1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 20
[ Page 13337 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me remind the House that the House will be sitting on Wednesday of this week -- tomorrow. With that, I call committee stage of Bill 8.
JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 8; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: During second reading debate of this bill last Wednesday in this chamber, we canvassed the principle of Bill 8, and we talked about the fact that the 1994 report of the job protection commissioner had not yet been tabled in this assembly. We have the report for 1993, but the 1994 report of the job protection commissioner has not yet been tabled in this assembly.
We're being asked to extend the life of the Job Protection Commission by two years, and that's fairly important. I think most members of this House believe that the principle of this should be agreed to, and I think that that was the consensus in second reading. But the concern that I raised in second reading was that the most recent annual report -- for 1994 -- for the Job Protection Commission office had not been tabled in this assembly, and that the minister and the government were expecting us to extend the life of this commission for two years without first informing the assembly or the public of British Columbia about the activities of the Job Protection Commission for the last year.
It raises some serious concerns. When I raised it, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, who closed debate on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Investment, made a commitment, I believe, that best efforts would be made to get that report tabled in the House before we proceeded to committee stage. I was advised by the job protection commissioner's office that last week the 1994 annual report was in fact being printed. I notice that it has not yet been tabled in this assembly. I'm wondering if the minister can advise the committee this morning about why it hasn't been tabled yet, and why he expects us to approve the committee stage of this bill without letting us know what the activities of the Job Protection Commission have been for the last completed fiscal year.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the activities of the Job Protection Commission are widely known. In fact, there are probably more press releases associated with the Job Protection Commission's actions in response to members of the House, individual companies that seek redress and unions that are looking for help in restructuring. So it's not a secret commission that is doing its business without public scrutiny.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I won't respond to that, hon. Chair.
I think we have to be careful not to stretch the point here. But having said that, I agree with the member that we would like to get the 1994 annual report out as soon as possible. We are making our best efforts. I'm advised that we're doing it in-house to save money -- desktop publishing, if you will. It is in draft form; it is prepared. I hope to release it as soon as possible, within the next couple of weeks.
If it will help the member, I apologize for not being able to bring it in prior to committee stage debate on this, but I remind members that there are some really urgent and pressing reasons for passing this prior to our ability to produce this report. Because of the sunset provision, we do need to have this bill through the House by April 12 -- that is, if all members agree that we should preserve the Job Protection Commission's office for another two years, and I hope and assume they will agree, given the usefulness of the office.
Having said that, I do accept the member's comments that there is a requirement for the annual report to come out. It would aid in the debate. I have a draft report; it is being desktop published. We will have it out, I hope, within a week, but unfortunately this bill cannot be delayed. However, just to repeat myself, it's not as if you don't know what the Job Protection Commission is doing. In fact, it's public information and there are all kinds of reviews. It's a matter of public debate and comment and the subject of press releases. If any member wishes a briefing from Mr. Kerley, I'm sure he would be delighted to give it to you in anticipation of this or any other debate in the House.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate what the minister has just said, but I think this is sloppiness in the extreme. I think it's unacceptable for a government to be coming in and simply saying they're making their best efforts. In the meantime, the tabling of an annual report in this assembly is more than of symbolic value; this is a way of disseminating important information to legislators and to the general public. The minister says that we would already know what's in the annual report anyway. I can tell the minister that if he looks at the 1993 annual report, the last one we as legislators have had, there's an abundance of information that I think is important for members to see before we're asked not only to provide funding but to provide legislative authority to extend the life of this very important commission. It raises the question as to whether or not this government has something to hide. It raises the question as to whether or not there's something in the 1994 report that the government doesn't want us to see before they first extend the life of this commission.
I think it's regrettable in the extreme that the minister would come here and treat this so lightly, in a flippant manner. The principle is that public information should be made available to the public and to legislators before we're asked to give approval here. I don't think this is a light matter at all. I think the House agreed in principle to the extension of the life of the commission during second reading debate, but a commitment was made that the 1994 annual report would be tabled first. It's unfortunate that the government doesn't treat this House with enough respect to provide legislators detailed information that we should be able to scrutinize before it asks for approval. It's regrettable in the extreme, and for that reason I'm going to have very serious trouble supporting this bill in committee stage.
I would like to ask the minister a question, though, about the extension of the Job Protection Commission office. As was noted during second reading debate by many members, this commission goes back some time; it has quite a heritage. There was the Critical Industries Commission by the previous government of Bill Bennett. The Social Credit government of Bill Vander Zalm brought in the Job Protection Commission.
[ Page 13338 ]
Each time, these commissions had sunset clauses. They've been extended time and time again or reinvented. This government is now extending the life of this commission once more. Could the minister tell us whether or not the Job Protection Commission is about to become a permanent fixture in British Columbia in government and whether or not, by extending it two years at a time, we're simply playing a game, a charade? Why does the government not just face the fact that the economy of British Columbia is restructuring in a serious way, continues to do so and will continue to do so in the future, and, instead of going through a charade of pretending to bring in a temporary fix through a Job Protection Commission office that has a sunset clause, that has a temporary life, why not recognize that there might be some permanent value here, by bringing in legislation that recognizes that?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I might say that that member is a diligent member of the House, and all the information he could possibly garner would be made available, if not through freedom-of-information, then certainly through the offices of Mr. Kerley. So I appreciate his emotional attack, his aggressive attack, on the fact that he hasn't got a formal annual report, but I know -- and I think all members of the House know -- that the information available in that annual report would be readily available to any member should they choose to exercise their duties. The fact that the member has not, I guess, approached Mr. Kerley or myself or anybody for information, but is simply waiting for the annual report, is a comment, presumably, on that member's diligence as opposed to whether or not there's an actual annual report in the House.
[10:15]
Now, with respect to the question the member has raised -- is this becoming a permanent commission? -- first of all, the answer is no. There's a sunset clause here which we're extending for two years. We could have brought in legislation to make it permanent. I like the sunset provision. I wasn't here under the Bennett administration, but I was here in this incarnation when I was in opposition. I supported the sunset provision then; I still do. I like the notion that there is some discipline for this House to review this by legislation, and if the House does not, that it disappears. I think that's a model which we should actually use more, not less. That would be my view.
Secondly, is the role of the job protection commissioner changing? The answer is yes. Originally, certainly with the critical industries commissioner as well as initially with the job protection commissioner, the role was to deal with cyclical change or cyclical downturn, particularly in the traditional industries -- the critical industries commissioner maybe more so, actually. But even the Job Protection Commission, when it was brought in by the previous administration, was to deal with a cyclical downturn in traditional industries. What has happened is that, increasingly, Mr. Kerley is dealing with what I might call structural changes in the traditional industries. Mr. Kerley is now being called in to look at, again not.... Obviously the province is doing extremely well, and the resource industries in particular are doing very well for a variety of factors -- mostly, of course, the government's enlightened policies, but also other factors internationally. So there's no reason for the job protection commissioner, on a cyclical basis, to deal with these industries, because these industries are healthier today than perhaps any time in memory, frankly, in terms of their balance sheets.
However, there are structural changes taking place in the industry, and I think there's an acceleration of that structural change. Mr. Kerley has been looking at some of the resource sectors and assisting the parties in making structural change in a way that protects jobs as well as ultimately leads to a viable industry. I can think of several examples in the last year when that has been the case, particularly in the fishing industry, which for a variety of reasons is profitable and healthy right now. But in fact amalgamations and mergers are taking place, where Mr. Kerley's office has been instrumental in ensuring that rational decisions are made and that the parties come to the table to seek a solution in the public interest and to protect as many jobs as possible.
Similarly, as members know, under the land use planning process this government has undertaken to solve the perpetual battle in the woods between environmentalists and loggers. We have engaged in this very broad consultative process that has arrived at land use plans which are broadly supported. In those land use plans, we've made a commitment as a government that no worker will lose their job as a result of the structural changes taking place. I can tell members, of course, that there are 15,000 more people working in the forest industry today than there were a couple of years ago.
But the nature of some of the jobs in the forest sector is changing, as we evolve and move to a broader, value-added model. Skills of forest workers are changing, to adapt and to ensure their jobs are protected at decent wages. What the job protection commissioner....
Interjection.
The Chair: Yes.
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair....
The Chair: I am acknowledging the member's concern that we do seem to have strayed some distance from the question before us, minister. If you could perhaps wrap up quickly, that would be universally applauded.
Hon. G. Clark: I would never criticize the Chair's ruling.
There are two job commissioners appointed under this act to assist in the land use plan's implementation. There's a job commissioner appointed for Vancouver Island, and another job commissioner will be appointed in the Cariboo to deal with the implementation of the land use plan, to agree to work with the government's commitment that no workers will lose their jobs. They've been appointed under this act.
This, of course, is a different approach than in the past, but it's to deal with this structural change taking place in the industry. So the role of the job protection commissioner is evolving; it is changing somewhat. I still like the sunset provision. I still think it's important for the House to review what the job protection commissioner is doing on a biannual basis.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, member, before I recognize you. In fairness to members who want to raise questions, I'm obviously going to allow you that opportunity, after having listened to that rather long exegesis. I want to remind members, however, that technically this discussion has already taken place under second reading. Technically, the only thing we are here to adjudicate and discuss is the date, April 12. The rest of it has in fact been canvassed in second reading debate. However, because we have already had a question and a long
[ Page 13339 ]
answer, in fairness, it seems to me, we will let this go on a little more to give members comfort that all their questions have been considered. But I want to remind everybody that technically, we are much beyond committee stage already in this debate.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response to this question. It raises some important questions about the purpose of bringing in this bill in its present form. The minister says that not only has there been structural change in the economy of British Columbia, but also a change and evolution of the mandate of the job protection commissioner. Yet he brings before this committee today a bill that doesn't reflect or suggest any specific legislative change in the mandate of the job protection commission act. In fact, if you take a look at the act, the mandate is quite specific, yet the minister is saying that that mandate is changing.
First of all, he refuses to table in this assembly the most recent annual report -- the 1994 annual report. He arrogantly suggests that the minister knows what's in the report, so members should as well. Well, when I was in touch with the job protection commissioner's office last week, before we went into second reading debate on this bill in this assembly, I can tell you that that office told me that it was currently being printed. That's why I asked the minister to make a commitment to table that report in this assembly before we went into committee stage.
The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, who closed debate on the minister's behalf, made that commitment. Yet the minister is not only calling the bill today for committee stage without having tabled that report in this assembly and without providing us with the essential information that he has referred to about the changing mandate of the job protection commissioner, but he is also bringing in a bill that simply seeks to extend the life of that commission's office and does not address the changing mandate that he has indicated is taking place here. If the minister is serious that the job protection commissioner's mandate is indeed being altered and is changing with the changing economy, then why has he not brought forward a bill which seeks to amend the initial legislation and to address that changed mandate?
I think the minister is getting himself into a bit of trouble here this morning in this committee. I think he is refusing to provide information to members of this committee that will allow us to intelligently discuss this bill, to debate it, to scrutinize it and to pass it in committee stage.
I would like to move that this committee adjourn debate until the minister can provide the information to members of this committee that we require in order to approve it. I would like to ask him to adjourn the debate on this bill until he can bring forward the 1994 report of the job protection commissioner so that we can see and understand how the mandate of the commissioner is being changed. Given what the minister has said, I think this bill itself might be out of order.
The Chair: Member....
D. Mitchell: So, I move that this committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Your motion is in order. The earlier rendition wasn't in order. You've heard the question.
Motion negatived on division.
The Chair: We are now back on section 1. May I give caution again -- precisely the point I made before. Both sides have now had their opportunity to revisit second reading debate. I'm sure we all enjoyed it thoroughly, but now the question is back to committee.
Hon. G. Clark: I hate it when a debate breaks out in this chamber.
Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear that the mandate of the job protection commissioner has not changed; the economy that the job protection commissioner is working in has changed. The economy was bad when he was appointed; it is now good. It is now the best economy in North America. Therefore the nature of the cases the job protection commissioner is dealing with is different, but it's not a change in the mandate of the commission.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions about section 2. On this side of the House, whenever we see consequential amendments under the guise of Bill 8, the Job Protection Amendment Act, we naturally welcome any explanation from the government about the nature of the change. I wonder if the minister could briefly offer a rationale for the amendment to section 50.2 of the Forest Act, which, according to my reading, refers to changes of ownership and provides powers to the minister. I wonder if the minister could just offer a brief explanation of why the sunset clause in the Forest Act with respect to ownership has to be in some way matched with the sunset clause for the job protection commissioner.
Hon. G. Clark: This is genuinely a consequential amendment in the sense that it simply extends the sunset provisions in the existing bill with respect to consequential amendments to the Forest Act for two more years. Just to be clear, as members know, there is a 5 percent annual allowable cut takeback for the Crown on a transfer of a timber licence. Obviously that's a subject of a lot of debate, and I know the member opposite is fully familiar with that. What this does is say that where there is an economic plan that is determined by the job protection commissioner to protect jobs, then the Minister of Forests may exempt that timber licence from the 5 percent annual allowable cut transfer takeback. What often happens in this case.... I can't think of a case where this has been utilized, to be honest with you, but I'm familiar with discussions where it was on the table. Say that there's a forest company in trouble. It employs 400 people in a sawmill, and it has a timber licence. The job protection commissioner pursues a restructuring economic plan, which involves concessions on the part of the union, often concessions on the part of the bank and perhaps a concession with the Ministry of Finance so that tax payable can be extended out over time. There is a deal, if you will, with all parties to try to preserve the jobs there, and part of the deal is a new owner coming in with new equity capital or new capital to invest in the corporation, and the combination of these factors makes it viable. It would be imprudent to take away 5 percent of the timber harvest from that mill if it's an integral part of the economic plan that helps save the mill. That was initially the thought behind this, and it's still the thought here: it simply extends the options for two years.
W. Hurd: I have one final question. Can the minister advise the committee whether this is a normal provision with respect to the extension of the Job Protection Act? Is this
[ Page 13340 ]
routinely added to the bill when we extend the terms or conditions of the act? I would welcome an explanation.
Hon. G. Clark: To the extent that this is not a new provision but is similar to the last extension of this bill, there's nothing new here. To that extent, it's a normal extension.
Section 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 8, Job Protection Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[10:30]
Hon. G. Clark: Great progress.
I call second reading of Bill 7.
COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST ACT
(second reading)
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 7 marks a significant moment in the history of our province and a dramatic moment in the history of the Columbia-Kootenay region. This bill recognizes the injustice done to the Columbia-Kootenay region 30 years ago when the Columbia River Treaty was ratified with the United States, and vast areas of the region were flooded to increase the amount of hydroelectric power that could be generated from the Columbia River.
Nothing today can right the wrongs done 30 years ago. We cannot go back and open the ears of the government of the day that would not listen to the people of the region or consider the desires and dignity of those whose lives were about to be flooded under. We cannot replace the lost farmlands, the wasted timber stands or the homes and communities that were destroyed. I might say that anybody who has looked at the footage of the day can see the faces of about 2,000 people who were forcibly removed by B.C. Hydro, and one cannot but be moved by the fact that the government of the day did not listen to the people. One can't help but be moved by the faith those people had that the government would look after their interests, a faith that was sadly betrayed.
What we can do today is offer the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region the opportunity to build a new foundation and the tools and resources to create a future based on their own visions and their own desires. This bill enables us to do that and confirms again the commitment that our government made in the throne speech: a commitment to invest in the people of this region, and a commitment to redress past wrongs.
Under an accord signed by the province and the people of the Columbia basin on March 19, our government has made a commitment to allocate to the Columbia-Kootenay region a portion of the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits. Bill 7 establishes the Columbia Basin Trust, a corporation created specifically to invest this regional allocation and to ensure local control of the basin's future. Control of the trust will rest with 18 board members, all residents of the region. Ten of these representatives will be from the five regional districts within the basin, two will represent the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council and six will represent the province. The creation of the Columbia Basin Trust is the result of two years of consultation with the people of the region, and the women and men who direct the trust will continue to seek a high degree of public input into the management of their resources.
In addition to its accountability to the people of the region through public advisory committees, annual public reports and meetings, the trust will be accountable to the province through its directors and through the comptroller general's annual audits and reports to the Legislature. While the trust will be directed by a board, it will be managed by professional staff, similar to a Crown corporation or a school board.
The creation of a regional body of this nature with this level of local autonomy is indeed exceptional. It is a reflection of our conviction that the best way to set a course of action that is in harmony with the social, environmental and economic priorities of the basin is to put the decision-making power into the hands of the people themselves.
As part of the accord signed on March 19, the province has offered to enter into a partnership with the Columbia Basin Trust and to invest more than $1 billion in the construction of hydroelectric generating facilities at the existing Waneta, Brilliant and Keenleyside dams. We have worked closely with the representatives of the Columbia River Treaty committee to develop this proposal and are currently seeking additional input from the public through a series of open houses.
Construction of these projects will provide over 4,400 person-years of direct construction employment over the next ten years and considerable local opportunity for skills training and business development. More importantly, these projects will continue to bring benefits to the region for many decades after their completion. Conservative estimates are that the three power projects will generate $8 billion in revenues over 70 years -- money that the trust can direct to projects that reflect the interests of the people of the region, be it for small business development, environmental enhancement or social and community development. The provincial government will earn a return on its investment equal to that of the region, making these investments a rich legacy for the region and a solid investment for the province as a whole.
This is very much a part of the government's jobs and investment strategy referred to in this year's throne speech. Improving our public infrastructure -- whether it be roads, ferries or dams -- is one of the key factors in making British Columbia attractive in the world economy and in providing the essential support for new investments, new businesses and our growing population. Because revenue from the power projects will not begin to flow for several years, the Columbia basin accord provides for the initial capital investment in the trust of a further $45 million, as well as funds totalling $32 million over a number of years to provide the necessary resources for the trust to begin its work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize to this House that while the mandate for the trust is broad and the potential resources considerable, the trust is not intended to undertake projects that are normally the responsibility of a government -- be it municipal, federal or provincial. It is a vehicle for the people of the region to recapture a portion of the benefits of the
[ Page 13341 ]
Columbia River Treaty that were originally denied to them, and to provide a means for the people to shape their future economic prosperity and social health. The accord, and this legislation in particular, provides a means for the people of the Columbia basin to invest in themselves, in their environment and in their community and economic infrastructure. This bill brings justice to the Columbia basin and opens the door to a brighter, more secure future for the people who live there.
When I spoke to the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region -- along with my colleague the Minister of Energy and my colleagues the MLAs, as well as members of the Columbia River Treaty committee, who are largely regional district or municipal politicians -- I said then, and I say now, that it's really about two things: jobs and justice. It's justice for a region that has historically been mistreated by successive provincial governments. Their land was flooded and people were physically moved so that we in the lower mainland and elsewhere in British Columbia could get the benefits of hydroelectric production. In those days they said that that was the price of progress. Justice was denied. Everybody in those regions knows that historically they have not been given a fair shake when it comes to their land and their region, which is where they live, where their children live and where they work.
This bill is very much about justice, but it is also about jobs. When that land was flooded, forest companies no longer had access to harvest material, and some of the nicest recreation property and some of the most spectacular land in British Columbia -- and there's lots of that in British Columbia -- was flooded and was therefore not usable for recreation purposes. Many economic opportunities and the wealth of that region, which normally would have generated jobs and income and economic development in that region, were taken away for a hydroelectric development that gave others access to jobs and wealth creation.
We've tried not just to give money in reparation for the damages done, if you will, but to set up a trust with local control and significant resources. These resources are tied to significant investments that create jobs today and, more importantly, create an income stream for generations to come. That income can be redirected into economic development and programs that the region wants in order to generate further jobs and wealth.
In summary, and in closing this debate, this bill is a historic bill. It's about justice -- long overdue justice -- for the region. It's about jobs; it's about generating jobs in a region which has suffered higher unemployment than the provincial average, in part, at least, because of past treatment by past governments. This gives the region the opportunity to create jobs, directed by local people, now and in the future. I ask all members to support Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act.
D. Jarvis: I also rise to discuss the Columbia Basin Trust Act, Bill 7. We in the Liberal Party are basically in favour of the principle behind this bill, but there are a few things that we want to state. Ostensively, a lot of government rhetoric is what it is: just rhetoric. What they say is not really what they do. We understand that the provincial government originally agreed to give the Columbia-Kootenay region a direct say in what happens in the future to the moneys coming in to the provincial government through the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits. The Liberal Party itself agrees to this and is in favour of it, but the matter of distribution and how the moneys are going to be returned to the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region is always in question, especially when we're dealing with this government.
A letter of intent has been signed to negotiate a share of the capital dollars received from downstream benefits. I would point out that a statement was made by the Energy minister. She stated, in announcing the agreement, that a local authority would be established to invest the money in the Kootenays. We agree with that. However, as I said before, what this government does and what other people think should be done are always different. In September 1994 the minister made that statement. Later I will go into the reason I feel that statement is a little bit questionable.
A minute ago the Minister of Employment and Investment in this province mentioned that 30 years ago the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region felt that their region was being ravaged by the dams that were being put up through the Columbia River Treaty. But there was great expectation on their part that jobs and prosperity would follow from the sale of the hydroelectric power, and that this would come back to the Kootenays and they would see prosperity in their area. This did not happen, and once again we see the same ploy stated again -- by a different government. This time the moneys are not being directed into storage dams but into the upgrading of three dams: the Waneta, the Brilliant and the Keenleyside.
In other words, contrary to the previous statement related by the Energy minister when she said that a local authority would be established, that was not necessarily the case. What the government means by local authority is that the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro investment and B.C. Power Smart has stated that they have to accept the fact that they shall invest in three dams. That is why there is always a dichotomy between the rural and urban centres. That is the attitude. Instead of allowing people to make decisions on their own, the government here in Victoria, as in the past, has stated: "We shall make the decisions for you. We feel that we can make the better decisions for you." I might add that that is why the Liberal Party intends to change that attitude in this province when we become the government.
It appears that this government is intent on its own agenda and has again failed to realize what the residents of the Kootenay want. For example, they had a two-day seminar in late November 1994. The people were getting together and coming up with ideas about what to do with the moneys that were going to come to them. Late in the afternoon of the second day the jet plane flew in, the cowboy from Vancouver arrived, and he said: "Never mind what you've been discussing for the last two or three days. I will tell you what's going to be done." He flew into town and stated that the new deal was on dams and they had two months to accept it, two months to approve it.
You will hear all the members from the Columbia-Kootenay region saying how wonderful this deal is going to be for them, but that is not what the people in the Kootenays are saying. We are getting reports every day; they are not happy. Just this morning we talked to two mayors in the area. They say they are not happy. They have never had an opportunity to put their input into it.
[10:45]
An Hon. Member: Name names.
D. Jarvis: I hear a member from the area saying: "Name names." If necessary, I will tell you the names of those people, but there are too many to list at this time. In any event, they had two months to agree to a decision that could affect the people in that area for a lifetime. Two months is not due diligence. To make a decision such as this it would take six to eight months, and at least half a million dollars, to arrange for
[ Page 13342 ]
their support staff, but this government favours giving the Columbia-Kootenay region the benefits without the ropes and wires to make it work -- no moneys, no time to make these decisions.
The minister mentioned that they had a series of open houses. Well, they had a series of open houses, but they're only hearing one side of the story from the president of Power Smart, who is touring the Kootenays right now to try to convince them that investment in these dams is the best thing they can do; this is the thing that's going to create justice and jobs. Well, it's not justice when they're not allowed to say what they want to say or to make their own decisions. It's not justice when the minister from Victoria tells them what they have to do, and they have two months to make up their mind to do it. With a threat like that, I don't call that justice.
On the question of jobs.... I'll go into this later. Jobs are really in question in this. As I said, the principle of this bill is sound, but there's a question of trust and a question of government interference. Mr. "Power" Clark says simply that they have to invest in these three dams -- I've nicknamed you Mr. Power Clark.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, they have three months to invest in these dams. Now, we know that there's a question about these three dams. I've got statements here from the government's friends and the government's own report -- I shall not hold it up, because we're not allowed to do so: "An Analysis of Joint-Venture Hydro Development in the Lower Columbia." I also have a letter here from B.C. Hydro. In this report their own accountants state that dams have been studied and that it's a proven fact that there are no long-lasting jobs resulting from dams. Of course, when a dam is being built or being repaired or being rebuilt, there are lots of trucks and people around all the time and it appears that there are lots of jobs being created. But these are temporary jobs -- temporary jobs that this government is famous for creating and for stating that they have created, but they only last for a certain time. What the people of the Columbia River-Kootenay region require are long-term jobs.
The question of the validity of these dams is always suspect, and I'll read a statement out of a letter of December 1994 -- not too long ago -- in which B.C. Hydro stated that the result of the flow regimens will be a significant loss to the downstream benefits to the Canadian power plants on the Kootenay River. This is because of the environmental situation arising in the United States where they tried to protect their fish habitat. So when you see a loss of water flow in the river, how do you expect to maintain the top dollar in your dams? It does not become a viable situation, Mr. Speaker.
In September 1994, a Peat Marwick Mitchell report -- the famous Peat Marwick Mitchell which this government is always quoting, who told them what to do; and what not to do, and the government ignored them in most cases -- said:
"Environmental costs because of these dams, Keenleyside may require expensive decontamination prior to disposal. Further investigation will be needed before the costs will be known. For Brilliant and Waneta there may be other specific issues to be addressed. The Waneta expansion may have some impact on sturgeon spawning in the Columbia, which will have to addressed."
We know what the United States is going to do: they are going to be cutting the flow of water through the Libby Dam, which will affect any generation and cost that is created through our dams.
Further on in the Peat Marwick report they state:
"Until the 1980s the financial cost of government-funded hydroelectric projects in British Columbia was arguably lower compared to the cost of power development options of today. But within this last decade power generation technology has shifted. The cost of new generation has fallen, and non-utility producers are more interested in investing. The market has become more competitive."
Yet we are going to rehabilitate three old dams that are going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. This is not going to be just, nor is it going to create jobs in the Kootenay-Columbia regions. The most recent shift, states the Peat Marwick report, is the shift to thermal, not hydroelectric, generation technology. Why are we rehabilitating three old dams that are environmentally poor and are not cost-effective?
Provincial policy now prevents B.C. Hydro from acquiring electricity for ratepayers unless B.C. Hydro needs it specifically to serve them. On this basis therefore, B.C. Hydro does not now need power for new projects in this region. Under a change in policy, says the Peat Marwick report, the provincial government could require the project costs and equity return to be recovered from ratepayers, even if electricity was not needed to serve them or is not least cost. In theory, the government could require almost any financial return to the projects to be paid by the utility customers. Under the current provincial policy, only B.C. Hydro may develop hydro projects or develop river basins. This is what they are doing, and it's not viable.
The cost of dams has always been questionable; these dams are questionable. The Brilliant and Waneta dams have always been questionable and are at this point considered worse than marginal. There is a questions of water flow -- as I said, it will be over the Libby. There is a question of Waneta with the sturgeon and environmental problems. Then it comes down to the fact that the price of new electrical generation in this province is somewhere around three-quarters of a cent per kilowatt-hour. That will be the cost of new generation, yet all reports from Peat Marwick and the economic reports that are coming in state that it's going to cost anywhere from 4 to 7 cents, depending on how you do your creative accounting, to create power in the Keenleyside Dam.
As I said earlier, we in the Liberal Party sincerely believe that this bill is fundamentally in order. However, there are some drastic situations that we feel must be changed. We feel that it's not giving the people in the area the proper opportunity to see their future. What this government intends to do is make them accept their government's own agenda and not the local people's agenda. It's time that this attitude, the dichotomy between the rural and urban centres, changes.
At this point, I will wait until we get into committee stage to go into the details of the specific verbiage of Bill 7, Columbia Basin Trust Act, as there are items in here that we are not completely satisfied with. We will deal with that matter then.
D. Schreck: It gives me particular pleasure to follow my neighbour in North Vancouver-Seymour in debate. I always enjoy hearing an attempt to articulate the Liberal position on virtually anything. What I just heard the hon. member conclude is that he supports in principle the legislation that's before us, but he disagrees with everything it represents. I shouldn't be surprised that the Liberal position should be that the fence post becomes extremely uncomfortable, the way one is postured over it.
The constituency I represent is an urban constituency -- North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- as is that of every one of those opposition members. It is particularly challenging when we who represent urban constituencies get up to speak about a piece of legislation that vitally affects the regional interest of the Kootenays. On the government side of the House, we have a
[ Page 13343 ]
n enormous advantage: we have the member for Nelson-Creston, the member for Rossland-Trail, the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, the member for Shuswap, the member for Kootenay and the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. In fact, all six members representing the Columbia River basin sit in the government caucus. I can tell you that those members fight for those regions so as to hold the feet of us urban MLAs to the fire, and they stand up for their constituents.
When the member for North Vancouver-Seymour tries to tell me he knows more about the Kootenays than my six colleagues who, every day since I've been in this Legislature, have beaten up on me in defending their constituents and putting their constituents' interests first, I say: "Member, give your head a shake. Find out what the real interests of the Kootenays are." But one doesn't have to rely on the extremely articulate rhetoric of our six members representing the Kootenays; one can go to other community representatives.
We find Ron Norman, a columnist writing in the Castlegar Sun on March 22, 1995, "The Columbia basin accord is a great deal for this region. And anyone who tries to tell you differently is just blowing so much political smoke. That was just what Gordon Campbell was doing on Friday in his visit to the West Kootenays." I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, that was the Liberal opposition leader who was blowing political smoke in the West Kootenays.
Other spokespeople in the Kootenays have made similar statements. Columbia Lake chief Joe Nicholas was quoted in the Valley Echo on March 22, 1995 as saying:
"...the agreement does represent a significant opportunity to address regional economic inequities created by this treaty, particularly those to the Ktunaxa people, and it provides an important means for our [people] to build joint working relationships with local governments that we...need as we move through the aboriginal treaty process."
From the West Kootenay All Trades Committee, Chuck Chatten stated in the Nelson Daily News on March 22, 1995: "It's going to be good working here in the Kootenays because you're going to be going to work knowing nobody is going to come up to you and say, 'I'm working here now and you're not, because I'm going to undercut you by two bucks an hour'."
Finally, another columnist from the Castlegar Sun, Jeff Gabert, wrote on March 22:
"The Columbia basin accord was the product of a great deal of public discussion with members of the government. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that one of the central features of the accord will be the creation of the Columbia Basin Trust, made up of local residents."
[11:00]
Not only do we urban MLAs on the government side have the benefit and advice of the six members from the Kootenays within our caucus constantly fighting for their constituents, but we can turn to the local press in the Kootenays and the Columbia basin and find that what they tell us in caucus is exactly what the local people are saying in the Columbia basin. They are saying that the legislation we are debating today, this restructuring to give power to the people, is a good deal for the people, and the members of the opposition are simply blowing political smoke when they try to represent the interests of the Kootenays from downtown Vancouver.
The opposition mining critic from North Vancouver-Seymour, the urban riding adjacent to mine, spent considerable time trying to take both sides on the principle of this bill. After saying he supports the principle, the majority of his comments were devoted to criticizing particular investments in the Waneta, Brilliant and Keenleyside dams. Nothing could illustrate more clearly that they just don't get it.
The throne speech debate offered in this chamber a few days ago by the member for Nelson-Creston stated the case most clearly. He said that what this deal is about is power to the people. It is power to the people in every meaning of that phrase, because turning these power generation projects over to governance by the people of the region empowers those people not just economically or through job creation but also puts them in charge of what will become the third-largest utility in this province. It puts them at the bargaining table representing a utility when we discuss expiry of the treaty in the year 2024, when we discuss water levels in the reservoirs which vitally affect the economic interests of the people in the Kootenays and when we discuss where the benefits and the $100 million a year proceeds from those dams will flow and how they flow. The way this deal is structured is more than an investment in a school or a courthouse. This is an investment in an economic engine, and day-to-day decisions about it will affect every aspect of life in the Kootenays.
It's hard for urbanites like us to understand the emotion that people in the Kootenays associate with this issue of redress for the Columbia River Treaty. It was not until I was sitting on the board of B.C. Hydro and seeing the film that Hydro sponsored, which some of the people in the Kootenays spoke about, that I saw adults with tears in their eyes when they were speaking about the devastation wrought in the Columbia River basin during the flooding. The people whose roots in the Kootenays go back for decades and decades do not see this as a trivial matter of a capital investment. They see this as redressing a historical wrong in which generations were uprooted and removed from their properties. They had their vision of the future destroyed. They also see a government that finally has the guts to right that wrong. They are righting that wrong by giving power to the people -- economic power, jobs, and most importantly, a long-term say-so at the negotiating and decision-making tables where the fundamental decisions affecting the Kootenays are made.
I say that it's time for the urbanite opposition to get the kind of benefit we get when we sit down with the elected representatives from the Kootenays, all of whom happen to be in the New Democrat caucus. It's time for that urbanite opposition to listen to the real people in the Kootenays, because the real people in the Kootenays are saying thank you. They're saying that it's about time they had a government that looked after their interests and that this is legislation that is bringing power to the people.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I will hear the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum.
L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Krog: On behalf of my colleague and friend, the member for Comox Valley, I'm pleased to advise the House that in the gallery this morning are some 45 grade 9 students from Lake Trail Elementary-Junior Secondary School in Courtenay. Accompanying them are Mr. Taylor and Mr. Brodie. They're a most interesting, inquisitive and environmentally conscious group of students. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
J. Beattie: I'd like to make the students welcome to the House today. I notice that the member introduced them as a
[ Page 13344 ]
group of environmentally interested individuals. I'm sure that they'll find this debate rather interesting. We're discussing the flooding of a major part of British Columbia, the Kootenays, when they built the dams to control the water that flowed through the Columbia River basin and which ends up in the United States, as you know.
Hon. Speaker and those who are listening today, the initiative that this government has taken with the Columbia Basin Trust Act is the initiative of a government that has a very human face and which is willing to consider all the impacts that a previous government or a previous event did have upon the people of British Columbia and of the Kootenays specifically. The injustice that the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment spoke about -- the flooding of enormous tracts of land, the forcible removal of people from their homes and the farm sites they occupied for many generations, the relocation of aboriginal people, the changing of the flow of the river so that the fish that had been providing for that region for centuries and centuries were dislocated, the significant impact upon the loss of resources which supported a very vibrant economy in the Kootenays -- can only be classified as significant injustice for the people of the Kootenays. With this Columbia Basin Trust Act, we see a move to redress these outstanding problems.
The act says that the people of the Kootenays will now have the authority, through a board of directors, to consult with the people in the Kootenays and to help determine the direction that the funds will be used -- funds that will be generated from hydroelectricity and which will be sustainable as this province grows and as our consumption of hydroelectricity increases to support a growing and vibrant economy. Not only will there be real money from a sustainable income for the people of the Kootenays to direct into programs and initiatives that they believe are important, but there will be jobs created in this region, jobs that can be sustained and rejuvenated as the needs of the community change. That's important for any region of the province, particularly for the rural regions, which traditionally have sacrificed their resources to support the economy of a vibrant lower mainland but nevertheless never really got their full share of returned benefits. This is, as the Minister of Employment and Investment said, a historic act which will stand out in the future as precedent-setting.
Before I proceed to talk about some of the further impacts that the damming of the Columbia and the flooding of the valleys had, I want to give credit where credit is due. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour tended to portray the development of this policy, this initiative, as being a kind of flash-in-the-pan initiative by a government that was somehow looking for some credit in the Kootenays. Nothing is further from the truth. Since the day the Columbia River was blocked, the people in this region have been preparing for the day when they'll get their redress. They've been organizing themselves through their municipalities, their regional districts and their tribal councils to get the remedial help that was needed as a result of the devastating impact that the damming of the Columbia River had on their lifestyle.
So the people in the Kootenays, the generation or two that have grown up and thrived since the damming, have been working for this day. And with those people have been the regional districts. One member of that regional district, who is now an MLA -- that's the member for Nelson-Creston -- has been in the forefront in building support in communities, and as a member of this Legislature has worked with this government to see this day, when the Columbia Basin Trust Act is introduced and debated in this House.
However, I want to say that although not specifically a part of the Columbia River basin, the Okanagan Valley itself has been impacted quite significantly by the damming of the Columbia River and by the spinoff benefits that have accrued to the United States, particularly Washington. What the damming of the Kootenay did for Washington was this: it controlled the flow of the Columbia River through the state of Washington, and in doing so prevented an enormous amount of flooding which had taken place for centuries in that region. This flooding, in fact, had spread throughout the Columbia basin in Washington and had created some of the most fertile soil that can be found in all of the northwest. The Columbia River basin in the United States is a geographical wonder in its fertility.
With the continuous flow of water with no flooding that existed in the Columbia River basin in the United States as a result of efforts of the government and people of British Columbia, there is now a continuous stream of water which can be controlled by man for irrigation. With the support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they developed a very sophisticated irrigation system which began to irrigate these enormously fertile lands in Washington. And as a result of that irrigation project, we saw enormous plantings of tree fruits -- apples, particularly -- which turned Washington into one of the most productive tree fruit regions in the world. At this time, there is not a location in the world, save for some of the more rapidly developing areas in China and South America, that grows more apples than Washington State.
[11:15]
Obviously, this had a direct impact upon the people of the Okanagan. My constituency, Okanagan-Penticton, and those of the hon. members for Okanagan East and Okanagan West, had been growing tree fruits since the 1800s. Suddenly, as a result of the worthwhile efforts of controlling the Columbia River, we allowed and created a situation where our competitors to the south had the opportunity to grow an enormous amount of fruit, and hence put us at a very difficult competitive disadvantage. One might question what that disadvantage was.
Those of you who have been to the Okanagan -- and I'm sure many of these students have -- know that the soil in the Okanagan is also extremely fertile as a result of the sedimentation that took place after the ice age. However, the landscape in the Okanagan is one of tongues of land that jut out into the basin, and the farms are generally not much larger than ten or 15 acres in size, particularly in the south. When you go to the north, many areas on the floodplain are large, in the sense of being farms in the Okanagan. Nevertheless, the narrowness of our valley in the Okanagan is significantly different than what has happened in the Columbia River. So our production methods are significantly different in the Okanagan. With the planting of these enormous tracts of land in the United States, we saw some extremely flat land put into highly productive industrial production.
When the initiative to design this bill was undertaken, I approached the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen to let them become aware of the discussions the government was having with regard to what the use of the downstream benefits would be for the people of British Columbia. The regional district has passed resolutions in the last number of weeks, asking the government to give consideration to downstream benefits in the future. Although they are now speaking on this matter, I want to say that the tree fruit farmers in the Okanagan.... Indeed, since I've been a farmer I've heard this many times, and I've farmed in the Okanagan since 1976. I've
[ Page 13345 ]
heard farmers who have been facing difficult times with regard to competition from the United States -- dumping and so on -- say many times that as a result of the Columbia River basin damming, we've had serious impacts in the Okanagan. So the tree fruit growers in the Okanagan have for many years been speaking about this.
This government, in the last year, made a five-year commitment through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority to support the tree fruit growers -- $9.3 million. About $5 million of that is direct subsidy. Much of it has to do with marketing and support of new, innovative ways of growing fruit in the Okanagan. These are all very worthwhile, and $9.3 million is a significant amount of money. But I want to put the government on alert that in the future, the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan will be going through further difficult times. We live in one of the most rapidly growing areas in the Okanagan, but the tree fruit industry is still a significant part of the economy of the Okanagan and must be supported by this government and any future government.
What has to be done is that local politicians in the Okanagan, myself included, must continue to make the government -- I am speaking specifically about the Ministry of Employment and Investment at this time -- aware of the impact of the damming of the Columbia River over the past number of years. We also must, as local citizens of the Okanagan, let the board of directors of this new trust, which will be receiving information from their region.... Indeed, they represent that region specifically, and I don't think they should be speaking for the Okanagan. But we should let them know that there was a direct impact on the Okanagan as a result of the flooding. In the future, room should be found in the two-thirds of the downstream benefits that remain to make some consideration for the tree fruit growers and the economy of the Okanagan. Some downstream benefits, in the future, should flow, like the continuous flow of the Columbia River through those fertile valleys of Washington State.... Some of those dollars should flow on a continuous basis to continue to fertilize the healthy tree fruit industry of the Okanagan.
Today I am very proud of this government for introducing this bill, I'm proud of the members from the Kootenays who fought for this, I'm proud of the vision of this government in bringing this bill forward, and I want to stand in strong support of this bill.
I have a note from the minister saying that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour would like to speak. Before he speaks, the member for Prince George-Omineca will speak, and then debate will be closed.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in my place today and talk about the principles of Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act. From my perspective, the passing of this bill will create a very important principle to many other areas of the province, because there are many areas where you can draw direct parallels to what has happened in Revelstoke and in the Kootenays region.
I am sure that at a later date we will have much opportunity to go through the mechanics of Bill 7 to look at how and why and perhaps at some of the political motivation in designing the bill, but I think the important issue here is the principle. When a region of the province is forced to forgo an opportunity, whether it be an employment opportunity, resource opportunities or social opportunities, for the overall better good -- or what is perceived as the better good -- of the province, then there should be a principle set in place at that point in time to mitigate and compensate for what is perceived to be in the better good of the province. I believe that sets out that principle.
If we look at the Columbia River Treaty, which was signed in 1964, we will see some significant differences to the Kemano project, which was signed in 1950 or 1952. The one very large significance, and why we are debating this issue today, is that there was an opportunity to renegotiate the downstream benefits after a 30-year period. That clause is not contained, nor is that ability contained in the Kemano agreement.
We in the Nechako Valley, of which I have been a resident since 1963, had looked forward to the BCUC hearings as perhaps an opportunity to share in what was signed in 1952 -- once again, for the better good of the western part of British Columbia. Be that as it may, we've seen an action which the residents of the Nechako Valley support: the Kemano has been placed on hold or, in fact, cancelled. But we've lost the opportunity to negotiate some compensation for the residents of the Nechako Valley, because the water resource has been reduced substantially and so have the economic opportunities of that valley since 1952. This principle contained in Bill 7 applies equally to the Nechako Valley. People were displaced in the early fifties. In fact, the family farm of a member of this Legislature for a considerable length of time -- the Shelford family -- was flooded out. The Cheslatta native people were flooded out. There were a number of individuals who suffered because of that development: economically, socially and culturally. I really believe it's unfortunate that there was not a principle statement contained within this bill for other regions of the province on how we might involve those regions in the sharing of the resource that has generated so much wealth for the province and for other communities.
Since 1980 the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, the district of Vanderhoof, the city of Prince George and the village of Fraser Lake have been arguing this point with successive governments and have not achieved any kind of consideration. It seems to me that if this could be applied to the Columbia Basin, it could equally be applied to the Nechako Valley. If it is the intent of this government to apply these principles to the Nechako Valley -- perhaps to the Williston dam region, South Peace and North Peace -- I think it's a very good principle. The mechanism deserves some long-term discussion about how the structure is to be set up, and perhaps even a process for reviewing this structure after a period of time so we can be sure it's acting in the best interests of all of the residents in that region. That should always be a consideration.
I just wanted to make those few comments. I feel very strongly that the next action of this government should be to set up a mechanism very similar to this to look after the same type of impacts that the Kemano project has produced on the Nechako Valley. I challenge the minister and his government to do that. Thank you very much.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to take my place in supporting the bill. To paraphrase some of the wording that was used in the Kootenays at the time that this initiative was announced, this bill before the Legislature today is really about jobs, and it's really about justice. I take my cue from the member for Prince George-Omineca -- who is now talking.
Let me say that I don't know if it's refreshing, but it is sometimes a bit surprising that a member who was a Social Crediter and is now a Reformer is actually standing up and talking about the needs of the region, because the reason
[ Page 13346 ]
we're standing here today is that at the time the Columbia was developed, there was no thought -- absolutely no thought at all -- given to the people of the region. In fact, there was no thought with respect to what we really expect out of resource development.
Hon. G. Clark: What party was that?
Hon. D. Miller: As my colleague the Government House Leader indicates, the party that had that philosophy for many years was the Social Credit Party.
There used to be a saying that the leopard can't change its spots. I've never really believed that that's absolutely true; but they can change their suit of clothes in a hurry. We either have some leopards over there who have changed their spots, or they've just put on a cloak. I still think there are some interesting differences between the Liberals and the Reformers -- and indeed, between Reformers and Reformers. As much as I appreciate the member for Prince George-Omineca standing up and saying that this government did the right thing with respect to cancelling the Kemano completion project.... I don't think I'm mistaken at all; I think that's what the member is saying -- he's nodding his head. Unlike his colleague, the MP for the region, who's running around launching the most vitriolic attack on that decision that I have ever witnessed, as well as a general vitriolic attack in this country on the aboriginal people of northern B.C.... But I suppose those contradictions are things that we've come to expect.
[11:30]
Let's get back to the topic of what it is that we should rightfully demand in exchange for the development of our resources, whether they be water resources, forest resources, mining resources or any of the vast array of resources that we have in this province. When we talk about justice, in some respects what the government is now engaged in is redressing those sins of the past. It also reinforces, in my view, the notion of partnership. We have talked a lot in this session of the Legislature, in the government's throne speech and its budget commitments, about the need for partnership, and about the need to make prudent investments now, both in infrastructure and in people, that will build a strong economy into the future.
The bill before us provides for some significant investments: $1 billion in upgrading of dams, and 4,400 new jobs over ten years -- and I hope they're well-paying jobs; I hope that the Liberal Party and the Reform Party don't stand up and advocate that we pay those workers low wages, and that they don't stand up, as they've done so often in this House, and say that we should take money out of the pockets of working people in this province. I think people who work on those kinds of projects deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. So I hope that when they support the bill, they also support the notion that working people throughout this province should get a reasonable wage for the work they do. That's 4,400 new jobs in an area of the province that clearly needs those kinds of jobs, as do other areas. There is $45 million in capital investment available, controlled by the region to make investments that are prudent, and that people in the region who understand their region think are prudent in terms of building the region and its economy, and money available through the trust.
I was struck by the preamble in the bill, and I just want to quote the preamble -- not to get into extensive debate clause by clause -- because I think it's important: "WHEREAS the desires of the people of the Columbia Basin were not adequately considered in the original negotiations..." -- absolutely true -- "AND WHEREAS the government desires to include the people of the Columbia Basin..." -- in a region of our province, in shaping their own economic destiny -- "AND WHEREAS the government intends to work with the people of the Columbia Basin to ensure that benefits derived from the Columbia River Treaty help to create a prosperous economy with a healthy, renewed natural environment...." If we had started a little more than 40 years ago with that kind of premise with respect to resource development, we wouldn't have half the problems that we do in our province today.
We are also taking that same kind of approach -- a more broad-based approach. I was disappointed that the opposition parties, particularly the Liberal Party, opposed the forest renewal plan, which also saw a significant amount of money derived from the forest resources put into a trust fund, if you like -- a renewable fund -- administered not by government but by people from the industry, people from communities, people from the resource industries and the workers -- administering a fund similar to this approach; moneys that can be put back into communities, back into the land in renewing that resource, into training initiatives and into initiatives like the educational one we announced a short time ago that can actually build people's hopes. As I characterized that forestry announcement, finally we can go to some of our young people and offer them some real hope, some real dreams and some real careers in important industries in this province. This fund and this approach we are taking with the fund will allow that to be accelerated in the Kootenay region.
Perhaps the general notion we have taken, which I see the opposition parties support.... They seem to like to speak against the bill, but vote in favour. We'll have to see what they do eventually. They like to have the best of both worlds, without really saying what they might do about some of these critical issues. Perhaps they're engaged in a lot of internal fighting these days as MLAs from the other side scramble to see if they are going to be allowed to hold onto their seats or not, or whether they're going to be allowed to remain as part of the Liberal caucus. But that's an interesting aside that's got nothing to do with this bill.
I am very pleased to support the bill. The bill continues the theme that this government has established and has been working on for the past three and a half years -- that we think it's important to invest in our communities, to invest in our natural resources, to invest in job creation and to invest in the people of British Columbia. This bill does it in all of those key areas, and it will be a lasting legacy for the people of the Kootenay region, as the other initiatives I talked about will be a lasting legacy for the people of this province.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise in my place today and speak to Bill 7.
I recall very well the downstream benefits meeting that I had the opportunity to attend in Cranbrook when this matter was first discussed. The issue of the three dams.... Perhaps we could nickname them the Three Gorges project in the Kootenays. I remember the meeting well. When the Minister of Employment and Investment first delivered the Three Gorges project for the people of the Kootenays, it was a momentous occasion, I would agree, because the gathering that I was in had never heard anything about the project when it was presented. I mean that it was a bolt out of the blue. So I'm surprised when I hear the members opposite talk about three and a half years of consultation. Well, there may have been three and a half years of consultation on the creation of
[ Page 13347 ]
the Columbia Basin Trust, the community-based organization, which is a portion of this bill, but there certainly wasn't any public consultation about the dam project -- no consultation about the renovation of the Keenleyside Dam and the changes to the Waneta and Brilliant dams. And it's important to emphasize that, with respect to the Waneta and Brilliant dams, it's the understanding of the opposition that the people of the Kootenays aren't actually getting the physical assets. What they are getting are the rights to expand the power production. In other words, they're not actually getting cement; they're getting the rights for future expansion.
You know, the opposition has spent a fair amount of time analyzing the economics of this project. When $1 billion is being invested, including $500 million coming from the people for the regions, it's important, I think, to subject those three projects to critical analysis. Do they make economic sense in an energy environment which is going to feature greater deregulation -- competitors to B.C. Hydro, one would hope? There are decisions being made downstream at the Libby Dam which will have an impact on the water flows through the Keenleyside Dam. I find it interesting that a representative of Powerex is in the Kootenays today going through the region trying to convince people that this is a wonderful idea and that investing in these three dams is something they should do with their hard-earned Columbia River downstream benefits. The people of the Kootenays made their voices abundantly plain on what they wanted to see with their portion of the investments. They wanted to be able to direct those investments into a variety of enterprises.
This is a government plan -- the total investment of $500 million from the province and the trust. When we talk about a regional trust and the power of the province, we're not talking about equality here or about the strategy for long-term investment being directed by the trust. We're talking about the power of the province.
This is a B.C. Hydro project that I'm sure Hydro has wanted to do for some time. Indeed, before the Minister of Employment and Investment made his grandiose entrance to the symposium in Cranbrook, we understand that three years of work had gone into this dam project -- three years at least. While those discussions and studies were going on, you had what I would characterize as a sort of under-the-table set of discussions at B.C. Hydro, and over here you had this wonderful community involvement with the Columbia River downstream commission. As you always see with the government, you have what you do see and what you don't see. It goes on and on. It's passed off under the guise of local involvement.
I can recall the reaction of the people at the meeting. They were suitably shocked. Somebody whom I attended an all-day session with said to me: "What am I sitting here for? I might as well be down at the bar having a beer, because after sitting around for a day the minister has come in and delivered the manna from Victoria in the form of three dams. 'Have we got a deal for you!' " I remember that somebody in the audience stood up and asked the minister: "Well, if we don't want to invest in your dams, do we still get the provincial contribution?" It's a logical question. And boy, the back-pedalling that went on.... Well, no, you don't get the province's investment. It comes with strings attached. You get the provincial money if you invest in the dams that B.C. Hydro has wanted to build for the last five years.
The government calls it community-based decision-making.
An Hon. Member: Justice jobs.
W. Hurd: They call it justice. Maybe it is. But you know, in any project that is undertaken, whether it be by B.C. Hydro or the B.C. government, surely the litmus test should be economic viability. It's interesting to note as well that the original Keenleyside Dam has the old W.A.C. Bennett no-strike, no-lockout agreement in place, which means that it's a union-only job site -- yet another one.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I know the members opposite must be laughing that something W.A.C. Bennett created would come back 30 years later in the form of a no-strike, no-lockout agreement as a suitable reward for the building trades in the Kootenays. That's what this is all about: ten years of jobs for the building trades.
We do not have a community-up process here; we have a top-down process, in which the people of the Kootenays are being asked to buy into dams, the economics of which have not been shared with them. If you were to talk to Mr. Smienk in the Kootenays or anyone else up there, they couldn't tell you what the economics of the project would be.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The minister says, "Not true," but the best estimates that the opposition has for those three dams is 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's what it's going to cost to renovate those dams and provide the power for export. That's 3 cents more than a cogeneration project burning wood waste would cost. The fact is that these projects have not been subjected to proper economic scrutiny. They simply haven't been.
During my throne speech debate, I pointed out that with respect to the Keenleyside Dam, there's a high degree of possibility that there's a toxic soil problem at the base of that dam because of pulp mill effluent washed downstream. The province may be faced with a huge excavation job and a toxic soil problem before it ever begins to install generators at the Keenleyside Dam.
This is an election announcement for the Kootenays. That's what we're dealing with here. Fine -- it's an election announcement.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The opposition certainly has no trouble at all with the creation of a commission to invest the benefits. The people have said that they want this, and we recognize the principle of having a portion of the benefits returned to the people of the Kootenays. But for the government to suggest that this is being directed by the people who live in that region is just.... If you look at the accord that was passed out, all we see is the province, the province and the province.
This isn't justice; it's a decision by the province. They knew they couldn't take the money or the downstream benefits back in totality, which is what Treasury Board recommended should happen. They knew they had to invest it in the region. Yet the way they did it was to dovetail it and attach strings to a series of projects that B.C. Hydro wanted to build. That's what the government calls community-based decision-making on an unprecedented scale.
[11:45]
This is not what those of us on this side of the House call true community decision-making. What it is, again, is another
[ Page 13348 ]
top-down, B.C. Hydro-directed strategy for the people who live in the regions. When we get to the section of the bill in committee where we deal with the construction of the dams, that will certainly be the crux of the debate. On the rest, there's no argument that establishing a commission comprised of representatives of regional districts, local governments and first nations to direct....
An Hon. Member: Six party hacks from the government.
W. Hurd: Well, we always worry about the creation of boards and commissions in British Columbia, given the government's track record of stacking those boards.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The minister made reference to the forest renewal plan, and it mystifies me that this wonderful board has three cabinet ministers and two deputies on it.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: It's this wonderful community-based organization. With respect to boards and commissions, we could go on all day.
In closing, I want to make the point that it would be ironic indeed if, after 30 years, the people of the Kootenays were once again victimized by a series of dam proposals from B.C. Hydro that don't make economic sense. We're talking about the government redressing the wrongs of dam construction by building more dams and by renovating them. That's the best we can do after 30 years.
Since the hour is approaching noon, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Because we're on the orders of the day, I would like to ask leave to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules and permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]