[ Page 4071 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Uranium Mining and Exploration Act (Bill M 216). Mr. Passarell

Introduction and first reading –– 4071

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckardt commission. Mr. Lauk –– 4071

Moratorium on log purchases and exports. Mr. Howard –– 4073

Public health officers in northern interior health unit. Mr. Cocke –– 4073

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4073

Hat Creek coal development. Mr. Skelly –– 4074

B.C. contribution to organization of auditors-general. Mr. Levi –– 4074

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Vogel report on Eckardt commission.

Mr. Barrett –– 4074

Ministerial Statement

Stewart General Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4075

Routine Proceedings

Utilities Commission Act (Bill 52). Second reading.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4075

Division on the motion that second reading be deferred –– 4077

Mr. Cocke –– 4078

Mr. Nicolson –– 4079

Mrs. Wallace –– 4080

Mr. Passarell –– 4082

Mr. Lockstead –– 4083

Mr. Barber –– 4084

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4088

Division on second reading –– 4091

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4091

Mrs. Wallace –– 4091

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4094

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Vogel report on Eckardt commission.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 4094

Appendix –– 4095

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today, on a tour of the buildings and sitting in the gallery, are 30 Rangers from Vancouver and the lower mainland, together with their guests all the way from Newfoundland. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Frank Shephard, who used to work with the Ministry of Education, and Mrs. Jeanette Pesklevits.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to introduce two visitors from Surrey: Hazel Chute, who has been a hard-working volunteer in the constituency office of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall); and Martha Mackie, who is a top-notch fundraiser for the NDP and has been on the federal riding executive and many other executives. I'd like you to welcome them to the House today.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of young gentlemen here today who are attending hockey school in the city of Victoria. I'd like the House to join me in expressing appreciation for their attendance and welcoming Mr. Blake Moore and Mr. Dan Markert, both from Kitimat.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some northern visitors to the Legislative gallery today: Fred Primrose, John Jensen, Bea Marcus and Jane Beadle. All of these people have been involved in the community of the north of this province and have played their part in the community of British Columbia as a whole. They are all very community-minded. I would ask that everyone in the Legislature join me today in welcoming these four people.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, I'd like to say hello to Mrs. Pesklevits too — an old friend — wherever she is in the gallery.

I'd also like to introduce Madeleine Snell, my constituency secretary, who is here visiting today, and two more of my favourite people from Langley, Mrs. Jean Jolliffe and Mattie Aitken. I'd like the House to make them welcome, please.

MR. BARBER: Visiting in the Legislature today are two friends of mine, Dr. Margaret and Mr. David Kerwin. They are residents of Grande Prairie, Alberta, and, together with members of their own community, members of the RCMP and other professionals concerned with the matter, are responsible for the operation there of a group called Cool Aid, which runs a service very similar to the one with which I was happily involved for a number of years in this community. I ask the House to welcome Margaret and David here today, and to wish them luck in their venture in Grande Prairie, Alberta.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MINING AND EXPLORATION ACT

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill entitled the Uranium Mining and Exploration Act.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT
ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Attorney-General with respect to the Eckardt commission report. Can the Attorney-General confirm that all commission staff were required to take an oath of secrecy after the report was completed or in the week in which the report was completed, and that those oaths of secrecy were back-dated?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm as to the time to which the member refers, but during the course of the work of the commission, members of the staff were required to take an oath of secrecy, at least those who were not already in the public service.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that those oaths were back-dated?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One of the statements from one of the persons interviewed indicated that was the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Such oaths are perjurious. Has the Attorney-General investigated charges of perjury with respect to back-dated oaths?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is stating a proposition, in fact, which is argumentative, and I don't think it can be supported.

MR. LAUK: The courts of the land have found that oaths purported to be taken on a certain day that were not taken on that day are perjurious.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you like to provide me with the precedents for that?

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General asks for precedents. I'll be glad to provide them to the Attorney-General on the day he holds a public inquiry into this matter.

[ Page 4072 ]

Will the Attorney-General undertake to investigate the oaths that were taken and determine whether or not they were back-dated and their nature insofar as perjury was concerned?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've already taken that step.

So that the member won't be confused by my answer, I've taken that step today.

MR. LAUK: This information was available to Mr. Vogel and to the Attorney-General before the Vogel report was presented to this House. Why has the Attorney-General suddenly decided to take the step of investigating those oaths?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That aspect of the matter came to my attention today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General read all the statements of evidence that were supposed to support the Vogel report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I read all the statements of all the principal witnesses who could cast some light upon the problem which faced me as a result of the delivery of Miss Tamoto's declaration.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate who may have suborned the possible perjury involved?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that question is purely argumentative and speculative.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General inform the House who administered the oaths to commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That will be evident from the report which I have requested.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm a statement by one Vi Barton of the Eckardt commission staff that Mr. Dan Campbell instructed a staff member to fly to Victoria to collect a brown envelope to be delivered to Eckardt personally?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that was a statement made by Mrs. Barton. I was aware of it, and it was investigated.

MR. LAUK: Was Mr. Dan Campbell interviewed by Mr. Prelypchan or any other of the ministry's staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, he was.

MR. LAUK: Is there a transcript of the interview?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There was a statement that was taken from Mr. Campbell as a result of the interview.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to table the transcript or the statement with this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Was that statement taken under oath?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it was not.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that Vi Barton's statement says that "Eckardt wanted a copy of the report in his possession Saturday night, June 17, 1978, so that he could deliver it to Grace McCarthy"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that aspect of the matter was examined, and it cannot be confirmed.

MR. LAUK: What did Mr. Eckardt say about that allegation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He denied it.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General prepared to table the transcript of the statement of Mr. Eckardt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the statements of Eckardt and McCarthy taken by Prelypchan confirm that a copy of the report was delivered to McCarthy on June 18, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, no copy of the report was delivered to the Hon. Grace McCarthy until the day on which it was tabled in this House, which was Tuesday, June 20.

MR. LAUK: I asked whether the statements of Eckardt and McCarthy confirmed that fact, not whether it was the Attorney-General's belief.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a matter of belief, Mr. Speaker; it's a matter of the statements taken in the inquiry.

MR. LAUK: On August 14, 1980, I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) whether the Queen's Printer kept records of printing done on the Eckardt report on June 16, 1978. We understand that computer records were kept on that date. Has the Attorney-General decided to table those computer records?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, those records are not in my possession. I understood the question was directed to the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. LAUK: We are solemnly and absolutely convinced that the full report of the Eckardt commission was printed on June 16, 1978, and that Vi Barton did hear a request by Eckardt for a copy of the full, printed report on June 17 for delivery to Grace McCarthy the next day. The evidence discloses those facts. Can the Attorney-General explain the discrepancies between those facts and the report he tabled in the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't explain the discrepancy between what the member believes and what are the facts disclosed by the inquiry.

[ Page 4073 ]

MR. LAUK: A travel voucher of Evelyn Robbins, department control no. 52908, confirms that she flew to Victoria on June 16, 1978, and returned to Vancouver the next day. Can the Attorney-General confirm that this trip by Evelyn Robbins was to pick up a brown envelope from Dan Campbell and deliver it to Eckardt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Robbins was not in Victoria on June 16 and 17 for such a purpose.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm the purpose for which Mrs. Robbins was in the capital on those two days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. On the Friday Mrs. Robbins was continuing her work with respect to the electoral boundary descriptions. She remained in Victoria that evening and on Saturday she and another member of the commission staff returned to Vancouver with certain materials which had been produced by the Queen's Printer.

MR. LAUK: What were those materials?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They are not identified, but I'm advised that to the best of Mrs. Robbins knowledge they were copies of the legal descriptions on which she'd been working.

MR. LAUK: On August 11, 1980, when I referred to a discrepancy in the Vogel report, with reference to final statistics being delivered by the central statistics bureau on June 16, and other discrepancies, I asked the Attorney General whether he was satisfied that there were no other inaccuracies in the interim report of the commissioner. He answered: "None disclosed by any interview with which I am familiar." Would the Attorney-General now like to change his answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General still satisfied that the Vogel investigation and report is correct in every substantial particular into this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Would the Attorney-General indicate to the House why the allegations by Vi Barton were not included in the Vogel report into this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The report contained facts which were uncovered in the course of the inquiry. Miss Barton was one of the first persons interviewed by Mr. Prelypchan in the course of his inquiry. It was as a result of the statement she gave that the inquiry became so extended. Subsequent to taking her statement, interviews were conducted with other persons touching upon the matter. The report of Mr. Vogel was based upon the facts that were gleaned from the whole inquiry.

MORATORIUM ON
LOG PURCHASES AND EXPORTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests and ask the minister whether he has placed a moratorium on the export or purchase of logs, specifically with respect to Metropolitan Trading Ltd.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked the same question in the hallway this morning. The answer now is the same as I gave him this morning. No.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister aware that we like to have those things on the public record, which is why I asked him the question today?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked me a question. At times I really wonder why they ask some of the questions they ask.

PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS IN
NORTHERN INTERIOR HEALTH UNIT

MR. COCKE: That was a naughty little answer from the minister.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Has the minister received the unanimous resolution from the Prince George city council that the number of public health inspectors in the northern interior district be increased forthwith?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I haven't personally received it, which is not to say that it has not reached my office.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister confirm that there are only four public health inspectors in the northern interior health district, and that this number has not increased since 1974, while the size of the district, in population, has increased?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister confirm that he has turned down repeated requests by the Prince George MLAs for increased staff?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no, I cannot confirm that either.

MR. COCKE: One more question, Mr. Speaker. What action has the minister taken to ensure that public health staff throughout the northern and southern interior regions are adequate to fulfil his department's responsibilities?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am delighted beyond words to take that question as notice.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH DELTA
NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) a couple of days ago with respect to a neighbourhood pub application for pre-clearance in Delta. The member asked who filed the notice of appeal and who put up the $100 deposit. In answer to his question, the notice of appeal was filed by Malpaso Holdings per P.T. Webb.

[ Page 4074 ]

HAT CREEK COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Last Wednesday your ministry organized a meeting of community representatives to discuss possible development of Hat Creek coal deposits. Why were no environmental groups invited to that meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is in error. My ministry organized no such meeting.

B.C. CONTRIBUTION TO
ORGANIZATION OF AUDITORS-GENERAL

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Last week at a conference on public accounts I spoke with Mr. Macdonell, the soon-to-retire auditor for the federal government. He informed me that seven provinces had joined the institute which he had set up for the development of comprehensive budgeting, which is something that I understand the government subscribed to. I also understand that 1 percent of the budgets of the auditors-general is the fee required to join this particular organization. Can the minister inform the House why the British Columbia auditor general's 1 percent is not being paid? As a matter of fact, I am informed that it was taken out of her budget before Treasury Board.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It is correct to say that at the time of reviewing the estimates of the auditor-general for the fiscal year in which we are now functioning, that item was removed. I might say, incidentally, that I intend to change the process for both the auditor-general and the ombudsman with respect to appearing before Treasury Board, because I think that is perhaps placing those two individuals, as officers of this assembly, in an awkward position. The amount which has been mentioned — whether it is 1 percent or a fixed dollar amount....

MR. LEVI: One percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was suggested as 1 percent. In a recent meeting with the auditor-general I reviewed the matter with her and indicated that the payment from British Columbia had my full support, and it is forthcoming.

MR. LEVI: Fine.

MR. BARRETT: In accordance with the provisions of standing order 35, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. That matter, stated briefly, is the Vogel report delivered to this House by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It has seriously and, in my opinion, wrongly misrepresented the evidence gathered during the investigation. Today a commission staff member, Vi Barton, has called for a public inquiry into the whole affair, including what is publicly described as the "Gracie's Finger episode."

The Vogel report misrepresents the facts as follows: (1) the Eckardt report was not printed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I must advise that, while the points that the hon. member wishes to make can be alluded to at this opportunity, it must be brief.

MR. BARRETT: I will be very brief. I have written a statement so as to be brief, Mr. Speaker.

The Eckardt report was not printed until June 19, while the facts reveal that the report was printed on June 16, changed over the weekend and reprinted on the 19th. There was evidence before Vogel on this point, but it is not reflected in the report given to the House.

There was evidence before Vogel that Eckardt requested a copy of the printed report of his commission as early as June 17, so he could "deliver it to McCarthy the next day." There is no mention of this point in the Vogel report.

At least one commission staff member alleged that Dan Campbell, then an employee of the Premier's office, instructed a commission staff member to fly to Victoria and pick up a brown envelope for him that was to be delivered to Eckardt. That evidence was available to Vogel, but it is not reflected in the report tabled in this House.

Mr. Robert Patterson, when interviewed by Vogel's investigators, made a statement that the boundaries of the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency were altered to include the notorious "finger" and that this was the only change. Nowhere in the Vogel report is this evidence reflected.

The Attorney-General answered some questions on the Vogel report by saying that they should be directed to Larry Eckardt. The Attorney-General is now a willing participant in the coverup by refusing to recommend that Eckardt be made available to answer questions from all members of this House.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and most importantly, both Florence Tamoto and Vi Barton have been accused of being liars. Florence Tamoto is accused thereby of committing perjury. In the public interest and in their interest, their names should be cleared. The only method to clear them, in my opinion, is a debate now on the validity — which I believe is substantiated — of having an independent, full, judicial public inquiry on this matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudicing the member's point under standing order 35, I will take the matter into consideration and report back to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, normally a decision to take a matter under consideration and report back to the House is one that is acceptable. However, in this instance I cannot accept that decision for a number of reasons.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, at the present time the member is on a point of order. But I must caution that this is a point of order that I am waiting to....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the point of order being, Mr. Speaker, that normally a delay is to verify whether or not there is an appropriate time in estimates to deal with what indeed may be an emergency matter. I'd like to point out to you that we have passed the estimates of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and also of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

[ Page 4075 ]

I would prefer, within my rights under standing orders, Mr. Speaker, if you took a brief recess and gave a ruling immediately rather than later on, because of these reasons. I would ask for a ruling on that, since, in my opinion, there should be an immediate decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the fact of the matter is that under no circumstances can I as your Chairman be hurried in any decision that I will bring down. Therefore my ruling will be that my decision will be deferred until I have had an appropriate period of time to review the matters raised; of course, there is an opportunity for the member to take appropriate steps if that is not satisfactory.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, before I make a comment on your ruling, I am suggesting a recess to give adequate time, as is also normal practice. I'm suggesting that before commenting on your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have given my ruling on the matter. My ruling is that I will defer the matter, and I will not recess the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I regretfully challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for the way in which the question was formed.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 20

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

STEWART GENERAL HOSPITAL

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short ministerial statement.

There was considerable concern expressed to me yesterday by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) concerning a situation at the Stewart General Hospital, and a shortage of nurses. There are three full-time grad nurses in that hospital, one of whom left on the weekend. I'm happy to report that a replacement will arrive on September 15. We've had some problems in recruiting nurses in that area, not for the reasons that we often have, but because of a shortage of housing. I understand that the board met yesterday and are in the process of solving that difficulty. We have another nurse in the community who, incidentally, is not registered, but she has been recruited. So the hospital will remain open for 24 hours a day to deal with emergencies, but it will not admit inpatients until mid-September. There is, however, only one doctor in Stewart. I'm told that most patients requiring admission are evacuated to Terrace or Prince Rupert. The average daily census for April to July of this year is 1.8 persons per day in hospital.

I might also say that escort service for a patient to be evacuated will be available through the hospital staff, and the airline is keeping a plane in Stewart for any emergency purposes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 52.

UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the member for Rossland-Trail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The floor is yielded to the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member for New Westminster as well.

The opposition has considerable reservations about this bill. The one philosophy of it that we could endorse is the one-agency approach to the approval of energy development projects, energy transmission projects and energy delivery projects, as well as the removal of energy resources from the province of B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However, we have considerable reservation — indeed quite strong opposition — to the notions that appear in the bill on many occasions that the new proposed Utilities Commission can be directed by cabinet at will, and indeed can have all of their functions defined by cabinet at the whim of the cabinet. There's no information in the bill, for instance, as to how many employees will be involved — how much high-priced help or how much low-priced help. Indeed, I foresee a whole new level of bureaucracy reviewing all the decisions and analyzing all the proposals put forward by public and private agencies in the province — a whole new bureaucracy in addition to whatever planning and resource development functions may already exist at public expense, say in British Columbia Hydro; a whole new level in addition to what may already exist within the Ministry of Energy. One could even question who is ultimately going to watch and review the reviewers, particularly since all of the reviewers are only

[ Page 4076 ]

going to be in the position of making recommendations. The actual approval or rejection of any application will always rest with the minister in cabinet under this act.

Legal people in the province have already expressed reservations to the minister and the media in this province about the legality of such a situation, and whether or not it indeed would mean that cabinet and cabinet decisions could result in judicial review before the courts in the event that an applicant or any individual wished to challenge any of those.

I have considerable doubts about the fact that the commissioners themselves will be operating under no set term of office; they have no security of pay and no security of work. Indeed, the opportunities for influence upon them when normally one would think they would be making purely technical decisions on purely technical considerations, the opportunity for influences upon them by government, would be absolutely enormous.

What concerns me is that what we really have is the commission being only fact-finders. Indeed, those commissioners would only be in a position of making recommendations to the minister and cabinet and not having power of decision-making on their own.

There are also areas which allow the minister to simply bypass the commission by adding political appointees, since the minister can name every particular chairman from somebody who may or may not be on the commission. It gives him the opportunity — in one way a laudable opportunity — to bring people into particular appeals and discussions at the local level who wouldn't normally be available to sit on a commission. On the other hand, it also gives the minister and cabinet the opportunity to stack a particular committee or panel of the commission if they're concerned about getting a particular decision from it.

There are no funding provisions for reasoned objectors. A trend which has really become a groundswell in North America, in other parts of Canada and in the United States has been that responsible groups will have an opportunity to receive funding for their costs in preparing submissions and in making appearances before boards such as the National Energy Board, before the boards that hear applications on rate hikes and fare increases — anything in the public utilities sector in other parts of Canada and in other parts of North America. There is no provision for funding assistance in this. What we'll have is the groups of legal advice, the applicants' own legal and technical assistance — a terrific array of facts and figures and technical advice appearing before the commission. Ordinary citizens' groups who may have objections are not going to be able to afford to come up against that rather horrifying array of technical expertise, even though they may well have something of value to say. I'm not suggesting that every group receive funding assistance. I am suggesting that the commission should have powers, as have the NEB and other regulatory commissions in Canada and other commissions set up by other provinces, to decide — on a purely objective outside basis, Mr. Speaker — whether a group has had a positive contribution to the deliberations of the commission.

Another point on this, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the question of funding assistance for people appearing before the commission, is that occasionally the applicant — if he's a small applicant, a small business or an ordinary individual — may need or warrant assistance. Let's suppose a rancher or a private individual, a small logger, wished to develop a particular small energy resource, a small hydroelectric resource, and he was opposed before the commission, let's say, by a private utility or by B.C. Hydro. Clearly, the applicant in some cases, particularly if he was a private individual, a farmer or a small businessman, a small mine operator, may well not have the kind of resources that some of the people appearing before the commission, objecting to his application, may have. Once again, an unbiased outside review commission may well be able to make decisions on whether or not some assistance should be given there.

Mr. Speaker, there is provision in the bill — and it's a philosophy that we certainly object to — where the minister on receiving an application for a removal of an energy resource not only will make the decision on that removal but — it's rather curious — will make a decision on what basis the application is made and what information is provided. We find that an extremely strange provision, and I hope that the minister, when closing debate, will give us some idea as to why that may be there.

There is absolutely no provision in the bill, Mr. Speaker, to make the report of any commission public. The minister shall decide what is confidential, and there is going to be no outside review as we have before the NEB, no terms of reference to decide what is or is not confidential information — it may prejudice the property interests of an applicant or someone affected by an application. In addition to that point, Mr. Speaker, there is the fact that no one will know, having appeared before the commission, whether or not their concerns were taken into account when the commission reported to the minister; when the minister or the government makes a decision on an application, no one will know how that decision was made. It will be a yes or a no, and there need not be any reasons given; there need not be any public disclosure of what the commission actually recommended to the minister or whether or not the minister or the cabinet went along with any or all of that recommendation, because if no one knows what the recommendation was and why it was made, it can never be on the public record as to how that decision was reached. So we believe there should be complete disclosure of judgments, as there is, for instance, under the Water Act. The comptroller of water rights to this date, under the existing Water Act, always gives a reasoned judgment based on the points that he took into consideration and the statements by the applicant and the interveners appearing before him. One may not always agree with the decisions or the reasons given, but at least they're there on the public record.

We also object to the provisions for in-camera and secret hearings, if indeed it is decided on what criterion — and no on will ever know, Mr. Speaker — as to why a particular application or discussion could be confidential or should be in camera. Clearly, some discussions will have to be in camera and will have to be confidential, but the public should know on what basis that decision was made rather than simply having a minister or someone else directed by him pick up a rubber stamp and stamp a particular piece of information as confidential — according to the bill, that makes something confidential. There should be some public disclosure as to why and under what standards a particular discussion or application should be confidential.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not the environmental spokesperson, it does concern me that there is no provision in the act for an environmental review. There is one section where it

[ Page 4077 ]

indicates that the minister may have discussions with the Minister of Environment. Not only is that not sufficient, but there should be definite terms of reference spelled out as to what an environmental review will be. We also know that in practice with this particular government, when there is a question of an adversary situation or different resource considerations between the environment ministry and the environment minister, and any other minister, we know who loses that kind of discussion or argument and who wins. So the fact that there may be provision for the minister to hold discussions with the environment minister really does not convince us on this side of the House that environmental considerations are going to be taken into account.

I think virtually everybody in the province, regardless of where they come from politically, regardless of their situation in the social or economic spectrum, has to be concerned about this incredible concentration of power in cabinet. We, on our side of the House, believe that major energy decisions and major resource development decisions are perhaps too important to be left to the politicians. I would point out that no prudent businessman would ever make a decision involving hundreds of millions of dollars on an energy matter or on an industrial development matter if he had not the knowledge or a reasonable guarantee as to what the rules were going to be five, ten, twenty or thirty years down the road. That is a consideration that the people on that side of the House, when they were in opposition, constantly raised in my first few years in this chamber. It is a consideration that they either never really believed in or have completely forgotten about.

But when government or a minister can make decisions at whim, and change policy at whim, it is impossible for the private sector — or even the public sector, through British Columbia Hydro — to make reasoned judgments and planning and investment decisions on a long-term basis. Absolutely impossible,

If we in this chamber are going to expect the British Columbia business community, the North American and international business communities to make investments in B.C. which will continue the economic health of this province and even allow it to expand and grow at a rate equal or greater to the rest of Canada, we are going to have to let that business community know what the availability of energy resources is going to be, what the basis of rates is going to be, and how those resources can be developed.

Getting somewhat parochial, I've stated in this House before and I will state it again that in my particular area, southwest Kootenay, there would be no industrial development at all were it not for low-cost electrical power. We do not have major industrial developments there for any other reason than low-cost industrial power.

One has to wonder whether businesses would make the kinds of major investment decisions in this province knowing that the rules could change, that there was no guarantee, that there was no proper technical outside rational judgment on a utility decision-making process affecting their business and their manufacturing processes over a period of time.

The minister, and every member of this House, of course, has the release sent out by the Employers Council of B.C. If the minister is lacking a copy I'm sure that somebody can run out and copy one and give it to him. But just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would quote from it: "We do not believe legislation of this nature should be passed into law without the opportunity for consideration by those who will be affected by it and the opportunity for them to make their views available to you." I can't believe that the Employers Council of B.C. would be making that statement if they'd had the opportunity to make their views known before. We can only assume that the minister has drawn up this 52-page bill in isolation, without consulting the people who would be affected by it in a major way.

While we don't expect the government, or any other government, to operate only in the interests of big business, the fact is that the employment and business opportunities in this province are, to a considerable degree, governed by the decisions of the major investors in this province. That's not something I would say for or against; I'm simply stating it as a fact. In this province of B.C., indeed everywhere in Canada, we all know that to be true, Mr. Speaker, we also find that the Employers Council of British Columbia have recommended a delay in the bill. They have recommended amendments to the bill to delete all references to energy use projects until the bill's new approach to such regulation can be further studied, Clearly people in the province of B.C., now that they're reading the fine print in the individual sections of this bill, have a great deal of concern about this.

I would make one other point. Capital investment, whether it's made in the public sector by British Columbia Hydro or whether it's made in the private sector, is captive once it's in place. You can't get your money out of a dam, pulpmill, smelter or major sawmill project. Once it's invested, it's invested. It must operate under the rules of government. That is democracy, and that's the law of the land. We know that most politicians are subject to political pressure. I don't believe that politicians in the New Democratic Party or politicians in the Social Credit Party should have that kind of latitude to make decisions that can change the rules late in the first quarter, some time in the second quarter, some time in the third quarter, or in the fourth quarter. The fact is that the rules should be laid down by people elected democratically in advance of major investment decisions. It's my view that there will be no major, and probably no minor, investment decisions made as long as that uncertainly exists in the minds of the investment community in British Columbia. That is the concern that has been expressed by the Employers Council.

In view of these serious reservations, and I would point out that in the clause-by-clause discussion we will be getting into greater detail under those various points, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the motion for second reading of this bill be amended by deleting the word ''now" and adding the words "six months hence."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion defeated on the following division:

YEAS — 19

[ Page 4078 ]

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: On second reading of Bill 52, Utilities Commission Act, I have a word or two that I'd like to say.

First, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criticisms that one can think of right off the bat. Some have been alluded to by my colleagues, such as the forum that we're creating for dealing with extremely important issues for this province. We're creating a forum to be almost an analogy to insulation of the cabinet — taking the heat off the cabinet, but at the same time leaving them with total responsibility to make political decisions around energy development in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am suspicious that what we are going to do here.... The minister has started out very well by providing some staff now. That would indicate to me that his intention is to have a tame-duck political commission doing the bidding of the cabinet. From that standpoint, their advice would be referred to in order to take the heat off cabinet for the decisions that this tame-duck group are advising.

We saw the minister, not long after he was made Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, appoint a person to head up his energy commission at the time. She was the daughter of Bert Price, a former member for Vancouver-Burrard in this Legislature. I recall him well. Beyond that credential, Mr. Speaker, I would wonder what her abilities are and what her potential is in this particular area. I would suggest, that being the appointment we can use as an example, that what we're going to see here is a totally politicized commission. In this day and age, with this very important subject, that is exactly the last thing we need.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this commission is going to be a resting place for Socreds, as the Senate in Ottawa is a lovely retirement place for Liberals, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) might have looked forward to had he hung in there in the Liberal Party long enough. He didn't hang in long enough, and now he can't look forward to that. Now he has another one to look forward to. The only trouble is that you people aren't going to be government long enough for him, but it will certainly be long enough for many appointments to be made in the inevitable next few weeks and months.

According to the act as I read it, the commission does nothing except at the bidding of the cabinet. The only way the commission does any work at all is if it's wound up by the minister and set loose on projects and on jobs; to suggest otherwise would be to suggest that one is not looking at the legislation very carefully. The executive council gives the work to the commission. Then the commission, having been turned on, comes back to the cabinet and says: "This is what we suggest in this particular case." If it happens to be a bit uncomfortable, the cabinet very quietly whispers: "This is what is going to take place, but it's not our fault — it's because of the commission's advice." As I have suggested, the commission is purely an appointed group. All we have to do to see the future is look at the past, and looking at the past we see that it's going to be totally a politically appointed group.

The commission is even committed to secrecy.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes. The Minister of Energy hasn't read his bill yet — they are committed to secrecy. The Minister of Energy laughs, but if I were that minister, who has got this government into so much trouble over the years with so many wrong decisions, I wouldn't laugh too much, because he's doing it again with this bill.

On what basis do I say that? I'll tell you that the Employers Council of British Columbia, which could hardly be considered a highly progressive, left-oriented group, sent him a wire and told him he was on a totally wrong track. On the other hand, a highly legalistic group from Ottawa also informed the minister that his act won't work. As expected, environmentalists have said they don't like it.

What the Employers Council called for was that this bill be given an opportunity to be discussed out there with the interested groups. The minister says no. I watched him on television last night; he said no, and gave his reasons. Then for the next 30 minutes I tried scratching my head, wondering what he had said in terms of his reasons; he gave absolutely none. It was rhetoric, rationalization — junk food, if you were to eat it.

This bill is not going to serve the purposes that we were given in all the fanfare that introduced it. It reminds me of the old Heroin Treatment Act, the one that took us down the tube for $14 million and will probably continue to do so unless it's stopped.

This is the kind of act where the minister had decided to build himself a bulwark and tell the people who are giving him the advice just what advice is acceptable and what advice isn't acceptable. If we have a group of tame people in there, then let's not worry about the advice we're going to get.

It also indicates that the commission will report to the cabinet once a year with a full report. When does it report to the Legislature? Not within 14 days of the time of sitting, which many bills of this nature.... The minister obviously doesn't understand legislation or statutes in this province.

Most legislation of this sort provides that a report must be tabled in the Legislature within so many days of the sitting. This one says "as soon as possible." Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, "as soon as possible" means never, if that's what cabinet decides. "Oh, " he says, "is that possible?" Yes, it's possible, because it's true. We've seen evidence of it from time to time. They're committed to secrecy — a report that may or may not be tabled at the next session or the succeeding session of the Legislature, a tame-duck group doing the bidding of the minister and only being turned on by cabinet order. I believe that asking us to vote for this new energy bill — particularly in view of the fact that people from all sectors and from all walks of life, representing large responsible groups, are saying that it's bad legislation — is asking us to do the impossible.

Why are we discussing a bill like this in what are "the dying hours of the Legislature"? It's simply because this is the kind of bill you bring in late, discuss as early as you can conveniently under those circumstances, and dispatch it, as close to the end of the session as possible, so that it draws as

[ Page 4079 ]

little attention as possible. Don't leave it tabled from early in the session, so that people out there can put forward their just criticism and ask the minister for some in-depth answers. No, Mr. Speaker. Get it in, get it out, get rid of it, and maybe it'll die in tomorrow's newspapers. So all we have to discuss in the future is criticism of the commission that's about to be put together.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to criticize that commission too much in the future. It's not their commission anyway. It's this government, this minister and this cabinet that are putting it together — almost a mirror image — to reflect their opinion and no other. This morning the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said: "Where is the public input?" Where can the public input be put forward in this form of legislation and in this setup? It's going to be impossible. That's to be expected. It's a bit of flim-flam, a bit of window dressing. We heard all the bright and wonderful things that this minister was going to do in his portfolio. He needed something to change his image and he hasn't got it here. He has offended the entire community.

He has even offended his colleague, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He said he is supporting it, but after listening to his speech with all the criticisms where he pulled it apart bit by bit and piece by piece, you'd wonder what he is doing sitting over there. I can't imagine why he sits there anyway. In any event, there is certainly no seat for him here, but there would be somewhere between here and there; they call it "independent." Or maybe he could sit as a Liberal again. Certainly what I heard from him this morning on this bill was just one criticism after another. After having said a few complimentary things at the beginning he decided to pull it apart, and he pulled it apart quite effectively.

There is no point in me going into that, other than to say that if all those are against it — the opposition diametrically opposed, Employers Council opposed, major legal groups opposed, environmental groups opposed, most thoughtful people in the community terribly concerned — how could one support Bill 52? I can't.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has outlined, the government is not proud of this bill. They are ashamed of this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nic the Nuke.

MR. NICOLSON: I ask the member to withdraw that calumnious statement, or else provide any proof of the accusation that he is making. I have spoken the length and breadth of this land against nuclear power in British Columbia. I have spoken to international groups and cautioned them against buying Candu reactors. If that member wants to make that kind of accusation, you let him put forward some kind of proof of it — something better than that vile rag, the Social Credit caucus newsletter.

Mr. Speaker, the government is not proud of this bill. They are trying to sneak it in in the dog days of the Legislature in mid-August. If they had been proud of it, they would have followed up very shortly after the speech from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor last February 29, and that bill would have been there for everyone to see. But they've held it back and held it back, and have finally brought it in here. They are not proud of it. They are truly ashamed of it. It is something that they are trying to sneak in, sneak by and get through with as little controversy and comment as possible. But they have failed, like in so many other areas. They failed even in doing that.

The Employers Council of British Columbia certainly realizes that powers such as these in the hands of such a dangerous minister.... This minister has already shown no regard for the liberties of people, and his previous legislation has been found ultra vires. He thought that he could trammel the basic liberties of people with his old heroin legislation, which has been floundering in the courts, has brought great expense and has been a financial disaster, as well as being a disaster in terms of doing anything for very unfortunate heroin addicts. He is now going to bring that same track record to the field of energy. The minister does not have the confidence of people who have environmental concerns. His cavalier, high-handed treatment of corporations such as West Kootenay Power and Cominco, over and above the advice which he received from the Energy Commission, has caused him to lack and to lose the confidence of the business community as well. Indeed, nowhere does he have any support. Even some of the back bench don't support the minister's actions, as we witnessed this morning in the comments we heard from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour who was the former federal Minister of Energy and the former Minister of Energy in the present government.

Mr. Speaker, this bill opens the way for more of what we've been seeing from the Social Credit government. I can see them paving the way for more Eckardtism, where they will hire their own marionettes, put them into this commission, jiggle their strings and have them do exactly what they want.

The first thing is the manner in which they'll be appointed. It says that there will be only seven commissioners, but there is a new kind of a commissioner — a temporary commissioner, something I haven't seen a great deal of — and they can hire or appoint as many temporary commissioners as they want. Temporary commissioners can be given the rights and powers of a full commissioner. The commissioners serve in pleasure for a period of five years but temporary commissioners probably have no limit. They might be temporary for about 10 or 15 years, like some of the old civil servants used to be under the old W.A.C. Bennett government. They were temporary employees of the government with about 15 years of continuous service — that might be the case here. In other words, like ICBC, to which they can now appoint an infinite number of Socred hacks, if they wish; like the cabinet, to which they can appoint the entire back bench, if they wish, they have open-ended it and removed all limits. So it is ''open sesame" for any Social Credit supporter, defeated candidate or hanger-on to get appointed to the B.C. Energy Commission. The section dealing with that is so wide open you could drive a Mack truck through it.

Mr. Speaker, this act gives the cabinet the power to issue orders to the commission. So really it's the cabinet that directs the commission. It allows the commission to sit in various divisions; in other words, there can be subcommittees or subcommissions of the commission with all of these temporary people. Temporary people can be appointed as commissioners or as chairmen; they can multiply and divide, subtract and add, I suppose, as they wish, permutating and combining in great proliferation. This setup will allow, if by any fluke someone of some intestinal fortitude, someone with some spine, should happen by mistake — and this government is noted for mistakes, Mr. Speaker — to get

[ Page 4080 ]

in there with a little bit of backbone, they can then be isolated. They can form a temporary commission. They can isolate this person out of that temporary commission, so if there is a matter about which they're worried, they can get rid of troublemakers — they can be isolated. That's the kind of loose and flexible power that is given to the government to direct in its appointment of temporary commissions and commissioners and everything else. So there is quite a guarantee there to government that no troublemakers, no stars, will arise in this particular system. They'll soon be shunted to one side and put into a place where they'll be sharpening a pencil, if they should be appointed by some mistake.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is rife, for instance, in terms of dealing with the review process and energy removal certificates.... Applications for a certificate are to be made to the minister, not to the commission, and information contained in an application is that to be required by the minister. The minister can refer an application to the commission or he can exempt a project from review with the concurrence of the Minister of Environment. So here are two political people — and I don't know what "concurrence" means, how that is exactly defined, and what the legal and binding aspects of concurrence of the Minister of Environment are.... In fact this is cabinet control again, cabinet decisions, so a review is at the discretion of government. This is an impotent commission.

Mr. Speaker, the government decides whether or not to accept recommendations — if they even allow the commission to investigate, report and make recommendations. The government decides whether or not to accept recommendations of the commission. The bottom line of this is that independent public review processes are a farce. There is full government control at all times and interested parties have no statutory rights to participate, no statutory rights to intervene.

Another aspect of this act is that the government has caved in to the multinational oil companies. While a good number of the sections on regulation of public utilities are word for word from the previous act on the Energy Commission, there are some notable exceptions. One notable exception is section 69 of the Energy Act, which says:

" (1) No person engaged in the petroleum industry shall, in the province, engage in or carry on a practice which, in the judgment of the commission, unduly increases the price of petroleum products to the consumer.

" (2) A person who, after receiving an order from the commission, continues to engage in or carry on the prohibited practice commits an offence."

Similarly, sections 71 and 76 of the old Energy Act provided some measure of control on the petroleum industry.

But there is no such mention of these powers in the new act, and, in fact, they are notable by their absence. Yet the contiguous sections that would deal with that are word for word from the old Energy Act, just lifted out of there, but lifted selectively to take out any kind of power that the.... Not only are we removing power of a commission to act; we are removing power of government to act, because there is no other legislated power.

That's rather sad, Mr. Speaker, because back when the second member for Vancouver East's (Mr. Macdonald's) father was Attorney-General of this province, they took measures to try to get some measure of control of the petroleum companies. That led them into some very serious political difficulties, and that government — that very gutsy government for its day — was defeated. I know that were the second member for Vancouver East here today he would certainly have something to say about the removal of this section, which he was very instrumental in having inserted into the Energy Act, and which was, of course, certainly supported by the government of the day. It is a very important section, and it is very notable by its absence in the new bill.

For the reason that this minister terrifies the business community by his cavalier abuse of power.... He has been given unprecedented powers by this new act — as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has said, "awesome and sweeping powers." I suppose a word such as that can be abused, but it hardly will be abused as long as this government remains in power and continues to bring in such legislation.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a most unusual bill that we have before us. It's most unusual to have a bill — some 52 pages, granted — the great majority of which is based on the existing energy legislation in this province. Some sections — approximately 10 new major sections are introduced — completely deviate from the existing energy legislation. To have a minister who can introduce a bill such as this, with really only 10 new sections in it, and as a result of that have everybody up on their ears.... We have environmental groups, B.C. Hydro, the Employers Council.... We certainly have the opposition concerned, and I understand there is some concern even on that side of the House about this bill.

I think it's somewhat of an achievement to have a minister who can come in with a bill that creates that much of a problem with so very few major changes. But those changes are certainly extremely major.

One of the groups that I forgot to mention is, of course, the legal profession. Representatives from the Law Society are concerned about the bill. That's nothing new for this minister — to have the legal profession concerned about the legislation which he introduces. There's an old adage that one should learn from one's mistakes. This minister doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.

The thing that bothers me most about this bill is that it purports, on the face of it, to establish a very unbiased public utilities commission that is going to make apolitical decisions about future directions of this province in relation to energy. People might be convinced that that's exactly what it's going to do, but it's not doing that really, because that body is not an independent body. It's spelled out very clearly in the terms of the act. In section 3 it says: "The commission shall comply with any general or specific direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions." That says it all. This so-called independent public utilities commission is nothing more nor less than a mouthpiece for the cabinet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not going to argue whether or not the elected officials should be making the decisions. Elected officials have been making the decisions as far as B.C. Hydro goes. There has been an attempt to indicate that B.C. Hydro was out of control and doing its own thing, but really the responsibility lies with the cabinet as far as B.C. Hydro goes; they are the

[ Page 4081 ]

people who ultimately direct the policy of B.C. Hydro. Certainly this commission is going to be completely at the beck and call of the cabinet. This commission is something a little different than B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro was incorporated for the sole purpose of supplying an adequate power supply to British Columbia. I think if you look at their terms of reference, you will find that's what their responsibilities are — nothing to do with anything other than providing an adequate power supply.

Certainly the Energy Commission, which this public utilities body will replace, had a different set of responsibilities. Energy, because of its very importance, the variety of forms in which it comes and the variety of ways in which it may be used or conserved, has to be covered by a long-term, well-established policy going in a specific direction. In my opinion that policy can best be drafted by an unbiased public body without any political axes to grind, without concerns about what will happen to votes here or there, if and when an election is called, if we do or do not do certain things. To establish this body and then to say that it shall comply with any general or specific direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council completely negates that whole process.

That's what the legal profession is concerned about. They're concerned that in this act we may see in the future the same kind of thing that has been happening in Langley with the 626 acres. The cabinet got involved by overruling an appointed body, and members of the cabinet could now actually find themselves — if that case comes to court, and I don't want to talk about the specific case because it is before the courts — in the position of being called as witnesses and being asked to divulge cabinet business. The same thing could apply in this instance, because if in fact this public utilities commission is to be solely at the direction of cabinet, then if any legal proceedings arose in relation to any of their decisions, we could well find the cabinet involved. That is one of the concerns of the legal profession and certainly one of the concerns of those of us on this side of the House.

I'm not sure, either, that the concept of democracy is being reached in the way the commission is to operate. The commission is going to be formed into divisions, holding simultaneous hearings. I can envision two hearings going on at one time, one relating to a hydroelectric dam project and the other to the transmission line, and one coming up with one decision and one coming up with the opposite decision. It doesn't make any sense to segregate those kinds of things, because one doesn't work without the other. Certainly energy supply is an overall picture, and you don't break off small entities to deal with any specifics of that total picture.

When you find that you can in fact have two members of the commission constitute a quorum at a division of this committee, we're getting down to a pretty small percentage, where one vote or a tie vote, if the commission were divided on any particular sitting or hearing, could be decided then, theoretically, by either the chairman of that particular commission, who wouldn't have sat in on the hearing at all, or else by the cabinet. The whole public hearing process is disturbing, because it doesn't really follow the lines of democratic public hearings.

The bill gives the opportunity for the commission to consider various forms of power. Certainly there is no emphasis on anything other than standard hard power sources.

It seems that whenever we talk about things like solar power, we're inclined to have a kind of airy-fairy approach: "It might be fine sometime, but it's not feasible right now; it's not practical right now; it can't be done right now; or it won't work in this climate." That's the message I get whenever I talk to any government official, provincial or federal, relative to solar power. You know, in practice that's not right.

Every day I pass a home on the highway which, I think for some $7,000, put together a solar heating setup. He sited his house correctly. It catches the sun. He was innovative. His heat storage is a bin of gravel in his basement. He is supplying 90 percent of his heat requirements.

This act establishes a commission, but there is no precedent given in this act to the requirement for that commission to review alternate power sources. As I say, they very probably would have the right to look at that, but there is no emphasis in the act to ensure that that will happen.

I found a very interesting letter in the letters to the editor of a magazine published in Ontario, I believe it is. It was on the joint solar conference that was held at UBC. This letter is written by a layman who.... Well, he's not exactly a layman, but certainly he's concerned about the stats of government. He says:

"The vast majority of our fellow citizens are not sold on solar, not just because of their wallets, but mainly because practical bread-and-butter solar heating has never been properly presented to them by their government, either federal or provincial. Governments continue to downgrade solar heating, on the advice of their resident sitting bureaucrats and the various utilities, to the extent" — and he's speaking of Ontario — "that the Department of Energy has publicly gone on record as saying that solar heating is still many years down the road."

This individual lives in Ontario. He lives in a solar-heated house.

"Right now, in mid-April, in my greenhouse I have lush flowers, tomatoes, lettuce, beets, carrots and peas growing eight feet up the wall."

He goes on to say that when he began, back in 1970, he was building what everyone said was an impossible dream and was regarded by his neighbourhood as a loony. But he's not anymore. He says the television trucks and camera crews helped change all that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you got the right bill?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I've got the right bill, Mr. Minister. and I think the Speaker will agree that the concern about energy includes a concern about utilization of the sources of energy available. Solar energy is one of those sources, and there is a lack of emphasis in this bill on the encouragement of solar heat. As this gentleman from Ontario has said, the position is taken that it's way down the road — it's expensive and impractical. I suggest that this bill should include a very strong emphasis to ensure that the Utilities Commission is spending a great deal of time and money in ensuring that not only solar power but wind power and the use of wood waste are looked at much more carefully. As I look through this bill I see nothing specific on those. I see everything about gas and electric and thermal, and just brief mention of those items of the more modern, soft-energy approach. I believe the bill is out of balance on that particular score.

My main concern relates to my first remarks. I believe it's a dangerous bill because it is certainly not going to ensure

[ Page 4082 ]

an independent review of the long-term approach to our energy resources and needs. It's tied very closely, although very discreetly, to the cabinet, in the hope that when unpopular decisions are reached the cabinet will escape the blame — but that's where those decisions will come from. There will be legal implications involved. It's a bill that satisfies none of the various sectors of B.C. society. Right across the board we have people complaining about this bill, and I believe that if this bill passes in the Legislature we may find ourselves facing some rather serious court cases as a result of some of the things that may happen because of the way in which the commission is set up.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions to raise with the minister regarding the Utilities Commission. Almost to a sense, it's almost reminiscent of the government's uranium policy, which specifically allows a company like Placer Development to proceed with their uranium-moly mine well before a public inquiry is ever called upon.

In addressing this act, the minister has taken questions concerning the Hayward report on notice three times in the House. I'm wondering particularly, Mr. Minister, what this minister is going to state concerning the Hayward report. Just to go over the Hayward report once again, concerning the Utilities Commission in this aspect, it says not to contact native people. Do you remember that one, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've been extremely patient while the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about things that have nothing to do with this bill and could have been raised in my estimates and weren't. Now the member for Atlin — I don't know what the House wants to do about it — is talking about a question I have taken as notice in question period in this House on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the debate would at least stay relevant to the bill.

MR. HOWARD: On that point of order, when the minister's estimates were being considered before the committee was called, the government House Leader noted that there were two bills — one dealing with mines and this one — that covered subject matters within the minister's ministry and could be examined in that light. Later the Leader of the Opposition, commenting towards the end of the estimates, said that some of the things would more appropriately be dealt with in committee. There was a general view that some laxity could have been permitted under this particular bill to deal with subject matters that might not normally be considered. If the House could look at it with an appreciation of those earlier comments, I think we would be all right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I agree, but surely there are some things that can't be discussed under the bill. In terms of questions taken as notice, how can I answer those questions in this bill when I have taken the questions as notice? I just ask for some fairness, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister makes a good point. Questions taken as notice are questions taken as notice, and the minister is responsible for those questions that have been posed to him in the House. The House is reminded that during second reading of any bill great latitude is allowed with respect to the principle of the bill. However, in spite of statements that might have been made in committee during a minister's estimates, the House rules are such that it would be best if we could maintain some relevancy with respect to Bill 52, which is before us now. I am sure that the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and all hon. members are aware of that.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting involved in starting to speak on the matter to give some background to the minister regarding the Utilities Commission and the faith people are going to put in the Utilities Commission when there is a report like the Hayward report circulating around this province which involves a social discrimination aspect, stating not to contact certain people. When you have your utility commission, Mr. Minister, how many people are going to put faith in a commission appointed by the government when there's been nothing done about the Hayward report and other reports that have come out condemning certain aspects and social strata in this province?

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Hydro has consistently developed certain reports on the northern dam scheme, and not once has this minister stood up and condemned these reports when they make such outlandish statements as not to contact native people. He should have come out attacking the Hayward report, as well as the report from October 1979 on the transmission study that stated northern communities would not receive power because it's not easy to tap off small amounts of power to local communities, the same as the April 1979 Hydro report which went public that northem townsites and mines also would not receive power from the Stikine-Iskut or Liard dam schemes. It's going to be very difficult for people in this province to support a government-appointed commission when Hydro last fall stated that the communities of Lower Post and Upper Liard would be flooded, as well as Hot Springs provincial park, from the Liard Hydro project.

An interesting aspect of this is: why is Hydro spending millions of dollars in the Stikine this week and the reports of this fall, while building access roads into the damsite, when a supposed utility commission is being proposed to view and come down with a ruling if B.C. Hydro can proceed with the Stikine-Iskut dam system? There are work stoppages at the Echo Lake Hydro camp working on the lower region of the Stikine-Iskut dams. This is costing Hydro millions of dollars. On Friday top management officials of Hydro are going to fly in on private aircraft to Echo Lake to see if they can stop this work stoppage. Hydro is presently over $6 billion in debt. Last week Hydro published certain reports concerning the northern dam systems and schemes which will cost an additional $13 billion to $16 billion for the province — money that is going to have to be brought up and fronted by the taxpayers of this province. A government-appointed commission — this utility commission — will be viewed skeptically by many northern residents who have seen detailed Hydro reports on the Stikine-Iskut and Liard dam systems, who have seen camps and the work stoppages at Echo Lake, who have seen camps being built with the food camps brought in, who have seen massive equipment and the foremen talking to local residents telling them when the dam is going to be built. It appears that this utility commission is only going to serve the betterment of B.C. Hydro who, because of its mismanagement, is $6 billion in debt.... It has a secretive way of not releasing reports concerning local residents and then turning around, Mr. Speaker, and saying

[ Page 4083 ]

they don't exist, particularly when they have their own signatures on the reports themselves. The minister is quite aware of that.

B.C. Hydro, to a certain extent, is using this government to continue their con, their massive dam building and money madness, by having a front group, this supposed proposed Utilities Commission, take the heat off of Hydro. People are viewing Hydro's debt and they're just wondering what kind of a financial monster Hydro is. This Utilities Commission is simply going to take the heat off of Hydro, who can turn around and eventually say: "The commission approved our dam systems. The commission approved our $13 billion debt." I won't be supporting this act, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt that many people of our party will support this sellout to B.C. Hydro.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going to be reasonably brief this afternoon. I always get a hand from the minister when I say that. I'm raising topics that the minister is generally very much aware of, but I thought this would be the proper place to raise some of these topics for the last time this session. I don't intend to go into a lot of detail, although I've got a great deal of detail on all these matters in front of me.

As the previous speaker stated, I will not be supporting this bill. This is the kind of bill I could have supported except for some of the clauses within the bill that the minister has said he refuses to amend or withdraw, because it's the kind of thing that this province and people concerned with energy matters in this province have been waiting for for a long, long time. But to leave the final decision to cabinet makes the bill, in fact, almost totally useless. It puts it back into the political arena.

I'd like to cite a couple of examples. The proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line is now being shoved and rammed through my riding. It may well be that that 500-kilovolt transmission line is necessary. But we don't know that. Nobody knows that, because there was never a proper financial or environmental impact study done on that proposed transmission line. The Shaffer report, a study that was commissioned by this government under the Environment and Land Use Committee, recommended that the line not proceed, that a very expensive.... When that line started out, we were told by B.C. Hydro, it was going to cost the public of British Columbia $350 million. We found in a secret internal memo from Hydro that the cost of the line had gone up to $700 million. Now we know that the total cost of that line....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You've heard this before. We've talked about it. But I want it to go on the record. The final cost of this line — and this is not the latest figure made available to us — is going to be $1.3 billion. I'm guessing that by the time the line is completed in 1982 the final cost will be closer to $1.8 billion or so, and we don't even know if that transmission line is going to work.

The contracts that were let by this government for the underwater portion were let without guarantees to the foreign companies that are now in the process of constructing those underwater cables without guarantees that those cables will work. So they may be spending all of this money with no guarantee that Vancouver Island will get that power anyway.

The government proceeded with a Hydro decision condoned by this government to proceed with that terrible expenditure for a project which may not be needed, and in which the government forgot to look at energy alternatives.

I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) shaking his head. You know, if he'd taken an interest in this whole subject, wood waste may have been one of the energy alternatives for an interim period for Vancouver Island.

This brings me to another subject. The House is familiar with the fact that right now on Texada Island there is a small protest group, because most people in my riding, although they are opposed to this line — at least in the way it was initiated.... There was still a very small group protesting the construction of this Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line across Texada Island. Eight people have been charged and thrown in the clink — the slammer, I think they call it — for obstructing the construction of road rights-of-way on Texada Island. While I don't condone civil disobedience, I can fully understand the frustrations of the people involved in this very strenuous protest on Texada Island. They're protesting the, way the government has gone about reaching the conclusions on how this transmission line should be built. They're protesting the autocratic way in which Hydro deals with people in this province. It proceeds with projects all over this province without proper hearings and without any kind of financial or environmental impact studies. So I understand and I can sympathize with those people. But as I said, there are other ways to go about these things. I do have some sympathy for the small subcontractors involved in that line and for the people employed there. It's costing them money and jobs. They're not directly related to Hydro in any way, yet they seem to be paying the price for Hydro's folly.

Another alternative that the government may have looked at was the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island. It may have been a viable alternative to this horrendous use of electric power. I should remind you that not long ago some of our caucus members had the opportunity of meeting with senior management people from B.C. Hydro — Mr. Bonner and company. As hard as you may find this to believe, Mr. Bonner told us quite directly and distinctly when we questioned him about the need for some of these projects that we may not need the energy now or in the next ten years, but we can always export our excess energy to the United States and add those funds to the revenues of the province. Never mind the fish, the streams, the environmental damage and the havoc it causes to the lives of many people. Never mind the pesticides they use on these rights-of-way that infiltrate our waterways and watersheds. There are seven watersheds affected on the Sunshine Coast alone. But in any event, this was what we were told. And he said: "Besides, if we don't do this, we'll have to go to nuclear energy." I suspect that's the way Mr. Bonner would like to go, but I think he's being held up a little on that by public protest.

I started to suggest to the minister that one of the alternatives that should have been looked at prior to the decision for the 500-kilovolt transmission line was the possibility of the utilization of natural gas in this province. We produce natural gas in this province, and we're making strong attempts to export that natural gas. I listened very closely to the minister's opening remarks, and the minister was agreeing that this British Columbia resource should be used on Vancouver Island. The problem is that the costs for that proposed project are going up every day. Also, we don't know who is going to get the contract. I assume that all proposals will be placed before this Utilities Commission, but the fact is the final

[ Page 4084 ]

decision will be made in cabinet. What concerns me on a constituency level — and I was given this information on a straightforward, person-to-person basis from a senior official from the gas engineering division of B.C. Hydro — is that if B.C. Hydro gets the contract to supply natural gas to Vancouver Island at some future date, you can rest assured that it will be long after our lives are over before you get any in your riding, at the big mills in Powell River, Woodfibre, Port Mellon and theSunshine Coast, for domestic and/or commercial use.

While Hydro and its prospectus throw out this little sop, and do a few underwater studies — underwater studies have been completed by another firm in any event, so it's a duplication of studies — we know that there will be no natural gas. We will not have the B.C. resource which British Columbians have a right to in our riding; we'll be left out once again. So I don't like the way that's heading, and I hope that the minister will give very senous consideration in cabinet to the matters I've just raised. In effect, if that contract is eventually awarded to B.C. Hydro, it means that some 35,000 British Columbians will be denied the use of that resource.

Another item that I'd like to discuss very briefly is the Gambier Island situation for which the minister is totally responsible in terms of the Minister of Mines. I'm requesting that the minister cease, desist and cancel those exploration leases on that delicate, fragile island. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) agrees with what I"m saying; the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) agrees with what I'm saying, although he doesn't have the backbone to back up the Islands Trust commission which is under his jurisdiction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal allusion, hon. member. I'll have to ask you to withdraw that reference.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You want me to withdraw the minister's backbone?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal allusion which I find unparliamentary. Would the member simply withdraw it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw. He's not here to defend himself; otherwise I'd have a little row with you over this one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Although great latitude is allowed during second reading, hon. member, we must stick to what is described in the bill. We can debate the principle of what is described in the bill. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I attempted to bring this matter of the proposed mining situation on Gambier Island up in this House on other occasions. I received no satisfactory answers from anybody, including the Premier, who said: "Talk to the Minister of Energy." I tried to raise it under the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm); he said: "Talk to the Minister of Energy." I attempted to raise the subject under the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers); he said he was concerned, but it was totally under the purview of the Minister of Energy. I am now discussing this with the Minister of Energy. Where the heck is he going to tell me to go? I've got a good idea what he'd like to tell me. So this is the last opportunity. Even the Premier of this province wouldn't answer questions, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With respect, the question is of the minister. Ample opportunity was given during the estimates of the minister. I'm sure the hon. member knows that and will relate the debate to Bill 52.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, except to say that the minister now has a chance to clean up the situation on that very delicate, fragile island. They're not making Gulf Islands anymore. So I hope the minister, who is very familiar with the whole topic anyway, will listen sympathetically to the people before they go to court on this subject, if they do go to court; they may not be allowed to. But I hope the minister will listen sympathetically to that whole....

The report said, by the way, that Gambier Island has access to approximately two million people in the lower mainland and could be a second Stanley Park to those two million people.

On to my other topic, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you start talking about ferry service in my bill, I'm quitting. [Laughter.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The transportation services in my riding are really terrible.... No, I'm just kidding.

Mr. Speaker, I do have one last topic. Approximately a year and a half ago, perhaps closer to two years ago, a former Minister of Energy of this province introduced guidelines to govern self-serve gas stations. He said that if the guidelines didn't work and weren't obeyed by the multinational oil companies, legislation, regulation and a distinct, tough statement would be brought in by this government. I'm telling you right now, the guidelines are not working. I can tell you for sure. For every individual service station operator who goes out of business in this province because of a self-serve, at least five jobs are lost. For every self-serve that is set up anywhere in this province, approximately four independents go out of business. This is the last opportunity this session to raise this matter again, requesting that the government, through that minister, seriously consider bringing in legislation or regulation as soon as possible to control the growth of self-serves in this province and preserve the small independent businessman. Don't let the whole gasoline or petroleum products industry fall into the hands of a few multinational corporations that are not even controlled in this country, never mind this province, in any way, shape or form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your latitude.

MR. BARBER: Under Social Credit we have had three Ministers of Energy in four and a half years. It appears clear to us that each has been worse than the previous one.

We now have a bill before us which may well result in litigation, and which has been presented by that master of administrative law who is responsible for such bungling as the Heroin Treatment Act. There is good reason to suspect that the bill he brings forward here may have as many legal flaws and loopholes as did the Heroin Treatment Act, about which he was solemnly and repeatedly warned by the official

[ Page 4085 ]

opposition. However, he pressed on with that bill, much to the subsequent embarrassment of his own government, and now he is no longer Minister of Health.

We have a bill here....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You were thinking "thank God he's no longer Minister of Health."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, we do too, but not that one. Dennis Cocke would make a great Minister of Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill 52, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: The concern I'd like to raise in regard to this bill is the question of independence, autonomy and integrity in regard to the functions and powers of the Utilities Commission.

Let me briefly read section 3 of the bill. It says:

" (1) The commission shall comply with any general or special direction of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions. (2) A direction given by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under subsection (1) is a regulation under the Regulation Act."

Section 3, which I've just read in its entirety, betrays the true intentions of the coalition government. Section 3 makes it perfectly clear what their political agenda really is; section 3 makes it irrevocably obvious what the real thinking behind the bill is, The bill, as my colleague from Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said, is intended to provide a buffer between the public and B.C. Hydro; the bill is also intended to provide a buffer between the public and the cabinet itself, where, we can clearly read in this bill, the real power lies.

Now the fact that the current Minister of Energy — number three in four and a half years — will receive in a personal way more awesome and irrevocable powers than have ever been granted to one individual in the field of energy is an important topic for discussion. It will be discussed later as this bill proceeds — slowly — through the House. The fact that one Socred proposes to give himself personal power that no New Democrat minister ever even imagined, much less asked for, is a prospect that should remind some people of the hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party when it raised the old and false spectre about awesome, sweeping powers.

We have here a minister who has so offended his own former friends on the Employers Council of British Columbia that they sent him a telegram yesterday — which today he said he has not received; one wonders who opens his mail and who reads it to him and how slow they must be doing it — that clearly indicates the dissatisfaction of the Employers Council of British Columbia — of all groups! — with the clearly czar-like powers that the Minister of Energy wants to have for himself and all by himself. When the Employers Council of British Columbia, which is hardly a New Left group in B.C., also takes offence at the sweeping powers that Social Credit is attempting to give itself, then maybe indeed there is something to be said for killing the bill.

It's not just persons concerned about the natural systems of air, water and land who are opposed to this bill; it's not just persons familiar with the bankrupt planning practices of Social Credit in regard to energy who are concerned about the bill; it's not just persons concerned about the fact that, thanks to Social Credit, we were ripped off to the tune of $1 billion on the Columbia River Treaty and ripped off again on the High Ross Dam — all of them ridiculous schemes entered into by Social Credit.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Aided and abetted by Social Credit in 1953, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) knows perfectly well.

All those people who are well aware of the historical incompetence of Social Credit in planning for the energy needs of this province have, together with the Employers Council of British Columbia, registered their strong protest about this bill. When even the government's own political supporters, who comprise the vast majority of the membership of the Employers Council of B.C., are moved to send a telegram publicly attacking this minister and his bill, then perhaps the people are well advised to think twice about supporting it. When even the Employers Council of British Columbia thinks there is something wrong, it's just possible that there just might be.

What's wrong with the bill, in particular as it offends me, is the fact that the government proposes to create a kind of puppet which, as is clearly demonstrated by section 3, will have no powers but those granted to it by the cabinet, and may assume no initiative and take no independent action other than that also granted by the cabinet. One has to wonder what the political purpose of setting up such a theatre of puppets in the field of energy is. What is the real political agenda of Social Credit in doing so?

Well, in part it has to do with the current public disrepute of B.C. Hydro. I would argue that the tactic being followed here is to buffer Hydro from the public by creating a phony-baloney Utilities Commission that has no real power. Section 3 clearly indicates they have no independent life of their own whatever — none at all; it can be revoked instantly by the order-in-council system. It makes it obvious that the government has read the polls and has held its meteorologically political finger to the wind and discovered that Hydro ain't popular. Having discovered this, they've chosen to create the pretence that Hydro will be made accountable; therefore the government will become popular because the government finally mastered this beast called Hydro, rampaging all over the province out of control, as the public presumes it does.

The same political course they've chosen here to get themselves out of the mess they find themselves in regarding Hydro's unpopularity is remarkably similar to that pursued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in regard to regional districts. I will only allude to it briefly, Mr. Speaker, by way of comparison.

What did that minister do? Well, he set up another puppet: a land-use bill, drafts of which have been seen. He set up the fiction of creating a county system, which is glorified regional districts by another name. They have greater power and more concentrated authority. He pretended to be in the business of bringing regional governments into line because the political polls told him that was popular to do.

Social Credit is not, in fact, prepared to do the real thing, but they are prepared to engineer the appearance of it. They are prepared to create the fiction that they are bringing regional government into line. The way they do that is by this unsubstantiated talk of county government. Similarly, they

[ Page 4086 ]

are now prepared to bring to public attention the fiction that Hydro will be controlled by this bill and that Hydro will be governed by a utilities commission.

The fact is, contrary to the fiction engaged in by Social Credit, that the intent of this bill is to protect Hydro from the buffeting of critical public opinion. The reason that's being done is to protect Robert Bonner and the other Socreds who've always had a hand in running Hydro. The reason it's being done is to get the government out of political hot water.

Section 3(l) says: "The commission shall comply with any general or special direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions." Clearly this is a body which, even before it has been set up, is emasculated. It is a body which clearly is not going to be granted any independent initiative whatsoever. This is a commission which, should it choose to attack Hydro's long-range energy projections in a critical and thoughtful way, could — and we predict would — simply be ordered by cabinet to stop doing so.

We're all familiar with the political interference that has occurred in other areas of government in this province, like redistribution, the Eckardt report, and Gracie's Finger.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 52, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Everyone knows the notorious Socred practice of political interference in delicate matters of public policy. What we didn't know today, until we had the proof of it in section 3, is the fact that these guys are apparently willing to promote one public fiction while following one private fact. They hope no one notices the difference between the two.

The private fact is that the commission has no independent life of its own. As I said before, if they decided on their own initiative to take on Hydro's energy projections, this cabinet could stop them from doing so, and probably would. If this commission decided, on its own initiative, to promote the soft-energy paths of cheap and affordable alternatives, this cabinet could and probably would stop them from doing so. Section 3 gives them this power.

If the commission decided and proposed to fund community groups and alternative energy groups, independent of the wishes of the Minister of Energy — number three in four and a half years — they could, and probably would, be told to forget it, because it was contrary to Social Credit's grand design.

Section 3 gives the cabinet and the minister the power to stop any initiative, no matter how imaginative, witty, important and interesting, that the commission may decide to prosecute.

Why would the government want that power? If they appoint a good commission, give it good authority, and make it responsible to the law — and not to the politicians — why is it necessary for Social Credit to emasculate the commission in the same bill? If they really believe that an impartial, disinterested and scientifically sound opinion has merit, then why in section 3 do we see them strangling the ability of the commission to act independently regardless of the politics of the day? What political agenda does Social Credit have that is more important than the sound, scientifically reasoned, and scientifically based opinion of a public utilities commission?

If there's any problem with the integrity of their data, those data can be criticized by other scientific opinions. If the Energy Commission presents material that is not substantiated in a scientific, rational and logical way, then those data and the conclusions that derive from them will be repudiated in a scientific way.

What fear can the government have that the Utilities Commission will produce the wrong evidence? If they're not afraid of the scientific evidence and the scientific criteria applied by the Utilities Commission, why then do they need the powers of section 3? If this government welcomes independent inquiry, why do they create a dependent commission that may not pursue aggressively and autonomously those same scientific questions? There are rational disputes in the energy community about which are the softer, cheaper, more immediately available energy paths we might follow.

Some time ago I noticed the Minister of Energy plagiarizing comments made two years ago by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Two years ago the member for Alberni argued in this House, to the laughter and ridicule of the coalition opposite, that the most immediately and cheaply available new source of energy was conservation itself. Two years ago that was laughed at, ridiculed and jeered at by the ignorants opposite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, that comment which alludes to members opposite and members of this House will have to be withdrawn.

MR. BARBER: I didn't say they were ignorant whatevers; I said they were ignorants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It still is a personal allusion and I find it unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: To whom?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the members.

MR. BARBER: Personal allusion? It's a group allusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please withdraw the statement.

MR. BARBER: It was not a personal allusion, it was a group allusion. Two years ago they all jeered like jackals when my colleague said these things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw the language.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. BARBER: But the behaviour of the Socreds two years ago, when my colleague from Alberni pointed out that the only new, cheap, affordable-in-every-aspect source of energy is conservation itself, is a matter of public record. They jeered, guffawed and betrayed their true knowledge of the situation. Two years later the Minister of Energy is reduced to plagiarizing the comments of the member for Alberni.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. BARBER: Come on? I remember the way you guys

[ Page 4087 ]

treated him two years ago. I remember perfectly well the way you ridiculed his arguments, which were sound and scientific. This year you finally agree with them.

I don't want to comment on the lawsuit currently going on, where it would appear that the Socred caucus researchers may have defamed a member of this Legislature — the same one — but it is a matter of record that the single most informed, imaginative and tough-minded member of this House on energy questions is the member for Alberni. Two years ago he was arguing that conservation is the single most important new source of energy. Two years later and two years too late the minister purports to have seen the light, What if the Utilities Commission chose to follow the same light and ask questions along the same lines and it were deemed politically inexpedient for them to do so? Well, sure enough, section 3 provides that the government could force them to abandon that research and force them to abandon those inquiries.

The Minister of Energy is taking notes. He'll say, "Oh, gosh, I'd never do that, " and once again ask us to take him on faith — like he asked us to believe the Heroin Treatment Act was legal. Well, we don't; we're skeptical.

One of the reasons we're skeptical was made perfectly clear by my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) in regard to the Shaffer report, and in regard as well to the way in which, clearly and deceptively, attempts were made to deny public information about the real costs, the environmental problems, the route advantages and disadvantages of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line. This too is a matter of public record. It was only because of the member for Mackenzie that it was thus made public. If we had to rely on the Socreds to reveal these documents, they would never have been revealed. You know, Mr. Speaker, for some weeks they tried to deny the existence of the Shaffer report. They tried to pretend it didn't exist, and it was only after weeks of persistent questioning from my colleague from Mackenzie that the people of British Columbia were finally made aware of a competent and differing scientific opinion in regard to that route.

One of the mandates of the Utilities Commission is to seek competent scientific opinion. If the Utilities Commission acts with any courage and vigour they may well find themselves being shut down and foreclosed in their scientific inquiry because of the unnecessary and foolish provisions of section 3. Scientific inquiry, if it is honest and consistent with the scientific method, must be allowed to go the whole course. Otherwise, it is not science; it is only pseudo-science; it is only alchemy that does not in fact allow the full and proper representation of all of the scientific data and opinions.

One of the principal tasks of any utilities commission is to assess the best available scientific opinion about the energy options. But what does section 3 do? It gives Social Credit the power to say no to scientific inquiry. It allows Social Credit to stop the Utilities Commission from pursuing inquiries that may prove embarrassing to Social Credit. If that is not the case then why is this provision here? If that was not the real political agenda of the Liberals, Tories, Socreds and members of Action Canada opposite, what then is the purpose? There can only be two reasons. The excuse the minister may offer is that he proposes never to invoke the section; he would never stop independent scientific inquiry, no matter how embarrassing the outcome might be to the government. He may tell us that. If so, then we ask him to withdraw section 3 of the bill, because if he doesn't propose to use the power, he should not be granted the power. If he proposes to have the power it must only be because he intends to use it. The only possible application of that power's use is to stop independent scientific inquiry from embarrassing his colleagues in that unholy coalition called Social Credit. There's no other purpose, no other rationale.

What intelligent person can be opposed to the rational result of scientific inquiry? No intelligent person can be so opposed. What politician might be? That's a different question, because we know full well a Socred politician might be. What would happen, for instance, if it could be demonstrated — as my colleague from Alberni has hypothesized over the last three years — that it might be cheaper and more fuel efficient to provide retrofit to every home and building on Vancouver Island than it would be to bring electricity and natural gas here? What if it could be demonstrated by scientific inquiry that Hydro was wrong and that conservation was right? What if it could be demonstrated that the whole scheme to bring both natural gas and the Cheekye-Dunsmuir electrical power to the Island was unnecessary, overcostly, and not energy-efficient? If that could be demonstrated, it might embarrass Social Credit, because they've decided to hitch their wagon on this Island — considering how totally unpopular they are here, one wonders why they even bother — to both stars, one called the natural gas line and the other called Cheekye-Dunsmuir electrical transmission line. It may be that at this point in time, and for the next 20 and 30 years, we don't need both. It may be that with a competent, aggressive and certain conservation program involving retrofit and every other aspect of its application, it will turn out Hydro is wrong and conservation is right. Such scientific proof could. however, embarrass the Socreds.

Therefore we come to see why section 3 might be in here. Section 3 puts a stop to the independence of the Utilities Commission. It puts a permanent seal on scientific inquiry. It says you may go so far and no further, and if you attempt we will direct you, under the Regulation Act and under section 3 of this statute, to stop, and we can force you in law to do so.

What is Social Credit afraid of? Are they afraid that the daughter of Bert Price is going to waste the taxpayers' money, and therefore they want to cut off the spigot and seal it up? Are they afraid that the daughter of Bert Price, currently the director of personnel at a shopping centre, who purports to be qualified to head the commission — at least that's what Social Credit tells us — is going to foolishly misspend the taxpayers' money, and therefore you have to put some control on her, and section 3 has to be invoked? Have they so little confidence in their own pals that they have to emasculate them, courtesy of this section? If they're saying they have no confidence in their own appointees, they'd better appoint someone else. If they're saying they have no confidence in the scientific method, they'd better think again.

There should be no halt put to and no stop placed on the necessity for an independent Utilities Commission to go all the way in pursuing and prosecuting the great debates regarding energy development for this province. Even if it's embarrassing for the coalition, they should be prepared nonetheless to allow a Utilities Commission to seek all the answers to all the questions. If they are afraid of all the answers, then we understand what section 3 is all about. If they don't trust their own appointees, then we understand what section 3 is all about. If they tell us they're never going to use section 3, then we do not understand what it's all about, because it shouldn't

[ Page 4088 ]

be in there at all unless the government intends to employ it. There is a logical flaw in the government's position regarding section 3.

They will no doubt attempt to trivialize the argument. The Minister of Energy — number three in four and a half years — will stand up and say: "Oh, you get us wrong. You're being political, you're being partisan. Gosh, all it means is that we wouldn't want them to duplicate studies that B.C. Hydro carried out, or that private enterprise carried out, or that Goldfarb carried out." Or that whoever carried out — maybe Larry Eckardt next time. They may offer some trivial explanation regarding duplication of effort.

I have to argue again that if they had appointed competent people to the Utilities Commission, those people would not engage in a duplication of effort. They would not simply copy the effort of Hydro studies or Goldfarb studies or Eckardt studies. The government has a logical flaw in its own defences. If they're saying that they want to remove the possibility of redundant and duplicating effort, then they're telling us that they've appointed nitwits to the commission. Competent people on the commission wouldn't do that.

The government has nothing to fall back on, except this: they are prepared, apparently, to suffer any public embarrassment in order to stop the whole truth getting out about the alternative energy paths available in British Columbia. They've killed the Energy Commission established by the New Democrat administration. They are bringing in a bill here which even their own former friends on the Employers Council find offensive. For two years they have ridiculed and ignored the serious and sound advice presented by one of the most serious thinkers in the field of energy this province enjoys the presence of — that is, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly); only recently have they begun to plagiarize his speeches. They are admitting, by virtue of section 3, that they do not trust their own commission to act properly and independently.

This is a heck of a series of admissions for this government to make. It's not inconsistent with Social Credit that they don't want the whole truth to get out. We know that they refuse to call Larry Eckardt to the bar of the House. We know that they refuse to release the transcripts and interviews taken in regard to the notorious case of Gracie's Finger. There is a history within the Social Credit administration of deliberate attempts to suppress evidence, information and opinion which the people of British Columbia are entitled to. They've done it as recently as this afternoon in question period. Now if they're prepared to do it in order to defend the Eckardt commission — that one-man Socred report....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must remind you that we are on Bill 52, the utilities bill.

MR. BARBER: What I'm trying to demonstrate is why a government prepared to introduce the powers of section 3 to shut down independent scientific inquiry and to insult the members — who they appointed — of their own Utilities Commission by telling them to stop at any given point if the Socreds decide to make them stop, is so consistent with the fear Socreds have always had of free, open, public disclosure. If they believed in open and public disclosure, we would never have the ridiculous spectacle of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) making a fool of himself, trying to defend the indefensible in regard to the Eckardt commission. If they believed in full public disclosure in that instance, we might take them at their word in this instance. But, you see, we can't, because we know their record in all those other areas; thus we are suspicious of the likely record in this area.

What rational excuse can be offered for the power the minister wants to have under section 3 to stop independent scientific, dispassionate, disinterested, impartial opinion from being obtained? He will say, "Why, none; you've got me wrong; you misunderstand, " or words to that effect. He will say he's worried about duplication, or words to that effect. He will say that we're puffing it up politically, or words to that effect, None of those answers is the honourable one. None of those answers would deal with the real question.

A government that welcomed free opinion, scientifically founded, would not ask for the powers section 3 provides. A government unafraid of taking a second look and realizing that just possibly Hydro's schemes are inadequate or overadequate would not need the powers of section 3 to shut down their own Utilities Commission and to stop them from pursuing a course of independent inquiry. A government unafraid of informed public opinion would never ask for the powers in section 3. If we had an open government worthy of the name, this particular provision would never have been presented in the first place. Unfortunately, we have a closed government, worthy only of the name Social Credit, and increasingly in disrepute in the eyes of the public because they refuse to be open and straight and candid and truthful with the public. If that were not the case, why would they ask for the powers in section 3? If that were not the case, why would we see a bill which even their pals on the Employers Council think is so extreme and radical and dangerous as to require delay, reconsideration and rewrite?

Social Credit has a great deal to answer for. The third minister in four and a half years has got a lot to account for in regard to the failure of his own party to deliver a competent energy policy. In particular, he has to answer the obvious questions about why it is that the government proposes to shackle its own appointees to its own commission, through the power that it wants to give itself under section 3 of this act. Lacking satisfactory answers to these questions, we cannot support the bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the members opposite on a lot of the aspects of this bill. I was really happy that the first member for Victoria not only made his own speech but mine too. I wouldn't contradict him on some of the things that I would have said about the things that he said. I want to make one thing clear in this House, though, for you and for the members and for the people in the gallery. On two or three occasions this afternoon.... I might say we have had the widest possible latitude in this bill that I have ever seen in this House, but that's okay. It is difficult for me to understand how we brought the heroin act in under this debate. However, we managed to do it on a couple of occasions.

The members opposite continue to talk about failure of legislative provision in that bill. I just want to remind everybody here that the British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld that legislation. That's the status of that act at this time. It has been upheld by the British Columbia court of appeal, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the people in this

[ Page 4089 ]

province should remember that, regardless of what members on that side think.

It never ceases to amaze me how that first member for Victoria can take off on his marvellous flights of fancy with absolutely no fuel whatsoever. He does it very well, but unfortunately most of what he says is all stuff and no substance. He's done it again today.

I do want to deal very briefly with one question. I would have dealt with this more fully in the committee stage, but since most of the members' comments dealt with section 3 of this bill, I would just like to remind the member that that whole part of the bill deals only with the regulatory powers of the commission, not with the review process or any of the other powers that the act confers.

I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that a utilities commission, by the very nature of its substance, has certain obligations to fulfil in terms of setting rates for its various utilities. It is sometimes difficult for the commission to take into account various policy directions, which might have been given to a utility by a government. I'm thinking of, for instance, British Columbia Hydro coming under control by this utilities commission for the first time ever in this province. This is a step that was not taken lightly, but was taken by this government and no other, including the previous government, which had the opportunity in three and a half years of governance of this province.

We, as a government, have told British Columbia Hydro that it must have a postage-stamp rate around the province. In other words it must charge the same rates for electricity in a hard-to-service area as it charges in an easy-to-service area like the lower mainland or Victoria. A utilities commission might find it extremely difficult to find that within its terms of reference in dealing with that utility's rates, because it isn't the kind of normal allowance that a utilities commission could give to a utility. We must have the opportunity of saying to the utility: "That direction was given by the government, so you'll take that into account when you're dealing with the rates."

The same thing is true now that the government has given B.C. Hydro the responsibility for rural electrification. That's a matter that worries Hydro extremely, in connection with what a utilities commission might consider. We've said that we may be able to give those directions to the Utilities Commission — not in some kind of blind and secret way — but we've also said that when we give those directions they must be up front, they must be regulations published in the normal way that regulations are published when given by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So rather than being some secret proposal made by the government they will be up front for everyone to see and they'll be known very carefully.

You know, it isn't as if this is some kind of new proposal that's just being made by this government which wants these awesome, sweeping powers that you talk about. There are many, many examples of exactly the same kind of section for exactly the same kinds of reasons, and I'll quote a couple of them. I don't want to bore the House, because I know that we should be talking about this at another time, perhaps, but in.... I can give you at least three federal acts. Section 9 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Act says: "The corporation shall comply with any directions from time to time given to it by the Governor-in-Council...." It's not only the Governor-in-Council, Mr. Speaker, but the minister, with respect to the exercise of its powers. In the Atomic Energy Control Act, it says: "The board shall comply with any general or special direction given by the minister with reference to the carrying out of its purposes." The Canadian Wheat Board Act says: "The Governor-in-Council may order...not inconsistent with this act, or direct the board as to the manner in which its operations, powers...." It's not unusual, Mr. Speaker, and it's been done in many acts in the past, and it's for a very specific reason. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talks about the National Energy Board, that great, independent body that deals with energy at the national level. If that member is really sitting in his place and considers the National Energy Board to be an independent body — an independent body that must get every order it makes passed by the Governor-in-Council — then that member didn't sit in Ottawa long enough to understand what was really going on.

Mr. Speaker, there's good reason for that section, and it deals only with the regulatory powers.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) had the opportunity to bring forward a couple of his favourite projects, and I have promised in the past that I'd take his comments into consideration. Certainly I hope the natural gas pipeline situation will be sorted out very quickly. I can't make any promises about where it will go; I would say, though, that if a natural gas pipeline comes from the south and goes up the Island it can go over to Powell River just as well as it can go across the other way to the Island. The thing flows both ways, so there's no problem there.

I have not addressed the guidelines for self-service stations at this time, but I promise I'll look into it and we'll see if there is some necessity for something to happen. I can't promise that either, but the member only asked if we'd consider it for next session, and I'll certainly look at it.

The general thrust of the other debates on second reading of this bill seemed to have concern with government making decisions. I can understand why some of the members opposite are against government making decisions. They spent three and a half years as government of this province and never made any major decisions. Certainly in the last year they were in office, when they started to panic about the lack of finances, there were no decisions made. This province came to a standstill for a year or 18 months because the members opposite were afraid to make those necessary decisions.

We do not agree that an independent body outside of government should make policy decisions. We believe the government was elected to make those policy decisions, and we intend to make them, Mr. Speaker. I don't apologize for that, and I never will. It's the people who are elected who must make policy decisions. If they make the wrong policy decisions and abuse their powers I know darned well that they'll be kicked out by the electorate. I stand here and accept that, and I hope all of you do as well, because that's what parliamentary democracy is all about: you make decisions, you hope you make the right decisions; and if you don't, the electorate answers you. That's fair, and that's the kind of democracy I support. That's what this bill supports as well.

Mr. Speaker, there were some personal attacks on the new chairperson of the Utilities Commission. I have a feeling that side is filled with some male chauvinists who don't like the idea of a woman taking on a position of importance in this province. I don't remember, during the three and a half years of NDP government, an assistant deputy minister who was a woman being appointed, and I don't remember a major position on any commission ever being filled by a woman.

[ Page 4090 ]

I'll tell you my record: I think I appointed the first assistant deputy minister in Canada who was a woman, and I have now appointed a woman to one of the highest-paid positions in this province, and I'm proud of it. I can't help it if those people on the opposite side are chauvinists — male chauvinists at that. That's not my fault, and I don't apologize for them. They'll have to live with their own consciences, Mr. Speaker.

This review process, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said, is the first of its kind in North America. It'll have some shakedown time, I'm sure, and we may have to make some changes to it, but it's the first direction ever taken on this continent to give the kind of review of major energy projects that is necessary for the public not only to be involved but to have the opportunity to fully participate. I'm proud of that.

The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) asked a number of questions, many of which I think were more for his own information than mine. He mentioned that no investor would ever make any decisions on investment under this legislation. Well, British Columbia, along with Alberta, just happens to be leading this country in terms of its economic development because of the sound, businesslike administrative decisions that have been made by this government. It is forecast by practically every jurisdiction that we will continue to lead this country in the economic sense.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm taking some wide latitude, Mr. House Leader — just some wide latitude. Mr. Speaker, in its announcement that it was going to take a second look — if that's the correct term — at its Kemano Completion project the other day, Alcan, in winding up the press release that it had, said that it could, and fully intended to, live within the full intention of this legislation; investors will live within the intent and responsibility of this legislation. There is absolutely no question that good corporate citizens will want to have the opportunity — for their own good as well as for the public good — to make sure that there is full public participation.

I'd like to make some comments about the comments of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who generally supports the review process but has some difference of opinion with a couple of the other sections of this bill. I said at the opening, Mr. Speaker, that we introduced much of this bill without much change, if any, from the previous act, which was put in place by the NDP when they were in government. Some of those sections may require some review later on and we'll give them that review at a later time — and I pledge that that review will be ongoing. Many sections may need, as the member said, rewriting, and we'll look at those as that goes along.

The matter of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation buying and selling gas in this province is not a new policy, but it is the policy of the government. I appreciate that that member may wish to have that policy changed, and he has the full opportunity to ask to have it changed. The same is true with the 15 percent limitation on companies which generate their own power. That's been policy for many, many years in this province; it isn't new. Again, it may not suit the philosophy of some other members of this House, and they have the opportunity to attempt to convince the government that that policy should be changed. But in the terms of this bill I don't have the opportunity to change government policy by myself, and there are ways in which we can do that, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the member stood and outlined his concerns about ways in which government policy dealing with energy should go.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) said there is no originality in this bill. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of this province British Columbia Hydro comes under full review for both its rates and construction. For the first time in the history of this province we will have the opportunity to do our own review of energy exports. The water comptroller, in doing some of the things he's done in the past, hasn't had legislative authority for that; we do now have that legislative authority within this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the member also talked about citizen input to energy decisions. Well, there will be citizen input to energy decisions in this bill. All energy decisions will have the full opportunity of public participation. I might just say in closing, though, that contrary to what the opinion might be on the other side of this House, public hearings, you know, are not only for people who want to stop projects; they're also for people who may want to see projects go ahead. That kind of dialogue is good done in public, and it will be done in public. It will be the the first time in this province that that opportunity has been available.

With that, I'm extremely happy to move second reading.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I deal with the standing order which provides for the correction of statements.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 42.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

The minister said: "There is good reason for that section" — referring to section 3 — "and it deals only with the regulatory powers," and thereby alluded to comments I made and thereby inadvertently, I am sure, misrepresented the case. I would briefly point out — under the provisions of the standing orders, Mr. Speaker — that section 3 appears on page 6 of the bill and bears no relationship whatever in the law to part 3 of the bill, which appears on page 15 and is concerned with regulation of public utilities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, order, please.

MR. BARBER: The concerns raised about section 3 were not fairly addressed or represented by the Minister of Energy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. Three times now I've asked the member to come to order. In all fairness, hon. member, section 42 allows a member to take his place at the conclusion of a statement by another member; it does not allow him to enter into further debate. That opportunity is, hon. member, to correct a statement which a member may have made which incorrectly quoted the previous member. That is what is allowed, not the opportunity for further debate. The opportunity for the member and the speech of the member must therefore be simply to correct a statement made by another member and attributed to himself. He makes that correction and then takes his place, and does not embark on further debate.

[ Page 4091 ]

MR. BARBER: Speaking on that point of order, that's precisely what I attempted to do in demonstrating to the House that the minister had inadvertently misrepresented our argument about section 3 and made it a case that cannot be substantiated when you read the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 19

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

Bill 52, Utilities Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

HORSE RACING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: In speaking in second reading on Bill 64, I would simply observe that this is neither a tax increase nor a tax decrease, but rather a rearrangement of the taxation which has been adjusted from time to time.

Under the existing legislation, 7 percent of the total amount which is wagered at racetracks, less a small commission — 2.5 percent of the amount which is collected — is remitted to the consumer taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance. The 7 percent levy is comprised of a 5.5 percent horse racing tax and various special levies equivalent to a 1. 5 percent rate of tax.

The 5.5 percent levy went into the consolidated revenue fund of the province, while 1 percent went to special trust funds for the purpose of supplementing the purses available for B.C.-bred horses. These funds are administered by two firms of chartered accountants: McAfee, Lilly and Co. for thoroughbred distribution, and E.C. Burnett for standardbred distribution.

The balance, 0.5 percent, was paid to the B.C. Racing Commission for the purpose of the Breeders' Incentive Fund. All fund payments were made to the trustees on a monthly basis.

As a result of proposed amendments to the Horse Racing Tax Act, the 5.5 percent racing tax is to be reduced to 3.5 percent, while special levies for purse supplements, breeders' assistance and other grants, which could be listed in committee if the House wishes at that time, are increased from 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent. Changes have also been made to make the B.C. Racing Commission totally responsible for monitoring and administering the B.C.-bred purse supplement, and the Breeders' Incentive Fund.

Mr. Speaker, in total, the bettor in British Columbia will still pay a levy equivalent to 7 percent of his or her parimutuel bet, but the proceeds will now be shared equally between the government and the horse industry.

I move second reading of Bill 64.

MRS. WALLACE: I was very interested in the minister's very brief remarks, which gave us a lot of figures that I'm sure a lot of the members of the House didn't really follow, because they aren't familiar with just what this act does. But the sum total is — and I think the minister will agree — that it's putting 2 percent more of the total take back into the racing industry, out of the taxpayers' share.

I'm very surprised to find the minister standing in the House and introducing this bill today when a few short weeks ago he indicated it couldn't be done until he brought in a new budget and that there was no provision for this change in the current budget. But he seems somehow to have changed his mind. Perhaps it was the Attorney-General who changed it for him when he appeared at a meeting of the racing industry in Vancouver unannounced and unexpected and advised a somewhat astounded racing industry that this was going to happen, and that they were going to get a 1 percent increase for the incentive grant, which was welcomed by all, but in addition they were going to get a 1 percent increase for the B.C.-Bred Owners Bonus Fund, and that was not expected. Certainly we can get into this when we get into committee, but the legislation does not specify that that's what's going to happen. It specifies that an additional 2 percent is going to be returned to the industry, but it does not specify just what that division will be. I assume that it will be by regulation, and I assume it will be set by this government rather than by the Racing Commission. I assume, inasmuch as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has indicated as much, that it will be a 1 percent increase to the B.C.-Bred Owners Bonus Fund and I percent to the incentive grant, but there is nothing specific in the legislation that says that.

I had a very interesting envelope arrive on my desk the other day, and it contained a letter. The letter is from Aldergrove, and it's addressed to Hon. William Bennett, Premier of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings.

"Dear Sir:

"As a thoroughbred breeder in British Columbia I wish to personally commend your government for providing a meaningful and well-appreciated increase in the British Columbia breeders' fund. This new level of government participation will produce, hopefully, the incentive required for breeders to improve their stock and compete in the open market.

"As a thoroughbred owner in British Columbia I remain less than satisfied with the increase in the British Columbia-bred owners' pool. Like other owners, I would like to bring animals here from other areas to race, and upgrade breeding stock after their

[ Page 4092 ]

retirement. The purses that I could earn would be less than for British Columbia–bred animals. Such discrimination also robs the fans, who pay the shot, of the opportunity to see top-flight international competitors."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Against B.C.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm reading from a letter, Mr. Minister, and I'll tell you who the letter's from later.

"With your program no horses will be imported and eventually only British Columbia-bred horses will race here. The added 1 percent will be spread over all races, with the effect of increasing purses by 20 percent. Why not just reduce the basic tax by 1 percent instead and let the increased handle and attendance provide the same 20 percent purse increase, or more? Your program would also have the effect of having British Columbia–breds stay here rather than having the good ones make a name for themselves elsewhere. Like the Breeders' Incentive Fund this would also reduce the breeders market to just British Columbia. It defeats the purpose of the program — i.e., to improve B.C.-breds to the point where people from other provinces and the U.S. will buy our yearlings and they will win in other jurisdictions. If left to local incentive increase there will be no improvement, rather just a gradual stagnation.

"The presentations to your government over the past few years have all included the following points: (1) decrease the total takeout; (2) improve the breeders' incentive position; (3) provide legislation for Sunday racing. You have given one of the three items, have ignored the other two, and provided another that was never even discussed — that is the B.C.-Bred Owners Bonus Fund.

"We could generate greater attendance, purses and government revenue by decreasing the takeout and substituting Sundays for Mondays in the schedule. The industry is the number one spectator sport in British Columbia. This position will certainly deteriorate unless the discrimination is reduced. Our fans would rather see owners buy one $35,000 top class animal than three overpriced $12,000 British Columbia–breds. I urge you to reconsider our government's position on reducing the takeout and enabling Sunday racing.

Yours very truly,
Glen D. Driedger."

I believe he was a past-president of a certain provincial organization. I think that letter summarizes very....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Glen D. Driedger, V. M., B. Comm., M.B.A., 4412-248 Street, RR 3, Aldergrove.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's one of your guys.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, he talks about "our government," so I assume he must be connected.... As far as I know he's not a member of our party, and it's not our government he's talking about, so it must be yours.

I have a lot of questions about this bill, and they're certainly covered in that letter, Mr. Speaker. Why is the government, without any request from any sector of the industry, redirecting 1 percent of the taxpayers' money into the B.C.–Bred Owners' Bonus? The 1 percent they have been getting since, I think, early '73 has the effect of increasing the purse won by a B.C.-bred horse by 33 percent. To double that to 2 percent will increase that purse by 60 percent. It means that there's a possibility — a great likelihood, in fact — of a horse that places second or third collecting a larger purse than the horse that places first, if the first-place horse is not B.C.-bred. This is a very unfair position for the approximately 25 percent of people who bring in fillies, race them — as was mentioned in the letter that I read — and then use them for breeding purposes. Certainly the purchase of those fillies that are from better stock and are better quality, brought in from outside, upgrades the quality of the racing and establishes a much higher standard. If we make it so it is uneconomical for people to do that, that's going to permit the standard of racing at the park to deteriorate.

The bill, as it's worded, indicates that the moneys will be used for the operation of race courses and horse racing meets in the province. Does this mean that they're going to use the money that's generated, say at Exhibition Park, to subsidize race tracks elsewhere in the province? I suspect that's what that means, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. I suspect that means that the money that's generated at Exhibition Park and, to some degree, at Sandown will be used to upgrade racing in other areas.

I go back to my original remark about the B.C. breeders' fund and the B.C.-bred purse fund money. Who is going to decide the formula? Is that going to be a decision of cabinet, put into regulation, or is it going to be at the discretion of the commission? Who's going to know what it is? This is, again, cabinet government. Rather than leaving the bill as it was and, if you were going to change the amount, simply changing the percentages in the existing bill — which would have been a very simple amendment, so we would know exactly what you're doing — you bring in a bill that's framed in gobbledegook and tell us that somehow an extra 2 percent is going to the racing industry. But how, where, by whose decision and when it can be changed or what its consistency or continuity will be, nobody knows.

Certainly it's cabinet government again, Mr. Minister, by not just simply changing those figures. If that's what you intend to do — what the Attorney-General told us and what was reported in the press that you were going to do — to up those two items, the incentive fund and the B.C. Bred Owners' Bonus, by 1 percent each, it would be very simple to change subsections 1 and 2 of section 2, I think it is, of the original act. Simply change those and then we would know. As it is, you've brought in a section that really is vague and meaningless. The only real meaning is that now somewhere down the line through regulations at a Thursday morning cabinet meeting somebody's going to decide how much whoever is going to get. Certainly it's not very good for public relations and the general public. It's certainly not in the best interests of the industry, because they need to know exactly where they are going and how it's going to continue. If you're doing it by regulations, which can be changed any Thursday morning, it's not in the best interests of the racing industry.

It seems to me that if you're going to encourage the horse racing industry in British Columbia, it's absolutely essential

[ Page 4093 ]

to increase the purses for horses that win, place or show, regardless of where they are bred, as long as we have B.C. people racing them and those horses are part of the British Columbia racing industry. As I've said before, many of those fillies which are very showy horses and big winners on the track can be brought in from outside and can become beautiful brood mares and help build up our B.C. stock. The incentive fund does just that when we give part of that fund to the various sectors involved in producing a horse. The industry has been asking for a slightly different approach to this problem that would create, perhaps, the same percentage to them and to the government at this point in time. Instead of changing the total tax take, lower that tax take. The result is that the purses would be larger and there would be more going into the various sectors of the industry. This has been done in many other jurisdictions. I have repeated this before to other ministers who have introduced other changes. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and I dealt with this matter at some length at one point. Wherever this has been done over a period of three or four more years, the thing has been self-sustaining. It has built up, as a result of the increased purses and more money going into the industry from that percentage, to a point that after a few years the reduction of two percentage points in the government share has meant the same dollar return.

Handling it in the way that the racing industry has requested meant that it wasn't just a straight subsidy to the industry. It was a tax formula that would build up to a point where the dollar return to government be equivalent to what we are getting now at the higher percentage. A like amount, of course, would go into the industry. That certainly makes more economic sense to me. It's a much better answer than just subsidizing the racing industry with taxpayers' dollars, which is in effect what you are doing. You've changed the words now so the taxes are lower and the share to the racing industry is higher, but it still amounts to a subsidy to the industry because there is no way that this is ever going to be recouped to the government. We're still going to have the small purses and a lack of interest in the industry, because it isn't going to build up the industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what the horses say.

MRS. WALLACE: That's what the horse owners say, and I think they probably know more about it than the horses.

Mr. Nielsen, who is not only the chairman of the provincial thoroughbred breeders but also the national chairman, has said that he is disturbed at what has happened to the people involved in the racing industry. Of course, there are a few people who stand to benefit quite substantially by this particular move. He has indicated that what he thought should happen was that half a percent would go to the breeders and another half a percent to the purses — not just to the B.C.-breds — and 1 percent to the public as a take-out reduction. That was the formula that was presented to the Krasnick committee. It was presented by the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, the B.C. Jockey Club and the thoroughbred breeders.

Mr. Nielsen went on to say that he was mystified as to who had recommended that the B.C.-bred bonus be doubled. He said: "The Krasnick report didn't recommend it, at least as far as we know." Of course that report has never been made public, and the minister has said he will not make it public. Mr. Nielsen also indicated that doubling of the bonus means that a B.C.–bred horse earns 66 percent more than an other-bred counterpart. The distortion between advertised purse and actual purse has corrupted values on the claiming market. That is certainly true. It has changed the whole standard of racing at Exhibition Park. We are getting horses that have been racing for much larger purses. They are bred out of province and are now dropping down and racing in lower classes. They're quite sure they will not be claimed and they're also quite sure they will win. It's taking a lot of the interest and excitement away from the racetrack.

The thing that really bothers me with this bill is where the suggestion came from. On what basis and why did this government decide out of the blue to double the B.C.-bred owners' fund? I have researched every sector of the racing industry and can find no group that has at any point suggested that. I have just read from Mr. Nielsen's statement, which indicates that to the best of his knowledge that was not recommended in the Krasnick report, and I understand that two people who sat on that committee have indicated that that recommendation was never made to the committee.

This is a sizeable increase, a doubling of a bonus, and I think perhaps we should look at just where this bonus goes. The minister mentioned that the handling of the bonus fund at Exhibition Park was dealt with by McAfee, Lilly and Co. I have here the IBM runs for the B.C. Bred Owners' Bonus, the 1 percent bonus, up to December 3, 1979. It covers the year the payments were made out of that bonus fund to people who owned B.C.–bred racers. According to these runs, there were 870 B.C.-bred horse owners who raced in British Columbia in 1979 and, had they won, would have been eligible for the bonus. Out of those 870 horse owners, 254 didn't qualify for any bonus money, because they simply didn't win anything at any park.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. That's the kind I bet on too — the long shots.

Six hundred and sixteen owners of horses that raced qualified for something. Now some of those horse owners got based on the 30 percent increase to the purse. They got $12.80, $43, $29 — we're talking about a group of 616. Out of that 616 that got something, less than half — 292 — got $1,000 or more, based on the 30 percent. So of course when the bonus is doubled to 2 percent those people are going to go up to $2,000 and more.

Out of those 292 — it's very interesting, we're getting into bigger money now — nine owners qualified for $10,000 or more. So those nine people are now going to be handed another $10,000 or more by this government, and I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have that quality of horses and are in that type of winning can probably well afford to upgrade their stock and improve their herd.

But the very interesting thing is that out of those nine people who received $10,000 or more, only one received $20,000 or more. That one received, based on the 33 percent, the 1 percent: he received $21,342.70. There is an aside, Mr. Speaker. His spouse also raises horses and she won nearly $5,000 — $4,988.78. So there we have one family unit — only one in all of British Columbia — over the $20,000 mark, for total winnings of $26,331.48. With a stroke of the pen, this government is proposing to double that. I don't intend to provide any names, but the IBM runs are available if anyone wants to look at them. It's very interesting when

[ Page 4094 ]

you see who that particular winner is. I have some very great concerns when no one in the formal sector of the industry has asked for this in any way. Everyone is surprised and wonders where this comes from — even Glen D. Driedger — and why they decided to increase the B.C. Bred Owners' Bonus.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Name names!

AN HON. MEMBER: Multiple choice.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I've said I'm not going to name names.

MR. HANSON: Is it Russell Bennett?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's Russell Bennett; it's the Premier's brother.

It certainly leaves this government, that's already under 29 clouds of varying kinds and degrees of suspicion....

You know, here we are with a bill, suddenly out of the blue, doubling a bonus that only one person in the whole province will stand to gain, in an amount in excess of $20,000 — if they raise the same standards in the same degrees. If this had been applied last year, that's the way it would have been. It makes it mighty suspicious, Mr. Speaker, when we see this bill introduced.

Now I'm hoping that in closing the debate, the minister will tell me that this is not the intent, that by changing this act something else is going to happen, and the regulations have been drafted that will do something else, other than increase that B.C.-Bred Owners' Fund. If the minister can tell me that, then I will feel much happier about this.

I'm still not completely happy with it, though, because it still leaves those decisions to cabinet....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says I wasn't here at 11 o'clock. No, I had to deal with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who was trying to pour 2,4-D over all my constituents, and I had to go and attend to some constituency business this morning. I appreciate, Mr. House Leader, the fact that you delayed this bill until I could be here, because I....

AN HON. MEMBER: If you'd move along, we might finish it.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if I didn't have so many interruptions, Mr. Member, I might move along a little more quickly.

But I think that I have presented a fairly strong case in support of the concerns that I have about why the government is going in this direction. I'm somewhat surprised or concerned about the way in which the bill seemed to develop, where we found first the Minister of Finance saying no, and then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) saying yes, and we're going to give you this and more — something you didn't even ask for. Then eventually, at the eleventh hour, the bill was introduced and came in with such vague terminology that I'm not at all sure what it means. I note that the wording is that the money collected under subsection (2) shall be paid "to the commission in accordance with the regulations for the purposes referred to in subsection (2)." But not knowing what the regulations are, and finding the purposes in the subsection to be quite varied and vague.... Certainly it includes the B.C. Bred Owners' Bonus, but that may in fact be the existing 1 percent, or it may be another 1 percent. I think that the minister really should have told us when he introduced the bill exactly what the distribution of that extra 2 percent would be, inasmuch as the bill does not tell us that.

I think he owes the House an explanation as to why, if in fact he is going to increase the B.C. Bred Owners' Bonus fund by an additional 1 percent, that is happening. Because certainly the racing industry did not ask for that. Of course, there are certain members of the industry that now have heard it's coming, and even an extra $1,000 or an extra $500 is a dollar or two. I don't think it is any secret that it has caused a lot of dissension among the horse-breeders, because some stand to gain and others stand not to gain. It's not good for the industry to cause that kind of dissension. It is directly attributable to this bill and this government's action or lack of action.

Of course, the point that really brings it all home is when we look at those IBM runs and find that it could well have been instituted as comfort and aid to a person very close to that cabinet, because the figures speak for themselves. They're very obvious.

Mr. Speaker, unless that minister can clarify some of the points that I have raised, then certainly we are extremely opposed to this bill. We are sympathetic to and supportive of the idea of increasing the incentive grant, but we believe it's being handled in completely the wrong way. It's not going to upgrade the racing industry. It's not going to do anything to bring a greater return from that industry. It's a straight subsidy out of the taxpayers' pockets, and in some instances that subsidy is going to a very, very select few.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). However, the time, being four minutes to six, is not sufficient for that purpose. She has raised a number of important matters, indicating that she has not been well briefed on the subject upon which she speaks. She has followed some public statements of people who have particular points of view.

I would just like to say one thing, however, about what the member has said. It's quite obvious that she would like to see horse racing and the breeding industry in this province continue to be the sole preserve of those who are independently wealthy and, therefore, can afford to engage in this as a sport. In fact, it is a very serious business for a lot of people, and it has a very significant contribution to make to some aspects of the economy of this province. I will deal more fully with those points, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) sought leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35.

1) Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition, at page 370, states that the matter must not impart an argument.

2) Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition, at pages 364367, states that the matter must not be offered when facts are in dispute,

3) Standing order 35(6)(c) of this House also provides

[ Page 4095 ]

that "the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session."

The hon. leader's written statement of the matter contravenes each of these prohibitions, and therefore the provisions of standing order 35 may not be invoked, in view of the authorities to which I have referred.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

28 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to the 1978/79 annual report of the Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways—

1. How many copies were printed?

2. How many copies were mailed as at April 28, 1980?

3. How many mailed copies in No. 2 were sent to recipients who had not requested them?

4. What was the total cost of printing the annual reports mentioned in No. 1?

5. What was the cost of mailing copies mentioned in Nos. 2 and 3?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. 1, 708 copies.

"2. 921 copies.

"3. All mailings were to recipients on long standing mailing lists or in response to recent requests. The standing lists include B.C. Government ministries, highways districts, publications, municipal libraries, private companies and organizations, schools, universities, colleges, other Provincial Governments, motor vehicle agencies in Canada and the United States, and Federal Government offices. The mailing lists have been compiled over the years to avoid duplication but because of the consolidation of the former Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Motor Vehicle Branch, and Ministry of Highways and Public Works Reports, and the existence of separate mailing lists in the past, a few recipients may have received more than one copy.

"4. $25,179.44.

"5. Average cost of mailing was $1 per copy."

37 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

With respect to a possible new major ferry terminal on or near Gabriola Island—

1. Is this proposal still under review by the Minister's ministry and/or British Columbia Ferry Corporation?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is "yes," at what stage is preliminary or basic design for the facility and where is it to be located?

3. If the answer to No. 1 is "yes," will the Minister make public such basic design before detailed working plans are authorized?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Not actively under review at this time, but still considered as an option.

" 2 and 3. Answered by No. 1 above."

[ Page 4096 ]

38 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following question:

With respect to the Gabriola Island Ferry—

For each of the years 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979, how many cars and how many passengers were carried and what was the annual net loss on this route?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

The figure for vehicles is all-inclusive (i.e., cars, trucks, trailers and semi-trailers, buses, etc.)."

73 Mr. Gabelmann asked the Hon. the Minister of Transportation and Highways the following questions:

1. Has the Government spent any public money on Red Granite Point Road running through the property of Cortes Bay Marina Corporation on Cortes Island?

2. Will the Minister table copies of work orders, time sheets, or any other documentation that proves that, in fact, public money has been spent on this described roadway, pursuant to section 4 of the Highway Act?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"The status of this road is presently before the Courts in a case involving Cortes Bay Marina and neighbouring land owners and, as a consequence, the requested information is not a matter of record at this time."