1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4071 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Uranium Mining and Exploration Act (Bill M 216). Mr. Passarell

Introduction and first reading –– 4071

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckardt commission. Mr. Lauk –– 4071

Moratorium on log purchases and exports. Mr. Howard –– 4073

Public health officers in northern interior health unit. Mr. Cocke –– 4073

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4073

Hat Creek coal development. Mr. Skelly –– 4074

B.C. contribution to organization of auditors-general. Mr. Levi ––

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Vogel report on Eckardt commission.

Mr. Barrett –– 4074

Ministerial Statement

Stewart General Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4075

Routine Proceedings

Utilities Commission Act (Bill 52). Second reading.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4075

Division on the motion that second reading be deferred –– 4077

Mr. Cocke –– 4078

Mr. Nicolson –– 4079

Mrs. Wallace –– 4080

Mr. Passarell –– 4082

Mr. Lockstead –– 4083

Mr. Barber –– 4084

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4088

Division on second reading –– 4091

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4091

Mrs. Wallace –– 4091

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4094

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Vogel report on Eckardt commission.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 4094

Appendix –– 4095

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, visiting us today, on a tour of the buildings and sitting in

the gallery, are 30 Rangers from Vancouver and the lower mainland,

together with their guests all the way from Newfoundland. I'd ask the

House to make them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker,

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Frank Shephard, who used

to work with the Ministry of Education, and Mrs. Jeanette Pesklevits.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to introduce two visitors from

Surrey: Hazel Chute, who has been a hard-working volunteer in the

constituency office of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall); and

Martha Mackie, who is a top-notch fundraiser for the NDP and has been

on the federal riding executive and many other executives. I'd like you

to welcome them to the House today.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Speaker, we have a couple of young gentlemen here today who are

attending hockey school in the city of Victoria. I'd like the House to

join me in expressing appreciation for their attendance and welcoming

Mr. Blake Moore and Mr. Dan Markert, both from Kitimat.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some

northern visitors to the Legislative gallery today: Fred Primrose, John

Jensen, Bea Marcus and Jane Beadle. All of these people have been

involved in the community of the north of this province and have played

their

part in the community of British Columbia as a whole. They are

all very community-minded. I would ask that everyone in the Legislature

join me today in welcoming these four people.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, I'd like to say hello to Mrs. Pesklevits too — an old friend — wherever she is in the gallery.

I'd

also like to introduce Madeleine Snell, my constituency secretary, who

is here visiting today, and two more of my favourite people from

Langley, Mrs. Jean Jolliffe and Mattie Aitken. I'd like the House to

make them welcome, please.

MR. BARBER: Visiting in

the Legislature today are two friends of mine, Dr. Margaret and Mr.

David Kerwin. They are residents of Grande Prairie, Alberta, and,

together with members of their own community, members of the RCMP and

other professionals concerned with the matter, are responsible for the

operation there of a group called Cool Aid, which runs a service very

similar to the one with which I was happily involved for a number of

years in this community. I ask the House to welcome Margaret and David

here today, and to wish them luck in their venture in Grande Prairie,

Alberta.

Introduction of Bills

URANIUM MINING AND EXPLORATION ACT

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill entitled the Uranium Mining and Exploration Act.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT

ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: I have a question to

the Attorney-General with respect to the Eckardt commission report. Can

the Attorney-General confirm that all commission staff were required to

take an oath of secrecy after the report was completed or in the week

in which the report was completed, and that those oaths of secrecy were

back-dated?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't

confirm as to the time to which the member refers, but during the

course of the work of the commission, members of the staff were

required to take an oath of secrecy, at least those who were not

already in the public service.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that those oaths were back-dated?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One of the statements from one of the persons interviewed indicated that was the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Such oaths are perjurious. Has the Attorney-General investigated charges of perjury with respect to back-dated oaths?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is stating a proposition, in fact, which is argumentative, and I don't think it can be supported.

MR. LAUK:

The courts of the land have found that oaths purported to be taken on a

certain day that were not taken on that day are perjurious.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would you like to provide me with the precedents for that?

MR. LAUK:

The Attorney-General asks for precedents. I'll be glad to provide them

to the Attorney-General on the day he holds a public inquiry into this

matter.

[ Page 4072 ]

Will

the Attorney-General undertake to investigate the oaths that were taken

and determine whether or not they were back-dated and their nature

insofar as perjury was concerned?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've already taken that step.

So that the member won't be confused by my answer, I've taken that step today.

MR. LAUK:

This information was available to Mr. Vogel and to the Attorney-General

before the Vogel report was presented to this House. Why has the

Attorney-General suddenly decided to take the step of investigating

those oaths?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That aspect of the matter came to my attention today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General read all the statements of evidence that were supposed to support the Vogel report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I read all the statements of all the principal witnesses who could cast

some light upon the problem which faced me as a result of the delivery

of Miss Tamoto's declaration.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate who may have suborned the possible perjury involved?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that question is purely argumentative and speculative.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General inform the House who administered the oaths to commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That will be evident from the report which I have requested.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm a statement by one Vi Barton of the

Eckardt commission staff that Mr. Dan Campbell instructed a staff

member to fly to Victoria to collect a brown envelope to be delivered

to Eckardt personally?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that was a statement made by Mrs. Barton. I was aware of it, and it was investigated.

MR. LAUK: Was Mr. Dan Campbell interviewed by Mr. Prelypchan or any other of the ministry's staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, he was.

MR. LAUK: Is there a transcript of the interview?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There was a statement that was taken from Mr. Campbell as a result of the interview.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General decided to table the transcript or the statement with this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Was that statement taken under oath?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it was not.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm that Vi Barton's statement says that

"Eckardt wanted a copy of the report in his possession Saturday night,

June 17, 1978, so that he could deliver it to Grace McCarthy"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that aspect of the matter was examined, and it cannot be confirmed.

MR. LAUK: What did Mr. Eckardt say about that allegation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He denied it.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General prepared to table the transcript of the statement of Mr. Eckardt?

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

MR. LAUK:

Did the statements of Eckardt and McCarthy taken by Prelypchan confirm

that a copy of the report was delivered to McCarthy on June 18, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, no copy of the report was delivered to the Hon. Grace

McCarthy until the day on which it was tabled in this House, which was

Tuesday, June 20.

MR. LAUK: I asked whether the statements of Eckardt and McCarthy confirmed that fact, not whether it was the Attorney-General's belief.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a matter of belief, Mr. Speaker; it's a matter of the statements taken in the inquiry.

MR. LAUK:

On August 14, 1980, I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

whether the Queen's Printer kept records of printing done on the

Eckardt report on June 16, 1978. We understand that computer records

were kept on that date. Has the Attorney-General decided to table those

computer records?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, those records are not in my possession. I understood the question was directed to the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. LAUK:

We are solemnly and absolutely convinced that the full report of the

Eckardt commission was printed on June 16, 1978, and that Vi Barton did

hear a request by Eckardt for a copy of the full, printed report on

June 17 for delivery to Grace McCarthy the next day. The evidence

discloses those facts. Can the Attorney-General explain the

discrepancies between those facts and the report he tabled in the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't explain the discrepancy between what the member believes and what are the facts disclosed by the inquiry.

[ Page 4073 ]

MR. LAUK:

A travel voucher of Evelyn Robbins, department control no. 52908,

confirms that she flew to Victoria on June 16, 1978, and returned to

Vancouver the next day. Can the Attorney-General confirm that this trip

by Evelyn Robbins was to pick up a brown envelope from Dan Campbell and

deliver it to Eckardt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Robbins was not in Victoria on June 16 and 17 for such a purpose.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm the purpose for which Mrs. Robbins was in the capital on those two days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes. On the Friday Mrs. Robbins was continuing her work with respect to

the electoral boundary descriptions. She remained in Victoria that

evening and on Saturday she and another member of the commission staff

returned to Vancouver with certain materials which had been produced by

the Queen's Printer.

MR. LAUK: What were those materials?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

They are not identified, but I'm advised that to the best of Mrs.

Robbins knowledge they were copies of the legal descriptions on which

she'd been working.

MR. LAUK: On August 11, 1980,

when I referred to a discrepancy in the Vogel report, with reference to

final statistics being delivered by the central statistics bureau on

June 16, and other discrepancies, I asked the Attorney General whether

he was satisfied that there were no other inaccuracies in the interim

report of the commissioner. He answered: "None disclosed by any

interview with which I am familiar." Would the Attorney-General now

like to change his answer?

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

MR. LAUK:

Is the Attorney-General still satisfied that the Vogel investigation

and report is correct in every substantial particular into this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Would the Attorney-General indicate to the House why the allegations by

Vi Barton were not included in the Vogel report into this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The report contained facts which were uncovered in the course of the

inquiry. Miss Barton was one of the first persons interviewed by Mr.

Prelypchan in the course of his inquiry. It was as a result of the

statement she gave that the inquiry became so extended. Subsequent to

taking her statement, interviews were conducted with other persons

touching upon the matter. The report of Mr. Vogel was based upon the

facts that were gleaned from the whole inquiry.

MORATORIUM ON

LOG PURCHASES AND EXPORTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Forests and ask the minister

whether he has placed a moratorium on the export or purchase of logs,

specifically with respect to Metropolitan Trading Ltd.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked the same question in the hallway this morning. The answer now is the same as I gave him this morning. No.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister aware that we like to have those things on the public record, which is why I asked him the question today?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member asked me a question. At times I really wonder why they ask some of the questions they ask.

PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS IN

NORTHERN INTERIOR HEALTH UNIT

MR. COCKE: That was a naughty little answer from the minister.

have a question for the Minister of Health. Has the minister received

the unanimous resolution from the Prince George city council that the

number of public health inspectors in the northern interior district be

increased forthwith?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I haven't personally received it, which is not to say that it has not reached my office.

MR. COCKE:

Can the minister confirm that there are only four public health

inspectors in the northern interior health district, and that this

number has not increased since 1974, while the size of the district, in

population, has increased?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister confirm that he has turned down repeated requests by the Prince George MLAs for increased staff?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no, I cannot confirm that either.

MR. COCKE:

One more question, Mr. Speaker. What action has the minister taken to

ensure that public health staff throughout the northern and southern

interior regions are adequate to fulfil his department's

responsibilities?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am delighted beyond words to take that question as notice.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH DELTA

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I

was asked a question by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) a couple of days ago with respect to a neighbourhood pub

application for pre-clearance in Delta. The member asked who filed the

notice of appeal and who put up the $100 deposit. In answer to his

question, the notice of appeal was filed by Malpaso Holdings per P.T.

Webb.

[ Page 4074 ]

HAT CREEK COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. SKELLY:

I have a question to the Minister of Forests. Last Wednesday your

ministry organized a meeting of community representatives to discuss

possible development of Hat Creek coal deposits. Why were no

environmental groups invited to that meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is in error. My ministry organized no such meeting.

B.C. CONTRIBUTION TO

ORGANIZATION OF AUDITORS-GENERAL

MR. LEVI: I have a

question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Last week at a

conference on public accounts I spoke with Mr. Macdonell, the

soon-to-retire auditor for the federal government. He informed me that

seven provinces had joined the institute which he had set up for the

development of comprehensive budgeting, which is something that I

understand the government subscribed to. I also understand that 1

percent of the budgets of the auditors-general is the fee required to

join this particular organization. Can the minister inform the House

why the British Columbia auditor general's 1 percent is not being paid?

As a matter of fact, I am informed that it was taken out of her budget

before Treasury Board.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

I thank the hon. member for the question. It is correct to say that at

the time of reviewing the estimates of the auditor-general for the

fiscal year in which we are now functioning, that item was removed. I

might say, incidentally, that I intend to change the process for both

the auditor-general and the ombudsman with respect to appearing before

Treasury Board, because I think that is perhaps placing those two

individuals, as officers of this assembly, in an awkward position. The

amount which has been mentioned — whether it is 1 percent or a fixed

dollar amount....

MR. LEVI: One percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

It was suggested as 1 percent. In a recent meeting with the

auditor-general I reviewed the matter with her and indicated that the

payment from British Columbia had my full support, and it is

forthcoming.

MR. LEVI: Fine.

MR. BARRETT:

In accordance with the provisions of standing order 35, Mr. Speaker, I

ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. That matter,

stated briefly, is the Vogel report delivered to this House by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). It has seriously and, in my

opinion, wrongly misrepresented the evidence gathered during the

investigation. Today a commission staff member, Vi Barton, has called

for a public inquiry into the whole affair, including what is publicly

described as the "Gracie's Finger episode."

The Vogel report misrepresents the facts as follows: (1) the Eckardt report was not printed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, at this point I must advise that, while the points that

the hon. member wishes to make can be alluded to at this opportunity,

it must be brief.

MR. BARRETT: I will be very brief. I have written a statement so as to be brief, Mr. Speaker.

The

Eckardt report was not printed until June 19, while the facts reveal

that the report was printed on June 16, changed over the weekend and

reprinted on the 19th. There was evidence before Vogel on this point,

but it is not reflected in the report given to the House.

There

was evidence before Vogel that Eckardt requested a copy of the printed

report of his commission as early as June 17, so he could "deliver it

to McCarthy the next day." There is no mention of this point in the

Vogel report.

At least one commission staff member alleged

that Dan Campbell, then an employee of the Premier's office, instructed

a commission staff member to fly to Victoria and pick up a brown

envelope for him that was to be delivered to Eckardt. That evidence was

available to Vogel, but it is not reflected in the report tabled in

this House.

Mr. Robert Patterson, when interviewed by

Vogel's investigators, made a statement that the boundaries of the

Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency were altered to include the

notorious "finger" and that this was the only change. Nowhere in the

Vogel report is this evidence reflected.

The

Attorney-General answered some questions on the Vogel report by saying

that they should be directed to Larry Eckardt. The Attorney-General is

now a willing participant in the coverup by refusing to recommend that

Eckardt be made available to answer questions from all members of this

House.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and most importantly, both

Florence Tamoto and Vi Barton have been accused of being liars.

Florence Tamoto is accused thereby of committing perjury. In the public

interest and in their interest, their names should be cleared. The only

method to clear them, in my opinion, is a debate now on the validity —

which I believe is substantiated — of having an independent, full,

judicial public inquiry on this matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudicing the member's point under

standing order 35, I will take the matter into consideration and report

back to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, normally

a decision to take a matter under consideration and report back to the

House is one that is acceptable. However, in this instance I cannot

accept that decision for a number of reasons.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, at the present time the member is on a

point of order. But I must caution that this is a point of order that I

am waiting to....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the point of

order being, Mr. Speaker, that normally a delay is to verify whether or

not there is an appropriate time in estimates to deal with what indeed

may be an emergency matter. I'd like to point out to you that we have

passed the estimates of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), of the

Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

and also of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

[ Page 4075 ]

would prefer, within my rights under standing orders, Mr. Speaker, if

you took a brief recess and gave a ruling immediately rather than later

on, because of these reasons. I would ask for a ruling on that, since,

in my opinion, there should be an immediate decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the fact of the matter is that under no circumstances can

I as your Chairman be hurried in any decision that I will bring down.

Therefore my ruling will be that my decision will be deferred until I

have had an appropriate period of time to review the matters raised; of

course, there is an opportunity for the member to take appropriate

steps if that is not satisfactory.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, before I make a comment on your ruling, I am suggesting a

recess to give adequate time, as is also normal practice. I'm

suggesting that before commenting on your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have given my ruling on the matter. My ruling is that I will defer the matter, and I will not recess the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I regretfully challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for the way in which the question was formed.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

STEWART GENERAL HOSPITAL

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short ministerial statement.

There

was considerable concern expressed to me yesterday by the member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) concerning a situation at the Stewart General

Hospital, and a shortage of nurses. There are three full-time grad

nurses in that hospital, one of whom left on the weekend. I'm happy to

report that a replacement will arrive on September 15. We've had some

problems in recruiting nurses in that area, not for the reasons that we

often have, but because of a shortage of housing. I understand that the

board met yesterday and are in the process of solving that difficulty.

We have another nurse in the community who, incidentally, is not

registered, but she has been recruited. So the hospital will remain

open for 24 hours a day to deal with emergencies, but it will not admit

inpatients until mid-September. There is, however, only one doctor in

Stewart. I'm told that most patients requiring admission are evacuated

to Terrace or Prince Rupert. The average daily census for April to July

of this year is 1.8 persons per day in hospital.

I might

also say that escort service for a patient to be evacuated will be

available through the hospital staff, and the airline is keeping a

plane in Stewart for any emergency purposes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 52.

UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the member for Rossland-Trail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The floor is yielded to the member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member

for New Westminster as well.

The

opposition has considerable reservations about this bill. The one

philosophy of it that we could endorse is the one-agency approach to

the approval of energy development projects, energy transmission

projects and energy delivery projects, as well as the removal of energy

resources from the province of B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However,

we have considerable reservation — indeed quite strong opposition — to

the notions that appear in the bill on many occasions that the new

proposed Utilities Commission can be directed by cabinet at will, and

indeed can have all of their functions defined by cabinet at the whim

of the cabinet. There's no information in the bill, for instance, as to

how many employees will be involved — how much high-priced help or how

much low-priced help. Indeed, I foresee a whole new level of

bureaucracy reviewing all the decisions and analyzing all the proposals

put forward by public and private agencies in the province — a whole

new bureaucracy in addition to whatever planning and resource

development functions may already exist at public expense, say in

British Columbia Hydro; a whole new level in addition to what may

already exist within the Ministry of Energy. One could even question

who is ultimately going to watch and review the reviewers, particularly

since all of the reviewers are only

[ Page 4076 ]

going

to be in the position of making recommendations. The actual approval or

rejection of any application will always rest with the minister in

cabinet under this act.

Legal people in the province have

already expressed reservations to the minister and the media in this

province about the legality of such a situation, and whether or not it

indeed would mean that cabinet and cabinet decisions could result in

judicial review before the courts in the event that an applicant or any

individual wished to challenge any of those.

I have

considerable doubts about the fact that the commissioners themselves

will be operating under no set term of office; they have no security of

pay and no security of work. Indeed, the opportunities for influence

upon them when normally one would think they would be making purely

technical decisions on purely technical considerations, the opportunity

for influences upon them by government, would be absolutely enormous.

What

concerns me is that what we really have is the commission being only

fact-finders. Indeed, those commissioners would only be in a position

of making recommendations to the minister and cabinet and not having

power of decision-making on their own.

There are also areas

which allow the minister to simply bypass the commission by adding

political appointees, since the minister can name every particular

chairman from somebody who may or may not be on the commission. It

gives him the opportunity — in one way a laudable opportunity — to

bring people into particular appeals and discussions at the local level

who wouldn't normally be available to sit on a commission. On the other

hand, it also gives the minister and cabinet the opportunity to stack a

particular committee or panel of the commission if they're concerned

about getting a particular decision from it.

There are no

funding provisions for reasoned objectors. A trend which has really

become a groundswell in North America, in other parts of Canada and in

the United States has been that responsible groups will have an

opportunity to receive funding for their costs in preparing submissions

and in making appearances before boards such as the National Energy

Board, before the boards that hear applications on rate hikes and fare

increases — anything in the public utilities sector in other parts of

Canada and in other parts of North America. There is no provision for

funding assistance in this. What we'll have is the groups of legal

advice, the applicants' own legal and technical assistance — a terrific

array of facts and figures and technical advice appearing before the

commission. Ordinary citizens' groups who may have objections are not

going to be able to afford to come up against that rather horrifying

array of technical expertise, even though they may well have something

of value to say. I'm not suggesting that every group receive funding

assistance. I am suggesting that the commission should have powers, as

have the NEB and other regulatory commissions in Canada and other

commissions set up by other provinces, to decide — on a purely

objective outside basis, Mr. Speaker — whether a group has had a

positive contribution to the deliberations of the commission.

Another

point on this, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the question of funding

assistance for people appearing before the commission, is that

occasionally the applicant — if he's a small applicant, a small

business or an ordinary individual — may need or warrant assistance.

Let's suppose a rancher or a private individual, a small logger, wished

to develop a particular small energy resource, a small hydroelectric

resource, and he was opposed before the commission, let's say, by a

private utility or by B.C. Hydro. Clearly, the applicant in some cases,

particularly if he was a private individual, a farmer or a small

businessman, a small mine operator, may well not have the kind of

resources that some of the people appearing before the commission,

objecting to his application, may have. Once again, an unbiased outside

review commission may well be able to make decisions on whether or not

some assistance should be given there.

Mr. Speaker, there is

provision in the bill — and it's a philosophy that we certainly object

to — where the minister on receiving an application for a removal of an

energy resource not only will make the decision on that removal but —

it's rather curious — will make a decision on what basis the

application is made and what information is provided. We find that an

extremely strange provision, and I hope that the minister, when closing

debate, will give us some idea as to why that may be there.

There

is absolutely no provision in the bill, Mr. Speaker, to make the report

of any commission public. The minister shall decide what is

confidential, and there is going to be no outside review as we have

before the NEB, no terms of reference to decide what is or is not

confidential information — it may prejudice the property interests of

an applicant or someone affected by an application. In addition to that

point, Mr. Speaker, there is the fact that no one will know, having

appeared before the commission, whether or not their concerns were

taken into account when the commission reported to the minister; when

the minister or the government makes a decision on an application, no

one will know how that decision was made. It will be a yes or a no, and

there need not be any reasons given; there need not be any public

disclosure of what the commission actually recommended to the minister

or whether or not the minister or the cabinet went along with any or

all of that recommendation, because if no one knows what the

recommendation was and why it was made, it can never be on the public

record as to how that decision was reached. So we believe there should

be complete disclosure of judgments, as there is, for instance, under

the Water Act. The comptroller of water rights to this date, under the

existing Water Act, always gives a reasoned judgment based on the

points that he took into consideration and the statements by the

applicant and the interveners appearing before him. One may not always

agree with the decisions or the reasons given, but at least they're

there on the public record.

We also object to the provisions

for in-camera and secret hearings, if indeed it is decided on what

criterion — and no on will ever know, Mr. Speaker — as to why a

particular application or discussion could be confidential or should be

in camera. Clearly, some discussions will have to be in camera and will

have to be confidential, but the public should know on what basis that

decision was made rather than simply having a minister or someone else

directed by him pick up a rubber stamp and stamp a particular piece of

information as confidential — according to the bill, that makes

something confidential. There should be some public disclosure as to

why and under what standards a particular discussion or application

should be confidential.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not the

environmental spokesperson, it does concern me that there is no

provision in the act for an environmental review. There is one

section

where it

[ Page 4077 ]

indicates

that the minister may have discussions with the Minister of

Environment. Not only is that not sufficient, but there should be

definite terms of reference spelled out as to what an environmental

review will be. We also know that in practice with this particular

government, when there is a question of an adversary situation or

different resource considerations between the environment ministry and

the environment minister, and any other minister, we know who loses

that kind of discussion or argument and who wins. So the fact that

there may be provision for the minister to hold discussions with the

environment minister really does not convince us on this side of the

House that environmental considerations are going to be taken into

account.

I think virtually everybody in the province,

regardless of where they come from politically, regardless of their

situation in the social or economic spectrum, has to be concerned about

this incredible concentration of power in cabinet. We, on our side of

the House, believe that major energy decisions and major resource

development decisions are perhaps too important to be left to the

politicians. I would point out that no prudent businessman would ever

make a decision involving hundreds of millions of dollars on an energy

matter or on an industrial development matter if he had not the

knowledge or a reasonable guarantee as to what the rules were going to

be five, ten, twenty or thirty years down the road. That is a

consideration that the people on that side of the House, when they were

in opposition, constantly raised in my first few years in this chamber.

It is a consideration that they either never really believed in or have

completely forgotten about.

But when government or a

minister can make decisions at whim, and change policy at whim, it is

impossible for the private sector — or even the public sector, through

British Columbia Hydro — to make reasoned judgments and planning and

investment decisions on a long-term basis. Absolutely impossible,

we in this chamber are going to expect the British Columbia business

community, the North American and international business communities to

make investments in B.C. which will continue the economic health of

this province and even allow it to expand and grow at a rate equal or

greater to the rest of Canada, we are going to have to let that

business community know what the availability of energy resources is

going to be, what the basis of rates is going to be, and how those

resources can be developed.

Getting somewhat parochial, I've

stated in this House before and I will state it again that in my

particular area, southwest Kootenay, there would be no industrial

development at all were it not for low-cost electrical power. We do not

have major industrial developments there for any other reason than

low-cost industrial power.

One has to wonder whether

businesses would make the kinds of major investment decisions in this

province knowing that the rules could change, that there was no

guarantee, that there was no proper technical outside rational judgment

on a utility decision-making process affecting their business and their

manufacturing processes over a period of time.

The minister,

and every member of this House, of course, has the release sent out by

the Employers Council of B.C. If the minister is lacking a copy I'm

sure that somebody can run out and copy one and give it to him. But

just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would quote from it: "We do not believe

legislation of this nature should be passed into law without the

opportunity for consideration by those who will be affected by it and

the opportunity for them to make their views available to you." I can't

believe that the Employers Council of B.C. would be making that

statement if they'd had the opportunity to make their views known

before. We can only assume that the minister has drawn up this 52-page

bill in isolation, without consulting the people who would be affected

by it in a major way.

While we don't expect the government, or any other government, to operate

only in the interests of big business, the fact is that the employment and business

opportunities in this province are, to a considerable degree, governed by the

decisions of the major investors in this province. That's not something

I would say for or against; I'm simply stating it as a fact. In this province

of B.C., indeed everywhere in Canada, we all know that to be true, Mr. Speaker,

we also find that the Employers Council of British Columbia have recommended

a delay in the bill. They have recommended amendments to the bill to delete

all references to energy use projects until the bill's new approach to such

regulation can be further studied, Clearly people in the province of B.C., now

that they're reading the fine print in the individual sections of this bill,

have a great deal of concern about this.

would make one other point. Capital investment, whether it's made in

the public sector by British Columbia Hydro or whether it's made in the

private sector, is captive once it's in place. You can't get your money

out of a dam, pulpmill, smelter or major sawmill project. Once it's

invested, it's invested. It must operate under the rules of government.

That is democracy, and that's the law of the land. We know that most

politicians are subject to political pressure. I don't believe that

politicians in the New Democratic Party or politicians in the Social

Credit Party should have that kind of latitude to make decisions that

can change the rules late in the first quarter, some time in the second

quarter, some time in the third quarter, or in the fourth quarter. The

fact is that the rules should be laid down by people elected

democratically in advance of major investment decisions. It's my view

that there will be no major, and probably no minor, investment

decisions made as long as that uncertainly exists in the minds of the

investment community in British Columbia. That is the concern that has

been expressed by the Employers Council.

In view of these

serious reservations, and I would point out that in the

clause-by-clause discussion we will be getting into greater detail

under those various points, I would like to move, seconded by the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the motion for second reading of

this bill be amended by deleting the word ''now" and adding the words

"six months hence."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion defeated on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page 4078 ]

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: On second reading of Bill 52, Utilities Commission Act, I have a word or two that I'd like to say.

First,

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criticisms that one can think of

right off the bat. Some have been alluded to by my colleagues, such as

the forum that we're creating for dealing with extremely important

issues for this province. We're creating a forum to be almost an

analogy to insulation of the cabinet — taking the heat off the cabinet,

but at the same time leaving them with total responsibility to make

political decisions around energy development in this province. Mr.

Speaker, I am suspicious that what we are going to do here.... The

minister has started out very well by providing some staff now. That

would indicate to me that his intention is to have a tame-duck

political commission doing the bidding of the cabinet. From that

standpoint, their advice would be referred to in order to take the heat

off cabinet for the decisions that this tame-duck group are advising.

saw the minister, not long after he was made Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, appoint a person to head up his energy

commission at the time. She was the daughter of Bert Price, a former

member for Vancouver-Burrard in this Legislature. I recall him well.

Beyond that credential, Mr. Speaker, I would wonder what her abilities

are and what her potential is in this particular area. I would suggest,

that being the appointment we can use as an example, that what we're

going to see here is a totally politicized commission. In this day and

age, with this very important subject, that is exactly the last thing

we need.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this commission is going to

be a resting place for Socreds, as the Senate in Ottawa is a lovely

retirement place for Liberals, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) might have looked forward to had he hung in

there in the Liberal Party long enough. He didn't hang in long enough,

and now he can't look forward to that. Now he has another one to look

forward to. The only trouble is that you people aren't going to be

government long enough for him, but it will certainly be long enough

for many appointments to be made in the inevitable next few weeks and

months.

According to the act as I read it, the commission

does nothing except at the bidding of the cabinet. The only way the

commission does any work at all is if it's wound up by the minister and

set loose on projects and on jobs; to suggest otherwise would be to

suggest that one is not looking at the legislation very carefully. The

executive council gives the work to the commission. Then the

commission, having been turned on, comes back to the cabinet and says:

"This is what we suggest in this particular case." If it happens to be

a bit uncomfortable, the cabinet very quietly whispers: "This is what

is going to take place, but it's not our fault — it's because of the

commission's advice." As I have suggested, the commission is purely an

appointed group. All we have to do to see the future is look at the

past, and looking at the past we see that it's going to be totally a

politically appointed group.

The commission is even committed to secrecy.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Yes. The Minister of Energy hasn't read his bill yet — they are

committed to secrecy. The Minister of Energy laughs, but if I were that

minister, who has got this government into so much trouble over the

years with so many wrong decisions, I wouldn't laugh too much, because

he's doing it again with this bill.

On what basis do I say

that? I'll tell you that the Employers Council of British Columbia,

which could hardly be considered a highly progressive, left-oriented

group, sent him a wire and told him he was on a totally wrong track. On

the other hand, a highly legalistic group from Ottawa also informed the

minister that his act won't work. As expected, environmentalists have

said they don't like it.

What the Employers Council called

for was that this bill be given an opportunity to be discussed out

there with the interested groups. The minister says no. I watched him

on television last night; he said no, and gave his reasons. Then for

the next 30 minutes I tried scratching my head, wondering what he had

said in terms of his reasons; he gave absolutely none. It was rhetoric,

rationalization — junk food, if you were to eat it.

This

bill is not going to serve the purposes that we were given in all the

fanfare that introduced it. It reminds me of the old Heroin Treatment

Act, the one that took us down the tube for $14 million and will

probably continue to do so unless it's stopped.

This is the

kind of act where the minister had decided to build himself a bulwark

and tell the people who are giving him the advice just what advice is

acceptable and what advice isn't acceptable. If we have a group of tame

people in there, then let's not worry about the advice we're going to

get.

It also indicates that the commission will report to

the cabinet once a year with a full report. When does it report to the

Legislature? Not within 14 days of the time of sitting, which many

bills of this nature.... The minister obviously doesn't understand

legislation or statutes in this province.

Most legislation

of this sort provides that a report must be tabled in the Legislature

within so many days of the sitting. This one says "as soon as

possible." Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, "as soon as possible" means

never, if that's what cabinet decides. "Oh, " he says, "is that

possible?" Yes, it's possible, because it's true. We've seen evidence

of it from time to time. They're committed to secrecy — a report that

may or may not be tabled at the next session or the succeeding session

of the Legislature, a tame-duck group doing the bidding of the minister

and only being turned on by cabinet order. I believe that asking us to

vote for this new energy bill — particularly in view of the fact that

people from all sectors and from all walks of life, representing large

responsible groups, are saying that it's bad legislation — is asking us

to do the impossible.

Why are we discussing a bill like this

in what are "the dying hours of the Legislature"? It's simply because

this is the kind of bill you bring in late, discuss as early as you can

conveniently under those circumstances, and dispatch it, as close to

the end of the session as possible, so that it draws as

[ Page 4079 ]

little

attention as possible. Don't leave it tabled from early in the session,

so that people out there can put forward their just criticism and ask

the minister for some in-depth answers. No, Mr. Speaker. Get it in, get

it out, get rid of it, and maybe it'll die in tomorrow's newspapers. So

all we have to discuss in the future is criticism of the commission

that's about to be put together.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

going to criticize that commission too much in the future. It's not

their commission anyway. It's this government, this minister and this

cabinet that are putting it together — almost a mirror image — to

reflect their opinion and no other. This morning the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) said: "Where is the public input?" Where can the public

input be put forward in this form of legislation and in this setup?

It's going to be impossible. That's to be expected. It's a bit of

flim-flam, a bit of window dressing. We heard all the bright and

wonderful things that this minister was going to do in his portfolio.

He needed something to change his image and he hasn't got it here. He

has offended the entire community.

He has even offended his

colleague, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He said

he is supporting it, but after listening to his speech with all the

criticisms where he pulled it apart bit by bit and piece by piece,

you'd wonder what he is doing sitting over there. I can't imagine why

he sits there anyway. In any event, there is certainly no seat for him

here, but there would be somewhere between here and there; they call it

"independent." Or maybe he could sit as a Liberal again. Certainly what

I heard from him this morning on this bill was just one criticism after

another. After having said a few complimentary things at the beginning

he decided to pull it apart, and he pulled it apart quite effectively.

There

is no point in me going into that, other than to say that if all those

are against it — the opposition diametrically opposed, Employers

Council opposed, major legal groups opposed, environmental groups

opposed, most thoughtful people in the community terribly concerned —

how could one support Bill 52? I can't.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has outlined, the government is not proud of this bill. They are ashamed of this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nic the Nuke.

MR. NICOLSON:

I ask the member to withdraw that calumnious statement, or else provide

any proof of the accusation that he is making. I have spoken the length

and breadth of this land against nuclear power in British Columbia. I

have spoken to international groups and cautioned them against buying

Candu reactors. If that member wants to make that kind of accusation,

you let him put forward some kind of proof of it — something better

than that vile rag, the Social Credit caucus newsletter.

Mr.

Speaker, the government is not proud of this bill. They are trying to

sneak it in in the dog days of the Legislature in mid-August. If they

had been proud of it, they would have followed up very shortly after

the speech from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor last February 29,

and that bill would have been there for everyone to see. But they've

held it back and held it back, and have finally brought it in here.

They are not proud of it. They are truly ashamed of it. It is something

that they are trying to sneak in, sneak by and get through with as

little controversy and comment as possible. But they have failed, like

in so many other areas. They failed even in doing that.

The

Employers Council of British Columbia certainly realizes that powers

such as these in the hands of such a dangerous minister.... This

minister has already shown no regard for the liberties of people, and

his previous legislation has been found ultra vires. He thought that he

could trammel the basic liberties of people with his old heroin

legislation, which has been floundering in the courts, has brought

great expense and has been a financial disaster, as well as being a

disaster in terms of doing anything for very unfortunate heroin

addicts. He is now going to bring that same track record to the field

of energy. The minister does not have the confidence of people who have

environmental concerns. His cavalier, high-handed treatment of

corporations such as West Kootenay Power and Cominco, over and above

the advice which he received from the Energy Commission, has caused him

to lack and to lose the confidence of the business community as well.

Indeed, nowhere does he have any support. Even some of the back bench

don't support the minister's actions, as we witnessed this morning in

the comments we heard from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour who

was the former federal Minister of Energy and the former Minister of

Energy in the present government.

Mr. Speaker, this bill

opens the way for more of what we've been seeing from the Social Credit

government. I can see them paving the way for more Eckardtism, where

they will hire their own marionettes, put them into this commission,

jiggle their strings and have them do exactly what they want.

The

first thing is the manner in which they'll be appointed. It says that

there will be only seven commissioners, but there is a new kind of a

commissioner — a temporary commissioner, something I haven't seen a

great deal of — and they can hire or appoint as many temporary

commissioners as they want. Temporary commissioners can be given the

rights and powers of a full commissioner. The commissioners serve in

pleasure for a period of five years but temporary commissioners

probably have no limit. They might be temporary for about 10 or 15

years, like some of the old civil servants used to be under the old

W.A.C. Bennett government. They were temporary employees of the

government with about 15 years of continuous service — that might be

the case here. In other words, like ICBC, to which they can now appoint

an infinite number of Socred hacks, if they wish; like the cabinet, to

which they can appoint the entire back bench, if they wish, they have

open-ended it and removed all limits. So it is ''open sesame" for any

Social Credit supporter, defeated candidate or hanger-on to get

appointed to the B.C. Energy Commission. The

section dealing with that

is so wide open you could drive a Mack truck through it.

Mr.

Speaker, this act gives the cabinet the power to issue orders to the

commission. So really it's the cabinet that directs the commission. It

allows the commission to sit in various divisions; in other words,

there can be subcommittees or subcommissions of the commission with all

of these temporary people. Temporary people can be appointed as

commissioners or as chairmen; they can multiply and divide, subtract

and add, I suppose, as they wish, permutating and combining in great

proliferation. This setup will allow, if by any fluke someone of some

intestinal fortitude, someone with some spine, should happen by mistake

— and this government is noted for mistakes, Mr. Speaker — to get

[ Page 4080 ]

there with a little bit of backbone, they can then be isolated. They

can form a temporary commission. They can isolate this person out of

that temporary commission, so if there is a matter about which they're

worried, they can get rid of troublemakers — they can be isolated.

That's the kind of loose and flexible power that is given to the

government to direct in its appointment of temporary commissions and

commissioners and everything else. So there is quite a guarantee there

to government that no troublemakers, no stars, will arise in this

particular system. They'll soon be shunted to one side and put into a

place where they'll be sharpening a pencil, if they should be appointed

by some mistake.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is rife, for

instance, in terms of dealing with the review process and energy

removal certificates.... Applications for a certificate are to be made

to the minister, not to the commission, and information contained in an

application is that to be required by the minister. The minister can

refer an application to the commission or he can exempt a project from

review with the concurrence of the Minister of Environment. So here are

two political people — and I don't know what "concurrence" means, how

that is exactly defined, and what the legal and binding aspects of

concurrence of the Minister of Environment are.... In fact this is

cabinet control again, cabinet decisions, so a review is at the

discretion of government. This is an impotent commission.

Mr.

Speaker, the government decides whether or not to accept

recommendations — if they even allow the commission to investigate,

report and make recommendations. The government decides whether or not

to accept recommendations of the commission. The bottom line of this is

that independent public review processes are a farce. There is full

government control at all times and interested parties have no

statutory rights to participate, no statutory rights to intervene.

Another

aspect of this act is that the government has caved in to the

multinational oil companies. While a good number of the sections on

regulation of public utilities are word for word from the previous act

on the Energy Commission, there are some notable exceptions. One

notable exception is

section 69 of the Energy Act, which says:

(1) No person engaged in the petroleum industry shall, in the province,

engage in or carry on a practice which, in the judgment of the

commission, unduly increases the price of petroleum products to the

consumer.

"

(2) A person who, after receiving

an order from the commission, continues to engage in or carry on the

prohibited practice commits an offence."

Similarly, sections 71 and 76 of the old Energy Act provided some measure of control on the petroleum industry.

But there is no such mention of these powers in the new act,

and, in fact, they are notable by their absence. Yet the contiguous

sections that would deal with that are word for word from the old

Energy Act, just lifted out of there, but lifted selectively to take

out any kind of power that the.... Not only are we removing power of a

commission to act; we are removing power of government to act, because

there is no other legislated power.

That's rather sad, Mr. Speaker, because back when the second member for

Vancouver East's (Mr. Macdonald'

s) father was Attorney-General of this

province, they took measures to try to get some measure of control of the petroleum

companies. That led them into some very serious political difficulties, and

that government — that very gutsy government for its day — was defeated. I know

that were the second member for Vancouver East here today he would certainly

have something to say about the removal of this section, which he was very instrumental

in having inserted into the Energy Act, and which was, of course, certainly

supported by the government of the day. It is a very important section, and

it is very notable by its absence in the new bill.

For

the reason that this minister terrifies the business community by his

cavalier abuse of power.... He has been given unprecedented powers by

this new act — as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

has said, "awesome and sweeping powers." I suppose a word such as that

can be abused, but it hardly will be abused as long as this government

remains in power and continues to bring in such legislation.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is a most unusual bill that we have before us. It's most unusual

to have a bill — some 52 pages, granted — the great majority of which

is based on the existing energy legislation in this province. Some

sections — approximately 10 new major sections are introduced —

completely deviate from the existing energy legislation. To have a

minister who can introduce a bill such as this, with really only 10 new

sections in it, and as a result of that have everybody up on their

ears.... We have environmental groups, B.C. Hydro, the Employers

Council.... We certainly have the opposition concerned, and I

understand there is some concern even on that side of the House about

this bill.

I think it's somewhat of an achievement to have a minister who can come

in with a bill that creates that much of a problem with so very few major changes.

But those changes are certainly extremely major.

One

of the groups that I forgot to mention is, of course, the legal

profession. Representatives from the Law Society are concerned about

the bill. That's nothing new for this minister — to have the legal

profession concerned about the legislation which he introduces. There's

an old adage that one should learn from one's mistakes. This minister

doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.

The thing that

bothers me most about this bill is that it purports, on the face of it,

to establish a very unbiased public utilities commission that is going

to make apolitical decisions about future directions of this province

in relation to energy. People might be convinced that that's exactly

what it's going to do, but it's not doing that really, because that

body is not an independent body. It's spelled out very clearly in the

terms of the act. In

section 3 it says: "The commission shall comply

with any general or specific direction of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the exercise of its

powers and functions." That says it all. This so-called independent

public utilities commission is nothing more nor less than a mouthpiece

for the cabinet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm

not going to argue whether or not the elected officials should be

making the decisions. Elected officials have been making the decisions

as far as B.C. Hydro goes. There has been an attempt to indicate that

B.C. Hydro was out of control and doing its own thing, but really the

responsibility lies with the cabinet as far as B.C. Hydro goes; they

are the

[ Page 4081 ]

people

who ultimately direct the policy of B.C. Hydro. Certainly this

commission is going to be completely at the beck and call of the

cabinet. This commission is something a little different than B.C.

Hydro. B.C. Hydro was incorporated for the sole purpose of supplying an

adequate power supply to British Columbia. I think if you look at their

terms of reference, you will find that's what their responsibilities

are — nothing to do with anything other than providing an adequate

power supply.

Certainly the Energy Commission, which this

public utilities body will replace, had a different set of

responsibilities. Energy, because of its very importance, the variety

of forms in which it comes and the variety of ways in which it may be

used or conserved, has to be covered by a long-term, well-established

policy going in a specific direction. In my opinion that policy can

best be drafted by an unbiased public body without any political axes

to grind, without concerns about what will happen to votes here or

there, if and when an election is called, if we do or do not do certain

things. To establish this body and then to say that it shall comply

with any general or specific direction of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council completely negates that whole process.

That's

what the legal profession is concerned about. They're concerned that in

this act we may see in the future the same kind of thing that has been

happening in Langley with the 626 acres. The cabinet got involved by

overruling an appointed body, and members of the cabinet could now

actually find themselves — if that case comes to court, and I don't

want to talk about the specific case because it is before the courts —

in the position of being called as witnesses and being asked to divulge

cabinet business. The same thing could apply in this instance, because

if in fact this public utilities commission is to be solely at the

direction of cabinet, then if any legal proceedings arose in relation

to any of their decisions, we could well find the cabinet involved.

That is one of the concerns of the legal profession and certainly one

of the concerns of those of us on this side of the House.

I'm

not sure, either, that the concept of democracy is being reached in the

way the commission is to operate. The commission is going to be formed

into divisions, holding simultaneous hearings. I can envision two

hearings going on at one time, one relating to a hydroelectric dam

project and the other to the transmission line, and one coming up with

one decision and one coming up with the opposite decision. It doesn't

make any sense to segregate those kinds of things, because one doesn't

work without the other. Certainly energy supply is an overall picture,

and you don't break off small entities to deal with any specifics of

that total picture.

When you find that you can in fact have

two members of the commission constitute a quorum at a division of this

committee, we're getting down to a pretty small percentage, where one

vote or a tie vote, if the commission were divided on any particular

sitting or hearing, could be decided then, theoretically, by either the

chairman of that particular commission, who wouldn't have sat in on the

hearing at all, or else by the cabinet. The whole public hearing

process is disturbing, because it doesn't really follow the lines of

democratic public hearings.

The bill gives the opportunity

for the commission to consider various forms of power. Certainly there

is no emphasis on anything other than standard hard power sources.

It seems that whenever we talk about things like solar power, we're inclined

to have a kind of airy-fairy approach: "It might be fine sometime, but

it's not feasible right now; it's not practical right now; it can't

be done right now; or it won't work in this climate." That's the

message I get whenever I talk to any government official, provincial or federal,

relative to solar power. You know, in practice that's not right.

Every

day I pass a home on the highway which, I think for some $7,000, put

together a solar heating setup. He sited his house correctly. It

catches the sun. He was innovative. His heat storage is a bin of gravel

in his basement. He is supplying 90 percent of his heat requirements.

This

act establishes a commission, but there is no precedent given in this

act to the requirement for that commission to review alternate power

sources. As I say, they very probably would have the right to look at

that, but there is no emphasis in the act to ensure that that will

happen.

I found a very interesting letter in the letters to

the editor of a magazine published in Ontario, I believe it is. It was

on the joint solar conference that was held at UBC. This letter is

written by a layman who.... Well, he's not exactly a layman, but

certainly he's concerned about the stats of government. He says:

"The

vast majority of our fellow citizens are not sold on solar, not just

because of their wallets, but mainly because practical bread-and-butter

solar heating has never been properly presented to them by their

government, either federal or provincial. Governments continue to

downgrade solar heating, on the advice of their resident sitting

bureaucrats and the various utilities, to the extent" — and he's

speaking of Ontario — "that the Department of Energy has publicly gone

on record as saying that solar heating is still many years down the

road."

This individual lives in Ontario. He lives in a solar-heated house.

"Right now, in mid-April, in my greenhouse I have lush flowers,

tomatoes, lettuce, beets, carrots and peas growing eight feet up the wall."

goes on to say that when he began, back in 1970, he was building what

everyone said was an impossible dream and was regarded by his

neighbourhood as a loony. But he's not anymore. He says the television

trucks and camera crews helped change all that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you got the right bill?

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, I've got the right bill, Mr. Minister. and I think the Speaker

will agree that the concern about energy includes a concern about

utilization of the sources of energy available. Solar energy is one of

those sources, and there is a lack of emphasis in this bill on the

encouragement of solar heat. As this gentleman from Ontario has said,

the position is taken that it's way down the road — it's expensive and

impractical. I suggest that this bill should include a very strong

emphasis to ensure that the Utilities Commission is spending a great

deal of time and money in ensuring that not only solar power but wind

power and the use of wood waste are looked at much more carefully. As I

look through this bill I see nothing specific on those. I see

everything about gas and electric and thermal, and just brief mention

of those items of the more modern, soft-energy approach. I believe the

bill is out of balance on that particular score.

My main concern relates to my first remarks. I believe it's a dangerous bill because it is certainly not going to ensure

[ Page 4082 ]

independent review of the long-term approach to our energy resources

and needs. It's tied very closely, although very discreetly, to the

cabinet, in the hope that when unpopular decisions are reached the

cabinet will escape the blame — but that's where those decisions will

come from. There will be legal implications involved. It's a bill that

satisfies none of the various sectors of B.C. society. Right across the

board we have people complaining about this bill, and I believe that if

this bill passes in the Legislature we may find ourselves facing some

rather serious court cases as a result of some of the things that may

happen because of the way in which the commission is set up.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions to raise with the minister

regarding the Utilities Commission. Almost to a sense, it's almost

reminiscent of the government's uranium policy, which specifically

allows a company like Placer Development to proceed with their

uranium-moly mine well before a public inquiry is ever called upon.

addressing this act, the minister has taken questions concerning the

Hayward report on notice three times in the House. I'm wondering

particularly, Mr. Minister, what this minister is going to state

concerning the Hayward report. Just to go over the Hayward report once

again, concerning the Utilities Commission in this aspect, it says not

to contact native people. Do you remember that one, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've been extremely patient while the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about things that

have nothing to do with this bill and could have been raised in my

estimates and weren't. Now the member for Atlin — I don't know what the

House wants to do about it — is talking about a question I have taken

as notice in question period in this House on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I

would hope the debate would at least stay relevant to the bill.

MR. HOWARD:

On that point of order, when the minister's estimates were being

considered before the committee was called, the government House Leader

noted that there were two bills — one dealing with mines and this one —

that covered subject matters within the minister's ministry and could

be examined in that light. Later the Leader of the Opposition,

commenting towards the end of the estimates, said that some of the

things would more appropriately be dealt with in committee. There was a

general view that some laxity could have been permitted under this

particular bill to deal with subject matters that might not normally be

considered. If the House could look at it with an appreciation of those

earlier comments, I think we would be all right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I agree, but surely there are some things that can't be discussed under

the bill. In terms of questions taken as notice, how can I answer those

questions in this bill when I have taken the questions as notice? I

just ask for some fairness, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The minister makes a good point. Questions taken as notice are

questions taken as notice, and the minister is responsible for those

questions that have been posed to him in the House. The House is

reminded that during second reading of any bill great latitude is

allowed with respect to the principle of the bill. However, in spite of

statements that might have been made in committee during a minister's

estimates, the House rules are such that it would be best if we could

maintain some relevancy with respect to Bill 52, which is before us

now. I am sure that the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and all

hon. members are aware of that.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr.

Speaker, I was just getting involved in starting to speak on the matter

to give some background to the minister regarding the Utilities

Commission and the faith people are going to put in the Utilities

Commission when there is a report like the Hayward report circulating

around this province which involves a social discrimination aspect,

stating not to contact certain people. When you have your utility

commission, Mr. Minister, how many people are going to put faith in a

commission appointed by the government when there's been nothing done

about the Hayward report and other reports that have come out

condemning certain aspects and social strata in this province?

Secondly,

Mr. Speaker, Hydro has consistently developed certain reports on the

northern dam scheme, and not once has this minister stood up and

condemned these reports when they make such outlandish statements as

not to contact native people. He should have come out attacking the

Hayward report, as well as the report from October 1979 on the

transmission study that stated northern communities would not receive

power because it's not easy to tap off small amounts of power to local

communities, the same as the April 1979 Hydro report which went public

that northem townsites and mines also would not receive power from the

Stikine-Iskut or Liard dam schemes. It's going to be very difficult for

people in this province to support a government-appointed commission

when Hydro last fall stated that the communities of Lower Post and

Upper Liard would be flooded, as well as Hot Springs provincial park,

from the Liard Hydro project.

An interesting aspect of this is: why is Hydro spending millions of dollars

in the Stikine this week and the reports of this fall, while building access

roads into the damsite, when a supposed utility commission is being proposed

to view and come down with a ruling if B.C. Hydro can proceed with the Stikine-Iskut

dam system? There are work stoppages at the Echo Lake Hydro camp working on

the lower region of the Stikine-Iskut dams. This is costing Hydro millions of

dollars. On Friday top management officials of Hydro are going to fly in on

private aircraft to Echo Lake to see if they can stop this work stoppage. Hydro

is presently over $6 billion in debt. Last week Hydro published certain reports

concerning the northern dam systems and schemes which will cost an additional

$13 billion to $16 billion for the province — money that is going to have to

be brought up and fronted by the taxpayers of this province. A government-appointed

commission — this utility commission — will be viewed skeptically by many northern

residents who have seen detailed Hydro reports on the Stikine-Iskut and Liard

dam systems, who have seen camps and the work stoppages at Echo Lake, who have

seen camps being built with the food camps brought in, who have seen massive

equipment and the foremen talking to local residents telling them when the dam

is going to be built. It appears that this utility commission is only going

to serve the betterment of B.C. Hydro who, because of its mismanagement, is

$6 billion in debt.... It has a secretive way of not releasing reports concerning

local residents and then turning around, Mr. Speaker, and saying

[ Page 4083 ]

they

don't exist, particularly when they have their own signatures on the

reports themselves. The minister is quite aware of that.

B.C.

Hydro, to a certain extent, is using this government to continue their

con, their massive dam building and money madness, by having a front

group, this supposed proposed Utilities Commission, take the heat off

of Hydro. People are viewing Hydro's debt and they're just wondering

what kind of a financial monster Hydro is. This Utilities Commission is

simply going to take the heat off of Hydro, who can turn around and

eventually say: "The commission approved our dam systems. The

commission approved our $13 billion debt." I won't be supporting this

act, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt that many people of our party will

support this sellout to B.C. Hydro.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'm going to be reasonably brief this afternoon. I always get a hand

from the minister when I say that. I'm raising topics that the minister

is generally very much aware of, but I thought this would be the proper

place to raise some of these topics for the last time this session. I

don't intend to go into a lot of detail, although I've got a great deal

of detail on all these matters in front of me.

As the

previous speaker stated, I will not be supporting this bill. This is

the kind of bill I could have supported except for some of the clauses

within the bill that the minister has said he refuses to amend or

withdraw, because it's the kind of thing that this province and people

concerned with energy matters in this province have been waiting for

for a long, long time. But to leave the final decision to cabinet makes

the bill, in fact, almost totally useless. It puts it back into the

political arena.

I'd like to cite a couple of examples. The

proposed Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line is now being shoved and

rammed through my riding. It may well be that that 500-kilovolt

transmission line is necessary. But we don't know that. Nobody knows

that, because there was never a proper financial or environmental

impact study done on that proposed transmission line. The Shaffer

report, a study that was commissioned by this government under the

Environment and Land Use Committee, recommended that the line not

proceed, that a very expensive.... When that line started out, we were

told by B.C. Hydro, it was going to cost the public of British Columbia

$350 million. We found in a secret internal memo from Hydro that the

cost of the line had gone up to $700 million. Now we know that the

total cost of that line....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

You've heard this before. We've talked about it. But I want it to go on

the record. The final cost of this line — and this is not the latest

figure made available to us — is going to be $1.3 billion. I'm guessing

that by the time the line is completed in 1982 the final cost will be

closer to $1.8 billion or so, and we don't even know if that

transmission line is going to work.

The contracts that were

let by this government for the underwater portion were let without

guarantees to the foreign companies that are now in the process of

constructing those underwater cables without guarantees that those

cables will work. So they may be spending all of this money with no

guarantee that Vancouver Island will get that power anyway.

The government proceeded with a Hydro decision condoned by this government

to proceed with that terrible expenditure for a project which may not be needed,

and in which the government forgot to look at energy alternatives.

see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) shaking his head. You

know, if he'd taken an interest in this whole subject, wood waste may

have been one of the energy alternatives for an interim period for

Vancouver Island.

This brings me to another subject. The

House is familiar with the fact that right now on Texada Island there

is a small protest group, because most people in my riding, although

they are opposed to this line — at least in the way it was

initiated.... There was still a very small group protesting the

construction of this Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line across Texada

Island. Eight people have been charged and thrown in the clink — the

slammer, I think they call it — for obstructing the construction of

road rights-of-way on Texada Island. While I don't condone civil

disobedience, I can fully understand the frustrations of the people

involved in this very strenuous protest on Texada Island. They're

protesting the, way the government has gone about reaching the

conclusions on how this transmission line should be built. They're

protesting the autocratic way in which Hydro deals with people in this

province. It proceeds with projects all over this province without

proper hearings and without any kind of financial or environmental

impact studies. So I understand and I can sympathize with those people.

But as I said, there are other ways to go about these things. I do have

some sympathy for the small subcontractors involved in that line and

for the people employed there. It's costing them money and jobs.

They're not directly related to Hydro in any way, yet they seem to be

paying the price for Hydro's folly.

Another alternative that the government may have looked at was the proposed

natural gas line to Vancouver Island. It may have been a viable alternative

to this horrendous use of electric power. I should remind you that not long

ago some of our caucus members had the opportunity of meeting with senior management

people from B.C. Hydro — Mr. Bonner and company. As hard as you may find this

to believe, Mr. Bonner told us quite directly and distinctly when we questioned

him about the need for some of these projects that we may not need the energy

now or in the next ten years, but we can always export our excess energy to

the United States and add those funds to the revenues of the province. Never

mind the fish, the streams, the environmental damage and the havoc it causes

to the lives of many people. Never mind the pesticides they use on these rights-of-way

that infiltrate our waterways and watersheds. There are seven watersheds affected

on the Sunshine Coast alone. But in any event, this was what we were told. And

he said: "Besides, if we don't do this, we'll have to go to nuclear

energy." I suspect that's the way Mr. Bonner would like to go, but

I think he's being held up a little on that by public protest.

started to suggest to the minister that one of the alternatives that

should have been looked at prior to the decision for the 500-kilovolt

transmission line was the possibility of the utilization of natural gas

in this province. We produce natural gas in this province, and we're

making strong attempts to export that natural gas. I listened very

closely to the minister's opening remarks, and the minister was

agreeing that this British Columbia resource should be used on

Vancouver Island. The problem is that the costs for that proposed

project are going up every day. Also, we don't know who is going to get

the contract. I assume that all proposals will be placed before this

Utilities Commission, but the fact is the final

[ Page 4084 ]

decision

will be made in cabinet. What concerns me on a constituency level — and

I was given this information on a straightforward, person-to-person

basis from a senior official from the gas engineering division of B.C.

Hydro — is that if B.C. Hydro gets the contract to supply natural gas

to Vancouver Island at some future date, you can rest assured that it

will be long after our lives are over before you get any in your

riding, at the big mills in Powell River, Woodfibre, Port Mellon and

theSunshine Coast, for domestic and/or commercial use.

While

Hydro and its prospectus throw out this little sop, and do a few

underwater studies — underwater studies have been completed by another

firm in any event, so it's a duplication of studies — we know that

there will be no natural gas. We will not have the B.C. resource which

British Columbians have a right to in our riding; we'll be left out

once again. So I don't like the way that's heading, and I hope that the

minister will give very senous consideration in cabinet to the matters

I've just raised. In effect, if that contract is eventually awarded to

B.C. Hydro, it means that some 35,000 British Columbians will be denied

the use of that resource.

Another item that I'd like to

discuss very briefly is the Gambier Island situation for which the

minister is totally responsible in terms of the Minister of Mines. I'm

requesting that the minister cease, desist and cancel those exploration

leases on that delicate, fragile island. The Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) agrees with what I"m saying; the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) agrees with what I'm saying,

although he doesn't have the backbone to back up the Islands Trust

commission which is under his jurisdiction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal allusion, hon. member. I'll have to ask you to withdraw that reference.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You want me to withdraw the minister's backbone?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a personal allusion which I find unparliamentary. Would the member simply withdraw it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw. He's not here to defend himself; otherwise I'd have a little row with you over this one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Although great latitude is allowed during second reading, hon. member,

we must stick to what is described in the bill. We can debate the

principle of what is described in the bill. I'm sure the hon. member is

aware of that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I attempted to

bring this matter of the proposed mining situation on Gambier Island up

in this House on other occasions. I received no satisfactory answers

from anybody, including the Premier, who said: "Talk to the Minister of

Energy." I tried to raise it under the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm); he said: "Talk to the Minister of Energy." I

attempted to raise the subject under the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers); he said he was concerned, but it was totally under the

purview of the Minister of Energy. I am now discussing this with the

Minister of Energy. Where the heck is he going to tell me to go? I've

got a good idea what he'd like to tell me. So this is the last

opportunity. Even the Premier of this province wouldn't answer

questions, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With respect,

the question is of the minister. Ample opportunity was given during the

estimates of the minister. I'm sure the hon. member knows that and will

relate the debate to Bill 52.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I

respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, except to say that the minister now

has a chance to clean up the situation on that very delicate, fragile

island. They're not making Gulf Islands anymore. So I hope the

minister, who is very familiar with the whole topic anyway, will listen

sympathetically to the people before they go to court on this subject,

if they do go to court; they may not be allowed to. But I hope the

minister will listen sympathetically to that whole....

The

report said, by the way, that Gambier Island has access to

approximately two million people in the lower mainland and could be a

second Stanley Park to those two million people.

On to my other topic, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you start talking about ferry service in my bill, I'm quitting. [Laughter.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The transportation services in my riding are really terrible.... No, I'm just kidding.

Mr.

Speaker, I do have one last topic. Approximately a year and a half ago,

perhaps closer to two years ago, a former Minister of Energy of this

province introduced guidelines to govern self-serve gas stations. He

said that if the guidelines didn't work and weren't obeyed by the

multinational oil companies, legislation, regulation and a distinct,

tough statement would be brought in by this government. I'm telling you

right now, the guidelines are not working. I can tell you for sure. For

every individual service station operator who goes out of business in

this province because of a self-serve, at least five jobs are lost. For

every self-serve that is set up anywhere in this province,

approximately four independents go out of business. This is the last

opportunity this session to raise this matter again, requesting that

the government, through that minister, seriously consider bringing in

legislation or regulation as soon as possible to control the growth of

self-serves in this province and preserve the small independent

businessman. Don't let the whole gasoline or petroleum products

industry fall into the hands of a few multinational corporations that

are not even controlled in this country, never mind this province, in

any way, shape or form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your latitude.

MR. BARBER:

Under Social Credit we have had three Ministers of Energy in four and a

half years. It appears clear to us that each has been worse than the

previous one.

We now have a bill before us which may well

result in litigation, and which has been presented by that master of

administrative law who is responsible for such bungling as the Heroin

Treatment Act. There is good reason to suspect that the bill he brings

forward here may have as many legal flaws and loopholes as did the

Heroin Treatment Act, about which he was solemnly and repeatedly warned

by the official

[ Page 4085 ]

opposition.

However, he pressed on with that bill, much to the subsequent

embarrassment of his own government, and now he is no longer Minister

of Health.

We have a bill here....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You were thinking "thank God he's no longer Minister of Health."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, we do too, but not that one. Dennis Cocke would make a great Minister of Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill 52, hon. members.

MR. BARBER:

The concern I'd like to raise in regard to this bill is the question of

independence, autonomy and integrity in regard to the functions and

powers of the Utilities Commission.

Let me briefly read

section 3 of the bill. It says:

"

(1) The commission shall comply with any general or

special direction of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council with respect to

the exercise of its powers and functions.

(2) A direction given by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under subsection (1) is a regulation

under the Regulation Act."

Section

3, which I've just read in its entirety, betrays the true intentions of

the coalition government.

Section 3 makes it perfectly clear what their

political agenda really is;

section 3 makes it irrevocably obvious what

the real thinking behind the bill is, The bill, as my colleague from

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said, is intended to provide a buffer between the

public and B.C. Hydro; the bill is also intended to provide a buffer

between the public and the cabinet itself, where, we can clearly read

in this bill, the real power lies.

Now the fact that the current Minister of Energy — number

three in four and a half years — will receive in a personal way more

awesome and irrevocable powers than have ever been granted to one

individual in the field of energy is an important topic for discussion.

It will be discussed later as this bill proceeds — slowly — through the

House. The fact that one Socred proposes to give himself personal power

that no New Democrat minister ever even imagined, much less asked for,

is a prospect that should remind some people of the hypocrisy of the

Social Credit Party when it raised the old and false spectre about

awesome, sweeping powers.

We have here a minister who has so

offended his own former friends on the Employers Council of British

Columbia that they sent him a telegram yesterday — which today he said

he has not received; one wonders who opens his mail and who reads it to

him and how slow they must be doing it — that clearly indicates the

dissatisfaction of the Employers Council of British Columbia — of all

groups! — with the clearly czar-like powers that the Minister of Energy

wants to have for himself and all by himself. When the Employers

Council of British Columbia, which is hardly a New Left group in B.C.,

also takes offence at the sweeping powers that Social Credit is

attempting to give itself, then maybe indeed there is something to be

said for killing the bill.

It's not just persons concerned about the natural systems of air, water

and land who are opposed to this bill; it's not just persons familiar with

the bankrupt planning practices of Social Credit in regard to energy who are

concerned about the bill; it's not just persons concerned about the fact

that, thanks to Social Credit, we were ripped off to the tune of $1 billion

on the Columbia River Treaty and ripped off again on the High Ross Dam — all

of them ridiculous schemes entered into by Social Credit.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Aided and abetted by Social Credit in 1953, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) knows perfectly well.

All

those people who are well aware of the historical incompetence of

Social Credit in planning for the energy needs of this province have,

together with the Employers Council of British Columbia, registered

their strong protest about this bill. When even the government's own

political supporters, who comprise the vast majority of the membership

of the Employers Council of B.C., are moved to send a telegram publicly

attacking this minister and his bill, then perhaps the people are well

advised to think twice about supporting it. When even the Employers

Council of British Columbia thinks there is something wrong, it's just

possible that there just might be.

What's wrong with the

bill, in particular as it offends me, is the fact that the government

proposes to create a kind of puppet which, as is clearly demonstrated

section 3, will have no powers but those granted to it by the

cabinet, and may assume no initiative and take no independent action

other than that also granted by the cabinet. One has to wonder what the

political purpose of setting up such a theatre of puppets in the field

of energy is. What is the real political agenda of Social Credit in

doing so?

Well, in

part it has to do with the current public

disrepute of B.C. Hydro. I would argue that the tactic being followed

here is to buffer Hydro from the public by creating a phony-baloney

Utilities Commission that has no real power.

Section 3 clearly

indicates they have no independent life of their own whatever — none at

all; it can be revoked instantly by the order-in-council system. It

makes it obvious that the government has read the polls and has held

its meteorologically political finger to the wind and discovered that

Hydro ain't popular. Having discovered this, they've chosen to create

the pretence that Hydro will be made accountable; therefore the

government will become popular because the government finally mastered

this beast called Hydro, rampaging all over the province out of

control, as the public presumes it does.

The same political

course they've chosen here to get themselves out of the mess they find

themselves in regarding Hydro's unpopularity is remarkably similar to

that pursued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in regard to regional

districts. I will only allude to it briefly, Mr. Speaker, by way of

comparison.

What did that minister do? Well, he set up

another puppet: a land-use bill, drafts of which have been seen. He set

up the fiction of creating a county system, which is glorified regional

districts by another name. They have greater power and more

concentrated authority. He pretended to be in the business of bringing

regional governments into line because the political polls told him

that was popular to do.

Social Credit is not, in fact, prepared to do the real thing, but they are

prepared to engineer the appearance of it. They are prepared to create the fiction

that they are bringing regional government into line. The way they do that is

by this unsubstantiated talk of county government. Similarly, they

[ Page 4086 ]

are

now prepared to bring to public attention the fiction that Hydro will

be controlled by this bill and that Hydro will be governed by a

utilities commission.

The fact is, contrary to the fiction

engaged in by Social Credit, that the intent of this bill is to protect

Hydro from the buffeting of critical public opinion. The reason that's

being done is to protect Robert Bonner and the other Socreds who've

always had a hand in running Hydro. The reason it's being done is to

get the government out of political hot water.

Section 3(

l) says: "The commission shall comply with any general or special

direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the

exercise of its powers and functions." Clearly this is a body which,

even before it has been set up, is emasculated. It is a body which

clearly is not going to be granted any independent initiative

whatsoever. This is a commission which, should it choose to attack

Hydro's long-range energy projections in a critical and thoughtful way,

could — and we predict would — simply be ordered by cabinet to stop

doing so.

We're all familiar with the political interference

that has occurred in other areas of government in this province, like

redistribution, the Eckardt report, and Gracie's Finger.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 52, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

Everyone knows the notorious Socred practice of political interference

in delicate matters of public policy. What we didn't know today, until

we had the proof of it in

section 3, is the fact that these guys are

apparently willing to promote one public fiction while following one

private fact. They hope no one notices the difference between the two.

The

private fact is that the commission has no independent life of its own.

As I said before, if they decided on their own initiative to take on

Hydro's energy projections, this cabinet could stop them from doing so,

and probably would. If this commission decided, on its own initiative,

to promote the soft-energy paths of cheap and affordable alternatives,

this cabinet could and probably would stop them from doing so.

Section

3 gives them this power.

If the commission decided and

proposed to fund community groups and alternative energy groups,

independent of the wishes of the Minister of Energy — number three in

four and a half years — they could, and probably would, be told to

forget it, because it was contrary to Social Credit's grand design.

Section

3 gives the cabinet and the minister the power to stop any initiative,

no matter how imaginative, witty, important and interesting, that the

commission may decide to prosecute.

Why would the government

want that power? If they appoint a good commission, give it good

authority, and make it responsible to the law — and not to the

politicians — why is it necessary for Social Credit to emasculate the

commission in the same bill? If they really believe that an impartial,

disinterested and scientifically sound opinion has merit, then why in

section 3 do we see them strangling the ability of the commission to

act independently regardless of the politics of the day? What political

agenda does Social Credit have that is more important than the sound,

scientifically reasoned, and scientifically based opinion of a public

utilities commission?

If there's any problem with the integrity of their data, those data can

be criticized by other scientific opinions. If the Energy Commission presents

material that is not substantiated in a scientific, rational and logical way,

then those data and the conclusions that derive from them will be repudiated

in a scientific way.

What

fear can the government have that the Utilities Commission will produce

the wrong evidence? If they're not afraid of the scientific evidence

and the scientific criteria applied by the Utilities Commission, why

then do they need the powers of

section 3? If this government welcomes

independent inquiry, why do they create a dependent commission that may

not pursue aggressively and autonomously those same scientific

questions? There are rational disputes in the energy community about

which are the softer, cheaper, more immediately available energy paths

we might follow.

Some time ago I noticed the Minister of

Energy plagiarizing comments made two years ago by the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Two years ago the member for Alberni argued in

this House, to the laughter and ridicule of the coalition opposite,

that the most immediately and cheaply available new source of energy

was conservation itself. Two years ago that was laughed at, ridiculed

and jeered at by the ignorants opposite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, that comment which alludes to members opposite and members of this House will have to be withdrawn.

MR. BARBER: I didn't say they were ignorant whatevers; I said they were ignorants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It still is a personal allusion and I find it unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: To whom?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the members.

MR. BARBER: Personal allusion? It's a group allusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please withdraw the statement.

MR. BARBER:

It was not a personal allusion, it was a group allusion. Two years ago

they all jeered like jackals when my colleague said these things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw the language.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. BARBER:

But the behaviour of the Socreds two years ago, when my colleague from

Alberni pointed out that the only new, cheap,

affordable-in-every-aspect source of energy is conservation itself, is

a matter of public record. They jeered, guffawed and betrayed their

true knowledge of the situation. Two years later the Minister of Energy

is reduced to plagiarizing the comments of the member for Alberni.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. BARBER: Come on? I remember the way you guys

[ Page 4087 ]

treated

him two years ago. I remember perfectly well the way you ridiculed his

arguments, which were sound and scientific. This year you finally agree

with them.

I don't want to comment on the lawsuit currently

going on, where it would appear that the Socred caucus researchers may

have defamed a member of this Legislature — the same one — but it is a

matter of record that the single most informed, imaginative and

tough-minded member of this House on energy questions is the member for

Alberni. Two years ago he was arguing that conservation is the single

most important new source of energy. Two years later and two years too

late the minister purports to have seen the light, What if the

Utilities Commission chose to follow the same light and ask questions

along the same lines and it were deemed politically inexpedient for

them to do so? Well, sure enough,

section 3 provides that the

government could force them to abandon that research and force them to

abandon those inquiries.

The Minister of Energy is taking

notes. He'll say, "Oh, gosh, I'd never do that, " and once again ask us

to take him on faith — like he asked us to believe the Heroin Treatment

Act was legal. Well, we don't; we're skeptical.

One of the

reasons we're skeptical was made perfectly clear by my colleague from

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) in regard to the Shaffer report, and in

regard as well to the way in which, clearly and deceptively, attempts

were made to deny public information about the real costs, the

environmental problems, the route advantages and disadvantages of the

Cheekye-Dunsmuir line. This too is a matter of public record. It was

only because of the member for Mackenzie that it was thus made public.

If we had to rely on the Socreds to reveal these documents, they would

never have been revealed. You know, Mr. Speaker, for some weeks they

tried to deny the existence of the Shaffer report. They tried to

pretend it didn't exist, and it was only after weeks of persistent

questioning from my colleague from Mackenzie that the people of British

Columbia were finally made aware of a competent and differing

scientific opinion in regard to that route.

One of the

mandates of the Utilities Commission is to seek competent scientific

opinion. If the Utilities Commission acts with any courage and vigour

they may well find themselves being shut down and foreclosed in their

scientific inquiry because of the unnecessary and foolish provisions of

section 3. Scientific inquiry, if it is honest and consistent with the

scientific method, must be allowed to go the whole course. Otherwise,

it is not science; it is only pseudo-science; it is only alchemy that

does not in fact allow the full and proper representation of all of the

scientific data and opinions.

One of the principal tasks of

any utilities commission is to assess the best available scientific

opinion about the energy options. But what does

section 3 do? It gives

Social Credit the power to say no to scientific inquiry. It allows

Social Credit to stop the Utilities Commission from pursuing inquiries

that may prove embarrassing to Social Credit. If that is not the case

then why is this provision here? If that was not the real political

agenda of the Liberals, Tories, Socreds and members of Action Canada

opposite, what then is the purpose? There can only be two reasons. The

excuse the minister may offer is that he proposes never to invoke the

section; he would never stop independent scientific inquiry, no matter

how embarrassing the outcome might be to the government. He may tell us

that. If so, then we ask him to withdraw

section 3 of the bill, because

if he doesn't propose to use the power, he should not be granted the

power. If he proposes to have the power it must only be because he

intends to use it. The only possible application of that power's use is

to stop independent scientific inquiry from embarrassing his colleagues

in that unholy coalition called Social Credit. There's no other

purpose, no other rationale.

What intelligent person can be

opposed to the rational result of scientific inquiry? No intelligent

person can be so opposed. What politician might be? That's a different

question, because we know full well a Socred politician might be. What

would happen, for instance, if it could be demonstrated — as my

colleague from Alberni has hypothesized over the last three years —

that it might be cheaper and more fuel efficient to provide retrofit to

every home and building on Vancouver Island than it would be to bring

electricity and natural gas here? What if it could be demonstrated by

scientific inquiry that Hydro was wrong and that conservation was

right? What if it could be demonstrated that the whole scheme to bring

both natural gas and the Cheekye-Dunsmuir electrical power to the

Island was unnecessary, overcostly, and not energy-efficient? If that

could be demonstrated, it might embarrass Social Credit, because

they've decided to hitch their wagon on this Island — considering how

totally unpopular they are here, one wonders why they even bother — to

both stars, one called the natural gas line and the other called

Cheekye-Dunsmuir electrical transmission line. It may be that at this

point in time, and for the next 20 and 30 years, we don't need both. It

may be that with a competent, aggressive and certain conservation

program involving retrofit and every other aspect of its application,

it will turn out Hydro is wrong and conservation is right. Such

scientific proof could. however, embarrass the Socreds.

Therefore

we come to see why

section 3 might be in here.

Section 3 puts a stop to

the independence of the Utilities Commission. It puts a permanent seal

on scientific inquiry. It says you may go so far and no further, and if

you attempt we will direct you, under the Regulation Act and under

section 3 of this statute, to stop, and we can force you in law to do

so.

What is Social Credit afraid of? Are they afraid that

the daughter of Bert Price is going to waste the taxpayers' money, and

therefore they want to cut off the spigot and seal it up? Are they

afraid that the daughter of Bert Price, currently the director of

personnel at a shopping centre, who purports to be qualified to head

the commission — at least that's what Social Credit tells us — is going

to foolishly misspend the taxpayers' money, and therefore you have to

put some control on her, and

section 3 has to be invoked? Have they so

little confidence in their own pals that they have to emasculate them,

courtesy of this section? If they're saying they have no confidence in

their own appointees, they'd better appoint someone else. If they're

saying they have no confidence in the scientific method, they'd better

think again.

There should be no halt put to and no stop

placed on the necessity for an independent Utilities Commission to go

all the way in pursuing and prosecuting the great debates regarding

energy development for this province. Even if it's embarrassing for the

coalition, they should be prepared nonetheless to allow a Utilities

Commission to seek all the answers to all the questions. If they are

afraid of all the answers, then we understand what

section 3 is all

about. If they don't trust their own appointees, then we understand

what

section 3 is all about. If they tell us they're never going to use

section 3, then we do not understand what it's all about, because it

shouldn't

[ Page 4088 ]

in there at all unless the government intends to employ it. There is a

logical flaw in the government's position regarding

section 3.

They will no doubt attempt to trivialize the argument. The Minister of

Energy — number three in four and a half years — will stand up and say:

"Oh, you get us wrong. You're being political, you're being partisan.

Gosh, all it means is that we wouldn't want them to duplicate studies

that B.C. Hydro carried out, or that private enterprise carried out, or

that Goldfarb carried out." Or that whoever carried out — maybe Larry

Eckardt next time. They may offer some trivial explanation regarding

duplication of effort.

I have to argue again that if they

had appointed competent people to the Utilities Commission, those

people would not engage in a duplication of effort. They would not

simply copy the effort of Hydro studies or Goldfarb studies or Eckardt

studies. The government has a logical flaw in its own defences. If

they're saying that they want to remove the possibility of redundant

and duplicating effort, then they're telling us that they've appointed

nitwits to the commission. Competent people on the commission wouldn't

do that.

The government has nothing to fall back on, except

this: they are prepared, apparently, to suffer any public embarrassment

in order to stop the whole truth getting out about the alternative

energy paths available in British Columbia. They've killed the Energy

Commission established by the New Democrat administration. They are

bringing in a bill here which even their own former friends on the

Employers Council find offensive. For two years they have ridiculed and

ignored the serious and sound advice presented by one of the most

serious thinkers in the field of energy this province enjoys the

presence of — that is, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly); only

recently have they begun to plagiarize his speeches. They are

admitting, by virtue of

section 3, that they do not trust their own

commission to act properly and independently.

This is a heck

of a series of admissions for this government to make. It's not

inconsistent with Social Credit that they don't want the whole truth to

get out. We know that they refuse to call Larry Eckardt to the bar of

the House. We know that they refuse to release the transcripts and

interviews taken in regard to the notorious case of Gracie's Finger.

There is a history within the Social Credit administration of

deliberate attempts to suppress evidence, information and opinion which

the people of British Columbia are entitled to. They've done it as

recently as this afternoon in question period. Now if they're prepared

to do it in order to defend the Eckardt commission — that one-man

Socred report....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must remind you that we are on Bill 52, the utilities bill.

MR. BARBER:

What I'm trying to demonstrate is why a government prepared to

introduce the powers of

section 3 to shut down independent scientific

inquiry and to insult the members — who they appointed — of their own

Utilities Commission by telling them to stop at any given point if the

Socreds decide to make them stop, is so consistent with the fear

Socreds have always had of free, open, public disclosure. If they

believed in open and public disclosure, we would never have the

ridiculous spectacle of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) making

a fool of himself, trying to defend the indefensible in regard to the

Eckardt commission. If they believed in full public disclosure in that

instance, we might take them at their word in this instance. But, you

see, we can't, because we know their record in all those other areas;

thus we are suspicious of the likely record in this area.

What

rational excuse can be offered for the power the minister wants to have

under

section 3 to stop independent scientific, dispassionate,

disinterested, impartial opinion from being obtained? He will say,

"Why, none; you've got me wrong; you misunderstand, " or words to that

effect. He will say he's worried about duplication, or words to that

effect. He will say that we're puffing it up politically, or words to

that effect, None of those answers is the honourable one. None of those

answers would deal with the real question.

A government that

welcomed free opinion, scientifically founded, would not ask for the

powers

section 3 provides. A government unafraid of taking a second

look and realizing that just possibly Hydro's schemes are inadequate or

overadequate would not need the powers of

section 3 to shut down their

own Utilities Commission and to stop them from pursuing a course of

independent inquiry. A government unafraid of informed public opinion

would never ask for the powers in

section 3. If we had an open

government worthy of the name, this particular provision would never

have been presented in the first place. Unfortunately, we have a closed

government, worthy only of the name Social Credit, and increasingly in

disrepute in the eyes of the public because they refuse to be open and

straight and candid and truthful with the public. If that were not the

case, why would they ask for the powers in

section 3? If that were not

the case, why would we see a bill which even their pals on the

Employers Council think is so extreme and radical and dangerous as to

require delay, reconsideration and rewrite?

Social Credit

has a great deal to answer for. The third minister in four and a half

years has got a lot to account for in regard to the failure of his own

party to deliver a competent energy policy. In particular, he has to

answer the obvious questions about why it is that the government

proposes to shackle its own appointees to its own commission, through

the power that it wants to give itself under

section 3 of this act.

Lacking satisfactory answers to these questions, we cannot support the

bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the members opposite on a lot

of the aspects of this bill. I was really happy that the first member

for Victoria not only made his own speech but mine too. I wouldn't

contradict him on some of the things that I would have said about the

things that he said. I want to make one thing clear in this House,

though, for you and for the members and for the people in the gallery.

On two or three occasions this afternoon.... I might say we have had

the widest possible latitude in this bill that I have ever seen in this

House, but that's okay. It is difficult for me to understand how we

brought the heroin act in under this debate. However, we managed to do

it on a couple of occasions.

The members opposite continue

to talk about failure of legislative provision in that bill. I just

want to remind everybody here that the British Columbia Court of Appeal

has upheld that legislation. That's the status of that act at this

time. It has been upheld by the British Columbia court of appeal, Mr.

Speaker, and I think that the people in this

[ Page 4089 ]

province should remember that, regardless of what members on that side think.

never ceases to amaze me how that first member for Victoria can take

off on his marvellous flights of fancy with absolutely no fuel

whatsoever. He does it very well, but unfortunately most of what he

says is all stuff and no substance. He's done it again today.

do want to deal very briefly with one question. I would have dealt with

this more fully in the committee stage, but since most of the members'

comments dealt with

section 3 of this bill, I would just like to remind

the member that that whole part of the bill deals only with the

regulatory powers of the commission, not with the review process or any

of the other powers that the act confers.

I might say to

you, Mr. Speaker, that a utilities commission, by the very nature of

its substance, has certain obligations to fulfil in terms of setting

rates for its various utilities. It is sometimes difficult for the

commission to take into account various policy directions, which might

have been given to a utility by a government. I'm thinking of, for

instance, British Columbia Hydro coming under control by this utilities

commission for the first time ever in this province. This is a step

that was not taken lightly, but was taken by this government and no

other, including the previous government, which had the opportunity in

three and a half years of governance of this province.

We,

as a government, have told British Columbia Hydro that it must have a

postage-stamp rate around the province. In other words it must charge

the same rates for electricity in a hard-to-service area as it charges

in an easy-to-service area like the lower mainland or Victoria. A

utilities commission might find it extremely difficult to find that

within its terms of reference in dealing with that utility's rates,

because it isn't the kind of normal allowance that a utilities

commission could give to a utility. We must have the opportunity of

saying to the utility: "That direction was given by the government, so

you'll take that into account when you're dealing with the rates."

The

same thing is true now that the government has given B.C. Hydro the

responsibility for rural electrification. That's a matter that worries

Hydro extremely, in connection with what a utilities commission might

consider. We've said that we may be able to give those directions to

the Utilities Commission — not in some kind of blind and secret way —

but we've also said that when we give those directions they must be up

front, they must be regulations published in the normal way that

regulations are published when given by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So rather than being some secret

proposal made by the government they will be up front for everyone to

see and they'll be known very carefully.

You know, it isn't

as if this is some kind of new proposal that's just being made by this

government which wants these awesome, sweeping powers that you talk

about. There are many, many examples of exactly the same kind of

section for exactly the same kinds of reasons, and I'll quote a couple

of them. I don't want to bore the House, because I know that we should

be talking about this at another time, perhaps, but in.... I can give

you at least three federal acts.

Section 9 of the Canadian Overseas

Telecommunications Corporation Act says: "The corporation shall comply

with any directi