1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7711 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Spetifore lands. Mr. Macdonald –– 7711

B.C. Ferries plans for May 24th weekend. Mr. Stupich –– 7712

WCB boards of review vacancies. Ms. Sanford –– 7712

B.C. Hydro rate increases. Mr. D'Arcy –– 7713

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (Bill 8). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Third reading –– 7713

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 5). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Mr. Howard –– 7713

Mr. Skelly –– 7713

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7714

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7714

Division –– 7715

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

section 4 –– 7715

Mr. Barber

section 5 –– 7717

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barber

Mr. Skelly

Third reading –– 7721

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 40). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7721

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7721

Mr. King –– 7722

Mr. Lea –– 7723

Mr. Mussallem –– 7724

Mr. Lauk –– 7724

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7725

Division –– 7727

Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 45). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Hyndman)

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 7727

Mr. Lorimer –– 7728

Mr. Lauk –– 7728

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 7728

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 7729

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

On vote 28: minister's office –– 7730

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. D'Arcy

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today we have a visitor from Sydney, Australia: Mr. John Parkinson,

national promotions manager for the Australian Wine and Brandy

Corporation. Hosting him in British Columbia is Mr. Clare MacSorley,

who is president of MacSorley, Turner and Graham and a good friend and

supporter of mine. I'd ask this House to welcome Mr. Parkinson to

British Columbia, and both of them to this House.

MR. NICOLSON:

Visiting the Legislature today are 17 students from the grade 7 class

of St. Joseph's School in Nelson accompanied by their teacher, Ms.

McLean, and chaperons. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In the gallery with us today are two visitors from England: Mr. Tom

Conaty, who represents the B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. for the British and

European markets, and Mr. Alick Glass, managing director of the Glass

Glover Group in London, England. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Glass has been

successful in marketing B.C. apples in England. From 1979 when the

market for B.C. apples was approximately zero, he has taken that export

up to 600,000 boxes in 1981. Those export sales of Okanagan and Creston

Valley apples have now approximated 50 percent of B.C.'s offshore

sales. I would like the House to express our appreciation to this man

who has done such a great job for us in representing B.C. agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Although the news the minister brings could be considered good, it's rather inappropriate at introduction time.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon around 3 o'clock there will be a class from

Ranchero Elementary School in Salmon Arm visiting in the gallery, along

with their teacher, Mr. Alan Shipmaker. I would ask the House to

welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, would

members join me in welcoming the executive of the Rental Housing

Council of British Columbia: the executive director, Mr. Jack Hayes;

the chairman, Robert Hunter; the vice-chairman, Denis Doll; and past

president Bruce Innes.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, visiting

in the gallery today is my mother-in-law, along with her sister Annie

from New Westminster. Just so that we get full support in this applause

from the other side of the House, they are having dinner tonight with

the Socred side of the family.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, all members of the Legislative Assembly are

of course in debt to the wonderful program started by Speaker Dowding, namely

the legislative intern program. We had the good fortune to take our interns

to lunch this afternoon, and this is the last day that we'll officially

be able to welcome them to the Assembly. I would ask the House to give a nice

warm round of applause and congratulations to the interns from the Socred caucus:

David Burgess, Jane Friesen, Cliff Hewitt, lain MacVay, and Carla Wilson.

Oral Questions

SPETIFORE LANDS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt), Where is he? Then I will ask a question of the Minister of

the Environment, regarding the Spetifore lands and the ELUC meeting on

those lands — preceded by a secret meeting in the Laurel Point Inn on

July 15, 1980 — which took place on July 16. I ask the minister whether

he received any written representation from the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) prior to that ELUC meeting.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I don't remember any secret meeting. Perhaps you went to a secret

meeting. I never went to a meeting at Laurel Point Inn on the subject.

MR. MACDONALD: No, you were not there.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

But, I guess, if it's a secret it's something you had better know

about, not me. I don't recall receiving any letter on the subject from

the member for Delta, but it's some time ago. I may check my files to

see if I did. If it's in the affirmative I'll bring an answer back to

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: In quickly reviewing the

guidelines established by Beauchesne, I notice in

section 148 that

communications between members and ministers ought not to be referred

to in question period.

MR. MACDONALD: My next

question is to the Minister of Agriculture. A couple of days ago

documents filed before the Utilities Commission by Thorne Riddell

showed that the Spetifore lands released in January 1981 are to be sold

for $400 million — they used to be assessed at $800,000 — and that

there will be a profit of $190 million to the promoters. These

projections were very quickly known to the banks, because the mortgage

money was readily available to the promoters. Can the Minister of

Agriculture confirm that the cabinet and he were aware of this

exorbitant profit ripoff to the promoters at the time the decision was

made to release these lands from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The question as to whether or not profits are made on the sale of land

does not fall within the purview of dealing with land and its

capability to produce food or not produce food.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have another question for the minister, who said that he doesn't care

how much the promoters are getting — or says he doesn't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a question?

MR. MACDONALD:

It isn’t a question. It's a complaint on behalf of the people of this

province, who have been shamelessly milked by secret political meetings

giving away vast millions to their political friends, supporters and

fundraisers. That's what we're talking about. It's not a joking

[ Page 7712 ]

matter

whatsoever. I ask the minister now: was he aware when the cabinet

released this land that this property was going to be converted into

2,405 luxury housing lots that were going to sell for $160,000 each, up

to 1990?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Again, the purview of the

committee deals with agricultural land and its capabilities. The

decision to exclude the land was made on the basis of the application

and, if I recall, the information provided to us. The determination as

to whether or not it's for building sites is a local municipal zoning

matter and not a matter for ELUC — and you know that full well.

MR. MACDONALD:

In view of the fact that he now knows the tremendous private wealth

that's been placed, at the expense of the general public of British

Columbia, into the hands of these promoters, Spetifore and Anderson,

has the minister decided to take steps to put that land back into the

agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Speaker, the decision in regard to the land matters was made by the

Environment and Land Use Committee on the basis of the information we

had, not who may or may not profit from it. For the member's

information, the latest information on file that I'm aware of is that

that land is still zoned agricultural by the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. Therefore nobody can build on it until the local zoning is

changed. So why is he talking about massive profits? The profits may or

may not be made if the local zoning is amended.

MR. MACDONALD:

Do you mean to say that the banks of British Columbia, who have

advanced $184 million against that land already, don't know better than

what the minister has just told this House — that it's going to come

out through you or Mr. Vander Zalm under his new bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must hear the question. Was there a question?

B.C. FERRIES PLANS FOR MAY 24TH WEEKEND

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In

view of the fact that we're approaching a long weekend, I wonder what

plans have been made by B.C. Ferry Corporation to accommodate the

expected high volume of traffic. I'm particularly interested in Route 2

between Nanaimo and the mainland, but I would also expect an answer

about Route I between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. What advertising has

there been of these plans?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm happy to report to the member for Nanaimo that

an advertising campaign has started today about greater capacity for the long

weekend, starting tomorrow, and we don't anticipate any problems on any

routes 1, 2 or 3.

MR. STUPICH: How many more sailings?

HON. MR. FRASER: There are 27 sailings a day, I believe, for the long weekend. It's stepped up a lot.

WCB BOARDS OF REVIEW VACANCIES

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Once again

there is a tremendous backlog, nearly 3,000, of Workers Compensation

Board appeals, forcing an injured worker to wait six months and more

before his appeal is heard before a board of review. Why has the

minister not filled the two chairmanship positions, which have been

vacant for several months, to clear up this backlog?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I thank the member for the question. I'm very much aware of the

problem. It's my understanding that there is only one vacancy, not two.

I might further advise that I have been conducting interviews with

respect to filling that particular slot.

I might also add

that the present system, with all due respect, is not really adequate

to meet the backlog. I did add one further panel about 18 months ago in

an attempt to address the backlog of appeals; that, frankly, has not

proved to be satisfactory, and the entire system is subject to some

review.

MS. SANFORD: The positions of one full-time

chairman and one part-time chairman have been vacant for some time. How

many people has the minister interviewed to fill those two positions,

and when?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm really not prepared

to discuss the number of people whom I've interviewed or discussed this

matter with. I also concede that the matter of filling the particular

slot of part-time chairman is also under consideration right now.

MS. SANFORD:

I was not asking for confidential information about the people who were

interviewed for the position; I just wanted to know how many he had

interviewed. I had hoped the minister would be able to answer that

question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have interviewed a number of people, some of whom the people at the boards of review know of, and others whom they do not.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister mentioned that it's now 18 months since he last appointed

an additional board of review. In view of the tremendous backlog, has

he decided to appoint another full board of review in order to handle

the cases?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As I advised a moment

ago, increasing the number of panels at the boards of review has not

satisfied the problem. As a matter of fact....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Perhaps the members would care to listen, Mr. Speaker. There were five

panels, we added a sixth, and even with the addition of the sixth panel

the backlog, in my view, was not adequately handled. As I mentioned to

the member, the entire system of the boards of review is subject to

review right now and I do have some ideas on how that problem could be

handled. You are not going to resolve the problem by doubling the

number of panels.

[ Page

7713 ]

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Labour may find out that all

systems of this government are under review by the electorate at this

time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member is aware that a question would be more in order.

B.C. HYDRO RATE INCREASES

MR. D'ARCY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, who is nearly out of my line of sight behind

the large and jolly Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom). B.C. Hydro has announced that in addition to an almost 20

percent increase in power rates since the first of this year, it is now

seeking a further 25 percent increase. Mr. Sheehan, speaking for the

applicant, has stated that the application is because the corporation

needs the extra $57 million this year and $29 million next year not for

increased costs of operation but to meet increased water tax payments.

In view of the abysmal state of the provincial economy, has the

government decided to reconsider further scheduled increased water tax

payments already covered by an order-in-council issued last December?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The water rentals are not the responsibility of my ministry.

MR. D'ARCY:

We are going now to another question involving the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. If the minister is not aware that

industry in this province is directly affected by the water rate

increase, then he is not aware of a great deal within his ministry.

Well over a month ago the Utilities Commission forwarded a report to

the cabinet and to that particular minister regarding the

recommendations surrounding the Cominco–West Kootenay Power rate

licensing and exemption application. Has the minister decided to

release that report to the general public, and has the minister made a

decision as to whether they will support their own Utilities Commission

on that report?

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

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 8; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

8, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 5.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

(continued)

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I have some brief comments, the first one being that,

yes, there are geothermal resources in British Columbia — untapped,

except for the one attempt by B.C. Hydro at its Meager Creek operation.

There are other potentials that some of us have drawn to the attention

of B.C. Hydro, but they have so far been ignored. The major force in

this particular piece of legislation is to give the cabinet, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the authority to distribute another one

of the natural resources in this province to whatever private

entrepreneurs the cabinet may decide are most friendly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, if those who are moving could do it

quietly, it would be a courtesy to the member who has the floor.

MR. HOWARD:

The major intent of the bill is to give the cabinet and the minister

the authority to further give away, if they so desire, the resources of

this province, just as they did with northeast coal. What will be

visited upon the population of British Columbia in the years ahead — if

what this government has practised in the past is going to be practised

in the future with respect to geothermal resources — will be nothing

but a massive debt load around the necks of people in the province, and

relatively little in terms of return to them from a geothermal

resource. For that reason I don't think the bill is worth supporting.

MR. SKELLY:

Our caucus has decided to oppose the Geothermal Resources Act for this

reason:

an act was passed governing geothermal resources under the NDP

government between 1972 and 1975. Under that legislation the control

and the ownership of those resources was reserved to the people of the

province of British Columbia, under the stewardship of their government.

What

we have seen in terms of energy resources all around the world has been

that major multinational corporations have been buying and taking

control of a wide range of energy resources. For example, Gulf Oil

controls uranium, oil, natural gas, minerals that are important in the

energy industry such as copper, silver and gold, and coal and other

fossil fuels. As a result, there's a huge concentration of ownership of

energy resources in the hands of a very small number of very large

companies that exercise tremendous control over how these resources are

developed and exploited — and in whose interest they're developed and

exploited. Making the geothermal resources of the province of British

Columbia available to the private multinational corporations takes the

control and the development of these resources essentially out of the

hands of the people of British Columbia and places development

priorities in the hands of companies

[ Page 7714 ]

incredibly rich and powerful and beyond the control of this province.

My concern is that should geothermal resources be a worthwhile direction for this province to

invest its energy interests in, it may not be in the interests of Gulf

Oil or some of those other major companies who wish to exploit other

energy resources to their benefit. We would like to see these resources

remain in the hands of the people of British Columbia so that they

control the priorities as to the exploitation of these resources and

can decide the proper timetable for bringing these resources onstream.

Certainly,

we feel that the public corporations should be involved in the

development of these resources, and there are avenues, other than

simply turning the resources over to those corporations, for so

involving them. A number of other countries with geothermal and other

energy resources have embarked on programs of, for example, joint

venturing between government and private corporations, in which case

the priorities of the people who own the resources can be best served.

Also, you can bring in the development expertise of private owners and

corporations. It seems the private corporations are not averse to this

type of involvement with governments in the development of these kinds

of resources.

Our side would prefer to see these resources

remain in the hands of the people of British Columbia and be developed

according to the priorities and timetables of the citizens of British

Columbia, not placed in the hands of the huge multinational

corporations whose intention over the years it has been, and is

demonstrated to have been, to control all the energy resources

available to them, through a whole range of energy resources. This

includes, as I said before, uranium, coal, gas, oil — the whole range,

including solar and metals and minerals that go into the development of

solar energies, such as copper. We would prefer to see those people as

joint venturers rather than as licensees or owners in the resource.

Therefore our caucus would oppose this bill.

MR. D'ARCY:

As we have noted, we do oppose this particular bill. I would like to

ask the minister, when he is closing the debate on this bill, perhaps

to indicate why he feels it is such a tremendous priority, to use his

own words, to open up the geothermal area. He said it was essential

that we do that and that it be opened up to the private sector. Do we

have applications? What geothermal resources is he talking about? To my

knowledge, there has been no expressed interest by the private sector

in geothermal resources. Who's asking for this is, I think, a very

important point. In fact, the one major public corporation that has

shown an interest — it's been a very limited interest — in geothermal

resources is B.C. Hydro, which has done precious little work on either

the Lakelse resource or the Meager Creek resource.

I would

also like the minister to tell us that he is going to amend this bill

when it comes before the House to make sure that the regulatory body of

the province will be in charge of looking after applications in the

hearings. It does not appear to me, in reading the bill, that there is

any provision for open bidding on the matter. It appears that

licensing, if the minister so decides, is entirely at the discretion of

the minister. He is not required to turn applications over to the

Utilities Commission. He's not even required to open anything up for

public scrutiny or public bidding. He can simply decide, in the secrecy

of a cabinet room, who is and who isn't to get the nod, and on what

basis.

There's no provision for level of royalties. It

appears that if there were any royalties at all for the use of this

public resource, it would be entirely discretionary on the part of that

minister or some future minister. I don't believe that's good enough

when we're dealing with a very important energy resource — a renewable

energy resource, I might point out. I would certainly, as a citizen,

let alone as an MLA, much rather cast the future of the resource on the

Utilities Commission than on the discretion on any minister, present or

future.

I would also like some assurance from the minister

that he in his other hat, as a member of the board of B.C. Hydro, is

going to change his attitude of just going through the motions

regarding the development of that energy resource by that corporation.

If we are to attempt to hold down price increases in the energy field

in this province in order to maintain our standard of living and our

ability to compete in world markets for our industry, we will certainly

have to use every means at our disposal to ensure the greatest possible

use of all our energy resources. As has been stated by other speakers

in this brief debate, we have not made the highest possible use of our

other energy resources that we have had developed so far in this

province. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would take all steps in

advance to make sure that we don't abuse this particular resource,

which mankind has fortunately not been able to abuse as yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the member said I was shocked and dismayed. I'm not at

all. I just feel that the members opposite are performing true to form.

I don't have any apologies to make to this House that we are going to

allow the private sector to take the risks — not the taxpayers of

British Columbia, as you would have them do. We're not going to have

taxpayers' money risked on open markets for the development of this

kind of resource, when the private sector will do it not only more

quickly, but better.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite who

have spoken talked about not turning this development over to the

private sector, but rather keeping it for public development. I'm glad

that they did that, because they've now confirmed the statements that

the Leader of the Opposition has made on so many occasions that he is

willing to give the resources of British Columbia away to the federal

government as long as they'll nationalize the entire industry. We've

seen one example in Canada recently of government tampering in an area

in which there is so much danger caused by that tampering. I refer to

the national energy program. We have seen petroleum exploration in this

province destroyed because of the folly of the national energy program.

We have seen, Mr. Speaker, not some giant multinationals destroyed or

hurt, but thousands of small Canadian companies destroyed because of

the interference of a senior government. I was in Fort St. John on the

weekend. Every second store is either having trouble or closed down.

The oil industry is non-existent. Those people aren't giant

multinationals. Those people are good, small, Canadian businessmen,

ruined because of the policies of the federal government.

Mr.

Speaker, do you want the taxpayers to take the risk? Do you know what's

happened because the federal government has decided to have the federal

taxpayer take the risk? Today in British Columbia, every one of you —

and me, and

[ Page

7715 ]

citizens in British Columbia who have to buy natural gas to heat

their homes — pays $1.12 a thousand cubic feet to the federal

government to pay for the nonsense of the national energy program. Over

a third of the total cost of natural gas today in this province goes

toward federal taxes to pay for the purchase by Petro-Canada of that

great multinational oil company, Merit Oil in Vancouver — totally owned

by a Vancouver businessman, bought out by the Canadian taxpayer in the

name of Canadianization. How do you Canadianize a Canadian company? Do

you want taxpayers money to go to that kind of thing? Do you want the

taxpayer to take the risk of spending $2 billion to buy out a Belgian

company and send Canadian money over to Belgium ? We send all our money

over to Belgium. You know what happened, Mr. Speaker? About a week or

ten days after the Petrofina deal.... The Petrofina deal, of

course, is where Canadian taxpayers paid $2 billion for a company in

order to put a string of service stations across eastern Canada. Not

one new barrel of oil, not one cubic foot of new gas was found as a

result of that $2 billion purchase. About ten days later we had in my

office the ambassador from Belgium, who wanted to come in and talk a

bit with us. You know what he wanted to know? He wanted to know where

he could invest $2 billion in Canadian energy projects, because they

had just found this big bundle of money. They found it because the

Canadian taxpayer got ripped off again. The Canadian taxpayer was asked

to take the risk, instead of the private sector, where it belongs.

Mr.

Speaker, I always get a kick out of that member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) when he gets up to talk about energy. First of all, he asked me

where the priority is, and then he told me where it was.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's never been to Meager Creek, I'll tell you that.

says: "Why is there a priority?" And then he says: "Why isn't Hydro

doing more?" What kind of logic is that? Hydro is doing more; Hydro has

spent a lot of time, energy and development in the pursuit of getting

us a new, clean and easy-to-reach source of energy. If the NDP is

against that, Mr. Speaker, then the NDP is — as we thought all along —

against everything.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy that the members

opposite have decided to vote against this bill, because it proves that

they are against progress and against developing new sources of energy.

They are for nationalization of Canada's resources and they are for

giving our resources in British Columbia away to the federal

government, to Mr. Trudeau, and they will prove it unless they come to

their senses and change their minds before the vote on this bill comes

up. I'm happy that they have announced they're going to vote against

this bill, because, I'll tell you, Mr. Barrett has been running around

telling all the mining industry and the little businessmen of B.C.:

"I've changed my stripes. I'm no longer a socialist. I'm just your

average Canadian businessman. Come on with me, fellows!" Well, the

socialists have now come out of the cracks, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Rossland-Trail, the official Energy critic, doesn't know

what he's talking about, nor do the others there. You know, when someone

isn't sure what they're talking about, they say they're a little

green behind the ears. Well, I'd say that those members over there are watermelons,

Mr. Speaker, because they're only green on the outside — they're red

on the inside.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Somebody said: "They're pretty seedy too."

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the House Leader, hon.

members, perhaps it would be timely to remind hon. members about

standing order 17(l), which says: "When Mr. Speaker is putting a

question, no member shall walk out of or cross the House or make any,

noise or disturbance." If hon. members would observe that particular

standing order, it would assist us in making our divisions.

Bill

5, Geothermal Resources Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Davidson in the chair,

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. BARBER: What

section of the Municipal Act is referred to specifically in

section 4 of this bill?

[ Page 7716 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the sections referred to are several:

section 745, which

is the public inquiry section;

section 393, which is the illegal

expenditure section; and

section 392, which is the irregularities of

accounts section. So there are in fact three sections that are affected

by this.

MR. BARBER: Do we understand, then, that

what the minister is advising is that a mayor, officer or person who

commits an offence under

section 4 of this bill is liable to a fine,

upon conviction, of $200 for each offence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, a member of council, certainly, and council itself would

be subject to each and every one of those sections referred to and the

implications thereof.

MR. BARBER:

Section 393 of the

Municipal Act, which is evidently referred to under

section 4 of this

bill, reads as follows: "

(2) A mayor, officer or person, with

knowledge that a proposed expenditure has been pronounced to be lacking

proper authority, who permits or is a party or privy to the expenditure

is liable to a penalty, on conviction, of $200, and is liable to an

action brought by the municipality or the Attorney-General for double

the amount of the unauthorized expenditure." Is it the government's

policy to prosecute a mayor of any municipality in British Columbia

under the provisions of sections 4 and, simultaneously, 393 of the

Municipal Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman,

it's the duty of government to uphold the law. Certainly as the

question of which sections are applicable for non-compliance was asked,

I listed them. They could be individually or severally used to assure

that the law is upheld.

MR. BARBER:

Well, Mr.

Chairman, we have additional proof today of the heavy hand of Social

Credit, the heavy hand of state centralism and the heavy hand of this

minister, who actually proposes now that in order to meet the political

objectives of Social Credit, he is prepared to fine mayors in

municipalities across this province a minimum of $200 or a maximum of

"double the amount of the unauthorized expenditure." So if a mayor who

is doing what he was elected to do goes ahead. and spends $50,000 to

improve police or fire services in a municipality and the tyrannical

Minister of Municipal Affairs decides that's wrong, that mayor may be

liable to a personal fine of $100,000. If a mayor decides that his

municipality requires the improvement of an additional $50,000 for

police or fire services, this authoritative and centralist government

may then turn around and fine that mayor, personally, $100,000 or

double the amount of the so-called "unauthorized expenditure."

When

has any government, no matter how right-wing and reactionary, ever been

that vindictive as to propose

section 4 — non-compliance — be handled

in such a punitive and unreasonable way? No government in this

province has ever taken this attitude toward local government. You're

setting up a program of phony restraint which you yourselves will not

obey. This government is setting up a program of phony restraint which

your own cabinet ministers disobey day after day by luxurious and

wasteful expenditures on matters of personal selfishness and vainglory.

The

government of $37.50 bottles of wine now proposes to create a system

here under

section 4 of this bill which would allow, by way of a

declared non-compliance, a mayor to have to pay out of his own pocket

double the amount of the allegedly unauthorized expenditure. We know

what your political objectives are. We know that the political priority

called restraint is blowing up in your faces, as it should. It is

collapsing in face of the proven hypocrisy of Social Credit. If this

bill were entitled the Provincial Expenditure Restraint Act and you

proposed to fine yourselves twice the amount of the unauthorized

expenditure, we might be a little more interested, but this

section

proposes to fine a mayor twice the amount of the unauthorized

expenditure. This section, requiring compliance, is further evidence of

the blatant and repeated hypocrisy of Social Credit. Do we see a

provision here to fine the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who made an

unauthorized expenditure of $25,000 last year?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. We've gone over this many times. We must be

strictly relevant to the section. We will have ample opportunity for

further discussion later in committee, possibly in estimates.

MR. BARBER: I know. I am looking forward to it but this government doesn't seem to want to call estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We'll get to it.

MR. BARBER: You'll get to it as late as you possibly can. You don't want us to find out about your waste and extravagance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER:

Anyway,

section 4 is the non-compliance

section of this bill. It

requires a standard to be met by mayors which will not be met by

cabinet ministers. It requires a standard to be imposed upon local

government which the provincial government refuses to impose upon

itself. It is thereby a double standard, hypocritical, objectionable

and one of the running jokes called restraint that Social Credit has

been telling around this province since February 18. If this act

applied equally to cabinet ministers....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It doesn't.

MR. BARBER:

I know it doesn't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've said it doesn't, and

I agree. It is the fact that it doesn't that creates the argument and

debate we are leading. If this bill weren't such a double standard and

if this government didn't take such a hypocritical approach to

restraint, we would be a little more easily persuaded that

section 4

should pass.

Have we ever seen a bill — he asked

hypothetically — that saw a cabinet minister fined for unauthorized

expenditures? No, but here you want to fine a mayor. Why do you want to

single out the mayors? What have they done wrong? Why do you want to

exercise this heavy-handed power against a mayor? Are your powers of

persuasion not adequate? Is your earlier argument about voluntary

compliance no longer meant? Did you not mean it when you said, two days

ago, that they were all going along with this in any case,

[ Page

7717 ]

as a matter of totally voluntarily choice, and that you didn't entertain any doubt as to the opposite? Which is it?

is the trademark of this government that they have described the

so-called restraint program as: "Jump safely or be pushed." Here, once

again, we have evidence of what happens when they get pushed. They get

pushed and they get fined, squashed and held personally accountable, as

mayors, for municipalities' expenditures which this minister and his

inspector of municipalities — who will take political direction from

the minister — may decide are unauthorized.

Let's look at

that for a moment. The inspector of municipalities, under

section 2,

already passed, has the power to designate what is or is not an

acceptable operating expenditure.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's already passed.

MR. BARBER: Of course it's passed. I'm not anticipating legislation; I am referring to something you have passed, over our objection.

now has the power, having decided what an unauthorized expenditure is,

to then go on and — regardless of local priority, local choice and what

used to be local freedom — impose his view of an inessential operating

expenditure. Under

section 4 you are giving him the further power to

initiate a prosecution which could lead to the mayor's personally

having to pay twice the amount that was allegedly unauthorized and had

been spent on behalf of the local improvement.

Do you really

need such a sledge-hammer approach to local government? Do you really

have so little faith in their integrity that you have to impose

section

4 on them in the heavy and indisputably tyrannical way you are doing?

Is it really necessary to do that? If you meant it when you said they

were going to go along with this scheme voluntarily, then you don't

need the powers granted under

section 4. If you did not mean it, then

you should have been a little more candid in the first place.

Section

4 is the heavy hand of Social Credit. It will be brought down on the

backs of local government, who may decide that the political

instructions you give the inspector of municipalities are not

acceptable; that the political advice you give the inspector of

municipalities will not be permitted to interfere with the decision in

favour of local improvements at a local level. Sure enough, to back up

these threats you impose

section 4 on them which, as you say, is going

to exercise the powers granted previously under the Municipal Act and

specifically under

section 393.

If you had confidence that

local government wanted to do your bidding, you wouldn't need this

power. If you lack that confidence, you have to admit that your earlier

argument was false. It can only be one or the other situation; both

cannot occur simultaneously. If you do have confidence, there is no

reason why you should threaten local government which might not agree

with the political decision you will make through your employee, the

inspector of municipalities, as to what does or does not constitute an

acceptable local improvement. If they don't accept it they should have

the opportunity to fight it out with the people who have to pay the

shot. That's the local electors, and not you. If they don't accept it,

why on earth are you threatening the mayors with a personal fine of

twice the amount of the politically unacceptable expenditure —

unacceptable, that is, to the Social Credit coalition of the day.

This

is an extraordinarily heavy penalty you propose. It is a totally

unnecessary and absolutely tyrannical step you have taken here. The

provisions for noncompliance in this bill are absolutely overdone,

overstated and unnecessary. You have no business trying to impose, in

such a stupid and heavy-handed way, your view of what is or isn't

politically acceptable. Municipalities know that Mr. Woodward takes

orders politically. Of course he does. He's a public servant. He's

supposed to. He will be taking orders from the Socred Minister of

Municipal Affairs as to what does or does not constitute an allowable

expense. If the Socred Minister of Municipal Affairs gives orders that

some local municipality may not spend extra thousands for police or

fire protection, and they decide to do it anyway in the interests of

the safety of their citizens, then under the provisions of

section 4

the mayor is now liable to a fine in the amount of twice that spent on

better fire and police protection. That is a darned disgrace. You have

no business threatening local government that way. You have no business

asking for those powers.

You say that they wish to enter

your program of so-called restraint voluntarily. Now you have turned

around and admitted that you're either telling a fib or are asking for

powers you should not have under this

section called noncompliance.

This

section is loathsome. The implications of it are completely

unacceptable. When the inspector of municipalities takes political

direction from the minister, as he must, and local government says that

no, that political instruction is not acceptable because they need the

extra fire and police protection or whatever other local improvement

they wish to pay for, the fact is that the mayor can now be personally

threatened with and found liable to pay a fine of twice what the actual

expenditure was.

Again, hypothetically, if a local mayor

decided to spend another $50,000 to hire another police officer or fire

officer, or to obtain more equipment for fire or police protection, and

the political instructions given by the Socred Minister of Municipal

Affairs said, "No, we won't go for that," the mayor is then liable to

an extraordinary fine. That's completely unacceptable. There is no

justification for that. This

section should not pass.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. HOWARD:

I have one brief word on

section 5. Note that it emphasizes the point

that the minister's decisions are directives and are not regulations.

They are not a regulation under the Regulation Act. They do not have to

be published or filed with the registrar of regulations under the

Regulation Act, and are not available to the general public. They can

be indicated to a municipality by a telephone call, sign language or a

letter. This is the type of legislation that I think probably flows

from an earlier association that the minister had in 1968, when he and

Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran an advertisement together. It's typical

Liberal legislation: authoritarian, controlling and dominating. If

there is any indication that Pierre Trudeau has got an influence on

this cabinet, it's here in

section 5.

That's another reason

to oppose the bill. What the minister is doing is exactly the same

thing that Benito Mussolini did in the 1920s and 1930s when Mussolini

said: "Look, you don't have to understand what I'm doing or what I'm

going to do. All I ask you to do is trust me." The minister has not

given

[ Page 7718 ]

any

indication that that trust can be reposited in him or his cabinet,

especially in light of the Surrey Leader ad of June 20, 1968. Mr.

Trudeau would be proud of the minister.

MR. BARBER: I

wonder what excuse the minister could offer for avoiding the

requirements for publication as found under the Regulation Act. The

section we're now debating says that he may issue directives. The

Regulation Act talks about public disclosure, and requires it. This

sneaky provision for issuing directives which need not be published, in

all the ways that my colleague from Skeena just outlined, clearly is an

attempt to evade the full light of public knowledge on all of these

matters.

I ask the minister to explain why he refuses to be held accountable under the provisions of the Regulation Act.

I ask the minister again why he refuses to be held accountable under the provisions of the Regulation Act.

ask the minister a third time: why does he refuse to be held

accountable under the provisions of the Regulation Act of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 5 pass?

MR. BARBER:

Section 5, which we are now debating, reads: "The exercise of a power

under

section 2 or 3 is not a regulation within the meaning of the

Regulation Act." The Regulation Act provides for certain forms of

public disclosure and certain important forms of accountability. The

Regulation Act is the fundamental instrument through which this

government, under the order-in-counciI tradition, makes decisions when

the House does not sit. The order-in-council tradition was reformed and

amended by the first New Democrat government of this province in regard

to better and fuller public disclosure of its contents.

MR. KEMPF: It was the only one that ever existed or ever will.

MR. BARBER: Go back to Moscow.

Mr.

Chairman, the tradition of publishing orders-in-council and the full

disclosure involved was enormously improved by the first New Democrat

administration. One of the advantages of doing so was that ministers

thereafter were not entitled to maintain within the secrecy of their

offices decisions they had made and for which they were otherwise not

accountable. Rather they had to be published, openly and clearly. Mr.

Barrett's administration started that, and that is to his credit.

This

minister wishes to avoid the provisions of the Regulation Act. He

wishes to avoid the requirements for full public disclosure. He wishes

to hide behind the secretive authority that

section 5 will give him. It

says that a directive under this act is not a regulation. Well, it has

all the power of a regulation, but it misses one of the obligations.

That obligation is full disclosure. It is not found within this act.

That obligation is specifically avoided under

section 5.

ask the minister again: what explanation can he offer for his refusal

to be governed by the public-disclosure requirements of the Regulation

Act? Why is he trying to avoid the requirements of the Regulation Act?

It applies to most other ministers, most of the time. Why does he wish

to be exempt from it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, the member obviously is well aware that there is only one

directive, and that is with respect to operating expenditures. Such

directives can only be made after we are able to determine such factors

as the inflation rate, after consultation with municipalities, regional

districts, and particularly with the UBCM. This can best be handled

with directives.

MR. BARBER: The problem with these

directives is that they are not required to be disclosed to the general

public. There is no requirement in this statute that these directives

in whole or in part be disclosed to the general public.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How ridiculous!

MR. BARBER: It is not ridiculous. It is a requirement of disclosure that you are trying to avoid.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How can you direct a limitation and not have the public aware of it?

MR. BARBER:

How can you direct a limitation and not have a public statement of it?

Easy. The way you guys have done before. Let me illustrate. Under this

bill the minister could be permitted to issue a directive, which need

not be made public at any stage, that a municipality would agree to

hold and receive in camera. It may well relate to a particular property

expropriation. It may relate to a particular public works proposal. It

may relate to a settlement with given employees, an arbitrated

settlement that was imposed on them.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

We have no faith in the minister; he's a Socred. And precisely because

of that, the local council, which for all we know may be 100 percent of

the Socred farm team, all Socreds....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm a New Democrat and proud of it. I've never been a Liberal, never been a Tory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On

section 5, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE:

On a point of order, I am just wondering if it is correct to use the

description "guys" when addressing a member of this House. The member

just sitting down frequently uses that description.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not accepted as a parliamentary term, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

What was that, Mr. Chairman? What kind of point of order is that?

That's completely absurd. Is that the best you can offer to this

debate? Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is now the member's responsibility to address himself to the strict relevance of

section 5.

[ Page

7719 ]

MR. BARBER: It's more obvious in some cases than others why

certain members are not in the cabinet, even that cabinet, if that's

the best you can contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am advising you that we are on

section 5.

MR. BARBER:

There may in fact be a circumstance wherein a municipal council may

agree to receive and hold in camera a directive from this minister.

There is ample evidence that, historically, certain councils around

this province have always been controlled by Social Credit. They've

always been Socred farm teams, beginning to end.

MR. KEMPF: That's absolute nonsense and you know it. They're not partisan at all.

MR. BARBER:

Says the former mayor of Houston. Non-partisan? You were a Socred when

you were the mayor of Houston, and you pretend to be non-partisan? What

rubbish!

Local government has, for the last 25 years,

largely been the property of Social Credit and has been used by it as

their farm team. It's not out of the question that a Socred farm team

council could agree to receive and hold in camera a directive issued

under

section 5 of this bill.

Section 5 does not require the

municipality to publish the directive; it does not require the minister

to publish the directive. It could in fact be related, as I said

before, to questions of property acquisition, public improvements,

local works improvements of any order, settlements with employees, with

managerial employees, or arbitrated settlements.

The simple

fact is that this minister, for whatever sneaky purpose, has decided to

avoid the requirements for full public disclosure as otherwise obtained

under the Regulation Act. There is no good reason, no legitimate

reason, why he should do that. If this government had any faith in

local government they wouldn't pass this bill in the first place; but

they had no such faith, so therefore they impose what they call

municipal expenditure restraint. That being the case, this is another

reason why no rational and legitimate organization concerned with local

government could possibly accept this provision.

If you have

nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide. If you have nothing to hide,

you should not be trying to avoid the requirements of the Regulation

Act. If you have nothing to hide, you should announce today that you

will publish all of those directives; that you will in fact be bound by

the Regulation Act and this

section will be withdrawn. What have you

got to hide? What are you trying to hide? Why do you wish the power —

one that only certain other right-wing groups have asked for or seized

from time to time — to issue directives? Directives, as you call them;

directives, as you will issue them, without disclosure, without the

requirement for disclosure at any level and in fact without appeal.

This is an unacceptable commitment you are making to doing things in

secret and without full public disclosure, as would otherwise be

required by the Regulation Act.

The explanations you've offered are no better than excuses; and the excuses

you've offered are completely unacceptable. The Regulation Act should apply

if you wish to exercise these powers. If you propose to exercise these powers,

do it in public and under the provisions of the Regulation Act. Don't try

to sneak around it, as

section 5 will allow you to do.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On behalf of municipal councils, I think I should state that there are

those in the House who take exception to labelling councils

politically, be it Social Credit, NDP or otherwise. I think the

majority of councils are non-political, in the sense of party politics.

I think that's been shown time and time again.

The member

also appeared to indicate that somehow this

section was to accommodate,

as he termed it, Social Credit councils who would hold meetings in

camera and receive this information. Councils are well aware what

matters might or might not be considered in camera. We have very little

problem with respect to that. If you want to be labelling again, the

only time — and the last time — that I can recall a complaint was when

Burnaby had a BCA council that was considered by some to be NDP. There

was a complaint about their dealing in camera with matters that they

shouldn't have dealt with. I didn't label that action by that council

on account of its being so-called NDP, because I didn't see it that

way, Mr. Member. I would hope you would be a little more broad-minded

in your views of municipal councils across this province and treat them

with some respect.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this is

the

section of this legislation that disturbs me. It seems, as years go

by, this government has more and more been eliminating and eroding the

rule of law, such as it was, that prevailed in this province for many

years.

When we came to office we did change the Regulation

Act, because at that time it was possible for a regulation to come

down, never to be published, or never to be available to the public.

Yet people could be charged and fined and sent to jail under a

regulation that they had no access to. There was no way to be aware of

it, because there was no requirement that a regulation be published. We

felt that in fairness, and to improve the freedom and the rule of law

in this province, at least somebody who is going to face conviction,

fine and imprisonment would have the right to know that the law was

written down somewhere and he could have access to it before

proceedings could be taken against him. It is simple fairness. We have

a

section in this legislation which is totally unfair in the way it has

been administered. We have a

section in this legislation that says: "In

exercising the powers under

section 2 and 3 of this legislation, an

exercise of power is not a regulation within the meaning of the

Regulation Act." So how does the minister communicate an order to the

municipalities around the province? This is the danger. Does he go on a

free-time broadcast on television, a TV extravaganza? Is that to be

considered an order? Is an exercise of the powers of the minister under

this act to be considered an order to a municipality? How are the

municipalities to understand or receive that order? Is he going to go

on radio and make an announcement to the municipalities that they must

cut back on operating expenses by a certain amount? Is he going to

publish it in the National Enquirer or the B.C. equivalent, the B.C.

Government News ? Just how is he going to convey this order and the

exercise of these powers to the municipalities?

This is

totally totalitarian legislation in the extreme. As this government is

progressing more and more towards a totalitarian form of legislation in

this province we are becoming more and more concerned. People can be

fined and sent to jail on the exercise of power under this legislation

by the minister, and yet there is no prescription in this legislation

of how that power is to be exercised, how orders are to be made

[ Page 7720 ]

public

or how those orders are to be conveyed and communicated to

municipalities. We could have civic officials going to jail for orders

that they haven't received, weren't aware applied to them or weren't

aware applied to their municipality. This is dangerous, totalitarian

legislation in the extreme. For this

section alone, Social Credit

members as well as people on this side of the House should be voting

against this legislation and asking the minister to withdraw it in

total and bring something into this House that is more in line with the

free parliamentary traditions that we in this Legislature are used to

and that we were elected by our constituents to defend.

I am

absolutely opposed to this type of legislation. It is the worst

legislation I've seen brought into this House in many a year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must ask, if members are going to stand, that they do so earlier. Granted it was somewhat close.

MR. BARBER:

The minister has yet to answer the question as to why he proposes to

avoid the requirements of the Regulation Act. I put that question again

now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 5 pass?

MR. BARBER:

This is the fifth or sixth time I've asked. I'll do it again until we

get an answer. Why does the minister propose to avoid the requirements

of the Regulation Act? Those are requirements for the formal issuing of

orders, the full publication of those orders and the full public

knowledge of their content. Why does the minister wish to avoid the

requirements of the Regulation Act?

Mr. Chairman, let me ask

you a question. Why do you think the minister wishes to avoid the

requirements of the Regulation Act? Could it be that he has something

to hide? If he has nothing to hide, why should he bother to build

himself a mechanism that would allow him to hide? The minister, chewing

gum in his usual arrogant way...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: ...appears to think he is entitled to make decisions in private without

the requirement of disclosure. As my colleague for Alberni has so

eloquently said, it was one of the important reforms of our

administration that the Regulation Act was changed to require the full

public disclosure of all orders-in-council. This was a very important

step forward for democracy in British Columbia. It was a step that had

been denied by the previous Social Credit government. It is a step that

is being avoided by the current Social Credit coalition. It is a step

that should not be avoided under the provisions of this or any other

act, so I ask the minister again to explain to us and explain to local

government why he refuses to be held accountable in the provisions for

public disclosure, as found in the Regulation Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, certainly I don't need to defend

this government's accountable approach with respect to our dealings with

municipalities. As has been pointed out during this debate again and again,

and as I point out once more, the only time that we had a particular example

of ignoring municipal wishes was when a government — I won't say which one,

but it was about '73 or '74, so perhaps from that you might determine

what its stripe was — determined that they could somehow move in on people in

Kamloops, Nanaimo and Kelowna and force them to amalgamate against their wishes

or without them having any say about the way in which this might be brought

about. So we certainly have no apologies to make for our ways and our efforts

in dealing with municipalities. We've had a good rapport, and they know

well that whenever we advise them on a particular issue, be it a policy question,

a change of bylaw or change of law, they're well advised in plenty in advance

and there's no complaint.

Again,

in this particular instance we're looking at one directive only, and

that is with respect to the operating expenditure for the year 1983-84

— '83 in particular. This can be well handled, as it was this year,

without any complaints from the municipalities affected. So it's not a

matter of avoiding something; it's a matter of dealing with it as we

did in '82, when the percentage was established and they were so

advised.

MR. BARBER: The information provided by the minister is false and misleading and misses the point altogether.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the member to withdraw that specific statement.

MR. BARBER:

I didn't say that the minister had misled the House, I said the

information he provided was false and misleading. I'm not commenting on

his motives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must

instruct the member to withdraw the statement in the interests of

parliamentary procedure and dictates. Hon. member, please....

MR. BARBER:

In the interest of getting along with what you wish, Mr. Chairman, I

withdraw that and simply say that the information provided by the

minister is totally inaccurate on every count — totally, completely and

predictably inaccurate. However, what the minister has also done is

avoid and evade the answer to the simple question about the basically

totalitarian impulses of the coalition of right-wingers, millionaires

and car dealers opposite that was made most eloquently by my colleague

from Alberni.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon.

member. Again I must inform the member that we are dealing with

section

5. I don't know how many times I have brought to the members' attention

that we must deal strictly with the section. Personal allusions are

totally out of order at any time. Again, the member must remember that

he must make his debate strictly relevant to

section 5.

MR. BARBER:

Which allows the minister to avoid the requirements of the Regulation

Act, the motivation for which, in our judgment, is political, suspect

and wrong.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page

7721 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading, I would just like to say that

the major thrust of this bill is that B.C. Hydro be given some

increased borrowing power, as Hydro continues to develop new power

sources in response to increased consumer demand and continues

expansion in hydroelectric generation. More importantly perhaps, gas

services require significant capital to ensure their success. Projects

and operations requiring funding during the fiscal year will require

approximately $1.18 billion; that would be met by the $1.1 billion

which is being approved here today. Also, the bill would pick up the

shortfall of $200 million which was recently borrowed on the European

market and $533 million worth of borrowing limits still remaining to

Hydro under the existing statutory borrowing limit. The proposed

increase in the borrowing limit would also allow approximately $333

million as a cushion to help guarantee the continued orderly operation

of Hydro's affairs in the development of their energy projects.

I'd

like to remind the members of the House, when considering this

increase, of some significant things. B.C. Hydro's borrowings are done

in conjunction with the government of the province. They must be

authorized by cabinet. If approved, they carry the provincial

guarantee. In addition, because of the province's triple A credit

rating, Hydro is able to negotiate more favourable borrowing terms when

it goes to the capital markets. The debt of B.C. Hydro is also backed

by revenue-producing assets. In total, this debt represents

approximately 5 percent of gross provincial product, which as a ratio

is lower today than it was 20 years ago. Furthermore, approximately 2

percent of the principal amount of the debt is deposited annually to

the sinking funds from Hydro's general revenue to ensure the orderly

retirement of these debts. By subscribing to this financial principle,

future generations of British Columbians are assured fully paid power

sources.

In the news the last day or so there has been

information about a renewed forecast put forward by B.C. Hydro. I know

the members will ask the question anyway. It will be reflected in the

borrowing needs of Hydro, down from about S1.8 billion to $1.4 billion.

Of course, should Hydro either not need that total amount or for some

reason not consider the market to be fully favourable at that time,

they will not borrow the full amount. With those few words, I move

second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the opposition will be opposing this increased

debt burden on the province of British Columbia. It won't be the first time

this has been said, but we'll say it again. Crown corporations are a way

that governments use to hide deficit spending. The fact that the minister knows

that is obvious from the fact that he just now in his remarks misrepresented

to the House, Mr. Speaker — if those words are in order — the contributions

that Hydro makes to its own sinking fund. He said: ...approximately 2

percent of its debt increase." I note that, according to Hydro's own

financial statement which he tabled just the other day, last year Hydro borrowed

$1.1 billion more than in the previous year. but they contributed only $75

million to a sinking fund. That does not amount to anything like 2 percent.

In fact, Hydro's sinking-fund contributions last year accounted for something

like .6 percent of its total indebtedness, or roughly a third or less of what

the minister maintained it was.

B.C.

Hydro rates in this province have increased, just since 1970, more than

300 percent — rates to individuals, businesses and industry. B.C.

Hydro's cost of operation in terms of wages, salaries, maintenance and

replacements of plant facilities has not increased 300 percent. What

has caused that increase has been the debt-interest load. B.C. Hydro —

in spite of what the minister said and what previous ministers have

said — does not borrow today to provide facilities to be paid off

tomorrow. B.C. Hydro does not retire its debt. What happens when a bond

issue matures with one financial agency? B.C. Hydro then goes and

refinances it with another financial agency. They don't pay off their

debt. What has happened in the past year or so has been that we've all

been affected by higher interest rates, but bond issues which were

originally taken out by the predecessors of B.C. Hydro — the B.C. Power

Commission or B.C. Electric Co. — have been maturing. They have had to

be paid off, and bonds that were previously carrying rates of 5, 6 or 7

percent have been replaced by bonds carrying interest rates of 15 or 16

percent. This has impacted directly on the people of B.C. and on the

private sector of industry in B.C., whose interest, the government

says, they have at heart. Maybe they used to have it at heart, but they

haven't in recent years, certainly not under this administration. Many

people in industry in this province have said to me that they don't

believe in the privatization of public debt. That is what we have been

getting from this minister and this government in B.C. Hydro borrowing.

Spokesmen

for the government, I am sure, are going to say that we need the jobs,

we need the construction. It has been demonstrated by numerous

financial experts and economists — whether they have a right-wing or

left-wing political persuasion or no political persuasion at all — that

the capital that has been going into B.C. Hydro projects could be

spent in far more job-intensive ways on almost any expenditure the

government should desire. We could be protecting our energy resources

and energy availability at the same time.

The Hydro people

themselves have pointed out — as has been discussed earlier today —

that they are going to be putting their rates up by as much as 50

percent over the next year, largely because of government action. That

means that there is going to be a further depression of demand for

hydroelectric power. It is not only going to have an effect on the

economy of B.C., already hard hit, but it is also going to have an

effect on how much electrical energy industry, businesses and private

individuals are going to buy. We are all resistant, at some point, to

price increases. I think the economists have a nice phrase for it. They

call it elasticity of demand. The elasticity of electrical-power

demand in British Columbia has been stretched very thin.

don't believe that the province of B.C. and the individuals of B.C.

should carry this increasing debt burden for electrical-energy

transmission and generation. I would point

[ Page 7722 ]

out

that if we look at the revenue B.C. Hydro gets from B.C. sales of

electrical energy alone, we find that considerably more than 50 cents

on every dollar collected is simply going for interest. The fact

remains that the debt of B.C. Hydro is almost entirely made up of

facilities for electrical generation and transmission. It does not come

from the gas division or the rail division, and it did not come from

the transit division when B.C. Hydro had responsibility for that. B.C.

Hydro debt is almost entirely made up of electrical-transmission and

-generation facilities debt, started initially by the terrible error

that the Social Credit government made on the Columbia River Treaty.

has been pointed out, by economic experts outside this House and

outside the New Democratic Party, that if we simply began today to

negotiate with Bonneville Power for the recapture of even half of the

downstream electrical benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, when the

initial 30 years of each increment expire, we could provide ourselves

with substantially more power in B.C. than we would obtain from both

Hat Creek and the Site C proposals. We would do so at a considerable

saving to ourselves, resulting in much lower costs of electricity to

the economy of British Columbia, and without the environmental problems

associated with those two megaprojects. It is simply not good business

for the government of B.C. at this time to put the public of B.C. into

the incredibly straightjacketed debt position which they wish to do

with this borrowing. The public of B.C. is never happy with government

borrowing for any purpose — and they are correct, Mr. Speaker.

the state of an economy such as we have today, borrowing, when there is

no demonstrated need for it, is straight economic insanity, straight

political irresponsibility. When we have that electrical energy

available to us simply by starting on negotiations which are already

guaranteed to us under the Columbia River Treaty, it makes no sense

whatsoever. We in the opposition have opposed increases in Hydro

borrowing in the past. We will oppose this increase of $1.1 billion in

Hydro borrowing even more emphatically than we have opposed the

increases in the past.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I can't

let the opportunity go by without commenting very briefly on my

opposition to increased borrowing power for B.C. Hydro as well. The

public is not persuaded that B.C. Hydro is accountable to an extent

merely adequate to public priorities. On the contrary, they are

convinced that B.C. Hydro is an entity out of control, a bureaucratic

nightmare with unacceptable powers — powers to deprive people of their

private property by expropriation, powers to set the objectives for

power developments and to override any and all private individual

rights of ownership, and other rights in the process. While most people

in the Legislature would, I think, agree that there is a need for

powers of expropriation where the overriding public good is involved,

we are certainly not persuaded that Hydro has exerted their powers of

expropriation in a sensitive fashion or with a demonstrable display of

overriding public interest. Rather, in my view, they have flaunted the

arbitrary power of expropriation they have to the detriment of the

rights of ownership that every citizen of the province of British

Columbia should be able to enjoy.

To simply keep on doling

out additional moneys to this Crown corporation which the taxpayers of

the province of British Columbia guarantee, without any indication from

the government that this agency is being brought under some kind of

control and some kind of accountability to the public, is unacceptable.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers of British Columbia do

not support this kind of debt load for that public Crown corporation. I

think many of us have come to observe over the years that corporations,

whether they be public or private — it makes little difference if they

are arbitrary and inefficient; if they are insensitive to the public

interest and more concerned with perpetuating their own positions and

their own objectives, despite what the best public policy may be....

This

is a fantastic increase in borrowing power, an increase from $7.2

billion up to $8.3 billion — a $1.1 billion increase in authorized

borrowing power this year. And this is a government that trades on the

principle that they believe in wise financial management, that they

believe the budget should be balanced and the province debt-free. Well,

Mr. Speaker, whom are they trying to kid? The taxpayers of the province

of British Columbia are accountable and responsible for every dollar of

this $8.3 billion; it's guaranteed by the government of the province of

British Columbia through the taxpayers. The government is simply

transferring the responsibility to a convenient Crown corporation.

I've

been highly critical of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, because my particular

area of the province has experienced tremendous disruption as a result

of that agency. Again, I recognize that there have to be power

developments, and so does the public, but the public wants some

opportunity to have a voice in what the priorities and the directions

shall be. They receive none through B.C. Hydro. The hearings in the

past have been a charade. It's been a fait accompli once Hydro has

embarked upon a certain direction and the public had little or no

opportunity to affect the policies. Rather, as a result my area and the

area of my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) have undergone

major changes in the environment and the lifestyle and a whole variety

of matters that affected the citizens of that area.

Perhaps

these things, like some of the Columbia developments, were necessary.

We wouldn't have agreed to approach it the way this government and

their Crown agency did. The main problem is that the almost unlimited

financial borrowing power of the government extends to Hydro. The

almost unlimited autocratic power to override the rights of individual

citizens is the thing that people object to so strenuously. Certainly I

have had my share of frustration, Mr. Speaker, in trying to deal with

B.C. Hydro to find redress for citizens who have been adversely

affected by their developments. In general I have a pretty arbitrary,

authoritarian reaction from that Crown agency. All they do is ask the

government for approval of their borrowing power and they go blithely

ahead with whatever program — with government support, of course.

They're not accountable to anyone.

Personally, I resent

being asked to vote ever-increasing and enormous borrowing authority to

that agency until I see some legislation, some action which is going to

cut B.C. Hydro as a Crown corporation down to size and make it

accountable in a real way to the people of British Columbia. We know we

need power development in this province, but is this the most

appropriate way to go? There should be an avenue, a mechanism for the

citizens of British Columbia to have access to all kinds of information

and to have a shared role in determining the directions that we wish to

take. Power development has a major impact on the quality of life, on

the environment and certainly on the lifestyles of people in many of

the rural parts of British Columbia. Until I see some

[ Page

7723 ]

indication that the government is prepared to start making this agency accountable

and sensitive to public preferences, there is certainly no way that I am in

favour of voting this kind of enormous borrowing power to that Crown agency.

MR. LEA:

I think energy — energy projections, energy needs into the future — is

something that we all feel a little uncomfortable with in that we know

we're in trouble and we're all searching for a direction to try to

achieve some self-sufficiency in the province. But I think it's worth

looking at B.C. Hydro in light of how it fits into the rest of our

economy and where it fits into the scale of borrowing.

There

are only three other agencies that borrow more than B.C. Hydro. They

are Hydro-Quebec, who have an export policy for energy, the World Bank

and the International Monetary Fund. They're the only three that borrow

more money than our energy agency. I think that would stagger the mind

unless you listen to the rationale from Mr. Bonner, who met with our

caucus.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about Ontario Hydro?

MR. LEA: Ontario is behind us — big, but behind us.

When

we met with Mr. Bonner, he told us — it appeared to be proudly — how

much capital expenditure Hydro had been making. I think at that time he

classified it at number five. Just from his manner he indicated that

they'd like to be higher; they'd like to be number one. It's the

corporate thinking that has no place in a Crown agency, or we see the

kind of debt load that we're carrying for B.C. Hydro.

We're

all searching for the answer, and I don't think there's one side of the

House that has a monopoly on the answer to our energy needs and how

we're going to supply them. When we met with Mr. Bonner — and I would

assume that he's also putting forward the government's policy — he

said: "Here are the projections of our own energy needs to the year

2000 as we see it through B.C. Hydro." There's some question as to

those projections, but let's take it on face value and say they're as

close as anybody else.

He said: "Here are the energy needs

that we have. Instead of waiting until these needs come on, why don't

we build them now and export the energy to the United States." His

words were: "It's like a licence to print money." I am really afraid of

that policy. I think when the minister is closing this debate I, for

one, would be interested in hearing if that is also the government's

policy, that we build these energy producers now. Until we have the

need for the energy we will export it on what he called "an

interruptible basis" to the United States — as our needs come on we

pull it back. It sounds good, but I don't think it's dealing with

political reality. Once you start supplying energy to another

geographic jurisdiction, industry grows up around that energy, commerce

grows up around the industry, and of course the residential uses of the

communities that supply both of those two segments of the economy grow,

and it becomes politically impossible to withdraw that energy when it

comes time. We are seeing that with some of the pacts we have signed in

the past — for example, the Columbia River Treaty. I don't think it is

politically feasible to go down that route. I would very much like to

hear the minister's view on the scenario that Mr. Bonner put forward to

us.

The other thing that I've been told by people in whom I

have some trust is that we waste approximately 50 percent of the energy

we produce now, although not purposely. Our biggest user of energy is

our industrial plant, and because of outdated equipment, we have a kind

of wastage going on that could be stopped by replacing that equipment

with more conserver-oriented equipment. Maybe we would be better off

putting our dollars into that kind of program and recapturing some of

that energy we waste, as opposed to ruining valleys through

hydroelectric projects or causing acid rain through coal energy

production.

I am told that it is more job-producing to do it

that way. You can produce more jobs by going for a recapture program, I

am told that it takes those jobs and distributes them more evenly

through our economy. In other words, if you go for that kind of a

program there are going to be people working in the Peace River; the

lower mainland and the Okanagan. It produces more jobs and distributes

them more evenly throughout our jurisdiction. You get a quicker and

better return on your dollar. Down the road it makes a heck of a lot

more economic sense to go for a recapture program in the foreseeable

future than it does to bring new energy resources onstream. I would

like the minister to comment on that. I think those are items we can

all think of, as legislators; we can work together on trying to solve

some of those problems. They affect us all the same.

The

other thing, as a lay person, that I look at that leaves me in a little

bit of a quandary, is that we are talking about taking natural gas by

pipeline to the coast — to tidewater — liquefying it, putting it on

vessels and shipping it to Japan. They, in turn, are going use a great

deal of that gas to create energy in Japan. When you look at that, you

say: "For Japan's energy needs we're going to take natural gas and ship

it to Japan. For our own needs we're going to dam the Stikine and the

Liard." Isn't something wrong? There may be some academic answer for

that, but it sort of evades me. I don't see why, for our own needs, we

dam our salmon-producing rivers, causing problems from climate to lost

forest land and lost agricultural land.

Maybe we're just

going down the wrong road. As a Legislature — not as a government and

an opposition — we'd better start addressing some of these plans that

are underway. It just seems to me that we have a tendency — especially

governments, regardless of stripe — to get sucked in by the

bureaucrats. They come to you with all their academic planning, and

we're afraid to challenge it sometimes and say: "Go back to the drawing

board. In principle we don't agree with you. Here is the principle we

agree with. Go back and bring us some technical information to see if

our idea has any merit." I think that only too often the bureaucracy

and the civil servants of Crown agencies and the government suck the

government and legislators in.

Rather than having a strictly

partisan debate on this, I think we would be better served if we

actually talked about energy and the way we are going. I have some real

doubts as to whether we are going the right way. With those doubts I

would find it very difficult to vote for more money for a direction

that I am not exactly sure we should be going in. I don't think there's

anybody here, as a legislator, who has any better ideas than I do. It

just seems that we'd be stupid to go in that direction and keep pouring

more money into B.C. Hydro — more and more debt — when it may not be

the way to go.

To sum up, I'd like to know why we're going

to ship natural gas to Japan for their energy needs and dam our rivers

for ours. and why we're going to export energy to the United States on

an interruptible basis when, in fact, politically I

[ Page 7724 ]

don't

think we can do it. What are the government's views on — instead of

bringing on a new energy supply — going on a recapture program of the

energy we produce now and waste? I think those are three questions we

should all apply ourselves to.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can

hardly avoid debate on a subject that has come up almost every year

since I've been in this Legislature. That's been a considerable number

of years now. I well remember — and the principle of the bill includes

— the policy of generation of electricity by B.C. Hydro, especially by

damming rivers for hydroelectric power. It comes to my mind that the

policy must be maintained. Energy is a vital need of mankind. It's a

vital need of British Columbia. When energy is available from a natural

or renewable source, it must be utilized to the full.

The

hon. members object to the additional borrowing of B.C. Hydro. I'm the

one who would object to borrowing from anybody for anything, but Hydro

borrows for capital investment. Capital investment is required to

develop the tremendous power resources of British Columbia. The

resources are there. They are available and are needed for an expanding

province. I well remember the years 1972-75, when the hon. members who

have just spoken were government. The borrowing went on just the same,

although not as great — the size of dollars was smaller then. But for

those days in 1972-75, they were large dollars indeed. Unless British

Columbia stops expanding and fails to meet the demands of its people,

Hydro will have to borrow money for capital investments, not for

operating expenditures.

The debate that went on in the

sixties regarding the Peace and Columbia Rivers — the two-river policy

— was emblematic of what we're doing today. It was said then, by the

same party, that it was a totally unnecessary thing, and that British

Columbia did not need the power. They certainly did not need the power

for that day, but they need the power for today. British Columbia is

not at this time able to supply the demands of its own people. Even

with Hydro's tremendous expansion that has gone on to the present time,

Hydro barely meets the demands of the people of British Columbia. If we

had not built those projects in those days, where would we be now? We

would not be the British Columbia we are. We would not have the energy

resources that are at our command.

The hon. opposition says:

"Stop Hydro." Of course the scene changes. It's not like power from

coal or nuclear power — which we'll never have in this province —

because you can fix the amount of power that's obtained. But hydro

power is a different thing. With the heavy snowfall we've just had in

British Columbia, we'll have considerably more hydro power than we

need. But we don't always get this power generation.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm now receiving the assistance of the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He does this occasionally. He feels that

if he sits there and looks at me hard enough I will get some new ideas

from his remarkable presence. However, it doesn't encourage me at this

time, except to say that he's so wrong in his thinking. The thinking of

that party is to hold back hydro and development. The idea of hydro is

to look into the future. You must have the vision that British Columbia

will expand to ten times of what it is today. British Columbia becoming

greater than Ontario and Quebec is foreseeable for us today. To see

that happening, the energy sources must be available. Energy sources

are best available through hydro power; hydro power is the answer.

have so many rivers to be dammed. They say: "We had better have the

salmon than dam the rivers." Let me tell my hon. friend that damming

the rivers doesn't stop the salmon. They stop the salmon running, but

you get a new source of fish greater than ever before. Fishing in the

great Williston Lake, formed by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, is unbelievable

in size and amounts. But nobody wants to fish, because there are too

many of them. They're too far away for the markets, but that doesn't

stop the production of fish. That dam is an asset to the people.

When

Hydro needs to stop borrowing, when the needs of Hydro come to a

standstill, that will say that British Columbia has come to a

standstill. So long as British Columbia continues to progress, humanity

must have energy. We must receive the capital funds to make it possible

for Hydro to build greater dams and supply the energy for the future.

You must look to the future. I'll tell you, hon. members — it's never

been brought up in this debate, although it has been brought up before

— it takes 10 to 12 years, maybe 13 to 14 years, to bring a power

source on line. You must see into the future. It's not that we decide

today and build tomorrow; it's a long way away. Fifty years from now

the power we have today will seem minuscule to the demands of that day.

We must produce that power now. The minister must authorize and this

House must authorize this additional borrowing so that Hydro can keep

pace, not exceed....

There are power companies in

eastern Canada, Quebec and the Maritimes that are producing power for

sale to the United States. This hydro system of ours is not producing

power for sale to the United States, or to anybody else. It's producing

for local consumption only. If there is excess, it's sold on a spot

basis at very good prices. That can happen by the variation of rainfall

and snowfall.

The urgency is to see into the future. I

applaud this bill and I applaud the minister. Hydro must continue to

build for the future, not for today, because we are looking down the

line 13 or 14 years away. It is fortunate for us that with the Peace

River and Columbia River policies we had the vision in those days to

say that in 1982 we would not have enough power. We did it and we were

stopped every step of the way by that party. What would British

Columbia be today instead of being an expanding province, a high

technology province? We would be still as we were then, the hewers of

wood and the carriers of water. We are moving into the twentieth

century — we have been for the last 25 years, except for three years

that we stood still. We don't criticize them; we know they have a

do-nothing policy. They should see that the generation of power is

vital to our citizens and to the future of this province, and I urge

them to for once see beyond today, see into the future and support this

bill, which I applaud immensely.

MR. LAUK: Seldom

does the man fulfil what the boy has promised. In the debates of the

1960s with respect to the two-river policy, we were promised that to

develop hydroelectric energy to the extent that both those projects

would have developed would create thereby enough reasonably priced

energy to create a secondary industry, a manufacturing industry in this

province that would provide jobs for future generations of British

Columbians. I heard the hon. member make those promises. I heard W.A.C.

Bennett make those promises. "Nothing is freer than free, my friend.

Think of the future," he said.

[ Page 7725 ]

What

we created, Mr. Speaker, is a monster god that all of its subjects have

been feeding, bringing homage to and paying tithes to year after year —

a new monster god, a god like Mammon. We fell on our knees, put greed

on a pedestal and decided that there was a future for us as far as

secondary manufacturing in this province was concerned. Year after year

the high priests of that god come here and they ask us for more. Since

this government was returned to office in 1976 — and they think it's

funny — the debt for every man, woman and child in this province has

doubled largely because of that monster God. It is insatiable. Now I

fear that we're borrowing money to pay interest charges. Forty to fifty

percent of every dollar that you pay for your hydro bill goes to pay

interest and debt-servicing charges on the huge debt of that monster

god. It is controlling our lives. It is stealing our future. It is a

mortgage on the future generations of this province, and every year we

bring in this act to feed it more. "I want more," says Hydro. We

created this idol, this artificial god, and we fall down and worship

it. We are its slaves, Mr. Speaker

Ten years ago, even eight

years ago, we were told there was a way to start grinding down the

power of B.C. Hydro, grinding down its control over our daily lives.

They are not borrowing money for capital investment; they're keeping up

a front for capital investment. They are desperately trying to create

an artificial cash flow so that they can start paying off the debt,

which they're not going to pay off because every year it increases the

interest, and debt charges are loaded on the backs of ordinary British

Columbians, and it's dragging us down to our knees. The promise of 20

years ago has not been fulfilled. It is an anchor, a millstone around

our necks, and the people of British Columbia are paying dearly for it.

We would be in a much better position had a more reasonable attitude

been taken years ago, and it's still not too late to take that attitude

now.

I want also to point out a few financial factors. A

time of financial crisis in North America and in the west is not the

time to be borrowing money. There are no specific plans that I can see

for this borrowing on capital expenditure. Even if there were, this is

a mistake. The government on the one hand calls upon the civil service

and the people of British Columbia for restraint. Yet it makes no

demands on its Crown corporation to show restraint. It's greed —

insatiable greed. This monster that we've created is out of control. In

other words, restraint for everybody except Hydro. Everybody will

suffer and pull in their belts except Hydro. We all pay that price for

creating that monster god. That's why the opposition is not going to

support this bill this year.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It's interesting that the previous speaker talked about the way in

which borrowing of Hydro has progressed over the years, and certainly

over the last ten years. There isn't any doubt that that debt has

progressed. It's progressed rapidly — including the years in which

members of the NDP were government. Several of the people sitting there

today, deploring the borrowing of B.C. Hydro, were just as responsible

for the increase in borrowing. In fact, in the three short years in

which those members were government, Hydro's borrowing more than

doubled, from about $1.75 billion at the end of 1972 to over $3 billion

at the end of 1975.

MR. LAUK: We're talking about $9 billion now. When is it going to stop?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's right, Mr. Speaker. But I just point out that in 1974 the

increased borrowing was over half a billion dollars in a single year at

a time when the inflation rate was far less than it is today and of

course wages and all other things were far less. In 1976, the borrowing

increased by $750 million in one year. So it just depends which side of

the House you're sitting on.

Let's get the thing into

perspective. I think that hydroelectric power still is and will be for

the foreseeable future the most efficient, the best, and the cheapest

form of electric power that we can develop in this province, and the

most reliable as well.

I'm not sure, but I thought I heard

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) advocate that we use natural gas

to develop power in British Columbia. If that's his suggestion, I guess

the earlier comment he made about acid rain should be thrown out.

Because there is a severe environmental problem in using natural gas,

far more than with hydroelectric power. In this province, we have only

one thermoelectric power plant, and that's at Burrard Inlet. Hydro has

declined to use that facility to any great extent because of the

environmental problems. We do use the plant from time to time for peak

periods when the demands on the rest of Hydro's facilities are heavy. I

don't think the member would want us to go into a large-scale program

of using natural gas to develop electric power, because I think there's

a far better use for natural gas — both here and as a source of export

revenue for the province of British Columbia.

The member for

Prince Rupert makes a very good point in his comments about recapturing

waste power. That's happening in a number of areas. The forest industry

is the very best example. The forest industry is modernizing today. I

remember when we first came out with our energy policy statement in

1980. There's a statement in there that points out that at that time

wood wastes were generating about 17 percent of all the energy in

British Columbia. Today, that's up to 21 or 22 percent. or somewhere in

that neighbourhood, and improving all the time. Plants like Cominco

with the $600 million or $700 million expansion and modernization

project at Trail — much of it is designed for better energy efficiency

to recapture some of the waste. Plants all over British Columbia are

doing that now for a variety of reasons, mainly out of the necessity of

prices, some of it out of the necessity to go off oil. I believe that

as the problems with imported foreign oil are felt more in our society,

those things will happen more and more. That's a form of energy which

is important to us.

I'd like to clear up the export policy

of Hydro and the government. They are both the same. They are simply

this — and it is the policy that has been put forward to the National

Energy Board by Hydro in applying for interruptible power which it can

sell on the export market. We do not build for export; we build for our

own needs, to a critical path. In heavy water years, like last year,

when there is a surplus of electricity, we look for the best possible

buyers for that electricity and sell it. Last year British Columbia

happened to have a record year, because of the record snowpack and

record rainfall, and we sold something like $200 million worth of

electricity to the United States. The same conditions still prevail,

but we don't have a market right now, because the northwestern United

States, in particular, also had a good water year, and they now have a

surplus of electricity. So those sales have pretty well come to a halt.

This province has only two firm buyers of hydroelectricity from B.C. Hydro, primarily as a result of our

[ Page 7726 ]

good-neighbour

policy with Point Roberts in Washington state and with Hyder, Alaska;

they both get their power from B.C. Hydro on a firm basis. The rest of

the power is sold on the spot market at the best prices we can get at

the time and on a fully interruptible basis. That is the present policy

of the government. Some people, including some people in Hydro — and I

wouldn't be surprised if there were some people in this room who do

believe that policy should be changed, that you could build.... In

fact, in testimony before the Site C hearings there were some people

who suggested that maybe we should be building for the export of power

and thereby helping to pay for facilities for the use of the people of

B.C. But that isn't the policy of the government.

I was

interested in the comments from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King). I would think that he might want to change his mind about how he

votes on this bill. He said he won't vote for the bill until we see

some accountability built into Hydro. The first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) also referred to the way Hydro has gone out of

control. I recognize that that has been a complaint for many years. As

long as I've been in politics — that's about ten years now — we've

heard that complaint every year; more so as the years go by, as Hydro

is felt by more and more people as it expands its systems.

There

has been accountability built into Hydro. We've still got a long way to

go but at least we've begun. It's the first time that kind of thing has

been done in British Columbia. For the first time in the history of

this province — and I believe it's a first in the history of Canada —

the British Columbia Utilities Commission was given direct

responsibility for regulating the rates of British Columbia Hydro, a

Crown corporation. I don't think there is another Crown corporation in

Canada that is fully regulated, as B.C. Hydro now is.

You

will know, Mr. Speaker, that the first rate hearing by the BCUC into

the Hydro operation is underway now. It's a trying time for the new

commission, and it's a trying time for Hydro, because neither of them

has had to do it before. So in many ways they are feeling their way.

We've already seen some direct results. A short time ago the British

Columbia Utilities Commission awarded B.C. Hydro an interim rate

increase, and I believe they made a couple of landmark moves which have

never happened before. The first one was with regard to export

revenues. The members will know that British Columbia Hydro has never

included export revenues in its overall revenue forecast. They've used

those revenues to reduce their debt burden. They have not put them into

their rate-revenue calculations. For the first time the B.C. Utilities

Commission said: "Hydro, that's not good enough. You must set up a

rate-stabilization fund from those revenues. From now on those

revenues must be used to give rate relief to the consumers of

hydroelectricity in British Columbia." It has never happened before in

the history of this province.

Also, the commission looked at

Hydro and said: "We think you can do better. We think you can be more

efficient." They ordered B.C. Hydro to trim 5 percent from their total

operating revenues as an efficiency measure. As it turned out — and you

may have read it in the paper the other day — Hydro has done even

better than that. They've improved their efficiency, or whatever you

want to call it, by more than 9 percent. That's the first time that has

ever happened in this province. That's a degree of accountability which

we've never before seen in British Columbia.

I might also say — just to remind everyone — that in that regulation it is the

British Columbia Utilities Commission which makes the decisions, not the government

of British Columbia. On some other issues the government is involved, but not

in rate regulation, and not in the revenue-rate-expenditure scenario of looking

into Hydro's operations.

There

is one other one which will ensure — in the long term, certainly, and

it's starting to pay off now — that there is a greater measure of

control for Hydro and a greater opportunity for all of us to be

involved in the Hydro operation and its accountability, and that is

that for the first time in history Hydro now has a real board of

directors. They never had a board of directors before — not in my

memory at least — including the years in which there was an NDP

government in British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER: I was the board of directors!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I know, and that's the problem, Mr. Speaker; that member was the board

of directors of B.C. Hydro. But it's been true — and I'm not reflecting

on any members past or present — that we really have had a sham board

of directors in too many instances. We now have a true board of

directors.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) will please come to order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, not only do we have a board which is responsible for the

day-to-day operations of British Columbia Hydro today, but one which

was chosen very carefully to represent every region of British

Columbia. We chose people from each of the communities which are most

affected by British Columbia Hydro, and if people feel disaffected in

their community.... They still have the opportunity of writing to

me as the responsible minister or to one of the MLAs on either side of

the House. They also have the added opportunity now of going to the

local director on the board of Hydro and saying face to face: "Look, I

want to get something fixed up. Can you help me?" That's an opportunity

they've never had before; it's an opportunity that brings a

province-wide perspective into the operation of B.C. Hydro, which we

sure never had, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, when you were a

minister.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro is far more accountable than

it's ever been in the history of this province. And that's not at an

end, because we're going to continue to make it more accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment about the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). That member said that we use this kind of

device — bringing this bill before the Legislature — to hide the debt

of B.C. Hydro. Well, I can't think of a more open way to bring the debt

of B.C. Hydro before the public of British Columbia than an open forum

where everyone has the opportunity to see it, the real forum that

should be used in British Columbia: the Legislature of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, if those members are saying that this

Legislature is not accountable....

MR. SKELLY: You're not accountable.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a better way to bring forward B.C.

Hydro's borrowing needs than to bring them before this chamber, which,

in my opinion, is the most important chamber in British Columbia.

I move second reading.

[ Page 7727 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to page 374 of the

eighteenth edition of Erskine May: "Voice and vote. Members must bear

in mind that their opinion is collected from their voices in the House,

and not merely by a division; and that if their voices and their, vote

should be at variance, the voice will bind the vote." I won't go

further into this, Mr. Speaker, but I draw your attention to the fact

that during the reading of the list I heard the name "Mr. Phillips"

read as voting with the yeas when in fact I heard him to vote with the

noes. Having voted with the noes, I would ask that the tradition of the

House.... He said: "No. Shut out the lights." That's what he said when

the voice vote was called, and I'm sure that members in the House and

the member himself will remember this. So I would ask that the record

be corrected in order that his vote be properly recorded.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. The Chair is bound, of course, by the standing

vote, and it is in the standing where we count the actual number of

heads. I think that I watched very carefully as all were counted and

all were reported, and the vote stands as it was read for us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

On a point of order, I want it recorded that I voted for this bill. I

don't want to shut out the lights, Mr. Speaker, and I think that

member's antenna is overcharged if he heard something different.

MR. NICOLSON:

On the point of order, to go further, it says: "A member therefore who

gives his voice with the 'ayes' (or 'noes') when the Speaker takes the

voices, is bound to vote with them...." This is Erskine May, and

I would hope that members would not be so frivolous when the voice vote

is being called.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree.

Bill

40, Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982, referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 45,

the Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982. This act is necessary

to reflect certain organizational changes with respect to Expo 86 which

flow from the very important negotiations between the provincial

government and the federal government — between Premier Bennett and the

federal government — which culminated in a major announcement of our

Premier some weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, members will recall that pursuant

to that announcement of the Premier, the provincial government has

assumed full responsibility, particularly in the financial sense, for

Expo 86. The federal government's participation in Expo 86 will now

take place on the Pier B-C site, and Expo 86 will in fact consist of a

major world exposition on two sites in Vancouver linked by the new ALRT

line: firstly, the provincial government supervised and developed site

within the B.C. Place site, and secondly, the federal government

pavilion and portion of the Expo site at Pier B-C.

Essentially,

Mr. Speaker, I will deal very broadly with the scope of the amendments,

and members may have comments in committee. In making general comments

about the bill, may I underline that apart from the benefit of Expo 86

in bringing a world-class exposition to the city of Vancouver, the

province and the country, and in addition to Expo 86 being the only

world-class exposition of its kind that will take place in Canada

between now and the year 2000, the commencement of Expo 86 now means

important new jobs and incomes for British Columbians. Expo 86 will

generate a total of 15,000 man-years of new employment, much of that

new employment being available to the 18-to-25-year-old age bracket, a

very important segment of our job market.

Additionally, Expo

86 means the generation of an added new economic activity in this

province in the amount of $1 billion over the next four years. All

kinds of jobs and incomes will be created for British Columbians with

that figure. Further, for the taxpayers of this province, there will be

a generation of net tax revenue of $65 million, with which the

provincial government can provide $65 million more of important people

services.

The benefits of Expo 86, both when it is here and

on the way to it, are self-evident. The bill before us here

accomplishes these objectives: first of all, the name of the exposition

is officially changed from Transpo 86 to Expo 86; secondly, the bill

establishes the separate post of president of the Expo 86 Corporation,

separate and distinct from the position of commissioner-general, which

of course continues; thirdly, the board of directors of the Expo 86

Corporation is increased in number from 13 to 15. May I say that in the

increase in board members we have also removed the specific provisos

that the federal government and the city would necessarily be limited

to two and three nominees. The broad reason for that is that at this

point in time we do not have the details of the structuring and the

membership of the directorship of the federal Crown corporation that

will supervise and manage the

[ Page 7728 ]

federal

portion of the Expo site. Until we know that, we want to have the

flexibility to assure there is adequate representation from the city,

the province and the federal governments and adequate inter-liaison

between the two corporations. I want to ensure the city of Vancouver

that city of Vancouver representation will continue at least at the

level it has in the past.

Additionally, the legislation

provides for an executive committee of the board of directors. The key

reason for the reorganizational structuring of management to now

include a president and an executive committee is quite simply that the

tempo of preparation, the work and the planning for Expo 86 is now

increasing. The commissioner-general, Mr. Patrick Reid, will

increasingly be required to travel the world in the course of his

international duties and obligations in terms of getting Expo ready and

on line with the increased tempo we're going to need a chief executive

officer on the domestic side here in Vancouver running the day-to-day

aspects of getting the fair together and on line here in the province.

Although our board is working hard and meeting monthly, we believe an

executive committee of the board, which may be delegated certain of the

board functions, will have the flexibility to meet more often if

necessary.

In short, we are committed to bringing in Expo 86

not only as an exciting world exposition of which British Columbians

and all Canadians can be proud but also to bringing it in within budget

and with tight financial controls. This new operating structure will

assist us to do that. Our Expo chairman, Mr. Jim Pattison, is well

known for his capacity to run a major business project within budget.

This new structure will assist our chairman towards that goal.

With those remarks, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LORIMER:

I want to congratulate the minister on being able to speak for five

minutes on a nothing bill. The opposition doesn't know if the change in

name is going to help or hinder the operation, but we're not going to

spend much time debating it.

MR. LAUK: As designated speaker on this bill I prepared a three-hour speech, but I will narrow it down to a couple of minutes.

find that the minister's explanation of the amendments to

section 2 —

the

section that guarantees city representation on the board —

unacceptable. If the minister suggests that this is once again a

request that we trust him and the government to protect the city's

interest, then we have the very sad experience of the way in which that

particular second member for Vancouver South reneged on a promise to

support the ward system and complete the will of the people of the city

of Vancouver. He represents a constituency in the city of Vancouver. He

has turned his back on the people of that city and now he's asking us

to believe and trust him when he says that the amendment to

section 2,

doing away with a guarantee of some city representation, is nothing for

us to worry about because he promises he'll maintain at least that kind

of representation on the board. I can't hear the things he says because

I'm too distracted by the things he's doing. In other words, his

actions betray the truth about his commitment to the city of Vancouver,

not his vague and unfulfilled promises. At least that

section as it

stands would guarantee three appointments to the board. I say to this

Legislature and to the minister, it's essential that vocal and

representative persons at the city level of government be represented

on that board — not party hacks or yes people who the minister has

carefully weeded out and found will support whatever decisions are made

by the government to contribute to this exposition, but people who will

represent the city's interests.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

That alderman would do a much better job than some party hack you've

got on there, rubber-stamping decisions. It's very important, indeed,

that there be city representation, because city taxpayers are fed up to

the ears with having costly projects thrust upon them and having their

taxes increased to provide the services necessary to those projects.

They want some say and some input into whether the Crown corporations

putting on expositions, whether B.C. Place, Pier B-C or all of these

things, are going to make a proper contribution to the costs of

servicing those projects. That's why you need city representation, not

political hacks or backroom politicians, on these boards. You need

people who, by their actions and their record, can truly be identified

as having the courage to stand up for the people of the city of

Vancouver, and who, as my colleague for Prince Rupert quite justifiably

points out, have been chosen by the people of the city of Vancouver to

protect their municipal interests. I think it's cynicism of the worst

possible order — it's a terrible pity to see that cynicism in one so

young — to argue that we should trust him, when we know full well that

if his actions under this bill are the same — and as trustworthy — as

his actions with respect to the ward system in the city of Vancouver,

he's simply not to be trusted. We oppose the amendments.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I want to speak to this bill because it embodies tremendous initiative

for the people of Vancouver. Until the member for Vancouver Centre

spoke, I really felt that all members of this House, as the member for

Burnaby would say, would support the bill and there would not be much

discussion. It embodies such initiative for the province and people of

British Columbia that it seemed evident all sides of the House would be

for it, so that I didn't think any discussion from this side of the

House would be necessary.

It's obviously the negative people

on that side of the House who would bring in such words as "cynicism,"

and all those adjectives so ably conjured up by the member for

Vancouver Centre. When the minister introduced this bill and talked

about the very small change that is going to be made in the name, and

also referred to the makeup of the board, etc., he mentioned the jobs

that would be created. He also mentioned the many millions of people

who would be here in the province of British Columbia, so that we in

British Columbia could show to the world the kinds of things we are

able to show them, which would create trade and ongoing jobs for the

people not only of British Columbia, but the people of Canada.

that marvellous site where Expo will be, and the additional site now on

Pier B-C.... There will probably never be another site more

favoured for a trade fair in all of the world.

Fifteen

thousand man-years of work, and the member for Vancouver Centre cannot

even mention the positive effect that such a fair will have. He

mentions city taxpayers having

[ Page 7729 ]

things

thrust upon them. In all of the North American continent there isn't

another place as blessed in having the kinds of things thrust upon them

that would create the jobs, the activity and the trade in the future as

the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia embodied in

Expo, the trade and convention centre, B.C. Place and the ALRT.

The

member for Vancouver Centre, who got up on his feet to address this

bill, talking about the bill in such a way, does not really pay tribute

to the faith that people in the city of Vancouver have in sending

people to this House to represent them. That member was sent here by

the people of Vancouver — in fact, by the people of Vancouver Centre,

where these things are taking place. Some 14 million people will be

coming into the city of Vancouver, leaving all of their dollars through

this initiative, Expo 86 — all of those jobs created up to 1986 and the

tremendous thrust it will give to business following 1986. I cannot

believe that the member for Vancouver Centre would so disregard the

citizens of Vancouver and Vancouver Centre, and the people of British

Columbia who are very much behind Expo 86 and the initiatives in this

bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill wholeheartedly.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued to hear the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer) describe a bill that will generate 15,000 man-years of

work as a "nothing bill." I will watch with interest what he and his

colleagues do when the time comes to take a stand for or against Expo

The first member for Vancouver Centre had some very

unusual things to say, particularly given that this great exposition

will be in the heart of the constituency he represents, at least for

now.

The member had some concerns about the involvement of

the city of Vancouver and being kept up to date with what's happening.

I should refresh his memory to