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)
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 5
[ Page 14405 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
V. Anderson: I'd like to introduce to the House the members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada who are here today: Mrs. Jackie Lenarduzzi, Mrs. Betty Ruksys and Mrs. Rose Kamm. Would you please welcome them in our usual manner.
COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
G. Campbell: The NDP government continues to play political games with the Columbia River negotiations. Instead of getting back to the table, as their former leader Dave Barrett has suggested, they are poisoning the negotiations by their constant bantering, whining and snivelling. Instead of involving all relevant players, the Premier has left the negotiations up to an inept minister and a tired NDP hack. The Minister of Employment and Investment says he knew about the problems with the deal on April 24. Yet in the Cranbrook Daily Townsman, the Minister of Energy is quoted as saying that she nothing about trouble until the second week in May. My question is to the Minister of Energy: can she tell the people of B.C. exactly what her role has been in these negotiations and exactly when she knew that they were in trouble?
Hon. A. Edwards: As the Minister of Energy, I have been involved in these negotiations from the beginning. We have had some ups and downs in the negotiations. We have made a prognosis as to what the eventual outcome would be. I said very honestly that we did not know until May 15 that this was going to be there. We had a warning on May 7, and certainly there was a comment on April 24 that BPA was looking at something else. But let me put it as precisely as I can: this was not such a different thing for them to say that we thought it was ominous.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The Minister of Employment and Investment explained to us on Monday that he knew on April 24 the negotiations were in trouble. The NDP member for Nelson-Creston has said in this House: "I don't think anybody but this NDP government would have done this deal." For once, I agree with the member for Nelson-Creston. No one could have handled this negotiation as ineptly as the NDP have.
I want to ask specifically once again the Minister of Energy: when precisely did she know? Did you know on April 24 that there was trouble with these negotiations, as the Minister of Employment and Investment informed us all on Monday?
Hon. A. Edwards: I repeat, and I'm pleased to repeat, that I had a discussion with Mr. Hardy on May 7 in which he told me that they were considering this move. But the tenor of the discussion was that he would not prefer.... He was attempting to avoid it at all costs. Until May 15, we did not know what would happen.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND 1995-96 BUDGET
F. Gingell: The comptroller general wrote two opinions concerning the inclusion of the phantom downstream benefits in this year's budget. The first was five months prior to the tabling of the budget, saying it was not good accounting and not government policy. The second was written 16 days after the minister promised to give me all the opinions she had received. Will the minister please tell the House if she had a written opinion from the comptroller general agreeing to the inclusion before the budget went to the printers?
Hon. E. Cull: I spent several hours discussing this matter with my deputy and with the comptroller general. As a result of those discussions, we agreed on the final treatment.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: The Minister of Finance has handed me two opinions from the comptroller general, one from the auditor general and one from Peat Marwick. Basically, only Peat's is for the inclusion -- if the deal had been made. And that was a very real qualification: that the deal had been completed.
The Premier is reported in this morning's paper as saying: "This isn't a question of accounting theory" -- that's strange -- "but just because the auditor general disagrees with about four other authorities on how the $250 million can be booked." I haven't seen those four other authorities. Is the minister not giving me all the opinions that she has, or is the Premier mistaken in his statements?
Hon. E. Cull: This member had the advantage of sitting down with my comptroller general, with all of the opinions that I'm aware of, and going over the discussion that we had. This is not a simple matter, as the opposition is trying to portray it; this is a matter of accounting complexity, where the accountants simply could not agree on how to treat this. One of the methods that was suggested to me -- and the member knows this full well -- was that we treat the downstream benefits as if they were a stream of revenue coming in each and every year in the same amount, meaning that we would be able to post revenue in years when we receive zero dollars in cash. I don't know whether the member is suggesting that we should take that particular approach to accounting. When the accountants could not agree, I sat down with my senior officials, with the comptroller general -- who I respect in this matter -- and said: "We have to make a decision. Give me advice."
The bottom line, hon. members, is that the budget will be balanced. We will monitor the revenues; we will monitor the spending. And we will come in on target, as we have each and every year of our administration.
GOVERNMENT NEGOTIATING POSITION ON ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the deputy minister.... Oh, I'll just make my question to the Premier. His timing, for once in his life, is rather impeccable.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 14406 ]
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. We learned today in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun that the province really does have a negotiating position on land claims, does have a mandate. We have been trying to get that negotiating mandate for months now, and the government has promised openness. Is leaking it to the Smithers paper the government's idea of openness? Will the Premier agree today to table the province's negotiating position on aboriginal land claims?
Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, to the leader of the other Reform Party, I would like to congratulate him on some of the new members who have joined his party. I'm sure he welcomes those additions -- a growing party, with a growing problem, I would say, for the leader of the other Reform Party.
The answer to the question is that we have a very clear negotiating position, and that is that our negotiators are there with an openness mandate to negotiate fair and just treaties that will lead to a settlement with the aboriginal people so that they can move on to self-sufficiency and to governing their own communities, and so that the non-aboriginal community can have certainty and predictability and can get on with the economic development of the number one economy in the number one country in the world.
[10:15]
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: The cost-sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments has a formula: more cash, less land, or less land, more cash. The government set a target of 5 percent of British Columbia's land as a limit for native land claims. Obviously that will affect the amount of cash that the province will be required to contribute. Has the government also set a target or a cap on the amount of cash that it will contribute?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer to that question is yes.
COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
W. Hurd: The opposition has come into possession of a letter from B.C. Hydro's current chair, John Laxton, to the Bonneville power corporation with respect to the activities at the Libby Dam. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro advise the House of whether he has been aware since December 1994 that the Bonneville Power Administration intended to violate the Columbia River Treaty during a 30-day period in May of this year by releasing water from the Libby Dam? If he's aware of that unilateral action, which will significantly reduce the value of Canadian downstream benefits, can he advise the House what steps he has taken, as the minister responsible, to correct this violation and to ensure that the downstream benefits are not going over the dam, so to speak, at the Libby Dam?
Hon. G. Clark: The member's question is, I think, important, because what it shows is the kind of leverage that this administration -- the government -- and the people of B.C., through B.C. Hydro, have on Bonneville Power Administration. The member is correct that we believe that Bonneville Power Administration may well be in violation of the Columbia River Treaty in a variety of ways. As I have informed the House, and as I have informed Bonneville Power Administration, we are now reviewing some 20 commercial contracts we have with Bonneville Power Administration. We are reviewing, through our legal analysis, whether they are living up to the Columbia River Treaty with respect to the specific issue that the member raised, and also with respect to their requirement to bargain in good faith under the Columbia River Treaty to maximize the entitlement to British Columbia.
Again, I say to the members: we are in a very strong position -- not to sit down in some nice way at a tea party with the Bonneville Power Administration, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, but to get tough with them, to look at every commercial arrangement, to look at every legal environmental lever we have and to play hardball with this American company to ensure that we get maximum benefit for British Columbia. And we intend to do that.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Is this freedom fighter -- this Turbot King of the energy wars in British Columbia -- telling the people of this province that he has been aware since December 1994 that the Bonneville Power Administration was violating the Columbia River Treaty and that he still couldn't get a firm legal agreement from this American corporation? It's appalling! Will the minister advise this House why he has kept this knowledge to himself for more than six months -- the knowledge that the treaty was being violated -- and still couldn't get a legally binding agreement with this company? What kind of negotiation is that?
Hon. G. Clark: The opposition party has been taking the position that it's our fault that we didn't get a legal agreement. But now the member is acknowledging that Bonneville Power Administration is playing fast and loose with the agreement and that they are reneging on a deal. He now should know, by his own question, that we are not dealing with a decent corporate citizen; we are dealing with a tough American monopoly that is prepared to play hardball, and we have to play hardball back. The member should know that other utilities...
Interjections. The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: I want him to listen to this, Mr. Speaker.
...other cogeneration projects, other companies, have had their contracts broken or reneged upon by Bonneville Power in exactly the same time period that they have broken ours. It will be interesting to see whether the opposition continue to take the position that it's our fault -- as well as the fault of all the other utilities in the United States and Canada whose agreements are broken -- or whether they finally come to their senses and understand that Bonneville Power Administration is the problem here, and that we need tough, united action to deal with this unscrupulous American company.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 14407 ]
SALE OF TURNAGAIN RIVER HUNTING TERRITORY
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Last year the then Minister of Environment set aside a large area in my constituency -- the size of Nova Scotia -- called the Muskwa Kechika as a special study area. Since then the B.C. wildlife branch has seized the Turnagain River hunting territory, which is in the same area. Its estimated value is $1.5 million, and it is intended to go on the auction block. There are interests that want to pay for only the value of the buildings, which are estimated at less than half a million dollars. Will the minister now stand up and commit to British Columbians that she will get the maximum value that she can for that piece of ground in northeastern British Columbia and not fall to the wishes of those that would like to get it for nothing?
Hon. E. Cull: I've just become aware of this issue, and I've asked for a full report on it. Some things are happening that I am concerned about. I can guarantee that we will serve the interests of British Columbians first and foremost in this particular matter.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 87 standing in the name of the Premier on the order paper. I'll read it for members: "Be it resolved that this House condemn the American Bonneville Power Administration for breaking a solemn commitment on the delivery and disposition of the Canadian entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty." I so move.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's with deep regret and anger that I rise in this House to introduce the motion to condemn the actions of Bonneville Power, which is a large, arrogant American corporation that has thumbed its nose at British Columbia. This instalment in the saga of the Columbia River Treaty is not the first time that British Columbians have had to navigate troubled waters. Therefore it's important that the House understand the history and importance of this matter to the province.
Thirty years ago the Columbia River Treaty was ratified by the governments of British Columbia, Canada and the United States to provide for and to share the benefits of flood control and power generation by regulating the flow of water in the Columbia River. The original agreement required that British Columbia build three dams -- the Duncan, the Keenleyside and the Mica dams -- to provide 15.5 million acre-feet of water storage to assist in power generation and flood control below the border.
In 1964 the then government of British Columbia sold the first 30 years of our share of the increased power production in the United States for $254 million. At the time it seemed like a bargain; the energy crisis was in the distant future, and the OPEC crash onto our economies in the 1970s hadn't been envisioned yet. The environmental impacts in the Columbia Basin were overlooked and undervalued by those making the decisions in Washington, Ottawa and Victoria.
Over time, when power prices began to rise, we began to better understand the impacts of the treaty dams on the people on the land in the basin. The deal didn't look so good, but we had made an agreement and we lived with the result. We didn't walk away when the prices went through the roof and the initial sale of 30 years' worth of power began to look like a fire sale. We lived up to our commitments, and we waited patiently for an opportunity to renegotiate a better deal.
The terms of the agreement for the first 30 years of our entitlement to the downstream benefits of the treaty, as we know, come to an end in 1998. At that time, Bonneville Power will be required to return our share of the downstream benefits to the border at Oliver. The negotiations we entered into were not about the American obligation to return benefits to British Columbia. The United States is bound by international treaty to do just that, unless other arrangements between the parties can be arrived at.
In 1992, I directed the Minister of Energy and the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro to begin negotiations with the Bonneville Power Administration to address the last 30 years of the treaty. The mandate I gave to the negotiators was to seek alternative arrangements to returning the power at Oliver -- alternative arrangements that provided financial, environmental and economic development advantages to British Columbia.
The agreement we signed last September with Bonneville was a good deal for British Columbia. We added value to the entitlement; we secured access to the U.S. market and provided more opportunities for environmentally sustainable power to be produced here at home; and we were to receive a $250 million payment for reducing the size of power to be returned in British Columbia. As fair deals should be, it was a good deal for Bonneville Power on the other side as well. In return for not having to build the transmission lines through the environmentally sensitive American Okanogan to the B.C. border, we agreed to a reduced volume of power and capacity to be delivered over existing transmission lines to Blaine, closer to the lower mainland. So it was a win-win for both Bonneville and British Columbia. When we signed the agreement in September, the administrator of Bonneville Power looked me in the eye, shook my hand and said we had concluded an agreement that was good for all sides, an agreement all parties could be proud of.
On the basis of that agreement, I set my first priority to address the legacy of bitterness and distrust that the original treaty had caused with the people in the East and West Kootenays. It culminated after an extraordinary process in which the people of the Kootenays were involved as they have never been involved before. I want to pay tribute to the ministers who were involved and to the six MLAs who showed such leadership in their communities by involving all the people in the Kootenays. I'm proud and honoured to have signed the Columbia Basin accord in March to begin the healing in the basin, and I remain committed to that accord and the partnership we've developed with the region, regardless of the outrageous actions of the Bonneville power authority.
Following the signing of the memorandum of agreement in September, we were aware that technical and legal teams
[ Page 14408 ]
began work on a final agreement that was to lead to the culmination of an exchange of diplomatic notes between Canada and the United States. As most people understand, in lay knowledge, in international treaties you require the national governments to be able to conclude with these notes, which concludes an agreement. That was part of the process that was agreed to in good faith.
However, regrettably, on May 15, B.C. was informed by the chief negotiator for Bonneville Power that they were pulling out of the agreement. It's simply unacceptable for Bonneville Power to walk away from its good-faith obligation to conclude technical and legal work on the agreement we reached last September. Bonneville Power has reneged on a solemn commitment.
B.C. will not be pushed around by Bonneville Power. This large American corporation must be made to live up to its obligations to British Columbia. We will pursue Bonneville Power to the fullest extent here and in the United States. I have spoken with the Prime Minister and with the Governor in Washington State, and we have spoken with the consul general and with the Ambassador of the United States here in Canada. As a matter of fact, officials are now reviewing all options for action open to our province, including legal, political and environmental action.
[10:30]
This large American company has walked away from a neighbour, a trading partner and the closest friend the United States has, simply in an attempt to exercise sharp practices to extract further concessions in an agreement that they not only have shaken hands on but have signed onto and said was a good deal for Bonneville. It is a good deal for Bonneville and for British Columbia. That agreement was negotiated fairly and in good faith. It's on that basis that we have proceeded to carry out our obligations under the agreement, as we have done all the way along during the last 30 years.
Liberals and Reform and some commentators can debate accounting theories all they want, but I'm asking them today to decide whose side they are on -- the side of British Columbia or the side of Bonneville. Are they on the side of the people of British Columbia, who have honourably and in good faith kept our commitments and negotiated an agreement, or are they on the side of a large, arrogant American corporation that has welshed on this deal? I am asking for unanimous support in this House, because anything less than unanimous support is a message to Bonneville that there are those in British Columbia who support Bonneville in their attempt to break this agreement. And that will be giving comfort to Bonneville, not to the people of British Columbia. So I urge all members of this House to join with me in condemning this action by this large American company, to send them a strong message that British Columbia is united in our resolve to have returned to us at full value what is rightfully ours.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition, I would like to table the auditor general's report, May 1995, which is a review of contracts between NOW Communications Group Inc. and the government of British Columbia. The report will be available in the usual manner through the Clerks' office.
G. Campbell: This NDP government's legacy of deception has finally caught up with them. They knew the memorandum of negotiators' agreement was not legally binding, but they were so desperate for cash that they lunged out at an unfinished deal. They presented a budget to the people of British Columbia that was simply false. There is no surplus, there is no debt management plan, and they knew it. This government has finally been caught in its own web of deception.
Let's just think back. In the fall, the NDP was hoping for a spring election. Maybe, they thought, they could buy off the Columbia Basin. I visited the Columbia Basin communities last summer, and I know that many people there asked this question: "What's the rush here?" And the answer was clear: they were told that there was a political agenda at work. Everyone knew the downstream benefits were not due until after the next election, but the NDP wanted their money now. Why? Because they wanted to try to make their budget look better. It is the political agenda that has led to the problems we face today. Rather than pursuing the Columbia downstream benefits with vigour and with rigour, this government tried to rush through a deal without recognizing the background of Bonneville. Instead of caution we had haste. The government turned a blind eye to the potential pitfalls of their political agenda. The memorandum of negotiators' agreement was signed in September, and there were specific requirements laid out:
"The legal and technical teams were requested to complete drafting of the definitive agreements by December 31, 1994, and if agreements were not drafted and executed by all parties by December 31, 1995, the transactions contemplated by the statement of principles not proceed and negotiations between the parties be terminated."
I should be clear that on December 31, 1994, the definitive agreements were not drafted. But the NDP government wanted to record revenue, so they started searching for someone to give them the opinion that said it would be okay for them to record $250 million in revenue in the 1995-96 fiscal year. The comptroller general said it was wrong and the auditor general said it was wrong, but this government was so desperate that they wanted to count the cash flow anyway. They were planning a spring election, and they had to pursue their most important deception: the deception of a balanced budget.
On Tuesday the Minister of Finance made it clear that to her, truth in budgeting is just that accounting stuff. Truth in budgeting was not important to this government. Their political deceptions have always taken precedence over the truth. In the words of the auditor general, it's just wrong. From the budget deception, this government moved to its newest deception: the Columbia Basin authority.
On April 24 the minister responsible knew there was trouble with the negotiations. But rather than start right then to put them back on track, he stalled; he tried to hide the fact. Evidently he didn't tell the Premier. He could not have told the Minister of Finance, and we know today that he didn't tell the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He pretended that nothing was wrong. Instead, he rushed through the Columbia Basin authority bill so that he could continue his deception. And now this same minister is trying to force the Columbia Basin authority to accept investment decisions that may not provide maximum benefit to the Columbia Basin as they were promised.
[ Page 14409 ]
The B.C. Energy Council's own report clearly states:
"Energy projects have long been looked to as a means of triggering economic development, but a careful analysis shows that the number of jobs created in energy projects is low, compared to other uses of equal amounts of money. For example, almost no investment produces fewer jobs per million dollars of investment than a large hydro dam."
But this minister is in a rush to meet a political agenda; not an agenda that meets the true needs of British Columbia or the people of the Columbia Basin, but a rush and an agenda to make one more big-time special deal for his friends and supporters before an election. To use the words of the auditor general once more, it's just wrong.
This debate singles out one overriding issue: the government's incompetence. This is just the latest of many illustrations of this government's attitude towards truth in budgeting. Even the Minister of Employment and Investment agreed that by rushing to include the nonexistent $250 million in their budget to make the NDP look good, the NDP government may have jeopardized their negotiating position with Bonneville Power. Rather than budgeting with prudence and caution, they tried to pretend they had a balanced budget. They booked $250 million in revenues. They did not have that money then, and they do not have it now. They have been caught, and they are trying desperately to blame it on anyone but themselves.
I believe it's important that we clear up a misconception that the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Premier have tried to push in the last two days. Let me be clear, hon. Speaker, that no one in this House is taking the side of Bonneville Power.
This government could have, and should have, worked through the established dispute resolution process to get Bonneville back to the table. We should work together to ensure that the interests of British Columbians are met. That's why we were shocked yesterday when the minister who is responsible for the beautiful job that he's done of protecting B.C.'s interests rejected a motion to bring all parties together to work for British Columbia.
I should say that it is a bit much to be lectured by this government about the evil Americans. It's a bit much for this government, which makes thousands of calls to the American spin doctor Karl Struble, to be laying out an anti-American line. It is this government that has counted on Karl Struble to handle everything for them, from the dismantling of our health care system to the Vancouver Island land use plan and all the patterns of deception that they've spread across this province.
Rather than speaking anti-American rhetoric, why not call in their markers? There is not much chance that the U.S. administration will help if the government tries to focus on the anti-American agenda. This is a fight with Bonneville Power. This is about an international treaty. Maybe it's time the NDP called in some people who know what they are talking about. This Premier may think he's W.A.C. Bennett, but he doesn't come close.
The government's web of deception is unravelling before its eyes, and so the government blusters and is angry. But you know, it's the people of B.C. and the people of the Columbia Basin who have been misled and who should be angry. This government did sloppy work, because it put its political hide ahead of British Columbia.
Let me reiterate: we do not condone Bonneville Power, but the fact that we don't condone Bonneville Power is no excuse for the boneheaded approach that this government has taken to this. The same government that could not negotiate for B.C. in Charlottetown has just proven that it could not negotiate for B.C. with regard to downstream benefits. All along, this government has been blinded by its political agenda, and because of that it was willing to build a budget rooted in the falsehood of a non-existent agreement with a foreign power.
Botched negotiations are not new to this Premier or to this government. This Premier was bailed out by a city council that would not let him give away the store on the convention centre in Vancouver. He botched negotiations in Charlottetown and gave away British Columbia's representation. This government has botched negotiations on aboriginal issues across this province, and its political agenda has left an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. Now the Premier and this government have botched the negotiation on downstream benefits.
It is time to form an all-party task force, one that includes independents, to be sure that we maximize the Columbia downstream benefits. Let's not think that the Columbia entitlements disappear; they don't. They may not meet this government's political agenda, but it is still possible to make sure that the people of the Columbia Basin are truly served. It is still possible to ensure that British Columbia secures maximum benefits, but it will be done with hard work. It will be done by working together, not by the kind of political posturing and pathetic performance we have seen from the government throughout.
[10:45]
The people of British Columbia have a right to demand accountability from the Premier of this province: accountability for truth, not deception, in budgeting; accountability for trust, not deception, from government ministers; accountability for open and appropriate tendering; accountability for open aboriginal negotiations; and accountability for managing B.C.'s most important resources. The Premier has demonstrated over and over again that he and his government cannot be trusted to manage the affairs of the people of British Columbia.
That's why it is important and why it is essential that we pass a motion today that brings the talents of all members of this House together to enssure that the Columbia downstream benefits are maximized for the people of the Columbia Basin and for the people of British Columbia.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion that has been presented by the Premier. If Captain Hi-Liner wants us to join him on his ship, he should certainly get his caucus to support it. The amendment is that Motion 87 be amended by adding after "Columbia River Treaty" the following words:
"And furthermore, given Bonneville's decision to withdraw from negotiations may seriously impact all British Columbians, and most particularly those residents of the Kootenays, therefore be it further resolved that this House do establish a special all-party task force, including independent members, whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy that will ensure that British Columbians receive maximum benefit from the Columbia Treaty legacy."
On the amendment.
[ Page 14410 ]
J. Weisgerber: What we're discussing here today is one of the critical issues facing this government. Indeed, this is not so much an issue around the downstream benefits and how British Columbia at the end of the day will maximize these benefits. The issue facing the government today is the way it's handled these negotiations. It's handled them badly, Mr. Speaker. It's handled them in a way that is reminiscent of this government in its administration of the affairs of this province. It's been handled in a way that reminds me of the Charlottetown accord, and the Premier coming back from Charlottetown not knowing how many Members of Parliament for British Columbia he was really negotiating for, and then having to go back and recognize that he had miscalculated, that he'd made a mistake. It reminds me of the Premier and his negotiations with regard to the Clayoquot agreement, when it was very, very clear that the Premier had no idea about the deal that had been negotiated.
Listening to the Premier today, it's very patently obvious that he hasn't been in the loop on the negotiations, or if he has been, he's forgotten most of what it was that he understood about the deal. There was no passion; there was no commitment to that deal. Given that the government has badly bungled these negotiations, what we have to do today is sit back and examine what it is we have to sell or to offer, and commit ourselves as British Columbians to getting the very best value for this extremely valuable resource that is now available to British Columbians.
The deal that was done 30 years ago was forward-looking. Indeed, if it weren't for the deal done then, this government wouldn't have $250 million or $5 billion that it would be contemplating selling at some point in the future. I believe the government doesn't recognize fully the value of the resource that it has at its disposal, that British Columbians own and have an opportunity to maximize and to prosper from. The value of our resource isn't measured, and shouldn't be measured, by the spot price of electricity today or the price of natural gas today.
What we're talking about is selling the next 30 years of electricity generated on the Columbia downstream dams. It's a benefit that we own. It's a resource that the American consumer is already using. We're not trying to sell some incremental, new power to the United States market. We are bargaining with American consumers to continue to supply a resource that they have enjoyed for the last 30 years and are absolutely dependent upon for the next 30 years. If we recognize that, we will recognize the need to sit down and maximize those benefits. We shouldn't get spooked simply because the Americans have looked at the price of electricity or of natural gas today. It's absolutely irrelevant with respect to this particular deal.
Indeed, in speaking to the amendment, it's absolutely critical for us to understand the magnitude of the resource which we are discussing. It seems to me that we should look at the sale of these downstream benefits from the perspective of good, hard-nosed buyer-seller relationships.
What are we talking about? We're talking about electricity now generated in the United States, used by American consumers for the last 30 years, on which they are absolutely dependent. Look at their options. Do they have the option of generating new hydroelectricity in the United States? Not in any significant way. The environmental concerns would be enormous. There is no option for new hydroelectricity in the United States.
Is there an option for nuclear energy? I don't think it's a very attractive option for consumers or for American utilities. The problems with nuclear energy are recognized as being most unacceptable. The Americans don't have an option to go to new hydro or to new nuclear power, in my opinion.
So is the answer the sale of natural gas? Is the option for the United States the generation of electricity by natural gas-fired generators? Perhaps. Indeed, I understand that one of the arguments Bonneville Power is using is the fact that the price of natural gas has fallen to the point where they believe they can now generate electricity by natural gas more cost-effectively than they can buy the downstream benefits.
From a member who lives in and represents the area in British Columbia that produces natural gas, it seems to me that we see natural gas prices go up and down. Three years ago gas prices were low; last year they were going through the roof. We were drilling all over North America for natural gas. The supply's come up; the price has gone down. It will do that a dozen times over the next 30 years -- the life of these downstream benefits. So the price of natural gas today is not relevant to the value of the Columbia downstream benefits.
F. Garden: It sure is.
J. Weisgerber: The member says, "It sure is," and the member's wrong. The member doesn't understand. It's reflective indeed....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: That's the kind of thinking, which we hear from the member for Cariboo North, that's allowed Bonneville to walk away and bluff us -- or try to bluff us -- into a cheap sale on this deal. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to have hard-nosed negotiations in our approach.
It seems to me that the government has put itself in a position that is extremely vulnerable as it relates to these downstream benefits. It seems to me that in ignoring the advice of the auditor general and the comptroller general, in its anxiety and its inappropriate rush to take advantage of these downstream benefits and take into revenue the $250 million, so that it could bring out this sham of a balanced budget.... In its anxiousness and its rush to announce the billion dollars' worth of spending on the Columbia Basin Trust, and in its rush to capitalize on partisan political opportunities, the government has made itself extremely vulnerable.
If the government had been prudent, if it had appropriately dealt with the $250 million, it would have strengthened the hand of the province in its negotiations. If the government had resisted making the announcement of the generators and the new construction in the Kootenays for a few more weeks or months, it would have strengthened its hand. Instead, the government has said: "We're going to generate new capacity for our domestic needs. We will cancel out the option we have to bring the downstream benefits back." Our biggest single negotiating tool is to say to the Americans: "We need the electricity; we're going to bring it back to Oliver, and we're going to use it for domestic consumption. You can look at your other options or pay us the price that we demand." That's where this deal's gone off the rails. It's gone off the rails because the government has jumped too quickly. The government has moved too quickly; it has put its political interests ahead of good negotiating strategies.
[ Page 14411 ]
I think we should sell the downstream benefits. Indeed, unless you have the option of not selling them, you weaken your negotiating position. You undermine your own position by destroying the ability to return those benefits for domestic consumption. We've got to tell the Americans: "Either pay the price, or we'll take them back. Pay the price, because we know what your options are -- your options aren't very good; your options aren't very acceptable; your options aren't very economically viable. Pay up or we're taking the power back." That's got to be the position. Indeed, what I am saying, and what the government seems to have trouble understanding, is that the actions it has taken this spring have undermined its ability to negotiate in the strongest possible way for those benefits.
[11:00]
What we have to do is sit down and talk tough at those negotiations. We don't have to stand up in the Legislature and whine about the big Americans beating up on poor little British Columbia. We can stand up for ourselves; we can negotiate a good deal for British Columbia, because we have a very, very valuable resource and a very valuable product to sell. We don't have to apologize, nor do we have to whine about the Americans. Let's sit down and say: "Look, we're willing to start over; we're going to start from square one, because we know how valuable that resource is." Indeed, we think perhaps we sold out too cheaply in our first round of negotiations, and I think we should go back starting with a higher opening position -- let's play some hard ball back. I agree with that wholeheartedly, because I'm not at all convinced that the Americans have nearly the options they would have us believe.
Indeed, it was political opportunism by the NDP that put us in the vulnerable position of having this first deal scuttled. We have the opportunity, the option, to go back and negotiate a better deal than we had. I tell you that we'll stand behind the government in a tough negotiating position on these benefits. But we've got to recognize that we bungled it the first time, and go back with the determination to get the value for that resource that British Columbians are entitled to and that we as a province should enjoy -- and will enjoy, if we've simply got the nerve to stay in there and negotiate. We don't have to stand upd negotiate. We don't have to stand up in the House and talk about those bad old Americans. Let's just get back to the negotiating table and negotiate with the confidence of having a product that is in demand, that is difficult to replace and that, indeed, the Americans desperately need.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the next speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton rises on a matter.
J. Beattie: I'd like to have permission from the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: I see in the House an old friend of mine, both from government and from politics, Jeff Fox. He works for the BCGEU and, as a result, for the people of British Columbia. I'd like the House to make him welcome here today.
D. Lovick: I also request leave to make an introduction, if I might.
Leave granted.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today and on your behalf, I want to introduce this group. These are members of the Speaker's family, colleagues, and I thought we would all be interested to know.... A couple of them, of course, are no strangers to us. One is Janet Barnes, Emery's wife and partner. As well, Emery's mother, Anne Boullon, is back again. Nice to see you, Anne. As well, there is another group of people accompanying them: Anne's friend Louis White, her son Delbert Williams, her great-granddaughter Jamicia Jackson, and also Jamicia's friend Nicole Butler. I would ask my colleagues to make them all very welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me say that I actually agree with about 80, maybe even 90, percent of the position of the leader of the Reform Party. I guess having been Minister of Energy and coming from an energy-rich part of the province, he has an understanding of this. Although I do think there are some inconsistencies in his remarks, particularly with respect to.... I know that he has been a big supporter of independent power producers. We have a request for proposals out right now -- 40-odd bids for that. I think the logic of his comments is that we should cancel the RFP to give us more leverage in the United States. I think he knows that we need power in British Columbia, and we can maintain the position with RFPs and maintain the position that we can take the power back at Oliver.
The important point that the leader of the Reform Party made is a valid one. This is an extremely valuable commodity. We don't have to rush into a deal that is not in the best interests of British Columbia. The Bonneville power authority signed a deal which was good for British Columbia, but they believed that they could squeeze us for more. The member is saying that perhaps because we did an RFP and other things after that agreement, which may have undermined our position. We don't take that position, because we believe, as the member does, that this is inherently valuable and we don't have to accept second best.
So I am pleased that the member did say that; he made some other remarks which I don't agree with. I hope we can count on that member when we do start playing, which will be very, very tough negotiations with Bonneville. They are going to be challenging, and I know I can count on the member's support when we take some tough action against Bonneville Power.
I want to speak on the amendment, because I think it's very unfortunate. I think it's playing cheap politics with an important issue. I think the position of the leader of the Reform Party -- albeit he had some criticisms of the government, invalid criticisms, I think, is a much more mature one in terms of dealing with this issue. I want to just say what the amendment says. The amendment says that we should form an all-party committee of the Legislature. This is a typical Liberal response: we're going to form an all-party committee of the Legislature to deal with this issue. He goes on to say in his remarks that we need to sit down and talk to this reasonable Bonneville power authority. Anybody who has ever negotiated with anybody, frankly -- but particulary with a tough monopoly American utility -- knows that they don't respond to some liberal nicey-nicey "let's sit down and have a cup of tea and talk about how we're going to deal with this." These are very tough negotiations.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
[ Page 14412 ]
I think people should remember that the Liberal leader said in the House that he doesn't believe we should be building Keenleyside, Waneta and Brilliant. I like that, because that's clear, and he can go into the Kootenays and he can say: "We don't agree with these power projects." I think that's a legitimate position.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: That's a legitimate position. If they don't make sense.... The member for Surrey-White Rock said....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: The member can say that. I think that's good, because people should know where the Liberals stand. I'm quite happy to go into the Kootenays and say: "We're going to be building this province, building on the legacy and using revenue to build power projects at Keenleyside, Waneta and Brilliant." I'm quite happy to say to construction workers in that region that we're going to be doing that, and I'm quite happy that the Liberal Party is going to go into the same region and say: "We're opposed to all of this development." That's good; that's democracy. People can choose. I'm very confident that they will choose the traditional British Columbia position, which is to build on our strengths, build on our competitive advantage and use revenue from downstream benefits to give more control to the region.
We've had two, maybe three, years of discussions with the people of the region at symposia and conferences. There's been a committee formed -- the Columbia River Treaty Committee. We've been discussing with them; we discussed this question with them yesterday. Instead of all that work and all that consultation with all those people duly constituted from all the regional districts, are we going to say: "No, that doesn't matter. We're going to have a parliamentary committee of politicians decide how to spend it and decide what's in your interest"? Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard anything so foolish in all your life as the Liberal leader saying: "We don't care about that three years of work. We don't care about all the symposia; we don't care what the people of the Kootenays say; we don't care what the construction people say in the Kootenays; we don't care about all the open houses you've held in the Kootenays. We know what's best, here in Victoria, and a bunch of politicians are going to get together and tell you"?
That's what the Leader of the Opposition's amendment to this motion says. It says two things: that we, a bunch of politicians, are going to decide here what's best for the Kootenays; and further, that we're going to discuss in an open forum with all members of the Legislature how we're going to sit down nicely with Bonneville Power Administration and negotiate with them. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in all your life, Mr. Speaker -- that we're going to have all the politicians sit around and discuss our strategy on how to deal with this company? In fact, the members opposite probably want to have hearings about how we should deal with Bonneville power authority. While this company is ripping up agreements and while they're threatening to break the treaty and flush water down from the Libby Dam, we're going to have public hearings with all the MLAs to discuss the tactics and strategy of negotiating with a hard-nosed American company. What a ridiculous position!
I think everybody in British Columbia knows that. I'm glad there's a Reform Party here, in name at least, and a leader there, who has some criticisms which we don't agree with. But at least he knows that when it comes to dealing with this company, or anybody else, we have to be tough and we have to exercise some leadership, and that means some very hard-nosed negotiation with this American company.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, may I just remind everybody that meaningful debate can only happen if we can actually hear what is being said. I think we're in danger of no longer hearing, so I would just ask members to please take that caution.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want....
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. There is a point of order.
C. Serwa: On a point of order, there are a number of members on the government side who are not sitting in their seats; they're speaking loudly. If they want to speak at all, they have to return to their own seats. Otherwise, in order to get the television coverage, they can remain there.
Deputy Speaker: Okay, member, your point is noted. I don't think they were making noises, but your point is well taken.
Hon. G. Clark: Because it's such a ridiculous motion, I just have to read it again for the record: "...be it...resolved that this House do establish a special all-party task force..." And Bonneville Power are shaking in their boots. They're watching this right now: "Oh my goodness!" I'm sure they've got lawyers on it. They're saying: "Oh no, the Liberal leader wants to set up a special all-party task force, including independent members." That probably scares them a little more, I say to the leader of the Alliance. Okay, listen: I stand corrected. I know now that Bonneville is saying: "Uh oh, that's tougher now, because we've got to deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast there." Okay: "...a special all-party task force...whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy" -- to develop a strategy! -- to deal with Bonneville Power, a public forum to see how we're going to deal with this.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: That's right, there will be focus group testing, hon. Speaker. We'll be discussing this.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please.
The member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I pointed it out once, and it has happened time and time again: if they don't resume their seats, they have no right to pound on their desks or to speak.
[ Page 14413 ]
Deputy Speaker: Yes, the member's point is well taken. I would advise members to please resume their own seats.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Here it is -- I keep getting interrupted, Mr. Speaker, so I have to go through it again: a special all-party task force, including independent members, whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy to deal with this company. We all know that if we're reasonable people, if we sit down in a public forum, if we discuss this with British Columbians reasonably, if we're nice to the Bonneville Power Administration, of course they're going to come to their senses, and they're going to give us what we want.
Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker? We're dealing with a company that has ripped up a memorandum of agreement. After two years of negotiations, they've ripped it up and walked away from it. We're dealing with a company that has ripped up other legal contracts with other utilities in the last few months in a desperate attempt to wriggle out from under a good agreement.
What did Bonneville Power Administration say? They said: "It's too rich; it's a foolish business deal that we've signed, and now we want to back out of it." We did such a good job on behalf of the people of B.C. -- and they acknowledge it -- that they want to back away. Why do you think they want to back away, Mr. Speaker? Why do they want to back away from this agreement? Because it's too good for British Columbia. We have a deal, a signed contract, that they acknowledge is too good for British Columbia, and the Liberals say: "We have to form an all-party task force and get back to the bargaining table and somehow deal with this company; we have to get back to this American company on our knees and beg them to see reason." What a ridiculous motion!
[11:15]
We have them. We have negotiated a tough agreement; they acknowledge it's a tough agreement. They say it's too rich for British Columbia. They're reneging on it, and now it's time for British Columbia to stand up, take action and take on this American company.
Where are the Liberals? Why can they not rise above petty politics for once and show some leadership for once? Stand up and say that it's time for all British Columbians to side with the government of B.C. and take a hardball position with this American company that does not have our interests at heart. Do the Liberals really, really think that Bonneville Power Administration is going to act in the interests of British Columbia? Of course not. What the Liberals say is that in order to be tough with them, in order to send a message to Bonneville Power Administration, we need to form a special all-party committee of the Legislature. Wow! Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker?
I'm telling you right now that I'm going to fax them this. When we get out of the House, I'm going to fax it down to Bonneville Power Authority and say: "Get back to the table. Give us that deal we signed, because otherwise we might just agree to this. We might form a special all-party committee of the Legislature. Look out, Yankees! Look out, Yankees! It's going to have independent members on it. Oh boy, oh boy!" I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to fax this right now; I'm going to fax this down there. I'm convinced that this is going to shake them up. What a ridiculous motion!
We have a motion on the floor of the House, which they're trying to amend, that says very simply.... We tried to craft it in such a way that would not be partisan and that would not try to utilize this motion in a way which would box in the opposition. The motion says we're going to condemn the Bonneville Power Administration for breaking an agreement. The Liberals can't even stand up and have the guts to support British Columbia against the BPA. They don't even have the guts to support a non-partisan resolution, which clearly indicates opposition to what Bonneville Power Administration did. I will bet you that the Reform Party has the guts to stand up and support this motion; I'll bet they do. They have criticisms; we don't agree with them. But I'll bet that when it comes down to it, they'll support a simple motion condemning Bonneville Power for their actions. But the Liberals, rather than have the courage to come forward and say that they support an attack on Bonneville, moved an amendment which reads: "Be it resolved that this House establish a special all-party task force, including independent members, whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy."
There are two issues here. One is dealing with this particular deal and dealing with the Bonneville Power Administration. The members opposite in their speeches have cast it further. They say that they want politicians in Victoria to tell them what's good in the Kootenays, that the deal we struck with the CRTC is also somehow suspect and that somehow we shouldn't be doing the Keenleyside Dam and the Waneta and Brilliant expansion projects. They also want an all-party committee to decide what's best for the Kootenays. On both scores, it's a ridiculous motion. It's ridiculous for politicians of all parties in Victoria to get together and decide what's best for the Kootenays, because we've spent two years -- not just the Kootenays but the Columbia Basin, I say to the member from Prince George....
Deputy Speaker: A point of order from Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I believe there is some rule that the talk can't be repetitious and tedious, and we certainly had.... The member has one message, which he has said over and over again, and it is getting rather tedious.
Deputy Speaker: Minister.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to read this motion one more time. I have to read it, because I can't believe they were stupid enough to move it: "...be it...resolved that this House do establish a special all-party task force, including independent members, whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy...."
We have spent years working with the people of the Kootenays. We have an outstanding agreement. The Columbia Basin Trust provides real power for the region, which has been screwed for years because of the Columbia River Treaty. We've given them justice, and we're going to give them jobs as well, not because we wanted to do it in Victoria but because we worked with the region and we have an agreement. We're out there right now meeting with them, as we speak, at open houses all throughout the region, because this is a good deal and everybody in the region is telling us that this is a good deal. They don't like that. They want politicians in Victoria to decide that.
Secondly and most importantly in this respect, you can't deal with a Yankee corporation that is ripping up agreements
[ Page 14414 ]
with American utilities, with other utilities and with B.C. Hydro, by sitting down in Victoria -- a bunch of politicians from all parties -- and discussing how we're going to deal with it. We have a deal; they've acknowledged that it's a good deal. They're trying to get out of it because it's too generous for British Columbia. They've been candid about that; I give them credit for that. They haven't tried to weasel out of it; they simply said they're reneging on the deal.
What's going to become clear as we go forward, as other utilities line up against Bonneville Power for doing the same thing to them.... The opposition can say it's our fault; they will also, then, have to say that all those other utilities whose agreements have been ripped up in the last few months are somehow incompetent as well. The opposition can say that it's the government of B.C.'s fault and side implicitly with Bonneville Power Administration. They're siding with the American company, saying we didn't have a deal. I'm sure their comments will be used by Bonneville Power Administration when we're in court. I'm sure they'll be used, because they're siding with them saying we didn't have a deal. But the other private companies doing business with Bonneville Power Administration which have had similar treatment will line up behind British Columbia. They will line up and they will show the world and British Columbians that it is not this administration -- who negotiated an excellent deal -- but Bonneville Power Administration that has an unscrupulous record and that is acting unprofessionally in a way that is contrary to sound business practices.
I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Reform Party is right in this respect: this is a valuable, valuable asset for future generations in British Columbia. We're not going to sign some deal, because they're playing hardball tactics with us. It doesn't matter to the government members if we don't get money this year. It doesn't matter if we pay a political or a financial price in the short run, because this issue is for future generations of British Columbians.
We're going to stick it to them. We're going to have hardball negotiations. There's going to be some very tough decisions to be made. We'll be coming back into the House from time to time when we have these tough decisions to make. We'll be asking, once again, for the Liberals and the other members of the House to decide which side they're on. Are they on British Columbians' long-term interest side? Or do they want to play uninformed, cheap politics with an important legacy for British Columbia?
I hope they continue what they've been continuing for the last three days. Politically, I hope they continue their position in a partisan way. For British Columbia, I hope they don't, but in terms of politics I'd be delighted. I'd be delighted to go to the people of the Kootenays and to the people of British Columbia and say that we are going to be tough. I'd be delighted. When we go to the election....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, could we have some order?
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted for this to be an election issue, because it is of critical importance to future generations. It's critical for the Columbia Basin. It is a big, big deal for British Columbia. People will know that, and they are going to side with the party and the people who stand up for British Columbia against Bonneville Power Administration, and not with some weak-kneed Liberal administration that is pretending that we can all sit down and sign a deal and form some committee to get a deal. This requires leadership; it requires tough negotiations; it requires the support of all members in this House and the British Columbia people if we want to maximize the benefits for British Columbia.
I tell the members opposite that this will dominate the discussion for some months to come. The Liberals will have a chance to change their position, and when British Columbians line up on this question, they will be running with breakneck speed -- they will get whiplash changing their position, as they do on every other issue -- trying to catch up with the leadership in this province which is going to stand up to this American company.
L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Deputy Speaker: Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
L. Hanson: We have in the gallery today watching this great debate that is going on -- a very educating one, I'm sure -- 60 students from the BX Elementary School in my constituency. They're accompanied by Terry Petersen, Brian Bonenfant, Ranjit Gill, Heidi MacKinnon, Debbie Steenkamp, Lorraine Nickel, Pam McGregor and Roseanne Van Ee. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to start my comments in response to the minister opposite by apologizing to the students in the gallery for the outburst that they've just seen by the Minister of Employment and Investment.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: In the three and a half years I've been in this chamber -- which isn't as long as the member opposite, so perhaps there is a worse display on record -- all I can say is that we must be hitting pretty close to the bone. This minister's overpuffed, overinflated and overdramatic ego has finally taken a direct hit. This minister, who is now leaving the House because he can't hear the accounting, has taken the mantle of the successorship of the New Democratic caucus on his shoulders. He has been painting himself week after week, month after month and now year after year, as successor to the inept leadership of the current Premier. He has found that in preparing himself to be the champion of the New Democratic caucus in the next election -- the guy who really balanced the budget with the $250 million, the guy who worked out this interesting little agreement that he talks about to get cash two or three years before the cash is even coming in, to be able to put it in a budget and turn their fake budget into a balanced budget.... For that minister to find out suddenly that everything he's banked upon, including his whole political future and the biggest deal he's ever tried to make in his life, and to find out he was incompetent.... He hadn't planned on that.
Despite knowing he was dealing with a bad actor with the Bonneville Power Administration, despite all the
[ Page 14415 ]
assurances and agreements that were being ripped up elsewhere, he encouraged the caucus, the cabinet, the Finance minister and the Premier to put $250 million into this budget. When all is said and done, and this has blown over in two, three or four years from now, the Columbia River legacy will still be there for the people of the Kootenays. The downstream benefits will be there. The legacy that minister is leaving to the province of British Columbia is a failed budget, a failed government and a failed Premier -- and, indeed, a failed leadership campaign.
The minister made great hay about saying that the B.C. Liberal opposition is on the side of the Americans. When you've got your back against the wall, when you've blown the biggest deal in the history of British Columbia, when you've screwed up beyond imagining, when you've lost $250 million in your budget and when you've lost your leadership campaign, the last resort you have is to point at the other guy and say: "You're not patriotic. You're not standing up for British Columbia; you're not standing up for Canada." What garbage, hon. Speaker. What garbage.
[11:30]
To call the minister's bluff and seriously question who is standing up for British Columbia and who is standing up for his own leadership campaign, we put forward an amendment to this motion, which says: "We realize the government has dealt incompetently with this. We realize they've blown this negotiation. We realize they've lost $250 million this year and how many other millions down the road...." Despite all that, and despite the lack of confidence we have in that minister -- I guess it's because of the lack of confidence we have in him -- and because we want to show a united front, we put forward an amendment to this motion that says: "We would like to get together with key members of this House to sit down -- not holding focus groups, not holding public hearings, not going out there and waving our plan around -- and contribute, as representatives of all British Columbians, behind closed doors, and say: "How are we going to play hardball with these guys?" The minister hasn't been able to play hardball with them; he obviously needs some support.
Why can't the minister accept the all-party support? We have offered it to him. We've offered assistance to the government of British Columbia: we've offered it to the Premier of British Columbia, we've offered it to the Minister of Employment and Investment for British Columbia, and, heaven forbid, as she needs it most, we've offered it to the Minister of Energy for British Columbia. We've offered to line up and have a united front against Bonneville Power corporation and against "those nasty Americans," as they put it. We've offered to put all that stuff aside so that when we face Bonneville across the border -- here and in the Kootenays -- there's a united front and we're all together, developing the strategy to play hardball with these guys, to be tough with them and to stand up for British Columbians, to force those guys to honour a deal.
These guys weren't competent enough to make sure it was binding. They weren't able to make sure that they had to live up to it in legal force. They blew it. We're willing to put that aside and say: "Let's get together as elected representatives in this House and put up a united front. Let's talk about how we're going to have a strategy to play hardball with these guys. Let's look at the options we have with B.C. Hydro. Let's look at some of the environmental things that we can do to encourage them to live up to the agreement that they had -- the memorandum of negotiators' understanding, or whatever it was."
All the rhetoric the minister is talking about doesn't wash. Once he has waded through all the incompetence, once he's waded through all the bluster, once he's waded through all the ego, once he's waded through his leadership strategy campaign, all he's got left in his arsenal is to point a finger across the House at other people who were elected on behalf of British Columbians and say: "You're not patriotic." Nobody is buying that. Nobody in British Columbia, whether in the Kootenays or here, believes for one minute that there is one member in this House who would stand up for anybody but the people of British Columbia. I was proud the other day when the member for Delta South stood up and pointed at the Minister of Finance and said: "How dare you question my loyalty." Well, hon. Speaker, how dare they question the loyalty of any member in this House, whether it's New Democrat, Liberal, Reform or one of the independents.
It doesn't matter how much bluster the minister has; it doesn't matter how desperate he is; it doesn't matter how quickly he can kick and flail his legs and arms as he lays on his back with the sword of Bonneville at his throat; it's not going to make any difference. The reality is that he blew the deal and now it's going to take more than just the people who blew the deal to put the deal back together again.
If we felt he was competent, if we felt he could put that task force together, if we felt that he himself could lead the debate, that he himself could develop the strategy that was going to do what he says he wants to do, which is play hardball with them, we'd be thrilled. But we can't trust him to come up with that strategy, because despite the overinflated opinion he has of himself, he hasn't been able to deliver. So when we offer the support of all members of this House to the government of British Columbia to put the party politics aside and say, "As far as it goes with the Americans in dealing with Bonneville, let's be tough, let's work together and let's go after those guys and get the best deal for the people of the Kootenays and the best deal for the people of British Columbia," we would expect him to accept that. We would expect any government and any minister who was making the types of comments he was, to be cheered, to be overjoyed that he would have all-party unanimous support helping him in his negotiations. Instead, he chooses to question loyalty; he chooses to question motivation.
Leadership is bringing people together. Leadership is taking all the assets of British Columbia, all of the intelligence of British Columbians, all of the skills of the people in this House, bringing it together and focusing it in one direction. He has the opportunity to do that; he has the opportunity today to have that force behind him when he goes up against the Americans. But no. If he had to ask for help from anybody, his precious ego would be damaged. If he had to admit that he had blown it and had to come to somebody other than himself for help, then his own ego would burst.
It's time to put that aside, get together and work as a group to develop a strategy that can really take those guys to task. We've offered that, and he has rejected it. I think that's unfortunate. In the end -- very much like the minister says -- when this pans out, we'll be seeing who had the leadership and who didn't, who was self-serving and who was standing up for British Columbians, and who was more concerned with
[ Page 14416 ]
their upcoming leadership campaign than with the future of the Kootenays.
That motion is offered in good faith, it's offered with respect, and it's offered with some optimism that it will be taken up. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the minister chose to refuse that.
There are talents in this House; there are talents within our caucus. The member for Surrey-White Rock has been following this issue for a long time. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour probably knows more about it than most people in this House. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has been following it closely. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has been following it closely and probably knows the history of it more than anybody. Why not draw upon some of those talents? He said that the Leader of the Third Party has some background; he used to be the Energy minister, and he probably knows about it. He's in an energy-rich district; he represents an energy-rich constituency. Why not take his skills and abilities?
The minister stands up and says: "No, no, that's all politics. I'm going to do this on my own. Only the NDP government can do it; only I can do it as Minister of Employment and Investment." He won't even let the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources be involved in it. He's going to take it all on himself: the hero of British Columbia draped in the flag of B.C.
He's blown it. Sometimes in leadership, if you're a leader, you have to know when to say: "I need help. I made a mistake; I wasn't able to deliver on this thing. I tried my best, but I couldn't do it. I need all British Columbians to support me on this one." And not just say it but mean it. Not just use rhetoric but actually accept the offer when it's granted. That's leadership.
He had an opportunity today to prove that he is the rightful successor and heir to the current Premier, and he blew it. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker -- and the members in the New Democrat caucus should listen -- that when the chips are down, he's going to do what's right for him.
I will be and we will be voting in favour of this amendment. More importantly, we'll also be voting in favour of the main motion, because we do have to send a signal across the border that we are united in opposing Bonneville Power Administration and in demanding that they live up to what they've offered. We can do that together, we can do it as a unified group and we'll be more forceful because of it.
We don't need the ridicule offered by the Minister of Employment and Investment. On one hand he says: "Where do you stand? Do you stand with the Americans, or do you stand with me?" When we tell him where we stand -- that we stand with him, that we stand with the government, that we stand with British Columbians -- he ridicules it. You know, it might be funny and it might be entertaining to those wounded members opposite to see somebody thrashing around like that and waving the NDP flag, but the flag that should be in his hand is the flag of British Columbia, not the New Democratic Party flag. I must say that I'm extremely disappointed that the minister chose to be as partisan as he has with this amendment. I know that members of this House see it as an opportunity to provide a united front. I know that members of the independent parties -- those I've talked to -- have said that they would like to see this take place, that they have some issues to offer forward, quietly, behind closed doors, so we can all develop a strategy that is in the best interests of British Columbians: to play hardball with these guys.
I hope he reconsiders, but we will see how he votes. Is he voting for a unified front against Bonneville, or is he voting for his own ego? We'll see where his loyalties really lie. I hope he'll change his mind. I hope that this House votes to support the amendment. Indeed, I hope that this House votes to support the motion and combine both the motion and the amendment and combine all parties of this House, and we'll be in a much stronger position to take on the Americans, to stand up for British Columbians and not any one party.
M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. de Jong: I am pleased to welcome to the gallery today two friends of mine. One is a boat-builder from Vancouver, Mr. Rob Morris; and all the way from Ottawa, a lawyer -- and I've promised him that we won't hold those two strikes against him -- a friend of mine, Mr. Rick Morris. Please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to say that I'm really pleased that I didn't get up right after the Minister of Employment and Investment to take my place; that I somehow allowed the Opposition House Leader to take my place. It's always hard. Anybody who speaks knows that a fiery speaker is a hard one to follow, so the mood of the House has certainly been brought down and made sombre and dull, and I appreciate that a great deal. The problem for the Opposition House Leader, of course, was that he is trying to defend an amendment that has so little sense that it is almost unbelievable. He says that he put it forward to chasten the ego of the Minster of Employment and Investment, and that really must be the reason for it. I would suggest that if this is what it takes to get unanimous support for B.C.'s position in an international discussion, I think that the Liberal Party is absolutely absent of imagination and intelligence. So I will very clearly be voting against the amendment.
If you really want to understand what we're doing in this situation, what do you want to look at? What kinds of events that have passed do you want to put into the pattern? And what kinds of elements are there that give us our position that says that Bonneville Power Administration, in signing an agreement in principle with the government of British Columbia, has some responsibility, some obligation, and that that agreement that we signed has some weight? What is the reason for that?
I want to talk about Bonneville Power Administration, first of all, and I want to make sure that everybody in the House knows that Bonneville Power Administration has this particular position of being the entity for the treaty in the United States. There seem to be suggestions from members opposite that somehow we could avoid negotiating with Bonneville Power. They say: "You knew what they were like. Why did you negotiate with them?" That is the level of the argument. I want to say, in probably the most pedestrian way, that Bonneville Power is the authority that we are dealing with. We don't have an option to go out and find somebody else to deal with and say: "We don't like Bonneville because they are a
[ Page 14417 ]
wily lot. They've done other things that we don't like, so we'll go negotiate with somebody else." That is not a possibility, so we have been negotiating with Bonneville Power.
[11:45]
We have conducted these negotiations over approximately two years, and although they have been totally clear negotiations with no surprises, there have been some glitches, there have been some bumps and there have been some stalls. Until the one on May 15, there were no surprises, and they knew where we were coming from. We talked with them; we seemed to know where they were coming from. The negotiations went well. The negotiators agreed on what we should sign, in June 1994, and the principals signed that agreement in September 1994. In less than eight months, one of the principals of that agreement decided that commercially it wasn't good enough for it as a company, so it took advantage of its position as an entity to draw out of an agreement. That's not what people expect when you are negotiating, in fact, with an entity for another country, under a treaty.
The agreement, I want to say very clearly, included pricing. It was a network, as most agreements are, and there were agreements as to what prices would be and what numbers would be; they were all there. There was an agreement on capacity, on what capacity would be considered. If Bonneville Power Administration were being duly diligent, they would have known what risks they faced. They should have known what risks they faced at least eight months down the road. What they should have been looking at -- and what we assumed they were looking at, because what an authority looks at on a 30-year agreement is 30 years.... Bonneville had some particular obligations as the entity for the authority. I think we should remember what those obligations are. I think they had the obligation as the entity to look down the road 30 years, because that's when the treaty lasts. It isn't going to go anywhere until at least 2024 -- and beyond that unless we change it -- so it is their obligation as an entity for the treaty to look down the road, see what's there and look at what the risks are.
It is their obligation as the entity to work to the terms of the agreement of the treaty itself. Those treaty terms involved an agreement that both nations -- and B.C. acts for Canada here -- work together for the greatest power benefits and flood control benefits for both members of the treaty. That is a requirement and an obligation for anybody who is the entity to that treaty.
The other thing we believed was that as an entity, and as the negotiating entity for the agreement, they had a responsibility and an obligation to act in good faith and bargain in good faith when you get to signing an international agreement in principle that says:"We have agreed on the terms, and now what happens is that we have the legal t's crossed and i's dotted, so that we can get a true legal agreement." So when Bonneville decided that it could do something else, we felt that very clearly we were in a position to suggest -- very correctly -- and assume that our agreement held weight and that Bonneville Power could not simply back off and say: "Look, this is a commercial agreement that we don't like, because we are a commercial entity and, therefore, as the treaty entity, we are backing off." That is inappropriate; it is unacceptable. We simply can't do it.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: Of course, there are all sorts of suggestions that everybody on this side is incompetent, according to the Liberals, who have no answers as to how to do it -- except, of course, to form an all-party committee. I would suggest that anybody with any intelligence, of course, will dismiss that as a political ploy they used in the House in order to be able to stand up and respond foolishly to some serious discussion, and to make an excuse, I suppose, for continuing to defend Bonneville Power Administration for backing out of an agreement in principle that they signed as a representative of a national body for an international agreement.
There are suggestions that it was a bad deal for British Columbia. Very funny. It was not a bad deal for British Columbia. It was equally not a bad deal for Bonneville Power Administration. Our position is that it still remains a good deal over the long term.
Bonneville Power Administration is going to find that out very clearly, when that administration decides it's going to apply to build a transmission line across the Cascade Mountain from Vantage to Oliver. When they start going to a regulator to say, "We want to build a transmission line across that delicate environmental area," and the regulator says, "Why do you want to do that? How much environmental damage are you going to incur? Do you have any alternative?" the answer is yes, there will be significant environmental damage. And yes, we have an alternative. That alternative is this agreement.
Now we get to the argument about who is being hasty, because there's some suggestion by some of the opposition that this government was hasty. They want us to rush back to Bonneville Power and say: "Oh shucks, you don't want to sign this agreement. Let's negotiate another one." Let me tell you that this government is not going to bargain away the long-term benefit that we see in the agreement we have already negotiated.
We know that this agreement is a good agreement. We know that it offers significant benefits to the Americans as well as to us. Those benefits are transmission benefits. I digress for just a minute to say that this agreement is all about transmission. It's about whether the Americans have to transmit power to Oliver. If we have to take it at Oliver, do we have to transmit it to the lower mainland? If we can avoid all of that transmission by an agreement in principle, we benefit both parties. And British Columbia will benefit significantly. That's what this agreement is about.
It has significant weight. It has long-term benefits, which means that if we don't get upset, don't let panic obtain, don't let everybody decide that all of a sudden the world is turned upside down, we can simply say, "Bonneville Power, you cannot back out of this agreement. It is not to your benefit. It is not to our benefit for you to back off, and we don't believe that you will back off." It is a position this province should take.
This is an agreement we have negotiated. We have it to the point that we both signed the agreement in principle. We know that over the longer term, the treaty requirement to transmit power back to Oliver is not something the Americans are likely to want to do. So we are going to say very clearly to Bonneville Power: "You have signed this. And this fits into the treaty, with what the treaty says about the return to Oliver. It says you shall return it to Oliver, or you may return the power elsewhere if there is agreement." That would only be, I'm sure, if there is lesser cost to either party or both parties.
It can be done under the agreement, and that is the basis for the negotiations we have carried out so far. There is no
[ Page 14418 ]
reason to suppose that we cannot require that Bonneville continue to recognize the weight of our agreement, and that we have to....
Interjections.
Hon. A. Edwards: You know, hon. Speaker, it's most interesting that people suggest there is no agreement. I guess if you don't like it, you just say it isn't there. If Bonneville says it isn't there, then the Liberals say it isn't there. That's the Liberal position. Bonneville doesn't like it; the Liberals don't. Whatever Bonneville says, that's it.
Let's be serious. Let's look at this over the long term; let's look at this as British Columbians. Let's look at what we have in front of us, which is a significant series of requirements by which we are going to ensure that the Americans keep to the Columbia River Treaty. We have already sent letters and a note to the U.S. over proposals of Bonneville on operation of the river system. The river system is operated jointly, and the Americans cannot automatically make some changes without recognizing that they have an impact on the benefits to B.C. under the treaty. Those requirements are also part of what we're looking at. They are related, and they are going to be a matter of what British Columbia is firm, absolutely firm, about -- whether or not we yell about it, whether or not we stand up and shout it from the rooftops, or whether we quietly say: "This is our treaty, and we will see that this treaty is adhered to." That is our position.
Before I close, I have to go on to the agreement, which is related to our recognition that we are going to have the downstream benefit entitlement returned within the near future. We made an agreement based on that with the communities within the Columbia Basin. There has been a very, shall I say, electrical attempt on the part of the opposition to suggest that that is going to be gone, that we made that agreement in bad faith, that we shouldn't have done it, that the projects are wrong, that nobody agreed and that they want to do it for a House committee here. The variety of suggestions about it have been foolish and contradictory.
I want to be very clear about that agreement. The Columbia Basin Trust came about because of a broad community process, and through that process -- which included seminars, symposia, open houses, continuous discussion in the media and continuous discussion in the coffee shops, in the living rooms and in the office coffee rooms of the region -- what happened was an agreement that this government made with the communities in the Columbia Basin. That agreement is also an agreement that this government will stick by. We have no intention of being at all like Bonneville Power Administration and backing out from our agreements. That agreement is firm.
[12:00]
There are so many interesting ways that one could go, discussing the opposition of, particularly, the official opposition -- the Liberal Party. They've said everything going, so you could take your pick: they like it; they don't like it; you should do more; you should do less; you should do it faster; you should do it slower; you shouldn't do it at all; you should have done it seven times; we should do it; you should do it; they should do it; everybody should do it. It doesn't matter what it is, they're going to complain. So I would suggest that we simply go ahead, as this government has chosen to do, and ignore the comments, because they are not critical in the sense of being intelligently critical. They are just opposed; they are just simply opposed.
I would say very clearly that the motion as it was originally put is the motion that I think everyone in this Legislature should adhere to, should vote in favour of and should support, because it puts us all together in dealing with an issue that is a provincewide issue. I believe that the amendment is foolish and opportunistic. So, as to the amendment, I would oppose it, but I strongly support the motion.
G. Wilson: With respect to the amendment, I intend to keep my remarks short, as I would have something longer to say on the main motion. Let me say that what is intended in the amendment would have been a good idea two years ago, but I think the way that it is presented today is, quite frankly, a gift to Bonneville Power. What it suggests here is that somehow we're going to acquiesce to the fact that....
Deputy Speaker: The Member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: I think an effort was made to achieve the speaking order, and it seems to me prudent that that speaking order should be retained.
Deputy Speaker: My predicament, colleagues, is that I believe that the list has already, obviously, been deviated from. I simply took the member because he had been trying for some time. It would seem entirely inappropriate now for me not to recognize the member, having once allowed him to speak. My apologies, however, for any confusion.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and....
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. I have another point of order from Cariboo North?
F. Garden: With the indulgence of my colleague from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I'd like permission to make an introduction at this time.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: In the gallery are two very, very good friends of mine from my riding -- from the city of Quesnel, actually -- Ernie and Linda Kuehn. They're down here visiting. Ernie and Linda are very strong advocates for handicapped people in Quesnel and in this province, and I'd just ask the House to make them welcome at this time.
G. Wilson: I take the comments from the member for Okanagan West. My understanding is that the original speaking order was on the main motion. As this is an amendment, I will keep my remarks brief and specific to the amendment, so that all who wish to get in may have an opportunity to do so.
I think that what we've been treated to this morning, unfortunately, has been a rather obvious example of how partisanship can deviate debate into a lot of name-calling and rhetoric that, frankly, doesn't serve the interests of the people of British Columbia well, especially on a matter as grave and important as this one.
[ Page 14419 ]
I think that the intent of this motion would have been an excellent idea two years ago, before we had actually entered into a final set of negotiations with Bonneville Power, so that we could have all had an opportunity to seek input into how we were going to approach that matter and how we were going to resolve what clearly is an obligation on behalf of Bonneville Power to the people of British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The fact that we have, for better or worse.... Those people who followed my comments when the original memorandum came forward know that I was somewhat critical of what was contained within it. I believe that we should have spent much more time with respect to water and waterflow as a portion of that agreement. The fact that we had that memorandum come forward and the fact that there were signatures on it by Bonneville Power and by the province of British Columbia should, I believe, be enough for all members of this House to dispense with the political rhetoric and get down to the business of forcing Bonneville Power to stick to what they had, at least in intent, come forward to agree to. For us to do anything short of that is, I think, a disservice to the people of British Columbia in both the short and long term.
Let me say, with respect to the proposal of the amendment.... I caution members, as I think the Minister of Employment and Investment said earlier on, that we are likely to get into an extremely difficult round of negotiations. I think we have to ask ourselves whether or not, given the reluctance of Bonneville to honour their intent -- which was very clear and, I think, very specific in terms of what the intent of the memorandum was.... Even though there was no binding legal agreement, clearly there was an intent, and I think that that intent is something that is important. We must all be mindful, as we head into that round of negotiations, that the words of the members of this House as recorded in Hansard are going to be extremely useful fodder for any legal actions that may be taken or any court action that may be pursued. Therefore I think it is grossly irresponsible for members of this House from any party to take a position -- any position -- other than that Bonneville had a position of intent, that they had signed to that position of intent, and that this province and the people of this province have every right to expect that that position of intent will be honoured. No matter what we think about the deal, for us to simply go out and try and suggest that the government blew the negotiation or that somehow there's incompetence and all of those sorts of things -- which might advance individual political agendas and political careers -- is entirely out of order on the larger question, which is important to the people of British Columbia, and that is: there is an obligation on the behalf of Bonneville.
This is not something that is going to go away; the treaty obligates Bonneville to either deliver us power or pay for it. That's what they have to do. Notwithstanding the fact that they have backed away from a position of intent, the people of British Columbia have to harden their resolve now to say that we are not going to permit Bonneville to back out of that position of intent; what we're going to do is to unite -- without further political rhetoric, without further grandstanding and without an expectation of the next provincial election -- to make darned sure that Bonneville does in fact come through. That is the position that all members should take.
I was somewhat surprised when the member for Okanagan West said that he would not agree to the emergency debate yesterday. On reflection, that may have been the wisest position to have taken, because when I hear the kind of rhetoric that's coming out -- especially the posturing around whether this should have been included in the budget or not included in the budget, and whether or not there was or wasn't a deal -- all we are doing is weakening the position of the province and strengthening the position of Bonneville Power.
I say this without a partisan position: I do not believe that any political party in the same position -- whether it be the Liberal, the Reform, the Alliance or the New Democratic Party -- would not have shown that as accounts receivable, given the fact that they had a position of intent. For us to make a specious argument as to whether they should or shouldn't, especially.... I hope that all members will read the original treaty agreement and understand what is obliged of Bonneville Power. This is not an issue where we have lost money; it's simply a question of how we are going to regain what is ours -- rightfully ours. The people of British Columbia have every expectation that that revenue will come back to this province in some form.
To try and tell anybody differently so that we can try and inflate our own political opportunities is grossly dishonest to the people of British Columbia. It does a disservice to the position that we now have to take with respect to Bonneville Power, and that is whether or not they had a legal agreement. Clearly they did not have a legally binding agreement; they signed a position of intent, and for no other reason than that, they had a moral obligation to stand behind that.
We as members of this Legislative Assembly should unite behind this minister, and not through some kind of specious parliamentary committee. Quite frankly, having watched the performance today, I doubt that the people of British Columbia will have much confidence in having that perform without partisan interference. We need to unite behind a single and united position of the province of British Columbia -- notwithstanding what we might have felt about that memorandum of agreement, and I was critical of it -- that Bonneville Power be required to live up to their position of intent, and that nothing short of that will do.
L. Stephens: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Stephens: Today in the House we have 27 grade 6 students from Langley Prairie Elementary in Langley with their teacher Mr. Thielmann. This is an important and interesting debate that the students are able to see today, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome.
C. Evans: As sad as it is to be dealing with a business partner who reneges on their half of the deal, as appalling as it is to have to speak to an amendment that suggests that instead of carrying on in a businesslike manner to defend Canada, we should chat, I'm really thrilled about one thing that's going on here today. At long last, the debate that should have happened in 1964 and which was denied by the Socreds at that time and by the Socred in this House yesterday.... Thirty years later, at last we're getting down to it. We are now getting to have a conversation about the issues. The people were denied this debate when most of us were still teenagers -- with the exception of some us.
[ Page 14420 ]
I have talked on this subject so often that most of you are probably tired of listening to me. I have to beg your leave, because it's my job; it's exactly what the people sent me here to do. Because I've talked so many times, right from the very first speech I made here -- the last time was two days ago -- I'm going to assume that you've all got it now about history. I don't have to go back over the issues of the people's lives and homes, the fires and the burning of the boats. I don't have to talk about the farmland, and I don't have to talk about how they made this deal. I am going to assume that we've all got it about history, and I'll try and concentrate on the issues at hand.
The issue we're dealing with here today is, as everybody knows, that some of us have been on leave from this House time and again in the last three years, having conversations about trying to fix something that's broken. Every time there was a meeting, one of us came back and stood up and reported, as if we were your delegates, as if we wanted you to understand everything that happened. Part of what happened was the negotiation with the United States, which made changes possible in our relationship with the United States that's gone on for three decades.
Two days ago in this building, within an hour of hearing about Bonneville Power Administration's decision to renege on their half of the deal, I walked up here, came through the door and stood right here to say to you folks in the Liberal Party and the Reform Party: "Hey, we're in a jam. America has decided to step on Canada, and I'd like it if we didn't have to have this as a partisan argument." I said: "We laid out all the history over all the months. Everybody understands. Could we just do the next few weeks together? We're dealing with the richest nation in the world with the biggest army in the world and one of the biggest corporations in the world, and it would be really, really useful if instead of shaking your heads at me, we all stood together for at least a few minutes."
An Hon. Member: Quit wrapping yourself up in the flag.
C. Evans: It's my flag.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please constrain himself.
[12:15]
C. Evans: After I made that request, some members in the Liberal Party have come in here and said to the people of British Columbia that we got in this jam because it was time to fix something that was broken and that this government based its decisions on some kind of agreement that didn't exist and made decisions that we shouldn't have. They can only say that because they don't have a clue about the history of the issue they are dealing with.
I want to take you back one more time, on the assumption that the last time I stood here you were so busy yelling at me that you didn't hear what I was trying to say. In the 1950s, Canada and the United States began talks on what seemed to be a good idea to both countries: the development of the Columbia River. Canada ceded its negotiating rights to British Columbia. The United States ceded its negotiating rights to the states of the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia then named B.C. Hydro as its legal agent to have these talks. The United States named as its legal agent the Bonneville Power Administration, and it has been ever thus. Every single year for the last 30 years, these people have sat down as legal entities to negotiate on behalf of states and nations. It would seem to me that everybody here representing the government had every historical right to assume that someone who has had decision-making power for 30 years for another country would continue to do so at the present time.
The second point of the Liberal Party siding with Bonneville today is that they're not saying necessarily that Bonneville didn't have the right to decide, but that Bonneville didn't decide. Member after member, including the leader of their party, stood up and said: "There was no deal." That is exactly the American position.
Now listen up. When parties go and negotiate -- and I don't care if it's a union and an employer or two companies or two nations -- they have negotiators. The negotiators go and have an argument leading to a conclusion, then they initial the argument. That means that you and I come to an agreement. It doesn't mean anything except that the negotiators agree. Then you have to take the deal and send it off to the senior partners for ratification.
On July 8, 1994, our negotiator, Marvin Shaffer, and Bonneville's negotiator, Sue Hickey, initialled the agreement. They came to an agreement -- a historic agreement that made some of us celebrate, because it changed our subservient relationship to the United States that had gone on for three decades -- but agreed it wasn't a legal document, because it hadn't gone for ratification to the employers of those negotiators. That's exactly what happened. Hear me, you gentlemen who have been standing up and saying: "There's no deal." That's exactly what happened. It went to Bonneville's board of directors and to the cabinet of the people of British Columbia for ratification, just in case Ms. Harvey and Mr. Shaffer had got it wrong. The cabinet said: "Yes, this is the deal Canada wants." Bonneville said: "Yes, this is the deal America wants."
The president, no less -- they didn't send a lawyer, a negotiator or a flunky to prove to the people of British Columbia and the region that we had changed this historical wrong.... The president of the Bonneville Power Administration says: "Hey, Mike, let's get the televisions out and have a ceremony." And our Premier says to the people of British Columbia: "Let's go to Vancouver and Nakusp simultaneously so the people in the region can see that we're changing this thing that's broken." And voluntarily.... I don't know his address, but presumably the president of the Bonneville Power Administration got up in his house, got into his car, drove down to the airport and flew to Vancouver, all under his own free will. Representing a legal corporation and a nation, he drove to a ceremony and signed for his board of directors.
Now what do you want? How much more of a commitment do you want? If that's not enough, let me tell you something from a guy who's been in business: there's not a sale of logs in British Columbia any day of the year that's legal, if that's not legal enough. Most of us in the rural area in the Columbia Basin deal with honesty. We say, "This is a deal," and when we want it to be really finite, we shake hands. This guy not only said this is the deal and shook Mike's hand, but he signed for a corporation that stood for a
[ Page 14421 ]
nation, here in Canada. And day after day your leader is standing up saying there's no deal. What nation do you belong to?
It's amazing what Bonneville Power did two days ago. But I think we have to try to parse the sentence and to figure out why. Why did they think they could get away with it? Let's ask it a little differently: why wouldn't they? When they realized that they were going to have to pay for the first time fair value for something in Canada, what in our history of resource politics and resource economics in this province would possibly lead them to think they couldn't get away with breaking a deal to pay fair value?
The people who till this land, who fall the trees and mine the ore know. They watch it every day of their lives, for all the decades that parties of members opposite -- no matter what you call them -- have been sitting on this side and signing the deals. They have never got fair value, and the Americans had no reason to believe that anything had changed. If the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, doesn't get it, I'll tell you who does get it. In fact, never mind talking to him, talk to the people who get it. The person growing apples in Creston on ten acres who used to have a good crop to take downtown and sell for a good price and who is now competing with 10,000 acres of apples on an American desert, irrigated with our water made by the Columbia River deal and then powering the pumps with our electricity.... That apple grower gets it. The people working in this place have always sold out the interests of the working people of this land.
If the leader of the Liberal Party doesn't get it, the truck driver.... I hope he's here with me right now pulling into Cache Creek with a load of hemlock logs that he hauled 300 miles to run through a big grinder machine, put on a train to Vancouver and send off to Japan -- and never even make any pulp out of it. That person has been waiting all his working life for the people in this room to say: "Don't give it away until we process it, until we get a price for it."
If he doesn't understand it, then, I'll tell you who else understands it: the member opposite from the Peace; the pipeline workers who are sick and tired of getting paid to build pipelines to America full of natural gas just so they can light it on fire six miles south of the border, turn it into electricity and sell it back to us for twice the price. They want to know when we're going to get to use this gas in this country to value-add, to make the power here.
The people in the Kootenays in Canal Flats, who live under the threat of the Kootenay diversion, understood it as long as those people ran the government. The people in the Thompson, who have been waiting for somebody to pass a law that says you can't export water to the American desert out of a Canadian valley, understand the issue.
There's only one thing that has changed. There's only one thing that I hope the people in Bonneville Power would recognize is different from the last time they made this deal and all the deals I've just been talking about. It's that we work here now. Maybe the fact that there is a government with the guts to take on its neighbour and defend its people is exactly what Bonneville is trying to change. Maybe that's the real agenda. Maybe it's not about $100 million of electricity, but it's about looking for some allies in this country to get rid of the government that defends this country. Maybe it's not an accident that the day they decided to renege on this deal, we were in this room trying to pass a law that said we were not going to export our water. Maybe it's not an accident that the day they decided to renege on this deal, we were in this room trying to pass a law that says we're not going to export our water; maybe it's not an accident that the day they chose to renege on this deal, the Premier was holding his conference on business; and maybe it's not an accident that the leader of the opposition party in this very room gets up and says that he's on their side.
Interjections.
C. Evans: For the sake of the school kids watching, let me be specific. He didn't say...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Evans: ...he was on the American side; he just took their argument.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Come outside in the hallway....
The Speaker: Order, hon. members!
Would the hon. member for Delta South please constrain himself.
F. Gingell: I rise on a point of order.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please.
What is your point of order, hon. member?
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a point of order when the member for Nelson-Creston says something that he knows to be patently untrue, and I ask that the member withdraw it.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Points of order that are designed to enter debate are inappropriate. If the member is suggesting that the member has in some way attributed an improper motive -- an unparliamentary statement of some sort -- that is in order. But to enter debate under the guise of standing on a point of order is inappropriate. I would ask the hon. member to state his point of order.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I would think, if that's your description, that the member has stated something that is clearly inappropriate and not true. That is exactly it, and I find it offensive and clearly....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member will in due course have an opportunity to enter debate. It's not a valid point of order.
[ Page 14422 ]
C. Evans: I guess the other thing that maybe they don't like in the United States is losing. I think they maybe are a little chagrined that they went up to the bargaining table with some people who knew what they were talking about better than they did, who beat them at the bargaining table and who made a contract that was better than anything they had signed before.
It doesn't stop there. Their friends in this room are saying to them: "Hey, they're going to do it to fish, they're going to outlaw the export of fish; they're going to do it for water, they're going to outlaw the export of water."
Interjection.
C. Evans: We're going to do it to logs, and you're darned right we are. It doesn't stop here.
[12:30]
Besides the fact that we finally got to have the debate that your party denied the people 30 years ago, I think the other thing that's wonderful about what's going on here today is that this day had to dawn sometime in British Columbia, when our society had reached the point where our trade was diverse enough -- with enough different nations, and not being dependent on one trading partner -- when our society was sophisticated enough, and finally, when our politicians were strong enough. This day had to come. And I think there's another thing that's wonderful about it. I think it's good and correct that the issue today upon which we finally take our stand should be water -- the beginning of and the basis for all life. I think it's good and it's rational that it should happen at this moment, in this window. After 30 years of suffering under the treaty, we finally get a chance to have a conversation and, at last, because the Americans reneged, we get to have a debate before we have to live through the next 30 years. It gives me immense pride that besides being now, and besides being about water, it should happen in a time of our party being the government. To be part of such a moment is one of the things that people come here for and never forget.
In closing, hon. Speaker, I just want to say two things. To the Americans -- maybe you guys would carry this message for me if I say it to you -- I would say: "Keep...."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask all hon. members to please come to order. Please address the Chair, hon. member, and proceed.
C. Evans: To the Speaker -- and through the Speaker to the messengers -- I would say to the Americans: "Keep your word." To my government, I would say: "Stop the water. They'll talk."
Hon. Speaker, observing the time, I move to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.
C. Evans moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 23, at 2 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:33 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]