Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1992

Volume 3, Number 17

[ Page 1857 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: Today we have some distinguished visitors in the members' gallery. It is my pleasure to introduce His Excellency Nicholas Bayne, the newly appointed High Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada, and Mrs. Diana Bayne. The commissioner is accompanied by Mr. Tony Joy, consul general of the United Kingdom at Vancouver. Would the House please give them a welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today Ms. Winona Clarke, a 15-year-old grade 10 student from George Bonner Junior Secondary in Mill Bay. She is spending the week in the Premier's office as part of her work experience education program. I'd like members of the House to welcome her to the Legislature and to, I think, a very interesting week.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members of the House to welcome a young woman from Montreal who's here in the gallery with my wife. She is spending the summer with our son Nathaniel. Her name is Vali Fugulin.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would like the House to join me in welcoming some people who are known to my colleague the Minister of Tourism. Visiting in the gallery today are Mr. Bowie Keifer of Highquest Engineering of Vancouver, and Mrs. Anna Keifer. With them are some visitors from Russia: Dr. Arkadi Nikitin, the president of the Scientific Technical Association for Hydrogen Technology in Russia; Dr. Stanislav Malyshenko, the vice-chair of the Hydrogen Energy and Technology Council, chair of the High Temperature Institute in Moscow and editor of the International Journal on Perspectives in Energy. With them is their translator, Dr. Olga Kargina-Power.

Hon. E. Cull: It's my great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature a delegation of physicians and administrators from Russia, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, who are seated today in the members' gallery. This distinguished group includes Dr. Vladimir Makarov, who is a Russian deputy minister of health. They are here in Victoria to attend the International Heart Health Conference, which is currently underway in the city. I ask the members to join me in making them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I ask the House to join me in acknowledging and celebrating the life and many achievements of a wonderful British Columbian who just recently passed away. Amy Dalgleish, at the age of 86, died last Thursday. Her activism and involvement stretched over many decades, first through the CCF, the Saskatchewan Council of Women, the United Nations Association and the Unitarian Church. In later years she ran for the New Democratic Party; she acted as our provincial treasurer. She got involved in the movement against the Vietnam war, started a support group for the elderly and worked to open abortion clinics in British Columbia. I had the pleasure of knowing Amy Dalgleish personally, as many of us did in this House. We shall miss her, but we celebrate her achievements, as she would have us do.

D. Mitchell: We have with us in the public gallery today Mrs. Vivian Forssman, who is a representative of the committee proposing the establishment of a new Caulfeild middle school in West Vancouver. Would members of the House please welcome her here today.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise to make perhaps the last but certainly not the least introduction, a delegation representing a fine profession, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia: president, Richard Hancock; executive director, Harry Gray; and director of professional practices, Ross Pettie. Welcome them to the House.

R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to rise to introduce to the House today Barrey D. Penner, student of law at the University of Victoria and a resident of my riding. Would you make him most welcome.

The Speaker: The Attorney General rises on what matter?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On a small matter. It's for others to decide whether it's minor.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It will be clear, hon. members.

Yesterday in question period I inadvertently misinformed the House. I commented, in passing, that my constituency had not used the services of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to administer constituency office funds.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a correction.

My constituency assistant has checked constituency records and draws to my attention that the constituency did, in fact, use the society's services ten years ago before setting up our own administration system early in 1983. I regret that the information I offered yesterday was incorrect.

[2:15]

Ministerial Statement

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

Hon. M. Harcourt: I want to inform the House that I've asked the Minister of Government Services to temporarily assume the responsibility of the registry division of the Ministry of Finance. It was at the request of the Minister of Finance, so it would avoid any 

[ Page 1858 ]

suggestion or perception of conflict, as the minister is currently using Marwood Services Ltd. to provide an accounting service for his constituency office.

I also want to inform the Legislature that I have had my deputy contact, on my behalf, the conflict commissioner, Ted Hughes, who is presently out of the province, to review the rules and procedures in and around MLA constituency allowances, how they are used and how they are governed. In so doing, I have also asked Mr. Hughes to look at past practices and any recommendations he might have in this regard. So that the House is right up to date, I have not concluded those discussions with Mr. Hughes. As I said, he is out of the province, and I will inform the House of those discussions.

G. Wilson: In light of the statement from the Hon. Premier, I request leave to table a letter written from me, leader of the official opposition, to Mr. Ted Hughes.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Finance. We note that documents that were available to us this morning with respect to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society have been seized by the registrar and the deputy registrar of finance. In light of the new freedom-of-information act that has been tabled in this House and in the spirit of that act, will the minister undertake to ensure that those files are returned to the appropriate shelves by day's end, so they can continue to be available to the public?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's very tempting to say that it's not my responsibility, but I won't do that.

Just before making the request to the Premier, I met with Bill Bell and the assistant deputy registrar this morning to discuss the question. Marwood Services Ltd. is a private company but, as you know, it does services for those societies. Because I was the minister responsible for the Society Act, I asked the Premier to remove that responsibility from me. Even though there is no conflict, there may be the appearance of conflict.

In the discussions this morning, you should know that I'm not privy to that information. The information I received from the assistant deputy registrar and the assistant deputy minister of my ministry is that no complaints have been registered with the registry on Marwood Services, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society or any other related society or company that's come to light. There have been no complaints registered with my ministry. That was my information this morning. No action has been taken. No action is, of course, contemplated at this point. Nevertheless, the Minister of Government Services now has full responsibility for that.

G. Wilson: A supplementary question to the Minister of Government Services with respect to your newly found duties administering the Society Act. It is noted that under the Society Act, where a society holds a registered federal charitable status number -- and for the information of this new minister, the registered number of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society is 0444745-01-28 -- those societies are precluded from making political donations. Could the minister advise this House whether or not, to her knowledge, the annual reports or financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society provide any record of receipted political donations or other political donations to either the New Democratic Party, candidates or sitting MLAs for expenses incurred?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, I've just assumed this responsibility, and I will take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: A new question, then, to the new minister responsible for the Society Act. We note that the registrar of societies has broad powers under the act to recommend to the minister the appointment of a person to investigate the affairs and/or conduct of a society where the registrar has reason to question the affairs of that society. Will the minister order the registrar to appoint such a person to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, and will this minister commit to making the results of such an investigation public and table them in this House?

Hon. L. Boone: Even the Leader of the Opposition ought to give me a little bit of time to get aware of the situation here. I will take that question on notice as well.

J. Weisgerber: My question today is to the Attorney General, and it too is with regard to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Yesterday the Attorney General noted that an inquiry into this matter would be conducted by his Deputy Attorney General. He suggested he would do that, and I quote his words: "...to ensure that no one believes that there would be any...interference or any political role by me as the Attorney General, given the political connections that clearly exist between our party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society." It seems to me that that's precisely the situation that Stephen Owen was talking about when he recommended that, in situations like this, a special prosecutor be appointed. With that in mind, will the Attorney General agree today to appoint a special prosecutor rather than the Deputy Attorney General to deal with questions regarding the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To my knowledge, there has been no criminal investigation nor even a police investigation around this issue; therefore no prosecutor would be necessary. There are no charges to prosecute, so I would have to say to the member that the answer is no.

[ Page 1859 ]

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Attorney General. Should things unfold as it appears they will in this case, will the Attorney General assure this House that, should a criminal investigation evolve, a special prosecutor would be appointed?

The Speaker: While the question appears to be a hypothetical one, the Attorney General may wish to answer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I simply would like to answer so that there's no suggestion I'm ducking questions. It's clearly a hypothetical question. If such events were to transpire, I would deal with the question in a way that I think would meet with the approval of all members of this House.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: I have a supplemental to the Premier. I've written today to the Speaker to request that a comprehensive audit be conducted of all constituency allowance expenses over the past seven years, given that that's the period of time covered by the statute of limitations. We require the cooperation of the government in order to gain access to the documentation in the comptroller general's office. Will the Premier assure this House that he will cooperate in asking for a comprehensive audit of all members' constituency allowance expenses over the past seven years?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the leader of the third party is speaking about the comptroller general or the legislative comptroller. This is not a matter of the government; this is a matter of the Legislature and of the members of the Legislature. As I said earlier, I am in contact with Mr. Ted Hughes to look into the issue of past practices in regard to constituency allowances. As I said to the House, I'm hoping to conclude those discussions with Mr. Hughes. Hopefully, we'll deal with just those issues that the leader of the third party has brought up.

W. Hurd: I have a question to the Premier. Can he advise the House of how many other members of the executive council are using Marwood Services to funnel the MLA constituency allowances?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said yesterday -- and I hope that the new members of the House realize -- that this is a matter between the members of the Legislature as MLAs. Again, the Leader of the Opposition wrongly suggested yesterday that I, as the Premier, and members of this executive council govern the matters affected under vote 1, and how MLAs disburse their allowances. I think it is quite improper for the opposition to once again, implicitly....

An Hon. Member: What have you got to hide?

Hon. Mr. Harcourt: I was asked by a member again, in the same tone.... One of the members of the opposition was asking what we have to hide, and again I say: nothing. This is a matter that the member knows full well involves individual MLAs and how they disburse their $38,000 per year to run their entire office. It is public money, exactly as one of the members of the opposition has said. I think that the discourtesy that the opposition is showing to other MLAs, and the comment that they are making by implying that some members of the Legislature are not disbursing their $38,000 a year, as we all do, to pay for rent, constituency assistance, letterhead.... Quite frankly, as I said yesterday, these are improper questions to be asking.

The Speaker: I would ask the member to describe how the supplemental question would fall within the jurisdiction of the executive council, and I would ask him to frame the question carefully.

W. Hurd: The opposition notes the following section under the Society Act, which falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Attorney General: "A society that contravenes an order under subsection (4) commits an offence and a director, manager, officer or agent of the society who knowingly participates or acquiesces in the contravention commits an offence." In light of the fact that this society may be receiving funds from the members of the executive council, is the Attorney General prepared to undertake an investigation into this particular aspect of the Society Act, as to whether it has been contravened?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Society Act does not fall under my jurisdiction. The new minister responsible has that responsibility, but I am prepared to deal with the question.

Members -- as I think all members know -- are not allowed to get a cheque from the government written to them. For that reason, in respect of the some $3,600 per month that is made available to each of us for our constituency offices, many MLAs retain the services of an accountant or some individual to whom the cheque can be issued. Bills are paid from that account: paycheques to constituency assistants, rent to the landlord, bills to the telephone company, etc. That is the arrangement that many MLAs have traditionally used and that some MLAs have used through accounting services provided by Marwood. There is nothing wrong with that in any way.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Is the Attorney General aware of any connection between Marwood Services and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not aware of the relationship in technical terms, but I would not want to indicate that there isn't a relationship. Clearly there is a relationship of some sort between Marwood and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I'm not able to tell you precisely what that relationship is.

[ Page 1860 ]

A. Warnke: My question is to the Minister of Government Services, assuming her new responsibilities, with respect to Marwood Services, the accounting firm to which the Attorney General referred yesterday and again today in this House. Is the minister aware whether or not this company is responsible for keeping the books of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society? Is the minister also aware that Marwood Services Ltd. is listed as an asset of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I'm not aware of those items.

A. Warnke: My supplemental question is to the Attorney General. Is he convinced that the Gaming Commission.... Incidentally, the Gaming Commission can be filled with patronage appointments and is without broad authority. Nonetheless, does the Attorney General think that it is an appropriate body to launch an investigation of this serious matter?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Without responding too directly to the member's allegation, members should know that earlier this year cabinet reappointed the chair of the Gaming Commission, Mr. Richard Macintosh; his term has been continued. In addition to that, members should know that Vicki Kuhl, the vice-chair appointed during the term of the former government, is still in place as vice-chair of the Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission has, as a result of stories in the Vancouver Sun on Saturday, retained the services of the accounting firm Ernst and Young to conduct an audit into the issues in and around gaming and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Hon. A. Hagen: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice last Thursday with respect to extra funding to meet an added cost of a school facility.

It is not uncommon for costs of a school construction project to vary by 5 to 10 percent above or below the original estimate. Actual project costs are influenced by a number of factors, including changes in construction costs, changes in the scope of work or unforeseen site conditions. The fair wage and skills development policy is not expected to increase construction costs. On publicly funded projects, such as school construction, government is not increasing the funding allocated for a project.

Construction contracts are awarded to the lowest qualified bidder through a competitive bidding process. We believe the bids will not substantially change as a result of the fair wage and skill development policy. However, when the cost of a school construction project exceeds the budgeted amount, the ministry works closely with the school district to reduce the scope or the cost of the project. In exceptional circumstances funding can be increased to cover unanticipated cost. Each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party is rising on what matter?

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a letter that I mentioned in question period.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 32, hon. Speaker.

RESOURCE COMPENSATION
INTERIM MEASURES ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I just want to find the spot where I left off with respect to the discussions yesterday. The Speaker will recall, I'm sure, that I left off pointing out the fact that I was genuinely concerned about the climate that this government is creating with respect to new economic opportunities or the lack thereof. I am extremely concerned that this bill adds to the negative climate. I pointed out earlier in my brief talk some of those other concerns and other negative impacts brought forward by this government.

One of the big issues that we're talking about here is market value if, in fact, a resource is removed from an industry -- a resource that they had identified to some degree, developed and which all of a sudden falls under the classification of parkland. The minister, as I pointed out earlier, suggests that in those instances there really is no market value, and that market value can only be obtained if the resource is marketable. Given that it is now parkland, it is no longer marketable. I suggest that there is indeed market value and that there was market value until this government decided that it should be included in the parkland dedication.

I'm concerned as well that we have spent a considerable number of dollars sending the Premier, the Economic Development minister, the Forests minister and other ministers of the Crown around the world advertising that B.C. is open for business. I think that is a genuine lobby by this government. But the problem is that, as my experience in business tells me, once you lose a customer, it's extremely difficult to bring them back. This goes the same for government: once we lose a business or an industry within this province, that sends out a signal far larger than any signal or any advertising message that we can send out suggesting that this is a good place to do business.

One industry leaving is worth a hundred times more in negative advertising without solicitation than that which we get through spending our dollars and sending our leaders around the world. I would suggest that this bill is creating that image. I'm extremely concerned that we're sending the wrong image to industry. As I pointed out earlier, we are limiting the opportunity for investment, for exploration, to create jobs, and there-

[ Page 1861 ]

fore limiting the opportunity to pay for the social services that we enjoy.

With that, I will conclude my discussions and look forward to the committee stage.

D. Symons: I also rise and speak for the amendment, because this bill is totally unfair to the individuals and companies that are put on hold by this bill. What distinguishes our province from banana provinces or banana republics is the rule of law: that is, where agreements are honoured.

When a new government takes office, they traditionally honour the laws of the previous administration. If they change the rules, those affected are considered. They receive compensation, or they have due process available to them. This bill leaves them in limbo. It does not supply them those options.

This bill purports to put a hold on the proceedings or to halt new proceedings where compensation is being sought; however, it does not prohibit agreed settlements. This is akin to holding a gun to the company's head: either agree to our terms or face the consequences of some as-yet-undetermined legislation that may come forward when the time limit for this bill expires. This is certainly an unfair position to put companies wishing to invest in B.C. in.

This does not create confidence in the investment sector. Investment needs stability and predictability, not the uncertainty that is presented by this bill. What company would feel secure to invest in B.C. resources? If an exploration permit is granted, there is some expectation that if a find is made, that company can develop it and thus recover its investment. It is this expectation that drives exploration in this province.

Without exploration the mining industry in this province will dry up. Ore bodies are finite. By the turn of the century only 25 percent of the present mines will still be operating. Without exploration to bring new finds into production, a $4 billion industry will shrink to $1 billion. This means a loss of jobs, a serious dislocation for some communities and a loss of the taxes that help to pay for our health care, education and social services. It is this tax base that we must protect if we're going to continue giving services in those needed fields. If this government does not drive needed investment and jobs out by taxes, this bill certainly will.

Santiago, Chile is a boomtown for Canadian mineral investments. We are driving Canadian firms to look elsewhere. Sixty million dollars were invested there of Canadian money that could have been invested in British Columbia if the investment climate was better. It's not here, in our province. It is, in part, thanks to this government's insensitivity to the needs of the resource sector.

This bill is not in the best interests of this province. It fails to provide compensation for those affected. Recourse to the courts should be available to those affected by government actions. In a free, democratic society that course should be open, and this bill denies that right. That is why I'm supporting this amendment.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview to ask the House to join me in welcoming the grade 7 students and their teachers, who were in the gallery and are just leaving, from Walter Moberly Elementary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: If there are no further speakers on the amendment, I will read the amendment:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act, be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'that' and substituting therefor the following: 'Bill 32 not be read a second time now for the following reason: namely, that the bill fails to provide compensation for those parties that are affected by the bill.'"

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Speaker: We are now back to the main motion, which is second reading of Bill 32.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise and speak on this bill, as disappointed as I am that the amendment has not been accepted. I notice that the Attorney General, who is the sponsor of this bill, didn't even show up to vote on the amendment, which perhaps indicates a little bit of a lack of confidence in the bill on the government side. In fact, very few members of executive council are here. Isn't it interesting that the Attorney General, the sponsor of this bill, didn't show up to vote on the amendment to the bill? Does that suggest that he might have thought there was some merit in the amendment and that he was prevented from coming in and taking a vote, standing up and being counted on the amend-

[ Page 1862 ]

ment? One wonders if he'll come in and vote on the bill itself. I think we should have that vote very quickly.

Bill 32 strikes at the heart of the philosophy and ideology of the government opposite. It also tells us something very important. When is a deal not a deal? It's when the NDP is a party to that deal. That's when a deal is not a deal, and that's what Bill 32 says. When it comes to contracts for our resource companies, whether it be our forest companies and their forest tenure or our mining companies and their mineral rights, those contracts are not valid. Those contracts are not sacrosanct according to this government and according to this bill. It's a terrible piece of legislation. It's Draconian. It's odious. The government should be ashamed of bringing in this bill. It reminds us of the NDP government of the early 1970s.

Isn't it interesting that the sponsor of the bill, who failed to show up for the vote on the amendment, the hon. Attorney General, was also a member of the executive council of that cabinet 20 years ago which almost ended the mining industry for all time in British Columbia? Isn't it interesting when you look at the historical parallels? It's a shameful bill. It harks back to the very worst features of the NDP administration of Dave Barrett, going back to the early 1970s. We can't support this. I'm disappointed the government didn't choose to support our amendment. We can't support the bill. I think we should take a stand and have a vote on the bill itself, hon. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 32, Resource Compensation Interim Measures 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.

[3:00]

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 18.

ENERGY COUNCIL ACT

Hon. A. Edwards: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The Energy Council Act will demonstrate that this government is committed to the involvement of the people of the province in energy planning. In future, all the people in British Columbia will have an opportunity to have their say when we are talking about broad, general policy for energy in British Columbia. The consumers will play as important a role as the producers, the utilities, the regulators and any of the other stakeholders -- the communities, the environmental people. All those who have an interest will be able to take that interest and put their thoughts into a process that develops policy -- a broad, comprehensive policy for British Columbia.

The council's role will be advisory in nature. The council will undertake the planning function, and it will report on issues that require public involvement. My ministry, in cooperation with other ministries and with government agents as appropriate -- other ministries and other agencies will not be excluded because this council comes in -- will continue to exercise their legislated mandate. The ministry itself will carry out its mandate to make and implement energy policy. It will work in conjunction, as usual, with the other agencies and ministries, but it will continue to have the responsibility for the policy.

The council will facilitate direct public input and will develop a long-term energy planning framework. That will be the ongoing duty of the council. It will work on a two-year framework in developing policy, advising the minister and then working again on a new plan. Thus the government will be assured that its decisions are based on a broad consensus of views.

In establishing the council I responded not only to input and discussions that I had had and opinion that was put to me over a number of years as critic of energy and as an MLA in this Legislature, but also to what the British Columbia Round Table recommended. The Round Table on the Environment and the Economy said an energy planning council should be established with appropriate staff and funding to conduct independent, comprehensive energy sustainability planning with full and continuous public and stakeholder involvement.

That is an important suggestion, and it is one that fit with our plans. It is one that we saw independently. We both came to that conclusion, and this move responds to that recommendation. We also are responding to the British Columbia Environmental Network, which recently made a report that recommended the government form an energy strategy committee to develop a sustainable energy strategy. They did say later -- and I include this in their recommendation -- that we should give the committee adequate funding, and direct it to develop a consensus sustainable energy strategy within two years.

So basically the council not only responds in general to what we were seeing, to what the ministry agrees should be there, but also to two broad bodies in the province that did hearings, brought together represen-

[ Page 1863 ]

tative viewpoints and made those recommendations for British Columbia.

The council is charged with the task of developing an energy plan for the province. The plan will take forecasts into account. It will take market opportunities and resource options identified by government ministries and agencies, by utilities, by private sector entities and of course by the public. The council will ensure public involvement in the development of the plan. It will weigh economic, environmental, social and regional considerations in keeping with a sustainable energy strategy for the province. That is important. The time has come; the time to do it is here. This kind of work was not done by the previous government. There were some energy statements made, but the involvement of the public was not part of that development of policy.

The council's second major area of public involvement will focus on specific broad energy issues, on which, as I say again, we need a comprehensive, broad policy. I will be directing this council to take on as its first task an assessment of the issues surrounding the possible export of long-term firm electricity from British Columbia. That means the kind of power that would be dealt with by contracts from facilities that would have to be built and dedicated for the export of electricity.

Government cannot make a policy decision on long-term power exports and on building projects specifically for export without an comprehensive approach which also allows for extensive public involvement. A serious and balanced public review of the export issue will help us as government to make policy which will ensure the public interest is protected, will ensure that the policy we develop has the commitment of the people of British Columbia and will lead to a more settled policy climate for power exports. Believe me, we are well aware of the need in this province for clear policy. We need it, and we need it quickly, because we have not had it.

We have a number of power proponents who are interested in this. We are aware that they want us to move quickly. We want to give them a firm and balanced policy. Through the Energy Council, as I say, we believe that we are moving to something new for the people and the economy and for the benefit of the environment of British Columbia. For all those reasons, I put forward this bill. I believe that it will have the firm and committed support of those who look at it clearly and who in an objective way look at the objectives and goals that the bill puts forward.

D. Jarvis: Today we are here to debate another bill by this government, Bill 18. This is a bill that this government professes to be part of their so-called agenda of consensus; that is to say, a better way for B.C. It could be what I feel would be a consensus to chaos, the way things are going. The NDP election platform was a 48-point platform of political rhetoric. It was full of sanctimonious diatribes that suggested they know what is best for the people; that if you were to let them govern this province without controls, all would be great on this earth. However, the last two months have shown that their 48-point platform is full of knotholes. They have failed to deliver promise after promise.

Here's a government that hides behind its own shortcomings. For example, here we are heading into the eighth month of their election, and they are still trying to blame the previous administration for all their shortcomings -- all the shortcomings that are befalling this administration now. You will all be quite familiar with the statement: "Due to the financial mess that we inherited from the blah, blah, blah." Every day we hear the same old story. If they had been a responsible opposition party over these last five years -- let alone the last 20 years -- they would have foreseen that that mismanagement was accruing. We could see it. The public could see it. Where was the Finance minister? Where was Bob Williams at the time? It's obvious that they did not care and that this would be their excuse: it was the responsibility of the previous administration.

They sat back and wrote the 48-point plan of smoke and mirrors. Little did they know that it was a two-way mirror. As we all know, you can see right through a mirror. That mirror -- and what we're seeing behind it now -- was only promises to their friends and insiders. The bill before us right now, Bill 18, has to be one of the classics. As we roll through this session of misdirection and broken promises with a centre line of patronage to their friends and insiders, we have the creation of an Energy Council which is yet another layer of bureaucracy by this government. Section 2 of this act establishes a council with the appointment of a full-time chairman and six temporary councillors with the right to hire as many employees as necessary; in fact, this section also allows them to retain consultants, specialists and experts, with no limit to the number that they can hire.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Here we go again. Up the steps a portion of the famous 4,000 friends and insiders march.

Let us consider the chair designate in this bill, Bill 18: a lawyer named Gathercole. Hardly the impartial person to head up such a commission, which is expected to be one that listens to the people, gathers and evaluates the perspectives and opinions of all the citizens of this province. Hardly the job for a chairman who is supposed to hold an impartial position, to head up a commission whose mandate is to prepare, with public involvement, a provincial energy plan. This individual is expected to listen to and evaluate the perspectives and opinions of all persons and not just the ones he agrees with. Here's a man who has been the advocate against B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission for the past ten years. Records indicate he participated in all the Utilities Commission hearings during this period. So one could not expect such a strong advocate to now suddenly be placed in the role of a neutral chair.

[3:15]

What is one to expect from a chairman appointed by a ministry which is fully aware of his past; that is, one who was an advocate of the existing energy programs under this ministry? How does one compensate know-

[ Page 1864 ]

ing that the chairman is not a person who will take a neutral position?

I keep saying this: so here we go again. We find an evasive Ministry of Energy. While having its mandate emasculated and stripped by the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment, the ministry now tries to focus on a second layer of bureaucracy by establishing this new council. It appears that when the decisions are required, this government fails to take the lead or have the foresight or imagination, without having to delay or put off a decision, by creating a review, a study, a commission, and now, another council.

Bill 18's mandate is: "It will be the duty of the council, at the request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, to advise the minister on energy matters." Let us look into this further, for I feel that, again, the taxpayers, the consumers, the energy companies throughout this province are being asked to finance and participate in another boondoggle, another policy to waste the taxpayers' money, a nonsensical expenditure that is not necessary, an expenditure of money we supposedly don't have.

The mandate at this time is set up for $2 million with no indication when it may end. We can expect this to be reviewed and expanded every year from now on. At this time we can safely say that at least $10 million will be spent over the next four to five years. This legislation makes no clarification of how many staff can be hired or the number of experts and consultants, etc. It can hire anyone it wants and any number it wants, without any controls. This in itself, knowing the penchant that this party has for hiring friends and insiders, could lead to millions of dollars more being spent.

The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a mandate, and with this province this mandate is "to develop comprehensive policies on energy in this province and to make reports and recommendations for the implementation; to carry out any investigation, research, study or inventory of energy facilities and future requirements for the province; to collect and circulate the information required."

Does this not strike a bell? Did I not repeat the same words that I spoke a few minutes ago? Does this not have the ring of something familiar? Well, it is. I have just been referring to a bill being proposed -- Bill 18. I'm glad some of the members in this assembly are listening.

An Hon. Member: Not very many.

D. Jarvis: Not many on the government side. Here we have a bill that's probably one of the most important bills that have been proposed in this last little while, and there are only five members of the government side in the House.

An Hon. Member: A couple more down there.

D. Jarvis: Oh, I'm counting those.

In any event, what you hear when I compare the mandate of the Energy Council and the mandate of the Energy and Mines ministry is a ring of sameness and duplication.

Madam Speaker, there's a gentleman here who would like to interrupt for an introduction. I'll yield.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan West, who is asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy -- much appreciated.

Today we have with us a class of 36 grade 7 students from the Glenmore Elementary School, a school situated in a very beautiful part of the community in my constituency, in the heart of Kelowna. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Leclerc, and a group of parents. Would the House please give them a warm welcome as they listen to this debate on the Energy Council Act.

D. Jarvis: As I said, this is a duplication. This bill is a duplication of the ministry's responsibilities as they are now -- a duplication to the point of being ridiculous, or even being irresponsible to the taxpayers.

The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a staff of plus or minus 390 at the present time. What will this new level of bureaucracy accomplish that cannot be done through the existing departments of the present ministry? The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a budget of approximately $43 million. The stripped-down budget was, in the minister's own words, due to the financial restraints of this ministry. It has to do its bit and cut back. This is not a cutback, but simply a waste of taxpayers' money for a philosophy and an indecisive government.

As I have said before, there are 390 to 400 employees inside this ministry, all having the experience and expertise to advise this ministry -- or why else are they still there? -- and employees in an energy management branch designed to prepare, analyze and give recommendations to the minister. Here we have this duplication. There is also the legislative committee on energy; however, it has failed to meet other than to elect a chairman.

This bill will do nothing but emasculate this ministry by this additional level or council. There are so many features of this bill that are questionable. One wonders how ten sections in a bill could result in such a potential change of direction that could have very far-reaching effects on this province's economic stability.

Let us consider what we need for energy. We need a change from the regulatory regimen presently set by the existing B.C. Utilities Commission and our own Minister of Energy and Mines.

Madam Speaker, British Columbians consume and produce large amounts of energy, and our reserves are substantial. We in B.C. are fortunate to have such a large supply of energy fuels. We are ostensibly -- or should be -- a leader in North America. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources should be developing energy resources across British Columbia to 

[ Page 1865 ]

stimulate provincial as well as regional growth, in order to bring economic benefit to this province as a whole. This ministry should be managing existing resources effectively or finding new sources of supply that would increase the choice of fuels to the consumer and maintain the quality and quantity of energy supplies. This would ensure a long and lasting energy supply and security to this province.

It appears that Bill 18 in effect shows that the ministry has abrogated its mandate. If it is necessary to create a new Energy Council, what has it initially done? It initially has a mandate to advise the minister on energy matters, yet they go out and create another council. I would repeat, Madam Speaker, that the ministry's mandate is to develop comprehensive policies on energy -- not to create more bureaucracy or another level of government, but to advise it on how to do the same job. Without question this is an abrogation.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I see I'm in midstream here, so I'll now address myself to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this province, as I have said, is blessed with an abundance of energy fuels from natural gas, oil, coal and electricity. Recently I saw an article stating that Canadians can't hope to maintain their current standard of living unless more jobs are created and new markets are found. Canadians are richly endowed in natural resources. It's an advantage, but it's not sufficient anymore to produce that superior standard of living we've had. To create the growth and prosperity we aspire to, we need to add value to our exports and become far more innovative in the way we utilize our human capital.

Canadians should embrace an open, global economy. It would be a risk, but it's a whole new opportunity. It's estimated that there are about three billion people in this world seeking to be in an industrialized country. Their goal is simple: they want to be like us and they need everything we have. If we cannot compete in a global economy with this kind of legislation, we'd better watch ourselves, because there are people right behind us ready to take over.

B.C., with proper management, should become an exporter of energy -- a net exporter. But we can see that confusion and indecisiveness again reign. How is the ministry going to lead this province into the forefront of this continent, both as a user and as a producer? I find it surprising that this government and this ministry are prepared to sacrifice the future of energy in this province to an ill-conceived philosophy that a consensus of non-professionals, whose very existence depends on the future, cannot.... This is what this bill's intent is: to take the responsibility of a qualified ministry, the Utilities Commission and an industry that is efficient, innovative, and in a creative wave, and take it out of the decision-making process. They are taking the ministry, the industry and the people inside those departments out of the process to make decisions.

Basically this bill says it is the duty of the council to advise the minister on energy matters. The council, I must say, prepares with public involvement and submits a provincial energy plan.

I am concerned with the aspect of public involvement -- not with the fact that the public cannot be responsible but, firstly, the fact that the great masses of the public cannot be expected to have all of the basic knowledge of energy and the complexity of all its issues. Secondly, do they really care? They expect this government and its expertise, together with the industry and its expertise, will do what is expected of them -- and that is to follow the mandate of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, which is already in place. That's what the public expects. The general public is fed up with the indecisiveness of governments, who are continually making and appointing reviews and commissions such as this, causing excessive expenses and more cost to the taxpayer.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that you should agree with me, and I trust that the members of this assembly will agree. I see we only have four government MLAs left here to listen to me.

Over the next four years, we are going to see up to $10 million more being spent on another superfluous commission. How many of us have said to ourselves: "There goes the government wasting our money again"? Well, here we go again.

It appears that the public involvement in this council will only be those who have a special interest in the energy field of this province. The fact that it is to deal with the public is a misnomer. Those people with special interests are those who do not agree with the past -- or perhaps this administration's -- agenda on energy. Those are the people who, perhaps, do not have an understanding and a broad vision of the future of energy; those who are ostensibly only concerned with their own interests, be it rates, personal interests or projects; those whose interests do not take into consideration all of the people of this province and their interests.

On this same subject we can go on and on, but the public involvement will be just another long, expensive and drawn-out commission. We have seen what good intent can bring, and those that contribute have good intent. But it's a self-serving and expensive intent, especially when there is an industry out there that is fully aware, fully qualified, and is just waiting for the responsibility to push this energy field into the forefront of the world. There is also in place a ministry that already has this same mandate: the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Another council, commission or review is not what the taxpayers want or need.

Mr. Speaker, this government is starting to compete with the constitutional studies, reviews and commissions that we have been faced with over the past 15 years by the federal government. I believe that on this aspect, the federal government has now entered 13 reviews on the constitution in 15 years. It appears that this administration may beat that record. This public is not so much interested in rates as it is in the service of an energy source. Now we are faced with reviews, studies and commissions, and now they're starting into 

[ Page 1866 ]

a new world called councils. We don't know when they're going to stop.

The demand for energy is determined by economic growth, then area growth and then price. With a provincial population expected to grow rapidly over the next dozen years and into the new century, massive development will be necessary, thus causing excessive consumption of our energy. We should be addressing these problems now, and not through a commission that has no date to end.

Where do we start and where are we now? It appears that it will temporarily fall on the hands of industry, not the government, to be the driving force to put us into the mode for the future. The basic nature and extent of that role is determined by the regulatory regimen set out by the B.C. Utilities Commission, which sets the rates and the extent of industry's services.

In this bill the council's mandate, section 6, seems to indicate that the council advises the minister on energy matters, but only prepares publicly available provincial energy plans at her recommendation, and "at intervals to be established by the minister." As I said, it's unbelievable. Here is a council being set up for public involvement, yet the subject matter is to be determined by the minister. Why should the minister be the one determining which issue comes before this commission and which issue does not? Should this not also be up to the participants? How can you call this an open process when the agenda is predetermined?

The same section goes on to indicate that there is no requirement of public disclosure. This certainly indicates a gross inconsistency, and it is evident in this bill. Section 6, for example, states: "The council must publish a report made under subsection (1) or, in the discretion of the chair of the council, a summary of the report." So the all-powerful chairman, a civil servant, does not actually have to submit a published report, only a summary submitted for a full one.

Governments are elected to lead. This government was elected to lead, but the perception does not seem to be there. Maybe it's only a perception. This government had been the official opposition for 18 years, yet they appear to have no concept of what they want to do as a government. Was all this criticism that they heaped on the Socreds done without any real alternative? Why do they find it necessary to strike an Energy Council to advise the minister on what to do? What was lacking these past 18 years that they could not come up with a plan other than a plan of review? This bill has an insidious nature about it that could lead to a dangerous precedent; that is to say, Bill 18 shields them from any criticism.

The bill is open to manipulation; in actual fact, it is driven by the minister, contrary to its purpose.

The minister determines the topics, the timing of consultations and the reporting, as I have said, of the council, no matter what is reflected from submissions or wishes of the public. If the public has a submission, it doesn't necessarily go to the minister. It's up to the chairman to decide. The minister could put forward any policy or any idea and simply say it was derived from the process and reflecting the true process of the public. I want to get that clear: the minister can tell us and put forward any policy or idea and simply say that it was derived by reflecting the true process of the public. If the chairman has at his discretion the ability to not put forward a review or a published report, the minister can now say anything she wants.

This bill also allows the minister -- this government -- to stall indefinitely on crucial and difficult areas. Another example: when questioned about power export, the minister can hide and avoid making any decision on the promise of this never-ending process of consultation and review. This has happened before. We have asked the minister in the House about energy, and she states it's under review: a potential energy bill or council that's being formed. There's no mandate to say when this bill will end; therefore it could be four or five years from now. During this period we may ask the minister a question on energy, and she will be unable to answer it due to the fact that it's under review or with a council.

As a matter of fact, during question period I put ten questions to her about energy; not one was answered. How many more evasive answers can they forestall by hiding behind the concept of a review, a council or a commission? All this indecisiveness and lack of direction, while the real opportunities are slipping by.... This government is not making a decision when it should be making a decision. If they succeed for long enough, there will be no more opportunities, and the decisions will have been made by default without it ever being necessary to make them or declare them on their part.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, maybe this is the government's agenda. Maybe there's really no plan for the future. We experienced this 20 years ago. We can see that there is again a lack of decisiveness in the minister's own riding -- for example, in Sparwood. They are crying for help there, and this government is not giving them any.

Bill 18 is redundant. Its purpose is formulating policy and consulting with the public. Is this not rightly the responsibility of the current ministry? Why are we taking responsibility for formulation of policy and consultation with the public out of the hands of the ministry and her staff? Why are we handing this right of consultation and formulation over to an unelected official, whose claim to fame is that he is supposedly an advocate of energy matters and who happens to be a friend and an insider?

This is creating another all-too-powerful individual who is not accountable to the taxpayers; another Bob Williams, whose agenda is known only to himself and perhaps his disciples in this government, who are his friends and insiders -- or just happen to be. This new chairman -- or secretariat -- is known to be biased. His views in the contentious and all-important areas such as power export are all too well known. Here we see a biased chairman consulting with the public on an issue that his views have already been predetermined.

Deputy Speaker: Are you the designated speaker for your party?

D. Jarvis: Yes, I am sir.

[ Page 1867 ]

If the government had truly wanted to get a real sense of the public mood, then they should have ordered a royal commission with several people all representing different points of view.

Let me propose a few situations that concern me about this bill and its chairman. This gentleman, Dick Gathercole, will now be doing what the minister should not have been doing for the past four years in her role as Energy critic. After all the time the NDP had in opposition and all the finger-pointing they indulged in, are they only now just starting to listen to the people? If the NDP wanted to make this a truly independent process, why did they select such a blatantly partisan chair designate, a man such as Dick Gathercole? He is a failed NDP candidate and a consistent opponent of energy export in any form. Do they honestly expect him to win the trust and respect of businesses out there? How can he be expected to represent all sides of the issue when he has spent all his life advocating only one issue? When they said this would be an independent process, what they probably meant to say was an NDP-endent process. It looks better in writing than saying, but nevertheless, if they really wanted to give the people a say in the issue that mattered to them, why is there no mechanism to allow the people to summon the council or determine its agenda? Why is the timing and the subject matter left completely in the hands, as I said, of the minister and the council chair?

Why do they only allow the voice of the people to be heard on matters of interest to the minister, who evidently has no opinions of her own? I'm sorry that the minister isn't here to hear me. The minister has stated that there was a need for this council because her ministry has never been active in consulting with the public, but that's exactly what her mandate is for in the ministry: to consult with the public. Does this mean that she intends for this trend to continue and that the voice of the people will be screened through an appointed, politicized chair with a history of having a definite bias?

[3:45]

Decisions as important as the future of the province's energy -- the energy policy of this province -- are the responsibility of the minister and her government, not some appointed bureaucrat. If the minister is incapable of performing her duties, then perhaps there ought to be someone else in charge of this ministry other than Bob Williams -- naturally. I can't help thinking that we are seeing the vacillation of a ministry that is afraid to commit itself to a policy, afraid of using all the resources that are already before it. It may be that the ministry itself is in such great conflict internally with its overall government's policy that a decision just cannot be made. We sense that an indecisive development is taking place here. As I said before, they either cannot or will not use the resources that are already available to the ministry that have already appraised the situation on energy. For example, the sustainable development strategy core group, which the minister mentioned a little while ago, recently produced the report A Sustainable Strategy For Energy. Its preliminary introduction, using a consensus-based approach, was energy conservation in B.C., energy development in B.C. and energy policy in B.C. This core group is ongoing. It invites public comments and recommendations. After all the submissions, it has stated that it will then turn it over to the government. It's quite obvious that another duplication process is also in motion. Why not use the existing resources that the government has before it?

We can all appreciate that this and other groups may not necessarily be the only ones or may not have all the answers. Surely the government's Energy ministry and her staff of expert people could come up with just as good an opinion as this new council's conclusions -- and for a lot less money, I daresay.

This minister's office stated back in April that everyone knows how important energy is in our everyday lives and to our economy and our environment. We need to look at the cumulative economic and environmental impacts across the full range of energy sources, including conservation. The minister also said that we have to involve the public at critical early stages with our long-term goals and plans that are to be developed. Does this sustainable strategy for energy commission, which is already there, not ostensibly do this?

It is also interesting to note the expression "long-term goals." It was not long ago that I saw the minister and other members of her party wisecracking and belittling the opposition leader's suggestion, wondering where this province would be today if at that time they had not considered a long-term strategy. Every time we bring up the term "long term," they start yelling: "Sixty years." They think it's a big joke. When they do it, however, it's a long-term strategy. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing but arrogance. This is a typical reaction when you don't think of it yourself first or don't have the ability to make a decision yourself.

I mentioned a minute ago this core group study that's already there. I want to emphasize what they have done in the research and development of energy alternatives, which this new bill, Bill 18, is going to be a duplication of. If you read the bill, you'll note the comparison of this duplication.

"The use of conventional energy technologies creates both benefits and costs from social and environmental perspectives. Improving existing technologies and developing new ones that could significantly increase the benefits and reduce the costs while creating economic opportunities at the same time. British Columbia has an opportunity to convert its comparative advantage in energy resources into a comparative advantage in energy technologies and expertise. For example, cleaner coal technology and related skills could be developed and exported to other countries. Similarly, we are leaders in developing new technology" -- in this province -- "for natural-gas engines and for hydrogen fuel cells. This expertise, whether based on conventional or alternative energy technologies, can benefit the environment in British Columbia and elsewhere while providing significant economic advantages to the province."

This sustainable core group study has already done what the minister is asking. They've already laid it out. The private sector should be expected to finance its own research and development activities. That is what industry is out there doing. They are putting money 

[ Page 1868 ]

into it. They are farsighted. But it is generally accepted that the government should encourage and enhance research. However, there are public concerns that government-funded programs for research and development are sometimes not successful and occasionally repeat work that has been done elsewhere -- while we know it's been done by the private sector. This government has put no money aside for research and development, yet this is what they are asking their council to do.

Governments can assist industry in marketing newly developed capabilities. That is happening now through the British Columbia science program -- SPARK, I believe it is. This initiative is strategically important to this province, given the importance of every energy industry to our economy and the worldwide efforts to reduce pollution from energy use.

When I say energy use and exploration, wood residues, for example, are the bark and sawdust that normally cannot be used in the forest products industry. Approximately 30 million cubic metres of wood residues are incinerated annually in British Columbia, and using these wood residues in power plants significantly reduces total emissions and extracts energy that is otherwise wasted. During the estimates I asked the minister what they were doing on this aspect. She informed me that there are several cogeneration plants using wood energy, but due to B.C. Hydro having a full load, they are not going to allow any more cogeneration plants until such time as Hydro advises them. So why are we having an Energy Council? Why is this Energy Council going out to seek new methods when the methods we have already are not being utilized?

Let us look at these long-range plans and consider this government's energy policy, or where it is today -- or when, is more the question. When will it be? They are placed in a position to have to make a decision without first having to have a study, a review, a commission or a council. That is always their first priority.

Prior to the election, they were the first to criticize the previous administration's decision on the Kemano 2 hydro project. This government called for full hearings and opposed the then government's policy position. Now, through a series of events, the roles have been changed. The NDP is now in power. The position has definitely changed. The position now is on the NDP to make a decision. We know what happens when it comes down to decisions. We have reviews, studies, commissions and councils.

Now what we have is a Premier, lukewarm to a hearing or a review and unsure of just what to do. But we have on record campaign promises made up by the NDP to have hearings. Mr. Speaker, there is talk, talk, talk, talk, talk by this government but no reality.

We have had a court decision upon us since early May and still no reply from a vacillating government for a full review of the Kemano 2 project. Why wouldn't they just do so? It is the proper response in view of all the conflict and different points of view. But the Premier reneges. He promises the Indians -- the Carrier-Sekani tribes -- a full environmental review, and then they had nothing to fear. Little did they know that they had nothing to fear but fear itself. The Premier has not made a decision. He's hiding behind something.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Premier will not make a decision, as I said, out of fear. The irony behind all this is that every time a decision becomes contentious, this government calls for a review. But when a review should be called for -- and this time by the people of this province -- the government hides behind it and does not call for a review. Again it's talk, talk, talk and no reality. It is for this reason that I wonder why this Bill 18 is even being bothered with.

In conjunction with Bill 32 they are protecting their assets. It's quite obvious. The name of this game is: say nothing, sit tight and then change the rules. Send out another lousy message to the business community, the international community as well, saying: "We cannot make a decision. We can't have a review. We may change our minds, but in the meantime the buzzword this year is consensus. We think we can master it, or at least our friends and insiders can master it, and maybe they'll be able to help us as well. So let's hire our friends and insiders to help us make the decision." This is exactly what this bill is pertaining to.

I fail to see the purpose of this new council when in fact the ministry itself should be quite capable of addressing the problems. We have exceptional supplies of energy, so our supply is not a concern. We are aware that new sources of energy will come down the pike and that interim energy is available up to this transition period. Our major concern is: are we using our energy sources efficiently while we look for additional requirements through thermo-or hydroelectric generation? Do we develop Site C on the Peace or sell off the Columbia? That would be equal to the value of Site C, by the way.

Our whole industrial economics will be affected by these future demands of a looming population explosion, and at the same time we'll be forced to encourage conservation rather than consumption. Government, industry and consumers are all aware that if this province is to survive and also be an economic force, we must be able to sustain the balance between our environment and our resources.

This Bill 32 cannot add to what is already known to the experts in the energy field who are out there now; therefore this council becomes superfluous. We know that the chairman with his six sidekicks all come from the same group. Will they be extremists? Will they believe in zero tolerance? Will they believe that this is the only answer? Will they support that a vigorous economy is our tax base and, accordingly, that our resources should be harvested? Will they aim to balance the economics and the environment of this province? Can this council obtain from the public the reality that there is a balance to optimize the maximum benefits for this province?

I want to bring up a subject that the minister brought up at the start of this debate, and that is with regard to the selling of power. It's been said about selling power that.... What about selling power to the United States? We have cogeneration plants where billions of dollars of revenue are at stake. This government is vacillating on 

[ Page 1869 ]

the decision to sell the power, and we are losing contracts.

[4:00]

It's been asked: why should we sell power to the United States because of American wastefulness? Why should we incur even minimal environmental impact so that they can waste power in their air-conditioned offices in California, etc.? This question is misguided and is a dangerous reflection of intolerance. Let us look at some of the realities. First, we are a trading community, and we depend heavily on our trade with the United States. This trade is our economic well-being. If we cut off this business then our economy would collapse, undermining our whole social safety net. Secondly, the electricity export business is very competitive, and the U.S. does not rely on our electricity exports. We must therefore fight hard to win our fair share of this market and this trade. Prohibiting independent power to sell to the United States, which is ostensibly what this ministry is doing -- in the lack of response, that is -- would have a real effect on the American behaviour, which is currently that they have no independent power, and they will go elsewhere to get it.

There is the question of what we could lose from this economic benefit if we stop selling it to the United States. The American wastefulness of energy is a myth, actually. The fact is that the U.S has led the way back from being the most wasteful country; it was one of the first to start introducing demand-side management. The costing of environmental externalities and other initiatives to increase the efficiency of energy production they use was first started by the United States, and many of the states are far ahead of B.C. in this respect.

I wanted to mention the fact that we had a problem with independent power sources. In the minister's own riding -- in Sparwood and elsewhere in that locale -- there are two plants that are prepared to sell power to the United States, but they are waiting for a decision by the minister. The minister has said: "We will not give you approval until such time as we have a review. The review will be with the energy council, and the energy council has no time limit on it. So it could be a year, two years, three years, four years or five years." In the meantime, we are losing a lot of business, and the minister's own riding is suffering for it. Billions of dollars in revenue are at stake if Victoria -- this government -- kills the independent power production in the southeast corner of British Columbia.

Fording Coal Ltd. has proposed a $200 million coal-fired electrical power station and still has not received the green light from this government.

Hon. G. Clark: Aye.

D. Jarvis: Acknowledgement from the government side. I was worrying for a moment that there were only two back-bench members way over there in the far corner and no one else out of a 51-member government, but the Minister of Finance has finally walked in.

Hon. G. Clark: People in glass houses....

D. Jarvis: But proportionally, we have more.

An Hon. Member: You've got the cream of the crop. Carry on.

D. Jarvis: We're getting close to the bottom.

Hon. G. Clark: Say something interesting to the members.

D. Jarvis: If the Minister of Finance, who just asked me to say something interesting for a change, had been here for the last hour, he might have known that there were a lot of interesting things said.

I have been really concerned about this Energy Council and the appointment of the friends and insiders this government has -- this Mr. Gathercole. Now he hasn't even been appointed yet. Before the bill was passed, he hasn't been appointed.... Or I should say that until the bill is passed, he cannot be officially appointed, but he is making statements as though he's actually working. I don't know if he has hired people yet, but Mr. Gathercole said last Friday that he wasn't prepared at this point to discuss the projects in the southeast corner of B.C. -- the Fording Coal coal-fired plant or the Sparwood problem.

An. Hon. Member: Tell him not to hold his breath.

D. Jarvis: I'm not going to hold my breath until everything is passed or they make a decision, because once the bill is passed, as I explained, they will be in a position to do a study, another review, another commission. On and on we go. Yakety-yak. Blah, blah, blah. Somewhere along the line they will run out of money and they will say: "Due to the situation that was left to us by the Social Credit Party, we are unable to continue with this." But that probably won't happen.

In any event, Mr. Gathercole said that it was a decision by the government to squash independent power production as it would stifle a large amount of economic development in British Columbia. That was a strange statement to make. Bob Williams, secretary of the Crown corporations committee and recently described as a consultant to the committee.... Now he has already been appointed as a consultant. The bill hasn't passed, as the House Leader said, the chairman hasn't been appointed, and yet the paper reports that Bob Williams has been making statements and that he is described as the consultant to the committee; as effectively the deputy minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and ultimately expected to formulate government policy on independent power production.

Here we have a Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that is responsible for energy production in this province. She has a staff of 390 people to help her formulate policy. But she is not able to do it, evidently, so now she's gone to some more of their friends and insiders and given them a nice cushy job of over $100,000 a year. He's going to hire six more friends and insiders. I'm not quite too sure what they're going to be paid. He has a $2 million mandate. There's no specific date when this report has to come back, so it 

[ Page 1870 ]

could go on for next year. They have the right to renew it every year. We're talking another $10 million they're going to spend.

Then we see headlined in the Vancouver Sun of May 23, "Power project stall puts billions at risk," in which Bob Williams, "...as effectively the deputy minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, is ultimately expected to formulate government policy on independent power production." Who's the boss? I don't know.

There are always a few things that are right with a bill, whether it be the grammar or what it may be. We in the Liberal Party recognize that there is a need for involvement. The public has been kept in the dark too long, so public consultation is necessary when sincerely undertaken. It's always a good thing. But I don't think the public has the knowledge, unfortunately, or the expertise of studying energy policy that is going to affect our province for the next hundred years. Perhaps if the people are granted the forum to make their voices heard and the results are not too obscure and manipulated by the minister and her friend and insider the chairman, Mr. Gathercole, the worse excesses of the NDP policy will be opposed and hopefully avoided. If this forum were to be properly constructed and conducted, it could provide an arena for information exchange and a debate. It would make people more aware of the options available to them.

Another positive thing to the bill is that it encourages long-term planning and a vision, although I must say, as articulated by our opposition party leader, that B.C. needs a strategy and a vision to carry us well into the next millennium. We have muddled through too long with stopgap measures. A free and open discussion with the people could help in outlining a coherent energy policy, something which is totally lacking in this current government.

I want to summarize what's wrong with Bill 18. It abdicates the responsibility of this government. The NDP are not seeking help to make decisions; they are seeking help to avoid making them. This government is bent on putting the entire province under one review or another, when what it really requires is action. It denies democracy. Decisions of this magnitude are the responsibility of the elected government and its ministers. This cannot be transferred onto an unelected partisan appointee, friend or insider. If they do so, they'll subvert the system.

It appears obvious that the NDP has no energy policy after all this time in office, and it's rather pathetic. If they do have a policy, then why not declare it and start from there, rather than denying that one actually exists? They're making decisions by default. The more the NDP puts off declaring a position on crucial energy matters, the more opportunities will slip by us. These opportunities will slip by and will not be recovered again. We have already vacillated too long.

This government and this ministry profess to seek the voice of the people, but the scope, agenda and timing of the council are entirely determined by the minister and the council chair. It should be a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process.

An Hon. Member: Trickle down, they call it.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I've heard that expression -- trickle down.

This government really fails the test of impartiality. Dick Gathercole has a history of outspoken bias on energy issues -- a bias in harmony with the NDP rhetoric. We know that. For ten years he's been the advocate of a B.C. Energy Council. He can hardly be perceived as fair and impartial by investors, industry, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders who have an interest in this energy policy of British Columbia.

If the problem is that the ministry does not consult enough, then the solution for it is to consult more. That's the way they think. Instead, there is now another level of bureaucracy between the people and the actual issues before us. The minister has another bureaucracy below her. The issues are now filtered through Dick Gathercole and his biases, which are allowed to distort the voice of the people.

It's almost inconceivable that the NDP could come to government, after all this time, with no agenda regarding energy policy. Rather than pretend they are starting with carte blanche, it would be far more honest for them to present their options for discussion and review. A government strategy that begins by declaring that despite 18 years in opposition it hasn't the ghost of an energy policy can hardly be calculated to win investors' confidence.

[4:15]

If the NDP had truly wanted an independent, from-the-bottom-up, grass-roots review of energy policy for the future of this province, then the sensible thing would have been to allow for as much public direction and focus as possible. This would necessarily have included some mechanisms for allowing the public to determine the agenda and the issues; this bill does not allow them to do that. It's up to the minister to declare what the issues are. Instead, the minister has retained this most central authority for herself and her hand-picked council chair -- another friend and insider.

Imagine if Brian Mulroney's Spicer commission had set out with a mandate to review only those aspects of constitutional reform that Brian himself was interested in; it would report only when Brian or Keith felt it was necessary to report on it and would operate under the pretence that the government had no bias or agenda in these matters whatsoever. What if, on top of it all, Brian announced that he had no idea how long the commission might take to complete its business, and that he would do nothing regarding the constitution or national unity while this commission was still underway, no matter how crucial or urgent.

However, we know what the federal government has done. In the last 15 years, as I said, they have had 13 commissions, reviews and studies, just as the present NDP government is doing. I imagine that in the next four years they will probably beat that record. They will not make decisions on their own without having friends and insiders help them.

One of the most formidable obstacles the NDP must come to terms with is the divided nature of its caucus. These rifts have long been apparent, and they have so far failed to reconcile them. Until they do and until they 

[ Page 1871 ]

are able to achieve a détente among the diverse special-interest groups whom they must please, they will be driven to avoid making difficult or contentious decisions of any sort whatsoever. This is becoming increasingly apparent. Rather than face these issues, they are here again opting to place the entire matter under a form of independent review for an indeterminate duration. Any subsequent questions or demands in this area can then be deflected because the issue is under review. Unfortunately, many of these contentious issues require immediate decisions; this government is unable make them. We have already seen this kind of death-by-review that they have in the forestry industry with their own commission; in the mining industry with the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act and the Schwindt commission -- the bill that was just passed; and now in the energy industry with the Energy Council. These impacts are already starting to become noticeable in other areas and are the problems with the energy sector today. As I said, they will not formulate any policy on export, but they will wait for a year to two years. Meanwhile, we'll lose money.

As you can gather, I am not in favour of this bill. I know that it is a surprise to all of you, but that's the way things just happen to be. At this time I will turn it over to another gentleman, and I wish to thank you for the opportunity.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, one of the things that has been most pleasant since I got here is your willingness to teach those of us who are new. I'd like you to help me again with another problem. Are you allowed to say "hogwash" in here?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, normally the Speaker doesn't rule on questions unless there is an objection, but the....

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker....

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. I'm saying that if you're asking that question because you feel it may be out of order, you might take that as an indication with respect to whether or not it should be in order.

C. Evans: You're right.

Hon. Speaker, we have just been entertained with one hour of what I don't think would be acceptable to describe as hogwash. The previous speaker was all over the map. He represented his party perfectly -- a perfect symbol of the Liberal Party principle. On the one hand, with every single bill that any of our ministers has brought in, the members opposite have said: "Hoist the bill; hoist it right now, because we need public consultation. If the ministers were responsible, they'd go out and consult with the public."

The member who just entertained us for an hour made that very same speech a couple of days ago on the legislation about value of properties. Today the Minister of Energy brings in a bill, the essence of which -- the whole thing, the entire point -- is public consultation. The minister has said: "Gee, you guys must be right."

If we've got great big issues to deal with -- like the export of power -- a lot of people care about it. When we sell power, what should we pay the people that generate the power? What about the value to the region of the dam? Or as the nations of the world go and gather for environment conferences, is it okay that we burn coal?

If the Minister of Energy had the gall to try and resolve any single one of those issues without consulting with the public, the member opposite would probably have tried to talk for longer than an hour, and tell her she was the most irresponsible, confounded nitwit Energy minister in Canada, because she needed to consult with the public. They want to have it coming, and they want to have it going; they want to have it every single way.

The whole bill is to say that members opposite have convinced us that in this era of openness and cooperation, maybe if we're going to do great big things, we should talk to people first. This minister, on behalf of the whole government, let me say, is bringing forward a new era, and the hon. member stands up and says she's indecisive. I guess maybe he had to say that. But every time we bring in a bill from now until June or July or August or however long we're here, and one of those folks stands up and says that we're not consulting -- we're not consulting on parks, we're not consulting on land value, we're not consulting on recycling -- hon. Speaker, excuse us if some of think that it's nonsense or hogwash.

I'm going to get a tiny bit serious. The critic for the second party has said that we don't need this commission, because the minister has a ministry to set policy and we have the Energy Commission to which she can refer important issues. I've been to some of those commissions, and you know what? I saw a lot of people there. I saw Dick Gathercole there. I didn't see the critic who was just on his feet explaining to us about the commission. But I'm going to help him out by speaking through you and telling him what kind of stuff goes on there.

The B.C. Utilities Commission called a hearing the first time the government advertised that they wanted to sell firm power to the city of L.A. I guess where he lives and among the folks that he represents, that was a dandy idea. But where I live, it made a lot of people mad. And they aren't just single-issue groups; they're people who build dams and people who string power lines and people who represent municipalities and represent native people. People of all sorts think that if we're going to sell firm power to the city of Los Angeles, then they want to get their oar in there. They didn't say no; they went to the Utilities Commission and said: "We want to have our oar in here. We want to talk about the implications for the region that generates the power, be it the Peace River or the Columbia or, in the case of burning coal, the people of the East Kootenay." You know what the Utilities Commission said to them -- to the native people, to the environmental groups, to the municipalities, to Dick Gathercole representing consumers, to me representing the Regional District of Central Kootenay? The B.C. Utilities Commission said: "It's a nice speech, fellows, but it's outside our mandate. 

[ Page 1872 ]

You're talking about policy. We're just here to talk about the terms of the deal. That's all we're allowed to talk about."

So when the hon. member opposite says that we don't need this thing -- I lowered my voice so you guys could heckle -- and that we should refer issues to the Utilities Commission, what he means is that people out there who care should have no say.

I was at another Utilities Commission hearing. I really want the people of the Okanagan who are represented by members of the other two parties.... I want the people of the Okanagan who were at the second hearing I'm going to describe to understand that the Liberal Party would refer issues like the sale to people in the United States of West Kootenay Power and Light to the Utilities Commission. They don't want this minister to create a council to have public consultation on the sale of Canadian utilities outside this country; they want to refer it to the Utilities Commission.

You'll remember, hon. Speaker, that we went and we were as noisy as we could be. We tried to get the public's attention in British Columbia as, for the very first time, we sold a Canadian utility to an American company. When we got to the Utilities Commission, they said: "Nice speech, kids, beginners, outsiders. But we, the people with the power, it's outside our mandate to talk about selling off the country's resources to another country, and we will not rule on it." And the critic from the Liberal Party would have us refer our policy issues to a body of people who will not rule on the major implications of the issues of this time.

Let's talk as gently as we can, about some of the issues....

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

C. Evans: You can let them yap, hon. Speaker. I can talk over any six of them.

Interjections.

C. Evans: Lowering my voice, I just want to list off some of the issues that I consider to be relatively major that the critic for the second party thinks the people shouldn't talk about. If I had the mailing list, I'd mail it to the people of White Rock so they'd understand that the critic doesn't want them to talk about the right or the wrong in the exporting of power.

Now Let's See: is exporting power -- which the critic has said is the dynamo, the driver of the industry in the future -- automatically a good idea that all of the places and all of the people who have the ability to export power should automatically do so? I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Maybe it's true, and maybe sometimes it isn't true. Is it true in northern Quebec? I don't know. What do the Cree think about it? Is it automatically true from the Peace River? What do the farmers think about it? Is it automatically a good idea? Because there's a market, should we build Site C and sell the power? Is that the implication, critic, sir? Is it automatically a good idea for us to sell some of the cheapest power in the world to the city of Los Angeles, and then get into a free trade agreement with them.

Interjection.

C. Evans: That's another good idea. He's talking about globalization, the modern economy.

Let's See: we'll get a free trade agreement on this hand, and then we'll build a couple of more dams on this hand, and we'll sell them cheap power that we make from the dam to the people that we had the free trade agreement with. Lo and behold, they'll be selling us back our own manufactured goods. They might even decide in L.A. to slip some of that power across the line to Nogales and build Chevrolets to sell back to us, as we can't build them anymore in our country because we have lost our competitive advantage.

[4:30]

I've been listening for days to people over there talk about how we don't know anything about business. All I've ever done is the business of selling resources, and you've got to have a competitive advantage. If you wake up in the morning with a sore body, you don't produce as much as you did yesterday. And if you sell your power to somebody else for less than they can produce it for themselves, you lose your competitive advantage. If the folks on the other side knew anything about business, if they weren't just here as the mouthpieces of business, they wouldn't want to have to go logging with a broken leg. They'd want a competitive advantage.

An Hon. Member: Quit talking about your House leader.

C. Evans: I know I got a little wound up there, but I had to try and talk over the top of those folks.

Let's talk about what we owe the regions. Now there's another policy issue, which I guarantee you, because I've been there, is not the purview of the B.C. Utilities Commission. If you go there and say that the region is being ripped off, those hon. people behind the great big desks with the 17 lawyers and the machines to record every word you say say: "Thank you very much, but it ain't our business."

An Hon. Member: What about the Legislature?

C. Evans: I have been talking about this issue in the Legislature, and I will continue to do so.

The people in the Peace and in the Columbia think that one of the policy issues about power that has never been addressed and that needs a forum is the question: is it okay for an area with two million or three million people, almost all of whom live over here, to have the power generated over there but not pay anything to those people? Maybe that's okay. Maybe that's A-okay. Maybe we shouldn't even get to talk about it. I think the people who generate the power, wherever they live, would like us to have the discussion, and the Minister of Energy is going to give them the chance. The folks in the third party gave us order-in-council 1152, which means there was never any chance; the folks in the 

[ Page 1873 ]

second party are saying, "We don't even need the dialogue," and there will never be a chance; but the Minister of Energy is saying: "It's open. We can talk about it. I think it's a real issue."

Here's another issue. I am sure it's not valid to the people who have been talking over there. But what about carbon dioxide? When we made our first speeches in here, a lot of folks said some very lovely things. Some people talked about the future of the planet. Maybe they only said that because they wanted to mail it home to their constituents or show their grandkids how concerned they were. We all said it. Maybe you said it because you meant it. Maybe people actually care about doing this job as well as we can so that our grandkids can some day sit in here. For sure our party isn't always going to run the province. Maybe we should hold it together so somebody else can do so someday. Maybe your kids want to do it someday.

If any of those people who stood up and talked about the future of the planet really meant it, it isn't enough to make your opening speech and say we have to pay attention; you actually have to have the gall to tough it out and have the discussion outside this room. The working people out there who will be affected by these decisions and the children out there who will live in the world are all outside. Words in here are safe; you can't get sued. They're sort of pretty decorations on a society. But the discussion about global warming is out there somewhere. The Minister of Energy has said: look, you guys, it's not okay anymore to stand up when we call the Legislature together and the galleries are full and the press is here and say that you care about the planet but two months later, when there's nobody in the room, stand up and say: "Exporting power is where it's at. Build those coal-fired plants in southeastern B.C., and have no discussion. A discussion is redundant. The minister should hurry up." That's the reality. We said pretty things when the people were watching, and now we're saying: "Build it, and have no discussion."

I want to praise the minister for having the wherewithal and the honesty and the integrity to take the heat...

Interjections.

C. Evans: ...the heat that I'm having to talk over, and say that the people outside this building -- people who aren't making these wages and who don't live in these plush conditions -- have a right to talk about carbon dioxide, global warming and coal-fired plants before the government of the day says where it stands.

All the folks who have been telling us how neatly the present system works to resolve land use disputes -- we've been talking about it here for a couple of days -- those people and their spokesperson, the critic for Energy, are standing up over there saying: "We have processes right now to resolve all the issues internally in the ministries. We don't need the public involved in the discussion." I think you would accept that whether we flood land or don't flood land, and what land we flood, maybe it shouldn't be a deal cut in the minister's office. Maybe it shouldn't even be a deal decided by people who stand up and talk here. Maybe it should be an issue where we consult with the people who are likely to be under water, or the cemetery with their parents in it is likely to be under water, or the farm that they wanted to pass on to their kids is likely to be under water. I think that is an issue of public policy which needs a bit larger circle of discussion than the critic is suggesting when he says the deal should be cut in the minster's office, when he says the minister should decide.

I will give you an example. Two million people live in Vancouver, and they wanted to save the Skagit Valley. Remember that? In fact, we honoured some of those people just a few weeks ago. As a matter of public policy, those people who wanted to save the Skagit Valley went out and fought for it. I remember that it went on for maybe ten years. The people in here all think it was great how we saved the Skagit Valley. You know how we did it? Maybe it was a great deal. We cut a deal with the Americans that they wouldn't flood the Skagit. Instead, they raised the level of the Pend-d'Oreille seven feet. Why? Because there is no city of Vancouver surrounding the Pend-d'Oreille; there's just a bunch of cattle ranchers.

If the minister had her way, it would have been a public discussion. All those interest groups that the critic says are fanatics or people of one position or people who can't bend or people who do not belong in the professional discussion would have been part of the conversation. Maybe they would have said: "Look, the Skagit ain't no more important than the Pend-d'Oreille, just because you live next to it and we don't."

I guess this is the last thing I want to suggest that the critic and I differ on: who should be involved in setting public policy. The critic's speech went on for an hour, and at least 20 minutes of it was devoted to the question of what in goodness' name the minister was doing involving non-professional members of the public in setting policy. For a considerable time he went on and said: "These people represent interest groups." An interest group is somebody who's come home from work, put down the lunchbucket and then started to organize on behalf of their community. A professional is a person on retainer who works for the same people night and day. The critic thinks that we should have the professionals -- which tends to mean people of a certain income class -- make all the decisions.

Interjection.

C. Evans: It's a class issue. You've got it. Bingo!

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The critic is saying that if they aren't engineers, they don't belong. If they don't work in the energy industry, he thinks they don't belong in the discussion. We all know how it works. Never mind if it's a free enterprise government, a capitalist government, a government of the fifties, a government of the nineties; it doesn't matter. Ministries, sooner or later, represent the industries that their ministry represents. The Forests ministry will eventually represent the forest industry. The Energy ministry will eventually represent the energy 

[ Page 1874 ]

industry. It is as natural as night following day that the ministry will speak for the industry -- here in this room, at cabinet, out in the world. The only way that we're going to stop the people from the old boys' network, who went to school together, who bank together, who buy the same stocks and who eat in the same restaurants, from deciding the policy of the next century is if some minister here has the gall to suggest that members of the public should be involved in planning.

I'm going to sit down now, and simply recognize that the outrage that we hear from the other side is precisely in line with the threat, to people of their in-group and their class, of a public discussion. I applaud the minister and the bill.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to Bill 18, the Energy Council Act. First of all, I want to read the information that the minister supplied to us -- and I must say she supplied it quite a while ago, and I appreciate that. I just want to read a few of the general terms of reference that were supplied to us. Its purpose is: "To facilitate comprehensive energy planning for British Columbia. To conduct broadly based public consultation on key energy issues. To advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on energy matters in the province. To prepare and circulate public discussion papers to support the activities identified. To prepare and circulate public reports documenting the results of the provincial energy plan and recommendations on energy issues identified" -- in the public consultation.

It sounds good. We have to read a little further to the ministry's mandate. Part of the ministry's mandate is: "...to develop comprehensive policies on energy in the province and to make reports and recommendations for their implementation; to carry out any investigation, research, study or inventory of energy facilities and future requirements for the province; to collect and circulate the information acquired." I think those two statements dovetail very well. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources already has a mandate set out for the Energy Council Act. I guess what we have to do is look back and think about the ministry. It has approximately 400 employees and a budget of about $43 million. We wonder if the minister has faith in those people who are already employed in her ministry.

[4:45]

I'm sure that in all ministries in the province of British Columbia we have some very capable people employed to be able to look after the mandate. But if we must accept the Energy Council -- as obviously we must, or we're going to -- then what we have to do as opposition, as British Columbians, as industry, as anyone concerned with energy, is have some faith in that council as British Columbians -- not just as members of the NDP but as British Columbians totally. As members of the opposition, we have to have faith in that council; that they are going to do what they set out to do.

I don't think that our party has a great amount of opposition to the Energy Council. What is set out for them to do, I don't think we have any problem with that either. But what we do have a little problem with is faith in this council; that they will go out and do what their mandate has directed them to do. I am not going to be very harsh on Mr. Gathercole; that would be unfair, because he does have a long list of accomplishments in his life. It is impressive, in fact. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Laws; obviously quite a learned gentleman. I appreciate that. The problem I have with the gentleman is his close ties to the NDP. Another problem I have is that he is another one of their failed NDP candidates from 1986 being placed in this position. I think it is about $100,000 for this job. It seems as though there is no rationale when we go around hiring these people and putting them into these positions, it is just whatever is comfortable at the time, I guess. He has been a long-time NDP supporter. He is going to head up a council that is to go around the province and find out what the people and industry think about the export of electricity. Yet it is interesting to note that he is opposed to power exports. He is named chairman of the commission and is already on record as saying he is opposed to power exports. Now the first thing that he has to go out and hold hearings on -- around the province -- is about the export of power. It is pretty obvious what kind of a report he is going to come back with.

He is opposed to the construction of dams. I guess that goes hand in hand: if you are opposed to the export of power, you are opposed to the construction of dams. He is also on record as saying he would like to pass more of the household costs for electricity on to industry. This is another step against industry, and it seems continual. It doesn't matter which bill you take, there is some thrust at our industries and corporations that supply the wealth for this province. They want to pass more cost on to industry from households.

Apparently there are going to be six more members appointed. What we'd like to know is how they will qualify. What qualifications will they have to have to sit on this board? If they are people from around the province that don't have strong ties to the philosophy of this party and if they are really genuine people that think about British Columbia, that understand what makes British Columbia tick, that understand that we need industry, that understand that we need jobs in the private sector, not just the public sector, then I can accept those appointments. If they are appointments from areas where a lot of the energy comes from -- specifically Peace River North, from my area, from South Peace, from the Kootenays -- then I and my party can understand and go along with those appointments. But if they are just to be appointed because of their connections with the party, we are going to have some real difficulty with it and so is every British Columbian.

The other thing I find interesting in the act is that all six councillors and the chairman will qualify for pensions. I find this very interesting. They're all going to be able to apply for government pensions. I think the council is set up for five years. I guess after five years they're pensionable and away they go. I don't find that palatable. That should not be part of it. Why should a commission that's going around supposedly to hear what British Columbians think about energy and the export of energy and development of energy in British 

[ Page 1875 ]

Columbia qualify for pensions? That should just be a commission that's set up for a certain period of time and then disbanded.

The other part that's interesting is that, as I said earlier, the ministry has about 400 people on staff and a budget of about $43 million. I notice that we're going to add a little bit to everybody's hydro bills, because it's going to cost about $2 million a year. That's the estimate to run this commission. Instead of taking it out of a ministry that already has the mandate to do what this Energy Council is supposed to do now.... You would think we shouldn't have to raise any more money. We should be able to take the money out of the minister's budget, the $2 million, and supply it to that commission.

When you think about it, five years is $10 million. Ten million dollars is a lot of money. On the other hand, if the commission goes out and performs its job well, without partisan politics, with the interest of British Columbians, the province, at heart, so that we can continue to receive the services we've all come to enjoy.... The Minister of Finance knows very well that he wants Hydro to do well, because they're expecting some $150 million this coming year in dividends. It's interesting, last year they couldn't pay any; this year they're going to pay some.

When you look at the background of the commissioner -- he's on record as opposing the export of power -- and you see that on April 7 this past year, the minister was in Fort St. John, and said at that time that she was opposed to Site C.... It's obvious that that minister is also opposed to the export of electricity, because she believes that we can make do with what we have. Why are we going out there? Why was the commission formed? Is the commission going out there just to justify what this government already has in mind? If it is, it's just a sham. That's why I say that I have no problem whatsoever with commissions if they're going out there to get information, to listen to the people and industry and find out what we should be doing with our hydro.

In the next few years -- I haven't had time to research how many more years, but it's not too many -- the Columbia River Treaty, negotiated by a previous Social Credit administration and signed by W.A.C. Bennett, is going to pay off to the province. It had to do with the export of electricity. I wonder if this commission is to just deal with the issue of the Columbia River Treaty. Or is it to deal with all aspects of exporting power from the province?

As I said earlier, B.C. Hydro supplies an awful lot of revenue to the province through its operations, a lot of employment, and it helps create a lot of the benefits that we all enjoy. I've spoken many times about the need to keep corporations and businesses viable in British Columbia so that we can continue to enjoy the services that we receive from the money that they generate.

There's an interesting note here on B.C. Hydro: "Exports boost profits." We have a commissioner going out who doesn't believe in exporting hydro. We have a minister who I'm not too sure is along the same lines. But when you read: "B.C. Hydro made a record net profit of about $400 million for the recently concluded fiscal year, and about 20 percent of the windfall comes from export markets, the Province has learned. Hydro chairman Bob Wyman confirmed" that the profit was $400 million. That's remarkable, and that's great. That's what our corporation should be doing. It should be out there making lots of money. But it's doing it, obviously, by exporting hydro.

We go on to talk about the companies which aren't Crown corporations that are planning to export hydroelectricity -- and there are a number of them. In fact, there are getting to be more and more all over the province. It has to do with generating electricity from natural gas. When you start talking about generating electricity from natural gas, I'm quite well acquainted with that. Most of the natural gas -- in fact, all of the natural gas for British Columbia -- comes from the part of the country that I come from. Westcoast Energy is one of the proponents presently building a cogeneration plant in Taylor. There are quite a number of them around the province; in fact, there's one in Sparwood that's on hold. I just want to read out a little bit about the effects it would have if the Sparwood project went ahead: "The contract is estimated at more than $2 billion." Two hundred and seventy million dollars in taxes would be generated, and more than half of that would go to Victoria. In addition to that, more than 200 person-years of employment during construction....

You know, hon. Speaker, those are the jobs, those are the benefits, that we talk about on this side of the House all the time and that are needed in British Columbia. That's what keeps the province going. If we continue to put roadblocks in front of industry, if we continue to send commissioners out with a negative attitude, we're not going to be able to encourage that development.

[5:00]

Like I said earlier, if the commission goes out and we have faith in that commission and in those commissioners to find out what the energy needs of the province are, then fine. I agree with it; I have no problem with it. It's not anything new. This isn't a bolt of lightning out of the sky. Any time there is a large energy project promoted in the province by Crown corporations, there are always public hearings. If I remember correctly, Site C hearings went on for a number of years and cost an awful lot of money as to the pros and cons of Site C. Those processes did take place.

Hon. Speaker, as I've said, we have to have trust in the council to fulfil their job -- what they're designated to do. But we can't have trust in that council unless we know specifically who the people are. We already know that the chairman has a biased opinion on the export of power. We know he has an NDP agenda in mind. If the other six councillors can be chosen from British Columbians that are serious about British Columbia, that are serious about the future of British Columbia, then we have no problem with the council.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill in second reading today. I would like to offer some comments from an economic development perspective. In general, I do not believe that the creation of this Energy Council will do much to reduce the large number of roadblocks facing energy producers today.

[ Page 1876 ]

For too long now decisions on the export of energy have been postponed. The issues have been studied at length by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Now it seems as if another layer of bureaucracy is being established that may mean more red tape for power producers in British Columbia. The Energy Council could be seen as a way to further delay the making of decisions. We have lost two potential projects and stand to lose many more because this government consistently refuses to fulfil its responsibility and to make decisions. If the government continues to wait until business gives up and moves elsewhere, there will no longer be any decisions to make.

I fear that the Energy Council will be used to shift responsibility from the minister to a third party. I believe the lines of responsibility should remain clear. Business people depend on predictable and stable public policy to make their decisions. I do not have faith that this bill will achieve that stability.

Mr. Dick Gathercole has been announced as the chair-designate. The council will not deal directly with specific disputes but will address broad issues of principles and direction. There is no explicit timetable attached to this legislation. Mr. Gathercole has a history of outspoken bias on energy issues which is in harmony with NDP rhetoric. He can hardly be perceived as fair and impartial by investors, industry, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders. If the problem is that the ministry does not consult enough, then the solution is for the ministry to consult more. Instead, there is now another level of bureaucracy between the people and their issues and the minister.

Hon. Speaker, there are many disturbing aspects to this act, and I look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the bill. I think that the creation of an energy council is a good, solid idea. I guess I speak from a bias, because I know that there was a great deal of discussion, while I was the Minister of Energy, about the creation of an energy council and the role it might fulfil.

It seems to me that there are significant public policy issues involving energy, and I hope we are not going to focus ourselves only on the export of electricity, because the energy question in British Columbia is much larger than that. Clearly, the export of electricity is a key component in any energy strategy in this province, but I believe we have to look further and develop a strategy for hydroelectricity, for fossil-fuel-generated electricity and for thermal electricity.

We have to decide -- and I intend to speak on Friday -- on whether or not we are going to continue to encourage the generation of electricity in the Peace River and Kootenay regions of the province and the major consumption of electricity in the lower mainland, and if we are going to be prepared over the next generations to live with increasing hydroelectric transmission lines across our province. We're starting to understand that it is socially and economically undesirable to have these huge transmission systems strung from one corner of the province to the other. That issue has to be dealt with as part of an overall energy strategy.

My colleague from Peace River North, the critic for Energy, mentioned the Columbia River Treaty. Clearly, that is an issue of significant public policy that must be resolved very quickly. The previous government gave notice to the Bonneville Power Administration and the consumers in the northwest that we expected the return of the Columbia Treaty downstream benefits to British Columbia. The preparation for the return of downstream benefits has to start very soon.

So there is some urgency in the matters that are going to be put before this council, particularly if it's the minister's intention -- and I hope that it is -- to first refer the question of the downstream benefits to the council for either a confirmation of the decision that was taken by the late Jack Davis or perhaps a change in that policy. I believe there are some compelling arguments to reconsider whether or not it is in the best interests of British Columbia to have the downstream benefits returned physically to British Columbia. There are some options. The benefits could be sold for other fixed periods of time. They were initially sold on 50-year contracts. There is nothing that would obligate the commitment for another 50 years. The minister suggests it was 30, and I think she's right. There would be the option, for example, to sell the benefits in ten-year packages -- to sell the benefits for another tens years, and give an option on a further ten; or to sell them for 20 years with options.

There is a tremendous opportunity to return cash resources to British Columbia, and I think there should be a balance. There should be some significant public debate around whether or not we want the electricity returned to British Columbia starting in about 1998 -- whether there is going to be a demand for it. We should recognize that the treaty calls for the energy to be returned to British Columbia -- I believe it's at Osoyoos or Oliver. If that is in fact where the energy is going to be returned, we are faced with the situation of still having to move it to where it's going to be consumed, unless we find some magic way in Oliver to consume that considerable amount of energy. And, again, we have this question about transmission lines and whether or not there are options. I think it is an issue that clearly needs to be studied, and to be studied by people who have tremendous capacity and experience in a broad range of issues.

As my colleague mentioned, we are disappointed that the selection of a chairman appears to have been at least partially politically motivated. These issues are far too large for us to look at another opportunity to reward a failed candidate. The chairman should be -- and I hope, perhaps in spite of his political connections, is -- the most capable, the most experienced. The people best able to represent the interests of all British Columbians should be appointed to the council. And they should be appointed, I would suggest, first on the basis of their ability, and second on the basis of their regional representation, because there are clearly specific and special interests in the northeast region -- the Peace region, which I represent -- there are some particular interests in the southeast, the Kootenays -- the area represented by the minister -- and there are the interests of the major consuming group in the 

[ Page 1877 ]

southwest part of British Columbia. All of those interests, along with the interests of every British Columbian, should be addressed.

I would hate for us to be so concerned with the other priorities of this government -- for example, the oft-touted gender equity and ethnic representation.... Those things are important; nobody argues with them; but let's understand that this is a reasonably small group, a group with a huge responsibility, and the first criterion for selection should be ability. Hopefully there will be a gender mix. Hopefully there will be an ethnic mix. But let's not disqualify anybody from service, even if they might have connections with the Social Credit Party. Maybe they've had some connections with Hydro. Maybe they've had some business connections. We've already selected a chairman. Let's look at six more folks who are the most capable people you as a government can find -- you're going to make the appointments to this board -- and then let them deal with these significant policy issues.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Finance makes some suggestions, and I wouldn't disqualify any of them, either on the basis of experience or gender, but I would again say to you that if they are the best qualified, certainly take them, work them hard and use them. There is a range of people who have served this province well, who have served our party well, and I would suggest that we would look.... I hope that you look. I seriously hope that you decide that you've filled most of the screaming patronage requirements; that those most deserving, those who for one reason or another were at the head of the line, have already been dealt with; that we're down now into the second tier of patronage appointments, and these folks perhaps could wait on the sidelines for a little while until something comes along for them.

But let's not, when we think about the task that this council is going to have, confine it to the export of power or only to hydroelectricity. Let's look at all of the energy that this province has and the opportunities that there are. Let's look at the effect of Alcan's Kemano on the energy resource in this province, because it's significant. There are natural gas and thermal resources. All of those can be used in varying strategies. Certainly the question of whether or not we decide to export electricity to the United States, or whether we decide to sell the downstream benefits for another period of years to the United States.... Those are options and issues that should be considered. You don't have a lot of time to change your mind on the downstream benefits, should you choose to do so.

[5:15]

We're going to support this legislation, and we're going to do it only with the apprehension -- given the track record of this government in appointments -- about the quality of the appointees to the board. We seriously ask you to set aside your partisan interests in this issue and look around British Columbia. I believe that the qualified people will become evident to you. Don't worry too much about their political affiliations. I would hope that most of the qualified ones don't have any close party ties. Let's look at these folks in terms of their ability; let's understand that the job they have to do is large. It's important to British Columbia. There are some time factors, and ultimately the recommendations of the council should come back, not necessarily to the minister, but to this Legislature, so that at the end of the day the people of British Columbia, through their elected representatives, will have an opportunity to either support, modify or reject the recommendations of the council.

With that, I would close and indicate again the intention of the Social Credit Party to support this particular piece of legislation.

V. Anderson: Energy is a very critical issue for many people -- in fact, for all of the people of British Columbia. Of course, the actions of the government are being watched very closely as we work towards the management of energy within British Columbia. They're also looking forward to seeing what innovative steps might be taken. What are the creative steps that might be taken for the future that is before us? Those people who are not normally involved in energy planning, but who use the energy in their homes and community, are the ones who normally pay the cost when they get their electricity and gas bills. Those people are vitally concerned about the energy policy of British Columbia. They are often the people who feel that they have the least to say about it, but are most affected by it in their everyday life, both at home and in their business. I would hope that when the government is working on the energy policy of British Columbia, they will find the means of indicating to the ordinary, average, regular citizen of British Columbia an understanding of what is happening in terms that they can understand and appreciate.

When the government has put forth their concern about budget cuts and when many people have felt the effect in education, health and in many other areas by having lost their jobs, I know there is a concern among them. On the other hand, they hear of spending being undertaken, which was not really explained to them previously. Though they have a concern that the government undertake what is necessary to provide the energy they need, they are concerned with increased spending at the same time that the government has cut back on many of the essential services which this government said it was going to give first priority to. There is a concern in the community about the different directions in which this government seems to be going: saying that they will support those who are in need of income at the basic low-income level, and at the same time saying that they do not have the funds to give those living in poverty an opportunity to rise above their poverty levels. At the same time, they can venture out and hire new people at what are considered by them to be very high wages. They can send out new explorations and opportunities for employment for everyone else except those on the lowest end of the scale. Somehow we must be able to convey to those people that the new policies and directions of the government are not being done on the backs of those 

[ Page 1878 ]

who are least able to afford them. Indeed, as they have seen the increase in their energy costs in their own homes, they feel that the government is not benefiting them in the process in which it is moving.

When they look at the actions in this bill, as in others -- that there will be a new set of fees perhaps.... They intimated that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has authority to set new fees and new regulations about new tax increases to the government. Regardless of how good the purpose might be, the very fact that there is going to be these kinds of new fees legislated and new charges upon them is giving them an uncertain prospect for the future that is now before them. We must acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty and unrest in our community. We have seen that uncertainty and unrest throughout North America and around the world, and we must be conscious that, however this act may seem to be unrelated, in the minds of the community it is very much related, because while energy is put into the energy concerns, the lifeblood of the people of the community is being gradually taken away from them.

I hope that the Energy Council, when it is out listening to its constituents, will be talking to the people in the community who are "experts in energy and can help with the decisions that may be needed to be made on the technical level" and will hear not only the people who come to public forums and in response to newspaper advertising, but also the people who never come to those forums or respond to newspaper advertising. Except for the free newspapers, they do not receive a newspaper, and they do not feel that normally they are invited to participate in the discussion. Many have not had the opportunity to be a part of this discussion for years.

I must confess that there was the expectation among this very select group of people in our community that this government was going to give them a voice they had not had before and was going to listen and hear what they specifically had to say. So far, I'm afraid, in the actions we have had from this government, these people have not been heard from. They do not feel, as I understand it, that their voice has been heard adequately and fairly. As we look at each of these bills, we have to ask the question: how will these people, who normally are not part of decision-making, be heard and listened to?

Even if they are heard and listened to, many of these people feel that they are then ignored. Somehow a message needs to get across to them that they are actually being heard and responded to and that their particular interests -- and not the interests of only a few -- are being met. I think we have to look at this.

These are also the people, many of whom are involved in environmental concerns, who are concerned about the non-polluting effects of the energy we have around. The opportunity to get to the very simple, plain kind of lifestyle that they live.... When we talk about pollution, these are not normally the people who are part of pollution. They are not using large quantities of energy. They are not driving automobiles. They are not the people who have a lot garbage, because they don't even have a lot of food, in the first place. When we talk about a great deal of topical things in our day, these are not the people who are being talked about. It's another level or strata of society that we're hearing from and talking to.

I would simply urge that when we look at this bill -- as we do with every bill -- we ask what the effect is on the 25 percent of our population who live in poverty. That 25 percent is children, men and women. What is the effect on them? When they read in the newspapers about this new project, which sounds to them like a high and mighty kind of project that is not in their realm of thinking or in their realm of experience, how do we convey to them that there is a concern and a reality here even in looking at the very energy needed for their lives?

One of the experiences that perhaps will illustrate this kind of concern is the difference in the perspectives of people. I remember one day visiting a home, and they were very excited because they had a new light in their house which they had not had previously. They had got a gas lantern, which replaced the coal-oil lantern, and they were so excited because now they had light they could see and read by which was so much better than the coal-oil lantern they had been using. By chance, on that same day I visited another home, and they were so excited because they had a bulb in the ceiling. They had just gotten electricity, and had put aside the gas lantern and now had a light that could burn all night in the ceiling, and they were so excited. Later on that same evening I was at another house. They had just bought a lamp that could sit beside their chair instead of having that single bulb in the ceiling, and they were so excited. I thought to myself as I went about: what a difference, and yet the same excitement was there.

So often when we're talking about energy we're thinking about energy use and about the people who have the lamps. We're not talking about the people who have a bare bulb, nor are we talking about the people who have a gas lantern or a coal-oil lantern or those who have no light at all in their homes in the evening or throughout their circumstances. When we talk in these high economic terms, I hope we will keep in mind -- regardless of whether the council is formed or not or who sits on it -- that there will be someone there who speaks for and represents a good 20 to 25 percent of our population who need to be heard from in every action we undertake. Hon. Speaker, I trust that this message will come through to us, and that we will respond to it.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise in support of Bill 18, the Energy Council Act. I've listened with some interest to the members of the opposition, and I take some pleasure in the fact that the members of the third party agree to the bill with some reservations. I think that's legitimately honest. But I want to speak to the issues that have been brought forth by the opposition.

The bill itself is designed as a vehicle for public consultation about energy policy. The Energy Council will provide advice to the minister on energy matters. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why anybody would be opposed to that. The opposition seems to want no consultation; it seems to want the minister to 

[ Page 1879 ]

make the decisions in the confines of her office, which is a real puzzle. But then they could complain about draconian decisions and measures that have been taken and about decision-making without public consultation behind closed doors, and it could go on and on.

What's interesting, of course, is that the opposition has repeatedly attempted to hoist various bills on the pretext that it should go back to the people for some consultation and input from the stakeholders and the groups that are affected. Here's a bill that provides an avenue to do exactly that, and they're still opposed to it. So that's quite inconsistent.

[5:30]

The actions are really quite inconsistent with the words that are being said in this House. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour earlier this afternoon said that the minister was abrogating her responsibility for making decisions. I can't quite understand that, because it sounds a little like he's worried that she's abrogating her responsibility to make decisions without consultation. I would think that this Legislature would support anything that encourages consultation.

There was concern expressed that we were handing over the act of consulting to unelected bodies. I want to remind the House that there has been a long history of that. Not too long ago we had the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs going around the province, and they weren't elected people. In fact, there is an advisory group now dealing with the issues that have to do with implementation of its various recommendations. There wasn't any great hue and cry then about not having an elected body going around and consulting with the public, and that's still ongoing. The Sullivan commission was another one that travelled around the province. There were no elected groups involved in that. Here were two specific avenues where the public could come in, make comments and express their concerns, and those were then taken back to the various ministries which dealt with them.

This Energy Council's role will be ongoing, and it will be to enable those types of consultations. The opposition has said that the minister herself can perform all those functions, and I'm not sure what they had in mind. Perhaps they wanted her to rent a mobile office and spend her entire term travelling around the province and doing all of the consulting work. It's a novel idea, but I won't go into that any further. The opposition suggests that developing an energy plan can be done in the same way that it has been for the past decade. Frankly, we have seen the results of that, and we don't want any more of that kind of ad hockery in decision-making about energy policy. We want -- and people keep telling us that they want -- consultation to be early enough in the process, not after decisions have been made. They want input into decisions like energy exports and all of those energy-related environmental impacts.

I want to present an issue to you that's very dear to the area that I come from. It has to do with the Kemano completion project. I'm not going to discuss that in great detail here, but we have repeatedly heard people say that they want to have some say in what happens to the energy that is produced. There is a lot of concern about the export of energy and jobs to the U.S. They want to have some say about what happens in job creation up in that area -- and why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't an energy council be able to get some input into those kinds of questions? Certainly the people in my constituency -- and I would guess, right across the north -- are going to want to be consulted about that. The issue is jobs, and they are going to want to be consulted about that.

There was some concern expressed about the message this would give to the business community. I think the Canadian business community, which has a commitment to the future of this country and to the future of this province, would want some input into energy policy and into job creation in this province. Certainly they would want to have some say in how much energy we should export to create jobs south of the border. The message that I'm getting from the opposition sees to be very alarmist and anti-consultation -- the whole business -- and a continuation of the sky-is-falling routine.

The Energy Council has the potential of being a very positive vehicle in provincial energy planning. The U.S. and other multinational corporations obviously would like B.C. to continue energy planning and policy in the same way it has for the past two decades. I mean, why not? It would be to their benefit. Then they could treat B.C. like many of the other banana republics. I really wonder if that's what the opposition is advocating. Are they speaking for those people, because it sure sounds like it to me. I think it's a good initiative, a good bill. The opposition should really support it.

J. Tyabji: I rise to speak against this bill, along with my colleagues on the official opposition benches here. We have a lot of problems with this. First of all, we're not convinced that we need this Energy Council. We've become a little bit cynical over the past few weeks when we've seen the kinds of steps that have been taken with regard to duties in this ministry. We're not sure, in particular, about the appointment that has been made, and the critic has expressed his concerns very articulately. The appointment is someone who we can't have a lot of confidence in. We're wondering why we would create the Energy Council when we have a minister who is able to make those kinds of decisions and to hear input from people around the province.

We already have a situation of so many people being employed in government in the various ministries. In the Environment ministry, for example, there are pages and pages in the directory of phone numbers of the people you can contact. Here we have yet another layer of government being created when we have within the ministry all the resources necessary to do the same job. We have a minister who is certainly capable of making the kinds of decisions necessary to run the ministry in the same way this Energy Council is supposed to be doing. The mandate that the Energy Council is getting is a mandate that could be fulfilled by the minister or the staff in the ministry. We have regional staff, we have local staff, we have a bureaucracy, we have a hierarchy within a bureaucracy, and we have the minister at the top. There's no question that this minister is able to make these decisions, that this minister doesn't need an 

[ Page 1880 ]

Energy Council to be advising her on things that she certainly has the background to be able to make judgment on.

We're concerned about the layers and the sort of buffer zone that's been developing in many of the ministries. The Energy Council seems to be yet another buffer zone and a potential stalling tactic, a way in which any difficult decisions could be put through the Energy Council. We could be waiting X number of months before we see a decision.

I know that in the Environment ministry we've seen this kind of buffer zone being developed with regard to the sensitive areas and with regard to logging issues. I just came out of a meeting with regard to Blue Lead Creek, where we have a study that has been developed and deferral zones that weren't even in the plan for logging in the next 20 months. Logging is going on in sensitive areas. They're saying: "Well, we've got log-around zones around it." That's irrelevant.

Here we have an Energy Council with a similar mandate to that of the resource commission, in that it's meant to develop policy and to be a listening body. Do we really need yet another level of government? Do we really need to have a buffer zone? Is the minister not able to make these decisions herself? We know she is; we know that she is able to listen; we know -- you could read Hansard -- this minister's ability when she was in opposition to critique the issues. This minister is aware of the issues; she's aware of who the advocates are, who the people are on both sides of the issue. She certainly knows, region by region, what the issues are, and her party is on record as supporting certain platform initiatives. So I ask: why do we need an Energy Council?

This minister already has an understanding of the issues. Her party has a philosophy, and they have within that philosophy certain areas that they are very clear on. The people of B.C. gave them a mandate on certain things, like the UtiliCorp issue in the interior. This minister is aware of the UtiliCorp issue and West Kootenay Power, and her party's statements on that. On this issue they were very close to the Liberal Party's position.

Are we going to have an Energy Council now to go through the same process we've been through for several years? We have the electricity consumers' association now going to the Energy Council, when it used to be able to go to the minister. When she was in opposition.... She's fully equipped to deal with the issue now. Her government should be ready to act on it. They were given a mandate.

We on the opposition side support.... We're very close in terms of philosophy on the UtiliCorp issue. We're very concerned that we see tax dollars being expended here on something that we feel is unnecessary. One could be extremely cynical and say that perhaps this Energy Council has not been created by this minister. Perhaps she was under pressure to create it so that someone else could have input into the decision-making process and so that she can't make decisions on her own. I know that occurred to me.

Why is this minister not able to go out and make the decisions that need to be made today with regard to energy? There are so many things.... I know, as the Environment critic, that in the Energy portfolio we certainly have a lot of things that need to be addressed today. We have a lot of research on alternative energy sources that's available. We could be implementing those kinds of programs right now.

Now we have an Energy Council. We've gone over the patronage aspects of the Energy Council with regard to the chair. Certainly that's been brought up numerous times by many of the previous speakers. There's some kind of cynicism built into the council to begin with. That's very unfortunate, because the credibility of the council has been in question before they've even had a chance to begin their mandate. As I say, it's a mandate that could have just as easily been fulfilled by the minister. I would have preferred to see this minister have the freedom to take the initiative in many areas: with regard to alternative energy sources, with regard to being on the leading edge and with regard to research and development in her portfolio. Now there's an Energy Council, which to a large extent is going to tie the hands of the minister. The minister is not going to be able to have the freedom that she might want to implement a lot of the changes that are now necessary.

There are a lot of very difficult decisions that have to be made in her ministry. Of course, we can talk about the Kemano 2 project; we've been waiting for some sign from the government side of the House as to what they're going to do about it. We have to have an environmental review of that project, and we haven't heard anything.

Now we've got an Energy Council, and we're being bogged down in process. And it's a process that I'd say doesn't have a lot of credibility, because of the patronage appointment of the chair. We have a minister here who's able to make the decisions. We want her to have the ability to make the decisions so that we can go straight to the minister and ask her: what is your opinion on this issue? What does the minister feel with regard to the issue of the Alcan proposal? How does this minister feel? Do we now have to go to the Energy Council? Are we now dealing with someone who is, for example, on record with regard to his perspective on the export of power? How is it that we have someone who was previously in an advocacy position as the chair of the Energy Council? How does this allow this minister any freedom? If her opinions differ from those of the chair, and the chair used to be an advocate for a certain position, how does this minister have the ability to go around that? Obviously she doesn't now. There's now an extra layer of government that we didn't need. She is now going to be hampered in her job and in her ability to stand up and speak out on some of the issues that I'm sure she would like to.

We would love to hear from her on the Alcan proposal. We'd love to hear what she thinks of the Kemano 2 project. We don't want to hear from the Energy Council, because she's the minister. We want to hear from the minister who was appointed by the Premier to fulfil the mandate of this government. The mandate of this government is set out by their election platform. This government has said repeatedly that they are committed to fulfilling their election promises, 

[ Page 1881 ]

but in many areas we've seen those promises broken. We see a buffer zone for a minister who may very well want to fulfil those promises. We have a lot of problems with that.

As well, we have a lot of problems from the point of view of streamlining bureaucracy and streamlining government. The point I'd like to more or less end on, as to why we in opposition have a problem with the Energy Council, is the entire idea of responsible spending of tax dollars. You can be very cynical and say that the last thing we needed in B.C. was an expenditure of tax dollars to create another level of government when we had the mechanism in place to make those decisions before this Energy Council was appointed. The last thing that the tax dollars needed to go to was a patronage appointment of a chair for an Energy Council that's unnecessary. The opposition says that if we are to be responsible, we will rely on the minister. She has a mandate; she has the ability; she's perfectly capable of making the decisions. We know that she's got opinions on most of these issues, because we've read them in Hansard. Why do we need another level of government? If people want access, they can have access through the existing structure, through the minister.

[5:45]

If the minister believes that we need more dialogue, she can go and set up the kind of meetings that we see going on around the province, where they have direct access to the elected representatives. Elected representatives are there to hear the people. If she can't go, perhaps she can take one of her backbenchers. I'm sure they are quite eager to help out. There are many from neighbouring areas who could be accessible to the people. You then have an elected representative who's accessible. We need elected representatives to be accessible to the people. We don't need another commission or council being appointed, where the people are speaking to someone who's been appointed, not an elected representative, not someone who has a stake in the outcome of the decision.

Not only has this minister been elected, she has been elected with a very vocal perspective on many of these issues. The people in her area know where she stands on a lot of these issues. We would like to see her implement these things without waiting, without the long delay that is going to be necessitated by this Energy Council.

It's a shame, in many respects, that we have this council. It's a shame from the perspective of the tax dollar; it is an unnecessary expenditure. It's a shame that their credibility has been damaged -- and I'd say almost irreparably -- by the patronage smears. It is a shame that we have a minister who has the ability and the opinions to make the decisions.... The minister is perfectly capable of carrying out the mandate that's been given to the Energy Council. In effect, those responsibilities have been taken from her. Her ability to make those decisions has been hampered by a buffer zone that was unnecessary.

Hon. Speaker, I conclude my remarks with regard to the Energy Council by saying that the official opposition does not support this concept, and we urge the government to reconsider.

A. Warnke: I'm going to reserve judgment on this particular bill, because, after all, I'll be listening with keen interest to the minister's closing remarks on this particular issue. As a matter of fact, last night I was reminded by another minister that I should go have milk and cookies. One of the comical things about that is that last night, prior to coming into the Legislature, I actually did have a full glass of milk and a date bar. Unfortunately, this afternoon I did not have my glass of milk prior to coming in here. So, unlike what you might expect from the performance last night, without a glass of milk and cookies or date bars or what not -- I did not have a sugar fix -- I'm going to be my rather droll self this afternoon.

I rise to speak on this particular bill. There are a number of points raised by some of my colleagues on this side of the Legislature, especially some of the remarks by the member from Okanagan East, that I thought were put forward extremely well in this House. There are some aspects of that which perhaps could be explored.

One thing at the outset is that there are times when a government and a state may want to establish certain boards to seek expert advice from. I can actually think of the Economic Council of Canada, and so forth. Then a board has not only input in terms of providing some good solid information for the government to articulate policies accordingly, but it also helps to anticipate what certain problems and pitfalls a particular policy may face.

The problem in this particular case is the premise. I rather like the premise as I explore some of the aspects of Bill 18. I like some of the premise -- that what we need is more public involvement. But at the same time, as pointed out by some of my colleagues, while the government on the one hand wants more public involvement, it clearly sends -- with what I would call a premature announcement as to who is the chair-designate -- a message to the contrary. If a government really wants public involvement, surely the approach is to stimulate the grass roots. Somewhere along the line the idea is to stimulate public involvement and let that public perspective somehow emanate from the bottom to the top. There is a way in which this can be done if the minister....

I actually appreciate some of the remarks made by the member for Okanagan East that here is a minister who is indeed qualified. I sat in on the estimates as much as I could, and I was impressed with the minister's response to the questions that were put forward. To a certain extent, to be fair, I've followed her career a little bit and have been somewhat impressed with the knowledge that she has of her field. As a critic, I certainly can extend my support to her as a minister.

Therefore, having that expertise, I do wonder what kind of information the minister is seeking. If it is some sort of public input, then why is it necessary to establish a board which this government has signalled from the beginning could be filled -- certainly it appears that way, prima facie -- with patronage appointments and could be accused of such? I actually anticipate that there will be members on the board other than from the governing party and that perhaps there will be non-par-

[ Page 1882 ]

tisan members and some consideration of people affiliated with the other two parties.

The public perception, nonetheless, is that this is a patronage board. Therefore, if the minister is really interested in seeking information, perhaps I am really wondering -- and I hope that the minister can actually address this in her final remarks: why not establish a set of public hearings and really go to the public? Indeed, the public may well turn right around and say you don't need a board. I can very well anticipate that there will be members of the public who will say that if you're really seeking advice, if you're really seeking information or our opinions, seek them directly. There are many members of the public, especially on issues like energy and others, who do want to provide the government with some information.

It may well be that in establishing this particular board, the kind of people who serve on it are representatives of certain groups throughout society. This government would not be unique in that. Indeed, I can think of several governments, including Liberal governments -- at the federal level at any rate; and Liberal provincial governments who have established boards, again with the intention of filling them up with people who are from certain groups in society. But to be quite honest with you, hon. Speaker, from time to time I have even been critical of Liberal governments, that from time to time a government could establish a board and put certain people on it, thinking and believing and developing a premise that the people they have appointed will represent their particular groups in society.

Time and time again -- and I've done some professional analysis of this -- what we have done in our history in Canada and in British Columbia is create an artificial elite which on the face of it looks like it represents the society at large. But guess what: they are an elite. It is an artificial elite that does not represent the people and their perspective. Over and over again governments have made, I think, a very big mistake in establishing such boards and advisory councils, in assuming that all we have to do is articulate who the groups are and then appoint people from those groups, and somehow that will provide us with representation from all of society. That is not democratic. That is not the real way to solicit grass-roots opinion from the public at large. Indeed, it seems that this has been part of our political culture that I myself have laboured against professionally, because I do not like the idea of the injection of an artificial elite. What I fear is that establishing a board such as this repeats the actions of previous governments -- municipal, federal and provincial -- once again creating an artificial elite that hopefully will represent the rank and file to the public, but after a time we will witness that it is indeed an artifical elite that reflects only the conventional wisdom of the elites as a whole and preaches the party line and so forth. This is even assuming that there is a very sincere attempt by the government to create a board which is non-partisan, slightly partisan, tripartisan or whatever.

There are some remarks that I'd like to make at this stage, hon. Speaker, in response to some very interesting remarks by the member for Skeena. He stated just a few moments ago that we on this side somehow do not believe in consultation, and that we prefer something confined to the office of the minister. All I can say is -- I have to jump on this immediately -- that's not what we've been saying on this side of the House. We want a consultative process, and the way to have some sort of consultative process with the public is to have some public hearings. That's how you get to the grass roots of the public at large.

We're not saying there's no consultation. We're saying that, as a matter of fact, this board may not be consultative enough. We're not saying to just confine policy to the office of the ministry, but that there is a way in which the minister herself can actually obtain information from the public at large. This reflects some of the remarks made by the member for Okanagan East a little earlier.

Furthermore, the member for Skeena did say that somehow -- it was a criticism by the member of my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour -- this was a way of abrogating responsibilities. Indeed, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour had a very good point. It's that the problem here may be that in the creation of a council, if the council is to have any meat and if there is any sort of contentious issue being brought forward, how do we know that when the going gets rough, it actually came from the council? We don't know that. So I think the point raised by my colleague is an extremely important one.

Then the member for Skeena made references to unelected bodies: the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and the Sullivan commission. Note, hon. Speaker, that these two cases -- the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and the Sullivan commission.... What is there about these commissions?

Hon. G. Clark: Move adjournment of the debate.

A. Warnke: We'll get to that. Gee, if you're in a rush to eat, that's just too bad. I have one more minute; this is an important point.

There is something interesting about these two bodies. They are based on public hearings. These two commissions, the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and the Sullivan commission, did go out to solicit ideas from the public. If anything, what the member for Skeena said precisely emphasizes the point we are making on this side.

Hon. Speaker, recognizing that some people are really anxious to get downstairs and have something to eat, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada