1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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, MAY 24, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 7

[ Page 14469 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We have one pleasant task to perform.

Law Clerk: A letter from the Ministry of Attorney General, office of the Deputy Attorney General:

May 19, 1995 Mr. E. George MacMinn, QC Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Room 221, Parliament Buildings Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mr. MacMinn:

Re: By-election, Electoral District of Abbotsford, May 3, 1995

Enclosed is the original letter from the chief electoral officer, Robert A. Patterson, certifying the election of John van Dongen as the member to represent the electoral district of Abbotsford.

Yours truly, Ernie Quantz, Acting Deputy Attorney General

A letter from Robert A. Patterson, chief electoral officer, to Ernie Quantz, QC, acting Deputy Attorney General:

Re: By-election, Electoral District of Abbotsford, May 3, 1995

The November 1, 1994, resignation of Harry De Jong, the member for the electoral district of Abbotsford, created a vacancy in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.

A writ of election was issued on April 5, 1995, requiring that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy. Accordingly, May 3, 1995, was designated as polling day.

The completed writ of election has been returned to me, and by this memorandum, I certify the election of John van Dongen as the member to represent the electoral district of Abbotsford in the Legislative Assembly.

Robert A. Patterson, Chief Electoral Officer.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the letter of the Deputy Attorney General and the certificate of the chief electoral officer with the result of the election of the member be entered in the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

G. Campbell: I have the honour to present to you John van Dongen, the member for the electoral district of Abbotsford, who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat.

The hon. member for Abbotsford took his seat.

D. Lovick: I have the pleasure today to make two different introductions. First, I want to welcome a group of students from Nanaimo District Secondary School -- otherwise known as NDSS or even as ND -- here today with their teacher Mr. Ted Miller, who besides being an excellent teacher in Nanaimo was also the former Member of Parliament for the constituency of Nanaimo-Alberni. So I first ask my colleagues in the chamber to please join me in making this group welcome.

The second group of people I wish to make welcome, and I ask my colleagues to join me, is from the Harmac Pacific pulp mill in Nanaimo. These folks, doing their bit for community service in Nanaimo, bought a dinner with the MLA as part of an auction in Nanaimo, and today they came to collect their marker. I'm happy to tell you that this group represents both management and labour, and I'm going to introduce them without differentiating. I ask the House to join me in welcoming, then, Mr. Al Brett, Murray Duncanson, Roger Killin, Jim White, Gerry Tellier and Bob Smiley.

L. Reid: In the precinct today are 56 grade 6 students from Howard De Beck Elementary in the riding of Richmond East. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, in your gallery today first of all is Mr. Umendra Singh, who is with the Voice newspaper, which caters to the ethnic communities here in British Columbia. It's his first visit, shockingly enough, to Victoria, although he's lived in British Columbia for quite some time. I'm sure he'll be back to contribute to our economy in the future. Joining him also are Mr. J. Sharma and Mr. Kulbir Mahi. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

[2:15]

D. Streifel: In the gallery this afternoon are a number of students, parents and teachers -- more than 40 of them, as a matter of fact -- from Hatzic Elementary School in the constituency of Mission-Kent. I bid the House make them welcome.

J. van Dongen: I would like to introduce to the House today my wife Karen, my sons Stephen and Peter, my mom and dad, and a number of friends and relatives who helped get me here. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

M. de Jong: I have the privilege of introducing to the House today my constituency assistant, Wendy Whittle, who is visiting us for the first time. I hope that members will make her feel welcome, along with assorted other guests from the Abbotsford and Matsqui area.

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Act.

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the bill be read for a first time now.

[ Page 14470 ]

The Employment Standards Act sets the basic conditions of employment and standards of compensation in the workplace, and as such, lays out the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. The existing act is the result of the consolidation in 1980 of ten different statutes. This bill is being introduced in direct response to the first comprehensive review of employment standards in the history of British Columbia. It includes many of the changes recommended by Mark Thompson in his report Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace: A Review of Employment Standards in British Columbia, and reflects extensive consultations with people across the province.

The act, which has been rewritten in simpler language and restructured to make it easier to read and use, includes changes in the following areas: enhanced flexibility in the workplace, by allowing for scheduled compressed work weeks; enhanced terms of employment, such as family responsibility leave; development of policies to promote the level of awareness of and increase education about rights and responsibilities under the act; establishment of an appeal tribunal separate from the investigative process; and strengthened enforcement, with the introduction of penalties, interest and fines.

These and other amendments address the changing economic and business conditions in the province. This bill is designed to ensure equity and fairness for all British Columbians.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. D. Marzari: I move that the bill be read now for a first time.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. The proposed legislation amends the following statutes: the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2) and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act. These are basically housekeeping provisions designed to meet some specific needs in the communities of Abbotsford, Dawson Creek, the city of Vancouver and the GVSDD.

In addition, Bill 31 contains provisions to ensure that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the election provisions of the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter are not inconsistent with respect to election materials.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES IN 1995-96 BUDGET

G. Campbell: Over the last week it has become obvious that the NDP budget is a sham. Instead of truly balancing the budget by cutting costs, the minister backed away and manipulated the books with $250 million, against the advice of the auditor general. Can the minister tell the House whether prior to the last budget she prepared any documentation listing options for real cost saving in public sector compensation?

Hon. E. Cull: During the preparation for the last budget we looked at all possibilities for cost saving.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberal opposition has obtained a secret Ministry of Finance document outlining specific options for real cost saving in the public sector. The document contains a smorgasbord of options, including a hiring freeze, unpaid days off and wage rollbacks. My question to the minister is: why did she deceive the public with $250 million she didn't have when she had a real choice to make real cuts in the costs of government in British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: I ask the member to have a look at the latest Business Council of B.C. statistics on public sector compensation in British Columbia. For the first time in many, many years, public sector compensation has dropped below the compensation increases in the private sector. The Public Sector Employers' Council, with the Public Sector Employers Act, is doing the very job we said we would do, which was to make sure that we honour and respect our employees and treat them fairly but live within the means of British Columbia's taxpayers.

F. Gingell: This document recommended deferring the recent BCGEU compensation increase as a way of saving hundreds of millions of dollars. Had the Minister of Finance taken the high road to balancing this budget, she would have made significant cuts to the cost of her NDP government. Why did the minister choose the low road and pretend to balance the budget through inappropriately booking proceeds from a phantom contract for the Columbia downstream benefits rather than making substantive cuts to the cost of their government?

Hon. E. Cull: I am delighted with this question, because now we see what the Liberal opposition would do to deal with their promises, which we know clearly don't add up. They've talked about cutting the corporation capital tax for big business, about eliminating the school property taxes...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: ...and they've talked about balancing the budget, but they won't tell us how they would do it. Now we know: they're going to do it on the backs of the people who provide services to this province. We have rejected laying off teachers, nurses and other vital public servants. We have rejected reneging on contracts with our public employees, and we have come in with a cost-effective way to provide services to British Columbia. There is a choice, and these questions make it very clear what the choice will be.

The Speaker: A supplemental question, hon. member.

[ Page 14471 ]

F. Gingell: The real choice was whether this minister was going to bring in a budget that was based on truth and honesty in the accounting procedures, rather than shopping around for opinions that she knows are not valid.

All governments in Canada are concerned about the size of government. Seven other provinces have taken steps to control the growth of the public sector, while this government has allowed the size and cost of the public sector...

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

F. Gingell: ...in British Columbia to increase by 26 percent during their mandate. Why has the minister given in and backed off from any substantive cuts that were recommended in her document back in December 1994?

Hon. E. Cull: While almost all other provinces in Canada, particularly those that have been led by Liberal governments, have been slashing and burning their public services, what has been happening here in B.C....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Will the hon. member for Delta South please come to order.

Hon. E. Cull: ...is that we have had over 400,000 new British Columbians move in in the last four years. When people in this province, during the time I spent going around talking to them about the budget, said to me to cut government spending, they didn't say to cut teachers, they didn't say to cut police officers, and they didn't say to cut nurses. They said to make the kind of cuts that we made to administrative spending in our budget.

We have to provide services to the almost 100,000 new British Columbians we have each and every year; we have done that. We've reduced the per capita cost for the third year in a row by over 2.5 percent.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. The minister made it clear during his press conference that he doesn't have a plan for combatting illegal video lottery terminals. Can the minister explain why the government would reverse the initial decision to legalize VLTs without even knowing what steps it will take to crack down on illegal ones? Is the government really that inept at enforcing the law?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Premier said in October 1994 that when we formulate this policy we will listen to the concerns and the wishes of the people of British Columbia. They have spoken very clearly, and we have heard very clearly: there shall be no VLTs anywhere in British Columbia.

In addition to that, let me say, with respect to the grey machines, that we have spoken to the UBCM -- some members of the UBCM -- and we have looked at dealing with the issue of grey machines with the liquor licensing, with business licensing at the hands of the municipalities, with bringing in new legislation in the next session and also with pressing the federal government to amend the Criminal Code. We are onto that, and we'll be dealing with that in a coordinated fashion.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: The government made a good decision by finally admitting that British Columbians overwhelmingly rejected the initial plans to legalize 5,000 VLTs. Why doesn't the minister go the next step and incorporate into his perceived new gaming law, the one that may be coming in a month...that outlaws all of the so-called grey machines? The government has often estimated that there are as many as 10,000 illegal machines in British Columbia. Now, after the inept announcement today, how is it going to get rid of them?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are estimates that there are somewhere in the order of 8,000 to 10,000 grey machines operating in the province of British Columbia. These machines are illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada because they have not been authorized by the province. At my request, my Deputy Attorney General is convening a meeting immediately with senior criminal justice branch officials and representatives of police forces around British Columbia to develop a strategy...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...to deal with the illegal grey machines in operation at the present time, now that a decision to not proceed with legal VLTs has been taken.

APPOINTMENT OF CHRIS CHILTON TO HEALTH MINISTRY

M. de Jong: Last Thursday we learned that the Premier's disgraced chief of staff had landed softly in the Health ministry, courtesy of a $125,000 parachute. Neither the Premier nor the Health minister could yesterday explain what the new job was, nor could they explain what expertise or skills Mr. Chilton brought with him that qualified him for that position. What we do know, however, is that $125,000 is sufficient to purchase home- care support services for over 500 British Columbians -- individuals who need that support to preserve their dignity and independent living standards.

[2:30]

My question to the Minister of Health is: what does he have to say to those elderly, blind, disabled individuals who have been told by this government that it can't afford $60 a week to provide home support services for them, but that it can miraculously find $125,000 to provide to its friend and insider, Mr. Chilton?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I would say to those constituents what I hope the member opposite would say: be very afraid of what the federal Liberal government is doing to medicare in this country. Be very afraid. We are looking at cuts for health and post- secondary education in this province of $800 million. Mr. Chilton brings a background as senior staff at both provincial and federal levels. He brings a knowledge of the health system and personal involvement in it. And unlike the Liberal opposition, he seems to recognize that there is a threat to medicare, and it comes from federal Liberal budgets and this Liberal opposition endorsement of that slash.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 14472 ]

M. de Jong: Let me try to put this to the minister in terms he might understand. Two weeks ago I alerted him to the fact that over 500 individuals in Abbotsford alone had been advised that they were going to be cut off from their home support services. His pathetic response at the time was: "Well, tell those people to avail themselves of my appeal mechanism within my ministry." Those homebound, disabled individuals should launch an appeal through the ministry.

My question to the minister is: why should those patients, which he has abandoned, have any faith that their interests are going to be protected by this minister, when it's clear that this government's only priority is to reward and protect friends and insiders like Mr. Chilton?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I invite the member opposite to join me in Committee A for estimates debate in the very near future. I will say there, as I've said in this House, that the budget for home support services in this province is up over one-third during the term of this government. That's concrete support. At the same time, we are taking care to make sure those dollars are spent most effectively. I have said to this member and will say again: if an inappropriate decision has been made, bring it to the attention of ministry officials responsible for providing those services, but also bring to the attention of your constituents your party's abdication of its role to defend medicare.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday in estimates the Minister of Health stated that he had spoken to senior staff in the Premier's Office about getting a special adviser into his ministry. That special adviser turned out to be Mr. Chilton. Can the Premier advise the House whether or not Mr. Chilton was one of those senior staff members present at the meetings in the Premier's Office recruiting and looking for a highly paid person to advise the Minister of Health?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have made it very clear that I've made changes in my office. Mr. Chilton has a background as a senior member in my office who was in charge of dealing with the introduction of the royal commission report on bringing health care closer to home. On top of that, he was a senior adviser for eight years in Ed Broadbent's constituent office and an adviser to Margaret Mitchell, who was the critic in this area. On top of that, he was on the city council in Ottawa and on the hospital board there.

He indeed has a long history in understanding our health care and will serve the people of this province well in protecting medicare from over $800 million in cuts from the Liberals in Ottawa that this Liberal opposition said wasn't enough of a cut to health care in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday in estimates, the Minister of Health refused to answer a number of questions. The question I'd like to ask now of the Premier is: can he tell us whether or not Mr. Chilton was involved in appointing Mr. Chilton to the Ministry of Health?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That was a decision that I took with the Minister of Health.

D. Symons: Mr. Chilton, the new special adviser to the Minister of Health, is just one more special friend who has gotten an inside track from this NDP government. British Columbians need to be assured that this partisan hack will not be used by the NDP as an election strategist while on the ministry payroll. Will the Minister of Health today table the job description of his new special adviser, listing what, if any, qualifications he has for this $125,000 golden parachute?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought that both the Premier and myself spoke to the qualifications of this individual. I might ask in return: will this hon. member finally stand up for British Columbians and say to his federal Liberal friends that they got it wrong -- that $800 million worth of cuts will damage health care in this province, and that they need to revisit that issue? Will you stand up and do that, sir?

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In

Section B, here, I call debate on Motion 87.

Motions on Notice

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

(continued)

On the main motion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to bring it to the attention of the House and of those who may be watching us, I'll again read the motion that we're debating: "Be it resolved that this House condemn the American Bonneville Power Administration for breaking a solemn commitment on the delivery and disposition of the Canadian entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty."

I have watched this debate and listened to it very carefully. I was almost reluctant, as a member from Vancouver, to rise, thinking that people may ask: "First of all, what can she bring to the debate? How is it that her constituents are affected?" I must say that as I have watched many more on both sides of the House discuss this issue, I have worried daily about the effect it will have on my constituents, and therefore I want to join the debate around condemning the American Bonneville Power Administration. I am concerned for this reason.

I live in a city of 500,000 people, where we enjoy a quality of life that is delivered to us by the wise and careful use of our natural resources. I and my constituents know the value of our resources and how important it is to conserve, protect and ably use them for all of us in British Columbia. So what happens in the Kootenays, and what happens when an American corporation reneges on a deal, immediately affects those who live in the Kootenays and in the interior of this province; but I, too, and my constituents are also affected by that.

What our government has done in negotiating an arrangement, a deal, with the American Bonneville Power Administration on the Columbia River Treaty and obtaining downstream benefits is to protect -- and we continue to

[ Page 14473 ]

protect -- the resources of British Columbia for all British Columbians -- not only just for us now, no matter where we live in British Columbia, but also for our next generation, the children who will follow us, and their children.

Others have spoken much more eloquently than I about the past misdeeds of previous governments in not protecting those resources, and our government has said: "Never again; never again will we sell out our resources to any country. Particularly, never again will we repeat the past mistakes of previous governments in not protecting and getting the full value of our natural resources." Over and over again, previous governments have sold out British Columbia interests in the areas of natural gas, softwood lumber, fish, apples and our water.

Previous governments have not protected the resources that British Columbians so ably value -- and need to value, not only for our economy but also for our well-being and our quality of life.

Our government, with our agreement with the Bonneville power corporation, has said: "No more will we sell British Columbians short." We negotiated hard, but we negotiated fairly. Those in this room who would not give recognition to the long, hard negotiations that ended up in a fair agreement simply do not understand what governing responsibly is all about. The deal is a good deal, a fair deal and a legal deal; no one should mistake that. But whoops, oh my gosh, the Bonneville Power Administration got into some trouble among its own.

The markets changed, they said, and they raised their hands in horror and said: "Oh no, the market has changed, and we've upset some of our customers. Our customers aren't happy with us, and they're putting the heat on us to demand better service from us -- the BPA. They're actually asking us to meet our mandate here. Gee, instead of us looking to our own and looking internally in our own country about managing our resources properly and in an environmentally responsible way, we're not going to take any of that responsibility. We're going to renege on our deal with British Columbians.

We're going to renege on a legitimate agreement that we signed." Well, I say -- and our government says -- to the BPA: "Too bad. Too bad, BPA. It's a legitimate deal, it's a fair deal and it's a correct deal; and you're going to live with it."

I must say that anyone, on either side of the border, whether they live in British Columbia or in the United States, who gives any solace, comfort or credence to the BPA for reneging on this deal is shamefully abandoning all the interests and their obligation to represent British Columbians. As I said, we have a legitimate deal, and our government will continue to represent the interests of British Columbians, even in the face of the BPA employing shameful business tactics to hide their own internal problems and incompetence.

[2:45]

Many of us on this side of the House are actually negotiators; we have had lots of experience in negotiations. I think that perhaps that experience is lacking on the opposite side of the House, because they've been fooled by the BPA. It's too bad that they've been sucked in, and caved in to the shameful business tactics of the BPA. It's too bad that the Leader of the Official Opposition and his colleagues have decided to side with the BPA. I feel badly that they don't recognize a bad business tactic. Perhaps if Michael Campbell were here he'd recognize a bad business tactic. Unfortunately, a Gordon Campbell doesn't recognize it and has caved in and fallen for it completely.

We do recognize the tactic, though. We know that BPA is in trouble amongst its own, and it's negotiating. We say: "We've done the negotiations. It's a fair set of negotiations. We have managed our affairs properly.

We have managed our affairs in a fiscally responsible way that protects our resources for British Columbians, that allows our resources to be used not only for this generation but the next generation, and we will continue to do that in a very fiscally responsible way." We will not be swayed by those who say that somehow we should run scared, that we should listen to the BPA and that markets have changed, etc. It's interesting, because markets do change; over the course of business deals, markets and other factors change. But when you sign an agreement, that's the agreement that you have to live with.

In future, markets may change further to benefit one of the partners more greatly than at the signing of the deal, but that's what it's all about.

In fact, those who are of the free enterprise party support these kinds of negotiations and these kinds of deals, and for anyone now to give credence to such a shoddy business tactic, to say, "British Columbia, you should run scared, you should run away," is really.... First of all, they don't understand what it means to govern in a responsible way, they don't understand business tactics and they don't understand what it means to negotiate a fair deal. Our government understands that, and our government will continue to protect the interests of all British Columbians.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to add a few words to the main motion before the House. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on the amendment that was moved by the Liberal opposition. I am pleased to note that that amendment was defeated, because I don't think it was very well thought out. I think it was an ill-considered move on the part of the Liberal opposition. It wasn't constructive and it didn't really seek a remedy to this issue that the government has found itself in.

My only regret with the government's position -- and I don't disagree with all that the government members have said on this debate, and indeed, the Minister of Social Services has made some comments today that I would tend to agree with -- is that the government is not willing to admit that it too, perhaps, has been caught in a mistake that has been made on this. The reason that we are in this situation today is the result of mistakes that have been made on all sides. No one is exempt from blame on this issue, including the government.

When the Premier launched this debate and moved his motion he admitted that the instructions he had given to the negotiators on the downstream benefits were to seek alternative arrangements to returning the power at Oliver, which is prescribed in the Columbia River Treaty. I think that the Premier, perhaps unwittingly, divulged the problem and the mistake that was made on the part of the negotiators representing the province of British Columbia. We should never have entered into those negotiations with the BPA; we should never have told the Americans that we wanted to enter into alternative arrangements.

We should have told the Americans right from the start that we wanted our power back. It's our power. Those downstream benefits are owned by us right here

[ Page 14474 ]

in British Columbia. We should have told the Americans right from the start that we want the power back and that it's up to them to find a way to deliver that power to Oliver, British Columbia, which is prescribed in the treaty. If we had taken that tough stance and had looked the Americans right in the eye from the start, we wouldn't have this problem today. We could have forced the Americans to come to us begging and crawling on their knees for some means of buying the power, short-term or long-term -- but no, we want the power back.

Why didn't we do that? The Premier has admitted the mistake. I wish the government was big enough to admit that it too made a mistake; that we've had a false start in the negotiations for how we're going to deal with the second half of the Columbia River Treaty and how we in British Columbia are going to take advantage of the tremendous downstream benefits that were negotiated back in the 1960s by a previous government led by Premier W.A.C. Bennett. Those are tremendous benefits. It's a valuable resource, and it's owned by all of us as British Columbians. The Premier has admitted a mistake inadvertently.

I wish the government would just be big enough to stand up and admit that it, too, made a mistake. But now the government is seeking support and trying to galvanize the support of all of us here in the Legislature and all British Columbians to take the tough stance that we should have taken in the first place with the Americans and tell them we want the power back. That should be our negotiating position. It should have been from the start, and it should be now.

Why do we want the power back? Because, first of all, it's ours. We own those downstream benefits. If there's one benefit from this debate that's taken place and from the shoddy business practices that the BPA is guilty of, it's that we've had a chance to highlight this issue and bring a greater public awareness of the value of these downstream benefits for all British Columbians. The Bonneville Power Administration has unwittingly served the interests of all British Columbians and done us all a favour.

It has done that by helping us to have this debate in the House and to have a wider awareness throughout British Columbia of how valuable these water resources are and what these downstream benefits are. I can tell you that before this issue came to the floor just last week, there were many British Columbians who didn't really understand what these downstream benefits were all about.

Indeed, there were members of Liberal opposition -- the leader of the Liberal opposition -- who clearly had no idea of what these downstream benefits were all about. In fact, initially the leader of the Liberal opposition proposed that all of the downstream benefits should be spent in the Columbia-Kootenay region -- a nice idea if you're trying to buy the votes or bribe the voters of the Kootenays. But we're talking about billions of dollars over the next 30 years. Clearly the leader of the Liberal opposition did not understand what he was talking about. The Liberal position has been unclear from the start.

An Hon. Member: Just a minute. Are you saying you're surprised by that?

D. Mitchell: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is not as surprised as I am by that. But I actually believe that when a leader of a party that's wishing to become government in British Columbia makes a pronouncement on public policy, he would actually take the time to do a bit of research. One wonders where they're getting their advice from. One wonders who drafted their amendment yesterday that was so ill-considered that it was defeated by a strong majority in this House.

One wonders if all of the support staff paid for by the taxpayers are spending their time trying to teach the Leader of the Opposition how to comb his hair. They should be spending it on research and trying to understand these crucial issues.

The downstream benefits issue, thankfully -- thanks to the Bonneville Power Administration, interestingly enough -- is now understood by most British Columbians. Perhaps even members of the Liberal opposition understand how valuable a resource it is and that it is owned by all of us, not just by the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region and not just by B.C. Hydro.

When we take the power back as we should -- and we should demand that the Americans deliver that power back to us -- one of the questions is how we're going to use it. It doesn't go automatically to B.C. Hydro. In fact, we as British Columbians should know if the government has entered into negotiations with B.C. Hydro to see how much B.C. Hydro is willing to purchase those downstream benefits for.

Back in the 1980s, there was discussion in our country, in western Canada, of a western Canadian power grid linking up British Columbia with our neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- a western Canadian power grid, where we would be able to use surplus hydroelectricity and share it with our neighbouring provinces, depending on peak power loads and the fluctuations in power demand in the western provinces. Why is that idea not being discussed in British Columbia today?

Why are we so anxious to enter into short-term or long-term sales for the second half of the Columbia River Treaty with our American neighbours, when they are trying to outmanoeuvre us and outnegotiate us, as the Americans pride themselves on doing? Why don't we just tell the Americans we want the power back?

Why don't we talk about entering into negotiations with our neighbouring western Canadian provinces for a western Canadian power grid, an idea that received much discussion back in the 1980s? It had merit then; it has merit today. We have to look over the long period, over the next 30 years. Short-term considerations should not be driving this arrangement.

When we look at the motion that is before the House, the motion is seeking to condemn the BPA. I wonder how useful that motion really is. Rather than condemning the Bonneville Power Administration, why don't we just sit down with them and tell them to deliver our power, give us our power back and deliver it to British Columbia today?

Yes, we may have a short-term surplus in power for a very short, defined period of time. But there will be ways of marketing that, not only throughout western Canada but.... Taking a look at British Columbia, we already have a deficit in terms of the projections made by B.C. Hydro in their electricity plan for 1994, because of the fact that the Kemano completion project is not being followed through with --

[ Page 14475 ]

because this government cancelled a legally binding agreement. How can we in all honesty be claiming that the Americans are guilty of shoddy business practices when the government of British Columbia itself is guilty of the same kinds of practices in terms of their relationship with Alcan for a long-term commitment there?

There have been a lot of mistakes made. I don't think anybody can feel very proud about pointing fingers at one another. The government would do well by all British Columbians and would have virtue reflected upon it if it were willing to stand up and say: "We have made a mistake, and we're willing to take a second look at this. We want our power back. We're not going to flinch in our negotiations with the Americans; we should have been tougher the first time around, and this time we're not going to waver. We want the power back." That should be the message.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in my place and speak in support of the motion this afternoon. The B.C. Reform caucus does think that the Bonneville Power Administration indeed acted in bad faith when it cancelled the project. Notwithstanding that, we must look at some of the circumstances that were laid out that may have encouraged them to look at doing that to seek a better deal, being the hard business transactors that they are.

The government should have known from day one that it was dancing with the devil. It only goes to underline the sheer stupidity that this government should bring forth a budget which included a commitment for which they had not yet signed a legally binding contract. It seems to me that this gave Bonneville Power the kind of strength it was looking for in terms of getting a better deal for the power. The government should look in the mirror when it discusses this motion, and none of us can feel good about the fact that we may have lost an opportunity for British Columbians to reap the benefits of the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty. None of us can feel good about that.

There are four points I would like to articulate. First, the province should never have misled British Columbians into believing that this tentative deal was a legally binding deal. That's one point. Second, the government should never have committed the proceeds from the sale of the downstream benefits before it had a legally binding contract. Third, the auditor general and Peat Marwick both warned the government not to pretend that this $250 million was indeed a legitimate expenditure. Fourth, by spending $1 billion in anticipated proceeds and using that fictitious $250 million to balance the budget, the province allowed Bonneville to pull the rug out from under us.

What bothers me most is that we are pointing below the line without talking about and developing a contingency plan where we can create new opportunities with the power that could come back to us, should Bonneville not meet the obligation that was part of the negotiated obligation of only a few months ago. We should be looking at developing a contingency plan to utilize that power back in British Columbia. The speaker before me identified the fact that this amount of power is almost equal to that which was lost in the province by the shutting down of KCP.

I think there are all kinds of opportunities to utilize this power for enhancing rural economic opportunities. We're very heavily dependent on power in British Columbia; many of our industries are high power users, and a very high cost of their production is hydroelectricity. We could be utilizing this power back in British Columbia over a long term, and getting far greater return for it than the $5 billion envisioned in this deal.

If we are truly going to get a good deal out of Bonneville, we have to create some alternative markets. You cannot, in my experience, try to sell an item to only one buyer and expect to get real fair value. If you have a number of buyers for it, then you create real fair value. We have to do the best that we can to create alternative plans -- first, to demand that Bonneville live up to the agreement signed in 1964 and deliver that power back to British Columbia. That's item number one. Item number two: develop a long-term scenario as to how we can develop and utilize the opportunities that could be created in British Columbia through the utilization of that power.

Those are some of the items I wanted to have on the record, and with that, I take my place.

[3:00]

D. Jarvis: I rise to talk to the original motion. I just wanted to say that the loss of the $250 million was the result of the collapses which we're aware of in the negotiations between the Bonneville power association and the provincial government. This has drastically affected our so-called budget, which now appears to be quite a deceitful document and which was being used for political purposes, without question. Now we see that we've gone from a fictitious budgetary surplus of $114 million to a very real deficit of $473 million.

What we have is further proof of the incompetence and deceit of the government in Victoria now. I assume that if the government had played hardball in these negotiations at the very start, we wouldn't be in this position at all.

The single overriding issue in this matter is not the incompetence of the NDP government in their negotiations with Bonneville Power; it's using the future money that they were to receive to balance their budget. The government applied the presumed downstream benefits received from the Columbia River negotiations to the benefit of the deficit. At the same time, it off-loaded $337 million in transportation expenses to show a surplus of $114 million. With the loss of the downstream benefits of $250 million, the true bottom line shows that B.C. is, in actual fact, in a deficit position of $473 million.

The NDP deliberately misled British Columbians by saying it had a deal when, in fact, no deal was made. I would refer to

section 3 of the memorandum of understanding, which says:

"The legal and technical teams be requested to complete drafting of the definitive agreements by December 31, 1994, and if definitive agreements are not drafted and executed by all parties before December 31, 1995," -- and we now know it's not going to be signed by the other party -- "the transactions contemplated by the statement of principles not proceed and negotiations between the parties be terminated."

Section 6(

d) says:

"The statements of principles, this memorandum of negotiators' agreement and any drafts, proposals, correspondence and other documents resulting from any of them will have no legal effect; only fully executed definitive agreements among all relevant parties will be legally binding on the parties."

[ Page 14476 ]

"Will be legally binding" -- so that's the fact. This government is continually trying to bait the situation by saying that an American company has reneged on a deal. Clearly, they didn't have a deal. The parties and the memorandum of understanding say so.

We put forward an amendment the other day in which we suggested that we get back together with Bonneville and use members of other parties who have maybe a little more business acumen than the individuals on that side of the House, and let's see if we can get a deal back on the table. No one in this House and no one in this province wants to see the deal go down the drain.

It's quite obvious that things are changing, and I'm surprised that the government has not been aware of it. They voted against our amendment, so one wonders whether they want to sit down and negotiate, or if this is just another little plank in their election program that's coming up. They were warned. In the Trumpy letter that was released by the Finance minister's own department before the budget was brought down, they were warned not to go too fast with the downstream benefits.

The Finance minister's own staff said: "Do not get involved in using the moneys from the downstream benefits -- when it comes through -- on other than the debt." No, they haven't done that. They clearly were deceitful.

Markets are changing in this country and all over North America. There's a real war beginning out there in the North American markets for the supply of hydro and gas. This will probably change the electrical and power industries for years to come. Deregulation of U.S. power utilities is ostensibly the root cause. Hydro power is no longer the only cheap, clean fuel and is basically being replaced by gas-fired turbines that will produce power. Across the U.S.A., cogeneration plants fired by natural gas are booming.

These plants are quicker and easier to build, they're cheaper to build, and they are popping up everywhere across the country, which is causing the cost of electricity to fall. It's basically falling to the syndrome of the supply-and- demand marketplace.

British Columbia is either not aware of what's happening or is not trying to stopgap this situation ahead of time, and I will talk about it as I go on a little further. In the last two years and over the next two years to come, over 60-plus gas-fired cogeneration plants will be in production. The New York Mercantile exchange will now be introducing an electrical futures component for contracts in their market. Competition will be greater than ever before. At one time we had gas and oil competing against each other on the futures market; now we're going to have electricity competing with gas and oil.

Today gas is the lowest performer as far as producing power.... It will be, as I said before, electricity versus oil and versus gas. The U.S.A. markets are no longer starving for our power -- not as they were before. It's a wide-open competition now. To make matters worse, B.C. is way behind these other jurisdictions -- no thanks to this government. When they came into office in October 1991, they stopped all the IPPs through B.C. Hydro.

Because I am criticizing them for using the proposed moneys that they were to receive from this agreement, they say that I'm supporting the United States and that I'm anti-British Columbia. I'd just like to say this: let's go over, right or wrong, some of the items when this government first came into power in 1972. There was an agreement with the United States on the Ross Dam. Right or wrong, this government here, the NDP government, cancelled it. Right or wrong, when they came into power in 1991, there was an agreement between B.C. Hydro and the IPPs, which was set up by the previous government.

They cancelled those agreements with IPPs -- this government here. I see the minister from Bulkley Valley shaking her head, saying: "No, that's not right." It's a fact, and if she goes back through Hansard, she will find out that it is a fact. It was only recently, after the Gathercole report came out, that B.C. Hydro agreed to accept IPPs in this province.

L. Fox: Ask her what happened to cogeneration in Houston.

D. Jarvis: Yeah. In her own riding, she should be well aware of the situation because of the cogeneration plant in the town of Houston.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, this government is quite aware of the situation in the Windy Craggy area, where there was an agreement; they were entitled to mine there, and they cancelled that agreement. Right or wrong? Who knows? Let's look at what this government did with the Kemano completion project. They cancelled an agreement. What we're trying to say is that this government should not rest on the fact that they are the only ones in this country who have never cancelled an agreement, whether it be good or bad. They're just as much responsible as anyone else is.

We see what has happened, with the result that we have not kept up with the marketplace. If any of the members over there were aware that we're having problems with power in North America.... All they have to consider is where the future is and that, at the present time, gas is the future to provide cheap power. That's what the supply-and-demand rule bases itself on -- supply and demand. We have not done so in British Columbia. Alberta has. We're losing this market to Alberta. You look at any group of....

If you look at the pipelines that go down into the U.S. markets -- the major markets that buy most of the power, that we're trying to sell our power to.... Northwest Pipeline just put in a $600 million building program on their pipelines; Pacific Gas put in $800 million; Alberta Natural Gas tapped off of Nova's pipelines and hooked up with the United States very quickly; Northwest Natural Gas is developing all their pipelines. But British Columbia, unfortunately, hasn't seen fit to take that market away. So we can't rest on hydroelectricity to provide us with power, because hydroelectric power is too expensive.

I'm surprised that this contract or this agreement -- this uncompleted agreement -- with Bonneville Power Administration was not concluded; but we were unable to give our thoughts on it, because the government, as usual, held their talks in secrecy. This, like everything else with this government, gets them in trouble -- always has and always will. Surely they knew that the markets were going to change; surely they knew that there was something in the wind. After all, they spent $1.2 million on lawyers out of Vancouver and another $300,000 on lawyers out of Seattle -- up to $1.5 million on solicitors -- to try to find out what's going to happen, and to negotiate, but they failed to do it.

There is always a way to settle these matters, and we believe that they can be settled. There will always be customers for our power, and we have the power. What we have to do is establish what is a workable price. It's a market supply and demand business. Let's hope that the government

[ Page 14477 ]

can sit down now that they realize what mistakes are made out there, and we can compete with the other jurisdictions in North America.

Perhaps what we need overall is an independent review of our power needs and export needs. If this was done without having a.... As I say, it must be an independent one, without having someone who has an interest in a political party involved. This would probably be the best performance that we could possibly look for.

But at the present time, we are stuck with a situation in which the government has misled itself by using moneys it did not have in hand to balance the budget in this province. That is deceitful and wrong, and I blame the government for having this happen and disrupting the lives of a lot of people in this province. On that premise, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down and thank you for the opportunity.

T. Perry: Just before I begin formal remarks, I'm going to presume that I might have leave to introduce some students from Seattle.

Leave granted.

T. Perry: I have determined by sign language that there are a number of grade 6 students from Canyon Creek Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, U.S.A., who are visiting us today. I'm sure all members would join me in making them welcome. They've come at a very timely moment in the debate. I'd like to ask members to join me in making them welcome.

[3:15]

I'll resume my place. I don't think it should go unsaid to our American guests that our distinguished Speaker was born in the United States and educated in Oregon; his mother lives in Los Angeles. We have many fond connections with the country our visitors are from.

But they've come at a particularly timely moment, and I'm going to take advantage of my good fortune of rising at this time in the debate to address some remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, to our American guests, because they may not be aware that the motion we're debating calls on our House to condemn the Bonneville Power Administration -- one of the major suppliers of electrical power in the northwest of the United States of America -- for backing out of a signed commitment for the renewal of the Columbia River Treaty with British Columbia.

I see a rare opportunity to penetrate that wall of media indifference which separates us. It's not an iron curtain; I don't know what one would call it in metaphor. Maybe the students can help me. It's some kind of a curtain defined by a lack of information and a failure to transmit information. My friends in the American media tell me that as of last week, the story that we find so important here had failed to penetrate past the 49th parallel.

What we're debating here today is the fact that a formal, signed commitment between our province and the Bonneville Power Administration, signed by the Premier of our province and by the president of the Bonneville Power Administration last September, has been reneged on unilaterally by BPA. Why should that concern American young people and their teachers who are visiting us today, and citizens and voters in the U.S.? I want to take the chance to address that question, because I've noted in the speech of the preceding Libcred member the same vacuousness that has characterized all of the debate from his party.

That was summarized beautifully in a letter to the leader of the Libcred official opposition, which I received a copy of from a constituent who wrote on May 16 to the Leader of the Official Opposition:

"I am extremely concerned and angered by your criticism of the British Columbia government re: problems surrounding the Columbia River agreement. In a very delicate situation which could ultimately harm all British Columbians, you are displaying the worst type of political opportunism, designed only to benefit you and your party's electoral fortunes. No one would dispute your right and responsibility to offer constructive criticism, with viable alternative proposals, but all I hear is your usual inflated rhetoric."

That's about what we've heard from the previous speaker and his colleagues.

There was a signed agreement which did much to redress the inequities in the original Columbia River Treaty. The young people who are visiting us today probably aren't aware, just as their counterparts in this province are not aware, of what really happened in the Columbia River Treaty.

One of the greatest rivers in the world -- an international river that rises in Canada near the Rocky Mountains, then flows north through British Columbia, back south through the Arrow Lakes and into Washington State south of Trail, and is joined by the Kootenay River, originally flowing south out of British Columbia into Montana, back north into B.C. through Idaho and Washington.... That giant river basin was, I guess, in its time the largest single spawning system for Pacific salmon on the west coast of the Americas. It has been ruined by dams. There were many great benefits of those dams.

There were songs by Woody Guthrie from the Depression days that maybe some of the students have heard and that you, hon. Speaker, will remember, such as "Roll On Columbia, Roll On." It's a wonderful song about building dams during the New Deal: to deal with the worst outrages of the Depression; to put working people who were unemployed and on the dole back to work; to create something wonderful; to harness and utilize water flowing to the sea for useful purposes; and for the war effort against the Germans and the Japanese. But there were major ecological consequences.

Last year one sockeye salmon returned to Redfish Lake in the headwaters of the Columbia River Basin -- the Snake River tributary to the Columbia. That's a national scandal in the United States, as, hopefully, all of these kids visiting us today know: one sockeye salmon. Even those creationists in Abbotsford who do not believe in evolution would understand from Noah that it takes at least two sockeye salmon to reproduce. One sockeye salmon is not going to get you far at Redfish Lake in the headwaters of the Columbia. The reason those salmon were exterminated was not only an overaggressive fishery but, ultimately, the dams on the Columbia.

After the New Deal dams had gutted the pristine environment of the Columbia River in the United States, the drive and the push moved north into our country. In the early sixties our then government decided to take a gamble and dam and flood out our greatest river system -- the Columbia River in the eastern part of the province. We don't even talk about it as the greatest any more, because it has been so damaged. We built four major dams. The Keenleyside Dam stored water for the benefit of Americans downstream -- for agriculture -- so that Washington State apples could outcompete ours and put our farmers out of business. We did not

[ Page 14478 ]

install generators in that dam; it was a dam designed purely to benefit American electrical power consumers and farmers. We dammed the Kootenay River at Libby Dam in Montana. We destroyed some of the finest wildlife habitat in the state of Montana and in British Columbia north of the border -- the Serengeti of North America. The richest concentrations of elk, deer, bear, bighorn sheep and other forms of wildlife were flooded out without warning. Further north we built the Mica Dam, which did bring us some benefits in British Columbia; later, Revelstoke.

We built the Duncan Dam, which American economists of that time argued was not necessary for the scheme in the first place. We flooded another major valley in our country to benefit American power consumers.

There were benefits in B.C. as well. They were probably not as great as we were entitled to, but there were benefits. We did this voluntarily. We signed an international treaty. The Americans did not force us into doing this; we did this willingly, as a provincial and federal government in 1964, in the Columbia River Treaty. But our leaders were wise enough to insist on a provision for renegotiation, and in 1998 those downstream benefits which result from dams in Canada, which cause massive environmental damage in Canada and cause benefits to American citizens downstream.... We get a 50 percent share of those benefits; we did better this time.

Contrary to what the Libcreds would have British Columbians believe, we assigned a top-notch economist, Marvin Shaffer -- a PhD economist from UBC, from a very strong department of economics, and one of the sharpest minds in this province -- and a team of very sharp minds at B.C. Hydro, and for once we outnegotiated the Bonneville Power Administration. For once, we Canadians stood up on our hind legs and did better in negotiating than the Americans, and Bonneville Power Administration has now ratted on it.

Our American guests should understand that this is not unique to British Columbia. This is not an anti-American argument I make. I myself was born in the United States, like our Speaker. This is an argument against a company which has an outrageous business record. When I called my friend who writes for a Seattle newspaper to ask him about the record of Bonneville, he laughed and said: "They're known for their shoddy business practices throughout the northwest." Why should this concern Americans rather than only us? I think that the young Americans sitting in the gallery also have a stake in this issue.

We heard the Libcred critic blithely relishing the idea that British Columbians are going to lose $250 million this year, which the Bonneville power corporation owes us. Somehow he finds that delightful -- that British Columbians are going to be on the short end of the stick. I don't. That means, potentially, services in our province can suffer, despite the best efforts of the government to negotiate a good deal for British Columbians, despite a sound, honourable commitment by Bonneville Power. I don't find that delightful, I find that sad.

I think there are losses for the Americans. These young American citizens over the next few years are going to be facing the question: shall Bonneville return that power to us for our use, which it must do under the treaty, by constructing a long, large hydroelectric power transmission line from Grand Coulee up to the Canadian border at Osoyoos and Oliver? Will they want a large power line running through some of the best, pristine desert country in the state of Washington, through Indian reserves, through wilderness areas? They may not. They may decide that we concluded with Bonneville an agreement that was not only good for us but also better for American citizens.

Will they want to see more and more global warming promoted by the burning of natural gas and gas-fired turbines? Yes, the price may be cheap -- we sell our birthright away very cheaply these days. We can make a lot of money in northeastern B.C.; we can employ British Columbians. But, ultimately, what we are doing is converting a fossil fuel, natural gas, which took hundreds of millions of years to create in the earth's evolution, turning it as fast as we can in southern California into more electricity to power more air conditioners and Coca-Cola coolers.

Some of the teachers may remember the old battle over the Skagit Valley, and the song that the famous black American Malvina Reynolds wrote about the Skagit Valley and the High Ross Dam being built to run the Coca-Cola coolers of Seattle, U.S.A. Well, now we're going to fire more Coca-Cola coolers in L.A. and places south by burning natural gas and contributing more to global warming, because Bonneville Power Administration has ratted on its signed agreement with us. They don't have to do that. We have offered them those downstream power benefits.

We have offered them what is now -- since the dams are built and the water is flowing over the dams -- clean power, which does not come at any further environmental cost. We've already paid the price. We have offered that power to our American friends at a price fair to us and to them, and they've decided no, they'd rather contribute to more global warming.

I find it shocking that the official Energy critic for the Libcred party is so ignorant of those issues that he would rejoice in that. They don't believe in global warming; they're too ignorant to know that that's a real issue. But I suspect that a lot of the young kids there who are going to be facing these issues as they grow up -- some of them, I'll bet -- before this issue is concluded, are going to be involved in it. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are fighting on the same side as we are, just as we did over the Skagit Valley and many other great environmental issues.

I know that my friends from the old Skagit days on the North Cascades Conservation Council are probably going to see this issue in exactly the same way as we do up here.

My time is running out, but I want to say one last thing. I grew up in that time when the Columbia River Treaty was first signed. I remember challenging the then Energy minister, Jack Davis, when he first contemplated renegotiating the treaty, and it struck me, sitting on that side of the House, that that Social Credit Energy minister was about to give away the store once again -- and unnecessarily so.

I'm very proud that our government, all the ministers involved -- the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Employment and Investment, formerly the minister of Finance responsible for B.C. Hydro, and the then minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, the member for Esquimalt- Metchosin -- and the Premier and the cabinet insisted on having a very smart, tough negotiating team. I'm proud of the agreement we got.

I hope that the Washington and Oregon people who ultimately hold the shares of Bonneville Power Administration will think about the deal that was concluded, and I hope that their press will break the barrier of silence, so that they know what Bonneville Power has just reneged on. And I hope that we will, through a

[ Page 14479 ]

negotiated approach, achieve a solution that's good for both our countries. But if need be, it's time for us to be tough: it's time for us to rule to the letter of the Columbia River Treaty; it's time for us to look after our own interests first in this country; it's time for us to look after our own environmentalists first. We know what BPA has done to the Columbia River: it has written it off. It is happy, ultimately, with one sockeye salmon returning to Redfish Lake.

[3:30]

The last thing I want to say is that I find it sad, but I don't, frankly, find it relevant that the Libcred party wants to give comfort to BPA and try to make a political advantage out of something that negatively affects all British Columbians. It's not going to alter the negotiations. It's not a fifth column, and it doesn't dignify being given that unfortunate appellation. It's just sad. It's pathetic that they have no more interest in the people of this province than to try to score political points on this issue.

I look forward to the resolution of this issue. I look forward to working with many of the young students and their teachers who have joined us today, because I think there's a positive solution that still awaits us on this issue.

J. Tyabji: Yesterday in this debate I had the opportunity to speak to an amendment. What I find today is that we're getting to more of the substance of the central issue in the negotiations. In the main motion, we're talking about condemning the activities of Bonneville Power. I don't think there are a lot of arguments from MLAs who believe that anyone who sits down in good faith to negotiate an agreement and who signs a memorandum of understanding should have a legitimate reason to walk away from the table.

If they walk away from the table without a legitimate reason, then we can feel pretty comfortable in saying that that is not an action that we can condone. In fact, we would condemn that. They should get back to the table and negotiate in good faith.

Having said that, it's very important for us to realize that we've never really had a solid debate in British Columbia on the future of our natural resources, specifically as they relate to hydro and water. In this chamber we've occasionally had debates around the issue. For example, on this motion we're going to be talking specifically about the Columbia River Treaty. I notice that in the gallery we have a person who lives in Mackenzie, Rick Berry, who's been talking to a number of MLAs with respect to Williston Lake and the lake levels there. I know that in this debate we've talked a little bit about NAFTA.

A few years ago we had an opportunity to speak about NAFTA and how we should deal with it. The central issue of what British Columbians want to do with our water resources and therefore with our hydro should be addressed before the government sits down to negotiate with Bonneville Power. When we first entered into the Columbia River Treaty and the agreement that is the reason that we are currently here today, there wasn't an opportunity for people throughout the province to express a long-term vision for our water and our hydro. Now we have that chance.

At the time that the memorandum of understanding was signed, there was a lot of debate, because that memorandum of understanding was signed without using a very powerful lever that we have with the United States -- that is, the United States was under an obligation to either provide us with the financial downstream benefits of the 30-year Columbia River Treaty or build a power line to Oliver. We've heard from a number of members. I think we can give Mr. Berry some credit for the fact that we have been talking now, today, about the capacity for electrical generation in B.C. as opposed to always focusing on electrical supply.

In addition to that, we should look at the lever that exists in the United States. The U.S. is going to be extremely hampered when trying to build a power line to Oliver through the United States, because of the Environmental Protection Agency's restrictions on construction on the land where they would have to construct that line. As I understand it, a large portion of the land that that line would be built on is currently coming under aboriginal jurisdiction.

The challenges in the United States with respect to aboriginal jurisdiction are very similar to the challenges we have in Canada, where we are not sure where the lines are drawn about who is in charge and who has jurisdiction; they are not sure whether the Environmental Protection Agency would be the final door or whether the aboriginal people would be able to block the construction. There could be a very strong argument made that, at the time of the signing of the Columbia River Treaty which mandated the construction, the aboriginal people were not signatories to it. That would be a different legal battle.

Having said that, this was a lever that B.C. had when we sat down to negotiate the original memorandum of understanding. We haven't really used that lever very effectively. In condemning Bonneville Power's actions to this point in backing out of that memorandum of understanding, what we have right now is an opportunity to come forward with a stronger position.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

If one of the elements or ingredients in that stronger position is that we are aware of the logistical difficulties the United States would face in building the power line, then we have an option. We have had a number of MLAs -- the member for Okanagan West and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi being two of them -- who have spoken very strongly in favour of having the power returned to British Columbia.

I think that if we're going to talk about that, and if we are going to advocate that very strongly, we have to keep in mind that we might want to negotiate where it is returned, because the United States has a very vulnerable point as far as living up to the conditions of the treaty is concerned. Perhaps we would be able to negotiate where it is returned; perhaps we could negotiate a better point of return for that power.

In addition to that, if we're not going to negotiate the return of the power, then we have to look at the long-term plan for power in British Columbia. Based on projected population growth, what are the demands going to be? Based on those demands, are we going to be able to meet them?

There's another aspect to this whole power debate that we haven't really talked about here. I'm sure the member for Nelson- Creston or the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke know that the Electric Consumers' Association is a very active and informed group of people who have been lobbying for a long time. In fact, they formed around the whole issue of the purchase of West Kootenay Power by an American company, UtiliCorp. If we move back to that, I believe it was in 1986 that the Electric Consumers' Association formed around the issue. At the time, I was working as a

[ Page 14480 ]

stringer journalist for a radio station, and I was at the founding meeting at the Capri Hotel in Kelowna. What I found at that meeting -- and I think there were about 400 or 500 people there; it was quite a large issue -- was the incredibly high level of concern for some form of ownership of our own resources, especially hydro in that case.

Whether it's in Williston Lake or the Columbia River system, we have only to look at the innumerable issues with respect to the environment, tourism, the economy, future power supplies, problems with drought, agricultural water supply and all these varied issues to understand why you would attend a meeting such as the Electric Consumers' Association if you lived close to that source.

I noticed two things that occurred over the years after it formed. First, very strong opposition to the sale of that utility was not successful. Notwithstanding that three municipalities came in to try to bid on it to maintain the ownership of the utility in British Columbia, it was sold to UtiliCorp, which has not lived up to many of the agreements they said they would at the time. One of the conditions of the sale has not been fulfilled, but they have never been held accountable by the province for not living up to it.

The second thing that happened after the sale was that UtiliCorp tried to do a bit of funny accounting on their books to bring in a gas turbine generator from Venezuela. Some of the members from the Kootenays might remember that, and the member for Okanagan West might remember it as well. Actually, at that time, the person who now sits as the Alliance leader had asked me to go make a presentation against the gas turbine generator being located in Oliver, because it was going to come into the south end of the Okanagan, and we did so on an environmental basis because of air emissions.

I was very surprised to see that the people who had come together to lobby for sovereignty and control of our natural resources were still active on those issues a few years later, and were that close to the issue that they were successful in preventing some environmental degradation from a gas turbine generator. More importantly, what I find interesting is that to this day there continues to be an Electric Consumers' Association monitoring what is occurring in that part of the province with our water utilities and our hydro.

It might be of very great interest to people who are following power and water issues to learn that the Liberal opposition, who are champing at the bit to get into the government side of the House, are planning to sell B.C. Hydro -- to sell it off, to privatize it, to get rid of it as a Crown corporation.

I have some comments for the member for North Vancouver- Seymour. I'll be reading some of his comments into debate a little later. But the leader of the Liberal opposition, the newcomer.... I can understand that the member for North Vancouver- Seymour might not have known about this policy. I know the MLAs aren't often informed of some of the leader's speeches. Of course, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is a pedigreed Liberal. He's been a Liberal since he was old enough to hold a card. And hats off to him. But he doesn't realize that the person leading his party is a Social Credit person. He's not being led by a Liberal. So it might horrify him...

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: ...to know that his own leader is no longer interested in the Crown maintaining control of our hydro.

An Hon. Member: I notice that nobody asked her to withdraw.

J. Tyabji: I don't know why they wouldn't be offended.

The fact that the Liberals -- the real Liberals -- are upset that there is a Howe Street agenda with respect to B.C. Hydro's future should come as no surprise to the rest of us, who recognize that some of them are well-intentioned, got into this business with the best of intentions and for some reason are still sitting there warming their seats when they could be doing something more productive.

B.C. Hydro should stay as a Crown corporation. The absolutely most important reason B.C. Hydro should stay as a Crown corporation is the definition -- in use under the Water Protection Act, the Water Act, our federal laws, the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA -- that differentiates between a natural water system and a reservoir, between a natural water system and a body of water that is accepting diverted water or that has been dammed or is being used for water control, flood control or power.

That distinction will render us incredibly vulnerable if that Leader of the Opposition ever has the opportunity to warm the benches on the other side of the House. As British Columbians, we should all be very frightened of anyone who thinks of selling off our Crown corporation that's controlling the principal bodies of water in this province, for money.

We should be concerned because of the precedents that have been set under the Columbia River Treaty, recognizing that the Columbia River Treaty is a much better deal than we would ever get if we privatized B.C. Hydro. We should know that right now in the Kootenays and in the north, the people who live in those areas are faced with the reality of putting their boat at their dock in the evening, waking up and having to drag that boat almost a kilometre away to try to get it back in the water when the lake levels go down.

I promised the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to read some of his comments into the record. Keeping in mind that at the time he made these comments he was under the leadership of the person who sits as the Alliance leader...

An Hon. Member: A real Liberal.

J. Tyabji: A real Liberal.

...and keeping in mind that -- although the member for North Vancouver-Seymour tries to put out a lot of bluster and pretend that he's sympathetic with the current Liberal agenda, which isn't really a Liberal agenda -- I happen to have sat in a caucus with him and know that his heart is in the right place on water diversion and water export....

An Hon. Member: No, it can't be.

J. Tyabji: It is. I'm not kidding. He actually believes we should have some sovereignty over our natural resources. I respect him for that. I'm not sure how I feel about him continuing to sit there, given the magnitude of the issue.

In an issue of British Columbia Report from 1992 there was a very interesting

article called "High, Dry and Disgusted." I should say that there are times when

British Columbia Report ,

[ Page 14481 ]

which has some very good writers, will put together well- researched articles. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour was talking about a better deal under the Columbia River Treaty. When he was talking about that better deal, he said:

"American officials have indicated that they want additional water beyond the Columbia River Treaty obligations. Ottawa refuses to stand up and fight, either by getting a review of the treaty or taking a tougher stand against American demands."

He went on to say that the government should reject any new requests from the States for water from the Mica, Arrow or Duncan reservoirs. He said:

"I'm not talking about situations where we release water on a compassionate basis in case of drought hardship; of course we should do that if necessary. But water is a limited resource, as the present situation is proving, and there are significant environmental implications to providing more of it to the United States."

He also said: "Any future bulk water transfers below the border must be viewed in the light of whether such transfer establishes a precedent and thus becomes a bargaining chip in free trade disagreements."

[3:45]

Such vision! It's just unfortunate that the member doesn't have the courage to act on that vision and leave the caucus that is now advocating a corporate agenda for our natural resources. He should get up and leave the caucus that is advocating the privatization of B.C. Hydro. At what price does that member's integrity come? Is it a nomination? Is that what it was?

The bulk water issue is one of the central issues in the Columbia River Treaty negotiations. We should recognize that when we sit down to renegotiate, everything should be on the table with respect to current international law, current provincial law and what the province's direction is for our water. We still don't know. We don't know, under the Water Protection Act, if the province is going to retain the right to impose tariffs. We know they are going to retain the right, but we don't know if they are going to exercise the right. We'd like to know that. What is the long-term agenda? What is the vision for the province -- of this government or of any of the other parties?

We know the privatization of the B.C. Hydro Crown corporation is a frightening prospect. If we look at how much of B.C.'s fresh water is beyond reservoirs, we will know that privatizing B.C. Hydro leaves us completely vulnerable to ownership of the water. We will look to the comments of Dr. Peter Pearse for an analysis of what that does. People will recognize Dr. Peter Pearse's name. Although he is with UBC, he was also appointed by the federal government to do the most comprehensive review of Canada's water policy. We often hear Dr. Pearse's name quoted in reference to that.

It was only today that I found out that he sits on the board of Alcan, which I thought was quite interesting; it puts a slightly different perspective on federal water policy. But when Dr. Pearse was talking about the drought that occurred in the Columbia River system in 1992 -- a drought that left Lake Koocanusa almost dry and actually killed off a lot of the fish that had been stocked by the governments in that area....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I have to give credit to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour for turning purple in debate about that at the time -- for good reason -- because of his environmental streak, which is too little in evidence these days, I must say.

When Dr. Pearse talks about Lake Koocanusa as a reservoir, what does he say? The professor adds that it's a situation -- with respect to the drought -- that probably is not going to be resolved in any way helpful to Mr. Cutts, who was a rancher who was losing a lot of his livelihood and was complaining that the government wasn't helping him. He says that for anyone whose interests are connected to the man-made lake in the Kootenays: "It's a case of a man seeing an opportunity for a business enterprise which requires an element of luck -- in this case, that there isn't a drought in the States.

His luck just happens to have gone bad." He adds: "Americans have every right to take the water from Lake Koocanusa because it is their water. To them it is not Lake Koocanusa; it's the Libby Dam reservoir."

That is what happens when we start to change the designation from a dam that is under our control to a reservoir that's a holding tank for the United States's water supply. If we lose control over the majority of our fresh water by privatizing B.C. Hydro, we will all be in the same situation as those people in the Kootenays and in the north who have seen that their investments have gone, that their livelihoods are disappearing, that their access to water is being diminished. Right now I know of one councillor in the Kootenays who is extremely concerned.

Because when this deal fell through, his first comment was: "Well, it's about water." I mean, in addition to the other things that are on the table, it's about water. The reason is that there are about one million acres of agricultural land, just south of the border in the Columbia River system, that are slated, in the American plan, to come up for development as productive agricultural land, and that the development of that land as agricultural land is premised on a consistent supply of B.C.'s water to the Columbia River system.

Well, that being the case, how can we not talk about that in this debate? How can we not talk about a long-term strategy for growth in this province and the power demands that will be coming with it? How do we not look to each party, ideologically and on a policy basis, to find out what their platform is -- where are they coming from? And how can you possibly talk about privatizing B.C. Hydro, recognizing that the sale of one utility in the Kootenays caused such an uproar that nine years later there is still an active association following every move of the government?

We went to the convention of the Electric Consumers' Association a few months ago, and they are extremely worried. That was before the memorandum of understanding was reneged on by Bonneville Power. That was at a time when they thought they had the deal that's fallen through.

I can only imagine how they are feeling today, to think that the Liberal opposition is trying to destroy whatever chances we have to go in in a position of strength; that they're destroying our own government's position in sitting down at the table again; and that we're still not getting to the central issue of what the long-term implications will be for British Columbia of whatever deal comes out of this. Because it's more than money; it's a lot more than money.

It's more than $250 million, which still might be recovered within this fiscal year -- and we have to wait and see; in fact, we may get more than that in the new deal if we get more of the downstream benefits up front. It's so

[ Page 14482 ]

much more than money, because in the long term, whatever money comes from the downstream benefits will only be a fraction of the financial value of our water as we continue to grow.

B.C. is in its infancy. British Columbia has just begun to develop as a province. I'm frightened to see how easily we can give up our principles and our values for money. Because in this province, where we rely on our natural resources, we have a primary extractive economy which needs to be developed into a secondary and tertiary economy.... But at this stage it's a primary sector. And one of the fundamental ingredients in that -- and beyond our economy even more so -- is water.

If we don't protect our water resources, if we don't look to power, if we don't have a long-term strategy, what good have we done our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren as elected representatives in this House?

I say shame on those members who, for the sake of short-term personal gain, will throw away 100 years of principles and values. Looking back 100 years and looking forward 100 years, where will we be? That's the position that we should be looking at when we look to renegotiate this deal: what do we want in 100 years? The population of the province will be more than double what it is now. We will, hopefully, be planning so that these people will be dispersed throughout the province. But we know that no matter what we are looking to the future for, we will need water, and we will need power, and we will need to provide for all the people, not only today but as they exist in 100 years.

I urge in the main motion that we move beyond partisan politics, that we go to the central issue of the debate and that we honestly provide constructive input, so that our government will have the strongest possible bargaining position. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I urge all the members of the House to throw aside partisan slings, and to come forward and look to the future. At this point, with the kind of rhetoric that's been flying around -- most particularly the rhetoric of selling off our Crown corporate utility -- I know I'm frightened for the future of the province.

With that, I'll take my seat.

F. Garden: It's always simply a privilege to follow the previous speaker and her fellow member of the PDA from Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I think that it's indeed a shame for the Liberal opposition that they lost two of their best and most eloquent spokesmen when they moved down the House because they couldn't stand how that party had been hijacked from the Liberal Party. And it certainly has benefited the government that they're now sitting with the PDA, as opposed to sitting in that group of opposition that can't come up with an intelligent argument in this particular debate as to why they should be supporting this government on its initiative and the motion before the House.

But I suppose what we're going to witness in the next few hours is a typical thing. We've got to expect from the opposition that they're going to spend their time -- and the credibility of this province, because I'm sure Bonneville is looking at this debate with interest -- arguing against this particular legislation, and then when the vote comes, they'll certainly vote for it. There's no doubt in my mind.

They've reduced what I think is one of the most important things that has come before this House in the last three or four years from what should be a provincial government and opposition combination going forward in solidarity and taking on this Bonneville power corporation.... Instead of that, they've reduced this debate to the kind of partisan things which we've heard in the last two or three days.

Shame on them, because if they ever aspire to anything beyond being opposition -- and the way they're going, I doubt they will -- there are going to be times when they're going to be calling on those around this House, whoever they might be in the future, for the same type of support that we're asking for today.

I'm really pleased that the amendment they raised the other day about setting up a committee was so soundly defeated in this House. It was eloquently stated by the Minister of Employment and Investment how ridiculous it must have seemed to our opponents out there when they saw this apologist opposition actually come up with a motion like that -- going from a position of strength to what would have ultimately been a position of weakness.

Having said that, I would just like to take a couple of minutes to explain to the loyal opposition what bargaining is all about. I've been involved in bargaining all my life in one way or another, dealing with contracts and memorandums of agreement. You know, when you sit down with people in good faith, and you sit across a table and hammer out your differences and come to a memorandum of agreement, you presume at that point in time that all the effort you made to get a better deal or to get the thing cut back have already been made.

You've now come to the point where both of you, face to face, recognize this fact: "All right, we've had our kick at the cat. We've now got to a memorandum of agreement. We'll take that back to our principals, we'll get it endorsed and on we'll go to sign the agreement." This was done, as has been explained by other people, and it has been ridiculed by the opposition on the basis that we counted our chickens before they were hatched.

Interjection.

F. Garden: But I want to tell the opposition and the person who's heckling me so soundly on the other side that in 30 years of experience, I've taken a memorandum of agreement back to communities like Powell River, said what we'd come up with, and even before the agreement was finally signed and the benefits started flowing, people in that community started saying: "Fine." They started going on the basis of what was in that agreement, because they understood that the agreement was bargained in good faith and would be honoured.

They do, and they go out and make commitments -- maybe something on their house or car -- just on the basis of a memorandum of agreement. So it's not a new thing for people to feel that when you sit down in good faith, you expect the person that you make the agreement with to live up to their commitment.

So shame on the Liberals for being apologists for the Bonneville power corporation. A perfect example we've seen in the last two or three years of how to deal with these people who act like this is the countervail argument that the forest companies have had for years. They were literally dragged through every little piece of committee and legal argument that could be found by the people who were supposed to, in good faith, recognize that we were not taking advantage of the

[ Page 14483 ]

situation here in Canada. We were only doing what we felt was the right thing to do with our resources, and yet the forest companies, had they capitulated in the manner that the opposition is suggesting we do, would have probably ended up on the wrong end of the stick in that deal. But because they stood up for their rights, hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been lost to this province and the industry are now being paid to the industry.

If we were to back away from an agreement that was put before us and capitulate, as has been suggested, we would be making less of a deal for the people of the province than was agreed to at that table. Shame on the opposition for their stance in that regard.

Interjection.

F. Garden: Listen, a deal is a deal, and we made a deal in good faith. I would like to suggest to the members opposite that the days are gone when the resources of this province are to be given away for a pittance. The member said it quite eloquently: this is about a valuable resource that belongs to the people of this province, and it should not be given away. We shouldn't be running with our tail between our legs to get back to the bargaining table with Bonneville. We made a deal. If they don't want the deal, then somebody else will make it, because that resource is not going to disappear. It's going to be there, and we'll make that deal.

[4:00]

We're not going to go and listen to the Liberal people just get milquetoast and say: "Oh well, let's set up a committee, and let's go and talk to these people again." We made the best deal that could possibly be made for this province, and these people backed away from it. We should continue? If I had the power as an individual MLA, and there were switches and taps somewhere, these taps would be turned off, the switches would go down and we'd work on these people the way it should be done. They are our resources. For 30 or 40 years we've watched a parade of Liberals and Socreds, or whatever you call them mixing together, giving away the resources of this province.

Interjection.

F. Garden: Those days are over, my friend; those days are over. I was wondering why the Liberals would be in such a hurry to run down there and capitulate, and then I realized that that's part of the pattern. That has happened over the last 30 or 40 years with this type of opposition. It has literally been given away. Well, the people in my riding are saying that that time is over. They even resent the fact that the people in Vancouver are taking advantage of resource communities. They resent even more the fact that the American power company would want to try to take advantage of the province the way they did.

I say shame on not only that company but also the opposition for even considering it.

Mind you, that's to be expected. Only the Liberals would suggest that we do something like that, based on the fact that they now want to sell B.C. Hydro and all these other successful corporations that we're making money off. They want to give them away to their friends on Howe Street so they can make the money instead of the people of the province. That's the kind of thing we'd get from a Liberal government if-- perish the thought -- they ever made it. I think what is happening during this debate is that people are starting to realize just where the Liberals are coming from: it's back to the past.

That's where they want to take this province -- back to the past: "If that's not a good deal, then let's make it a lesser deal. Let's give it away. Let's sell B.C. Hydro. Let's split it up among our friends on Howe Street." That's what Gordon Campbell would have us do.

A lot of credit has to be given to this government for staying the course and saying: "A deal's a deal." If Bonneville wants to walk away, that's one thing; but, as I said before, we are charged in this Legislature with getting the best deal we can for the province's resources for the people of the province, and I believe this government did it. I support them all the way on taking this company on and not getting back to the bargaining table under conditions that have been suggested in this House.

As I said, the countervail just showed you the kind of things that we could get dragged into if we were to do that sort of thing. We see how flippantly the people in Washington State deal with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. They have that treaty in effect there, and they still flippantly deal with it as if it wasn't a proper agreement. They take extreme largesse with that agreement, and it's time that kind of stuff stopped.

It's time that this Legislature and the people of this province stood up and said: "Enough of this nonsense." We are a sovereign power here in Canada, and we've got to be dealt with as equals when we go and sit with people across the line. They should stop trying to take advantage of the people of British Columbia the way they've been doing over the years.

I don't have too much more to say, other than that it really bothers me to hear people like the member for North Vancouver- Seymour stand up and sound.... He may not mean to be an apologist. I'll give him his due; I've heard it said that he's a true Liberal. He may not be an apologist, but he sure sounds like one. Instead of having this debate finished three days ago and all of us walking out of here united and saying no to the Bonneville power corporation, here we are listening to more of these mealy-mouthed speeches. It's getting dragged on and dragged on, and the Bonneville power corporation must be loving it.

I just want to say this: that as long as I'm a member of this side of the House, I will fight for the rights of British Columbians against corporations like Bonneville Power, and I give a great deal of credit to the members from the area that has been badly hit by this and by the flooding over the years. I give a great deal of credit to my colleagues who have stood up for the people in that area and fought for some of the rights that they should have had 30 years ago.

So I just want to say in closing that it shows a clear division in this House between what we and a few members of the independent group stand for and what the Liberals stand for: they'd give away this province if they had half a chance. I say they're not going to get this chance.

A. Warnke: I recall my first sentence, reflecting on the budget that was brought down earlier this year, whereupon I think I quoted someone from the public whom everyone recognizes: "The budget is like a box of chocolates. You don't know what you're going to get." To a certain extent, the Minister of Finance obviously didn't know what she was going to get, when she miscues in thinking that she is definitely going to get $250 million for the following year, and then all of a sudden things collapse just in a matter of weeks, not months. Guess what -- she hasn't got it. I guess to that Finance minister, yes, the budget is like a box of chocolates.

[ Page 14484 ]

On the other hand, there are some aspects of this whole debate that are worth following through. I have actually listened to many debates and speeches, but there are a few questions. Of course, we in the official opposition have been accused of being.... The speaker before me referred to us as being mealy- mouthed. Well, I would put it this way. Let's go back to the beginning in terms of whether in fact we really have a deal. Do we have an agreement? Do we have a deal? Do we have a deal that is firm, fixed and final? "Firm, fixed and final" -- do you know who said that, hon. Speaker? That was the Premier.

The Premier wanted an agreement that was firm, fixed and final. Do we have a deal that is firm? No. Do we have a deal that is fixed? No. Do we have a deal that is final? No.

An Hon. Member: Yes.

A. Warnke: It fails on all three counts, and anyone who says yes is way off the mark, way off the beam.

The fact is that when you take a look at something called an agreement or a deal, does the Minister of Employment and Investment -- otherwise called the minister of jobs and money -- really have a deal and agreement? No. You know what the Minister of Employment and Investment says? The minister says words such as "a solemn commitment" or "a good-faith obligation" -- or here's another one:"legally significant." What is "legally significant"? In corporate law you can forget about a solemn commitment and about what is legally significant. You've got to have a deal in writing that is solid.

You don't have that, and therefore you have problems. That's the problem. We do not have in front of us a legally binding contract. As a matter of fact, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has said over and over again, you've got a number of clauses here that allow BPA to escape. For that matter, they even allow B.C. Hydro and the government to escape. You have those escape clauses, so did we have a deal?

This the first time that I have actually heard that we in British Columbia have the best deal. This is first time I have actually heard that a best deal is no deal, or the other way around: that no deal is the best deal. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Since when is no deal a good deal? It doesn't make sense -- unless you don't want a deal. Maybe this government does not want a deal. How do we know, if they say things such as that?

Mind you, when we get into contracts.... You'll have to excuse me, hon. Speaker; I have a cold. On the other hand, I remember that back in 1959, Harvey Haddix pitched a perfect game for 12 innings, and he had a cold that night. So that's the way it goes.

By the way, I noticed that one of my friends over on the other side referred to my nomination. I hope that somewhere along the line I get the opportunity to talk about my opposition with regard to nominations -- otherwise known, I think, as Jacob Two- Two and the Hooded Fang. Perhaps we'll leave that for another time. I'd be really delighted if we could find an appropriate forum to talk about my funny opposition.

At any rate, the fact is.... Is there really any "solemn commitment"? Is there really any "good-faith obligation"? Is there really anything "legally significant"? All of these are very shifty words. Even the motion itself contains "solemn commitment." It doesn't talk about a deal; it doesn't talk about an agreement. It's a nice, slippery way out, saying: "It's a solemn commitment, but by God, when we get up in the Legislature, we're going to talk about a deal that has been violated." No deal was violated. Guess what -- the Minister of Employment and Investment signed an agreement that allowed that escape clause.

As I see it, the big issue here is the incompetence of the Minister of Employment and Investment. That's what's really at stake.

It reminds me of another time. Hon. Speaker, you are a student of history, and I'm sure there are a number of social democrats on the other side who are good students of history. They're well aware of this one.

An Hon. Member: Socialists. Call them what they are: socialists.

A. Warnke: Socialists.

As a matter of fact, just prior to World War I, the German social democrats in the Reichstag had to face a very difficult moment, and that was when the Kaiser of Germany declared war. The minister of war came into the Reichstag and said: "This is what this government is going to be committed to." The social democrats of that time had a heck of a problem, because a lot of them were pacifists. A lot of them didn't want to have anything to do with the war, but they were patriotic Germans. Guess what they had to do. It was a difficult decision for them.

They said that despite the incompetence of the Kaiser, despite the incompetence of the minister of war and all of the generals and all the rest of it, they were duty-bound to support their position. This is the problem in principle.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: There's one hon. member who's not in his seat and who appears to have a lot to say. I thought he had something to say, but when I heard him the other day, I didn't hear him say anything at all. But at any rate, maybe he's jealous; you never know.

There is a principle here: when you're dealing with another country -- or for that matter, when you're dealing with, as in this situation, a company that's in another country.... The fact is that in any international negotiations, by cracky, you'd better have an ironclad deal, and if you don't, you have no business representing that as a deal before, in this case, British Columbians. British Columbians are being sucked in; we are being sucked in. Of course, we have a problem now where we might have to support this incompetent, arrogant minister, who has nothing to do but have an attitude that does not belong in this chamber.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: An attitude -- and a confidence. Exactly, hon. member.

The problem is that we have no confidence. British Columbians have no confidence. How do we know that that minister isn't going to mislead British Columbians somewhere else, as he is misleading us right now? Shame! As a matter of fact, right now, if I were the Premier, do you know what I'd do, hon. Speaker? If I were the Premier, I'd ask for his resignation right now, on the table: "Out you go, out of cabinet -- out, out, out to the far corner, and get banished." That's where the minister belongs.

[ Page 14485 ]

[4:15]

But the fact is that that minister still thinks: oh, he's got a contract. Actually, I think he knows better and that he's misled caucus, because we have one example of a cabinet minister who went along with it -- I mean besides the Premier. There is the Minister of Finance. I can't blame the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Finance has to calculate the expected revenues for the following year. We all do that, even in this chamber. We sort of expect that somewhere in the year we're going to get some kind of salary -- there's an expectation.

Lord only knows what might happen; there's no absolute guarantee you're going to get that income, but you have to sort of expect it. That's what estimates are all about.

So I can't blame the Minister of Finance, because she's listening to her advisers and her fellow ministers; of course she's going to include $250 million in her account. But the fact is that one should not cheat their own colleagues -- cheat them in caucus, cheat them in cabinet, cheat this Legislature -- and cheat the province of British Columbia and all British Columbians. How dare that Minister of Employment and Investment -- the man for jobs and money -- misrepresent....

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could I just remind you that that choice of phrase is not parliamentary language, and I think you know that. I would ask you to please withdraw that.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. As a matter of fact, if anything I have said impugns the whatever-it- is of the minister, I take it back, and I withdraw. But, hon. Speaker, the fact is that when we get down to it, this minister has presented something that ain't so. I have just been astonished over the last few days to hear a number of members -- ministers of the Crown -- get up and say, "We have a deal," when we don't have one, or, "Oh, we have an agreement," when we don't have one.

Look at the words of the Minister of Employment and Investment, fellow members: "...we negotiated in good faith and for which we have ample documentary evidence and, I think, an outstanding legal case." Think? Don't you know? Doesn't the minister know?

Interjections.

A. Warnke: There's a very good, esteemed friend, and he'll probably take an opposing view to myself: the distinguished member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He knows darned well that when you have a contract being developed between labour and management with escape clauses in it, when you have those subject-to clauses, it means you can get out, and that's what happens.

I'm really interested, too, in another aspect that the minister has put forward. The minister has come in here and really railed away against the Bonneville power authority, saying that this is a huge American company which is notorious for its arrangements, both in terms of screwing British Columbia and also other people. I believe that may be parliamentary; I'm not sure. But the minister said it. If the minister has so much insight about this being a company that has a notorious history for screwing British Columbia, Canadians, Americans, and all the rest of it, then what the heck was that minister doing negotiating a deal with an escape clause -- a subject-to clause -- in it?

As a matter of fact, one person I admire -- Ray Williston.... I think we know who Ray Williston is. I know that two members know who Ray Williston is. Ray Williston, incidentally, knows something about the Bonneville Power Administration, since he negotiated with them. Ray Williston said: "I could have told them." And indeed he could have told this arrogant young pup of a minister -- I could have told him: if they did not have an absolute firm business deal nailed down with Bonneville, they had nothing. Exactly; right on. And that's what this minister negotiated: nothing. He had nothing.

On December 31, 1994, when he could positively see that, what business had he in going to the Minister of Finance and saying: "Include $250 million in your next budget, please"? That is deceit. I'm not sure if it's parliamentary to say that. I'll just say it, and if it reflects badly on the minister, I'll withdraw that, too.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan East rises on a point of order?

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure it's a point of order, but I notice that there are people in the gallery now who need to be recognized. Perhaps this is an opportune moment, while the member considers whether or not that is parliamentary language.

R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'd like the House to welcome Ms. Taylor and 27 grades 6 and 7 students from Vedder Elementary School in Sardis. I hope they are enjoying their parliamentary stay, and I hope they are enjoying this speech especially.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Richmond, I would like to suggest that I don't think the rules or the operation of this House are at all well served by constant references to whether the language is parliamentary. I think we trivialize our proceedings by doing so, and I would ask the member to please reconsider that approach.

A. Warnke: I'm far more comfortable with that, because then I can get down to the nitty-gritty -- the real heart -- and speak where from my heart. I'm much more comfortable with that, so thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The way I see it, the incompetence of the Minister of Employment and Investment is so strong that it is obvious that he is in over his head with regard to negotiating with anything foreign. It's obvious that the minister is negotiating not necessarily in the best interests of the province but has, because of the deal falling through -- or the so-called deal, as he calls it.... The fact is that now that minister is really acting in his own best interests.

An Hon. Member: And running scared.

A. Warnke: And running scared.

There's no reference here to the basic principles of contract law. If in fact the minister has a sound base, never mind thinking whether he's got something legally there.... If the minister has something very sound, I would advise that minister to get right down and spell out what the real strong legal arguments are. Until that minister does that, all this other

[ Page 14486 ]

nonsense and the nonsense spouted by several members across the way -- which is mealy-mouthed -- is a very weak argument. As a matter of fact, all of the arguments I've heard from the other side address everything else. I mean, they've talked about everything but the substance of what this so-called deal constitutes in very solid, concrete legal terms: if you want to use the Premier's language, a so-called deal that is firm, fixed and final -- and, I would add, legal. It's not there; it's simply not there. Regardless of how many people have spoken on it, not one case -- not one shred of evidence -- backs that up, right from the Premier on down to the last speaker.

Now, if that side really wants to make a strong argument for the future.... And never mind saying: "Oh, the opposition is coming up with all kinds of arguments that are going to be used by BPA in court." Nonsense. The BPA couldn't care less what some people say in this forum.

The fact is that.... I'll bet you, when it comes down to the nut-cutting of the whole business, when we get into court -- if they drag us into court just like the Kaiser dragged the Germans into war.... If we're dragged into court, guess what. There won't be a strong legal argument. There won't be a so-called treaty, an agreement or anything else that is firm, fixed and final. We won't see that.

Not only that, but the minister knows it. The minister is misleading his cabinet, his caucus, the party -- his own party -- the entire Legislature and all the people of British Columbia. For that reason, that minister has got to go, and I mean right now.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, in the speaking order, the member for Okanagan-Penticton was to go.... Are you ready or not?

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Okay, thank you very much. Then I will go ahead.

Well, I'm certainly enjoying the debate. It is certainly lively, although from the government side so far it has been weak and insipid, not supported by very many of the ministers and certainly supported only by those who would benefit from the pork- barrel exercise in the Columbia River Basin. Other than that, the arguments in this debate have not been very good at all.

I'm going to talk on a number of areas. I'm going to go into the memorandum of agreement fairly extensively and try to illustrate, in perhaps a calmer fashion than the hon. member who just finished speaking, the realities of this particular agreement.

But I want first to say a few words with respect to the statements of the member for Cariboo North, whose halo had slipped a little in his defence on agreements, union agreements and memorandums. In a very self-righteous way, he was saying that those are fixed and firm. That can be no further from the truth. I hope he doesn't intend to send his inaccurate statement home to the local people to read, because they will see through it very quickly.

Any agreement -- be it a union agreement -- has to go back for ratification. You have the negotiators, and they negotiate agreement. It goes back to the union members for ratification. Everyone in this Legislature and all members of the public throughout the province know that. In any situation that you have negotiators negotiating, it still has to come back. In the native land claims, for example, we have negotiators, the federal government has negotiators and the native bands have negotiators. But it still has to go to the authorities for ratification. Everyone knows that.

We're hearing a lot of confusing rhetoric trying to cover bases that cannot be covered. The government has been caught out, and caught out badly. The member for Cariboo North is very wrong and totally inaccurate in his particular statement, and is guilty of misleading the public. He knows that full well. I think all of the members in this Legislature -- including you, hon. Speaker -- know that very well.

Now, what about this memorandum of agreement? That's what the debate is about. Certainly the inflammatory motion that the Premier has brought forward is directed to this firm document. But when I look at the memorandum of agreement.... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you have to be a lawyer or a rocket scientist to follow the wording. It's fairly clear. Under

section G, it says:

"The parties requested negotiators appointed by each of them to recommend principles for an agreement dealing with delivery to Canada and/or disposition in the United States of the Canadian entitlement on a basis more beneficial than return to Oliver as provided in the treaty."

The reference to the treaty is the original treaty that was made in 1964 or 1965.

What we have is the appointment of negotiators to hammer out an agreement-in-principle. It is followed under

section H with: "Now therefore the negotiators recommend to the parties as follows...." Recommendations to the parties as follows -- simply recommendations, no firm contract. No ratification by the governing authorities, no hocus-pocus, no confusion here: just what it says; just a recommendation to the respective authorities, like any negotiated agreement has to have happen. That's normally part of the process. Here the government members -- the few who speak up in defence of their position -- say: "It's signed; a deal's a deal," like the member for Cariboo North said. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[4:30]

Under another

section in the memorandum of agreement, it says this:

"The statement of principles, this memorandum of negotiators' agreement and any drafts, proposals, correspondence and other documents resulting from any of them, will have no legal effect; only fully executed, definitive agreements among all relevant parties will be legally binding on the parties."

This has no legal binding effect. This was something that was negotiated by negotiators between the province of British Columbia and the Bonneville power authority. The reality is that the defence of this as some sort of pseudo-legal document is very wrong. It is simply.... All members who say this is a legal document are guilty of knowingly misleading the public.

I listened to the hon. member speak a few minutes ago, and I kept asking that hon. member how he would vote on this issue after listening to the explosive delivery of words. I suspect that the Liberal opposition is going to vote in support

[ Page 14487 ]

of the government -- give the government a vote of confidence after all that rhetoric and noise. I'm going to be very interested to see how my former colleagues, who are now Reformers, will vote on this particular issue -- whether they too will give the government of the day a vote of confidence for their inept handling of this.

This deal could have been concluded; there was a time slot when this deal could have been concluded. But it was not, and that's a fact of life. The government did not fulfil its obligation to the people of the province of British Columbia.

I've listened to a number of apologists for the current government, on that side of the House and also on this side of the House, talk about the Bonneville power authority. The Bonneville power authority is like one of our Crown corporations responsible for striving to get the best possible deal that they can for their customers and clients in the United States. Nothing wrong with that. I can't condemn someone for standing up; I can't condemn the member for Nelson-Creston for standing up in defence of the benefits for his constituents.

I may not agree with him -- and I don't happen to agree with the member -- but I respect him for his stance. I respect the Bonneville power authority as well. I don't see it as an us-and-them type of situation; I see this as a business deal.

But you know what? I think that somebody is looking after us. I think that the incompetence and Bonneville power authority saying no is really a blessing in disguise for British Columbians. That's what I really believe. When I look at the reports, we really need that power. We need jobs for people. When I think of a community like Mackenzie.... They may have to shut down their pulp mill for four months or six months of the year because of low water resources in Williston Lake, because we're churning out more power than Mother Nature can refill in those reservoirs. I'm concerned about those jobs.

The members on the government side should certainly be concerned about those jobs, because most of those large corporations are all unionized and using union labour.

Instead of that, instead of being concerned about jobs and the future for British Columbians, we find that for short-term expediency, to satisfy some sort of goal -- which is to look good with respect to the budget and to go out for an election -- they were overzealous in trying to claim and maintain that an agreement was made. But if you really look at this and look at any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, electrical energy is a much sought-after commodity. Our economic future is going to be based on abundant and inexpensive power. That's our opportunity in the world fo