1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1203 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 1203

Oral questions

Status of Ralph Gillen with ICBC. Mr. Barrett — 1204

Public service collective bargaining structure study. Mr. Wallace —

Lay representation on Legal Services Commission. Mr. Macdonald —

Joint housing committee hearings. Mr. Skelly — 1206

Elk hunting rights. Mrs. Wallace — 1206

Beer price increase. Mr. Macdonald — 1206

RCMP evidence-gathering methods. Mr. Wallace — 1206

Rent controls. Mr. Barnes — 1207

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 4).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1207

Mr. King — 1208

Hon. Mr. Davis — 1216

Mr. Lauk — 1220

Mr. Barrett — 1224

Mr. Stupich — 1230

Mr. Skelly — 1233

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 1236

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it

will interest members to know that in the gallery today we have Prof.

Matthew Smith and Mr. Douglas King, a student, from Evergreen State

College in Olympia, Washington. They are here interviewing members of

the Legislature and other people in British Columbia in relation to an

analysis of the 1972 election in British Columbia and the result. They

might find more interest in the '75 election, but I think they'll do

that later. I'd ask all members to give them a warm welcome.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to

finally have my wife, Elizabeth, attend here in the gallery, and I have

a sister, Helen Barr, visiting me from Cranbrook. The two young ladies

are right up there, Pat. I would appreciate very much if the House

would welcome them.

I also have one constituent, Elizabeth Caldwell, from Cranbrook, and

Cheryl Watts, from Penticton, I think she comes from the Minister of

Agriculture's part of the constituency. Would the House please welcome

them here?

If I may, I also have an announcement I'd like to make. I'm quite

proud of this. The East Kootenay Old Timers' Hockey Association of

Kimberley, B.C., which is in the great constituency of Kootenay, won

their final game last night in Saint John, New Brunswick, and became

the National Old Timers champions, according to a message I've just

received from Mr. Bud Buckle, of the East Kootenay Old Timers' Hockey

Association. They were awarded the prestigious Heritage Cup, symbolic

of the National Old Timers Competition. Dick Vincent, Chuck Passmore

and Pick Beatty scored the goals that led the team to a 3-1 win over

the team from Dundas, Ontario.

This Old Timers' hockey team was able to compete in the competition

thanks to an assistance — it was a small assistance — of a $1,000 grant

made available to them by the province of British Columbia through the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have two

visitors in the gallery today — Mrs. Ellison, from Richmond, and Mrs.

Thomas, from Saanich and the Islands. I'd ask the House to make them

welcome, please.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I know that

the members of the House will be saddened to learn that the mother of one of

the members of our House has passed away. I would like, on behalf of the members,

to extend our sincere sympathy to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)

who has lost her mother, Mrs. Mary Gilmore.

Introduction of bills.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Bill 17, Farm Income Assurance

Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

amendments to Bill 8, intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to

the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House having in

charge Bill 8.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 14 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.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant — Governor:

a bill intituled Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 18 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.

[ Page 1204 ]

Oral questions.

STATUS OF RALPH GILLEN WITH ICBC

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to

ask the Minister of Education a question regarding the Crown

corporation of which he is one of the official spokespersons. I'd like

to ask the minister if there is a contractual relationship between Mr.

Gillen and ICBC, or if his employment was handled by an internal memo.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It was handled by a minute of the board of ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to table with the House the minutes of that particular board meeting?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be delighted to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to ask the

minister if the money that Mr. Gillen received is paid to MacMillan

Bloedel or to Mr. Gillen.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's paid to Mr. Gillen, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does Mr. Gillen

have a leave of absence from MacMillan Bloedel for the time that he

receives the money that he's being paid from ICBC, or is that a matter

of concern to the minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's a matter for MacMillan Bloedel.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. member. There has to be some

limit to the number of supplementary questions that we can allow in

order to allow other people to enter into the debate. I am prepared to

take a final supplementary.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to supplementaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dowding set the precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a limit, hon. member, to the number of

times I can recognize a member on supplementals when it's obvious other

people would like to get into the debate as well. I've been fairly

generous, I think you'll have to agree.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but I'd like to know what rule says there is a limit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dowding's rules.

MR. BARRETT: What is the limit?

MR. SPEAKER: In Ottawa it would be two.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not in Ottawa; I'm in Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: In Victoria it's a matter of whether the subject has been exhausted...

MR. BARRETT: That's for me to determine.

MR. SPEAKER: ...or whether it's a matter that the Speaker

determines that there are other people who wish to get into the debate

as well at this time.

MR. BARRETT: But the number of supplementals is up to the member to determine.

MR. SPEAKER: It's up to the Speaker to determine, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: What rule, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you'd better read the rules of question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister: was

there any discussion with Mr. Gillen as to the expected hours of work

or time to put in for the $3,750-per-month stipend?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I've explained, it's in lieu

of directors' fees of $250 a day, which was the rate set under the

former administration. Mr. Speaker, we didn't want to have the kinds of

situations that developed under the NDP where some people who were

former directors were making five times and of that order during one

month, working for ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. member for Oak Bay, unless he wishes to defer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll defer to the member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Education and the minister responsible

[ Page 1205 ]

for ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor on.a question.

MR. KING: Could the Minister of Education inform the House as

to whether Mr. Gillen, the director, receives any other gratuities in

addition to the $3,700-per-month stipend?

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. McGEER: From ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: Does he pay his own car insurance, for example?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's just cheap. The answer,

Mr. Speaker, is no. May I repeat for the Leader of the Opposition and

for the former Minister of Labour that the objective is to put a cap on

the fees that directors receive from the corporation? That's the sole

objective of having a monthly limit in the lieu of directors' fees. As

I say, the directors' fees were set under the NDP administration; we

saw fit not to change them. But we did seek, because of former

precedent, to put a cap on the amount that a director could receive.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister understood

my question. I'm simply asking whether or not Mr. Gillen receives any

other gratuities or any other payments whatsoever — any other benefits

in addition to the $3,700-a-month stipend.

HON. MR. McGEER: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING STRUCTURE STUDY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial

Secretary, with regard to the review of the public service collective

bargaining structure being carried out by Mr. Richard Higgins, a public

service employee presently on pre-retirement leave, if Mr. Higgins was

appointed by order-in-council and what his terms of reference were.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Higgins was brought in

as a consultant to the Government Employee Relations Board and to the

Public Service Commission to give a report on the new legislation which

was put through the House last year. As a consultant giving that

advice, it was not through order-in-council but by an order through my

office.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary? The

minister did not mention whether he is on pre-retirement leave, but

this is my understanding. Can the minister tell the House what stipend

Mr. Higgins will receive for his study and over what period of time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will have to bring that information to

the House, Mr. Speaker, and I'd be pleased to do so. Those arrangements

were made through my deputy and I can't give it to you right off the

top, but I'd be glad to bring it to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I presume that Mr. Higgins is

receiving some payment while on pre-retirement leave. I'd like to ask

the minister if this conflicts with the policy outlined in a memorandum

which the minister sent to all members of cabinet discouraging the

practice of double-funding where consultants such as university

professors are drawing salaries both from the university and from the

government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I'd like to take the question as

notice because, as I say, I don't have the information at hand. I'd be

very pleased to bring it back to the House.

LAY REPRESENTATION ON

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Attorney-General. In view of the appointment of Wilfred John

Wallace, Q.C. and a bencher, to the Legal Services Commission, making

four lawyers on the commission now and only one lay representative or

public representative, is this appointment made as a replacement for

Walter Young, who was a public representative? If so, is that not

certainly contrary to the intention of the Act to have lay

representation there?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): The appointment was made to fill a vacancy, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: As a supplementary, I put it to the

Attorney-General that under the Act the intention is that there would

be two public representatives there, and that the appointment of a

bencher, since the law society already appoints two, is in breach of

the Act. You're destroying lay representation on the Legal Services

Commission, the public watchdogs, and putting it in the hands of the

profession. That's the question.

[ Page 1206 ]

MR. BARRETT: We have enough lawyers. Check the law.

JOINT HOUSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question directed to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: will the minister be willing

to table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee report?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll take the matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: As a supplementary, the minister has taken this

matter under advisement previously. I wonder if the minister would also

be willing to table the expenses of the joint provincial UBCM committee

on housing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be possible

for me to provide the member with the expenses incurred by the MLAs who

served on the committee. The UBCM expenses, however, were borne by that

organization. You would have to obtain those from that group.

ELK HUNTING RIGHTS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation. It relates to what I

understand is to be an opening-up of hunting rights for elk in the

North Island area and in the Nanaimo Lakes area. I understand that some

guides and some of the people in the fish and game society have been

advised of this and that the normal procedure for hunters to get this

information is in the game regulations. Now is the minister intending

to do any public advertising in order to ensure that all hunters will

have an equal opportunity to participate?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I thank the member for the question. I'll take the matter as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, while he

is looking into that, would also find out where the draw will be held

and when, whether or not it will be a public draw, and whether or not

the winners will be announced.

BEER PRICE INCREASE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs: in view of the announced increase in the price of beer, has

the minister undertaken any real examination of the profits of the

brewing companies before authorizing that increase? Secondly, why has

he not absorbed it in view of the tremendous increase in, revenues for

the liquor administration branch in this so-called period of restraint?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the increases to the beer industry were granted only after

extensive investigations, and I think I have absorbed enough beer

without absorbing any more.

MR, MACDONALD: I have a supplementary for the minister. Who

made the investigation? Who did the checking of the books of the

brewery companies? Did you have any independent appraisal?

HON. MR. MAIR: The whole question was canvassed to the

satisfaction of my department and, in particular, the general manager

of the liquor distribution section.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary: is 50 cents a barrel going back into Social Credit campaign funds, as it used to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I certainly will! It's true! It's absolutely true!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll say it outside the House!

RCMP EVIDENCE-GATHERING METHODS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Orrrrrder! (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, if I could just get the Attorney-General's attention —

he seems a little agitated today — since he promised us a report by

February 21 about the very serious allegations in relation to RCMP

techniques and he said he was still not in possession of the complete

information, can he tell the House when we might anticipate that

information will be available?

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I mentioned yesterday, as soon as possible. I still don't have it, sir. When it arrives I'll let you know.

[ Page 1207 ]

RENT CONTROLS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): This is to the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has indicated that he

has discussed the matter of rent control removal with the federal

Minister of Urban Affairs, and he indicates that his cabinet committee

may report its findings in April. I'm wondering if the minister has

also consulted with local tenant groups that also have an interest in

the removal of rent controls and if he could explain to the House who

these committees are.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of rent

control is a matter of government policy, and I'm not in the position

to enunciate government policy at this stage.

HON. MR. MeGEER: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question

from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) regarding a Mr. Godfrey and I

wonder whether I might be permitted to reply now.

Mr. Godfrey appeared before the legislative committee in Ontario as

a private citizen. He did not make ICBC aware of the nature of the

testimony he would give. He did not present any report to ICBC before

or after. The management of ICBC is unable to confirm the substance of

his testimony, either from knowledge of their own or from reports

submitted by the gentleman, but that information is being sought at the

present time and if it, indeed, is factual we would be pleased to pass

it on to the House.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is always nice to be able to move second

reading of a bill as popular as this British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1977. Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of

this bill is to increase the borrowing authority of the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $3.5 billion to $4.15 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to the members of the House in

moving second reading of this bill to elucidate the major projects and

their estimated costs for the forthcoming fiscal year 1977-78. These

are as follows: first of all, Mica Creek. The underground powerhouse at

Mica will ultimately house six generating units with a capacity of 2.61

million kilowatts. The first three generating units are planned for

service in fiscal 1977. That work, plus the 500-kilovolt transmission

lines from Mica to the greater Vancouver area, are expected to cost $50

million in the 1977-78 year.

Secondly, the Kootenay Canal. Mr. Speaker, this hydro-electric

development includes a three-mile-long canal and an above-ground

powerhouse with four 132,300-kilowatt generating units. The first two

units are now in service and the other two are scheduled in fiscal 1977

at an estimated cost of $5 million.

Next is Site 1. This project is on the Peace River downstream from

the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. Mr. Speaker, the main contract for dam and

powerhouse construction and equipment installation has been awarded.

This work, plus the transmission line preparation, is budgeted for $104

million in 1977-78.

Then there is Seven Mile. This project on the Pend-d'Oreille River

includes a concrete dam and a surface powerhouse. Turbines and

generators have been ordered, and a contract awarded for construction

of the dam and powerhouse. Including the transmission preparation, $100

million is expected to be spent in 1977-78 on this project.

Then there is Hat Creek. Plans for development of certain coal

reserves are underway, and an electric generating plant is to be

constructed at a cost of $18 million in 1977-78.

Next, other generation facilities make up $16 million in 1977-78.

Other additions in transmission facilities, including the

Williston-Skeena line in 1977-78, make up $81 million. Transformation

substations all over the province to break down the power from high

voltage to subtransmission and distribution voltage as part of the

general system expansion in 1977-78 amount to $105 million.

Upgrading of distribution circuits all over the province to

accommodate the growth in 1977-78 amount to $84 million. Other electric

facilities, communication and control at laboratories, and service

centres amount to $70 million. Gas facility plant additions are $42

million, estimated. Transportation and miscellaneous plant additions in

1977-78 amount to $33 million.

Mr. Speaker, this is an estimated list of the major projects and

their estimated costs for the coming fiscal year. At this time,

$161,456,000 of the present borrowing authority remains. This amount,

plus the additional sum proposed in this bill, will enable the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to proceed with its projects and

leave a minimal borrowing power available for any unforeseen events.

There has been some discussion recently over the forecast rate of

demand for electricity as to the accuracy of British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority's forecast when compared with that of the

[ Page 1208 ]

British Columbia Energy Commission. I am advised

that the difference in the two forecasts is due to British Columbia

Energy Commission's inclusion of other utilities and private industrial

generation, and their starting from a higher base estimate.

Without arguing which is right at the moment, both estimates agree

that from 1976 to the year 1986 the gross energy requirement will rise

from about 26,000 billion kilowatt hours now to about 52,000 billion

kilowatt hours in 1986.

MR. WALLACE: In 1986.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In 1986. It is apparent from these figures

that the electricity capacity will have to double in the 10-year period

to meet the demand.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's electric

system expansion programme is designed to handle the anticipated demand

and is based on the most economic sequence of plant additions to meet

the probable forecast. The programme has been tested against various

water conditions and thermal capacities. The government believes in

having a borrowing restriction in the British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority Act so that any increase must come before this House. The

Authority actually requested a greater increase but, after study, the

government is only prepared to recommend this amount of $650 million to

the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, with demand for electricity continuing to grow, it is

essential that the Authority be provided with sufficient borrowing

power to enable it to carry out the necessary projects to meet the

expected demand. Any shortage of power would adversely effect not only

industry and employment, but also all persons in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the

Minister of Finance's opening remarks with respect to the justification

for what is a two-line bill. Just two lines essentially compose this

bill which provides for an increase in the borrowing power of B.C.

Hydro of some $150 million. No, it's $3.5 billion to $4 billion — I beg

your pardon.

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of money. I was most interested to hear

the Minister of Finance's justification for this application to the

Legislature to authorize yet greater Hydro borrowing authority. The

Minister of Finance introduced a whole variety of projects into this

discussion which, he claims, justify the application for increased

borrowing power.

He talked about the Revelstoke Canyon Dam and he talked about the

Mica Creek Dam, both on the Columbia River. He talked about the Seven

Mile Canyon Dam on the Pend-d'Oreille River, and a variety of other

power developments which we have only received any indication of now.

There is nothing contained in the bill to explain the nature of the

need for this increased borrowing power.

The bill has been on the order paper for some time, but there's

certainly nothing in the bill to give any indication to members of the

opposition in this House as to what purpose that borrowing power was

sought. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's a disservice to this House —

and particularly to the opposition — to ask them to prepare for and to

indulge in debate on something as significant as this and something

that certainly generates very, very broad public interest throughout

the province of British Columbia, without any prior indication of just

what the borrowing power is sought for.

The minister has introduced in his remarks a wide variety of

projects which he now indicates justify this borrowing power. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's not only discourteous to the

opposition,, but it's irresponsible in terms of the minister's

obligation to provide for adequate public debate on an issue such as

this.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in participating in this debate

because the minister dealt with a number of projects that reside not

only in my riding, but virtually on my doorstep in the city of

Revelstoke. So I'm quite prepared to indulge in the discussion of the

proposition before the House that the borrowing power of Hydro be yet

increased an enormous amount to the detriment of the taxpayers of

British Columbia. I'm prepared to indulge in this debate — for a couple

of hours in any event.

Perhaps the most distressing thing about this blanket request for

virtually unlimited borrowing power is that it's for that great

bureaucracy over in Vancouver, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority — even

the very name of it strikes one with awe, as some all-powerful

bureaucracy that is out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I was very, very interested in comments made by the

Premier of the province, just a month or so ago, when he indicated in a

speech — I believe it was up in Cranbrook — that he too was concerned

about the unyielding and the unwieldy and the uncontrollable

bureaucracy that is British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

The Premier indicated that the corporation was virtually out of

control, not really accountable to the government, and certainly not

accountable to the public of the province of British Columbia. That's a

profound thing for the Premier of the province to say, Mr. Speaker. I

find it extremely curious when the Premier gives that kind of

indication in a statement, presumably a statement of concern that the

government has to do something to take over some control of B.C. Hydro

to the extent that it is made accountable to the people of the province

of British Columbia, and not an authority unto itself. I find it

inconsistent with that intimation that the Premier

[ Page 1209 ]

gave when I find a bill before the House that

proposes to allow the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority to

increase their borrowing power from $3.5 billion to $4.15 billion.

The Premier is, on the one hand, espousing his concern that here is

a runaway bureaucracy out of control. Yet he's prepared to come into

this House through one of his ministers and in subservient fashion

allow this giant corporation to increase its imposed debt, which is a

millstone around the neck of the people of British Columbia because

they must stand behind and guarantee that debt, Mr. Speaker. This is of

grave concern to me.

1 would have much preferred to see the Premier, in light of his

position and in light of his concern, come before the Legislature and

tell us what he is going to do, what he and his government intend to do

to bring this giant albatross under control. There has been no such

statement, no such indication, that the government is, in fact,

prepared to grapple with the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and make it

sensitive and accountable to the public of the province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no other agency in Canada, certainly no other

agency in the province of British Columbia, that has the kind of

arbitrary power possessed by the British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority. Believe me, I've had a great deal of experience with that

agency. I represent a riding in this province which I think has been

subjected to more disruption, social and economic, more despoilation of

the land and the environment than any other single area in the

province. The entire project of the Columbia River Treaty took place

within the boundaries of my riding, affecting the Arrow Lakes,

affecting the Columbia River, affecting the Duncan Lake and the

Kootenay Lake through the Duncan Dam, and certainly affecting the upper

reaches of the Columbia River north of Revelstoke with the construction

of the Mica Creek Dam.

What price the generation of power? What price the provision, Mr.

Speaker, of flood control for our American neighbours south of the

border? What price, in terms of British Columbia land and disruption to

our citizens, the provision of irrigation potential to our neighbours

south of the border? These were the inherent issues in the Columbia

River Treaty. As a result of what I honestly believe to be the largest

and most scandalous sellout in the history of this nation — not only

this province — we have, through the Columbia River Treaty, surrendered

for all time effective control of one of the major waterways in this

nation.

The result has not been creation of jobs in British Columbia, the

creation of any new industry within the area affected, the protection

of our right to control the river, the enhancement of any of our

agricultural areas. In fact, conversely, Mr. Speaker, those are the

very factors that have accrued as benefits to our American neighbours

south of the border.

I think it's good and appropriate that from time to time in this

Legislature those people who perhaps were not here during the days of

the debate and the discussion of the great Columbia River scandal

should be reminded. Because today we have witnessed the development of

pulp mills and aluminum plants on the periphery of the Columbia River

directly south of the 49th parallel, some 14 of them, all based on the

increased power generated through the flood control and the water

storage in British Columbia. We have witnessed the irrigation and

development of a vast new arable area south of the border, based on the

continuity of our water storage and the steady flow to the American

south, which has come into competition with our Okanagan Valley in

terms of provision of garden produce and fruit, all of which was

impossible.

I am the designated speaker and I intend to be here for an unlimited period of time, in conformity with the rules of this House.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I don't think I could really tell the story

as well as Ran Harding, quite frankly, my friend. But I was there. I

know many of the people who were disrupted. Perhaps to one who

represents West Vancouver–Howe Sound it's hard to understand; it's hard

to understand the feelings of a farmer who was faced with expropriation

from a little farm down in the Arrow Lakes somewhere. He had farmed

there for 40 years, raised a family and found it a fine way of life. He

arbitrarily had his land seized from him and, if he failed to agree

with the price offered by this monstrosity called British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority, on more than one occasion, my friend, these

people had their barns pushed down and set fire to. They were burned

out and then challenged to go to court for redress. Mr. Speaker, that

is the arrogant fashion in which British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority dealt with people in my riding.

I am not quite as articulate as my predecessor, Randolph Harding,

who was the MLA in this House for many, many years. He was one of the

best debaters who ever sat in this Legislature. I only wish I were.

Sometimes I become stuck for words, but I am not stuck for emotion, Mr.

Speaker, because I've witnessed many of these things. I've fought for

many of the people who are adversely affected in this way in the hopes

of finding fair treatment and fair redress for them. Believe it or not,

many of those disputes are still going on and have not been settled as

yet. Under these circumstances I find it extremely galling that I am

asked to stand in this House and vote for the increase of further,

almost unlimited, borrowing

[ Page 1210 ]

power to that Dracula which squeezed the life out

of healthy farming areas in my riding. In arrogant fashion, in

steamroller fashion, it rolled over their private property rights,

bulldozed down their buildings and set them afire.

1 can recall on one occasion, Mr. Speaker, going down to visit an

old gentleman in his 70s who had raised his family on a little plot of

land, perhaps 20 acres or so, and being met with a shotgun because he

thought I was a Hydro representative. And here was the spectre of a

little old gentleman, a veteran of the First World War, who raised his

family and had a sentimental attachment to the property. He had a good

life. But his rights were not recognized; his rights were not dealt

with in any sensitive fashion.

Let me tell you what the formula was. Hydro would come in and make

an offer. They would tell the individual who owned the farm or the

property: "We've visited all of your neighbours in this area and they

have come to an agreement, so you are the last one we are dealing

with." That wouldn't be true at all. That wouldn't be true, and yet

here's a government agency, dealing like some Mississippi riverboat

trader, actually telling falsehoods to people so they could get a

superior lever in bargaining for the value of that property. And they

would tell him: "Okay, this is our final offer, and you have two ways

to go. Either you can submit to the offer that we have made for your

land or you can go to court."

There were a few who tried to go to court, Mr. Speaker. But it's

pretty obvious when an agency like B.C. Hydro has in their continuous

employ soil analysts, hydrologists, engineers, a battery of lawyers,

accountants — the whole range of professional expertise which is

necessary to support their claim — some poor farmer, some poor

homeowner, hasn't got the chance of the proverbial snowball in the

Arrow Lakes. No way can he afford to buy the professional expertise

that would put him on an equal judicial footing with that agency, that

overpowering agency that threatens and jeopardizes his right to the

enjoyment of personal property. No way!

So most of the people got the message. They surrendered and

succumbed to the pressure of Hydro, this public agency that victimized

citizens. And do you know what? In that Social Credit era the

landholder didn't even have the right to sue Hydro, not without first

coming to the affable Attorney-General. I think you know, my friends,

that it's the same Attorney-General who was in office at that time who

somehow coincidentally now is the chairman of British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority. There seems to be some affinity between Social

Credit Attorneys-General and British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

My friend who is the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) used

to rail loud and long in this House about the injustice and the

impropriety of an aggrieved citizen having to come to that,

Attorney-General of the province to ask for a fiat, the right to sue

the Crown, to recover their damages and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a great speech.

MR. KING: Yes, it was one of the great speeches that the

Attorney-General used to make, and I compliment him for that. But that

was when he was a Liberal, Mr. Speaker. He had a heart then, he cared a

little bit about people. He left his heart behind him. He carried it on

his sleeve for a while between this side of the House and that, but as

soon as he got to the other side, it fell off his sleeve even.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How long are you going to be nice, Bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: About six seconds.

MR. KING: I hope my friend is recovering from that stab wound.

Mr. Speaker, these are the things that gall me. It was a personal

experience which I, quite frankly, will never forget. I want you to

know that I do not exaggerate. There are many, many people in my

riding, up and down the Arrow Lakes, in the riding of Nelson-Crest on

and in the riding of Rossland-Trail, who can substantiate and quote

chapter and verse of the raw, inhumane, overbearing treatment which

they received from that huge, unyielding, insensitive bureaucracy. I

just find it shocking that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

comes into this House and with a few short comments — kind of a blase

introduction — asks for the right to increase the borrowing power of

that institution by $500 million He made no government statement on how

the government is going to move to make the institution more

accountable.

There are many other areas, Mr. Speaker, that concern me. This is

the only agency in Canada that I know of — certainly the only agency in

the province of British Columbia — that has the right to increase their

monthly rates to consumers, be they domestic residential consumers or

be they corporate consumers, without ever having to go before any board

or tribunal and justify their right to increase rates. I ask the

government members: does anyone on that side know of any other agency

that is in that admirable position? Certainly the railroads are not;

certainly not truck lines or any other business that I know of. They

have to go before the Motor Carrier Commission. They have to go before

some independent agency to show just cause and to provide reasonably

well-documented and accountable reasons why they can justify a cost

increase to consumers But B.C. Hydro doesn't.

[ Page 1211 ]

We have the man who used to protect them when he was

Attorney-General. I don't think he ever did issue a fiat, which was an

application for the right to sue against B.C. Hydro; I don't believe he

ever did. Now he's the chairman of that vast octopus. Although the

Premier rails that it's out of control, we see the same players, the

same scenario that occurred when the Duncan Lake Dam was being

constructed, when the Keenleyside Dam was being constructed and when

the Mica Dam was being constructed.

We have the potential for precisely the same re-run. The same

scenario is developing again. The man who was then Attorney-General is

now chairman of the octopus. The man who used to condemn him for lack

of respect for the judicial process has moved from the Liberals to the

coalition and is now the Attorney-General who is going to support and

protect the new chairman of B.C. Hydro. What a sweet little game it is,

Mr. Speaker.

But I ask: what about the people of British Columbia? What about

those people who have their lifestyle jeopardized, who have their very

community jeopardized, by yet another major construction project

undertaken by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority? I don't know how many of

you are aware of what the circumstances of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam

are. The Little Dalles Canyon is about three miles out of the city

centre of Revelstoke. The proposal is to build a dam at that location

which will raise the reservoir elevation to 1,880 feet — almost 86

miles of reservoir backed up to Mica Dam.

Many of us were concerned in that community, primarily with respect

to safety because we have seen the failure of other dams over the past

few years — the Vajont Dam in Italy, the dam in Idaho last year, I

believe it was. In other parts of the world there have been dam

failures too.

It's hard to use any focal point in this building which would give

people- some indication of the height of that reservoir level looming

over the city of Revelstoke, two miles or three miles from city centre,

but if you said it would be something at least twice as high as the

parliament buildings, that would give you some appraisal of the body of

water that is looming over the city. I think we have some justification

in that community for being concerned with respect to the absolutely

safest and most assured engineering processes that could be developed

prior to undertaking construction. That's one concern.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have many other concerns. Revelstoke is a

small city — about 9,000 people in total — and here we now face the

potential of an influx of about 4,000 workers, at the height of the dam

construction, in addition to their families and their children, and

while we in Revelstoke are a friendly community and certainly welcome

people and growth, the reality is that that puts pressures on the

taxation ability of the community, which we can in no way face and

shoulder, with respect to accommodating educational needs; with respect

to accommodating new homes; with respect to the hard-core services,

such as sewers and the provision of water; with respect to recreation

and cultural opportunities for a spectacular population increase such

as that. We were concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I spent almost three weeks

last year at the water licence hearings in the city of Revelstoke

helping to put the case of our community before the water comptroller

when he received testimony with respect to Hydro's application for a

water licence to construct the dam.

I would like to read into the record some of the contents of the

brief that I submitted to the water comptroller at that time, Mr.

Speaker:

"Safety of the community. The paramount concern which I

hold with respect to the application before you relates to the hazard some 40

miles upstream from the proposed dam site identified as the Downie Slide.

Ample data exists at your disposal describing the history, volume, movement,

and geological makeup of this slide. Its very existence, and Hydro's attention

to it, has inevitably created, and will continue to create, concern and anxiety

for those living downstream should this water licence be granted. Just how real

and justified the basis for this concern is becomes the crucial question which

you, as provincial water comptroller, must consider in deciding upon the application

before you.

"While a layman political representative of the people

in this constituency, I am also conscious of the imperfection of

virtually all scientific disciplines in use today. Medical science can

weigh and analyse data relating to disease and physical deficiencies,

but there are few absolutes. Invariably conflicting professional

opinions can be readily found with respect to the

interpretation of

data in the medical science field. The same imprecise field of varying

opinion exists within the engineering profession. Without any intent of

being unduly cynical or implying distrust, it is noteworthy that

qualified experts, with appropriate credentials, seem readily available

to support the objectives and viewpoints of those who retain them.

"Indeed, the retention of qualified professionals in

widely varied fields has become the hallmark of numerous court cases

and trials in modern society. Just as surely as the prosecution

establishes the expert status of a witness to support their case, the

defence usually finds little difficulty in obtaining a similarly

well-qualified expert to repudiate his conclusions. Unfortunately, the

balance

[ Page 1212 ]

attained in the judicial system is absent in the application

at hand. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is similar to the prosecutor in that

they are initiating the action. Accordingly, they have had unrestricted opportunity

to obtain expert specialists to validate and support the proposed dam construction

proposal with respect to technical and safety considerations.

"Conversely, the people in this area, who might be

likened to the defence, have not had access to the technical data until

a few short weeks ago, and hence have been deprived of the opportunity

to retain experts for private analysis in support of any objections.

Indeed, the local body politic lacks the means and financial

wherewithal to retain the variety of specialists necessary in any event.

"The aforementioned circumstances are drawn to your

attention so that you might recognize the natural disadvantage in which

the community and its representatives are placed in pursuing the duty

to effectively represent community interest. A rather bitter irony

attends the community's inability to afford the independent technical

and professional expertise which would match that of Hydro's staff and

consultants. This irony relates to the fact that Hydro, as a public

Crown corporation, has access to the tax dollars of all British

Columbia citizens.

"In this instance, I submit that public policy

conflicts with local preference and interest, and yet the aggrieved

community is required, at least to some extent, to fund our adversary.

There is an old adage, with reference to disputes, that holds that it

is wise to disarm one's opponent. In the instant application, the

people of Revelstoke cannot afford the sophisticated armaments enjoyed

by their opponent. But at the same time, they are statutorily obliged

to participate in funding the armament of their opponent. I know of no

other situation where the ground rules for settling a conflict so

seriously and deeply violate modern concepts of natural justice.

"In the realm of British jurisprudence the inequity of

this procedure must surely predate the Magna Carta. Since the defence

of our community is, to a large degree, rendered impotent by the system

and procedure, an awesome responsibility falls to the provincial water

comptroller. Only this office can take account of the imbalance

inherent in the proceedings before this hearing in arriving at a

judgment on the application. If I appear to be calling upon the judge

and adjudicator to assist in the defence of our community, the

impression is correct. The feeling of futility and inevitability held

by large numbers of local people can only be assuaged by strong

independent action in your response to this application."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to read the whole submission. But I

think the point should be made that the whole procedure by which B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority determines energy priorities in this province

and by which they undertake specific construction priorities and sites

is one that is completely arbitrary. It is one that is completely

inequitable. It is one that provides no fair basis to the affected

people in the affected area to do an adequate job of representing their

own community interest. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government

has an obligation to change the ground rules.

The Premier has recognized that this is a bureaucracy out of

control. He has tacitly admitted that they are accountable to no one.

Certainly the history is clear from the area I represent. Certainly the

history is clear from the results of the water licence hearings held in

Revelstoke this year, where virtually every community group did not

oppose the project per se. I did not oppose the project per se, because

the Columbia River had already been destroyed anyway. I simply sought

assurance that the people I represent in that community should first be

protected beyond any reasonable doubt and, within the realm of the best

and most sure engineering principles possible, that their safety was

guaranteed, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, that there be a system of

justice in terms of measuring the social, the economic and the

environmental impact on that community which would oblige B.C. Hydro

and Power Authority to provide proper and just mitigation for the

damage that they inevitably wreak on the community. This is what we ask.

Mr. Speaker, I'm terribly disappointed to say that the water licence

was granted — as everyone expected it would be. Instead of the

independent arbitration agency that the city of Revelstoke requested,

that I as the MLA for the community requested, and that virtually every

interest group within that community requested — senior citizens, rod

and gun clubs — we received no independent agency to adjudicate fair

compensation and fair mitigation. We received, instead, a conditional

approval of the water licence that will allow Hydro to undertake

construction of the Revelstoke Canyon Dam.

We received that approval and, in an unprecedented move, the

provincial water comptroller decided to retain unto himself the

authority to act, in effect, as the arbitrator of any dispute that

developed between the community — or between aggrieved citizens of that

area — and the monolithic British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

I must ask the question, Mr. Speaker: does anyone

[ Page 1213 ]

in this House honestly believe that a public

servant — despite his good intentions, despite the honour the man may

possess personally — from within the water rights branch has the

independence and the clout to make appraisals and adjudications that

would impose any hardship on the policy of the government in the first

instance and certainly on the policy of British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority in the second? I say nonsense; no public servant can

stand in a truly independent and judicious fashion in that kind of

situation.

The agency would have to be at arm's length from government, Mr.

Speaker; it would have to be an agency composed of highly visible

people from the community who had some experience in the judicial

process, I believe, and who had some respect for the enormity of the

disruption facing the community of Revelstoke.

But that is not what we received. We received simply a green light

for B.C. Hydro to go ahead and build the dam with no reasonable

assurance at all that damage to the community, demands on educational

facilities, demands on the schools and the recreational and educational

facilities and so on would be shared equally even by B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority. No such assurance.

Mr. Speaker, the most appalling and the most disturbing aspect to me was that

Hydro was authorized to go ahead with construction of the Revelstoke Canyon

Dam despite testimony relating to the Downie Creek Slide. And to give the House

some indication of what Downie Creek Slide is all about, Mr. Speaker, I want

to t, ell you that this slide exists at a point about 40 miles north of the

dam site. It is a natural and long-existing slide location. It is an active

slide; it is moving down the mountain about one foot a year. It's measurable.

It contains, I believe, in the area of two billion cubic yards of material,

extends 3,300 feet up the Selkirk Mountain, and it's approximately two miles

across. It runs right to the Columbia River.

The fear and the concern of not only local residents but of

competent engineers who took an interest in this project was that when

the reservoir level is elevated to the 1,880-foot level, the toe of the

slide would then become saturated with water. As a consequence, this

would precipitate a very, very quick slippage 1nto the newly filled

reservoir, with the potential of creating a tidal wave of gigantic

proportions that could travel downstream in a matter of just a few

minutes, top the dam and in all probability, due to the type of dam

construction that is anticipated there — an earth-filled dam — there

would be a 50-50 chance that the dam structure itself would collapse.

This is one engineering point of view, and I'm not saying it's

necessarily the correct one. But this is one point of view, supported

by people who are professional engineers.

I also have engineering advice that if this calamity occurred,

virtually every dam structure on the Columbia River chain would be

wiped out between Revelstoke Canyon and the Pacific Oregon coast. This

would mean some 14 dams south of the border in addition to the

Revelstoke and Keenleyside Dams in British Columbia.

This, in my view, Mr. Speaker, as a possibility, however remote,

poses the potential for one of the all-time world calamities — not only

a disaster in terms of British Columbia history but, both in terms of

potential loss of life and certainly in terms of property damage, one

of the all-time calamities of world history.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority was so

concerned about this slide that they brought in a special panel of

engineers, world-renowned engineers all three of them, from the United

States of America. All three had impeccable and undeniably unusual

qualifications. That panel gave their opinion before the hearings in

Revelstoke, and they were cross-examined by members of the community

and parties of interest for many, many days. But the key to the whole

thing was, Mr. Speaker, that the Downie Slide panel, however eminent,

however brilliant, however experienced, dealt only with the assumption

that the Downie Creek Slide could in fact be secured and stabilized

from an engineering point of view.

I cross-examined the Downie Slide panel. I played lawyer, like my

friend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . I asked them this

question: without having a precise engineering plan for the

stabilization of Downie Slide, can you guarantee that that slide would

not be activated by filling the reservoir to the 1,880-foot level?

After about an hour and a half of insistence, all three members of

that Downie Slide panel admitted to me that they could not give such

assurance. They simply pointed out that from an engineering and

technical viewpoint, the slide can be stabilized. I think from an

engineering and technical point of view we can probably reach Jupiter.

The question is: at what cost? At what point does the whole project

become economically unfeasible because of the tremendous cost of

stabilizing the Downie Slide?

There were indications given to the hearing by the Downie Creek

Slide panel that drainage was the way to secure the slide, and that

drainage tunnels to the extent of some 10 miles — as a minimum — would

be required to stabilize the slide. This was an estimate because

engineering work was not complete. There was an indication that

additional work may have to be done at the toe of the slide to

stabilize it. I forget what the engineering term is, but a more or less

"blanket" of cement or something would be put over the toe of the slide

to try to stabilize it. But there was no absolute assurance that any of

these devices would

[ Page 1214 ]

represent the maximum output of funds necessary to do the job.

In effect, what we have is the water licence approval for

construction of the Revelstoke Dam without any precise engineering plan

completed, without any complete cost estimate regarding the

stabilization, the securing, and the absolute safety of the Downie

Slide. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is a strange way to do business. I

submit that this is a strange basis upon which to grant a water licence

to anyone. The water comptroller did grant the licence without ever

seeing any engineering plan that was proposed to secure this slide and

guarantee the safety of the downstream citizens. But he said that if

the engineering plan, when it is ultimately designed, is not

satisfactory, he will stop the projects.

Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a situation where the taxpayers'

dollars of this province are squandered for a year in preparation for a

dam site at Revelstoke Canyon without any assurance that the project

will ever be completed? Either they are committed to going ahead and

completing it at any cost, or there has to be a real possibility that

out of respect for safety and respect for sound engineering principles,

the cost of stabilizing Downie Creek Slide may be too high, and the

whole project will have to be abandoned.

Talk about a white Social Credit elephant then. Perhaps the dam

would be 200 feet high and sitting there. All the drilling and

tunnelling would be done and the diversion of the river undertaken.

Then the government and B.C. Hydro are telling me seriously — and

telling the people of British Columbia seriously — that they have full

regard for safety and engineering principles. But we're taking the

chance that we'll be left in that position to allow B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority to go ahead now on construction without ever having

completed the engineering work to determine the cost of stabilizing

Downie Creek Slide if, indeed, it can be stabilized at any cost.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a scandalous way to do

business. It is no wonder that the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority is being raised to the skies. It is no wonder that that

monolithic, unyielding bureaucracy is arbitrarily increasing its rates

two or three times a year, and imposing service charges, if you will,

of $3. Carrying charges? What does he call them?

Interjection.

MR. KING: A $3 billing charge. A Social Credit coalition billing charge.

MR. BARRETT: A soak-the-elderly charge.

MR. KING: All of this without justifying their position

before any agency. All of this to support and buy projects of the

questionable nature which I have outlined to this House this afternoon.

All of this based on a bill, Mr. Speaker, with two lines in it that the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) comes and introduces with a few

comments to this House.

How would you like half a billion dollars of the public money spent

on a two-line bill without any justification or any explanation? I

doubt if the Minister of Finance knows what it's all about.

Mr. Speaker, I've just given one side of the story as it affects my

area. I could recite

chapter and verse, and many of my colleagues

could, from other parts of the province where other citizens face the

disruption and loss of valuable farmland, the trammelling of their

rights without redress to any reasonably independent and judicial

agency to make sure that there is fair treatment and fair compensation.

B.C. Hydro reminds me of the mentality of the old west, when the

rustler gang took control of the town and everyone had to knuckle

under. It's the same kind of mentality; it's the same kind of respect

for the law. It's mob rule in terms of any conflict between a private

citizen and B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

I want to tell you that with Robert Bonner back at the helm I see

things deteriorating rather than improving. I'm sorry to say that but I

can only draw that conclusion after recalling that he sat in this House

as Attorney-General for many years and did nothing to curb the power

and the clout of that institution. I can hold out no hope to the people

I represent that there's going to be a change in the policy so that

property rights and a lifestyle can be preserved or at least paid for.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I had a friend who had a little store at old

East Arrow Park. It's gone now. It's flooded; it doesn't exist any

longer. It's a nice little community. He's a little Scottish guy, a

first-class individual. He had a few cabins and a little general store

on the Arrow Lakes. He had a farm in addition to that. The property

went back about a mile from the lake up a hill.

Hydro came along and they said: "We're sorry, Buster, we need your

land." They expropriated it all. My little Scottish friend said: "How

come you need all of my land when the neighbours on both sides of

me.... Their farms adjoin mine and run back the same distance and

you're only taking a part of theirs and leaving them some flowage

easement to the water." They said: "Well, sorry about that. We have to

take it all." They expropriated it. They paid him $12,000, which

wouldn't even buy him a home in Revelstoke, never mind the city, and

away he

went.http://www.transatholidays.com/web2/offerlist/Package/default.asp?SID=133438786014495323102346607894256466989712525688232675778992670407&LangID=EN&REFWHATID=1&THEME=&SPECIAL=&ENFORCEHOTELID=&DESTNAME=&HOTELNAME=&TOLEVEL=3&TOSELECTED=PVR&FROMLEVEL=2&FROMSELECTED=YYJ&WHENLEVEL=3&WHENSELECTED=12010313&CLASSE=&ACTION=OFFERLIST&WHATID=1&CFROM=Victoria&CTO=&CWHEN=january 13&RANDOMNUMBER=1#TopOLAnc

The grounds that they expropriated that land on, Mr. Speaker — and I

brought this up in this House in 1969 — were that it was subject to

slippage 1nto the reservoir a mile back from the reservoir.

Lo and behold, the next year they built a new

[ Page 1215 ]

highway from Nakusp to the Monashee — to Edgewood.

Do you know where they put the highway, Mr. Speaker? They put it right

through the middle of that property that they had expropriated as being

subject to slippage and erosion into the reservoir, from which they had

chased out this little businessman and compensated him to the tune of

$14,000. They built a public highway right through the middle of it.

I came into this House as a rookie member at that time. I asked the

Minister of Highways, the Hon. Wes Black.... I said: "How can you

justify building a public highway on land that is unsafe, unstable and

subject to slippage 1nto a reservoir?" He said: "The land is safe." I

said: "The minister who is responsible for B.C. Hydro says it's not.

They expropriated it because the man who owned it was in danger of

slipping into the reservoir. Who's right — you or he?" He said: "Well,

the Department of Highways people have investigated. We put in our

hydrologists and our engineers, and we've determined that the land is

absolutely safe." I said: "That's very interesting. Now will you return

to Mr. Swift, who was the owner, all of that land that is at a higher

elevation than the highway?" No way would they return it; no way would

the Minister of Highways answer me. I wouldn't let his estimates pass,

Mr. Speaker, until he did. He had a red face, and I don't like

embarrassing people.

But that kind of thing happened. And this is the government that

says they are free enterprise! They're the same bunch, Mr. Speaker.

These are the guys who say they respect property rights; these are the

guys who say they respect freedom. Do you remember the last election

campaign? Do you remember old Jonathan Livingstone Seagull flying

around? "Freedom, personal freedom! Don't let those socialists

jeopardize your personal rights. They'll take away your cows."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. KING: My gosh, Mr. Speaker! If anyone is interested in

learning what goes on in this province, they should just take a trip up

through the Arrow Lakes and the Columbia Valley. Talk to any oldtimer

there. Read the book Continental Waterboy , read the book Land Grab .

They were both written by an old gentleman from Nakusp, British

Columbia — Donald Waterfield. He is not an hysterical person. He is a

good conservative gentleman — and I mean that in the liberal sense — a

good stable person who is not prone to exaggeration or emotion. He

explains and describes precisely what happened to one other family who

were almost driven to their deathbed by the treatment they received

from Hydro.

These are the things that have gone on, Mr. Speaker, and I just find it a bitter

pill for that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to come in here with this

two-line bill and ask that we approve an increase in the borrowing power of

that monolithic, that insensitive, that unyielding agency.

AN HON. MEMBER: Giant, too.

MR. KING: Yes, exactly. It's giant.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, look, my friend, I think that I do just about

good enough with my vocabulary, in comparison to what I hear emanating

from that side of the House, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm deeply concerned over this. I

think it's a terrible thing. I just can't support this bill. I can't

support a bill that provides yet more power, yet more authority,

without check, without balance, to this agency that for years and years

has rolled merrily over the rights of people, that has undertaken

projects without justifying its energy projections to anyone, that has

increased rates without justifying its need to any agency.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Revelstoke Canyon Dam is in question in terms

of the power needs. The British Columbia Energy Commission arrived at a

much different conclusion from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority

regarding the phased timing of the energy needs, the projected increase

of energy needs in this province, and that discrepancy between the two

projections was important enough that it should have had to be

justified. There should have been an investigation undertaken by the

government to determine who was right. In any event, B.C. Hydro should

not be the one who is doing its own projections. It's like any other

runaway bureaucracy — it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to build up

its own empire. In almost every other jurisdiction in this nation power

corporations are obliged to justify their energy projections, their

rate increases and so on, before some independent agency of government

so that there is accountability. There is accountability and there is

some vestige of control over their direction and over their policy,

which should serve public need and which should indeed be public

policy. There's a complete absence of that kind of control in this

province and, in my view, until this government particularly starts to

come to grips with taking back control of Hydro, there is no way I am

prepared to support this bill.

Now people may say to spokesmen like myself and to our party: "Why did

you not do something during your three years of office to break the control

of Hydro?" My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is indeed

[ Page 1216 ]

we had made a start. One of the things that I spoke

about earlier my friend, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), remedied, and that was the right of any British Columbia

citizen to sue the Crown without coming cap-in-hand to the

Attorney-General seeking a fiat to sue the Crown. We remedied that

injustice, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that just prior to the last

election my friend, the Attorney-General, was working on, and had

largely completed, a new expropriation bill which would have brought

into modernized form all of the expropriation statutes of this province

to provide for a fair and equitable system of arbitration to all

citizens of the province who had their rights and their properties

threatened either by B.C. Hydro, or the Department of Highways, or any

other government or Crown corporation. So we were moving, but you can't

remedy all the social ills in three years that it took the coalition 20

years to construct, Mr. Speaker.

Nevertheless, we had made a start to make that institution

accountable to people. I see no such indication here, and until there

is, and until there is a clear statement from the government that they

are prepared to come to grips with the arbitrariness of that

institution, the opposition must oppose this bill.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

It's a matter of considerable wonderment to me why socialists, not only

in this House, but in the federal House, are so concerned about the

largest manifestations of socialism in the country. They find them

unwieldy, overbearing, and often unworkable. They are highly critical,

for example, of Air Canada, of the CNR, and in this House, of B.C.

Hydro. In this province, at least when they were in power, they

obviously were unable to contain B.C. Hydro in a fashion which they now

find satisfactory. I believe that accountability is very important. I

believe that this government must deal with the question of

accountability of large government enterprises of the character of B.C.

Hydro. I'll be dealing with this later in my remarks and I'll also have

a few words to say about the Downie Slide.

By passing this bill, our provincial Legislature will be giving B.C.

Hydro the authority to borrow another $650 million. Together with

previous authorizations, this brings the corporation's total debt,

total borrowing up to $4.15 billion — that's $4,150 million. This is a

lot of money. It compares with previous authorizations of $500 million

in 1972, $500 million in 1974, $750 million in 1975, and $500 million

in 1976. These funds are needed to pay for new plant and equipment.

In an expanding system, revenues from the sale of electricity and

natural gas are not sufficient in themselves to pay for new dams, new

transmission lines and new distribution systems. In fact, the surplus

of revenue over expenditure is only enough to pay for about one-fifth

of the cost of the new capital plant. In other words, borrowing

accounts for roughly 80 per cent of the moneys needed in order to

expand the system.

Our rate of growth in the province, in population as well as

energy-usage terms, is far above that of the rest of the country.

Growth, in other words, adds to our financial difficulties. This, plus

rugged terrain and high wage rates, makes it necessary for corporations

like B.C. Hydro to borrow large amounts of capital to keep up with

existing demands, to keep ahead of future needs, to avoid brownouts and

the like.

The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority is a large corporation. It's the

largest, by far, in western Canada. It's much larger than any of the

oil companies headquartered in Alberta. It's far larger than any of the

companies producing forest products in B.C. The utility's capital

expenditures in recent years are indicative of that. Incidentally, B.C.

Hydro's capital outlays amount to about one-fifth of all the capital

outlays in the province — $1 out of every $5 spent on new houses, new

businesses, new roads, new forms of transport, and so on. These capital

outlays have risen steadily, In 1972, investment in new plant and

equipment — that's investment made in that year — amounted to $218

million. In 1973, the figure was $230 million. In 1974, it was $332

million; 1975 — $464 million of new capital expenditure; last year —

$591 million.

Reading from the prospectus recently published by B.C. Hydro and put

out in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange

Commission in Washington, D.C., we see that the estimated capital

outlay of B.C. Hydro in 1977 — this year — will be $605 million,

roughly the same as last year. In 1978, it will be $800 million. The

cumulative investment in the years 1979 through to 1981 — that's three

years — will be $3.562 billion.

Not only has B.C. Hydro's combined debt on electrical and gas

accounts been growing rapidly in recent years, but it will continue to

grow. There are two reasons for this. The overall demand for energy in

this province has been increasing at an annual rate of around 9 per

cent. Interest rates have gone up considerably. Unit costs, fired by

inflation, have more than doubled since 1970.

Fortunately, some of these trends are beginning to moderate. Our

rate of population growth has moderated somewhat. The use of energy per

person is not rising as fast as it has done in recent years. Inflation

is no longer in the double-digit category, a big improvement insofar as

basic power costs are concerned. So we can expect B.C. Hydro's annual

borrowings to curve over in time. They'll still grow but they won't

increase as rapidly year by year as they've done in the recent past, as

they did when the NDP was in power.

[ Page 1217 ]

Having said this, I must still issue a warning because of our

growing appetite for energy in this province and because the cost-push

type of inflation is still effective here. B.C. Hydro's borrowings will

approach $1 billion a year by 1980. Only a sharp curtailment in our

consumption individually, together with a marked curtailment of

inflation, will reduce those borrowings significantly.

The reason for Hydro's massive investments isn't really hard to

find. Energy, especially clean forms of energy like natural gas and

electricity, are a fantastic bargain. They're the equivalent of paying

a wage of a few cents an hour for physical labour, and the real cost of

this energy is falling. It's falling as compared to other things. The

price of electricity, for example, has not been rising as fast as the

price of other commodities. The price of natural gas has not been

rising anything like as fast as the price of other goods and services.

In other words, they're not only a bargain but they're becoming an even

greater bargain as time goes by.

Labour-saving equipment, driven by electricity, has replaced labour,

especially the physical kind. Drudgery has given way to fine tuning.

Now we simply adjust our thermostats, control our electric motors and

our TV sets. B.C. Hydro's big investment in power-producing and

gas-transmitting facilities has taken a massive burden off our

collective shoulders. It's made life simpler. That's why B.C. Hydro

borrows money in such large amounts.

The power business, especially when the utility is heavily dependent

on big dams and long transmission lines, is capital intensive. The gas

business, with its pipelines, is also capital intensive. Other people's

savings have to be mobilized in order to put all these facilities in

place and to put them in place in time. So B.C. Hydro must sell bonds

and raise — and increase from time to time — a massive mortgage.

Interest rates, obviously, are important. The annual costs of B.C.

Hydro reflect its capital intensity and reflect interest rates. The

higher these interest rates are, the more Hydro has to pay for borrowed

money, the higher the rates are for electricity and gas. This is why

investor confidence is important. This is why power and gas rates

themselves tend to reflect — in the long run anyway — other people's

opinions, not only of B.C. Hydro but of this province and of its

financial prospects and of its political stability.

Mr. Speaker, I should also refer to the political climate in this

province now. Investors in large utilities like B.C. Hydro want to know

that their money is safe, that it'll be paid back and that it'll be

paid back on time. If the utility itself is in poor shape, or if the

political climate in the area in which it operates looks rocky, then

interest rates tend to go up. This is the main reason why B.C. Hydro

had to pay high interest rates in recent years — interest rates in the

order of 10.5 per cent in 1974, and more than 10 per cent in 1975.

Money costs of that order of magnitude have a major impact on the power

and gas rates, the price paid for energy by people.

In the 1960s, the interest rate charged on a typical borrowing by

B.C. Hydro was around 6 per cent. In 1971, it was 7 per cent. It took

off in 1972: first 8 per cent, then 9 per cent and finally 10 per cent

plus. That was the price for new money that B.C. Hydro had to pay when

the NDP was in power. That's one of the reasons — the biggest single

reason — why power and gas rates paid by people have been going up and

continue to go up in B.C. Now they should be levelling off. The latest

borrowing in New York cost B.C. Hydro 8-5/8 per cent. So money costs,

at least, are moderating. The interest burden is tending to level off.

Political sanity has returned to British Columbia. This, together with

sound management of B.C. Hydro, should help to keep our power and gas

rates under better control than they've been in the recent past in this

province.

Many people are quite rightly concerned about the price of

electricity and the price of natural gas to consumers here. They're

going up. They've been rising because of inflation, because of higher

interest rates, and because we're, not as conservation-conscious as we

have to be. But we're doing well. With the exception of Alberta, we

have the lowest gas rates to consumers in Canada. It costs half as much

to heat a home with natural gas in Vancouver as it does in Seattle, and

our power rates, that used to be among the highest in the country, are

now in the medium range. Ontario Hydro's rates, for example, are

rapidly catching up to ours. They used to be half as much. Soon they'll

be higher. We'll have cheaper electricity and cheaper gas than they

have in central Canada. This will be for the first time in our history.

Individually, as residential consumers, we'll be better off than most

other users in Canada and 90 per cent of consumers in the U.S.A. So you

can see that things, at least relatively speaking, are improving. We've

been doing better — again relatively speaking — than our neighbours to

the east and the south. Our costs have been going up, that's true. But

others' costs have been rising even more rapidly. Yes, we've had a

higher growth rate to contend with, we pay higher prices for things,

and we pay our labour more. But, overall, the picture is turning around

and we're becoming more competitive as a result of good management at

the Authority level.

Concern, quite naturally, has been expressed about B.C. Hydro's

expectations of growth. It could overbuild its capacity, and by

overbuilding, it could add unnecessarily to the interest and other

carrying charges which would be associated with these capital

expenditures.

To put it another way, B.C. Hydro has been accused of making

projections of future energy needs which are on the high side — at

least they've been high as compared to forecasts published, for example,

[ Page 1218 ]

by the B.C. Energy Commission.

When this government came to power at the end of 1975, B.C. Hydro

was using a growth rate for electricity in excess of 10 per cent a

year. The B.C. Energy Commission, on the other hand, had published

forecasts for the province in the order of 5 per cent. One of the first

things I did on becoming minister responsible for energy was to ask the

Authority and the commission to get together. I wanted their experts to

meet each other — surprisingly for the first time — to discuss their

basic assumptions and to come up with a new set of forecasts which were

at least within reasonable distance of each other.

This happened. The experts on forecasting power requirements from

B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Energy Commission have since met a number of

times. They've cleared up various misunderstandings. They're using the

same historic data; they're focusing on B.C. Hydro — not on B.C. Hydro,

and the investor-owned utilities and the industries generating their

own power, but B.C. Hydro.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

They're treating power losses in the same way and they're making

some of the same assumptions about conservation in the future. As a

result, their estimates as to future needs — electricity needs, in this

case — are closer together. They're close — within a few per cent of

each other in 1980. They're both in the 7 to 8 per cent range for the

next decade — that is, for the next I 0-year period ending in the 1980s.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, they're almost bang on in 1981. They do

diverge by about 1 per cent a year thereafter. They differ in some

respects: B.C. Hydro's projection is still higher than that of the B.C.

Energy Commission by about 1 per cent each year; B.C. Hydro is more

optimistic about British Columbia's future, about population growth,

about industrial development in this province; the B.C. Energy

Commission, on the other hand, expects consumers in B.C. to be more

conservation-conscious than B.C. Hydro does. This is fundamentally why

they differ as to their ideas of load growth for British Columbia in

the future.

B.C. Hydro further explains its position, its reason for taking a

higher rate of load growth for planning purposes by saying that it

should always be erring on the high side, that it must never be caught

short. We will all suffer brownouts if B.C. Hydro is wrong, if it takes

a conservative forecast and forecasts on the low side, or if it doesn't

build enough plant in time, so it tends to err on the high side.

Hydro argues that if we have surplus capacity because they've been

too optimistic in their projection of demand, we can sell our surplus

energy at higher than cost to our energy-short neighbours in the United

States. They also argue, Mr. Speaker, that they can postpone

construction more readily than they can start construction. If they're

overbuilding, they can slow construction down and bring their new plant

and equipment better into line with load growth as it actually develops.

I focused on the demand for electricity primarily. The reason I have

done so is that close to 90 per cent of all of B.C. Hydro's capital

needs — capital investment outlays — are made under the heading of the

electrical service. Natural gas accounts for only 4 per cent of its

investment; transportation — buses and its rail line — its head office

and its other general activities account for 6 per cent. These figures,

especially the 90 per cent figure for electricity and the 4 per cent

for natural gas tell us something else, however. They tell us that

electricity is capital-intensive, much more capital-intensive than gas.

They tell us that if we want to cut back on borrowing, on the amount of

capital that B.C. Hydro needs, B.C. Hydro should put more emphasis on

gas and less on electricity in the future.

This question has been asked more than once by the B.C. Energy

Commission. The Energy Commission tells us that if we have lots of

natural gas in British Columbia, then we should really put the emphasis

on using gas and building less electrical plant in this province. We

should use natural gas wherever we can and refuse to make electricity

available for space heating, for example. But we are not in this

position, unfortunately. We have scarcely enough natural gas proven up

in British Columbia to meet our projected requirements. Our reserves in

the Peace River district are low relative to our future needs, at

least, and their deliverability — the ability to get the gas out when

we want it, and especially in the wintertime — is limited. Until this

situation is corrected and until increased exploration and development

results in a better supply picture for gas, we will have to go on using

electricity more and borrowing more. This is part of our problem today.

I could have said it differently, Mr. Speaker. In order to limit

B.C. Hydro's borrowing in the future, we should have a gas-intensive

programme rather than attempting to go all-electric in our homes, in

our offices and in our industry as well. But we don't have the natural

gas reserves — not in British Columbia. In order to build them up, we

have increased the incentive to look for more gas in the north. We have

raised field prices; we have endeavoured to make them competitive with

the field prices in Alberta so that we could attract the drilling rate

and the exploration activity to our province. These higher prices and

the big markets that exist for gas should all have an effect of

increasing our supplies, adding to

[ Page 1219 ]

our reserves, improving our reserve position. When

this happens, hopefully we will be in a position to slow down on

borrowing. B.C. Hydro will be in a position to borrow less because the

gas is there.

In the electrical service there are other things we can do.

Switching to coal-fired plants and away from big dams and long

transmission lines will also help. Thermal plants don't cost as much to

build as big hydro projects, especially ones which are far away. Also,

we happen to have large reserves of coal at Hat Creek. This new power

source is much closer to Vancouver, our principal load centre, than our

remaining undeveloped hydro sites. Hat Creek, in other words, can help

us to keep our capital expenditures down and our borrowing down. It can

reduce B.C. Hydro's borrowing needs — its mortgage in the future.

This is the main reason why I personally think that Hat Creek

follows on quite logically after the completion of the big new dam at

Revelstoke. Environmental and other problems, of course, have to be

overcome. Public hearings must be held and permits granted. But it

looks as if B.C. Hydro can go thermal for a few years at least. It can

reduce its needs for other people's savings in this way. It can become

less capital-intensive for a change.

I referred at the outset, briefly, to public hearings, for the need

for public inquiry, for the need for the public to know. I expect B.C.

Hydro will appear before the B.C. Energy Commission, for example. I

have already referred to this possibility in a speech which I gave to

the Legislature in January. B.C. Hydro itself recognizes this

possibility of rate review by another public body. In its financing

prospectus published in the United States on November 23, 1976, on page

22, we read:

"The provincial government has announced that it is

contemplating legislation which will create an authority to review all

rate applications made by Crown corporations and agencies, including

the Authority.---

So the people out there who are lending their money to B.C. Hydro,

people outside of this province as well as people who live in British

Columbia, know that this sort of thing is being considered seriously by

the government. This announcement appeared in the Speech from the

Throne in April, 1976. While we have no legislation along these lines

scheduled for 1977, I hope we will have a bill along these lines to

introduce next year, in 1978.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not unmindful of

the desirability of subjecting B.C. Hydro's rates and B.C. Hydro's

programmes for major expansion to closer scrutiny — not only by the

experts but also by the public at large in public hearings.

Hon. members of this Legislature themselves will have an opportunity

to review B.C. Hydro's plans and rates when the Authority comes before

our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs

this spring. But we individually have neither the time nor the

expertise to analyse the Authority's accounts and come up with

recommendations, the implementation of which would be of real benefit

to the consumers of energy in this province. So we need a public body

which will do the job of holding hearings, asking the right questions,

getting meaningful answers to questions which the people of this

province are continually asking now.

Personally, I believe that B.C. Hydro is well run. I believe that

its management is not only attempting to do, but in fact does, a

first-class job. I believe that its workers are competent. I believe

that its plant is well built and well run. But I personally would like

to have more time to ask questions and get meaningful answers.

I'd feel better if there were more checks and balances in our

system. The checks must not be too great and the balances mustn't be

overly time-consuming, but I believe we can work out an arrangement

whereby the B.C. Power Commission looks at B.C. Hydro's rates, looks at

B.C. Hydro's expansion programme in much the same way as it reviews the

affairs of investor-owned utilities in this province. Other provinces,

including Ontario, have endeavoured to do this kind of thing. I believe

we can do it better than they can, and I believe that we can look after

the best interests of our own people more effectively than Ontario has

been able to do relative to Ontario Hydro in the recent past.

Now before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd refer briefly to a

memorandum which I prepared earlier, for my own use primarily, but it

dealt with the particular matter of the Downie Slide. I have read

through much of the evidence given at the Revelstoke hearing and I have

seen other material published or prepared by authorities on the subject

of slides and the stability of soil, rock, et cetera. My memorandum

summarizes the conclusions I reached after looking at that material.

They were as follows:

(1) The Downie Slide, to which the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King) often referred, is prehistoric. It's a giant rockpile which has been

moving slowly downhill for 10,000 years or more.

(2) The Downie Slide is located 30 miles north of Revelstoke. It's not,

therefore, close to the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and unlike recent dam failures

in the United States and Europe, the slide itself would not impact directly

on the dam were it to occur.

(3) Large existing landslides like Downie are not reactivated by earthquakes,

and Revelstoke is in an area of low seismic activity. Even if the Downie Slide

slid totally into the big reservoir upstream of the Revelstoke Dam it would

only fill a tiny fraction of

[ Page 1220 ]

the lake. In the case of the much publicized Vajont

disaster in Italy, for instance, the slide not only hit the dam but

filled the reservoir as well, hence comparisons of that kind are

irrelevant.

(4) Where other slides occurred the slope was much steeper, and they accelerated

once they started. The Downie Slide is toed-in at the bottom of the valley and

any significant movement, in other words, would mobilize large forces in the

opposite direction which would tend to restrain the slide.

(5) The Downie Slide can be drained by driving tunnels through it and springs

which tend to bring it down would be relieved and the gradual movement of the

slide downhill would be arrested. Plans to drain the slide are now under way.

They were not undertaken in cases of slides which have occurred in other parts

of the world.

(6) Finally, the height of the wave at the Revelstoke Dam, even if all of the

slide came down, would be small compared to the height of the dam. Models have

been built and slide tests have indicated that the maximum wave generated would

be almost totally dissipated at Downie Creek itself. That's 40 miles away

from Revelstoke. "It would be five feet in height at a point about 10 miles

downstream from the slide" — five feet in height. The freeboard on the

Revelstoke Dam 40 miles downstream is 30 feet.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I concluded that the Downie Slide,

if properly dealt with by B.C. Hydro — in other words, properly

drained, et cetera — is not really a serious threat to the Revelstoke

project as presently envisaged.

MR. WALLACE: Will you table that memorandum?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, we on the

opposition side are always interested in the Minister of Energy giving

us his well-researched speech. I wish we could rely on it — I really do

— but there are certain historical events which discourage me from

relying on the minister's statements with respect to energy

projections, particularly in the needs of Hydro, apart from anything

else that we may say. I'm looking at an

article involving the minister

when he was a Member of Parliament, a parliamentary assistant to the

Prime Minister at the time. I'm reading from an

article called

"Engineering and Contract Record, April, 1964." It doesn't have a page

number. It says:

"The most bizarre incident of all occurred earlier this

year and led. to some revealing reaction from officials in both Canada and the

United States. A Cominco engineer had written to Jack Davis to ask why the government

kept changing its publicly announced cost estimates for High Arrow. He got a

most astonishing reply on the stationery of the office of the Prime Minister,

February 5, 1964.

Says Jack Davis:

"'High figures have purposely been leaked out by the

Canadian and B.C. governments with a view to influencing our negotiations with

the United States. Now that the lump sum price settlement has been arrived at,

we are in a position to produce more realistic figures insofar as the High Arrow

project is concerned.

"Jack Davis, MP.'"

The public reaction was equally surprising. No one seemed to be

concerned that the government had admitted lying. Instead, Davis was

given credit for outwitting the Yankees. It didn't seem to occur to

most people that if the government was issuing false figures, the

Canadian public was the biggest loser as far as any attempt to judge

the treaty was concerned. The reason Davis gave for government lying

was preposterous, as both American and B.C. officials were quick to

point out. Their replies, with direct reference to the calibre of the

Canadian negotiators, were the most sensational items to come out of

the affair. I'll quote one of them:

"'Actual costs of the dam and calculations for the

sale of downstream benefits were worked out on U.S. computers,' Mr. Williston

said. 'They knew more about the situation than we did. They have been working

on the Columbia for 20 years. You can't leak figures to engineers of the

stature of the U.S. team.'"

I hope the minister has reformed; I really do. Making statements in

the form of a letter on the stationery of the First Minister of Canada

is akin to making statements in this Legislature.

Can we rely on these projected figures? Oh, it's not the minister

I'm worried about, Mr. Speaker. His credibility is limited, number one,

by the fact that he is a politician, like all of us, and number two,

he's really not in control of Hydro anyway. He provides it no

direction, he has no control over it and that's where the matter rests.

I would like to deal with the man who is in charge of Hydro and

three-quarters of the long-term debt of every man, woman and child

living in British Columbia: Bob Bonner. Old "707-days Bonner." Old

honest Bob, Mr. Speaker, is in charge of B.C. Hydro — a Social Credit

political hack who sat on the Butler report for 707 days during one of

the most sensational and extravagant scandals in British Commonwealth

history. That's the man I want to talk about, and about his projections

and his direction of B.C. Hydro. The minister says Bonner is now kept

and maintained in the fashion to which he has been historically

accustomed. Am I paraphrasing?

HON. MR. DAVIS: More than that; you're offending.

[ Page 1221 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, they were your words. You said that Hydro is

now being maintained in a fashion that they've been accustomed to. You

meant Bonner is being maintained and kept in the fashion to which he's

accustomed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe we're debating a bill that relates to Finance, not to the conduct of Robert Bonner to hold office.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating the role and the

credibility of the chief executive officer of Hydro to the projections

needed for load growth. I am questioning his credibility in relation to

that. I've already dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the credibility of the

minister and I do hope, on behalf of all British Columbians, that he's

reformed and that he's not deliberately leaking false information for

whatever political or economic purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the load growth projections made by Hydro are absolute

and utter self-fulfilled prophecy and they know it. The needs of the

province of British Columbia to pour more of its hard-earned taxpayers'

dollars into this bottomless pit is, at the very least, questionable,

and certainly, at the most, a travesty. I'm reminded about....

I keep this by my bed, Mr. Speaker. I think everybody should.

MR. BARRETT: What do you want, nightmares?

MR. LAUK: Pat McGeer's Politics in Paradise .

It's better than the quotations of Chairman Wolfe or whoever. It's

really delightful. Just referring to one of my favourite quotations,

Mr. Speaker:

"For the CCF, the takeover of the B.C. Electric was a moral victory. They

had campaigned in the election less than a year before on a platform of public

power, only to be derided by Social Credit cabinet ministers." Now get

this — "Bennett's right-hand man, Attorney-General Robert Bonner, had

claimed that taking over B.C. Electric — now B.C. Hydro — would cost $600 million."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. LAUK: Do you know how much it cost? Less than $200 million.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but they messed up on the legal fees.

MR. LAUK: No, but that's including that. He said $600

million. He knew that that wasn't correct. This is the man who is now

in charge of Hydro. It "would cost $600 million and would make no jobs

except for politicians." Boy, was he right! Now that's what I call

self-fulfilled prophecy — the same philosophy that he's taken right up

to this day.

"He had also stated that such an affront...." I'm so amused at this. Where's Pat?

MR. BARRETT: He's rewriting a draft on a new book.

MR. LAUK: He's rewriting it? Is he withdrawing all copies? Is the Minister of Information withdrawing all copies?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"He had also stated that such an affront to the

free-enterprise system would mean the end of investment capital coming

to British Columbia and that the province would be set back 30 years."

AN HON. MEMBER: Horrors!

MR. LAUK: Now he's the chairman of that public utility. He's

the man that this government is putting their faith in to run a public

corporation, the largest corporation in the province, that has indebted

each man, woman and child in British Columbia to the tune of something

over $2,200 a year.

MR. BARRETT: Because of the Columbia River.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Don't you wish you could write a book instead of yakking?

MR. LAUK: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the soft-spoken Minister of Finance is upset.

MR. BARRETT: He's nervous!

MR. LAUK: He's nervous. He's a man that's not afraid of the truth. I'm sure he's not reacting for that reason.

MR. BARRETT: He never touched an odometer in his life. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, he denied touching an odometer.

The submission made to the water rights hearing in the Revelstoke

Dam hearing was an interesting one. I'm reading from the opening

statement by the British Columbia Energy Commission at Revelstoke Dam

project hearing:

"We are satisfied that the submissions of other interveners with respect to environmental

[ Page 1222 ]

and social-economic costs will receive full

consideration in deciding the appropriate timing and configuration of

the Revelstoke project. As will be discussed in direct testimony, we

are not convinced that a delay of one or two years in the onstream date

of this project would impose undue additional costs on Hydro, nor do we

believe that such a delay would necessarily lead to electricity

shortages."

The British Columbia Energy Commission said 6.5 per cent. An

in-house study by several departments of government, under the

supervision of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and

the Department of Economic Development, projected something higher —

7.5 per cent, I believe it was. Mr. Bonner came before the public

accounts committee last year and said: "9.2 per cent was absolutely

bottom level. That's it. I won't hear another word about it. I know

what I'm talking about." Our friend Bob.

Let me just read to you some of the transcript testimony of Mr.

Bonner before the public accounts committee a short year ago, Mr.

Speaker — one year ago. This man is in charge of B.C. Hydro today. Page

5 of that transcript:

"We're using a planning premise of 9.2 per cent to the

middle of the 1980s. It's a reflection of an historical trend which in

the past 10 years has been in the order of 12 per cent compounded.

We're anticipating a somewhat slower rate of requirement for the decade

ahead."

On page 8 he states:

"The planning premise — and I put it on that basis of

9.2 per cent — has two components within it. Firstly, the premise of an

8.7 per cent load-growth increase for Hydro's particular area in the

province, to which is added a load growth associated with West Kootenay

Power and Light's territory within the province for which we have a

contractual responsibility."

I was a little bit alarmed at that statement at the time, Mr.

Speaker. Upon checking, I found that the net subsidy, in terms of

sharing power between West Kootenay Power and Light and B.C. Hydro, was

in Hydro's favour. In other words, the net sharing — the balance of

payments, if you like — between the two meant B.C. Hydro received more

power on a net basis from West Kootenay Power and Light than the other

way around over the long haul. So what on earth is he talking about?

There's no long-term commitment to West Kootenay Power and Light.

Immediately you can redraft your projection growth to 8.7 per cent,

says Bob Bonner. It's all bafflegab, because even that statement is

wrong. If 9.2 per cent is supportable, it has nothing to do with West

Kootenay Power and Light — and he should have known that. That was

nonsense.

But over the years, Mr. Bonner is used to using that glib,

smooth-talking lawyer's tongue to pull the wool over a lot of people's

eyes. He didn't know what he was talking about. "The overall result of

putting these two components together is the 9.2 figure." I just add

this to show you how cute he is — he's always been cute. "The

suggestion has been offered elsewhere that the load growth will, in

fact, be 6.5 per cent." "Elsewhere" is three government agencies, and

it was right before his nose in front of the public accounts committee.

And on he goes.

It's all bafflegab. The more I read, the more I can see that

flim-flam is in control over the biggest company in the province. First

we have a 3 per cent geometric improvement. The committee asks: "Mr.

Bonner, what is a 3 per cent geometric improvement?" He said, "That's

an increase of population in the province." Shades of Haldeman and

Ehrlichman or whoever these people are. Crewcut nonsense! Geometric

improvement!

"The Canadian experience, which is 1.8 or 1.... It hit a recession last

year." There was so much here and so much there and can-you-see-the-pea-under-the-shell

and so on and so forth. I must agree that it is a corporate viewpoint for B.C.

Hydro.

He goes on to say: "I think our statutory mandate is to meet the

public requirement whatever it is." Questioners from all parties said:

"Well, what is Europe doing?" I remember the member for Vancouver

South.... Where is he today? He said: "What about Europe? They plan

their growth. They allot that growth factor to industry and industry

fills it." Articles and projections all over the world on energy growth

indicate it has to be planned. You don't meet the public requirement

whatever it is. It's absolute and utter nonsense because if it's 9.2

per cent, or if it's 15 per cent, or if it's 25 per cent the public

will use it — and the public mostly will be private industry. It will

be a waste, and a senseless waste, of energy unless it's planned and

conserved on a proper basis. Hydro is out of control and a political

appointment is in charge leading it into utter chaos.

The Minister has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to stand in this House and

say that we've returned to political sanity. We go through this Lewis

Carroll transcript from Bob Bonner. You can make people believe

anything if you want them to. The same man who said that it would put

the province back 30 years to take over B.C. Electric a few months

later was standing happily in the House to vote for its takeover. The

same man who said that the Canadian and British Columbia governments

lied to the public on figures for tactical purposes is now the minister

in charge of energy. Can we trust these people? I say that at the very

least we must question what they're saying.

I was most impressed on reading the reports from the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat, from the Energy Commission and from

[ Page 1223 ]

the Department of Economic Development. They were

questioning the underlying assumptions of the projections of Hydro, a

massive corporate giant who, it is stated by its chief executive

officer, will meet the public's energy requirements no matter what they

are. Electronic toothbrushes to back-scratchers — whatever it is, he's

going to meet it. It's a giant out of control, and it would be a

passing joke if it didn't cost the people of British Columbia these

fantastic amounts of money.

The very critical thing that has happened was pointed out in the press in the Colonist this month. In the particular

article that I have it says:

"B.C. Hydro spending on projects under the Columbia River

treaty totalled $147.1 million in one year, 1976, according to answers tabled

Thursday by Energy minister Jack Davis in the Legislature. Based on past and

projected expenditures Hydro will eventually have paid close to $1 billion more

than it has received in treaty benefits on the Columbia River project. Other

figures tabled by Davis show that the total expenditure on the construction

of storage projects to date totalled $600 million-odd up to December 31, 1976."

There's a bottomless pit, Mr. Speaker, in a corporation that's completely

and utterly out of control.

What we need in this province is not political hacks running large

corporations. What we need in this province is an independent board of

Hydro and a planning mechanism for the whole economy within this

province. This kind of so-called free, enterprise laissez-faire

approach to energy projection is nothing more or less than utter and

complete chaos leading this province into economic ruin. That's what

they call free enterprise! In every other jurisdiction outside of North

America and in a lot of places in the United States, the planning for

energy and the planning for economic growth is a formal and public

process and is not left to the whims and fancies of the buccaneers and

robber barons who still inhabit British Columbia.This kind of silly sentimentalism to something that was dead in 1902 in every

other place except British Columbia is costing the ordinary people of this province

dearly. They do without their hospitals, they do without their schools, they

have to take cutbacks. The disabled have the trimming off their pensions and

their payments because everybody is tightening their belts to build monuments

to stupidity.

MR. BARRETT: Social Credit.

MR. LAUK: Oh, we can say for the moment that it was great

vision to go into the two-river theory, and so on. I've read Politics

in Paradise, and yes, it takes vision to build this kind of power. We

need power and we have to have power. I'm not suggesting that. I'm

suggesting that the lack of planning has been absolutely criminal. The

excess $1 billion overrun on the Columbia River project is an absolute

disaster.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications, who was sitting in that chair just a moment ago, Mr.

Minister of Finance — through you, Mr. Speaker — tabled the answer in

the House. Based on past — listen carefully — and projected

expenditures, Hydro eventually will have paid close to $1 billion more

than it has received in treaty benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's hogwash. I've already told you.

MR. LAUK: Take it up with the minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a twist.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I've twisted. I

haven't twisted. It's unparliamentary to say that I've twisted, but I'm

not going to take offence at the Minister of Finance. He's harmless.

MR. BARRETT: Keep your hands off the odometer.

MR. LAUK: The minister reminds me of the rabbit in "Alice in

Wonderland" — chasing his tail while the real driver's-seat people in

this economy in this government are people like Robert Bonner, who

didn't have the guts to go back and put his name up for election. He

sneaks in the back door through order-in-council appointment to the

Crown corporation. He's not equipped in the slightest degree to run the

biggest corporation in this province. "Political sanity," said the

minister." We're returning to political sanity." What a laugh! Lewis

Carroll would have a heyday with the whole Columbia River mess and B.C.

Hydro as it's ending up on our doorstep.

You and your predecessor Social Credit government have mortgaged the

future of British Columbians for a great many years, and it's simply by

stupidity and lack of planning that that has happened. You can have

lots of power. You can export lots of power. You can have industrial

development and economic development, and you can create jobs if you

plan for them. You can do it without having a $1 billion overrun.

Now they come before the House asking us to approve this statute one more time. I say no, absolutely not.

[ Page 1224 ]

MR. BARRETT: You've put on a little weight, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: So have you.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm losing it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the right seat? I recognize the suit from Calgary, but I don't know who's in it there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just spend a few minutes on this bill, just

as a matter of passing. We've seen some evidence now that there is a

sense of humour in the cabinet. One of the former aides of a cabinet

minister referred to himself as Kojak, and we're having a lot of fun

just guessing what they call each other in that group. Can you imagine

the arguments over who the "odd couple" is? And when you go through the

whole television scene, not one of them wants to play Barretta.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's Ed Sullivan over there — the great stone face.

MR. BARRETT: No, Sullivan's still alive. (Laughter.)

What I want to deal with is the prospectus related to these

borrowings. I think it's very important. If we analyse the prospectus

of these borrowings we find that somebody has not been telling the

truth about the true financial picture of this province. We have to

know today who it is that's not telling the truth. I know one thing,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody ever lies in a prospectus

they're in trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do. There were wild charges made in this House by a former Leader of the Opposition but never substantiated.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They were totally refuted. SEC was responding to

a letter by the Leader of the Opposition, and at no time did SEC

criticize our government. But I want to tell you, one of the most

irresponsible acts made by an opposition leader was when the present

Premier wrote a letter to SEC. And if there's ever any reason for the

SEC to get a letter it's because of what they're saying in this House

and what they're saying in this prospectus. Let me give you a couple of

examples. And they'd better not be caging around with SEC. I accept the

figures in this prospectus as the truth. What does that do? That makes

the figures in a couple of items in the budget speech lies. If you are

asked to accept the figures in the Securities Exchange prospectus

filing by this government, as I do, then we have to look at some of the

statements in the budget speech as lies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you from the prospectus signed by the

Crown corporation that is on the market to borrow money. They say here

that the province of British Columbia had expected to pay.... First of

all, under the B.C. Rail, for the Dease Island extension, this was the

first time we got a total figure of the Dease Lake extension.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it'll probably cost you a fortune or two,

after you stole that guy's property. You weren't part of the government

then. That's when they used to seize people's private property. Yes,

Mr. Speaker, there was a bill that went through this House seizing

private property under Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we deal with Bill 4, please?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. It was not a tulip field, no.

On page 42 of this prospectus, Mr. Speaker, I want to read this

paragraph to you so that it's in the record, so that you can compare it

to what we are told in the budget speech: "During the five years ending

January 2,1976, the railway expended an aggregate of $348 million for

capital expenditure." Then they go on to detail the true cost of the

Dease Lake extension to $279 million.

I want to read this paragraph to you now that condemns the former

Social Credit government's accounting procedures out of the words of

this government here itself. The Leader of the Opposition made this

very complaint against the New Democratic Party government about a

prospectus that we filed with New York, saying: "Did you tell New York

that you changed the accounting procedure and the difference?" We said

yes. We said there was a $64 million loss hidden by the former Social

Credit government. They questioned that.

I want to read this paragraph to you to point out, Mr. Chairman,

that the present Social Credit government cooked the books on the B.C.

Railway, and it accepted that as a fact — $64 million was hidden in

losses. Who is now saying it? This Social

[ Page 1225 ]

Credit government is. On page 42 of the prospectus:

"Financial data for the years 1971 to 1973 have been restated to give

effect to certain changes in accounting policies which were described

in the 1974 annual report of the railway which was presented to the

Legislature on June 6, 1975."

DEPUTY, SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: Yes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we dealing with the Hydro bill?

MR. BARRETT: We certainly are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Would you...

MR. BARRETT: I hope so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...relate your remarks to Hydro?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: This is the prospectus to borrow money. Yes,

it's all in here in the prospectus. I would advise everyone to read it.

It might change somebody's political commitments if they read the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.

MR. BARRETT:

"The change in accounting principles was given

retroactive effect for prior years because management of the railway

concluded that the financial statements on an overall basis did not

present fairly the cumulative operating-loss results of the railway. It

also concluded that certain accounting procedures did not conform with

the accounting regulations prescribed by the Canadian Transport

Commission.

"As a result of these changes, the following

additional amounts are retroactively charged as expenditures during the

years of 1971 to 1973. In the opinion of the railway, the foregoing

retroactive adjustment was also necessary to establish a basis for

preparation of the 1974 and future financial statements."

Mr. Chairman, this is a direct repudiation of the position taken in

the most irresponsible manner by the present Premier when he was the

Leader of the Opposition. His own government endorses the fact that we

did not get a true accounting position of the B.C. Rail under the

former Social Credit government. In his own complaint to the Securities

and Exchange Commission he is now admitting that what we filed in the

first place, and what we complained about in the first place, was

absolutely correct.

We filed on the information left to us by Social Credit, After we

filed, we had the complete report that indicated $64 million in losses

had taken place. At that time, in the most responsible manner, the

Deputy Minister of Finance was instructed to inform New York, which he

so did. Do you remember the debates in this House about that? Yes,, the

now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) participated in that debate.

The now Premier participated in that debate.

MR. LAUK: He made false charges.

MR. BARRETT: He made charges that are now totally false by

the statements that they have committed themselves to as a government

in this prospectus.

This isn't the only thing in the prospectus that indicates some

lies, Mr. Speaker. Those are very harsh words — "some lies." I don't

say anyone is a liar, but some lies have been told.

MR. LAUK: And where there are lies, there has got to be a liar.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that could be. It's not necessarily so.

Where there are lies there doesn't necessarily need to be a liar. It

could be that somebody got a false message.

AN HON. MEMBER: It helps.

MR. BARRETT: It helps? Well, maybe it does. Let us deal with

the statements made on the question of Clarkson Gordon. Do you

remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the spring of 1976 the people of this

province were told that the province owed $52 million to the federal

government? Clarkson Gordon said that we owed $52 million to the

federal government as our share of the money back on natural gas.

On page 10 of the budget speech of 1976 this calumny exists — a

falsehood, an untruth, a lie — which says that the $52 million figure

is now reduced to $44 million. That's what the people of British

Columbia were told in a document signed after accounting by the now

Minister of Finance. First of all, Clarkson Gordon said $52 million.

That was a guesstimate. That's one way to throw all the balls around

and juggle them around and say: "Well, here is a good number, 52. Let's

throw that in." They threw it in and Clarkson Gordon said: "We're only

totalling up the figures we got." Good for Clarkson Gordon. They knew

when to escape with their professional hides.

[ Page 1226 ]

Then the budget speech said $44 million on page 10. What does it say

in the prospectus to New York, Mr. Speaker? Why it says this: "Since

the inception of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation...." I'm

referring to page 44 of the prospectus, if the minister wishes to

follow this, if he has a copy of the prospectus. Thank you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to embarrass you but

somebody has been telling lies.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You can't.

MR. BARRETT: I can't embarrass you — of course not. Well, that's an admission of something. I don't know what it is.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can't embarrass him.

Since the inception of the BCPC to September 30, 1976, your child —

your child, yes. And I want to tell you it was a very rich child you

delivered to the people of this province, a child that brought its

inheritance close to a half-billion dollars. The people should thank

you for that, even though they fought against it. You delivered this

child in diapers and on September 30 you put on a brand new suit and

that suit brought at that time a total of $302 million.

MR. LAUK: You were the midwife.

MR. BARRETT: I was the midwife, yes, and it was a successful experience all around.

And if we want to really evaluate roles, we have to question what

happened to the international oil companies. You make your own mess. We

got the $302 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair for me to

raise in debate that they fought against the British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation. They said it was socialism — dangerous, horrible socialism

— that was going to take money back to the people of this province. Now

they're boasting of the