1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1977

Night Sitting

[ Page

1239 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Division on motion to rise and report progress — 1239

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill

14) Second reading.

Mr. Levi — 1239

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 1243

Mr. Wallace — 1243

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1254

Mrs.Wallace — 1255

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 — continued.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Hewitt

McClelland

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Lloyd

Gardom

Wolfe

Chabot

Fraser

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Veitch

NAYS — 7

King

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace, B.B.

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I guess the government must be having a caucus meeting.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What's your excuse?

MR. LEVI: We're not the government.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): You're not much of a government either.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner break, my colleague

from Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made mention of the debt that is going

to be incurred in respect to increasing this particular loan. I would

hope that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) gets up to

close the debate, he will tell us about the state of the per capita

debt in this province in respect to the outstanding debt of the B.C.

Hydro.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It's $101 million.

MR. LEVI: There is the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources, Mr. Speaker, still very twitchy about the $101 million. I

must say that I have no problems absorbing that one, considering the

kind of horrendous acts of my successor.

What is interesting is that last year and this year, Mr. Speaker, we

had longer lectures from the government about the need not to mortgage

our future, not to put on heavy debt for future generations, but simply

to pay as we go. Here we have an example of a large, uncontrolled

corporation that is putting a future debt on this province for the next

25 years at least. Here is a government that is prepared to add to this.

One of the things that we don't have from B.C. Hydro, in terms of

the planning that it has, is what it is going to do in terms of the

future energy needs, the availability of investment capital, and how

they are going to come to terms with this kind of a problem,

particularly as one of the most difficult problems we have in this

province today is the lack of investment capital. We had all sorts of

solutions from that group over there during the election. They were

going to bring to this province an enormous amount of investment

capital.

That has not happened, but it has happened that B.C. Hydro can go

down to Wall Street and is able to negotiate alone for some $650

million, and one would perhaps ask how it is possible for that group to

be able to do this when capital is so difficult to get. I suppose what

we have to do is to understand who is

[ Page 1240 ]

in charge and who was able to do this negotiating.

Again, my colleague from Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made reference to

the role of Mr. Bonner and the Trilateral Commission. Interestingly

enough, one of Mr. Bonner's colleagues on the Trilateral Commission is

Mr. David Rockfeller. David Rockefeller is probably one of the most

powerful men in the world, if not the most. He controls most of the

interstices of the banking industry, both on the North American

continent and in the world banking situation.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: We're not on estimates, Mr. Attorney-General. Mr.

Speaker, the Attorney-General is obviously very discombobulated. Mr.

Attorney-General, we are on the bill, not on the estimates.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: No, we're not on Rockefeller yet.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He didn't want to talk about the Premier, though.

MR. LEVI: I know.

The important thing is that kind of alliance the chairman of the

B.C. Hydro has with Mr. David Rockefeller, who is the largest banking

man in the world. Recently that chairman of B.C. Hydro was in Japan

attending a meeting of the Trilateral Commission, at which Mr. David

Rockefeller was present. Mr. Bonner, of course, is a member of the

Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission, Mr. Speaker, has often been referred to,

I think, as the government-in-waiting when one views the number of

people that have been on that board, that very large commission, as

it's called, taking into account the three areas of the world — Western

Europe, North America and Japan. In January, Mr. Bonner was there

meeting with the Trilateral Commission. Ironically enough, at the end

of his world tour, the vice-president of the United States just

recently finished up in Japan — just about the time when the Trilateral

Commission was meeting. And I suppose that's appropriate, too, because

he was also a member of the Trilateral Commission. We also find that

the President of the United States, Mr. Carter, was a member of the

Trilateral Commission. So was Mr. Pepin.

With all this involvement by the chairman of the B.C. Hydro with these very

powerful decision-makers in terms of the world economy, not just the North American

economy, it's not difficult to understand how it's possible for that

chairman and the B.C. Hydro to negotiate such a loan.

But we must have concern, Mr. Speaker, in terms of B.C. Hydro,

particularly in this province, because of the plans that have been set

afoot for many years. They seem to be going down the road relentlessly

with a commitment to build more and more dams.

The important thing is that we have had no indication — not from the

government, not from the chairman of the B.C. Hydro — as to what

they're going to do to meet the problem of how they will satisfy the

real demands of energy in this province and in the United States,

because we are committed to export our power to the United States as

well. We need to hear from that government, Mr. Speaker, on who is

making the decisions, the day-to-day decisions which involve not only

British Columbia but some parts of the United States.

The other day the chairman of B.C. Hydro made an announcement that

they had approved the exporting of some one million acre-feet of water

to the United States. I was somewhat surprised that that decision was

announced by the chairman of the B.C. Hydro. It would occur to me that

that was perhaps a decision that would have been more properly made by

the minister responsible. After all, the agreement was signed with the

government of British Columbia, with Canada and with the United States.

I am not sure that that agreement was signed with B.C. Hydro — yet that

announcement was made.

The important thing is, Mr. Speaker, that we should be able to get

some statement from this government on what their stand is regarding

the meeting the future needs in terms of energy.

Recently the chairman of B.C. Hydro has been saying that there seems

to be an inevitability that we will move towards nuclear power. Those

people who are very active in the protection of the environment have

indicated that what he maybe is doing in making these statements — and

he's made several of them since he has assumed the chairmanship of the

B.C. Hydro — is scaring the population into the realization that

nuclear energy is not desirable and that the only alternative to

nuclear energy is simply proceeding with the plans of B.C. Hydro to

develop more of the hydro dams.

Two weeks ago I visited Site 1, which is under construction, and

discussed with some of the engineers there the future plans in terms of

construction. It would seem that within that organization the plans are

quite clear — that they will proceed to Site 3, that they will proceed

down to the McGregor where they will erect a 500-ft. dam. It does seem

that all the efforts by environmental groups….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Site 1 leaking?

MR. LEVI: No, Site 1 is not leaking, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1241 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what he said?

MR. LEVI: Well, they showed me the cause, and some 16 years ago I did work on a dam site in North Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mosquito Creek?

MR. LEVI: No, not Mosquito Creek. I'll think of it in a minute, but I can't for the moment.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, the one farther up than that. There's one

farther up than the Cleveland Dam. There's one other one at Mount

Seymour — the Seymour Dam. It's not leaking. I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), that you shouldn't worry, that it's not leaking.

But what was interesting in the discussions with the staff up there

was that they're aware of the plans and the scheduling for the

construction of the other damsite. We discussed the McGregor. We also

discussed the problem that will be confronting this province in terms

of the Dunvegan Dam which is in Alberta and which will concern the

government because of the backing up of water some 160 miles into

British Columbia right into your riding, Mr. Speaker. Now that I come

to think of it, it could very well be that you may be completely washed

out of your seat. These plans are afoot and they are afoot simply on

the basis that there is no research going into alternative forms of

energy.

It was interesting again when I was up in the Fort St. John area.

The Dawson Creek paper a week ago carried a front-page

article on the

geothermal possibilities of that area. They published a large map and

indicated that Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and all the way down in an

arc to Calgary is a very heavy potential geothermal area. Well, one

might ask if any kind of research is going on within B.C. Hydro to look

at that potential. We were aware to some extent of that potential

because one of the things that the previous government did was to bring

that particular potential source of power under the control of the

provincial government.

I was recently in Arizona where there is a geothermal fight going

on, and all the oil companies have the geothermal holes. But the

important thing is….

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Well, as long as I've got to sit where I sit and

look across there, to be able to get out from time to time is really a

very relaxing kind of process.

I must congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on his ability

to syncopate on TV, albeit out of tune. Nevertheless, you looked quite cute

there on stage — a little roly-poly, but quite cute.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Thank you very much.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that we also have

to have in terms of the future needs of energy is…. What is the stand

of the government in terms of allowing the public to debate the issues

of whether we should have a continuing source of hydro-electric power

or other sources of energy, when recently the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) announced that he had found that the only…

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where do you want us to dump them?

MR. LEVI: …amount of money that an organization like SPEC

needed, an organization that is in the forefront of trying to point out

to the public and to the government the B.C. Energy Commission position

as well as the B.C. Hydro position in terms of energy…. That

organization recently had its grant cut to $5,000, and there we have

lost a very influential and significant voice in terms of the battle

for understanding in this province. That has gone, and that's very

unfortunate. We're beginning to get some glimmer of indication of the

government's attitude towards the whole question of a public debate on

energy and where we're going in terms of energy generation.

On the question of the B.C. Hydro, we have indications from the

minister responsible for Hydro that next year we can expect that they

will come back into the House and ask for some $700 million and a year

later an almost equal amount. That will place the debt of this province

and the per capita debt at certainly the highest it has ever been, the

highest that exists in Canada. Again, there are no indications that

there is any attempt by the government to move down a different path in

terms of either the alternative sources of generating electricity or

the whole question of whether, in fact, we can go into a very large

conservation attempt in terms of energy.

Today there was a statement in the paper by Mr. Bruce Wilson, who

has been involved in the whole exploration of gas and oil. He points

out to us the other side of the picture, that it's his opinion that we

should cease all explorations of oil and gas to the United States so as

to conserve some of our own reserves. This is taking another position,

that if, in fact, the need by B.C. Hydro for gas is going to become so

severe that we are going to go on a

[ Page 1242 ]

wholesale government-sponsored exploration of gas

to fill these needs when, at the same time, we are exporting gas at an

incredible rate….

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, who

is very twitchy on this question, keeps saying "No, no, no." But the

point is that I am suggesting to you that as long as there's this kind

of policy where we export, it's yes, yes, yes. It's very much the same

as you're going to have to find infrastructure for the coal.

So they will have to do a lot better, Mr. Speaker, than the Minister

of Mines saying "No, no, no." That's not the way we're going.

Interjection,

MR. LEVI: You're going to have to tell us. You're going to have to convince us that we have….

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you sign the manifesto?

MR. LEVI: Yes, I signed the manifesto.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: There you are, you see? That minister, Mr.

Chairman, is going to have to convince us that the supplies of gas in

this province are going to be ensured, particularly for B.C. Hydro,

because that's a significant part of the business that they operate.

Again, in the debate we would hope that the minister will tell us some

of his ideas about this, but I'm afraid that we're not likely to get

that because he really is something of a fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, a

minister of the Crown who really rubber-stamps the requests that come

down from the 22nd floor of the Hydro tower. He has no influence at

all. A piece of paper is put in front of him and he signs it. Next year

he'll do the same thing simply because that monstrosity is out of

control and he will continue to act in a willing fashion as a rubber

stamp.

Mr. Speaker, the question that was discussed earlier in the debate

about the possibility of moving towards nuclear energy is one that

certainly leaves us, on this side of the House, with a feeling of great

apprehension, particularly as we view the kind of experience that

existed in the United States, and even as close as what has happened in

the state of Washington. We know that these kinds of projects require

enormous amounts of capital. They have enormous risk factors in terms

of the health of the population. Not a hundred miles, as the crow

flies, from this House, is the Hanford plant in the state of Washington

which has had incredible problems in terms of nuclear waste and what

they're going to do about it. They have not come up with that kind of

solution, and yet still we have the new governor of that state saying

it is the committed policy of the state of Washington to move toward

building more nuclear plants in order to generate the energy they need.

We have to have some concern in this province. That government has

to have some concern about developing its own policy, taking its own

stand in a very firm manner that it is not prepared to go the route

that they are going in the United States. A number of people have

pointed out that particularly recently, in terms of a Ford Foundation

report, it is possible, in terms of looking at energy conservation

techniques, to reduce the use of energy in such a way that we can

lengthen the lifetime of the energy needs we have now. That has to be a

government policy.

Almost five years ago, Mr. Speaker, the former Premier, who is now

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), in the fall of 1972, made a

statement which was picked up throughout the province in which he

indicated that it was time for us to turn out the lights. What he was

doing then was to give a message to the public that we do not have an

unlimited source of energy supply and that what we have to look toward

is the whole question of some real attacks on conserving energy.

The Rand report of 1972 indicated that the future energy needs of

North America cannot be met. They cannot, as was suggested this

afternoon, provide energy on demand to the consumer when he wants it.

There is a responsibility by this government to enunciate a policy that

they are not going to be a part of a policy of producing energy on

demand by the various industries and by the private consumers simply

because they need it. There has to be a very specific attitude planned

out by the government, debated in this House, and then the people in

the province have to have that kind of education process to understand

that it is not possible to meet all of the energy needs and it is not

in the best interests of this province in terms of the amount of

expenditures that it would require to meet those kinds of needs.

As long as we're going to move into massive acquisitions of

investment capital by seeking loans on the U.S. market and the per

capita debt is going to continue to rise, then we're going to find that

other worthwhile programmes in this province are not going to be dealt

with and we're really going to be simply feeding the monster, which is

the development of energy. In this case we are dealing with B.C. Hydro,

because they are the people who are responsible for the provision of

energy in this province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that does come up in respect to the

question of energy is always the issue of whether it would create more

unemployment as a result of the kinds of conservation that are

practised. Again, I want to refer to the Ford

[ Page 1243 ]

Foundation's energy policy report which has shown

that energy conservation measures produce increased employment in the

long term. Rather than decreasing the quality of life, it can actually

increase real income. All right, that's a long-range kind of process.

That's not something that happens over one or two years; that is

something that happens over 10, 15 or 20 years. Nevertheless, that is

the kind of planning that is required.

Today we are debating a bill which will meet the financial needs of

B.C. Hydro for plans that were made 10 or 15 years ago, were sharpened,

and are gradually being put into operation. That kind of planning which

has been going on in their operation for all of these years can take

place; then certainly long-range planning, through the Department of

Energy for the whole question of conservation and the whole question of

how we can meet the various job dislocations can take place. That is an

important part of planning which we have not heard anything from in

terms of this government.

They appear to be only interested in the bottom line when it comes

to general government finances but not in terms of the B.C. Hydro. We

on this side of the House have to continue to push for that kind of

policy from that government.

Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace, G.S.

Lauk

King

Macdonald

NAYS — 22

Waterland

Davis

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Bawlf

Haddad

Kahl

Lloyd

Bawtree

Schroeder

Jordan

Shelford

Chabot

Wolfe

Gardom

McCarthy

Rogers

Mussallem

Veitch

Fraser

Calder

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You've already spoken in this particular debate, hon. member. Are you on your feet for some other purpose?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I'm referring to standing order 25. It indicates that routine

business and the order of business for Wednesday is to be private

bills, public bills and orders and public bills in the hands of private

members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a little late to bring this to the attention of the Chair in that….

MR. LAUK: It's never too late, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this was already settled when we went into session this evening.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House has not voted on whether to pass over private bills to go to public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: There are no private bills, hon. member. Perhaps you're confusing that with public bills in the hands of private members.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, without reflecting

on the rules or reflecting on a vote, one of the reasons I simply had

to oppose that last motion was that I spent all of my supper time

preparing a speech, and I refuse to be denied.

At the risk of upsetting the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) I want to call this "the déjà vu bill." Right?

MR. WALLACE: Déjà vu. It's very difficult for a Scotsman to speak French, I've discovered.

This really has to be, of all bills that we're likely to see in this

session or any other session, the borrowing bill revisited, or some

such similar title. I took the trouble to have my staff go back over

the history of Hydro and its borrowing, Mr. Speaker. A very interesting

clipping from the Vancouver Province on February 17,1972, has the headline: "Government Accused of Demanding Blank Cheque."

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's my speech.

MR. WALLACE: I might even try to quote another French expression: Plus ça

change, plus c'est la même chose. For any other Scotsmen in the

audience, that means the more things change, the more they stay the

same.

"After an unsuccessful attempt by Liberal leader Dr. Pat

McGeer…"

I'm sorry he's not in the House tonight.

[ Page 1244 ]

"…to adjourn the debate, and a tactical

about-face by Premier Bennett, discussion on the bill was adjourned.

The bill would increase Hydro's borrowing power from $1.25 billion to

$1.75 billion. Robert Strachan (NDP — Cowichan-Malahat) said he

supports power development, but told the government it should not try

to fool the public by saying that the money was not public debt."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I would like to come back to that in a moment, Mr. Minister of Finance.

The report goes on, Mr. Speaker:

"Mr. Strachan said 34 cents of every dollar paid by consumers

for electricity goes towards interest on the Crown corporation's debt."

And I'll come back to that in a moment, too.

"McGeer moved for an adjournment but he was voted down by the government."

Surprise, surprise.

Later on in the same report, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Garde Gardom,

Liberal from Vancouver–Point Grey, who is in the House, and who, I

hope, will have the decency to blush when I read his statement….

HON. MR. GARDOM: I told you it was my speech.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Gardom stated:

"'The government has the audacity to come in here and

ask us to give carte blanche to borrow $500 million without any

explanation,' Gardom said, adding that the government is acting behind

a corporate veil. Gardom said, 'Secrecy is what you're practising here.

Are there any problems with B.C. Hydro that they need money? We can't

ask questions of the directors of B.C. Hydro. The government is asking

for a rubber-stamp cheque and that's not the way the democratic process

should be exercised.'"

And then, just to finish this clipping, Mr. Speaker, Leo Nimsick,

who was the NDP from Kootenay, accused the government of needing extra

spending money for Hydro because it made a bad deal on the Columbia

River Treaty. He then introduced a motion but the debate was adjourned.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I must become more serious. Otherwise this speech

might come to be compared with the Blanshard Street extension speech

which I gave last year. (Laughter.) Actually, when I think of it, if my

Hydro speech proved to be as successful as my Blanshard Street

extension speech, maybe I should continue in a flippant manner.

I do think that this is one of those bills which reappears if not

every year then two out of three years. It really does have to rank as

the most unusual bill each session because, on this occasion, we have

two lines of writing which cost about $300 million a line.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General keeps

interjecting. I've got some more of his speeches here if he'd like me

to quote some. I was here but I didn't hear them. If that sounds rather

Irish, I was present in the chamber but I was distracted, which is all

too easy in this place.

But I do have the Finance minister's document entitled "Second

Reading Notes." I suppose it should maybe be the "Second Coming Notes,"

because this kind of speech has been coming again and again from the

government of the day, whether it happened to be the Socred government

in 1972 or the NDP government between 1972 and 1975. Of course, the

former Liberal members used to go into great arithmetical definition

that it was $300 million a line. One of the speeches of the present

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), on February 22,1973, said: "The

interest is $120 million a year, $10 million a month, $333,333 per day,

$13,920 per hour, $232 per minute, and $38.66 per second." I'm sure the

Attorney-General must have sat up late at night working out, in 1973,

what the interest was costing this province for B.C. Hydro debts.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I acknowledge that the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

did give us a document this afternoon which outlined major projects and

estimated costs for 1977-1978. There's no requirement to detail these

costs or the projects, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that this

is the first step in the right direction by the government of the day,

to give this House some kind of — dare I use the phrase? — ballpark

figures for the projected costs which B.C. Hydro is facing and for

which we are being asked to authorize the borrowing of $600 million. I

agree, at least on this occasion, that thedéjà vu phenomenon is being

improved a little bit inasmuch as this Minister of Finance has given us

a document which outlines in some kind of detail the commitments that

B.C. Hydro faces.

I don't wish to be picayune, but I would suggest to the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker, that it would make a little more sense if we did

have even one day in which we could study this kind of document rather

than having it simply presented in the afternoon, then an unexpected

evening sitting of the House is called, and in a very frantic sort of

way the opposition attempts to indulge in intelligent debate on the

matter. As I say, I've tried to make some humourous

[ Page 1245 ]

remarks, but it's far from being a humorous

subject, as I'll point out in my comments. I would hope that this first

step the minister has taken in providing some information such as was

never provided before, by either the NDP or the Socreds of previous

years…perhaps that kind of information could be made available at least

one or two days before debate so that at least the opposition might be

in a better position to indulge in informed and intelligent critical

analysis of these figures.

Now as I see it, Mr. Speaker, this bill is really asking about the

credibility of B.C. Hydro. I use the word "credibility" in a broad

sense. The people of British Columbia and the members of this chamber

know that there has to be a certain growth annually in the capacity of

B.C. Hydro to provide those very essential services of electricity and

gas supplies and transit — nobody disputes that; we know that — with an

ongoing or increasing demand. The people of British Columbia are not

stupid. They know that B.C. Hydro has to try to plan for 5, 10 and 15

years ahead, and that that inevitably involves interest rates, and that

in turn increases the cost. The people of British Columbia are not

dumb. They know all that.

What this kind of bill really is asking for is an opinion as to the

credibility of B.C. Hydro in certain respects: first of all, its

correct or incorrect appraisal of what the requirement really is; the

ways in which B.C. Hydro proposes to meet that requirement; and last,

but by no means least, what that is going to cost the consumer.

Really, in my opinion the people of British Columbia hold the role

and the modus operandi of B.C. Hydro in a somewhat suspect fashion. Why

do I say that? I say that simply because of correspondence, phone

calls, letters to the editor and editorial comment. I have sheaves of

that kind of response in my office. It all adds up to the question: is

B.C. Hydro credible? Is it responsible in the way in which it responds

to the demands being placed upon it?

The general impression that one gains from that kind of public

expression of opinion is that people in British Columbia are very

sceptical about B.C. Hydro. They are far from confident that it's

meeting its responsibilities in the most economical way and they

certainly, above all else, have the impression that there's one law for

the citizen of B.C. and another law for B.C. Hydro.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) winces when I say that. I

just want to quote one or two examples, Mr. Speaker, because I don't

like to make any kind of statement in this House and not back it up

with a reason. One of the basic reasons that the people of British

Columbia have some very real skepticism about B.C. Hydro is that it

seems to have a measure of autonomy which is given to no other

organization, group or individual in British Columbia.

Let me just give you some examples.

There's the sad history of B.C. Hydro in its use of expropriation

powers. The Minister of Labour, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), and anybody who was in this House a few years ago remembers

very well that the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia did an

excellent study of the problem of expropriating the property of private

individuals. It came up with an excellent report which was tabled in

this House and studied by an all-party committee.

1 well recall one of the meetings where even a certain NDP member of

this House at that time expressed the concern to me that the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on expropriation went too

far to protecting the rights of the individual. I won't embarrass

anybody by mentioning the name of that member, who is no longer in this

House, but it struck me as being very unusual that at a time when the

NDP and many other people were expressing this concern about the

apparent very extensive degree of authority which B.C. Hydro had to

expropriate on its own terms, the Law Reform Commission was looked

upon, at least by some people, as going too far in correcting the

imbalance that existed between this enormously powerful Crown

corporation and the little man.

We haven't the time to go back over the many ways in which the

battle of the little man…. I can remember Pat Codyre in Victoria

standing in front of the bulldozers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this bill has to do with the

borrowing power of B.C. Hydro, not with its expropriation powers. Will

you relate to the bill?

MR. WALLACE: That's right, Mr. Speaker. In order to justify

borrowing, I would suggest that B.C. Hydro has to demonstrate its sense

of responsibility in the use of the money it borrows. One of the ways

it uses that borrowing is to expropriate property. But I respect your

guidance, Mr. Speaker.

We had another example last week of Hydro buying land in the Arrow

Lakes district, not using the land for the purpose for which it was

intended and offering to sell a few acres back to the original owner at

a profit of something in the neighbourhood of 2,100 percent. Even in

these days of inflationary figures, that seems to me to be quite an

example to set in an era when the government is preaching restraint. I

would also say that the apparent autonomy of B.C. Hydro, which is the

biggest corporation in British Columbia…. We've got the minister's

speech to confirm that this afternoon. We have every British Columbian

wage-earner being asked to restrain his demands within 8 percent, and I

don't think anybody in this House will ever remember

[ Page 1246 ]

when Hydro rates went up by as little as 8 percent.

It's a matter of credibility, Mr. Speaker. I'm just documenting some of

the reasons why the little man in British Columbia — using that term

colloquially — just cannot have confidence in B.C. Hydro or find that

the policies and statements of B.C. Hydro are credible. I quoted two or

three examples where apparently B.C. Hydro can do as it pleases, while

there are all kinds of legislation and regulation which make life very

difficult, financially in particular, for the individual.

The credibility of the government is also in doubt, simply because

the government has made a strong and continuing commitment to the

necessity for anti-inflation measures in British Columbia. It would

appear that while the government is strongly committed to setting some

kind of ceiling on wage increases for employees, including the

employees of B.C. Hydro, there is no control or even scrutiny of the

financial measures that can be imposed by B.C. Hydro.

As the Minister of Finance well knows, I think another reason why

people in British Columbia would want members of the opposition to

debate this bill in some detail relates to the semantic approach by

this government as to what debt is all about. That is why I chose to

quote from a debate in 1972 when the same issue was raised. I'm sure I

could have located press clippings from five or six other debates to

re-emphasize the same point.

This government boasts that the operating budget of British Columbia

will never show a deficit, and this seems to be becoming almost a

religion. It goes further and states that only borrowing for capital

expenditures will be allowed. On the surface that seems to be not an

unreasonable argument. But what bothers me particularly is that the

argument suggests that all borrowing for operating expenses is bad but,

in the case of B.C. Hydro, any kind of degree of borrowing for capital

expenditures is justified, as though this is some kind of

black-and-white situation. As long as we are not one dollar in the red

on our operating budget for the province, that's just great. On the

other hand, if B.C. Hydro borrows $600 million for capital expenditure,

that's okay — as though the former measure prevents costs being imposed

on the British Columbian taxpayer and as though the capital borrowing

by Hydro somehow or other does not result in costs being imposed on the

taxpayer.

No matter how convoluted the argument or what kind of attempt this

or the former government or any other government tries to indulge in

semantics, the man in the street knows what the borrowing costs. He

knows that you can call it operating or capital or anything else you

like, but all he knows is that he is paying more and more and more for

essential services of the supply of electricity or natural gas or both.

That's why I quoted from that clipping back in 1972. At that time

the then member for Cowichan-Malahat, Robert Strachan, was upset

because for every dollar of revenue going to Hydro there were 34 cents

which represented paying the interest on debt. Today that figure is 41

cents.

This government or members of the cabinet frequently stand in this

House and perhaps, quite rightly, castigate the federal government for

having to pay $5 billion a year to cover the cost of the national debt.

But here we have a government that is asking the opposition to go on

supporting more and more interest on debt for B.C. Hydro. Now I don't

see that there is really very much difference. The federal government

in good faith tries to justify the reason that it is having to spend

more and more money to cover the cost of borrowing. This provincial

government takes the position that it's cleaner than clean as far as

debt on its operating budget's concerned. But as far as B.C. Hydro is

concerned, there seems to be no concern at all as to how much they may

have to borrow.

It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there's an element of flaw in

their argument. In cases such as B.C. Hydro, where we're dealing with

essential services, I just can't see the difference, let us say,

between that and borrowing money to meet some of the hospital needs of

this province and paying the interest to provide a service which keeps

people healthy. How different is that from borrowing money and paying

interest on that money to continue to provide citizens of British

Columbia with equally essential services, namely heat, light and

transit?

Now, I don't want to spend a whole long time debating that

particular aspect, but I'm saying that it is an argument which this

government presents in a black-and-white fashion as though borrowing

for operating expenditures is bad but there's nothing wrong with

borrowing for capital expenditures. I'm just trying to point out that

where the cost is incurred in providing essential services, I really

don't see the validity and the wisdom of this government's argument.

All I would end that part of the discussion with, Mr. Speaker, is

that either way the consumer pays. It is really not accurate to suggest

that because we borrow capital for a Crown corporation to provide an

essential service which does not show up in the operating budget of

this province, somehow or other the consumer is not paying for that

service in the form of increased charges on his hydro bill. Either way,

the consumer is paying.

Again, I would just say that when I try to analyse this bill and

prepare some response to it, the overwhelming element in my argument is

the strong feeling by many, many people in this province that British

Columbia Hydro, while without a doubt it has to be forward-looking and

has to plan the supply of

[ Page 1247 ]

electricity and gas for the future, seems to be out of line with the other kinds of increases that apply in other fields.

Again, if I can draw the analogy with statements that have been

made, particularly by the Premier, you can only provide the kind of

service for which the money exists. The Premier has said that on

several occasions in this House already this session. I would agree

with that general premise. But again I'm saying that the public wonders

why, if there's only X amount of money available for our hospitals, or

our handicapped, or our universities, and the government says, "that's

it, there's only so much money available and that provides a certain

amount of service," there is this rather contradictory and different

attitude to the financing, of B.C. Hydro.

There seems to be the position by B.C. Hydro and its predictions are

somehow completely accurate and reliable. If it is an X percent

increase in service, and that requires another $600 million, so be it.

That's what it's got to be. But I'm sure when the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) goes to Treasury Board and says to the cabinet,

"we really need X increase in dollars to provide an equally essential

service," the response seems to be quite different. The response seems

to be: "Well, we've set a ceiling on the dollars that are available.

You make your services meet these available dollars."

One thing is quite clear, if I could move on from that particular

point. I think it's very important, and not perhaps as philosophical a

point as many people would assert. It's a very practical point. It's

practical to this degree — you can argue semantics of operating

deficits or capital deficits, but you can't argue that in 1972, out of

every revenue dollar for Hydro, 34 cents went to pay interest on debt.

In this year ending March 31, 1977, 41 cents of every dollar will go

for debt.

There was a very excellent analysis, I thought, of this problem by

Patrick Durrant in the February 9, 1977, issue of the Vancouver Province .

He pointed out that in the 14 years between 1963 and 1976, Hydro's

annual gross revenues increased three and a half times. But over the

same period the outstanding long-term debt and annual interest costs

multiplied five times.

He also pointed out that B.C. Hydro will probably have to borrow an

additional $4 billion to $4.5 billion by 1981 to meet anticipated needs.

So it is quite obvious that two particular things are happening year

by year. While I joked about the Hydro borrowing revisited, ordéjà vu,

I really wasn't joking, Mr. Speaker; I was quite serious. We keep

coming back to this issue almost each session of the Legislature to

discuss more and more increased borrowing for Hydro. The figures speak

for themselves: a greater and greater fraction of the Hydro revenue is

being used just to pay off debt. The rate at which revenues have been

increasing is much less than the rate at which long-term debt and the

cost of that debt is increasing.

Now, again, the average citizen of British Columbia asks where does

this end — or does it end? The minister spoke at some length this

afternoon. I think it is one of the more successful and useful speeches

that the minister has made in this House for the simple reason that he

spelled out some straight facts and figures, which at least gave me a

better opportunity to put this whole debate into focus. He confirmed

that there's been rising debt and that revenues have been increasing

less rapidly than costs and the cost of borrowing.

There are one or two comments in his speech, Mr. Speaker, that I

think we should refer to in a moment. But when I keep talking about the

credibility of Hydro in the eyes of the people of British Columbia, I

think it is worthwhile referring to the kind of slogans that were

thrown around this province not too many years ago. Nothing was freer

than free, and since the water was there and the terrain was there to

put the water from one level to another through a turbine, once you

built the dam and put up the transmission lines, the cost of operating

the service was very small, relatively speaking — much more so than

thermal plants where perhaps the cost of construction was less but the

cost of operation was relatively greater than Hydro supplies of

electricity.

So again and again we keep coming back to the point: why is the man

in the street who pays the bills so sceptical about the performance of

B.C. Hydro? Why does each MLA in this House receive such an enormous

amount of mail from individuals wondering why there seems to be no end

to the frequency and the size of increases in their Hydro rates?

We heard someone quote the minister this afternoon as a kind of a

followup to the "nothing is freer than free" idea of some many years

ago. The Columbia River Treaty has cost us $1 billion more than

originally calculated, putting together both the cost of the project

and the sale of downstream benefits.

I'm just trying to emphasize that it isn't just for each MLA to

stand in this House and give ideas as to the validity of this bill or

otherwise, but to respond to the many, many citizens who get after

their MLAs. They ask for an explanation not only of the increase but of

the sudden appearance of a $3 surcharge which, in the eyes of the

consumer, is just another gimmick to try and take more money out of the

taxpayer's pocket to provide for B.C. Hydro costs which they don't

understand and which they think are excessive. Who can blame them?

Again, I have to come back to the point that the individual, whether he

be a wage earner, a salary earner or a pensioner, is told to restrain

his demands or her demands to 8 percent, but apparently there are no

such guidelines or

[ Page 1248 ]

ceilings or ground rules for B.C. Hydro. If there's

anything that can be relied upon to demolish credibility, it's for any

governing body, whether it be a government itself or a Crown

corporation, to spell out its commitment to a fair and equitable

application of restrictions to the citizens and yet apparently not

apply the same kind of general ground rules to its own operations.

There may be answers to that criticism. The Minister of Energy,

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) this afternoon certainly

touched on some of them, such as the past post of inflation and the

cost of money, which is beginning to moderate, apparently, from 10

percent to 8.5 in the last year or 18 months. I don't dispute that at

all, Mr. Speaker, but any reasonably intelligent person in trying to

assess a position presented by this government today does look at the

past to see how the credibility of the past can give the consumer

confidence that today's bill is any more reliable or accurate than some

of the bills we've debated in previous sessions of this Legislature.

The minister detailed them: in 1972 we increased borrowing by $500

million; in 1974, by $500 million; in 1975, by $750 million; and in

1976, by $500 million. Here we are in 1977 asking for another $600

million. I just say, Mr. Speaker, that the ordinary citizen of British

Columbia, who is being told to restrain demands and to exercise

restraint in their financial affairs, is just stunned and bamboozled by

these enormous figures of $500 million, $600 million, $750 million. All

the citizen of British Columbia knows is that he's paying more and

more, year by year — sometimes more than once a year — for an increase

in hydro rates. I would just like to quote accurate statistical figures

to document for the sake of this debate what the increases have been

just in the last two years and relate them to my criticism that they're

way out of line with the kind of inflationary controls that are being

applied to the individual.

In March, 1974, the average residential gas user had an increase of

17 percent. There was no similar increase in electricity rates at that

time. In March, 1975, the average residential rate was increased by 20

percent, and industrial concerns had a raise of an average of 50

percent in two stages in August, 1975, and April, 1976.

In March, 1976, there were further increases in both electricity and

gas, some of it the second part of the two-stage increase that I

mentioned. Previously, in October, 1975, residential customers had had

a 12 percent increase. Then again in February, 1976, the residential

average was increased by 11.9 percent and the commercial average by 12

to 16 percent.

Just ahead of us, starting in March, 1977, the average increase in

household electrical rates will range from 11.9 percent to 14.7

percent. That's for the rest of 1977, Mr. Speaker, when the national

government says there will be an average increase in inflation of 6

percent. Now how can you expect the consumer of British Columbia, year

after year, to be asked to respond to guidelines and ceilings in the 8,

9, and 10 percent increase range, when every Hydro increase that I've

recited since 1974 is away above that. This most recent increase, which

will be applied in about 10 days' time, ranges from 11.9 to 14.7

percent.

As for the natural gas users, the average increase on March 1 this

year for residential natural gas users will range between 17 percent

and 22 percent. This afternoon the minister in his comments said what

we should be doing is trying to discourage increasing electrical use

and giving more emphasis to the use of natural gas. He acknowledged

that our proven reserves are such that it's probably not very wise to

try and encourage people to use more natural gas. But, you know, this

argument works both ways. Even if the proven reserves were there, the

past example of the government is that natural gas users are having

some very substantial increases imposed on them — four in the last two

years. This latest one — in about 10 days' time — will average 17 to 22

percent. I can only say that I'm puzzled, too, to try and understand

why we are trying to relate all of our other costs and increases — the

cost of government, the cost of services — within some kind of 8 to 10

percent range in the last year or two, in regard to inflation, give or

take. At no time in the last two or three years have the hydro rate

increases come close to that co-called, or espoused, national guideline.

I hope that maybe when the minister winds up the debate he will try

to answer some of these questions. These are the questions that I am

sure he's receiving in his mail. I know I am receiving a large number

of letters. I hear in debate this afternoon that members of the

official opposition are having the same experience.

And again, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would refer again to the

Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications' (Hon. Mr. Davis')

comments this afternoon. He said: "The price of electricity has not

been rising as fast as the price of other commodities." I've just

quoted figures that never came below 12 percent in any one of the

increases, and the average rate of national inflation last year was 8.6

percent. Now, how can he tell us that the price of electricity has not

been rising as fast as the prices of other commodities? The figures

just don't bear that statement out at all.

In fact, the Minister of Energy made a statement that really

surprised me. He said, and I am quoting from the Blues: "Energy,

especially clean energy, like natural gas and electricity, is a

fantastic bargain." I can't find too many people in British Columbia

who will look at the rate at which the cost of electricity and natural

gas is increasing and look at some of these other costs and come to the

conclusion that it's a

[ Page 1249 ]

fantastic bargain.

The percentage figures over the last three or four years, which I've

researched with great care, show that the lowest increase of those

imposed in the last three years to the average residential household is

12 percent, and some have been considerably higher. The average rate of

inflation was just announced not too many weeks ago for Canada in 1976

as having been 8.6 percent. I know we're talking averages, but if the

average increase was 8.6 percent and electricity was averaging

somewhere between 12 percent and 15 percent, what were the other

services or products that were increasing way below 8.6 percent? I

don't know what they were; I can't think of anything that has increased

by less than 7 or 8 percent. If we're talking about the consumer price

index in 1976 as an average across Canada, it rose 8.6 percent. The

average increase in the cost of electricity was somewhere around 12, 13

or 14 percent. So there must be other components in the consumer price

index away below an 8 percent increase. I can't think what they were.

Now, I don't want to spend all night arguing figures and percentages

because I do know that you can interpret these in a variety of ways.

But I think it's important for opposition members in this House to

reflect as best they can the input that they get from the public. If

there's one issue right now where time and time again, day after day, I

receive critical comment from the public, it's in relation to B.C.

Hydro — the increases that have occurred in the past, the increases

that are intended for March 1 this year and the fact that these

increases are not in line at all with the kind of percentage increases

that these same individuals, whether they be wage earners or pensioners

or whatever, are being asked to adhere to when they try to obtain some

income increase to deal with the increasing costs of living.

I haven't even mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the increase to the

commercial users of electricity and natural gas. We've heard so many

times in this House, and quite correctly, that one of the problems

facing the economy of British Columbia is for industry to be able to

produce its product at a competitive cost in the export market. When

you'have increase in something as essential to industry as their power

supply, whether it be electricity or natural gas, of 50 percent in one

jump, you don't have to be any kind of economic genius to recognize the

impact that this has on the cost of production.

I think too often — I know the Minister of Labour agrees with me on

this — non-socialist politicians like myself blame the unions for

asking for excessive increases in wages. That is an element in the cost

of production, yes, but the cost of power, the cost of electricity and

natural gas, that makes the machinery turn in our industries has to be

a factor that we must recognize.

You can't really blame our commercial enterprises and our

industries. Not only would I not blame them, but I would agree with

some of the headlines that appeared, in the newspaper over the

increases. The headline said: "Business Fuming Over Hydro Hike." I am

quoting the Colonist of January 8, 1976. That was the increase I referred to earlier, Mr. Speaker, which was to be in two stages.

Another headline just one year later in January, 1977: "Business

Cries Foul Over Hydro Hikes." We have people like Ron Longstaffe of

Canadian Forest Products…. He made the statement: "They are piling

another straw on an already weak camel's back."

"Longstaffe said the rate of boosts for the forest

industry firms will mean another cost burden that will make it more

difficult than ever for the B.C. forest industry to be competitive.

Council of Forest Industries spokesman Joe McKinnon said it will take

some time for the industry firms to work out the economics of these

increases. 'But,' he said, 'It's obvious that such rate increases are

going to make the industry less competitive.'

"A spokesman for CP Air said the Hydro rate boosts are

another example of where government agencies are not practising what

they preach."

I come back to the word "credibility." If the government believes in

the very grave need to practise restraint so that the economy,

particularly in relation to its export industries, can regain its

competitive position, we have to ask whether or not B.C. Hydro is

either aware of the impact of this kind of increase on industry, or is

inefficient and incompetent to bring about the minimal amount of demand

for more borrowing, and provide the consumer with these essential

services at the lowest possible rate.

Obviously that brings me to the next point, which I don't wish to

belabour because it's been covered in the debate already, but that is

the question of scrutiny of B.C. Hydro. I have tried to point out that

its credibility is in doubt, and I have tried to document the reasons

why its credibility is in doubt. If your credibility, Mr. Speaker, or

mine — whether you're an individual businessman or a Crown corporation

— is in doubt, the best way to clear the air is to have the widest

possible review of how that particular Crown corporation is functioning.

We have already touched in debate this afternoon on the credibility

gap. For some time B.C. Hydro said that it calculated an annual

increase in electrical needs of 9 percent,

whereas the B.C. Energy

Commission was talking in terms of 5.8 percent or 6 percent or

thereabouts. There was at least a 50 percent gap between the two

estimates. When you relate that, Mr. Speaker, to the actual cash

dollars to be borrowed if you went by the 6 percent figure or

[ Page 1250 ]

went by the 9 percent figure, I just shudder to

think what the absolute number of dollars would be, but it would be a

tremendous difference between the 6 percent figure and the 9 percent

figure.

I congratulate the minister for bringing together B.C. Hydro and

B.C. Energy Commission. He mentions in his speech, in parentheses

almost…. I don't suppose that politically it was very smart to make the

comment that he did, but I think that I respect this kind of frankness

in politicians. He mentioned in his speech that for the first time B.C.

Hydro and the B.C. Energy Commission got together to find out how come

two branches of so-called experts could be studying the same scene and

coming up with estimates that were apart by as much as 50 percent —

let's say 6 percent and 9 percent.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's the whole question of scrutiny of the B.C. Hydro

corporation, how it's functioning, what are the facts and figures upon

which it has based its demand for more capital and upon which this bill

before us is based. Again, I would refer to the Minister of Energy in

his speech this afternoon where he seems to have done a complete

about-face, Mr. Speaker.

I won't make any accusation without backing it up with facts. The Colonist of January 11, 1977, reads as follows:

"Premier Bennett said Monday that consideration was being

given to establishment of an overseeing body to control such things as B.C.

Hydro rate increases. The old Public Utilities Commission, which provided public

hearings into rate increases, was eliminated by the New Democratic Party early

in its term of office. Premier Bennett, just back from a vacation in Hawaii,

said he had been concerned for some time about the ability of Crown corporations

to make decisions which affected the public, but he wouldn't go beyond saying:

'It is under discussion. We are talking about it.'"

The following day, the Colonist had an

article as follows:

"Jack Davis, Energy, Transport and Communications

minister, said Tuesday the government would not intervene in a recently

announced decision by B.C. Hydro to increase electricity and natural

gas rates. Premier Bennett had said that a public utilities commission

might be set up to oversee rate increases by Crown corporations, but

Davis said that the Hydro increases will go through without government

intervention."

Then I quote the minister as he is quoted in the press, Mr. Speaker.

He says: "There's a tendency towards the ridiculous here. Do we set up

yet another public body to review what a public body is doing?"

Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, if I can just relate to the speech

that the minister made this afternoon. He referred to this prospectus

which B.C. Hydro published in the United States on November 23, 1976.

He quoted the B.C. Hydro prospectus which read as follows:

"The provincial government has announced that it is

contemplating legislation which will create an authority to review all

rate applications made by Crown corporations and agencies, including

this authority."

Now, I know this must be very puzzling to the public, Mr. Speaker,

because it sure is puzzling to me that in a prospectus in November,

1976, B.C. Hydro is telling the Americans that we're going to have

legislation in British Columbia to set up some kind of overseeing body

for B.C. Hydro, and in January, 1977, we have the Minister of Energy

(Hon. Mr. Davis) saying: "There's a tendency towards the ridiculous

here. Do we set up yet another public body to review what a public body

is doing?"

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): You said that, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Now we've got a very interesting interjection

from Mr. Chips, the Minister of Forests. I think that if the Minister

of Energy is being misquoted he can look after himself in this House.

He hasn't said a word yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're going to refer to a minister, refer to him in the proper manner.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister of Forests

interjected that my quotation of the Minister of Energy's remarks was

not correct, that this is not what the minister said. I'm suggesting

that I'm always open to having my mind changed by reasonable facts in

this House, and if the Minister of Energy wants to get up and say that

he didn't say that, or he was misquoted, I'll certainly accept that

correction of what appeared in the Victoria Colonist on January 12, 1977.

Regardless of that particular interjection, Mr. Speaker, I would

refer again to the Minister of Energy this afternoon who did make it

plain that B.C. Hydro, in its prospectus in New York on November 23,

1976, on page 22 of the prospectus, said that the provincial government

would be introducing legislation to set up an authority to review rate

applications proposed by B.C. Hydro. I think it is very interesting,

Mr. Speaker, that apparently the Americans, who I understand don't have

a vote in British Columbia, are given prior knowledge about intended

legislation in British Columbia, which certainly we never get, and when

I stand up in this

[ Page 1251 ]

House and even ask the same minister if he intends

to reintroduce the seatbelt legislation, I get a completely waffling

answer — neither yes nor no nor maybe.

MR. SPEAKER: The seatbelt legislation, hon. member, has nothing to do with the principle of this bill.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes, it does, Mr. Speaker, with respect. I'm

making the point that in relation to B.C. Hydro borrowing it appears to

be all right for B.C. Hydro, through a prospectus, to reveal intended

B.C. government legislation in November, 1976, but they won't tell an

elected member of the opposition in this House about legislation

intended in 1977. I would just say that that's a regrettable double

standard, and I don't think it is fair to the members of the opposition

or to the people of British Columbia.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): That was taken out of the Speech from the Throne in 1976.

MR. WALLACE: B.C. Hydro apparently reconfirmed this in

November of 1976. The minister made a statement completely at odds with

that sentiment. In January, 1977, the minister is saying that he

doesn't believe there should be one public body to review another

public body.

Anyway, I'm personally very pleased that the minister has taken the

position, much on the basis that rates for many other public services

do have to be reviewed before an increase can be imposed. I just don't

see why B.C. Hydro should be any different. I want to say in all

sincerity and I appreciate that the minister now also takes that

position, regardless of these events in 1976 and January, 1977, when he

and the Premier appeared to be holding very different points of view.

Again, to refer to public response, the public of British Columbia

feels that B.C. Hydro just does what it likes, when it likes and how it

likes, whether it has to do with acquiring property, or reselling

property that it doesn't need, or spraying rights-of-way with

pesticides, or raising rates, or whatever. It has created the

impression that it is a law unto itself. I know that's an exaggeration

of the facts — it isn't quite that bad.

I think it's very important that in the debate, Mr. Speaker, all the

members of this House should try to reflect what their voters in their

riding tell them. That's one of the reasons we're in the House: to

express in debate what the people of your riding tell you as the

member. I can say to the House tonight that the residents of the Oak

Bay riding are very vocal and very persistent in telling me that

they're mighty unhappy with B.C. Hydro, if for no other reason than the

fact that these proposed rate increases are excessive, the $3 surcharge

is a gimmick, and, on top of all that, B.C. Hydro does not seem to have

to be responsible to anybody for these kinds of decisions.

The last point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is on the question

of planning which has brought about the demand that B.C. Hydro is

making for this kind of money based on its projections of the needs,

such as the Minister of Finance outlined when he introduced the bill —

the phasing in of these new requirements, what they'll cost and what

the interest rates are likely to be to pay for that borrowing.

I would like to end by saying that it seems unfortunate that there

is so little emphasis placed on the possibility of restraining that

percentage increase projected by B.C. Hydro. When the OPEC countries

first tripled the price of oil and the western nations reacted in

panic, there was tremendous concern — and it appeared justified concern

— not only of the cost of the crude oil itself but of the impact of our

inflationary rate and on the economy in terms of unemployment. For a

year or two, Mr. Speaker, there seemed to be some real attempt to

persuade the citizens of this country and North America that

non-renewable resources were in fact non-renewable, and that we should

show some concern for alternative ways in which we could get access to

energy supplies and preserve or conserve what was available.

Now let me just take a quick, simple example. Because of the OPEC

nations' initiative in increasing the price of oil, Canada, because it

is a confederated country, recognized the very unreasonable hardship on

the Maritime provinces. They depend so much more on oil than we do, and

so we introduced a subsidy to make it a little easier for the people in

Nova Scotia and other Maritime provinces to deal with the increased

costs.

We find now that in provinces like Nova Scotia direct grants are

being made by the government to encourage householders to insulate

their homes, and that makes a whole lot of sense. But in British

Columbia you can have a loan to insulate your home at 12 percent

interest. Now it's a little bit like this ferry subsidy; we pay

equalization payments to the poorer provinces and they get ferry

subsidies as well. But when we want a ferry subsidy — tough luck,

Charlie; you're a "have province." You can't have a subsidy.

There are so many other areas in this whole debate on the

intelligent and judicious use of our resources, Mr. Speaker, whether

these resources are running water or oil in the ground, or coal in the

hills or whatever, that I think it's unfortunate that in this debate we

have only been presented by the government with reasons why B.C. Hydro

should have the authority to borrow another $600 million. We have not

had some kind of wider description of the expectations which this

government and B.C.

[ Page 1252 ]

Hydro might hold as to how we restrain that annual percentage increase.

Whether it's 6, 7, 8 or 9 percent; whether the B.C. Energy

Commission has the right figure or B.C. Hydro has the right figure is

really not the point. The point is that we've not really heard of

initiatives or even research which B.C. Hydro and this government is

stimulating towards finding ways of restraining that increase or

finding more readily accessible and cheaper alternatives. But I agree

with one of the speakers this afternoon: we don't want to go into great

detail on what the alternatives are and argue pro or con, this, that or

the other kind of power — wind power, solar power, and so on. This bill

is just a simple demand for borrowing power of $600 million in two

lines of writing without even minimal description by the government of

its conservation policies or of incentives that it might be bringing

forward to encourage people to use less energy.

The quickest and simplest example I can quote is the insulation of

homes. On that point there does seem to be a different approach on the

east coast than there is on the west, even though the east coast is

already receiving a subsidy on the cost of oil. I don't dispute that;

I'm all in agreement that we should try as far as possible to equalize

costs for oil, for example, across the country. That was the whole

purpose of the federal intervention at the time of the so-called oil

crisis.

I think at the same time this government and B.C. Hydro should be

trying to introduce the same initiatives on the west coast — for

example, regarding the insulation of homes — as are being introduced in

Nova Scotia. It's a matter of consistency and an equitable application

of the rules of Confederation. We have equalization payments based on

the so-called wealth of British Columbia and Ontario and Alberta to

assist the poorer provinces, but in addition to that these other

provinces seem to be receiving financial assistance and subsidy in

various other ways which we don't get in British Columbia. The ferry

subsidy and the insulation of homes are two very valid examples.

The same lack of B.C. initiative at least touched on in this debate

as to such alternatives to power as nuclear power. I've no wish to

precipitate a whole debate on nuclear power, but I think it is one of

the aspects of public concern that B.C. Hydro seems to be a power unto

itself. It seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog — the B.C.

Hydro tail wags the B.C. government dog. It is exemplified in such

situations where the chairman of B.C. Hydro makes predictions about

when nuclear power may or may not be required in British Columbia. Yet

we have very little, if any, enunciation of policy in this House by the

minister responsible as to when the government thinks that nuclear

power would both be desirable or maybe not so much desirable as an

essential option to be followed.

This is a far more important debate, Mr. Speaker, than perhaps

appears on the surface. We're dealing with an essential ingredient to a

thriving industrial economy. We're dealing with factors that very much

affect the financial status of the individual. Whether he pays for it

through borrowing on any deficit in the operating budget or any

interest on borrowed capital for Hydro, it's semantics.

I think the people of British Columbia are well aware of that.

They're letting us all know in no uncertain terms that they are far

from convinced that Hydro is justified in asking for this kind of

borrowing, that it's doing its job efficiently, and that it has any

justification for this attitude of what's good for the citizen in terms

of financial restraint is not necessarily good for B.C. Hydro.

We tend to finish up with the rather motherhood approach: "Well, do

you want brownouts?" That's such a simplistic answer to what is a very

complicated question.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Forests seems to much more

agitated than usual tonight. I don't know whether he had a bit of

indigestion from his supper or what. He seems to be very agitated

tonight.

MS. SANFORD: He was last night too.

MR. WALLACE: He probably didn't hear the speech of the

Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications this afternoon. Maybe

I should quote the part of his speech where he asked if people wanted

brownouts. That was the question: "Do we want brownouts?" I was just

making the point — when I was interrupted — that maybe in our society,

where everybody has endless expectations, the odd brownout might not be

such a bad idea. Maybe that's the only way you get their attention. I

can't tell a joke and remain in order, Mr. Speaker, but I know a very

good joke about first you have to get their attention.

What B.C. Hydro seems to be assuming is that whatever happens — and

this again was touched upon by the Minister of Energy this afternoon —

somehow or other it has to err on the safe side and, no matter what

happens, always have a little bit in reserve. You can always slow down

the rate of construction, but it's very difficult to speed up the rate

of planning, and I buy that. I agree with that entirely, except for the

fact that I think they're starting off on the wrong premise. I'm not

convinced that it's the responsibility of this government — or any

government — to do what it's doing at the cost involved, because if

we're borrowing these enormous sums of money to have a cushion in the

provision of electrical energy, and if that's being done at the cost of

day-to-day services of

[ Page

1253 ]

an equally essential kind, whether they be education, health or social services,

I would say that our sense of balance is out of whack. I'm not as convinced

as many people are that somehow or other there's some national tragedy if

we have a brownout at a peak demand time when 99 percent of the time everybody's

receiving perfectly adequate supplies.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we purposely go out of our way to

restrain production in order to intentionally create brownouts or

blackouts. I'm simply saying the public feel that there's room for a

greater sense of balance in planning the energy production in this

province and, at the moment, all the strength and influence seems to be

solely and entirely in the hands of B.C. Hydro; that there is little,

if any, restraint or scrutiny; and that the word of Hydro seems to be

the word the people have to accept. If that involves X millions of

dollars of borrowing and Y dollars on your bill and mine every two

months, so be it. All I'm saying is that I think that attitude has to

come to an end.

Beyond that, I just repeat my approval and support of the minister's

point of view today that there will have to be some form of public body

with the time, and the skilled personnel, and the expertise, to take a

thorough and objective look at Hydro proposals. I couldn't agree more

that the concept of the public accounts committee providing any kind of

in-depth, or informed, or lengthy enough scrutiny of the actions of

B.C. Hydro is just completely fallacious and unrealistic.

I think that if this government, in the area of energy planning,

does nothing else but set up that kind of highly skilled group of

experienced people to carry out the kind of ongoing scrutiny, you'll

win more votes doing that, if you want my political advice — and I'm

sure you don't — but if you do that, you'll probably win more votes in

the next election on that issue than probably on any other, because I

think we all tend to lose sight of the fact that heating and lighting

your home is just about as important as putting bread on the table.

Since there's obviously been some reasonable success in controlling the

price of food — and that isn't due entirely to this government, but it

plays a role and if, at the same time, restraints are placed on the

rate at which the increase of heating and lighting your home is

concerned, then I just happen to think that's the kind of

responsibility people are looking for at this time of rising costs.

While a government can't control all of the rising costs, at least if

it shows a commitment to trying to control these very essential ones of

food, accommodation, heating, lighting and health costs, to name just

four or five of the basics, that, to me….

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please return to the principle of the bill?

MR. WALLACE: Well, now, the principle of the bill is that if

you spend too much money borrowing, Mr. Speaker, for the unchallenged

demands of B.C. Hydro, you won't have so much money to spend on food,

and accommodation, and health, and education, and hospitals, and many

other very legitimate responsibilities of government. That's how I

relate it to the bill.

MR. LAUK: That's what Allan Williams used to argue.

MR. WALLACE: As the member for Vancouver Centre points out, a

lot of the comments I have made tonight I've previously heard made by

the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), the present

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the present Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when they sat on this side of the House. I

just hope that I learned something from them because I used to have a

great deal of respect for the punch and the strength that they put into

their speeches. Never were they more telling than on the many debates

we've had about B.C. Hydro.

As the Minister of Energy said in his speech this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker, it is the largest corporation in British Columbia. He quoted

some figures which I think were something of the order that borrowing

will be $1 billion a year by 1981, as I recall. I can't remember the

exact year. We have to acknowledge that these are enormous sums of

money. Although the interest rate, as the Minister of Energy pointed

out, is tapering off a little bit, it's still somewhere around 9

percent. If we're borrowing these massive sums of money at 9 percent or

more, then inevitably the consumer has to pay for that in his hydro

bills, and if he's paying for it in his hydro bills he has that much

less of his spending dollars left for equally essential services.

These are some of the thoughts that I have, Mr. Speaker, on this

bill. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would make some attempt

to be specific in answering some of these questions.

I will just end with one final question. I understand…. Oh, there's

the Minister of Forests getting ready to bang on his desk when I sit

down, Mr. Speaker. I just can't understand what I've done to get him so

upset tonight.

I wonder if I could just ask one question of B.C. Hydro planning. I understand

that CP Rail would like very much to electrify their rail lines between the

Alberta border and Vancouver. I gather that this has been an ongoing project

or concept for some considerable time and I don't see it included in

the list of projects which the Minister of Finance included in his statement

with his opening comments.

I wonder if we could, perhaps, know to what degree there are negotiations going on with B.C. Hydro as to

[ Page 1254 ]

the amount of additional power that would be needed by CP Rail and what that would cost.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I wasn't going to

join in this debate. As I listened to the comments earlier this

afternoon I didn't feel there was much to discuss, but I am always

intrigued by the member for Oak Bay. He gives very careful

consideration to the matters that he brings before this House and I

think that he serves to put the debate in the proper perspective. He

raised some very interesting points and some which I think we are all

entitled to think very carefully about.

Yes, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is our largest Crown

corporation and makes the greatest demands upon the people of this

province, both with respect to the financial demands on the treasury

and the ability to borrow and considerable demands upon each and every

citizen with respect to the charges it makes for the services it

provides.

Therefore we as British Columbians have to make some pretty serious

decisions about British Columbia Hydro. I wish to assure the member for

Oak Bay that our government is only too aware of the difficulty of

those decisions and the importance which they will have not only for us

in this House and those citizens of the province who enjoy the benefits

of hydro at this particular time but for the citizens of British

Columbia for many, many years to come. It is in this respect that I

assure you that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications

and his colleagues are directing much of their attention.

You raised the question of conservation and what we should be doing

in this respect. I know that the member for Oak Bay is a very avid

reader of the local press and I am sure that he saw just a few days ago

the announcement that the D.C. Energy Commission has taken this very

specific and important responsibility unto itself and that a very

careful analysis of conservation methods is underway now and will

continue in the months to come. We had the pleasure of speaking with

Mr. Gish, the chairman of the Energy Commission, here in Victoria in

the last week or 10 days.

Based upon preliminary estimates that have been made by the Energy

Commission, if we can reduce the estimated demand for electric energy

production in this province by as little as 1 percent, we can save in

excess of $1 billion in expenditures which are required for capital

programmes such as those which are referred to in the prospectus

documents which you have before you. I think it behooves the members of

this House to look back very carefully at some of the debates which

have taken place in this House over the past number of years and to

recognize the demands that have been placed upon successive governments

by members of this House to get on with the question of conservation

measures, and I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is precisely

what this government proposes to do.

One might also be concerned about some of the management practices

of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. I know they were of

concern to the previous government; I wish they had done more about

them. They are of equal concern to this government. Mr. Speaker, I can

assure you that in line with the remarks addressed to this House this

afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, just

that thing is being done.

I want to assure the member for Oak Bay that this government was not

disclosing to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, as the result

of the prospectus requirements which it faces under the SEC, any

matters which were not privy to members of this House and to the public

of this province. In fact the contemplated legislation was referred to

in the throne speech a year ago. So there are no secrets about this,

Mr. Member.

There are no secrets about the fact that we don't want brownouts in

this province. We can appreciate that your constituents in Oak Bay,

like mine in West Vancouver–Howe Sound and in all other constituencies

in this province, are concerned about the size of the bill they get

every month — or four times a year, as the case may be — for their

energy requirements. But the people of this province have to recognize

that the cost of energy is rising at ever-increasing rates, not only in

the province of British Columbia, but throughout this entire world, and

there are other provinces in Canada which are experiencing far greater

rate increases than are being experienced in British Columbia.

That's no answer, but the fact of the matter is that energy is

something which we have considered to be cheap. I remember the days of

the 4.5 mill power. No one talks about the 4.5 mill power any more.

Energy is now recognized to be something which is not cheap, and in

some respects our energy sources are not recognized to be finite.

While we may be criticized for proceeding with certain

hydro-electric dam projects, and perhaps for overestimating the need

for the electric power which will be generated from those, we recognize

two things, Mr. Speaker. If we happen to err on the side of too much

production, we have a very valuable opportunity to reduce the demands

on natural gas, the most finite of our resources and probably one of

its most valuable. If we can reduce the demand upon that energy source,

then we very easily balance the cost of electric power construction

that we face in this province.

The other fact mentioned by the minister this afternoon is that

today, because of failures on the part of some of our neighbours to

take care of what their energy demands might be and to meet those

demands, we're in the perhaps fortunate position of

[ Page 1255 ]

being able to dispose of any excess electric energy

we have at very attractive compensatory rates, certainly above our

costs. Therefore in the planning that takes place in the British

Columbia Hydro, sure we would like to be as accurate as we can be, but

if we should err, then perhaps we should err on the side where we can

dispose of that which we have which is surplus, or, alternatively,

where we can conserve on that which is becoming increasingly precious.

Now, during the course of the debate this afternoon much was said

about nuclear power and the policy of this government. Was there

anything in this bill, with its additional $600-odd million, for

nuclear power? I wonder what some members of the opposition do with

their time and with the research staff that is made available to them

at great cost to the people of the province when they prepare

themselves for debate on matters as important as this. If you look at

the prospectus that was filed by the government in 1975, by the former

NDP administration, and consider the debates which took place in this

House on that legislation, you would find that the planned generating

facilities disclosed in the prospectus filed by the British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority under the NDP are precisely the same as the

planned generating facilities disclosed in the prospectus today.

Nothing new is being snuck in on the people. There is nothing new

that is being put forward in the $600 million of additional

requirements. Well, there is one thing new, and that is that the

figures we are using in 1977 are much more accurate than were used by

the NDP in 1975. Mr. Speaker, if any of the members don't believe what

I am saying, please refer to page 15 of the prospectus of 1975 and page

20 of the current prospectus. You will find that the generating

facilities which are planned to utilize these funds are precisely the

same, but more accurate in their estimate of the cost, and the dollars

which are being used for this purpose in 1977 are more accurately

estimated now than they were in 1975.

Now, this is not a criticism of what took place in 1975. Additional experience,

additional planning, additional engineering has made this possible. So instead

of having to come to the Legislature and ask for something in excess of $700

million by way of capital borrowing authority in 1977, we're coming with

something just over $600 million. That's precisely where we are: nothing

new planned, no hidden projects, only the simple recognition that plans which

were started many years ago, plans which were in fact started even before the

NDP came to government in 1972, have to be completed. We have to complete them

in order that we can supply our energy requirements of today; we have to complete

them at the ever-increasing costs inflation is bringing to projects such as

this and all the projects that we have. We're not immune from that, as the

member for Oak Bay has so clearly pointed out.

Therefore, while this may only be a two-line bill, how many lines do

you need to say that we are involved in projects that are going to cost

us $600 million? How simply can you say it? If the people of British

Columbia have concern about the fact that they're going to have to pay

the bill, that's precisely what this government said to the people in

1975. Government can only spend the moneys that the people make

available to them, whether it be for any of the operating expenses of

government or the capital projects of B.C. Hydro. We recognize this.

Unfortunately, the NDP did not seem to recognize that.

We say to the people of the province today, as we said to them in

1975: the government will provide for you as much as you are willing to

pay for. I suppose, quite simply, if the people of British Columbia

wished through their elected members to say, "We don't want to pay this

cost," then the government can turn to British Columbia Hydro and say,

"Fine, delay your projects" — if the people of British Columbia are

prepared to accept the consequences of that delay. If it's a brownout,

if it's a reduced opportunity for industrial enterprise — and all the

consequences that that can have for us — then let the people say so.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is charged with

responsibility of generating, transmitting and distributing energy in

this province. If we do not wish them to carry out that responsibility,

then the people of this province, through their elected

representatives, can say so. But, Mr. Speaker, until the members in

this House can convince this government that that's what the people of

British Columbia want, we will be obliged to carry on with the planned

projects which have been in place for many years.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have some very grave

concerns about supporting this bill which will give to B.C. Hydro the

authority to borrow an additional $650 million. One of the main reasons

for those concerns is that I'm not convinced that the sole direction,

the aims and the objectives of B.C. Hydro are necessarily in turn and

in the best interests of the province of British Columbia.

It seems to me that we have had some rather obvious examples during

the past few years, and as recently as a few months ago, where there

are divergent directions within B.C. Hydro and within the interests of

the province of British Columbia.

The chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Bonner, has been very explicit in

the direction in which he wishes to take Hydro. Mr. Bonner is committed

as a first step to hydro power, to a philosophy of damming rivers to

provide power. He is not interested in looking at alternatives, even

thermal power. He has indicated

[ Page 1256 ]

that the prime responsibility of B.C. Hydro is the

provision of energy. It is not to do with conservation or not really

with costs. It's strictly the provision of energy as set out by Hydro's

own projections. The third statement that Mr. Bonner has made is that

as energy demand increases, we will have to sacrifice environmental

concerns.

These three points are very closely linked together. The higher the

demands, the more the rivers that will have to be dammed. The more

rivers that we dam, the more damage we do to the environment.

We know that Hydro has made estimates which are 30 to 50 percent

higher than those made by the B.C. Energy Commission. But that is only

part of the very significant difference between the recommendations of

the B.C. Energy Commission and Hydro. In the report in The Province last

June on the statement of the B.C. Energy Commission, it was headlined:

"Conservation as Important as New Energy." I think that's where the

real divergence begins to occur between the direction in which the B.C.

Energy Commission and, hopefully, the province of British Columbia

should be going.

This

article under the headline "Conservation as Important as New

Energy" reads in part: "The B.C. Energy Commission recommended on

Wednesday that governments give as much priority to energy conservation

as to finding new energy supplies." I certainly think that is something

we have to look at. As costs go up, demands are going to go down.

I don't expect that the members on the cabinet benches are aware

that there are a great many people who today, because of the increases

in their hydro bills, are going out with their power saws and sawing

wood along the beaches or in the woods or wherever they can get that

wood to use in their fireplaces in order to conserve their heat energy,

if they heat with electricity or with gas or whatever means they use.

Not just a few but several, Mr. Speaker, are putting wood cook stoves

in their kitchen alongside their electric range and using those wood

stoves to curtail their electric bill.

Now, they may sound like it's a bit far-fetched in this day and age,

but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is happening in many places

throughout this province. That is one of the reasons why I suggest that

the B.C. Energy Commission is much closer in its forecast of load

growth than is B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is not taking those things into

consideration. Those kinds of things are happening, because as prices

go up demands will go down.

The B.C. Energy Commission, in its report, came up with some very definite

recommendations for conservation. I'm pleased to hear that the minister

has said today that they are now going to look into this. I think they had already

looked into this and had already come up with some pretty firm recommendations.

As they were quoted in The Province , they read:

"Assessment of the federal energy conservation programme

and the implementation of a complementary programme provincially.

"Adoption of a conservation-oriented building code for homes

and commercial buildings.

"Development of a programme of financial assistance to

homeowners wanting to make improvements which would cut energy

consumption.

"Provision of consumer information on energy costs.

"Introduction of conservation into school curriculums.

"Development of in-house conservation measures and extension of these government operations."

There is a fairly extensive list of recommendations, Mr. Speaker,

that would tend to conserve energy. The trend was being set, and now we

are told that they are going to study this, that they're going to come

up with recommendations. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have had the

recommendations; it's time that we had the action. Rather than simply a

borrowing bill for Hydro with no strings attached, as the Minister of

Labour has said, to perpetuate schemes that were started back many,

many years ago — schemes which were started without any real thought of

the environmental hazards or the need to conserve other elements of our

society and of our resource….

When those river projects were brought on line in Hydro in the

initial planning stages, it was 10, 15 and 20 years ago. Mr. Speaker,

at that time there were not the environmental concerns that we have

with us today. We were not as aware of the needs for alternate energy

sources as we are today. It seems to me that we have come to a point in

time where we're going to have to put the brakes on. We're going to

have to say, look, let's come up with different methods; let's come up

with alternative methods instead of just proceeding down the same old

line.

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways in which we can conserve energy,

many of which have been suggested today. But I would suggest that one

of the ways we can best conserve energy is to use the energy that we

waste today. I happen to know of one thermal plant in B.C. Hydro which

burns bunker C — that's akin to the stuff we tar the roads with. It

burns it at a temperature, Mr. Speaker, of 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit,

and the coolant equipment that was installed in that plant to bring the

water and air discharge down to an acceptable temperature is like a

plumber's nightmare, Mr. Speaker, and very, very expensive. I would

suggest that the heat loss in that plant would probably heat the three

surrounding villages with no problems.

[ Page 1257 ]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Name them? Ladysmith, Chemainus and Duncan. The plant I am speaking of is the Bare Point plant in Chemainus.

We waste a terrific amount of heat, and that's just one example of a

heat loss. We waste our energy over and over again. Insulation has been

mentioned and certainly that's one method. It's suggested that we could

insulate and save millions. A recent study by the Science Council of

Canada has suggested that we could come up with a terrific saving in

our overall heat loss and energy loss if we were to insulate our public

buildings and our homes properly. It's been suggested that we probably

waste something like between 30 and 50 percent of our heat consumption

across Canada because of improper and inadequate building standards.

It seems to me that rather than look for new forms of energy perhaps

we should be looking at conservation as a first step, and certainly

utilization of the things that we waste. Here in British Columbia, one

of the greatest waste products, of course, is the waste from our forest

industry. I am sure we have the technique, the skill, and the know how

to have a good long look at finding an adequate way to utilize that

waste from our forest industry to provide an alternate source of energy.

Let's not just turn a blind eye to some of the more exotic, shall I

say, forms of energy. This little clipping deals with what's been

happening in London:

"Hopes of obtaining energy from the earth's hot core

no longer are forlorn. A recent symposium of expert opinion held by the Royal

Society of Arts in London shows that research on this renewable source of energy

is well advanced."

That's another method, and it has been mentioned by other speakers.

But let's not forget that we should be putting some effort into finding

that kind of alternate source. Power from the wind and the sun already

is initiating a new industry in Conservation Tools and Energy Ltd., a

British company making marketable devices for harnessing wind and solar

power. It expects to double its 1976 income of $40,000 a month during

1977 — so they are working. There are other means, and I think we

should be looking at those.

Seattle is about to install a $55-million gasification plant which

will convert Seattle's waste into gaseous feedstock which, in turn, is

converted to marketable industrial ammonia. By the year 2000 disposable

costs are forecast at $1.70 per ton, considerably less than current

landfill costs projected. There is another method of using our wastes

to not necessarily produce energy but to produce other articles.

Solar heat. There will be 2.5 million homes equipped with solar heating in

the United States by 1985 — 2.5 million homes. That represents a tremendous

saving in energy, Mr. Speaker.

These savings do relate to whether or not we should be borrowing

$650 million to build more dams. As the Minister of Labour has pointed

out, that is where that money is going. I am very concerned as to

whether or not that is the best use for the taxpayers' money here in

British Columbia. It will come out of the taxpayers' money, from those

people who pay the power bills. It's coming out of the people of

British Columbia. We must be very cautious not to give to B.C. Hydro

the right to move ahead into a field where perhaps they should not be

moving. It may be fine according to B.C. Hydro's terms of reference. I

am not so sure that it is in the best interests of the people of

British Columbia.

This is a quote from way back in the 1930s. The original Henry Ford

was asked during the Depression what would happen to his automotive

industry once gasoline was no longer available. He was at no loss for

an answer. "We can got fuel from fruit, from sumac by the roadsides,

from apples, weeds, sawdust, almost anything. There is fuel in every

bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented," he said, referring to

the alcohol that can be extracted from such material. He had even

equipped his Model-A Fords to burn that type of fuel, Mr. Speaker. So I

suggest there are lots of other sources.

I would like to talk just a bit about Hydro itself, and its failure

to do the kind of research that I and many people in this province feel

should be undertaken.

In Prince George in January, 17 provincial wildlife and industrial

groups met. They passed motions opposing the Peace and the McGregor

Rivers, and condemned B.C. Hydro for failing to research alternative

forms of energy. It's interesting to note that the motion to oppose the

construction of the McGregor Dam was backed by company officials of

Northwood Pulp and Timber of Prince George, which would lose valuable

timber in the McGregor Valley. So it's not just those groups of

environmentalists; it's industrial groups too that are concerned about

what's going on with Hydro.

Hydro, as has been said before, has built a very undesirable image

in this province. People have a feeling that it is an authority — the

Authority — and that there is no recourse from decisions made by that

Authority. It's been proven so many times by the attitude of Hydro

towards the small person who happened to get in the way of some of

Hydro's projects.

I think one of the most recent ones is the rancher who finally put a

toll gate on his ranch. This is in the East Kootenays. The story is

told by a Mac Grant of Calgary, who was a property consultant for this

man.

"'It's a pathetic story,' said Grant in a telephone interview, 'what Hydro has done to

[ Page 1258 ]

this man.' Robertson's problems began about

18 months ago when Hydro wanted to buy part or all of his 20-acre

ranch, which is four and a half miles from the Seven Mile project, and

13 miles from Trail. 'I have Hydro permission to survey, but they just

kept on going and never stopped,' said the owner. 'When the blasting

started, I guess my springs were diverted and the water system went

haywire.' Robertson says his well no longer supplies enough water for

his ranch and as a result he's provided with a truckload of water which

costs Hydro $75 daily. The water delivery has been going on for more

than six weeks and has already cost Hydro more than $3,000.

"'They started blasting about a year ago, and I've been

at Hydro steady ever since,' said Robertson. 'If I watered the cows

I would have no water at the House. Hydro told me to overhaul my pumps. I did,

but that wasn't the problem. Finally,' he said, 'the intervention

of the Energy minister, Jack Davis, resulted in the daily water delivery paid

for by Hydro.'

"Hydro spokesman said that Davis had nothing to do

with the water delivery. Sexton says it's being provided on a temporary

basis until Hydro supplies Robertson with a pump and pipe system to get

additional water from the river.

"The hay problem resulted from the rancher being

unable to turn his 90 head of cattle out on the open range because of

traffic on the new road built by Hydro. Last year, Robertson had to

keep his cows on his hayfield and so he ended up with no winter feed.

He says Hydro paid him about $3,250 to buy hay, and Mr. Sexton, the

Hydro spokesman, confirmed this payment.

"Then they built a new road across the corner of the

property, so now Mr. Robertson is cut off from the river. 'My cows want

to drink from the river and they will go down there when the snow is

gone and they'll be all over the road. My cows will be long gone and I

will be out of business.'"

Mr. Robertson, in desperation, put up a toll gate and was charging

the Hydro trucks $1 or $2 to go through the toll gate, so what

happened? They expropriated a piece of his farm so they could go

through. That's the kind of thing that happens with Hydro. That's why I

don't feel they're really a very good citizen of this province —

they're very autocratic. You know, we talk about them providing jobs,

and, sure, they provide some jobs, but this is an interesting thing,

Mr. Speaker, This was an advertisement for jobs on the Peace

development — Site 1. It advertises for a contract engineer,

administrator, purchasing co-ordinator, estimating and costing, a

design engineer, office and engineering co-ordinator, assistant

concrete superintendent, survey supervisor, assistant project safety

officer. Those are fairly reasonable jobs. I think we would have a lot

of British Columbians who could fill those jobs, but where was this ad,

Mr. Speaker? In The Montreal Star . That's where they're advertising for their help.

I suggest that Mr. Bonner — and he is the spokesman for B.C. Hydro —

is really not committed solely to the best future interests of British

Columbia. He has much broader commitments. I believe Mr. Bonner is a

continentalist. He is very interested in what goes on south of the

border, and he goes much further than that, as we realize because of

his connections with the Trilateral Commission — I believe he's the

only Canadian to sit on the executive of that body. I suggest that

those interests are, in fact, a conflict of interest as far as Mr.

Bonner's conducting the affairs of B.C. Hydro.

One thing that concerns me very much is what is happening to B.C.'s

very limited land supply here in British Columbia. It's a precious

commodity and it is fast disappearing. The pressures are on it from all

sides. It is very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that losses of land

to Hydro development over the past few years total one million acres.

At Yale, at Mica, Duncan, the Peace, transmission lines, miscellaneous

reservoirs — one million acres of land gone because of Hydro

development. That represents a fair percentage of our land. We must

realize that a lot of that land is flat land, not necessarily all

arable, but very adequate for building houses. There is a terrific

pressure on our land for that very need.

The proposed Site C Peace, McGregor and the High Revelstoke Dam —

the dams that we're talking about, the dams that this bill will

authorize money to build — are going to take up a great deal more of

that land. The Site C Peace will be something like 40,000 acres, the

McGregor about 51,000 acres; and the Revelstoke Dam about 20,000 acres.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that is a very critical consideration.

We need that land for other things than the bottom of reservoirs. We

need that land for housing and for the production of food. I suggest

that if you borrow money to build dams that will destroy the many, many

acres of good flat land, and much of it arable, it is a very foolish

move, Mr. Speaker.

I would move adjournment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1977, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada