYJ&WHENLEVEL=3&WHENSELECTED=12010313&CLASSE=&ACTION=OFFERLIST&WHATID=1&CFROM=Victoria&CTO=&CWHEN=january 13&RANDOMNUMBER=1#TopOLAnc

The grounds that they expropriated that land on, Mr. Speaker — and I brought this up in this House in 1969 — were that it was subject to slippage 1nto the reservoir a mile back from the reservoir.

Lo and behold, the next year they built a new

[ Page 1215 ]

highway from Nakusp to the Monashee — to Edgewood. Do you know where they put the highway, Mr. Speaker? They put it right through the middle of that property that they had expropriated as being subject to slippage and erosion into the reservoir, from which they had chased out this little businessman and compensated him to the tune of $14,000. They built a public highway right through the middle of it.

I came into this House as a rookie member at that time. I asked the Minister of Highways, the Hon. Wes Black.... I said: "How can you justify building a public highway on land that is unsafe, unstable and subject to slippage 1nto a reservoir?" He said: "The land is safe." I said: "The minister who is responsible for B.C. Hydro says it's not. They expropriated it because the man who owned it was in danger of slipping into the reservoir. Who's right — you or he?" He said: "Well, the Department of Highways people have investigated. We put in our hydrologists and our engineers, and we've determined that the land is absolutely safe." I said: "That's very interesting. Now will you return to Mr. Swift, who was the owner, all of that land that is at a higher elevation than the highway?" No way would they return it; no way would the Minister of Highways answer me. I wouldn't let his estimates pass, Mr. Speaker, until he did. He had a red face, and I don't like embarrassing people.

But that kind of thing happened. And this is the government that says they are free enterprise! They're the same bunch, Mr. Speaker. These are the guys who say they respect property rights; these are the guys who say they respect freedom. Do you remember the last election campaign? Do you remember old Jonathan Livingstone Seagull flying around? "Freedom, personal freedom! Don't let those socialists jeopardize your personal rights. They'll take away your cows."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. KING: My gosh, Mr. Speaker! If anyone is interested in learning what goes on in this province, they should just take a trip up through the Arrow Lakes and the Columbia Valley. Talk to any oldtimer there. Read the book Continental Waterboy, read the book Land Grab. They were both written by an old gentleman from Nakusp, British Columbia — Donald Waterfield. He is not an hysterical person. He is a good conservative gentleman — and I mean that in the liberal sense — a good stable person who is not prone to exaggeration or emotion. He explains and describes precisely what happened to one other family who were almost driven to their deathbed by the treatment they received from Hydro.

These are the things that have gone on, Mr. Speaker, and I just find it a bitter pill for that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to come in here with this two-line bill and ask that we approve an increase in the borrowing power of that monolithic, that insensitive, that unyielding agency.

AN HON. MEMBER: Giant, too.

MR. KING: Yes, exactly. It's giant.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, look, my friend, I think that I do just about good enough with my vocabulary, in comparison to what I hear emanating from that side of the House, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm deeply concerned over this. I think it's a terrible thing. I just can't support this bill. I can't support a bill that provides yet more power, yet more authority, without check, without balance, to this agency that for years and years has rolled merrily over the rights of people, that has undertaken projects without justifying its energy projections to anyone, that has increased rates without justifying its need to any agency.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Revelstoke Canyon Dam is in question in terms of the power needs. The British Columbia Energy Commission arrived at a much different conclusion from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority regarding the phased timing of the energy needs, the projected increase of energy needs in this province, and that discrepancy between the two projections was important enough that it should have had to be justified. There should have been an investigation undertaken by the government to determine who was right. In any event, B.C. Hydro should not be the one who is doing its own projections. It's like any other runaway bureaucracy — it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to build up its own empire. In almost every other jurisdiction in this nation power corporations are obliged to justify their energy projections, their rate increases and so on, before some independent agency of government so that there is accountability. There is accountability and there is some vestige of control over their direction and over their policy, which should serve public need and which should indeed be public policy. There's a complete absence of that kind of control in this province and, in my view, until this government particularly starts to come to grips with taking back control of Hydro, there is no way I am prepared to support this bill.

Now people may say to spokesmen like myself and to our party: "Why did you not do something during your three years of office to break the control of Hydro?" My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is indeed

[ Page 1216 ]

we had made a start. One of the things that I spoke about earlier my friend, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), remedied, and that was the right of any British Columbia citizen to sue the Crown without coming cap-in-hand to the Attorney-General seeking a fiat to sue the Crown. We remedied that injustice, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that just prior to the last election my friend, the Attorney-General, was working on, and had largely completed, a new expropriation bill which would have brought into modernized form all of the expropriation statutes of this province to provide for a fair and equitable system of arbitration to all citizens of the province who had their rights and their properties threatened either by B.C. Hydro, or the Department of Highways, or any other government or Crown corporation. So we were moving, but you can't remedy all the social ills in three years that it took the coalition 20 years to construct, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, we had made a start to make that institution accountable to people. I see no such indication here, and until there is, and until there is a clear statement from the government that they are prepared to come to grips with the arbitrariness of that institution, the opposition must oppose this bill.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): It's a matter of considerable wonderment to me why socialists, not only in this House, but in the federal House, are so concerned about the largest manifestations of socialism in the country. They find them unwieldy, overbearing, and often unworkable. They are highly critical, for example, of Air Canada, of the CNR, and in this House, of B.C. Hydro. In this province, at least when they were in power, they obviously were unable to contain B.C. Hydro in a fashion which they now find satisfactory. I believe that accountability is very important. I believe that this government must deal with the question of accountability of large government enterprises of the character of B.C. Hydro. I'll be dealing with this later in my remarks and I'll also have a few words to say about the Downie Slide.

By passing this bill, our provincial Legislature will be giving B.C. Hydro the authority to borrow another $650 million. Together with previous authorizations, this brings the corporation's total debt, total borrowing up to $4.15 billion — that's $4,150 million. This is a lot of money. It compares with previous authorizations of $500 million in 1972, $500 million in 1974, $750 million in 1975, and $500 million in 1976. These funds are needed to pay for new plant and equipment.

In an expanding system, revenues from the sale of electricity and natural gas are not sufficient in themselves to pay for new dams, new transmission lines and new distribution systems. In fact, the surplus of revenue over expenditure is only enough to pay for about one-fifth of the cost of the new capital plant. In other words, borrowing accounts for roughly 80 per cent of the moneys needed in order to expand the system.

Our rate of growth in the province, in population as well as energy-usage terms, is far above that of the rest of the country. Growth, in other words, adds to our financial difficulties. This, plus rugged terrain and high wage rates, makes it necessary for corporations like B.C. Hydro to borrow large amounts of capital to keep up with existing demands, to keep ahead of future needs, to avoid brownouts and the like.

The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is a large corporation. It's the largest, by far, in western Canada. It's much larger than any of the oil companies headquartered in Alberta. It's far larger than any of the companies producing forest products in B.C. The utility's capital expenditures in recent years are indicative of that. Incidentally, B.C. Hydro's capital outlays amount to about one-fifth of all the capital outlays in the province — $1 out of every $5 spent on new houses, new businesses, new roads, new forms of transport, and so on. These capital outlays have risen steadily, In 1972, investment in new plant and equipment — that's investment made in that year — amounted to $218 million. In 1973, the figure was $230 million. In 1974, it was $332 million; 1975 — $464 million of new capital expenditure; last year — $591 million.

Reading from the prospectus recently published by B.C. Hydro and put out in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C., we see that the estimated capital outlay of B.C. Hydro in 1977 — this year — will be $605 million, roughly the same as last year. In 1978, it will be $800 million. The cumulative investment in the years 1979 through to 1981 — that's three years — will be $3.562 billion.

Not only has B.C. Hydro's combined debt on electrical and gas accounts been growing rapidly in recent years, but it will continue to grow. There are two reasons for this. The overall demand for energy in this province has been increasing at an annual rate of around 9 per cent. Interest rates have gone up considerably. Unit costs, fired by inflation, have more than doubled since 1970.

Fortunately, some of these trends are beginning to moderate. Our rate of population growth has moderated somewhat. The use of energy per person is not rising as fast as it has done in recent years. Inflation is no longer in the double-digit category, a big improvement insofar as basic power costs are concerned. So we can expect B.C. Hydro's annual borrowings to curve over in time. They'll still grow but they won't increase as rapidly year by year as they've done in the recent past, as they did when the NDP was in power.

[ Page 1217 ]

Having said this, I must still issue a warning because of our growing appetite for energy in this province and because the cost-push type of inflation is still effective here. B.C. Hydro's borrowings will approach $1 billion a year by 1980. Only a sharp curtailment in our consumption individually, together with a marked curtailment of inflation, will reduce those borrowings significantly.

The reason for Hydro's massive investments isn't really hard to find. Energy, especially clean forms of energy like natural gas and electricity, are a fantastic bargain. They're the equivalent of paying a wage of a few cents an hour for physical labour, and the real cost of this energy is falling. It's falling as compared to other things. The price of electricity, for example, has not been rising as fast as the price of other commodities. The price of natural gas has not been rising anything like as fast as the price of other goods and services. In other words, they're not only a bargain but they're becoming an even greater bargain as time goes by.

Labour-saving equipment, driven by electricity, has replaced labour, especially the physical kind. Drudgery has given way to fine tuning. Now we simply adjust our thermostats, control our electric motors and our TV sets. B.C. Hydro's big investment in power-producing and gas-transmitting facilities has taken a massive burden off our collective shoulders. It's made life simpler. That's why B.C. Hydro borrows money in such large amounts.

The power business, especially when the utility is heavily dependent on big dams and long transmission lines, is capital intensive. The gas business, with its pipelines, is also capital intensive. Other people's savings have to be mobilized in order to put all these facilities in place and to put them in place in time. So B.C. Hydro must sell bonds and raise — and increase from time to time — a massive mortgage. Interest rates, obviously, are important. The annual costs of B.C. Hydro reflect its capital intensity and reflect interest rates. The higher these interest rates are, the more Hydro has to pay for borrowed money, the higher the rates are for electricity and gas. This is why investor confidence is important. This is why power and gas rates themselves tend to reflect — in the long run anyway — other people's opinions, not only of B.C. Hydro but of this province and of its financial prospects and of its political stability.

Mr. Speaker, I should also refer to the political climate in this province now. Investors in large utilities like B.C. Hydro want to know that their money is safe, that it'll be paid back and that it'll be paid back on time. If the utility itself is in poor shape, or if the political climate in the area in which it operates looks rocky, then interest rates tend to go up. This is the main reason why B.C. Hydro had to pay high interest rates in recent years — interest rates in the order of 10.5 per cent in 1974, and more than 10 per cent in 1975. Money costs of that order of magnitude have a major impact on the power and gas rates, the price paid for energy by people.

In the 1960s, the interest rate charged on a typical borrowing by B.C. Hydro was around 6 per cent. In 1971, it was 7 per cent. It took off in 1972: first 8 per cent, then 9 per cent and finally 10 per cent plus. That was the price for new money that B.C. Hydro had to pay when the NDP was in power. That's one of the reasons — the biggest single reason — why power and gas rates paid by people have been going up and continue to go up in B.C. Now they should be levelling off. The latest borrowing in New York cost B.C. Hydro 8-5/8 per cent. So money costs, at least, are moderating. The interest burden is tending to level off. Political sanity has returned to British Columbia. This, together with sound management of B.C. Hydro, should help to keep our power and gas rates under better control than they've been in the recent past in this province.

Many people are quite rightly concerned about the price of electricity and the price of natural gas to consumers here. They're going up. They've been rising because of inflation, because of higher interest rates, and because we're, not as conservation-conscious as we have to be. But we're doing well. With the exception of Alberta, we have the lowest gas rates to consumers in Canada. It costs half as much to heat a home with natural gas in Vancouver as it does in Seattle, and our power rates, that used to be among the highest in the country, are now in the medium range. Ontario Hydro's rates, for example, are rapidly catching up to ours. They used to be half as much. Soon they'll be higher. We'll have cheaper electricity and cheaper gas than they have in central Canada. This will be for the first time in our history. Individually, as residential consumers, we'll be better off than most other users in Canada and 90 per cent of consumers in the U.S.A. So you can see that things, at least relatively speaking, are improving. We've been doing better — again relatively speaking — than our neighbours to the east and the south. Our costs have been going up, that's true. But others' costs have been rising even more rapidly. Yes, we've had a higher growth rate to contend with, we pay higher prices for things, and we pay our labour more. But, overall, the picture is turning around and we're becoming more competitive as a result of good management at the Authority level.

Concern, quite naturally, has been expressed about B.C. Hydro's expectations of growth. It could overbuild its capacity, and by overbuilding, it could add unnecessarily to the interest and other carrying charges which would be associated with these capital expenditures.

To put it another way, B.C. Hydro has been accused of making projections of future energy needs which are on the high side — at least they've been high as compared to forecasts published, for example,

[ Page 1218 ]

by the B.C. Energy Commission.

When this government came to power at the end of 1975, B.C. Hydro was using a growth rate for electricity in excess of 10 per cent a year. The B.C. Energy Commission, on the other hand, had published forecasts for the province in the order of 5 per cent. One of the first things I did on becoming minister responsible for energy was to ask the Authority and the commission to get together. I wanted their experts to meet each other — surprisingly for the first time — to discuss their basic assumptions and to come up with a new set of forecasts which were at least within reasonable distance of each other.

This happened. The experts on forecasting power requirements from B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Energy Commission have since met a number of times. They've cleared up various misunderstandings. They're using the same historic data; they're focusing on B.C. Hydro — not on B.C. Hydro, and the investor-owned utilities and the industries generating their own power, but B.C. Hydro.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

They're treating power losses in the same way and they're making some of the same assumptions about conservation in the future. As a result, their estimates as to future needs — electricity needs, in this case — are closer together. They're close — within a few per cent of each other in 1980. They're both in the 7 to 8 per cent range for the next decade — that is, for the next I 0-year period ending in the 1980s.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, they're almost bang on in 1981. They do diverge by about 1 per cent a year thereafter. They differ in some respects: B.C. Hydro's projection is still higher than that of the B.C. Energy Commission by about 1 per cent each year; B.C. Hydro is more optimistic about British Columbia's future, about population growth, about industrial development in this province; the B.C. Energy Commission, on the other hand, expects consumers in B.C. to be more conservation-conscious than B.C. Hydro does. This is fundamentally why they differ as to their ideas of load growth for British Columbia in the future.

B.C. Hydro further explains its position, its reason for taking a higher rate of load growth for planning purposes by saying that it should always be erring on the high side, that it must never be caught short. We will all suffer brownouts if B.C. Hydro is wrong, if it takes a conservative forecast and forecasts on the low side, or if it doesn't build enough plant in time, so it tends to err on the high side.

Hydro argues that if we have surplus capacity because they've been too optimistic in their projection of demand, we can sell our surplus energy at higher than cost to our energy-short neighbours in the United States. They also argue, Mr. Speaker, that they can postpone construction more readily than they can start construction. If they're overbuilding, they can slow construction down and bring their new plant and equipment better into line with load growth as it actually develops.

I focused on the demand for electricity primarily. The reason I have done so is that close to 90 per cent of all of B.C. Hydro's capital needs — capital investment outlays — are made under the heading of the electrical service. Natural gas accounts for only 4 per cent of its investment; transportation — buses and its rail line — its head office and its other general activities account for 6 per cent. These figures, especially the 90 per cent figure for electricity and the 4 per cent for natural gas tell us something else, however. They tell us that electricity is capital-intensive, much more capital-intensive than gas. They tell us that if we want to cut back on borrowing, on the amount of capital that B.C. Hydro needs, B.C. Hydro should put more emphasis on gas and less on electricity in the future.

This question has been asked more than once by the B.C. Energy Commission. The Energy Commission tells us that if we have lots of natural gas in British Columbia, then we should really put the emphasis on using gas and building less electrical plant in this province. We should use natural gas wherever we can and refuse to make electricity available for space heating, for example. But we are not in this position, unfortunately. We have scarcely enough natural gas proven up in British Columbia to meet our projected requirements. Our reserves in the Peace River district are low relative to our future needs, at least, and their deliverability — the ability to get the gas out when we want it, and especially in the wintertime — is limited. Until this situation is corrected and until increased exploration and development results in a better supply picture for gas, we will have to go on using electricity more and borrowing more. This is part of our problem today.

I could have said it differently, Mr. Speaker. In order to limit B.C. Hydro's borrowing in the future, we should have a gas-intensive programme rather than attempting to go all-electric in our homes, in our offices and in our industry as well. But we don't have the natural gas reserves — not in British Columbia. In order to build them up, we have increased the incentive to look for more gas in the north. We have raised field prices; we have endeavoured to make them competitive with the field prices in Alberta so that we could attract the drilling rate and the exploration activity to our province. These higher prices and the big markets that exist for gas should all have an effect of increasing our supplies, adding to

[ Page 1219 ]

our reserves, improving our reserve position. When this happens, hopefully we will be in a position to slow down on borrowing. B.C. Hydro will be in a position to borrow less because the gas is there.

In the electrical service there are other things we can do. Switching to coal-fired plants and away from big dams and long transmission lines will also help. Thermal plants don't cost as much to build as big hydro projects, especially ones which are far away. Also, we happen to have large reserves of coal at Hat Creek. This new power source is much closer to Vancouver, our principal load centre, than our remaining undeveloped hydro sites. Hat Creek, in other words, can help us to keep our capital expenditures down and our borrowing down. It can reduce B.C. Hydro's borrowing needs — its mortgage in the future.

This is the main reason why I personally think that Hat Creek follows on quite logically after the completion of the big new dam at Revelstoke. Environmental and other problems, of course, have to be overcome. Public hearings must be held and permits granted. But it looks as if B.C. Hydro can go thermal for a few years at least. It can reduce its needs for other people's savings in this way. It can become less capital-intensive for a change.

I referred at the outset, briefly, to public hearings, for the need for public inquiry, for the need for the public to know. I expect B.C. Hydro will appear before the B.C. Energy Commission, for example. I have already referred to this possibility in a speech which I gave to the Legislature in January. B.C. Hydro itself recognizes this possibility of rate review by another public body. In its financing prospectus published in the United States on November 23, 1976, on page 22, we read:

"The provincial government has announced that it is contemplating legislation which will create an authority to review all rate applications made by Crown corporations and agencies, including the Authority.---

So the people out there who are lending their money to B.C. Hydro, people outside of this province as well as people who live in British Columbia, know that this sort of thing is being considered seriously by the government. This announcement appeared in the Speech from the Throne in April, 1976. While we have no legislation along these lines scheduled for 1977, I hope we will have a bill along these lines to introduce next year, in 1978.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not unmindful of the desirability of subjecting B.C. Hydro's rates and B.C. Hydro's programmes for major expansion to closer scrutiny — not only by the experts but also by the public at large in public hearings.

Hon. members of this Legislature themselves will have an opportunity to review B.C. Hydro's plans and rates when the Authority comes before our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs this spring. But we individually have neither the time nor the expertise to analyse the Authority's accounts and come up with recommendations, the implementation of which would be of real benefit to the consumers of energy in this province. So we need a public body which will do the job of holding hearings, asking the right questions, getting meaningful answers to questions which the people of this province are continually asking now.

Personally, I believe that B.C. Hydro is well run. I believe that its management is not only attempting to do, but in fact does, a first-class job. I believe that its workers are competent. I believe that its plant is well built and well run. But I personally would like to have more time to ask questions and get meaningful answers.

I'd feel better if there were more checks and balances in our system. The checks must not be too great and the balances mustn't be overly time-consuming, but I believe we can work out an arrangement whereby the B.C. Power Commission looks at B.C. Hydro's rates, looks at B.C. Hydro's expansion programme in much the same way as it reviews the affairs of investor-owned utilities in this province. Other provinces, including Ontario, have endeavoured to do this kind of thing. I believe we can do it better than they can, and I believe that we can look after the best interests of our own people more effectively than Ontario has been able to do relative to Ontario Hydro in the recent past.

Now before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd refer briefly to a memorandum which I prepared earlier, for my own use primarily, but it dealt with the particular matter of the Downie Slide. I have read through much of the evidence given at the Revelstoke hearing and I have seen other material published or prepared by authorities on the subject of slides and the stability of soil, rock, et cetera. My memorandum summarizes the conclusions I reached after looking at that material. They were as follows:

(1) The Downie Slide, to which the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) often referred, is prehistoric. It's a giant rockpile which has been moving slowly downhill for 10,000 years or more.

(2) The Downie Slide is located 30 miles north of Revelstoke. It's not, therefore, close to the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and unlike recent dam failures in the United States and Europe, the slide itself would not impact directly on the dam were it to occur.

(3) Large existing landslides like Downie are not reactivated by earthquakes, and Revelstoke is in an area of low seismic activity. Even if the Downie Slide slid totally into the big reservoir upstream of the Revelstoke Dam it would only fill a tiny fraction of

[ Page 1220 ]

the lake. In the case of the much publicized Vajont disaster in Italy, for instance, the slide not only hit the dam but filled the reservoir as well, hence comparisons of that kind are irrelevant.

(4) Where other slides occurred the slope was much steeper, and they accelerated once they started. The Downie Slide is toed-in at the bottom of the valley and any significant movement, in other words, would mobilize large forces in the opposite direction which would tend to restrain the slide.

(5) The Downie Slide can be drained by driving tunnels through it and springs which tend to bring it down would be relieved and the gradual movement of the slide downhill would be arrested. Plans to drain the slide are now under way. They were not undertaken in cases of slides which have occurred in other parts of the world.

(6) Finally, the height of the wave at the Revelstoke Dam, even if all of the slide came down, would be small compared to the height of the dam. Models have been built and slide tests have indicated that the maximum wave generated would be almost totally dissipated at Downie Creek itself. That's 40 miles away from Revelstoke. "It would be five feet in height at a point about 10 miles downstream from the slide" — five feet in height. The freeboard on the Revelstoke Dam 40 miles downstream is 30 feet.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I concluded that the Downie Slide, if properly dealt with by B.C. Hydro — in other words, properly drained, et cetera — is not really a serious threat to the Revelstoke project as presently envisaged.

MR. WALLACE: Will you table that memorandum?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side are always interested in the Minister of Energy giving us his well-researched speech. I wish we could rely on it — I really do — but there are certain historical events which discourage me from relying on the minister's statements with respect to energy projections, particularly in the needs of Hydro, apart from anything else that we may say. I'm looking at an article involving the minister when he was a Member of Parliament, a parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister at the time. I'm reading from an article called "Engineering and Contract Record, April, 1964." It doesn't have a page number. It says:

"The most bizarre incident of all occurred earlier this year and led. to some revealing reaction from officials in both Canada and the United States. A Cominco engineer had written to Jack Davis to ask why the government kept changing its publicly announced cost estimates for High Arrow. He got a most astonishing reply on the stationery of the office of the Prime Minister, February 5, 1964.

Says Jack Davis:

"'High figures have purposely been leaked out by the Canadian and B.C. governments with a view to influencing our negotiations with the United States. Now that the lump sum price settlement has been arrived at, we are in a position to produce more realistic figures insofar as the High Arrow project is concerned.

"Jack Davis, MP.'"

The public reaction was equally surprising. No one seemed to be concerned that the government had admitted lying. Instead, Davis was given credit for outwitting the Yankees. It didn't seem to occur to most people that if the government was issuing false figures, the Canadian public was the biggest loser as far as any attempt to judge the treaty was concerned. The reason Davis gave for government lying was preposterous, as both American and B.C. officials were quick to point out. Their replies, with direct reference to the calibre of the Canadian negotiators, were the most sensational items to come out of the affair. I'll quote one of them:

"'Actual costs of the dam and calculations for the sale of downstream benefits were worked out on U.S. computers,' Mr. Williston said. 'They knew more about the situation than we did. They have been working on the Columbia for 20 years. You can't leak figures to engineers of the stature of the U.S. team.'"

I hope the minister has reformed; I really do. Making statements in the form of a letter on the stationery of the First Minister of Canada is akin to making statements in this Legislature.

Can we rely on these projected figures? Oh, it's not the minister I'm worried about, Mr. Speaker. His credibility is limited, number one, by the fact that he is a politician, like all of us, and number two, he's really not in control of Hydro anyway. He provides it no direction, he has no control over it and that's where the matter rests.

I would like to deal with the man who is in charge of Hydro and three-quarters of the long-term debt of every man, woman and child living in British Columbia: Bob Bonner. Old "707-days Bonner." Old honest Bob, Mr. Speaker, is in charge of B.C. Hydro — a Social Credit political hack who sat on the Butler report for 707 days during one of the most sensational and extravagant scandals in British Commonwealth history. That's the man I want to talk about, and about his projections and his direction of B.C. Hydro. The minister says Bonner is now kept and maintained in the fashion to which he has been historically accustomed. Am I paraphrasing?

HON. MR. DAVIS: More than that; you're offending.

[ Page 1221 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, they were your words. You said that Hydro is now being maintained in a fashion that they've been accustomed to. You meant Bonner is being maintained and kept in the fashion to which he's accustomed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe we're debating a bill that relates to Finance, not to the conduct of Robert Bonner to hold office.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating the role and the credibility of the chief executive officer of Hydro to the projections needed for load growth. I am questioning his credibility in relation to that. I've already dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the credibility of the minister and I do hope, on behalf of all British Columbians, that he's reformed and that he's not deliberately leaking false information for whatever political or economic purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the load growth projections made by Hydro are absolute and utter self-fulfilled prophecy and they know it. The needs of the province of British Columbia to pour more of its hard-earned taxpayers' dollars into this bottomless pit is, at the very least, questionable, and certainly, at the most, a travesty. I'm reminded about....

I keep this by my bed, Mr. Speaker. I think everybody should.

MR. BARRETT: What do you want, nightmares?

MR. LAUK: Pat McGeer's Politics in Paradise. It's better than the quotations of Chairman Wolfe or whoever. It's really delightful. Just referring to one of my favourite quotations, Mr. Speaker:

"For the CCF, the takeover of the B.C. Electric was a moral victory. They had campaigned in the election less than a year before on a platform of public power, only to be derided by Social Credit cabinet ministers." Now get this — "Bennett's right-hand man, Attorney-General Robert Bonner, had claimed that taking over B.C. Electric — now B.C. Hydro — would cost $600 million."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. LAUK: Do you know how much it cost? Less than $200 million.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but they messed up on the legal fees.

MR. LAUK: No, but that's including that. He said $600 million. He knew that that wasn't correct. This is the man who is now in charge of Hydro. It "would cost $600 million and would make no jobs except for politicians." Boy, was he right! Now that's what I call self-fulfilled prophecy — the same philosophy that he's taken right up to this day.

"He had also stated that such an affront...." I'm so amused at this. Where's Pat?

MR. BARRETT: He's rewriting a draft on a new book.

MR. LAUK: He's rewriting it? Is he withdrawing all copies? Is the Minister of Information withdrawing all copies?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"He had also stated that such an affront to the free-enterprise system would mean the end of investment capital coming to British Columbia and that the province would be set back 30 years."

AN HON. MEMBER: Horrors!

MR. LAUK: Now he's the chairman of that public utility. He's the man that this government is putting their faith in to run a public corporation, the largest corporation in the province, that has indebted each man, woman and child in British Columbia to the tune of something over $2,200 a year.

MR. BARRETT: Because of the Columbia River.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Don't you wish you could write a book instead of yakking?

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the soft-spoken Minister of Finance is upset.

MR. BARRETT: He's nervous!

MR. LAUK: He's nervous. He's a man that's not afraid of the truth. I'm sure he's not reacting for that reason.

MR. BARRETT: He never touched an odometer in his life. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, he denied touching an odometer.

The submission made to the water rights hearing in the Revelstoke Dam hearing was an interesting one. I'm reading from the opening statement by the British Columbia Energy Commission at Revelstoke Dam project hearing:

"We are satisfied that the submissions of other interveners with respect to environmental

[ Page 1222 ]

and social-economic costs will receive full consideration in deciding the appropriate timing and configuration of the Revelstoke project. As will be discussed in direct testimony, we are not convinced that a delay of one or two years in the onstream date of this project would impose undue additional costs on Hydro, nor do we believe that such a delay would necessarily lead to electricity shortages."

The British Columbia Energy Commission said 6.5 per cent. An in-house study by several departments of government, under the supervision of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and the Department of Economic Development, projected something higher — 7.5 per cent, I believe it was. Mr. Bonner came before the public accounts committee last year and said: "9.2 per cent was absolutely bottom level. That's it. I won't hear another word about it. I know what I'm talking about." Our friend Bob.

Let me just read to you some of the transcript testimony of Mr. Bonner before the public accounts committee a short year ago, Mr. Speaker — one year ago. This man is in charge of B.C. Hydro today. Page 5 of that transcript:

"We're using a planning premise of 9.2 per cent to the middle of the 1980s. It's a reflection of an historical trend which in the past 10 years has been in the order of 12 per cent compounded. We're anticipating a somewhat slower rate of requirement for the decade ahead."

On page 8 he states:

"The planning premise — and I put it on that basis of 9.2 per cent — has two components within it. Firstly, the premise of an 8.7 per cent load-growth increase for Hydro's particular area in the province, to which is added a load growth associated with West Kootenay Power and Light's territory within the province for which we have a contractual responsibility."

I was a little bit alarmed at that statement at the time, Mr. Speaker. Upon checking, I found that the net subsidy, in terms of sharing power between West Kootenay Power and Light and B.C. Hydro, was in Hydro's favour. In other words, the net sharing — the balance of payments, if you like — between the two meant B.C. Hydro received more power on a net basis from West Kootenay Power and Light than the other way around over the long haul. So what on earth is he talking about? There's no long-term commitment to West Kootenay Power and Light. Immediately you can redraft your projection growth to 8.7 per cent, says Bob Bonner. It's all bafflegab, because even that statement is wrong. If 9.2 per cent is supportable, it has nothing to do with West Kootenay Power and Light — and he should have known that. That was nonsense.

But over the years, Mr. Bonner is used to using that glib, smooth-talking lawyer's tongue to pull the wool over a lot of people's eyes. He didn't know what he was talking about. "The overall result of putting these two components together is the 9.2 figure." I just add this to show you how cute he is — he's always been cute. "The suggestion has been offered elsewhere that the load growth will, in fact, be 6.5 per cent." "Elsewhere" is three government agencies, and it was right before his nose in front of the public accounts committee. And on he goes.

It's all bafflegab. The more I read, the more I can see that flim-flam is in control over the biggest company in the province. First we have a 3 per cent geometric improvement. The committee asks: "Mr. Bonner, what is a 3 per cent geometric improvement?" He said, "That's an increase of population in the province." Shades of Haldeman and Ehrlichman or whoever these people are. Crewcut nonsense! Geometric improvement!

"The Canadian experience, which is 1.8 or 1.... It hit a recession last year." There was so much here and so much there and can-you-see-the-pea-under-the-shell and so on and so forth. I must agree that it is a corporate viewpoint for B.C. Hydro.

He goes on to say: "I think our statutory mandate is to meet the public requirement whatever it is." Questioners from all parties said: "Well, what is Europe doing?" I remember the member for Vancouver South.... Where is he today? He said: "What about Europe? They plan their growth. They allot that growth factor to industry and industry fills it." Articles and projections all over the world on energy growth indicate it has to be planned. You don't meet the public requirement whatever it is. It's absolute and utter nonsense because if it's 9.2 per cent, or if it's 15 per cent, or if it's 25 per cent the public will use it — and the public mostly will be private industry. It will be a waste, and a senseless waste, of energy unless it's planned and conserved on a proper basis. Hydro is out of control and a political appointment is in charge leading it into utter chaos.

The Minister has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to stand in this House and say that we've returned to political sanity. We go through this Lewis Carroll transcript from Bob Bonner. You can make people believe anything if you want them to. The same man who said that it would put the province back 30 years to take over B.C. Electric a few months later was standing happily in the House to vote for its takeover. The same man who said that the Canadian and British Columbia governments lied to the public on figures for tactical purposes is now the minister in charge of energy. Can we trust these people? I say that at the very least we must question what they're saying.

I was most impressed on reading the reports from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, from the Energy Commission and from

[ Page 1223 ]

the Department of Economic Development. They were questioning the underlying assumptions of the projections of Hydro, a massive corporate giant who, it is stated by its chief executive officer, will meet the public's energy requirements no matter what they are. Electronic toothbrushes to back-scratchers — whatever it is, he's going to meet it. It's a giant out of control, and it would be a passing joke if it didn't cost the people of British Columbia these fantastic amounts of money.

The very critical thing that has happened was pointed out in the press in the Colonist this month. In the particular article that I have it says:

"B.C. Hydro spending on projects under the Columbia River treaty totalled $147.1 million in one year, 1976, according to answers tabled Thursday by Energy minister Jack Davis in the Legislature. Based on past and projected expenditures Hydro will eventually have paid close to $1 billion more than it has received in treaty benefits on the Columbia River project. Other figures tabled by Davis show that the total expenditure on the construction of storage projects to date totalled $600 million-odd up to December 31, 1976."

There's a bottomless pit, Mr. Speaker, in a corporation that's completely and utterly out of control.

What we need in this province is not political hacks running large corporations. What we need in this province is an independent board of Hydro and a planning mechanism for the whole economy within this province. This kind of so-called free, enterprise laissez-faire approach to energy projection is nothing more or less than utter and complete chaos leading this province into economic ruin. That's what they call free enterprise! In every other jurisdiction outside of North America and in a lot of places in the United States, the planning for energy and the planning for economic growth is a formal and public process and is not left to the whims and fancies of the buccaneers and robber barons who still inhabit British Columbia.This kind of silly sentimentalism to something that was dead in 1902 in every other place except British Columbia is costing the ordinary people of this province dearly. They do without their hospitals, they do without their schools, they have to take cutbacks. The disabled have the trimming off their pensions and their payments because everybody is tightening their belts to build monuments to stupidity.

MR. BARRETT: Social Credit.

MR. LAUK: Oh, we can say for the moment that it was great vision to go into the two-river theory, and so on. I've read Politics in Paradise, and yes, it takes vision to build this kind of power. We need power and we have to have power. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the lack of planning has been absolutely criminal. The excess $1 billion overrun on the Columbia River project is an absolute disaster.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, who was sitting in that chair just a moment ago, Mr. Minister of Finance — through you, Mr. Speaker — tabled the answer in the House. Based on past — listen carefully — and projected expenditures, Hydro eventually will have paid close to $1 billion more than it has received in treaty benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's hogwash. I've already told you.

MR. LAUK: Take it up with the minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a twist.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I've twisted. I haven't twisted. It's unparliamentary to say that I've twisted, but I'm not going to take offence at the Minister of Finance. He's harmless.

MR. BARRETT: Keep your hands off the odometer.

MR. LAUK: The minister reminds me of the rabbit in "Alice in Wonderland" — chasing his tail while the real driver's-seat people in this economy in this government are people like Robert Bonner, who didn't have the guts to go back and put his name up for election. He sneaks in the back door through order-in-council appointment to the Crown corporation. He's not equipped in the slightest degree to run the biggest corporation in this province. "Political sanity," said the minister." We're returning to political sanity." What a laugh! Lewis Carroll would have a heyday with the whole Columbia River mess and B.C. Hydro as it's ending up on our doorstep.

You and your predecessor Social Credit government have mortgaged the future of British Columbians for a great many years, and it's simply by stupidity and lack of planning that that has happened. You can have lots of power. You can export lots of power. You can have industrial development and economic development, and you can create jobs if you plan for them. You can do it without having a $1 billion overrun.

Now they come before the House asking us to approve this statute one more time. I say no, absolutely not.

[ Page 1224 ]

MR. BARRETT: You've put on a little weight, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: So have you.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm losing it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the right seat? I recognize the suit from Calgary, but I don't know who's in it there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just spend a few minutes on this bill, just as a matter of passing. We've seen some evidence now that there is a sense of humour in the cabinet. One of the former aides of a cabinet minister referred to himself as Kojak, and we're having a lot of fun just guessing what they call each other in that group. Can you imagine the arguments over who the "odd couple" is? And when you go through the whole television scene, not one of them wants to play Barretta.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's Ed Sullivan over there — the great stone face.

MR. BARRETT: No, Sullivan's still alive. (Laughter.)

What I want to deal with is the prospectus related to these borrowings. I think it's very important. If we analyse the prospectus of these borrowings we find that somebody has not been telling the truth about the true financial picture of this province. We have to know today who it is that's not telling the truth. I know one thing, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody ever lies in a prospectus they're in trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do. There were wild charges made in this House by a former Leader of the Opposition but never substantiated.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They were totally refuted. SEC was responding to a letter by the Leader of the Opposition, and at no time did SEC criticize our government. But I want to tell you, one of the most irresponsible acts made by an opposition leader was when the present Premier wrote a letter to SEC. And if there's ever any reason for the SEC to get a letter it's because of what they're saying in this House and what they're saying in this prospectus. Let me give you a couple of examples. And they'd better not be caging around with SEC. I accept the figures in this prospectus as the truth. What does that do? That makes the figures in a couple of items in the budget speech lies. If you are asked to accept the figures in the Securities Exchange prospectus filing by this government, as I do, then we have to look at some of the statements in the budget speech as lies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you from the prospectus signed by the Crown corporation that is on the market to borrow money. They say here that the province of British Columbia had expected to pay.... First of all, under the B.C. Rail, for the Dease Island extension, this was the first time we got a total figure of the Dease Lake extension.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it'll probably cost you a fortune or two, after you stole that guy's property. You weren't part of the government then. That's when they used to seize people's private property. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a bill that went through this House seizing private property under Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we deal with Bill 4, please?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. It was not a tulip field, no.

On page 42 of this prospectus, Mr. Speaker, I want to read this paragraph to you so that it's in the record, so that you can compare it to what we are told in the budget speech: "During the five years ending January 2,1976, the railway expended an aggregate of $348 million for capital expenditure." Then they go on to detail the true cost of the Dease Lake extension to $279 million.

I want to read this paragraph to you now that condemns the former Social Credit government's accounting procedures out of the words of this government here itself. The Leader of the Opposition made this very complaint against the New Democratic Party government about a prospectus that we filed with New York, saying: "Did you tell New York that you changed the accounting procedure and the difference?" We said yes. We said there was a $64 million loss hidden by the former Social Credit government. They questioned that.

I want to read this paragraph to you to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the present Social Credit government cooked the books on the B.C. Railway, and it accepted that as a fact — $64 million was hidden in losses. Who is now saying it? This Social

[ Page 1225 ]

Credit government is. On page 42 of the prospectus: "Financial data for the years 1971 to 1973 have been restated to give effect to certain changes in accounting policies which were described in the 1974 annual report of the railway which was presented to the Legislature on June 6, 1975."

DEPUTY, SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: Yes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we dealing with the Hydro bill?

MR. BARRETT: We certainly are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Would you...

MR. BARRETT: I hope so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...relate your remarks to Hydro?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: This is the prospectus to borrow money. Yes, it's all in here in the prospectus. I would advise everyone to read it. It might change somebody's political commitments if they read the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

MR. BARRETT:

"The change in accounting principles was given retroactive effect for prior years because management of the railway concluded that the financial statements on an overall basis did not present fairly the cumulative operating-loss results of the railway. It also concluded that certain accounting procedures did not conform with the accounting regulations prescribed by the Canadian Transport Commission.

"As a result of these changes, the following additional amounts are retroactively charged as expenditures during the years of 1971 to 1973. In the opinion of the railway, the foregoing retroactive adjustment was also necessary to establish a basis for preparation of the 1974 and future financial statements."

Mr. Chairman, this is a direct repudiation of the position taken in the most irresponsible manner by the present Premier when he was the Leader of the Opposition. His own government endorses the fact that we did not get a true accounting position of the B.C. Rail under the former Social Credit government. In his own complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission he is now admitting that what we filed in the first place, and what we complained about in the first place, was absolutely correct.

We filed on the information left to us by Social Credit, After we filed, we had the complete report that indicated $64 million in losses had taken place. At that time, in the most responsible manner, the Deputy Minister of Finance was instructed to inform New York, which he so did. Do you remember the debates in this House about that? Yes,, the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) participated in that debate. The now Premier participated in that debate.

MR. LAUK: He made false charges.

MR. BARRETT: He made charges that are now totally false by the statements that they have committed themselves to as a government in this prospectus.

This isn't the only thing in the prospectus that indicates some lies, Mr. Speaker. Those are very harsh words — "some lies." I don't say anyone is a liar, but some lies have been told.

MR. LAUK: And where there are lies, there has got to be a liar.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that could be. It's not necessarily so. Where there are lies there doesn't necessarily need to be a liar. It could be that somebody got a false message.

AN HON. MEMBER: It helps.

MR. BARRETT: It helps? Well, maybe it does. Let us deal with the statements made on the question of Clarkson Gordon. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the spring of 1976 the people of this province were told that the province owed $52 million to the federal government? Clarkson Gordon said that we owed $52 million to the federal government as our share of the money back on natural gas.

On page 10 of the budget speech of 1976 this calumny exists — a falsehood, an untruth, a lie — which says that the $52 million figure is now reduced to $44 million. That's what the people of British Columbia were told in a document signed after accounting by the now Minister of Finance. First of all, Clarkson Gordon said $52 million. That was a guesstimate. That's one way to throw all the balls around and juggle them around and say: "Well, here is a good number, 52. Let's throw that in." They threw it in and Clarkson Gordon said: "We're only totalling up the figures we got." Good for Clarkson Gordon. They knew when to escape with their professional hides.

[ Page 1226 ]

Then the budget speech said $44 million on page 10. What does it say in the prospectus to New York, Mr. Speaker? Why it says this: "Since the inception of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation...." I'm referring to page 44 of the prospectus, if the minister wishes to follow this, if he has a copy of the prospectus. Thank you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to embarrass you but somebody has been telling lies.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You can't.

MR. BARRETT: I can't embarrass you — of course not. Well, that's an admission of something. I don't know what it is.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can't embarrass him.

Since the inception of the BCPC to September 30, 1976, your child — your child, yes. And I want to tell you it was a very rich child you delivered to the people of this province, a child that brought its inheritance close to a half-billion dollars. The people should thank you for that, even though they fought against it. You delivered this child in diapers and on September 30 you put on a brand new suit and that suit brought at that time a total of $302 million.

MR. LAUK: You were the midwife.

MR. BARRETT: I was the midwife, yes, and it was a successful experience all around.

And if we want to really evaluate roles, we have to question what happened to the international oil companies. You make your own mess. We got the $302 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair for me to raise in debate that they fought against the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. They said it was socialism — dangerous, horrible socialism — that was going to take money back to the people of this province. Now they're boasting of the $302 million they got back of your money. You socialists! You gave this money to the people instead of the oil companies!

MR. LAUK: Did you say it would set the oil companies back three years?

MR. BARRETT: It would set the oil companies back coffee money, that's all — $302 million. What's the lie? Here's the rub, here's the rub: "The province made a provision for $44 million in expenditures for the fiscal year of 1977, which represents the provincial government's estimate of federal income tax payable on that portion of the net income of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation which is deemed by the federal government to be income of the producers for federal income tax purposes." However, estimates of payments are now $29 million. My, how $52 million shrinks down to $29 million!

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He's not embarrassed.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he's not embarrassed. He says he's not capable of being embarrassed.

MR. MACDONALD: It's an underrun.

MR. BARRETT: It's an underrun. Yes, it's an underrun. That's a very good word when you're out there telling the political story and saying: "Oh, the NDP left us $52 million." Then you state an untruth in the budget — and I don't know who wrote it — that it wasn't $52 million, it was $44 million. But when they've gone to show up to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the truth come out. It was $29 million.

What about all that debt that they said the horrible socialists left in British Columbia? Listen to this one, gang. I don't want this to go out of the House because people paying their ICBC might be upset — yes, you too, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell you I'm going to be in order, but to comfort you I'd suggest you cover your ears before you hear this one:

On page 48 of the prospectus.... If every car driver heard this on the news on the way home tonight, there may be panic on the roads. It's proof positive that they've been hosed, and not by the waterpipe either. It's not the boiler in the radiator, not the odometer turning back. It's jiggling the figures with ICBC. Listen to this, those who dare: "Subsequent to March 31, 1976, the province borrowed an aggregate of $181 million from ICBC and issued demand notes bearing interest at maturity on March 31, 1977, to evidence this loan."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We all know that took place, Mr. Speaker. At the time that took place the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) made a public statement that ICBC didn't need the money. All those who remember that, raise your hand. Thank you very much — you remember that. At the time he made the statement that ICBC didn't need the money, he was attacked by the Minister of Finance and the Premier and every other Socred, who said: "Oh, yes, ICBC needs the money. They have to pay wages. ICBC will go broke without the money." They attacked Mr. Stupich, my colleague; they said terrible things about him.

This is the part where I want you to cover your ears, Mr. Speaker. While they said to the people of this province that ICBC needed the money, while they attacked the member for Nanaimo, this is what

[ Page 1227 ]

they told the Americans. They told them the truth in the prospectus. They mailed it down to New York. The amount of the loan was equal to the amount of the grant from the provincial government to ICBC, on March 31, 1976, which was not — I repeat, which was not — immediately required by ICBC.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, oh! It's right there.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, somebody was lying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you reading from that?

MR. BARRETT: I am reading from a transcript that they issued in the prospectus in New York.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Hit it again, Dave!

MR. BARRETT: You think it's a joke, eh, to lie to the people of this province that ICBC needs the money, but to tell the Americans that it was not needed? You think it's a joke to lie, to say one thing for political purposes. But when you have to tell the truth to the Americans to borrow money, you admit ICBC did not need the money.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Who signed it on the back page?

MR. BARRETT: Who signed it on the back page?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No! Mr. Bonner and Mr. Wolfe!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Bonner and Mr. Wolfe signed this document. In the document it says ICBC did not need the money.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Scandalous!

MR. BARRETT: Now they go on to say:

"The province has redeemed $131 million of such notes through the payment of $31 million in cash and is using the proceeds of two 9.25 debentures, totalling an issue of $100 million, $50 million of which matures on December 22, 1977, and $50 million of which matures on September 1, 1978. It is expected that the remaining $50 million of such notes will be redeemed in November, 1976, using the proceeds of another debenture issue."

Mr. Speaker, those ICBC increases were absolutely unwarranted. Don't take my word for it; take the Hon. Mr. Wolfe's word for it. Backbenchers, take the Hon. Mr. Wolfe's word for it! He said in a signed document to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the money was not immediately required by ICBC. That's what the Hon. Mr. Wolfe, the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, said, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Now which was correct? Which was a lie? Which was the lie and which one is correct? The statement you've signed here says: "...which was not immediately required by ICBC." Which was the lie and which is correct? I prefer to believe this document given to the Securities and Exchange Commission, because criminal offences can actually flow from false documents given to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: A false prospectus can mean criminal charges, so I assume that this document is the truth. ICBC did not need the money.

Let's go through this document and see other interesting statements.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You left the word "immediately" out that time!

MR. BARRETT: Immediately! You said you needed to pay it immediately. You check the Blues. You said you needed to pay wages; you said that you needed this money right now. You told the member for Nanaimo that it had to pay wages. It had to be rushed over there. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, to meet that immediate commitment this is what they did: they rushed it over on a Wednesday and borrowed it back within days. They rushed it. over before March 31 so they could deliberately show a deficit for political purposes, but they knew they would have to say in front of the SEC that it wasn't immediately available.

Careful now — he says "immediate." Let's deal with that because he's talked too much.

MR. KING: The Artful Dodger!

MR. BARRETT: He's talked too much. He said — yes — the word "immediate."

What is the answer in Votes and Proceedings dated February 1, 1977, in this very Legislature — check it right there in Votes and Proceedings — from your seatmate, Dr. Pat McGeer — excuse me, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. What is the answer to question No. 10 asked by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): "what is the current cash balance of ICBC as to the latest date?"

They needed that money immediately, eh? They needed it before March 31 but after they played the

[ Page 1228 ]

political game and put in a figure that wasn't true as of December 31, as answered by the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey right here in Votes and Proceedings.... They tell the people of British Columbia that ICBC had $272 million, including the $181 million that they'd loaned back to the government and that $90 million in cash available to ICBC on December 31, 1976, above and beyond the $181 million that they said they needed immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before the premiums.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Before the premiums came due and before they had to tell the truth to the Securities and Exchange Commission. A political lie was told, Mr. Speaker, and they have been caught in their own conflicting statements in the prospectus and in an admission on February 1 in this Legislature that $272 million was available on hand at ICBC. Is that incorrect, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker? Is the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's figure incorrect? It is $90 million above the $181 million they borrowed one day and loaned back three days later to play a despicable political game on the motorists of this province. And I use the word "despicable" advisedly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member...

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...I'm waiting patiently for you to relate the line of debate that you're presently engaged in to the bill that's before us, which has to do with the borrowing authority of B.C. Hydro.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked before. I am referring to the document that has to be filed for the borrowings, for this bill. The document is the "British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Province of British Columbia, " and I'm quoting from that document.

Mr. Speaker, also in that document are statements about the alleged debt in the province of British Columbia. They have couched the figure down from Clarkson Gordon — $400 million, of $500 million, or whatever Clarkson Gordon said — to perhaps $400 million. Then they admit in this document that the maximum amount of money they've borrowed is $150 million. They admit in this document that there was no $500 million debt, no $400 million debt, no $300 million debt. They borrowed $150 million, and in public accounts of this province, while we're being asked to borrow this money, they had set aside $40 million to pay interest on $400 million they were allegedly going to borrow for the debt.

What does Mr. Minty say in that document? Mr. Minty says that of that $40 million they set aside in interest, they have only used $9 million in nine months. There's no $400 million debt! It was a political game! There was no $181 million immediately needed by ICBC! It was a political game! It's a great big bundle of fun under Social Credit to make calumnious statements against the New Democratic Party, when the real reason we're debating this amount of borrowing is because of that $1 billion blunder of the Columbia River.

That has been masked and hidden as the true purpose of why we are forced to go into the New York market at this time, why we had to end the internal financing of B.C. Hydro as early as 1972, why we have to stop the pattern of using federal pension funds to internally finance that wonderful public institution that was destroyed financially for political purposes in the two-river policy. The people of this province will carry $1 billion as a golden cross on their backs because of Social Credit blundering. There is an admission in this very prospectus that that golden cross they are carrying on their backs has nothing to do with ICBC, nothing to do with the New Democratic Party's alleged deficit, but involves straight blundering on the Columbia River treaty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to go into any more detail on this. I wish that the great newspapers in the Vancouver area would print these quotes from the prospectus that I've read out, especially the one that gives the why to the need for borrowing from ICBC. I'm glad they told the truth in here. I wouldn't want anyone to go to jail under American legislation. They can be false here at home but they'd better not be false in the prospectus, because one of them might go to the bucket. Step across into Blaine for a beer, Rafe, and you'll be hammered. You'll be hammered, and I don't mean by beer, either.

Now that we're all here in cosy British Columbia, say anything, do anything, make up any story, but when we have to come clean in front of the Americans the truth comes out. Clarkson Gordon protected its rear end by saying: "These are only figures we were given." We were told lies, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we were. I don't know who lied to us. I want to find out. I want to know who lied. But somebody lied to us and told us there was this huge debt at ICBC and there was this huge debt left by the NDP, and none of it is substantiated in their own statements in the securities exchange document which was signed by Mr. Bonner and by Mr. Wolfe.

Enough of that. The billion-dollar deficit of the Columbia River Treaty is the golden cross on the back of every taxpayer. Every old-age pensioner who has the extra $3 surcharge per month can look at that as a Columbia River viewpoint. "Nothing is freer than free, my friends" — do you remember that speech?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): That's right, too.

[ Page 1229 ]

MR. BARRETT: That's right, only we didn't get it for free, my friend. It cost us a billion golden dollars on the backs of the taxpayers of this province by Social Credit, and don't you forget it.

Now I want to deal with my good friend, the former federal Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Davis). He is a good friend of mine. Everybody who I have ever worked with professionally I have considered to be a good friend of mine, regardless of their problem. Everybody who I've met in public life I've considered to be a good friend of mine, regardless of their shifting position. There is only one person who ever got elected whom I didn't quite anticipate the thought of spending a sociable evening with, but I won't mention any names. That person is long gone. Most people I have met in public life, I like very much. I'm able to have a chat with them, bzzz bzzz bzzz, get behind closed doors, give them a Little nudge and say: "We have to discuss this."

The only person I ever met in public life — and I love the guy — who came into my office and we had a discussion and then he went out and told the press something entirely different from what we discussed, was that guy when he was a Liberal. Now he's the Minister of Energy. Now what did he say? He said: "Well, I don't understand you socialists. You want something publicly owned and then when it happens you're not satisfied with it." What he doesn't understand, Mr. Speaker, is that a major part of the purpose of having public ownership is so there is public input into the decisions made by these Crown corporations.

We are dealing here with a Crown corporation that affects the everyday life of every citizen of this province, and it must not ever be left to technocrats to make all the decisions based on what they anticipate the power needs of this province will be. That is a complete and total abdication of the responsibility of elected democratic governments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that shocks me and disappoints me, through you, is that having recognized that principle you attack the idea of socialist concern about public ownership without raising the issue of our concern. Mr. Bonner has made statements that B.C. Hydro should go nuclear. Whose policy is that? Is it Mr. Bonner's policy? Is it this government's policy? Is it the policy of the opposition? Is it the policy of the people? Whose policy is it? Who does Mr. Bonner speak for? He is a public servant, not a setter of policy in this province. If you want to set policy, let your name stand for public office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having eliminated Mr. Bonner's policy as being invalid, what is this government's policy? You come in here and ask us for permission to borrow half a million dollars. You say nothing about nuclear power. I made it very clear that my party is opposed to nuclear power in this province. You're asking us to support a bill that may be used to finance exploration, or the possibility, or even a commitment to nuclear power, without any statement on that? What is the government's position? Are you for nuclear power or against it? What is the official government position on nuclear power? Will you tell us at the end of the debate, Mr. Minister, (1) if any of this money is to be used to finance the inaugural steps of nuclear power in this province, and (2) is there a commitment by the government to move to nuclear power too?

What we are opposed to is pigs in a poke. It's a specious argument to come to this House and say that socialists, once having public ownership, are opposed to paying for it. We want public control, not bureaucrats controlling it, not politicians controlling it. We want public input into the very serious questions of the nature of the destiny of their lifestyle in this province. Any government that could come up with two different sets of figures, one for the Securities and Exchange Commission and one for the public, can't be trusted on the basis of allowing its senior civil servants to speak for its policy. How do you expect us to vote for this without knowing what your commitments are? Technocrats are very good, bureaucrats are super, but politicians are the ones who have to face the responsibility of the people. If you're moving to nuclear power you tell us so, not Mr. Bonner or anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that I had the opportunity of benefiting from American legislation. That great republic has done the people of this province a great favour. It has forced this government to tell the truth about the debt of this province, which is over $1 billion directly attributable to the Columbia River Treaty. It has forced the government of this province to admit that ICBC did not immediately need the money that the government loaned them one week and borrowed back within a matter of days so they could get it in the fiscal year. The American legislation has forced us to be aware of the fact that we were not told the truth about ICBC's true financial situation. The cap of that was the first member for Point Grey's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) own admission that ICBC had control of $272 million as of December 31, 1976, $90 million above $181 million of borrowings that the government now owes ICBC. Truth, truth, truth, all contradicting the statements made by Social Credit since they were elected.

1 do not believe the securities exchange prospectus filed by this government is a false document. I believe that the penalties for publishing a false document would limit the government from repeating in print to the Securities Exchange what is said by voice to the people of this province. You have been proven, Mr. Speaker, not to be truthful, and I for one am opposed to this bill. I only wish the Securities and

[ Page 1230 ]

Exchange Commission legislation went further and checked out the budgets of this government.

How does it feel — and I leave with this question — to have been a member of the opposition, as some Liberal members were, to make the accusation against Social Credit knowing what Social Credit's morality was, what its accounting style was, to have attacked it and to have attacked its morality, attacked its philosophy, attacked its commitments, attacked its history, and then be forced to sit there because of your own choice and go along with the same old thing in spades? How does one sleep well at nights having books read back to them by the member for Vancouver Centre or Hansard statements reminded to them?

Thank God for the Securities and Exchange Commission and some truth. Thank God for the Securities and Exchange Commission and some truth, because the people of this province, by admission of the Securities and Exchange Commission, were lied to by Social Credit — lied to. I don't think we'll ever see that in headlines. I don't think the Vancouver Province or The Vancouver Sun will write an editorial saying: "They've been caught in their own false stories because this must be true." I'd love to see the day it happens. I don't think it will. But I don't feel this is so much a question for the Socreds — there has always been a question of amorality for that political party — but for the ex-Liberals and the ex-Tories, how do you live with it?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, this is the annual pilgrimage, I suppose, to Victoria on the part of B.C. Hydro for an increase in its borrowing power. It's been going on, I suppose, ever since there has been public ownership of the B.C. Electric to make the much larger B.C. Hydro Corporation. But with this public ownership there has been little in the way of public accountability.

There's an increasing concern in the minds of the public for the actions of B.C. Hydro and the attitude of B.C. Hydro. I believe the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, as the spokesman for B.C. Hydro in the House, recognized that and dealt with it to some extent when he said that there should be some independent body to review the actions of B.C. Hydro and to review the regular applications for rate increases, along with all of the other matters that B.C. Hydro puts before us from time to time. He suggested that maybe next year — or perhaps he was a bit stronger than saying "maybe" — but certainly there was the suggestion that next year we could look forward to seeing some legislation that would provide for some independent review, some opportunity for the public to have some input into these discussions of what rates should be charged for electrical services and the sort of programmes B.C. Hydro should be following.

Mr. Speaker, that's all very well for next year, but what about this year? How many horses are going to escape before the door of public accountability can be closed in the event that the public comes to the. conclusion that a certain step should not be taken? That's the question, Mr. Speaker.

Many projects are being considered at the present time. This money that is being proposed right now will bring the accumulated debt total of B.C. Hydro to something in excess of the total budget of the province of British Columbia. How many horses are going to be used for the various projects that are now being considered in the province of British Columbia? I think that's one of the questions the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was asking when he asked how much money is going to be spent on the first steps of nuclear power. Will any be spent? Will some of it be spent studying the possibilities of nuclear power for the province?

Many other questions are being asked about B.C. Hydro right now. It's really not good enough at this time of increasing public concern to say to the people of British Columbia that next year we may do something to give the people an opportunity to consider the arguments, to listen to the requests for rate increases, to look at Hydro's overall plans, to ask Hydro to prove that its projections of the increased demands are based on solid evidence and not on some engineer's dream of building a greater empire for B.C. Hydro.

I'd like to quote from a publication that came to my attention this morning; it may have been available to others earlier. The Sierra Club of Western Canada is a group that has taken some interest in the environment. I suppose that's what they were established for in the beginning. I can recall them expressing quite an interest in 1973 when the Land Commission was enacted. It was one of the first organizations to come out in support of saving agricultural land in the province. Now they're expressing their concern about what is happening with respect to hydro development in the province.

Reading from the first paragraph of their January notes:

"Public participation in government decision-making: How can we participate more effectively in government decision-making? Many are the occasions when members of the public feel frustrated at the inadequacy of , procedures that provide for so-called public participation and suspect that they represent lip-service rather than a genuine effort on the part of public agencies to take the public's wishes into account.

"The problem of providing for effective and truly democratic public participation is not an easy one to solve, either for the government or I the people."

Mr. Speaker, simply because it isn't easy is no reason'. for not having made some attempt by this time. As I

[ Page 1231 ]

say, I don't think it's good enough at this time, with all of the public attention that is being attracted to the various plans announced by B.C. Hydro, to say: "With all of these we want one more year to get moving in all of these directions, to make all of the decisions with respect to all of these proposals. Once we've done all that, we'll start opening the door to some increased avenue of public participation in the discussions that are going on."

That's not good enough. Surely, if there was mention of this, as the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications said in the throne speech this year, then we could be talking about legislation coming in in this session rather than a year from now after so many of the decisions will have been made.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the decisions that are now being considered by B.C. Hydro with inadequate opportunity for the public to participate in discussions about them? The February notes for the Sierra Club Est some of them. One of the headlines is: "B.C. Hydro's Proposed McGregor Diversion and Peace River Projects."

"At a meeting in Prince George on January 15, organized by the McGregor Action Group, the Sierra Club joined with 16 other groups in opposing these projects."

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the McGregor project should be opposed or should be supported. But I do believe that there should be some greater avenue of public participation in the debates. There should be some greater public accountability made available so that there will be real studies, real information, and real opportunities for the people to take part in those discussions. The newsletter goes on to say:

"The club's position is based on both environmental and economic grounds. Neither the public nor, indeed, the government can make responsible judgments with regard to future power developments until the province's power needs are reviewed in light of current economic prospects and analyses are made of both the cost and environmental effects of all potential sources of electrical energy to meet justifiable requirements."

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that word "justifiable" because in my mind B.C. Hydro has not justified the figures that it is producing around this province and outside of this province to show the need for the increased capital.

We recognize that increased borrowing must be engaged in at this time for B.C. Hydro. But the only way that we can try to insist that B.C. Hydro be accountable to the citizens in the province of British Columbia is to raise this question when this particular bill is before us.

This is our opportunity to try to urge upon the government that they not wait another year — even then it's not a sure thing — so that there not be any delay. We'll raise it then too, probably, Mr. Speaker. This is the opportunity now when B.C. Hydro is coming and saying, "We need another half a billion dollars, " for us to say, "What are you going to do with that half a billion dollars?"

Is some of it going to be spent on the McGregor Diversion? Is some of it going to be spent on Sites C and E for the Peace River? I did have an opportunity in one public meeting to listen and to take some small part in discussions about the Sites C and E project, which affect, Mr. Speaker, the riding represented by yourself. I am sure that you've heard something from some of your constituents about this question.

The McGregor Diversion project will flood 43,000 acres, according to these notes. They go on to say that the Peace River project will flood 10,500 acres, but I have heard figures as high as 40,000 acres in the Peace River Valley. They say in these notes that this area produces vegetables for the local market.

Mr. Speaker, you know that area, I know that area, and we both know that area is capable of producing vegetables for much more than the local market — vegetables that will be needed. We know something of the crop conditions in other parts of the world this year. We know that some of those vegetables may very well be needed this year, let alone 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road.

Mr. Speaker, these questions have not been dealt with. The people who are complaining about it in the Prince George area, in the Dawson Creek area, in the Fort St. John area do not feel that they have had adequate opportunity for public input, for the public to have explained to it the reasons for all this increase in power, as to whether or not the proposed projects are the ones that should go ahead at this time.

As a matter of fact, B.C. Hydro did assure the people of that area just three years ago that Sites C and E in particular were at least 10 years down the road; it would be that long before they were even going to be considered. But now B.C. Hydro is moving into that area rapidly. The people up there suspect that some of this half a billion dollars in extra borrowing will be used to start construction on Sites C and E.

These are the questions that we can ask at this time. What is this money going to be used for? How much of it will be used for their work on the McGregor? How much, if any, will be used for work on Sites C and E? These are reasonable questions, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the additional money that B.C. Hydro wants to borrow.

Those aren't the only questions. What about the Kootenay Diversion? The Kootenay Rapport, December 12-19. "Kootenay Diversion Still Alive: Bonner".

"Despite a recent statement by Premier Bill Bennett that he does not favour diversion of

[ Page 1232 ]

the Kootenay River into the Columbia, R. W. Bonner, B.C. Hydro board chairman, indicated this week the project is still a possibility."

Mr. Speaker, who is running the province? Who is running B.C. Hydro? I would remind you that Mr. Bonner was appointed by the provincial cabinet. They have to be the ones ultimately responsible. The whole board of directors of B.C. Hydro was appointed by this government. This government will have to take the responsibility for all these decisions. Surely, if there is any disagreement between B.C. Hydro chairman Bob Bonner and the Premier of the province, we have a right to know whether any of this half a billion dollars is going into the Kootenay Diversion. Will it be for studies? Will it be for actual work?

These are questions that should be answered at this time. Year after year, when B.C. Hydro, used to come to us for extra money, there wasn't this public concern about the environment. But now people are concerned about what B.C. Hydro is doing. They are concerned about many of the things that B.C. Hydro is doing.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Get your facts straight.

MR. STUPICH: I see one story here in the Victoria Times dated February 11, 1977. The headline: "Hydro — An Iceberg Drifting Out of Control." It doesn't seem to be controlled by this government, Mr. Speaker.

This government can't stand idly by and say: "Well, B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation. It does its own thing." This government has to be responsible. If the public does not have the opportunity for reviewing decisions of B.C. Hydro, for obliging B.C. Hydro to come before it and explain what it is doing, why it is doing it, when it is doing these things, then it is up to this government to provide that opportunity — not next year, not the year after, but this year, Mr. Speaker. Before we can vote for legislation that will increase their borrowing power by half a billion dollars, that corporation should come before us and give us details as to what this money is going to be spent for.

I haven't dealt with all the projects by any means; there are many more. Hat Creek coal has been mentioned, and work is going on on that. There are many other projects that I haven't dealt with and don't intend to deal with at this time.

The rate increases. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, when we were on that side of the House and they were on this side of the House, there was much talk about this independent board that would review Hydro's annual — or even more often than that — applications for rate increases.

Where is this independent review? We are told now: "Maybe next year." Not only rate increases, but what about the $3 surcharge? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if you as the MLA for North Peace River have not had letters about that surcharge, that charge for receiving a bill in the mail, then I think you must be the only MLA who has not had those letters. Certainly I have had lots of them; my colleagues have had lots of them.

People are concerned. It certainly hasn't been explained to them adequately why B.C. Hydro should be the one organization that should charge people an extra $3 for the pleasure of receiving a bill in the mail. Maybe B.C. Hydro could do that. Maybe if they were obliged to come to some public body to show this accountability, maybe they could justify that $3. I doubt it.

I think the people of the province should have the opportunity to insist that B.C. Hydro be accountable. There should be this independent body that would review what B.C. Hydro, is doing, B.C. Hydro's request for additional borrowing and B.C. Hydro's request for additional revenue to finance its ever-growing capital needs. For all of these things, Mr. Speaker, there should be public accountability. We should have that independent body now, not next year or 10 years down the road.

Mr. Speaker, unless B.C. Hydro is prepared to come to us and tell us how much of this money, if any, is going to be used for the various projects I've mentioned.... The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) mentioned nuclear power; I've talked about McGregor, about Sites C and E, the Kootenay River, Hat Creek. What are the plans? What are the specific plans for doing all of these things and how many others are being pursued as well? How many others are there that they haven't even told us about yet?

Mr. Speaker, the people of the province want to know now. The time was when they really didn't care what B.C. Hydro was doing. They recognized that B.C. Hydro was always increasing its power output and often selling some of it, and it was good for the province. But they now recognize that every time B.C. Hydro builds one more dam, it's destroying forever a part of our environment. There is that concern. There is a desire to know; there is an increasing need to know. B.C. Hydro should be obliged to come before the sort of independent body that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has told us about, but which he said may be offered to us next year in the form of legislation. That legislation should be coming in in this session, not next session.

Mr. Speaker, until these questions are answered — and we'll ask them again during the course of this legislation passing through the House — until there is the possibility of the public getting in on these discussions through an independent body, we can't support Bill 4.

[ Page 1233 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill to increase the debt of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority by $260 for every man, woman and child in this province, particularly to finance an agency which, as the previous speaker said, is obviously not under the control and direction of the government of the province.

If it wasn't under the directorship of Robert Bonner, maybe that would be a good idea, considering the government that we have across the floor. But I am very concerned about the fact that Mr. Bonner is in control of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Under the direction of that person, this agency has become not an agency of the people of British Columbia, but the instrument of a man who believes in a continental energy policy and a continental water policy. It's not an agent of the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says we need a continental energy policy and a continental water policy. I'm sure we need a continental human resources policy as well.

As a member of the trilateral commission, that member does not represent financially and economically the best interests of the people of British Columbia. Bonner no longer represents the people of this province. He represents an international banking community with headquarters in New York. He represents people who believe in a continental resources policy, in the exploitation of British Columbia's energy and water resources for the whole of North America, not for the advantage of people here in British Columbia.

This director of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority seeks to convert that authority into an agency not of British Columbia, not to the advantage of British Columbians, but to an agency that's responsible to bankers in New York and to people who advocate a continental resources policy.

I don't intend to support a bill, again, that I say saddles the people of this province — every man, woman and child — to the tune of an additional $260 in order to give effect to that policy.

As I said, Bonner's constituency is the international banking community, not the people of British Columbia. His job on the trilateral commission is evidence of that. His job on that commission is to deliver the people of this province into the hands of that international banking community. There are many things, Mr. Speaker, that have happened in recent years that have caused some disturbance to me as a result of the activities of the group Robert Bonner represents.

It appears that countries, cities and governments that are in debt to this international group of bankers which is fronted by the trilateral commission.... That group of bankers is now dictating economic and social policies to the countries, the cities, the governments that are in debt to that group. I'd just like to give a few examples.

First, there is the city of New York. We've seen in magazines, papers, and periodicals recently that the city of New York was in debt and that the international banking community was beginning to call the loan. Before they would guarantee and underwrite additional loans for the city of New York, they were making policy demands on the government of that city and on the government of the United States. There were policy demands for the city of New York from those creditors to pull back on social services; demands to pull back on services such as social welfare, unemployment insurance, education; demands to pull back on such services as policing and fire protection; demands to cut wages in necessary social services. Here is a case where we have a government going into debt on behalf of the people to provide necessary improvements in civic services and then the creditors of that city beginning to make demands on the policies that the elected government of that city has developed.

Boston, another city of the United States, is again on the verge of bankruptcy due to their debts accumulated over the years to provide needed services in that city — transportation, housing, those types of services. Creditors who are now beginning to call the loans on the city of Boston are demanding changes in the policies that were established by the government representatives, elected people in that city.

Great Britain is another case in point, Mr. Speaker. Under successive governments and changing world conditions, the nation of Great Britain has suffered some severe economic difficulties. As a result of mismanagement in both the private and the public sectors, severe problems were being experienced in Great Britain. As a result, the exchange rate of the pound was dropping and there was....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would interrupt you just long enough to suggest to you that while the economic problems of other countries may, in some way, be related to the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro, I would appreciate it if you would relate the way your argument in debate affects B.C. Hydro as respecting the remarks about other countries. Bring it into focus so that we can be within the terms of second reading debate on this bill.

MR. SKELLY: If you'll give me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I'll do just that. As I was saying, after successive governments in Great Britain, after years of economic problems, the creditor nations and creditor companies in the international banking community

[ Page 1234 ]

began to call the loan on Great Britain, began to make demands on that country in exchange for continued economic support. They demanded that Britain cut back on social services, cut back on needed capital developments and, in fact, that Britain cut back by divesting itself of shares in the British Petroleum Corporation. So we have the case here where creditor companies are demanding policy changes by elected representatives in those countries and in cities such as New York.

A bill like this, which increases the borrowing of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, particularly when that Authority is under the direction of Robert Bonner, a member of the Trilateral Commission, a front for that international banking community — and I fear that Bonner, in his job, is delivering us into the hands of those same international bankers who, as creditors of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, are going to be calling the loans in this province and are going to be calling the policy shots in this province — that's what concerns me about the increase in borrowing power for this corporation.

The present Minister of Energy talked about gas and hydro-electric facilities and thermal generation. He also talked about the possibility of brownouts throughout British Columbia if we don't go ahead with some of the large capital projects that are on the drawing board at B.C. Hydro. This is the typical argument that's put forward, whether in public or private utilities throughout the world, whenever an authority such as B.C. Hydro wishes to get involved in these projects. And yet this government has done nothing, Mr. Speaker, to seriously involve itself in the conservation of electricity and nothing to examine alternate forms of energy and alternate energy policies. Twenty-eight states out of all the states in the union have now developed alternate energy policies and have now developed economic incentives for private individuals, tax benefits, to retrofit homes, to retrofit industry, to conserve energy in those states.

I use the state of Indiana as one example. They've just recently passed a bill allowing tax exemptions for any insulation, for any energy-conservation measures that are taken on individual homes. If insulation is applied, if solar devices are applied, then a tax credit will be forthcoming from the state to cover the cost of those installations. The same is happening in New Zealand and in many other countries throughout the world. These countries are now providing tax incentives and direct financial incentives for the installation of either alternate energy sources or energy conservation devices.

Loans up to $200 in New Zealand for ceiling insulation, $400 for wall and ceiling insulation....

AN HON. MEMBER: B.C. Hydro is $500.

MR. SKELLY: B.C. Hydro is $500? And is that what you're borrowing this money for? How much energy are you planning to save?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The province of Saskatchewan has an all-encompassing electrical-energy conservation policy. It covers every aspect of the government departments. A whole interdepartmental energy committee has been established: development of energy-conservation buildings, use of energy-conservation vehicles, improvements of agricultural equipment to conserve energy. It's a concerted effort to conserve energy in the province of Saskatchewan and to cut back 10 to 12 per cent on the energy used in that province both in the public and the private sector. Nothing is happening in British Columbia along those lines, nothing in the way of a concerted energy-conservation policy.

Look at the state of Massachusetts.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: They're available from the government of Saskatchewan.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Would you table them for our convenience?

MR. SKELLY: Don't be silly, Mr. Minister. Just write to my office and I'll send you a copy.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Look at the state of Massachusetts.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Actually, if they were interested in energy conservation, Mr. Speaker, they'd have copies already. Just pick up the telephone and talk to the government of Saskatchewan. It's closer than it is to Ottawa. All you have to do is pick up the telephone and make the call.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Look at the state of Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker. They're involved in solar energy as an alternative to new thermal-generating facilities. I'd like to quote from a report by the governor of Massachusetts on the use of solar energy for space heating and hot water.

"Solar heating systems cost in excess of $25 per square foot of collector and can be

[ Page 1235 ]

economically justified for combined electric space heating and hot water systems. Solar heating systems can often meet the hot water needs of these facilities at lower prices than gas or oil hot water heating. With widespread adoption of solar power, Massachusetts citizens could cut their collective fuel bills by $120 million annually by 1985. Furthermore...."

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please relate his remarks to the bill that's before us?

MR. SKELLY: We're discussing, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of borrowing this money to build new generating facilities when there is already the availability of alternatives and conservation measures which could obviate the necessity of borrowing this money. We're discussing, Mr. Speaker — to clarify the matter for you — the necessity for borrowing additional money for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. That's the whole point of this bill. So if I may proceed without interruption:

"With widespread adoption of solar power, Massachusetts citizens could cut their collective fuel bills by $120 million annually by 1985. Furthermore, solar energy has vast potential for new opportunities, especially in plumbing, construction, research and development areas."

This would be valuable in a province like British Columbia where, as a result of the present government's policy, something like 120,000 people are out of work.  "It's very difficult...." Again I'm back to the Massachusetts report:

"It's very difficult to put a figure on the job potential of solar energy but it is safe to say that by 1985, more jobs could be available from solar power, directly or indirectly, than from off-shore oil and new nuclear construction combined.' "

It's estimated by the governor of Massachusetts that retrofitting homes and industry for energy conservation could create something in the neighbourhood of 54,000 new jobs in the state of Massachusetts. That's half the unemployment rate in British Columbia right now. If this government was serious, Mr. Speaker, about energy conservation, about energy alternatives, they would be investigating the same things that the state of Massachusetts is investigating, that 28 other states in the United States are looking at and that most other provinces in Canada are looking at. Yet this government is not taking seriously the proposition of energy alternatives or of conservation.

Another report is from the General Accounting Office of the United States government on evaluation of proposed federal assistance for financing commercialization of emerging energy technologies. This is the agency that would be the equivalent of our audit or-general, should we ever get an auditor-general. He reports on the value and the economic feasibility of programmes that are being advanced by the government.

That General Accounting Office in the United States has recommended that the government continue to place the highest priority on energy conservation actions, including better cost-benefit data on the whole range of conservation opportunities. This will provide the basis for further developing and funding of specific programmes.

So the General Accounting Office in the United States is also advocating energy conservation. Way down the list is new generating facilities. What we should be looking at in this province, Mr. Speaker, is not borrowing more money and more money and money on top of money for new hydro-generating facilities; we should be looking at conservation and we should be looking at alternatives to the present type of generating facilities that we now have.

We haven't even begun in this province to take a look at industrial byproduct generation. Yet that type of generation provides something like a third of all the power produced in West Germany and 36 per cent of all the power produced in the Soviet Union. There has been a recent proposal by a company in Oregon, a small company, just developing a new energy proposal — fuel from waste fibre. We have a forestry industry here that produces a tremendous amount of waste bark, fibre, chips, hog fuel. Most of the logging debris ends up in the waterways of this province; some of it ends up in land-fill. In general, it's wasted throughout the province. Yet there is a company now in Brownsville, Oregon, called Woodex Industrial Fuels — and this comes from the Burlington Northern Newsletter, Mr. Speaker — that has just established a pilot plant at Brownsville, Oregon, that produces 100 tons of fuel pellets daily, equal in BTUs to 400 barrels of oil. It burns cleaner than coal and produces 9,000 BTUs per pound. The pellets can also be converted to natural gas substitutes.

Now I've written to the company; I've asked them to consider establishing a plant in Port Alberni. I've said we've got the industrial byproducts here in Port Alberni, we've got the labour force in Port Alberni, we've got land available in Port Alberni, and the necessity for generating that type of power on Vancouver Island rather than building submarine lines across Georgia Strait and building 500-kilovolt lines up Vancouver Island. Why don't we develop this type of alternate generating source on Vancouver Island?

And I see that the Minister of Health is back in the House. Perhaps he saw a television programme last night about a hospital in Washington state that is now using this type of wood pellet produced by the company in Brownsville, Oregon, that's saving a hospital in Washington state something in the

[ Page 1236 ]

neighbourhood of $75,000 a year in fuel costs by using this alternate form of electrical generation and alternate form of heating.

So, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I cannot support a bill to borrow money for Hydro to continue along the same lines that they've being operating before.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned some of the problems that will be developed should we go ahead with the McGregor River Diversion. We'll be discussing that in the estimates of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) . He has mentioned some of the problems we'll become involved in if Sites C and E go ahead on the Peace River — the loss of between 10,000 and 40,000 acres of valuable farmland in that area. It's well known that we're reaching a food crunch in this world a heck of a lot sooner than we're going to be reaching an energy crunch. To talk about the requirement for energy and to substitute that energy for necessary food is a dangerous substitution in my opinion.

We're also talking about going into nuclear power when there are far more superior and far more economically feasible ways of generating power. There is also the possibility of conservation.

If I had the assurance from the minister that we would not be proceeding with the McGregor Diversion, that we would not be proceeding with the Site C and E dams on the Peace River, that the government had taken a strong policy against nuclear power and was considering alternate energy and conservation of energy, then I could support the bill. If I had the assurance that these things would take place, that we would not be considering those dangerous economically and environmentally unsound developments, then I could go ahead and support the bill without reservation. But we have had no policy statements whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, on the part of this government, and no assurances that we won't be going ahead with those dangerous developments in the energy field. So in the absence of those assurances, I cannot support this bill.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the prospectus of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), and I'd like to do it in the very short period of time that I have. I think the comments that that Leader of the Opposition made should be corrected to some extent. Mr. Speaker, I would just comment on I believe it's page 50 of the prospectus where he talks about the fact that ICBC didn't have the problem and we were playing around with the funds. Really what it says, and I think it should be clearly pointed out, is that the funds were not immediately required by ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, that's the problem with the party over there. They go on the basis that if it's not required today, it's not required. The reason for these funds being required was the fact that the liability was justly due to the year 1975. The loss was there, Mr. Speaker, and there was no money in that party's budget to cover that loss. It is a shame on that party that they couldn't cover their own liabilities during their year of administration.

Mr. Speaker, the other comment I would like to make....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe it's to the principle of this bill, hon. member. The fact is your leader spent a good 20 minutes or so discussing facts that really have no relevancy to this bill. I would just like to clear the facts. I would just like to point out to this House that some of the comments that he makes in this House are as far from the truth as any comments that I've heard anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, the other item I'd like to refer to is on page 44.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, when the minister can't make his point through parliamentary language, he's trying to do it through unparliamentary language.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: The minister charged the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in this House, not in this chamber, with making statements far from the truth. I would ask that the minister withdraw that statement. He said that the Leader of the Opposition made statements that were far from the truth. That's absolute nonsense, and it's also unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in speaking to the point of order, if the minister who is taking his place in this debate inferred directly that the Leader of the Opposition made untruthful statements, that would be unparliamentary. I didn't hear that, but obviously another member did because he's drawn it to the attention of the Chair. The position would be to withdraw any imputation of untruth on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the fact that the point has been made that the statements of the hon. Leader of the Opposition were a little stretched. I would be pleased to withdraw the comment about untruth.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

[ Page 1237 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: The statements weren't correct.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My colleagues say the statements weren't correct. I guess that's a better way of putting it. Thank you, hon. minister. The statements were not correct that the former speaker made.

Page 44 deals with the prospectus and it deals with the change in accounting procedures. The fact is that all this is disclosed in this prospectus. The problem with the former government's prospectus that they brought forward was that their prospectus failed to disclose changes in accounting procedures that were to be made in their annual report. That annual report was being prepared very close to the same time as the prospectus came out. They had knowledge of those changes and yet failed to disclose them. That's what came under the scrutiny of the SEC.

MR. LAUK: It is absolutely untrue.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, the member says "untrue."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member will continue with his speech.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Those are the two comments that I just wanted to make to clarify some of the speechmaking that the hon. Leader of the Opposition continues to come out with. Innuendo, I think, is his favourite word. I would suggest that's what he uses to plague this House with some of his comments.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the hon. minister said in this House that the annual report of the railway was being composed at the same time as the prospectus for the borrowing. That is absolutely untrue.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: That is a point of order under section 42, and I am entitled to get up and correct the record on that.

MR. SPEAKER: No you're not, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Only if he was referring to something that you had said in debate in this House.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in this House. That's just a cowardly act for him to stand up and attack the member when he's out of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: You're out of order, hon. member.

MR. KING: I draw your attention to the clock, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, my attention having been drawn to the clock, I leave the chair.... In order that we can continue with the business of the House at the next sitting, I think that a motion of adjournment would be in order.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have a precedent in this House that where attention is drawn to the clock, the Speaker leaves the chair immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: That was in Committee of Supply, hon. member.

MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker, The Speaker left the chair immediately. The Chairman stayed until the Speaker came back. The only point in dispute might be which direction.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a ruling, as the hon. member is well aware, by the former hon. Speaker Dowding that the Speaker can take routine motions to preserve the order of the House and the business of the House even though his attention has been drawn to the clock.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a very brief statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In question period this afternoon, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), I indicated that the expenses of the Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives on the joint housing committee study were paid for by that organization. That is not correct and I'm sorry to have given wrong information to the member. It was understood at the outset that those expenses would be paid for by the province, and that was the case.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

[ Page 1238 ]

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.