1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th

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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 525 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the following Bills were

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 17), intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act .

Bill (No. 16) intituled

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act .

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett

(Premier), the House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned

Debates on Motions."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I am calling Resolution No. 3,

adjourned because, Mr. Speaker, I'm very anxious that the members, when

we get in committee on Estimates, will not be hindered in discussing

certain matters of the public interest. Resolution No. 3, adjourned

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests,

and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the House

realizes, on Friday afternoon we entered into this debate on the

resolution, and so there can be no doubt and we're not batting around

any puff balls this afternoon, I propose to read a letter at the

commencement of the debate, addressed to the Premier from the Chairman

of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, dated January the 8th, 1970. It's

my proposal, Mr. Speaker, that having read the letter and then

proceeding into the debate, I file copies of the letter with this

House. The letter reads, January 8th, 1970 and addressed to the

Honourable W.A.C. Bennett.

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister. Re: Increase in

electric rates.

"I am enclosing a report containing proposals for new rates for

electricity. These recommendations have been approved both by the

Executive Management Committee and by the Directors.

"At this time there is no recommendation for any change in gas rates.

"I think the recommendations are fairly clear. The following points

may be of interest.

"(

a) The proposed increases are estimated to produce $15,150,000

additional revenue in the year 1970-71. This would give an estimated

surplus of $5.1 million on the overall 1970-71 operating account. In

1971-72 we estimate the surplus will be $3.6 million. As you know, our

stabilization of rates and contingency reserves was $85.6 million as of

March 31, 1969. The corresponding figure for Ontario Hydro is $859

million, and for Quebec Hydro $711 million.

"(

b) The minimum charge on the residential rate is to be increased

from $1.00 to $2.00 per month. There are very few customers in this

range. People with summer camps or on long holidays would pay a little

more. It should be noted that it costs $47.59 per year or $4.00 per

month just to service a customer. Any electricity used on a bill less

than $4.00 a month is supplied free of charge. Incidentally, the

minimum monthly charge for a telephone in Vancouver is $4.90.

"(

c) We lose money on all residential customers whose bills are less

than $12.00 per month, and barely break even on bills higher than this.

One reason for the poor profitability is the low load factor for

residential customers.

"(

d) The proposed increase will leave most residential customers

below the rates charged in 1961. This is not a bad record after nine

years of galloping inflation. It is doubtful if any other commodity can

show anything comparable."

"The comparisons are shown in the following table: The comparison of

residential rates, the B.C. Electric 1961 verses the proposed Hydro on

the 1st of April 1970. The monthly consumption in kilowatts, the first

bill is the B.C. Electric, 1961; the new one is the proposed monthly

bill; and then there is a reduction or increase as the case may be. So

for 40 kilowatts, B.C. Electric, $2.00; the proposal $2.00. No change.

For 70 kilowatt hours the monthly bill, 1961, was $3.50; the proposed

rate will be $2.10, and the reduction or increase will be $1.40 in

reduction. On 100 kilowatt hours the monthly bill, 1961 — $4.25; the

proposed rate $3.00, the reduction $1.25. 200 kilowatts $6.75 in 1961;

$6.00 in the proposal, a reduction of 75 cents.

"For 400 kilowatts — I

want to bring special reference to this in just a moment, Mr. Speaker,

but 400 kilowatt hours in 1961 — $10.07, the proposal $10.10; the

increase will be 3 cents. For 700 kilowatt hours, 1961 — $12.77; the new

rate $13.40, the increase, 63 cents. 1,000 kilowatt hours, 1961 — $16.19,

the new proposal $16.70; the increase will be 51 cents. 1,500 kilowatt

hours, 1961 — $22.44, the new rate $22.20, an actual reduction of 24

cents. 2,000 kilowatts 1961 — $28.69, proposal, $27.70. The actual

reduction, 99 cents."

There is a note underneath, you'll find in the letter, which says

that the red figures refer to the three increases I mentioned of 3

cents, 63 cents and 51 cents.

"The red figures indicate an increase in

costs. It will be noted that the reductions for the lower consumers are

considerably greater than the increases for those in the medium-high

range. About 47.5 per cent of our bills are for less than 400 kilowatts

per month."

Certainly all the people on low and medium incomes are in

that category.

"Because of the time factor involved in our bi-monthly billing

arrangements, we must know by March 1st if new rates are to be

effective April 1st.

"If there is any additional information you would like to have in

regard to these proposals, I trust you will let me know."

And it is

signed Yours sincerely, G.M. Shrum.

Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I'll file two copies of this

letter so that there is no mistake in what I have read. The people can

examine them in that degree of detail.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. WILLISTON: Sorry, I filed two at once there. I filed the

transit fares at the same time, so I'll read the letter concerning the

transit fares as well. In a separate letter dated January 7th, 1970,

also addressed to the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett,

"Dear Mr. Prime

Minister: Re: Increase in urban transit fares.

"I am enclosing, as appendix A, a proposal for increased urban

transit fares. These increases have been approved both by the Executive

Management Committee and by the Directors of Hydro.

"The essential features of the new fare structure are as

follows:"

I'll read this slowly, Mr. Speaker, because the impact of this

arrangement catches as it comes through.

"(

a) The new rate for

Victoria and each single zone in Vancouver to be 25 cents cash. This is

an increase from the present four tickets for 75 cents or 20 cents cash fare. (There are four zones in

the greater Vancouver area.)

[ Page 526 ]

"(

b) Inter-zone fares to be single zone plus 15 cents as at present,

but single zone fares will be increased by approximately five cents;

this will increase the inter-zone fare to 40 cents.

"(

c) The Downtowner pass will be increased from 25 cents to 30 cents.

"(

d) Student and children's cash fares will not be changed, but

tokens, which are presently sold at a discount, will be discontinued.

"(

e) It is proposed to introduce an exact cash fare plan. This is

the trend in most cities on the Continent. It has been introduced

mainly because of the increasing frequency of robberies of bus

operators. It will also tend to speed up service.

"(

f) The estimated increase in revenue is $2,552,000.

"(

g) There will be no change in the arrangement for passes sold to

persons in receipt of the Provincial supplementary social allowance.

"Since the above proposals were approved, I have been studying the

problems created by these increases for people on fixed incomes. I

would like to suggest that we modify the above proposals by adding the

following concession:

"(

a) During the off-peak periods — 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and after

7:00 p.m. — and on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, when there are really

no peaks, we eliminate the inter-zonal fares. This means that a person

could ride any distance on the whole system for 25 cents. Effectively,

this would mean a reduction from the present 35 cents cash (and

proposed 40 cents cash) for all those living in North Vancouver,

Richmond and Burnaby, provided they did not ride during the peak hours.

It would be a great advantage to retired people and housewives, but

would be applicable to everyone. We already have this hourly

restriction for our Pensioner passes and for the return trip home for

the Downtowner pass.

"This modification of the proposals has been endorsed by Mr. P.W.

Barchard, the Manager of the Transportation Division, and the

Honourable Mr. Kiernan, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Steede have approved of its

submission for your consideration."

It was done at the time when I was away on holiday, so to make sure

where I stand, I'll add my name to the situation at the moment. So that

includes all of us on the directional end.

"There is one other important point, Mr. Prime Minister. If we are

to install suitable equipment for the exact fare plan and get the

printing required for redemption of tokens and refunds of change for

the exact fare plan, etc., for operation by April 1st, we must have a

final decision as early as possible. Any announcement regarding details

can be postponed until about March 1st.

"As supplementary information, I am enclosing a document — "Report

on Profitability of Urban Transit." I should like to draw your attention

particularly to some underlined sections on pages 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

"If there is any additional information you require in respect to

this submission please let me know. I hope you can give us an early

decision in regard to the implementation of these proposals. Signed,

Yours sincerely, G. M. Shrum."

The date again, Mr. Speaker, is January

7th, 1970, and attached to the letter is the Appendix A, which lists

the fares, which I mentioned to you in some detail.

There is only one point in here that hasn't been covered insofar

as the letter is concerned, and that is that by going to an exact fare

cash plan, the estimated savings of handling in the system is $125,000

a year on the operational account. It is proposed that these rates

become effective also on April 1st, 1970. And Mr. Speaker, I filed both

letters at the same time, not two copies of one letter. Both copies of

both letters were filed at the same time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a reply?

MR. WILLISTON: I beg your pardon? There's no reply; we're

debating the reply, Mr. Speaker, at the present time with the facts and

factors of the information being available.

There are one or two points in debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

bring about just in reply. First of all, to the situation insofar as

the electric account is concerned, which I mentioned some of them last

Friday, I was most happy in that, when it was reported in the press,

that the headline came out, insofar as the Times was concerned, that

the increase was due to errors along the top. Errors, as I indicated

in this House, of lack of faith in the exact size of the increased load

which we were required to handle insofar as the B.C. Hydro was

concerned. I would just like to emphasize one point in public

responsibility, insofar as that headline was concerned. I appreciated,

for the simple reason that I doubt if any newspaper group, the Times ,

the Sun and, aided by the Liberal group in this House, if you

go back to the headlines, when we were advocating a total position on

power in this Province involving two-river policy and moving in, if we

were ridiculed any more and held to more derision than we were by those

elements at that particular time.

To create a public atmosphere, an environment, by which the people

would accept a programme to handle needs in the future, requires the

effort of all of us, not just the efforts of those in the planning

section. It requires the effort of all people to enable us in general

to understand the situation. Therefore it becomes most difficult to

create a proper environmental situation, when everyone tries to point

out that you are stark-raving mad, generating this quantity of

electricity for the future needs of the people, and we already find

ourselves in a most difficult position to meet those load growths had

we proceeded.

Had there been, Mr. Speaker, had there been in those early days,

when money was easier to get, a better environmental situation created

insofar as we were concerned here, to push forward with the programme,

we would have pushed forward in the programme with greater rapidity,

had our money at lesser interest rates and been better able to meet the

world needs, not only of British Columbia, but the products we send

from British Columbia which require electricity in their basic

manufacture. But you can no longer, Mr. Speaker, you can't move any

faster or further than general public opinion will go with you at the

time.

Point two, Mr. Speaker, and I want, as we move forward now, because

this is the debate and this is the decision we are entering onto in

this Legislature at the present time, and if there is one person that

caught the significance and started to reverse the field, it was the

honourable member from Vancouver East the other day, that recognized

the error of the position that the N.D.P. has got themselves into, and

he reversed his position insofar as planning for the future happened to

be concerned.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I didn't say reverse. I wasn't talking

about the future. I don't think you should say that I said or suggested

that the N.D.P. had been in error in their criticism.

[ Page 527 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Honourable the Minister will accept the statement from the

member.

MR. WILLISTON: I'll accept that, Mr. Speaker, because for the

example, when you are in Opposition you can, without responsibility,

you can change direction, you can change direction very, very rapidly.

MR. SPEAKER: I call the Minister to order, and proceed.

MR. WILLISTON: I'll say something now to the leader of the

Liberal group, Mr. Speaker, because last day, the biggest

part in

introducing debate on this topic which we have this afternoon, had to

do with the investment in the programme of B.C. Hydro at the present

time.

The honourable member drew to the attention of the House the monies

which had been invested in B.C. Hydro account from the Canada Pension

Fund and other sources, and indicated that was improper practice. He

didn't go on to indicate further, of course, that until the Federal

Government changed their requirements, in the initial instance,

Mr. Speaker, in the initial instance — and he realizes as well as

anyone else that there had to be legislative change in this House to

meet the requirement of the Federal Government — so that those funds

could have been used for schools and hospitals where they are being

used at the present time, and the Legislature has been brought in, and

the honourable member knows full well that we did not put the

restrictive covenants on the investment of those funds when they were

placed out in the first instance.

Now however, Mr. Speaker, he's just welding himself into a position

right now, and this debate is going to bring it up and put full focus

upon it, because in emphasizing his position there, even with our

investments today, and the fact that Hydro-Québec, as late as one month

ago, put their investment policy on the line by attempting to raise

$50,000,000 on their capital programme at the present time, and found

themselves in the position that there were no buyers for the

$50,000,000. The Quebec account for the programme they have at the

present time, Quebec accounts had to absorb the $50,000,000 that they

put out to market at the present time.

Ontario Hydro have announced a programme to meet their needs, Mr.

Speaker, of $50,000,000 every two months, on the market, and you may

recall, if you have been reading the financial papers, that the

Government of Ontario has moved, not against Hydro, but to an

examination of Hydro in the fact that on today's capital fund market,

it is impossible for Ontario Hydro to move into the market to meet

their demands of $50,000,000 every two months, and the Ontario

Government to still proceed with any basic programmes of capitalization

which they require.

We just returned from a Federal-Provincial Conference, involving

all….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is "we"?

MR. WILLISTON: The Premier, who is the financial officer, and

we are talking about basically finance here. When he speaks, Mr.

Speaker, he speaks for the Government of British Columbia, he speaks

for all of us.

Certainly in this case I think we are all cognizant of what our

responsibilities are going to be, and this is what our responsibility

is right now. We might just as well. This is how serious it is. We're

talking about labour. We're talking about jobs. We're talking about

new industry. The decision in increases, unless we've got increases in

all of those, there are no jobs to employ people. But, Mr. Speaker, the

situation, and all British Columbians should know this and make this

decision right now, because this decision is so serious that those of

us who are in Hydro have not had a weekend off, a Saturday or a

Monday morning, since the beginning of the year, including this last

weekend, because we are fighting with this problem as we go.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your mess.

MR. WILLISTON: Our mess — that's right. A load growth that's

absolutely tremendous in the Province of British Columbia. A load

growth that's absolutely tremendous, and we created it. That's right.

We created it. We created the biggest increase in jobs for people in

Canada, and the increase on those people in jobs was created in no

greater measure than through the activities of B.C. Hydro, and don't

kid yourself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with this — and let's hear

these Liberal people yell, because they yelled to us long enough that

we had too much power and we wouldn't know what to do with it. Mr.

Speaker, I invite them to take the position now that there be no

capital investment in Hydro and face up to the decision which they

happen to be making at the present time.

Because, Mr. Speaker, if that's the decision we make in this debate,

if that's the decision we make in this debate, the directors of Hydro

and the executive management of Hydro and the officers of Hydro have

got to start in the next month by telling the new industry that comes

to us in British Columbia: "So sorry, you have to go some place else."

We either meet that load growth demand, we either handle that load

growth demand…. And the only way we can do it is through additional

investment. And if we don't make the investment, as we're moving, Mr.

Speaker, at the present time…. And the investment at the moment to meet

that is expensive.

I gave you the other day where some of our increases are going — just note. Our growth increase was up, Mr. Speaker, 9.9 per cent, but

our interest costs were up, in these last nine months, 34.9 per cent. Our

depreciation was up, with greater plant, of 15.8 per cent; unemployment

costs were up 11.9 per cent.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: What are American costs?

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member, I recited

what the American interest costs were the other day, and I gave them to

him. And if he didn't get them, I'll give them to him again, because

that's where we have to meet the competition. That's where we have to

meet the competition, and they are still going to get them, and the way

to do it, Mr. Speaker, from these people across the way, the way these

people do it is to give bonds for hydro-electric energy in the States,

and give them to people that have got the money, and not charge any

interest on those bonds. If we made that as a policy in Canada, we'd

get the investment, and they'd pay no income tax upon it, but it is not

a policy in Canada. It is not a policy in Canada.

(Interjection from

some member)

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable the second member from Vancouver East please stop these constant, unnecessary

and very rude interruptions.

[ Page 528 ]

MR. WILLISTON: The employment costs, Mr. Speaker, in the last

nine months, were up 11.9 per cent, and I gave some background of this

the other day. Our grants in taxes were up 17.4 per cent, and the

actual operation and the administrative costs — for the benefit of the

leader of the Liberal group, who wished to get this into committee so

he could examine this in great detail — the actual administrative costs

in Hydro, of an increasing plant and increasing responsibility, were

actually down 4.7 per cent or $1,500,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you against a committee?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says: are

you against a committee or are you not against a committee? Mr.

Speaker, we are in the position, right now, of having to make decisions

right now, and we have to make those decisions right now to get us

through this coming year, and this coming year we are moving right now

to meet this situation. If we get into a committee at the present time,

and this committee moves from now to the end of the Session, both the

rate increases, which are absolutely mandatory…. If we are going to at

least be above the level for the next year, the action must be taken,

and taken right now. As the Chairman of Hydro has indicated to you,

that date of action is March 1st of this year. The whole position, as

we go, is March 1st for decision, and you can't put these things in

without a tremendous amount of preliminary work as you happen to

proceed.

Mr. Speaker, anyone going to the capital funding market in the

future, you will never pick up your funds, even limited or greater

funds, whichever happen to be decided as a matter of policy, but you

won't pick them up if the Hydro account, when you go to the market, is

a Hydro account which is in a deficit position. The people who manage

Hydro have not the responsibility to accept that situation and ensure

that there is enough revenue entering that organization at least to

level or to keep a balanced sheet.

The honourable the leader of the Liberal group, in speaking to this

House the other day, Mr. Speaker, emphasized that, insofar as the

Canadian situation and restraint was concerned, this could not be

taken at the moment. He didn't give you the prime purpose for which

this is directed. This action is directed towards curbing profit. When

you are not making any profit in an organization, the curb of it to

increase deficits, to make your ability even to borrow that much

greater, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Federal Government

at the present time is curbing unnecessary profit. Unnecessary profit

taken off the top is what they are attempting to do. If you are making

no profit at the present time, we're not curbing inflation by

increasing deficit. Now, Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, in review, I've indicated to you, insofar as Hydro is

concerned, the great difficulty and expense of increasing service under

the present trying conditions and the load it has placed on our

capital structure, and just to reiterate, our average load growth has

been about 10 per cent.

If you take — and we just went through this on the weekend, believe it

or not — the West End of Vancouver, where all the apartments have

risen in place of the single dwellings, it has required a complete

re-establishment of service in that area before the original service

was amortized. As you move into that new underground system and into

the apartments, and this was a surprise to me, even the costs of single

metering and single meter device in those apartments, each single one, are four times what they were in the original

dwelling, as they were placed in. That entire area for the West End of

Vancouver practically has had to be changed before the amortization of

the original equipment has been possible.

Now there's all kinds of people could say, everybody, of course,

could visualize the time these tremendous apartment buildings would be

in that area at the moment. But this problem is facing us at the present

time, unless we tell them, as the decision is getting here right now: "So sorry, we're not changing service; we're not

providing the industrial load; we're not taking out of service

equipment that has not been amortized." And it goes right back to your

transformers, your whole load, the whole set-up of the Vancouver

system, which is fantastically expensive as we change around now. I

say, as I said before, that was an error, and you will find it in the

newspaper columns. It was an error. But I want to ask you, who was

smart enough at the original time to see the density of population and

the build-up and to put in the service at the time that would lead to

that use that we have at the moment?

I told you last day that our increased service in British Columbia

had gone up from 4.8 to 6.7. That's the increase of all the old

customers plus all the new customers, and that's thousands of kilowatt

hours. It's gone up 40 per cent in ten years, and all your service

areas, everything you've designed for throughout the system has had to

take care of not only the reestablishment of your old areas, but also

the greater expense to place into your new areas through a new standard

of installation. This has led to a tremendous increase in the cost of

our distribution plant, which we've had to handle at the same time.

Another very large cost, Mr. Speaker, and this has to be expense for

this, and the situation has to be accepted in this House, because

remember when we put the Peace on line and they said they plucked it

out of the 1980s and put it into now. We estimated when the Peace came

on that three-tenths of the plants of the Peace, three-tenths, would

do us till 1975 — that's three generators out of the eventual ten. We

were laughed at insofar as that is concerned. What's happened today, and

why are we in that spot? And why is it that critical? It's that

critical because we're just in 1970; we haven't got three on, but we've

got five on the line. We're putting on six and seven on the line right

now; we're ordered into ten, and the immediate demands on capital and

interest payments are absolutely fantastic. They've been telescoped

into a much narrower period of time than anyone had anticipated.

The reason for that is this: when you take new plants on

line, if you've got three carriers, you take three-tenths of the total

cost of the dam, of the powerhouse, of the generators, the turbines,

and the transmission line, and you handle three-tenths of the total

cost on your operational account, and you continue to amortize as

capital the other seven-tenths of that charge until such times as you

bring that on to your operational service. So instead of in 1975, with

us having to handle on a retirement basis with interest, three-tenths

of the cost of the Peace River Dam at the present time, already we're

having to handle five-tenths of the cost of the Peace River Dam.

[ Page 529 ]

We're having to increase and expedite the second transmission line

that has come down, and if you don't think we need it, Mr. Speaker,

just one week ago when some fault, a snow slide or something came down

the mountain, shorted out the line — we've only got one line yet in

operation — it blanked us out and gave us trouble right from Vancouver

to Prince George. We are that vulnerable.

When these people talk about the Americans, and our inter-relations

with the Americans, I wish they'd remember this, that in that momentary

business when we were in trouble, and we were in bad trouble, because

over 50 per cent of our power is coming from the Peace, when we were in

that trouble on a momentary notice — all this stuff we've heard about

the Americans, just listen — they dumped load all through the Pacific

Northwest, and in a matter of moments they energized those lines into

British Columbia for 1,000,000 kilowatts to save us, 1,000,000

kilowatts. They ran those lines, all their own lines and our own lines,

completely over capacity to save us at the time, until those lines had

almost got to the heat stage where they would have gone out of service

because of their heat and the melt point that was on. That's the kind

of cooperation you get, Mr. Speaker, when you happen to be in there.

Well, I think…. Beg your pardon? They came in over the line down

at Blaine and they dumped interruptible load all through the

Bonneville system to give us the million kilowatts that we required to

save our system at a moment's notice in the Vancouver area. We did not

lose the Vancouver area. If you'll recall, most of our trouble was up

in the Interior in the Cariboo and from there to Prince George.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've covered most of those, but one or two other

points besides this increase, we've had to put increased

thermal-generation on line, which you have to pay for, and one of those

installations on Burrard Thermal to 150,000 kilowatts costs you better

than $20,000,000 to install, and we had to expedite one of those on to

line because of the great load growth insofar as before the Peace River

actually moved. That plant will be required — as a matter of fact it's

absolutely essential. Now the load growth is gone, but at the time we

made the decision it was a safeguarding decision insofar as the load

growth situation was concerned in Vancouver.

I've covered most of the other basic questions, Mr. Speaker. Other

people will engage in this debate, and other people can speak to the

situation insofar as transit is concerned.

May I point out to the people in the lower mainland area, for those

of us who represent areas in other parts of the Province, the only

subsidized transportation in the Province of British Columbia, the only

one subsidized by Hydro, by this Legislature, is in the lower mainland

area. They don't subsidize it in Nelson, they don't subsidize it in

Prince George, they don't subsidize it in Kamloops, they don't

subsidize it in any other single area — the people of the Province of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even in Sooke.

MR. WILLISTON: Not even in Sooke. Well, Mr. Speaker, all of

their communities subsidize them, all of their municipal councils

subsidize them in those communities. What I'm saying to you, Mr.

Speaker — and we'll keep out of the Coquitlam, they're having a bad

enough trouble — but I'll tell you today insofar as Coquitlam and the

difficulties there, even if you give them the service, and even if they

charge higher rates of pay, that man, if you go down and show him, will

show you right now that even though we're not picking up, that we've

given him the buses, he's still going broke and we're servicing his

buses at the present time, as well as that is concerned. Well, Mr.

Speaker, you can't have it both ways. The honourable member says, why

don't you move in? How much are you going to subsidize those

communities without going into a complete subsidization system in the

Province of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, if I've been able to get any impression across at all

this afternoon, it is the fact that this matter is urgent right now. It

was urgent before this Legislature sat. The positions you adopt in this

debate insofar as this power question is concerned are going to be the

most critical, believe me, insofar as the employment and future

development of this Province are concerned. The position you adopt is

going to be more critical than any decision you will take this year or

for many years to come. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you never know when the day of

reckoning is going to come. You never know. You know, Mr. Speaker, 55

minutes of smog, backtracking, backfilling, backpedalling hot air in an

attempt to avoid the real responsibility of this, "today's crisis in

Hydro." Who's he trying to kid?

We had Minutes from the Hydro from last July about the increase. I

know they're not secret, they're not confidential; they're just not

available. We had this information last July, and it's an insult to

B.C. Hydro's auditors and accountants that the decision only came to

light in the last few days. Who's he trying to kid? The nerve, Mr.

Speaker, the nerve of the Minister to stand here and say it's all going

to be our decision now, because it's their mess, Mr. Speaker, their

blundering mess that brought us to this point today — and there's no

question about that — and then to come in here and read a couple of

letters about how much money it's going to cost to buy electricity in

British Columbia, and how much money it's going to cost to go on the

bus, and we can't discuss that at committee because we might delay that

decision. That decision's going to go ahead, Mr. Speaker, no matter

what else happens in this House.

The date of the letter was in early January. This Motion was put on

the Order Paper on January the 29th. If there was such a sense of

urgency about all of us sharing in the responsibility of making this

momentous decision, we could have had a committee a month ago. All of a

sudden now democracy has to come into play. All of a sudden now we have

to make a decision together here in this room, and you want to know the

results of that vote, my friends, for those of you who still believe

there is some chance? The vote will be 37 to 17 no matter what, no

matter what. You see, Mr. Speaker, who's kidding who?

Here was a Motion that's asking for a committee to be struck to

discuss the very thing that the Minister says we all have to make a

decision on. A crisis. And he wants us to go rushing headlong into his

hysterical commitments? No way, no way. We want a committee. We want

democracy to work as it's set up to work. We don't want any tactics

such as the Minister is suggesting today — we all make a decision, hold

hands in this room and make a decision today.

What's really involved is that the Hydro rate will go ahead, the

increases will go ahead, the transit increases will go ahead as well.

[ Page 530 ]

A committee is not going to stop that. Nothing is going to

stop it, because your blundering mismanagement of the fiscal matters of

this Province has brought it to this state, Mr. Speaker. Brought it to

this state. Four hundred and nineteen million dollars short on the

Columbia River. Even the Americans are willing to hot up their lines to

service that kind of deal, Mr. Speaker, any time, any time. Here we

are, here we are. "Nothing's freer than free," was the line we got.

AN HON. MEMBER: A reduction every year.

MR. BARRETT: A reduction every year. I want to read this

quote from the honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests, and I feel

sorry for him, he's the bad news boy, he's the bad news boy. You want

to know something? I'll let you in on a little secret. If there had

been an announcement of a power rate decrease today, do you think that

same Minister would make the announcement? You know who would make the

announcement? Not the Attorney General, not the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, not the Minister of Welfare, none other than the man who made

this statement back in 1963, because it's a pattern with him, and I

quote from the Times , February the 27th, 1963, "Bennett sees more rate

cuts." "He shows it like it is," said the Member, "he shows it like it

is."

When the bad news comes home, does Big Daddy speak? Not on your

life, not on your life. The financial wizard that's cost us

$419,000,000. And his explanation for this yesterday, Mr. Speaker? I

watched him on television; he was beautiful, he was beautiful. I enjoy

the Premier; he's one of the greatest thespians in British Columbia.

There he was asked a question by a reporter about what are we going to

do about this over-expenditure on the Columbia? You know what he said?

He said, "It's going to be nothing freer than free, my friends," and he

looked right in that camera, and he smiled and he said, "Well, we've

sold thirty years of it and we're $419,000,000 short."

Your books say you're $419,000,000 short, your Public Accounts say

you're $419,000,000 short. We know you're $419,000,000 short, and it's

right there in your answers. If you want to go through that in detail,

we'll do that in just a minute. You sit, and I'll read your own

figures. But anyway, you know what he said, Mr. Speaker? He said that

we sold thirty years — that takes us to 1994 — at a loss, but then if we

sell another thirty years to 2024, Mr. Speaker, then we'll be ahead. In

other words, a sixty-year treaty. In other words the whole deal has

been to give away the whole resources of the Columbia River for sixty

years to end up even, Mr. Speaker, after sixty years.

AN HON. MEMBER: All our power for nothing.

MR. BARRETT: You know. All our power for nothing….. Even

that's too much for the Minister of Lands and Forests, because I want

to read you — he's laughing too. Even he, you know, he said, I want to

read this — the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests, speaking on

November the 24th, 1961, at Prince George, this is what he said, "I

have never had to change the story, alter back, back up, or change my

course in the last five years on hydro matters." That's what he said.

Two years later his boss announces that there is going to be a decrease

in power rates. Premier W.A.C. Bennett, on February 27, 1963, predicted

a $5,000,000 reduction in the British Columbia power rates each year

for the next ten years. 1963. The Premier said he hoped the reduction

could be made every March 30th, the anniversary of Government

amalgamation of B.C. Electric Company, B.C. Power Commission, and B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority. What happened to that? What happened to that?

I want to make something very clear, Mr. Speaker. Even the Minister

of Lands and Forests acknowledges this, that no matter what the

Government says, or what the Liberals say, this group in this House for

35 years has been the consistent and only consistent advocate for

public power in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. The only advocate. And

let's not anyone get any misconceptions about where the concept of

public power developed.

We're not opposed to public power, Mr. Speaker, but we're opposed to

public power playing politics in this Province, cheap politics in this

Province. That statement was made by the Minister when he was heading

for an election campaign. The fact that we were going to have a hydro

increase was kept from the public of British Columbia in the August

election campaign, and it is to the credit of that esteemed head of

Hydro, Dr. Gordon Shrum, that he himself admitted that politics

interferes in the decision of Hydro. And we have that on record. And I

am pleased that a civil servant would stand up to this big Government

and admit that it was politics that played the decision-making process.

Now, the Minister announces today, as if we had all the facts and

figures in front of us: we don't need a committee, we can go ahead and

do our thing. Just endorse the mess that this Government's in, to get

them out of it.

Last week I got an answer back from the Premier about the cost of

Peace River power. You know what the Premier said? The Premier said it

will cost five mills after being integrated in the grid system. That's

what the Premier said. Well, he operates on a different kind of Ouija

board.

I asked the Minister of Lands and Forests what it would cost. He

never even answered my letter.

I wrote to the honourable Dr. Gordon Shrum last October because I am

a citizen. I knew that we would be facing this crisis today, that is

going to overwhelm the population of British Columbia unless we make a

momentous decision like give a stamp of approval for hydro rate

increase. I wrote Dr. Gordon Shrum in October of last year, and he

answered on October 30th, and I quote his second paragraph. He said,

"Unfortunately we have no figures regarding the cost of Peace power now

being delivered into our grid system. To make even an estimate of this

cost would involve a great many assumptions upon which it would be

difficult to get any considered agreement." The head of Hydro says on

October 30th that you can't make that kind of decision. And yet the

Minister says blandly, the Minister of Finance says blandly, that it

is five mills. It's politics, Mr. Speaker, shameful, plain, unabashed,

ruthless politics that has blundered us into this situation.

To talk about jobs, $80,000,000 of capital expense has been spent

around the area of Bellingham, Washington, in the last five years for

industrial development.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: And three times that in the Prince

George area.

MR. BARRETT: Eighty million dollars related strictly to hydro

use besides other development. Now, what does Bellingham have that we

don't have? Bellingham has unemployment — we've got our share of that.

Bellingham has a railroad that is going through, maybe even get our

Kaiser coal shipped for us if we're lucky. Bellingham has nice little

[ Page 531 ]

mountains, roads, a railroad. We've got all that in Coquitlam. We've

even got it in Dewdney, Chilliwack. Why didn't those

electrical-consuming industries locate in the lower Fraser Valley or on

Vancouver Island in Saanich, where my friend would welcome them? He

needs those jobs. All of us may be looking for jobs, my friend. And I

want to say this, Mr. Speaker, why weren't those jobs there? The jobs

weren't there, because the low-cost power from the Columbia River was

available at half price of anything we could sell in British Columbia,

in Bellingham.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with people at

Bonneville because I like the teaching attitude of the Minister, and I

like to go to the source and find out facts for myself because I find

out that I can't always agree with the Minister's facts. I spoke to the

Administrator of Bonneville, by the name of Mr. Richmond, and I said to

Mr. Richmond, "Tell me, how did we do on the Columbia River deal?" And

do you know what he said? — I've got a battery in my pocket — we're

running out of power, my friend — we're running out of power. And you

shouldn't make a noise outside of your seat or you'll be a bad little

boy. You know, Mr. Speaker, times are really tough when the Premier has

to move down to the backbenchers to lead the applause. I can remember

in the heyday of his power —

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the motion, please.

MR. BARRETT: I can remember in the heyday of his power he

controlled it all from here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to the motion.

MR. BARRETT: I spoke to — a different kind of power — and it

is obviously weakening.

But, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Mr. Richmond, and I said, "Tell me, Mr.

Richmond, why won't Mr. Hickel answer my letter about an inquiry into

the results of the benefits of the Columbia, who got the best deal? Why

won't State Senator Jackson write back? Why do they all refer to some

nebulous area? And I'll table all the letters to the committee, so the

committee, so the committee can read them. I said, "Tell me, Mr.

Richmond, how did we do?" "Oh," he said, "it was a good treaty." I

said, "I know it was a good treaty for you. Tell me, when the United

States Corps of Engineers made their prediction about the benefit of

the Columbia, when they made the statement that it would be a

tremendous boon and a fantastic advantage to the Americans, has that

proven out?" And do you know what Mr. Richmond said to me? He said,

"The most that I would tell you, Mr. Barrett, is at the very least that

treaty has lived up to every one of its expectations in terms of

industrial development and low-cost power for the Pacific northwest."

For them. For them, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you something, they

are too embarrassed to answer the rest of the questions. Too

embarrassed. — My word? I'll table the letters. Do you want the letters?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BARRETT: My friend, he wouldn't answer the questions

about Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who asked for those words….

MR. BARRETT: Well, I read the questions on the Order Paper,

and I find it cost us $419,000,000. Are you trying to tell me it's a

good deal that we have to spend $419,000,000 to provide them with

low-cost power, jobs and industrial development while this Province

goes without schools, without hospitals, without needed services? If

that's what you like, my friend, you go tell it to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's done it. He's done it.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir, you've done it all right. You get up

there and you smile and you say, "Take home pay with Bennett. Take home

pay with Bennett."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: One of those backbenchers is applauding so much

he is even believing himself, Mr. Speaker. You know, take home pay with

Bennett. We've got almost 8 per cent unemployment…. You know, Mr.

Speaker, noise has never been a measure of intelligence, and you know,

Mr. Speaker, any attempt to make all that noise to cover up the facts

isn't going to fool everybody. What are the facts?

For the first time in the history of this Province we have over

100,000 people on social welfare. Unemployment is now 7½ per cent in

this Province because of inadequate hydro policies. And, because we

have not had low-cost power to provide jobs in this Province, over

5,000 single unemployed men are lining up for welfare cheques in the

City of Vancouver. They will all be glad to hear about the applause in

the House today about the take home pay, because when their wives sit

around, those that are on welfare, and put on the light, and they have

to pay more for the light, they can know that, thank goodness, over

there in Victoria those boys are making a crisis decision today that is

going to provide jobs in British Columbia. Who is kidding who?

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we have had 55 minutes of fog covering up a

monster blunder in the hydro development of this Province. A monster

blunder. Did we hear the Minister stand up and tell us the exact date

of when Mica will be machined and completed and be on line? We didn't

hear that. That's what the crisis is all about. When will Site One come

in on the Peace? That's what the crisis is all about. When will we have

the dates and the times for the development of those two run-on

projects?

Why don't we have a committee meeting to discuss the facts that

Vancouver Island is served by a D.C. line, and the Chairman from B.C.

Hydro knows that that isn't a good way, I am sure. I don't want to put

words into his mouth — I'll write him a letter and ask him if he thinks

that's a good way to service Vancouver Island. When are we going to

make a decision in this Province about power generation on Vancouver

Island? Do we need a nuclear plant on Vancouver Island? Are the costs

comparable to some other use of fuel, such as coal? When are those

decisions going to be made, Mr. Speaker? That's why the honourable the

member from Vancouver–Point Grey, the leader of the Liberal party, put

this motion on the Order Paper, and that's why I support him as a good

citizen of British Columbia, to get the answers to those questions, Mr.

Speaker. And for the Minister to stand here today and say we've got a

crisis and we have to make a decision today….

AN HON. MEMBER: What were they doing a year ago'?

[ Page 532 ]

MR. BARRETT: It is sheer nonsense, sheer nonsense. Mr.

Speaker, they knew about the crisis before the election. Mr. Speaker,

they have known what the load growth factor is in this Province, and

that's got nothing to do with Social Credit's fertility, Mr. Speaker,

not a thing. They've known what the industrial problems are in terms of

competition with the rest of the Pacific northwest region. To come in

here with two letters, one announcing the hydro rate increase, and a

transit increase to a quarter, and say that we've got to make a crisis

decision today, is sheer nonsense and political escapism, Mr. Speaker.

As to the backbenchers, they'll vote the way you want them to vote.

I've never seen it change. But for the rest of us, we do want to find

out just what's going on in Hydro in this Province so that we can have

reasonable explanations of why services are being curtailed, and

schools, and hospitals, and other capital funds.

Let me conclude by saying just a couple of things about rapid

transit, Mr. Speaker. Now is the time for governments in North America

to show some courage in terms of moving away from the position that we

have been in all these years of making sure that automobiles move

safely and that people move second.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there are great demands on capital

to expand our hydro resources in this Province. I call on this

Government to review the commitment to a First Narrows crossing. Do we

really want to move cars into downtown Vancouver, or are we interested

in moving people? And, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of money that is

available committed to road transport and complicating the traffic

problems, it is time for the Government, either in committee or in

policy, to grasp the decision as to whether or not we want to have a

good rapid transit system in the lower mainland. We can't have a good

rapid transit system at 25 cents a solo fare, Mr. Speaker. The interest

alone on the cost of that First Narrows crossing would provide almost

free transport, almost free transport for all of the lower mainland — the interest alone. We have to make in this House the major political

decisions that are indeed a crisis, Mr. Speaker, and those can be best

made in committee. Are we for the people, or are we for the automobiles?

Are you prepared to make that decision? Are you prepared to give these

problems real thought, the thought that they deserve?

That's what makes the backbone of the parliamentary system, Mr.

Speaker, the collection of minds and energies to solve problems we

face, and it's all very well for me to point out to the Government that

it's your problem and the one that you created, but I want to tell you

this, Mr. Speaker, and I speak for our group in this House, the New

Democratic Party, we have never avoided the responsibility of making

decisions based not on politics, but on what's right. That's why we

want to go to that committee, and that's why we want to make decisions

that are at least honourable and responsible for the citizens of this

Province for the next 14 or 15 years, not to be turned off by the

answers on television of selling further downstream benefits to avoid a

question.

The situation is simply this, Mr. Speaker, this Government's power

policy has failed. We must all come together now to resolve the

problems we are faced with, and the only way to resolve those is to

have this whole matter go to committee, and as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be long in

my contribution to this debate. I must say I never cease to be

surprised at the debate we hear on issues of this kind in this House.

I was certain, as I listened to the Honourable Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources, that he was going to support this motion

because he made all the points that I thought a Minister of the Crown

would make in supporting such a motion which would bring the rate

structure and capital financing of the B.C. Hydro under the examination

and scrutiny of this Assembly.

What did he tell us, Mr. Speaker? Well, he told us that the power

requirements of this Province had risen at a rate far and beyond the

expectations of B.C. Hydro and the Energy Board, which were made when

this Government embarked upon the Peace River project. He denied it was

an error, and I make no quarrel with him as to whether it was an error

or not, but nonetheless, the power demand is critical, so critical

that when some natural calamity occurs which interferes with the

transmission lines from the Peace River project, the whole of the lower

mainland is in danger of being without power, and we are obliged to

call upon the Americans to supply us with the needed energy.

That's the same kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, which occurred in

the eastern states and eastern provinces of this country just a couple

of years ago, and you will recall the tragic consequences of that

massive blackout on the eastern seaboard. The same kind of situation

prevails here, and therefore it is a critical situation for this

Province. In order to meet these rising demands, the honourable

Minister tells us that the Government and the B.C. Hydro is forced to

consider now the capital expenditure of monies which it had not

expected to make until 1975 and the years following 1975, and again it

is a crisis situation, Mr. Speaker.

With a crisis of this consequence facing B.C. Hydro, and when you

consider the impact that this company and its power production has for

this whole Province for the jobs, for the very existence, if we accept

the word of the Minister, for the very existence of industry in this

Province, then certainly it is a crisis which merits the careful

attention of the members elected from every constituency, every region

of this Province.

That's what this motion asks for, Mr. Speaker, that finally we bring

these matters out of the secrecy of the directors' meetings of B.C.

Hydro and the Cabinet of this Province, and open them, let in the light

of day before the members from every area of this Province, the people

who are obliged to go back and report to their constituents as to why,

why so much of the fiscal strength of this Province is being devoted

and made available to Hydro, and why this affects the construction of

schools and hospitals and other necessary social needs.

It's an empty thing, Mr. Speaker, to go back to your constituents

and say no, you are not going to get any more this year, and the reason

is that the money is required for Hydro. They say why, and we have to

say to them we don't know why; we are just told that that's the case.

And the only reason that is given by the honourable Minister for not

forming such a committee, Mr. Speaker, is that the decision with regard

to rate increases is an urgent one to be made now so that it can be

placed into effect by April the 1st.

[ Page 533 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister hasn't read the motion. There is

nothing in the motion which restricts the consideration of rates and

capital requirements of B.C. Hydro to what is happening this year. The

motion is to consider all matters relating to capital financing and

rate structure of British Columbia Hydro, not only for this year, Mr.

Speaker, but for 1971 and '72 and '73. It is time that B.C. Hydro let

us all know what the future holds, so that we may all make the decision

based upon facts, facts that we receive before a committee of this

Legislature, not facts that are leaked out to us bit by bit when the

Chairman of B.C. Hydro has the occasion to speak to some service club

in the City of Vancouver.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it has often been said in this House, on both

sides, how much of the monies which are under the control of the

Minister of Finance in our trust funds are made available to Hydro,

Yes, we on the Opposition side, we in the Liberal party, have

criticized the amount of money which the Minister of Finance has been

able to devote to B.C. Hydro. But maybe we were wrong, but if we were

wrong, it was wrong because we believed the monies could be used in

some other way, not wrong because we were possessed of the facts which

showed they could not be used any other way, and this is what the

committee would decide. This would show, for once and for all, whether

all these funds need be devoted to these purposes. When we find that of

the trust funds that the Minister of Finance holds for teachers'

pensions, Pacific Great Eastern Railway employees pensions, municipal

employees pensions, civil service pensions, that 75 per cent of those

monies are made available to B.C. Hydro, and when we find that

something in the order of 85 per cent of all the monies that the

Minister of Finance of this Province has received from the Federal

Government, as our rightful due under the Canada Pension Plan, have

also been made available to B.C. Hydro, we realize how closely our

economy, our entire financial stability, is linked with B.C. Hydro. We

have reached the situation, Mr. Speaker, where if B.C. Hydro is to

fail, then the entire economic stability of this Province is thrust

into jeopardy, and it's these matters that we are entitled to know

about in committee of this Legislature. We are in the same position as

if we'd put all our money on the nose of B.C. Hydro, and if it doesn't

win, we are all in trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put all your eggs in one basket, and then

watch the basket.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, but we aren't given the

opportunity to watch the basket. You know that the suggestion is that

we don't have time to establish a committee. There is no reason that a

committee cannot function beyond the period when this Legislature sits.

I am sure that the members on both sides of this House are sufficiently

interested in. this subject to spend the time. We get paid for it. We

should spend it.

Mr. Speaker, on this matter of time, the honourable the Minister

suggests that there isn't time because of the urgency of the decision

which needs to be made. Well, I recall that the distinguished Chairman

of the B.C. Hydro, in speaking to a service club in the greater

Vancouver area last fall, after the election, but last fall, made it

clear that if B.C. Hydro was to discharge its responsibility of

producing power for this Province, we would have to double the existing

potential which we have. I believe his words, at least as reported in

the press, were: "We'll have to do it all over again." This is what we

face, Mr. Speaker, but we only learn about it when we read what the

distinguished Chairman says to some service club.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition pointed out that by reason

of the secret minutes of B.C. Hydro which he received, I believe it was

last summer, the possibility of a power increase was then under

consideration by B.C. Hydro and their Directors, but we have only some

skimpy information made available to the members here and to the public

at large about B.C. Hydro. This is our complaint.

We have the annual report, seventh annual for the year ending March

31, 1969, which was transmitted to his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

from the office of the Prime Minister on the 13th of June, 1969. And

you know, there is a

section about transportation services, but it says

nothing there about the jeopardy in which those services are placed if

they don't have a rate increase. It talks, in glowing terms, of the

improvements that are being made in our power production facilities,

but it says nothing about the difficulties that they are getting in,

and it concludes with a

section which was called "Outlook," Mr. Speaker.

Now, this is the kind of information which we are given by the

Directors of B.C. Hydro, and this is June of this year, and this

outlook

section is a remarkable one. June of 1969. Transmitted by W.A.C. Bennett on the 13th of June, 1969. It speaks

about general economic conditions in British Columbia remaining buoyant

during the year. It talks about a continuing upward trend in the

economy. It talks about a growing demand for pulp and newsprint. It

tells about the encouraging outlook for lumber and plywood. It talks

about mineral production establishing new records, with new mills being

planned. It talks about development of Roberts Bank. It talks about a generally optimistic outlook for industrial

growth, new homes and commercial establishments. But, Mr. Speaker, it

says nothing about the crisis situation which the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources told us today. Should a change take place

in just six months?

Nowhere do the Directors of B.C. Hydro, in their annual report, come

forward and say we are facing a crisis situation in clear, unmistakable

language so everyone understands: "We are going to have to have a power

increase. We must have massive capital monies made available to us. It

is essential that the people of this Province devote their energy,

fiscal and otherwise, towards supporting B.C. Hydro." That's not the

kind of report that we get from B.C. Hydro, and that's not the kind of

report that is transmitted by the Prime Minister of this Province to

his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wanted to win Vancouver South.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's time we stopped playing politics

with what appears to be the controlling force in our Provincial

economy, and the way to stop playing politics is to bring its affairs

into the light of this Assembly, and to start by committing to a

committee of these members here, the consideration of the matters which

are dealt with in this motion, and each of the members, party aside,

should consider very carefully what answer he will take back to his

constituents following this vote.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Recreation and

Conservation.

[ Page 534 ]

MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that this

is one of the most important debates we will have, certainly in the

course of this Session. I think, also, it's highly desirable that all

of the members who wish to have an opportunity to participate in this

debate because, unless they have that opportunity, how are they going

to be informed, and I think therefore this Legislative Assembly is a

much better forum for this discussion than a committee.

Now, there is nothing obscure or complex about this basic

proposition with which we are required to deal. All you have to do, all

you have to do, if you want to understand the implications of power

growth, of power demand increase in the last decade, is simply look at

the Budget Speech of the Prime Minister, delivered in this House not

very long ago, and on page 46 is a graph that anybody with elementary

understanding of mathematics can read. If you look at the year 1960

you'll notice that power generated and consumed in 1960 was

approximately 12 billion kilowatt hours, and that one decade later, in

1969, not a full decade, power generated and consumed is more than

twice that 12 billion kilowatt hours, just very close to 26½ billion

kilowatt hours. In other words…. Well, let's deal with the present

situation first, because there seems to be some inability on the part

of some members to grasp even elementary arithmetic, and I suggest to

you that that graph illustrates it and illustrates it in a very clear

and understandable fashion.

In other words, in the last decade the power demand in this Province

has more than doubled. It has never fallen below a 9 per cent

increase in any one year and, in order to more than double in less than

a decade, it obviously exceeded 9 per cent in certain portions of

that nine-year period. Now, I think we need to understand that as fact

number one. Now, in the process of doubling, and simply projecting that

over the next decade, it must be fairly obvious that before 1978 we

will need the equivalent, at least, of another Portage Mountain

project. I mean, again, that takes no wizardry in mathematics. It's just

very simple.

But I think we also have to bear in mind that we have at this point

half of Portage Mountain still to machine. In other words, from roughly

a million kilowatts in place to an excess of two million kilowatts in

place. The finishing of the machining of the Peace is predicated on one

of two basic propositions. If it is to be primarily an energy output

station, then eight generators will, on a continuous basis, utilize all

of the water likely to be available in the Peace River reservoir. If,

however, part of the Peace River operation is to be utilized in the

process of peaking, then it would be desirable to install the ten

generators and therefore have a higher output capability but over a

shorter portion of the year.

Now, those are some of the basic propositions that you have to

evaluate as you go along, because it would have been a mistake not to

install the penstocks for maximum machining while we were in the

process of the building of the dam, and we know quite clearly that

it's necessary to put in the eight generators. So we're moving along in

an orderly delivery pattern to install the rest, up to the eighth

generator. We will make the final decision as to whether to put in the

two remaining generators on the Peace as, and when, we make decisions

in relation to some of the other power sources within the Province.

Now, bear in mind that, bear in mind that six, seven, eight are on

order, so six, seven, and eight will go in quite methodically. If we

are to decide to order nine and ten, they are not required to be

ordered at this time, but they would have to be ordered, I would guess,

within the next 18 months to two years, if you make the decision to go

that route, but bear in mind eight generators in our present

calculations, if they are run continuously, will handle the full water

capability of the Peace, but if you want a peaking factor in there, if

you want to be able to drag out more power over a short period, then

add two additional units.

Now I think the next factor that we have to consider in the over-all

equation is that if we were to continue our present rate of load

growth, it means that we have to add roughly 400 to 500 megawatts a

year to capacity. In other words, roughly 400,000 to 500,000 kilowatt

capacity has to be added annually. There is a variety of ways in which

you can do that, there is a variety of combinations that you can

develop, and in the process of developing that variety of combinations,

you have to take into consideration, not only the flexibility, but also

the location in terms of transmission, as to where it is most desirable

to next produce a block of power. Without getting into the somewhat

complex business of electrical transmission, I am sure you are aware

that if you can produce on both ends of a line and so from the line in

both directions, you have the most stable generating distribution

system you can arrange.

Now on this question of the Peace River power flowing into the

Vancouver grid, and the problem that arises being hung on only one

transmission line, well, it's simply this, the second transmission line

is in the process of going in, but we have not timed it to have both

transmission lines in when only the five generators were in there, for

the simple reason that transmission lines are very costly as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you use the same towers?

MR. KIERNAN: No. The reason for putting in two transmission

lines is, first of all, one transmission line would not carry the

output from eight generators, and secondly, you wouldn't want to use

the same towers, because if you did, and you lost a tower, you have

lost both lines. One of the purposes, although not the sole purpose,

but one of the purposes of putting in two lines is so that if you

happen to lose one line, you haven't lost so large a portion of your

total power output. That's right, and that is why one line is being

brought into the Vancouver area by way of the Fraser Valley, and the

other one by way of the Pemberton-Squamish route, so that we spread our

risk if you wish, and the probability of losing both lines

simultaneously is probably one in ten million. The two lines would

actually carry the equivalent of ten generators. One line is running

pretty well to capacity with five; the two lines would carry ten.

Now you ask the question, also, about when will site one go in. Well

again, I point out that we are only half way along the road in

machining Portage Mountain, and the determination as to where site one

will be phased into the system is one of those determinations that has

to be made fairly quickly. But I think we then come back to the basic

question that was raised here, and that is the question of how much

money ought Hydro to raise in terms of capital and plow into the

development of power? Now, if we are going to continue to meet this

total load we have to continue to plow very substantial sums of money

into Hydro. There simply is no alternative, because there is no

substitute for capital dollars in terms of creating both generation and

transmission plants.

I think my colleague pointed out to you that it is not only this

business of establishing more production facility and more transmission

facility, and new distribution facility, but even in the areas that

have been traditionally served for many years,

[ Page 535 ]

we are having to now go back, take out old transformers,

take out old conductor systems, and put in heavier equipment to carry

the increased loads that are now being placed on those internal

transmission facilities. This, of course, is the only way that you can

meet this very substantial load growth, because not only are we adding

thousands of new customers a year, but the fact is that our old

customers, if you wish, are continuing to have new appliances every

year, with the result that the per-customer load is growing.

Now, there again, there is no happy formula by which you could

determine, say twenty years ago, that the West End ought to be

electrified for, shall we say, four times the consumption that was then

in sight. In the first place, if you had done it, you would have placed

a very heavy capital burden on that portion of the service, and

secondly, if you had done it and the growth had not materialized, you

could quite rightly be criticized for having put in four times the

capacity that was necessary to service the area.

We are not pretending for one moment that this problem is

particularly unique in British Columbia, but what we are saying to you,

in effect, is simply this, that if we are going to continue to meet

this tremendous rate of growth, if we are going to serve all customers

as near as it is humanly possible to do so, then you are going to have

to continue to put very substantial amounts of capital into Hydro

developments. That is why my colleague says that the decision we make,

if it is that they are not to have the capital, then Hydro has no way

by which they can serve this growing demand. If on the other hand they

are to have the capital, as far as the planning, as far as the sites

are concerned, as far as the question of transmission is concerned,

those are primarily engineering problems and we've got it laid out for

the next decade already.

Now the next question, then, comes to this matter of rate. As you

know, from 1961 on, there were several decreases in the rates charged

to electrical consumers. With the result that between '61 and the

present time, the customers of the system have had handed back to them

$172,000,000 that they would have otherwise paid under the old rates.

Now some people say, well, that was a political decision, and they

further put brackets around political as though it were somehow a bad

decision, or a sub-rosa decision. The fact of the matter was simply

this, as long as Hydro was showing a reasonable profit on its over-all

operation, there was no valid reason for not reducing the rates to

Hydro's customers, because you have to remember that the proposition

was to be service at cost, and certainly if we had not reduced the

rates, we would have been taking substantially more money from the

customers than could have been properly justified on a policy of

service at cost.

However, since 1961, while our rates have gone down, and while our

returns from the sale of current has gone down, the cost of doing

business has gone progressively up. It's true that in 1969 the wage and

salary increase only amounted to about a 9 per cent factor, including

the fringes, but you have to bear in mind that those wages and salaries

and interest costs have been accumulating progressively since 1961,

with the result that you reach the point where your cost index

progressively rising, and your income index would be declining in terms

of what you received for a kilowatt hour, which we were only able to

offset because year by year we were selling a great many more kilowatt

hours. But you come to the point where even selling more kilowatt hours

no longer gives you a margin, and that is the point at which we have

arrived, as far as Hydro is concerned. The simple fact of the matter is

that the cost line has topped the income line, and unless we can

receive more money for the electricity that we sell in the various

categories, regardless of how much we sell, we can't make any money.

Now as you know, it's important that we stay on the right side of

the ledger. The statute requires us to do that. It's also important,

when we go out to get capital dollars, that we can show we have proper

depreciation, we have proper sinking fund account where that is called

for, and above all we're on the right side of the ledger, not the wrong

side, in our total operation.

Now as I say, there's nothing greatly complex about this. It's

simply that we have not had any magical formula in Hydro by which we

could set aside what was happening to everybody else, in terms of

increased costs. We simply were able, by increasing sales for a

considerable period to absorb those costs, but it has now reached the

point where, as I say, increasing sales, Mr. Speaker, will not offset

the increasing costs for our unit price, which is now below our cost of

producing and distributing it.

The question is simply this, however: if we are not to have an

increase in rates, then obviously we will have a loss in the

forthcoming year, because our profit margin has been steadily declining.

Now, some people have expressed considerable concern about the

question of where are we going in the future? Some expressed concern

about where we are going in the future. Well, as I say, as long as the

funds are to be made available, there is no shortage of hydro sites,

there is no shortage of other generation potential in British Columbia,

but I think we have to understand that unless the funds are made

available, nobody, but nobody, can produce generating stations and

distribution lines without capital.

Now, I think what you have to recognize is also, when my friend

across the floor talks about shortage of vision, I don't know what kind

of vision his party had. Just a few years ago, when they were so

determined that the Peace River project should not proceed because we

would never need it, we would never need it…. You walk over to the Shrum

generating station today at the Peace and pull that switch and the

whole City of Vancouver and the lower mainland would be out of power in

two seconds — that's how much you need the Peace. Oh, no — it was your

predecessors. I shouldn't hold you responsible for what your

predecessors say, but they were very short-sighted, they couldn't see

that we would ever need the Peace River.

I think also, too, my friends across the floor, Mr. Speaker, love to

drag in this red-herring of the Columbia project. The Columbia project

has little at this stage, has nothing or little to do with the power

production and distribution in British Columbia. The Columbia project

has little or nothing to do with the production and distribution of

power in British Columbia. As we get along to the point with Mica where

we can start machining it, and get the power out of Mica into the grid

system for British Columbia, then it will have a meaningful part to

play.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. KIERNAN: Well, you know, I'm sort of a kind of a guy that

I don't start counting the chickens until at least the hen has laid the

egg. And when you are just putting in the foundations for a dam, it's a

little premature to start installing the generator.

[ Page 536 ]

If you want to know when Mica is anticipated on line, I can only

tell you, at this moment, it is anticipated on line in 1978, but it is

subject to a number of variable factors. I would say '78. You might get

a little juice out of it in '77, but I would say '78. I think we also

ought to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that when we are looking at this

question of long-term generation, again it comes back to the

proposition of maintaining a viable company, a viable operation in this

period, and when my friends the Liberals take such an adamant view of

funds from various trust accounts going into Hydro, I think they ought

to recognize that at the same time, they are arguing that Hydro is

vital to the future development of this Province. You said you took the

same position that Hydro is vital to the development of British

Columbia — fine. Well then, I would think that perhaps you ought to

re-assess your position in terms of making available to Hydro, funds at

the best fair terms that those funds can be arranged at, and I think

also that the best arena for looking into this question is right here

on this floor where every member, where every member might have his say.

I think also, that since there is some concern about this question

of transportation rates, I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Write to Dr. Shrum!

MR. KIERNAN: Well, I am sure that any question you care

to address to Dr. Shrum, either by personal visit or by letter, will be

very ably answered, and I don't think you'll have any problems, I don't

think you'll have any problems getting intelligent answers. But I think

also, since we're…. You know, we could carry on an intelligent debate

if we didn't have so much cross chatter.

DEPUTY. SPEAKER: Couldn't we have a little order? Order!

MR. KIERNAN: You know, Mr. Speaker, if you were sending it to

committee the cry would be, "Oh you're hiding it from the House."

(applause) And if you debate it in the House, "You won't send it to a

committee." They want it both ways, but it just depends on whether it

suits their convenience or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. KIERNAN: But coming back….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister happens to have the floor, and I

wish the members would extend the courtesy of the House to the speaker.

MR. KIERNAN: Thanks for that reassurance. Mr. Speaker, I was

just beginning to wonder whether I had the floor or not.

I think we ought to take a look at this question of transit rates,

and something you might just give consideration to. First of all, I

agree that bus drivers have a very responsible position and they ought

to be well paid, and I think by and large they are very competent

people, so I for one don't begrudge them the best salaries we can

afford. Having said that, I would tell you that here in the City of

Victoria it takes 105 per cent of our revenue just to pay the wages. It

takes 105 per cent of the transit revenue in Victoria just to pay the

wages.

Just a couple of other factors to consider. We are paying, by

Canadian standards at least, good wages. I've been looking at some of

the fares and the hourly wages for drivers across the country. We pay,

I believe, $3.75 an hour. Los Angeles pays $3.75 an hour, and it has a

30 cents fare. Calgary pays $3.35 an hour; it has a 25 cents fare.

Windsor, Ontario, pays $3.04 an hour, and it has a 35 cents fare. So I

think, if we look at this thing objectively, it must be thoroughly

obvious that the transit operation is not coming anywhere as close to

packing its fair share of the costs.

Now, as my colleague also told you, we have been working Saturdays

for the past several weeks going into this whole operation in great

detail, and we are prepared, and I am sure that the Board of Directors

are prepared, to make every practical economy that can be made in the

entire operation, and I must say to you that I feel, by and large, it

has been a very economical operation. But it also comes back to the

proposition that we can't pay the best wages in Canada, we can't

provide the level of service that you have come to expect, unless we

are in a position to have rates comparable with our increasing costs.

When we are now way below the 1961 rate and the cost of living index is

26 points above that '61 rate, I think it makes it a pretty basic

proposition that there is no alternative, that there is no alternative

but that we must have more revenue to meet our commitments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about that, I do

indeed, because in 1959, the year is 1959, I pointed out to this

House that the Peace River should be a publicly developed dam and

river. That's right, in 1959. Not 1961, not when the Minister is

talking about his predictions, but in 1959. And I want to tell you — that was Wenner-Gren — and I want to tell you further, for those who

weren't here then, that Wenner-Gren was talking about getting power

delivered here to B.C. Power Commission, or B.C. Electric, for over six

mills, over six mills, and in 1961 the B.C. Energy Board in their

report was talking about public power, in 1961, for a little over four

mills for both the Peace and the Columbia.

Now, what do we find on the Order Paper but an answer saying five

mills for Peace power? Inflation? I want to tell my friend there that

if he looks back at the report that was made, what does it say about

inflation? It states right in the report — with a four per cent per

year inflation on costs, the total would have been around

$1,458,000,000 by completion in 1980.

They allowed for inflation. They allowed for these rate increases in

the projections they made then, and I read to you in this House the

other day, when we were debating this question, the warnings of Dr.

Angus about long-term interest rate increases that he predicted in

1961, but you failed to listen, you failed to listen. We heard this

Minister today, Mr. Speaker, telling us that the estimates they made

back in 1961 were incorrect.

I want to read from a speech the Minister made in 1959 in this

House, and I say that he has a convenient memory or he has forgotten

very quickly what this House discussed back in 1959 on the question of

future power prospects for British Columbia, and dealing with those

future power requirements the Minister said this, "Based on the

experience of the utilities to date, and looking into the future with

the assurance that we have not even begun to approach the point of

maximum population or industrial development, it has

[ Page 537 ]

been possible to forecast that an annual average increase in the use

of electrical energy in the order of 9.6 per cent can be expected

until the year 1975. After that the annual increase will not be less

than 4.7. Now at that time," he goes on to say, "these forecasts are

likely to be exceeded in actual practice unless serious depressions

occur to retard ordinary growth." Anyone who says that we didn't know

what the future power requirements were in British Columbia really is

not stating the facts. So that from the beginning we've known.

I want to tell you some more about this. You're the Government, and

it is not true to say we didn't accept those figures. We did. In fact,

in some years, I remember the Minister saying that from the predictions

they had from B.C. Power Commission they expected to go up to 14 per

cent in one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we did.

MR. DOWDING: That's right, and you did. So how can you say

now that you were in error in your planning, when you knew these facts

at the time, and you should have taken them into account? The fact of

the matter is, as the Minister knows, that when he made that speech in

1959 he was aware, also, that on the Columbia River we could have

immediate return of power of at least 11 billion kilowatt hours,

according to his speech right here. He shows that as the interim power

we would have to take up the slack until the Peace came in or the

Columbia, whichever went ahead first.

Now I'm looking at his speech here, and I have the figures. He says,

"British Columbia is said to possess the greatest untapped

hydro-electric potential in the North American continent. Our major

problem is a way to supply energy up to these approximate capacities.

Columbia, a public power river, 21.5 billion kilowatt hours per annum,

plus a fair share of the 23 billion kilowatt hours this regulated flow

will produce in the U.S.A." What were we offered? Half that 23 billion

kilowatt hours. One-half. Did we get it? We did not. We gave it to the

Americans for half the cost, half the cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're crazy.

MR. DOWDING: Yes we did, we certainly did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. May I ask you to withdraw

that remark.

MR. DOWDING: One has only to look at what the dams on the

Columbia are going to cost now, from the answers on the Order Paper, to

see that, instead of getting the Columbia River free, it's going to

cost this Province a great deal of money before a single generator is

turning on the Columbia River. Just look at the answers. And what is

left? And all of this because of foolish planning from 1961 onward.

When you look at some of the estimates of the Minister and his

discussions, he talked about the Wenner-Gren project in 1959. We warned

him on this side of the House that he should not let Wenner-Gren

develop the Peace River, it'd be costly power, that power rates would

go up, and that if they were going to develop it as a private river it

should be second to the Columbia River, and that the downstream benefit

power that we would get from the Columbia project should be returned in

electricity to this Province. The Government at that time thought that

they would use that downstream benefit power and return it here, and

that they would fill in that period in the 60's when there would be no

power source available. But they changed their mind after 1961. They

took over the Peace River from Wenner-Gren, and we call that

an act of

wisdom, although in 1959 they did not say that.

What did the Minister say in 1959? Listen to this. "Those not

charged with responsibility, loosely talk about the ability of

governments to assemble huge sums of money for practically any purpose.

In an expanding Province such as this, the Government must always stand

ready to meet the obligations to which it is already committed. The

Columbia will require huge amounts of money to finance. It will be some

years before there is a return on the investment. In the meantime the

normal expansion of the Power Commission and other services will

continue. Even the task of financing this expansion will not be easy."

Remember this is in 1959, when you were not going to do the Peace.

Then you took them both off, and in this speech the Minister

acknowledged the difficulty of assembling the huge amounts of money to

finance. To compound that confession, as it were, you went ahead and

put the two projects side by side and announced the two-river policy,

and now you find you can't raise the money at the same time for both

projects, and you're stuck on that and you don't know how to get out of

it. Now you come to the Legislature and say, bail us out. Let the

public pay higher rates. And all those fine pretensions of 1961 and '63

and '66 are gone down the river — about lower rates — nothing but lower

rates ahead. Where are all those fine promises today?

For anyone to suggest that the inflation on an average basis of four

per cent per year was not contemplated, obviously has never read the

Minister's speech, he's obviously not read the B.C. Energy Board

report. Or anyone who says that they didn't know there would be the

kind of continuing increase in interest rates for a ten-year period

obviously has not read any economic forecasts that occurred at the

beginning of this decade. Fortune Magazine, U.S. Business magazine,

three or four other journals of popular opinion and a number of

economic journals all forecasted the kind of interest rate increases

we've been suffering in the last decade.

It's been a continuing condition, so when I hear the alibis and the

excuses given by the Ministers concerned, who were on the Board of

Hydro, who had taken on themselves the responsibility directly in this

House for the conduct of Hydro, then I must say that they are asking

for confession and avoidance when they come before us and tell us what

they're going to have to do in their dire emergency. All of this was

known ten months ago. All of this was known a year ago. We could have

started out examining into this whole question of Hydro in a committee

at the beginning day of this Session, but the Government has tried to

keep it under the carpet until it became an embarrassment to them today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not embarrassed.

MR. DOWDING: You are embarrassed, and you know you're

embarrassed. That's why this debate on this particular motion is before

the House, because you cannot go ahead on Estimates without disposing

of this motion, and that's why you called it, right. So you want to get

rid of the motion, but you don't want the House to know all the inside

story of the whole background of the increase in rates, or where Hydro

is going, or what it's doing.

For years I've advocated, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Accounts

Committee of this House has a right to look into the affairs of the

biggest Crown Corporations that we have,

[ Page 538 ]

that this House has the right every year to examine the accounts,

the spendings and the expenses of B.C. Hydro. Why should that be kept

secret? Why are not we allowed to do just as we do in Public Accounts,

to call for vouchers, to ask questions, to bring witnesses as to the

matters of the public business? If we had such a Public Accounts

investigation into Hydro every year, this would never have happened.

This would never have happened, that we would have had a rate increase

brought so suddenly before us this year, because that committee could

have been kept informed year after year on the developments of the

Columbia and of the Peace.

The kind of cover-up that this Government has gone through, the kind

of political playing that they've done on the whole question of Hydro,

leads us to this sorry day when you're brought finally to the bar of

justice, that is the bar of the people's justice, to explain

yourselves, and then you're not prepared to defend yourselves in a

committee. You're not prepared to lay everything out, call Dr. Shrum

before that committee, get the information from him, call the officers

of Hydro to explain their long-range plans and how they came to this

stage today that on one hand they're contradicting the Premier of this

Province about the future power, they're contradicting, in effect, the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources as he spoke over the

years about the development of hydro. Somebody has got to get to the

bottom of this, and if this Legislature is not prepared to accept this

motion you are indicating that you want a cover-up, straight cover-up.

When I look at the other statements made by the Minister, one of the

most significant he made, April 30th, 1962, this was after they changed

their mind on the Peace River and decided it was going to be a public

river. Do you know what the Minister said then? And he said today, that

they really didn't understand the load growth requirements of British

Columbia. On that date he delivered to members of the House copies of

his address made March 21st of 1962 to this House. This

summary says in

his speech, "the average load growth in electrical energy produced in

the whole of British Columbia since 1950 has been approximately 10.1

per cent increase per year." How does that square with his statements

today?

I don't know anyone in this House in 1962 or in 1959 that quarrelled

with that estimate. Not one. They quarrelled with the planning. They

quarrelled with the alternatives and the costs, but they did not

dispute that projected rate of increase of power development

requirements. As a matter of fact, the Minister contradicts the B.C.

Energy Board in that speech because they had only planned on a 6.8 per

cent increase.

Now, when you look at the rest of his speech, you find that the

Minister says, "In 1982 — 20 years from now," this is 1962, "Using the

above load growth statistics, the Power Authority Planning Area of

British Columbia will require a total installed capacity of 9,392,000

kilowatts, including the provision for new industries, plus 10 per cent

for spare." Now, why that? Because he knew then, as he knows now, that

he must make that estimate on a basis of 10 per cent. "This is an

increase of 7,226,000 kilowatts from the present installed capacity. It

is planned to meet the need as follows." Then he sets out the ways that

they were planning in 1962 to do this. Then he talks about 200,000

kilowatts from existing stations, 315,000 kilowatts at thermal

capacity, and that these will handle the load growth until 1966. Then

he says, "This conclusion may be seriously over-optimistic. It

requires the assumption that all generating plants in the Province will

be able to contribute their rated maximum output to meet the combined

system January peak load, and that the transmission system will exist

to enable them to do so. Neither requirement is likely to be fully met."

So even then they knew they were being very conservative in their

estimates, so how can he come to this House today and try to pretend

that they didn't know? They knew. Now he says, "Peace River generation

should be on line by 1968." This is in 1962. "The first phase will be

approximately 500,000 kilowatts, and additional units can be added, as

required, up to 2,760,000 kilowatts from Portage Mountain. Additional

energy might then be obtained by, machining Site one for 650

megawatts." Then he says, "The first block of Mica Creek generation

should be available, when required, after firm storage has been

established, power house constructed, and transmission installed. The

last two items will not be ready for use until it is known when power

may be generated on a firm basis, because there would be no economic

reason to make the large capital expenditure in advance of need."

Now, something that must be remembered is that if there has been an

increased demand for power, either in individual households or in the

community of British Columbia, this has worked to the advantage of B.C.

Hydro because it has meant that the generators have not been idle, so

they can't claim that the power demand had been a detriment, as the

Minister is trying to make out, the Minister of Recreation, but

actually it has assisted economically in bringing down the price to

around five mills. One of the great problems of financing these two

rivers simultaneously has been that, instead of the power costing four

mills when it was not entirely used and you still spent the capital, it

may come out 14 mills per kilowatt hour if you add all the interest

charges to the amount that you are actually producing.

Well, the Minister told us that, Mr. Premier, at one stage in the

discussions on these two rivers, how vital it was, how vital it was in

view of interest charges, that first you have low interest rates,

secondly, that you utilize the maximum amount of generation you could

get by being able to sell the power, but not on interrupted power, but

on a long-term contract, either with the United States, or within our

own domestic markets.

So we hear a different story from the Minister today, a different

story, and it is not in any sense in conformity with the speeches that

I have here that he made both in 1959 and in 1962. I suggest, if there

is no other reason for this House to strike a committee to look into

the whole question of power rates and the reasons that B.C. Hydro have,

in effect, contradicted the Premier of this Province on long-term

development of hydro power, those contradictions of the Minister are

reason enough for supporting this motion, and I urge the House to

support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: The last member of this Legislature who

should be talking about the power situation in the Province has got

to be the member who has just recently taken his seat, because both

from that member, Mr. Speaker, and the member of the N.D.P. Opposition,

if we stroll for a new minutes down memory lane, I think the people of

British Columbia understood very well what the reason for the two-river

policy happened to have been and, in particular, the reason why the

Government of this Province went on to the Peace River when the

question of Columbia River power was still very much in the negotiation phase.

[ Page 539 ]

I think the public of British Columbia, and certainly the Opposition,

never either understood it nor did they ever support the position of

this Government, and that is, anybody with any understanding of what was

happening on the Columbia River must know, that in the great poker game

that was being played at that time, there is no doubt in anyone's mind,

other than perhaps the Opposition in this Legislature, that if this

Government hadn't had the courage to move on the Peace River there

would have been no opportunity to negotiate a deal with the Americans

at all.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who doesn't understand that the Americans would

have been quite willing to have us put any installations on the

Columbia River that we wanted to put on the Columbia River — you talk

about anything that would be freer than free, my friend. I want to tell

you that if we had put dams on the Columbia River without that treaty

and without the negotiations, which had to be very tough negotiations,

what would have happened, Mr. Speaker? They would have got it freer

than free. They would have got it for nothing. They would have got it

for nothing. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the sense of responsibility that

we had all through the piece when we were talking about the two-river

policy in British Columbia. We at no time — and let's get this clear — at no time when the two-river policy was being played and those

difficult negotiations were going on with the Americans did we ever, at

any time, have any sense of responsibility being displayed by the

Liberal party…. No, my friend, if it had been your Columbia River

deal, your Fort Steele project would have been under 32 feet of water.

(applause)

My friend, anyone who has any regard for the debates that have gone

on in this House over the years knows very well, Mr. Speaker, that this

side, and this side alone, was responsible for the job-creating

capacity that this Province has enjoyed over the last few years.

(applause)

My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, got up this afternoon and

let the public of British Columbia understand this, too, Mr. Speaker.

He indicated his complete lack of responsibility on the floor of this

House this afternoon. He was not impressed with the fact that last year

alone, from January 1st, 1969 to December 31st, 1969, the Province

of British Columbia generated more jobs in British Columbia than all

other nine Canadian provinces put together. And you are not impressed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell that to the unemployed.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, is there anyone, is there anyone

in the Province of British Columbia who thinks that that record would

have been made without the power generation that has been going on in

this Province? Does anyone really think that? I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

if they really think that, then they are really showing that their

record of irresponsibility has not only started in the power debate,

which we have won three elections on, by the way, but is carrying on

into the year 1970.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, you're right.

AN HON. MEMBER: When are we going to get the next decrease?

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, the other point I wanted to

make, because this is a question of whether or not this matter should

go to committee, moving down memory lane once again, it has been very,

very common to have the N.D.P. Opposition in this House perform its

annual legislative snow-job in an attempt to confuse the people of this

Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That should be ruled out.

MR. CAMPBELL: What's the matter with a legislative snow-job?

That's a good description of what you're doing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, year after year we have had members of that group

opposite who have come into this Legislature and tried to indicate that

we were shuffling things off to committee so that the House would not

have an opportunity for full and open debate, many times. And you know,

it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberal leader presented

this motion on Friday afternoon, the first words he uttered went

something like this, "Let us get this question of shuffling it off to

the committee over with as quickly as possible, because we are going to

have ample opportunity to discuss this during the Estimates in this

Legislature." I think that's a pretty exact quote except for the word

"shuffling."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite seek to create in the

minds of the people, and they have been doing it for so long, and they

don't trust them, but they have been attempting to indicate in this

Legislature that there is something peculiar about the procedure that

requires open and effective questioning of Ministers during their

Estimates in this Legislature, and many, many times, even when it comes

to the matter of the daily question period, they have sought to place

abroad the theory that in this Legislature Ministers and their

Departments are not questioned on the floor of this Legislature in

terms of the vote on the Estimates. Mr. Speaker, I will make one

slight prediction. They will give a lie to that particular point of

view over the course of the next four weeks, because there won't be a

Minister on this side of the House whose Department is not thoroughly

canvassed by the members opposite, and they know that very well.

The other item, Mr. Speaker, that I want to draw your attention to

is the impact and the significance of the year 1961, and it has already

been mentioned by the two Ministers who have spoken on this debate. But

I happen to represent an area which did not have the benefit of postage

stamp rate power in this Province until this Government moved towards

postage stamp rate power. I can remember very well, Mr. Speaker, when

the energy requirements of places like Port Hardy and Port McNeill on

the northern end of Vancouver Island were being supplied under rates

which were much, much, much less favourable than those that obtained,

say, in the Greater Victoria area or the Greater Vancouver area. Many,

many people, Mr. Speaker, had bills at that time of $30 and $35 a month

for very, very limited domestic installations in their homes, and yet

even with this rate increase, which, placed in perspective, really

comes down to a very small percentage of an increase — up to 300

kilowatt hours, from 2.5 cents to three cents per kilowatt hour; over

300 kilowatts, from one cent to 1.1 cent.

Now, if my friends opposite think that the people in the north end

of Vancouver Island want to have the situation obtain in their part of

British Columbia as obtains in other parts of Canada, when we are

making comparisons of rates, then I want to tell you, my friend, you

are just dead wrong. Because this Government was also the Government

that brought in the proposition of equalized rates across the Province.

[ Page 540 ]

And the rates at Port Hardy, Mr. Speaker, even after these

rates, will be far, far lower than those which were in existence in

1961 in that particular community.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member from Cowichan-Newcastle,

as he was then called, and now Cowichan-Malahat, got up to speak,

because I can remember very well, Mr. Speaker, one of his

going-down-memory-lane famous speeches in this Legislature in 1959,

when there was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lee Briggs around in the

power picture of British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, in those

days, the question was an increase in rates, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the then B.C. Power Commission, and, Mr. Speaker, in those days, the

member for Cowichan-Newcastle — you recall his speeches — "You are

trying to put the handcuffs on public power, you are trying to destroy

the B.C. Power Commission, you're trying to stop the expansion of the

B.C. Power Commission, you're trying to crucify the B.C. Power

Commission." But, Mr. Speaker, which was the Government that stopped

that particular rate increase? It was this Government, because the

Premier said there would be no rate increases, and Mr. Briggs was wrong.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one final point that has always

escaped me as far as the Opposition point of view on power in this

Province is concerned, and that simply is that they apparently see no

connection, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the public do, they see no

connection between the ability to invest in schools and in hospitals

and our continuing investment in the energy-creating agencies of the

Province, or transportation and its agencies of the Province as well.

Mr. Speaker, is there anyone on the other side of the House who

really seriously believes that this Government could be the only

Government in Canada that places all the school board borrowings out in

its own name in terms of the guarantee? Is there anyone who seriously

thinks that without energy development, this Government would be in

that position? Is there anyone who seriously, Mr. Speaker, believes

that $33,000,000 worth of hospital bonds would have been sold in this

Province with a guarantee? Is there anyone who would seriously believe

that? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you the reason, Mr. Speaker, that

the public don't believe you is that the public does attach

significance to the investment position of this Province. They do

attach significance to that, and they understand very well, Mr.

Speaker, that you can't extend guarantees for all school board

borrowings and all hospital board borrowings unless you develop the

basic energy, transportation and fabric of the Province, it can't be

done. And you know, Mr. Speaker, when a Government in a single year can

provide $66,000,000 worth of guaranteed school board bonds, without

resort to the market place at today's interest rates, I think the

public understands that, too.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite — and let the public

understand this — apparently the members opposite are of the opinion

that the open market place is the place to float school board bonds

today, or that the open market place is the place to float….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the motion we're on!

MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, it's not. Well then, Mr. Speaker, any

time they attach any significance to the number of investments in

Hydro as opposed to school board bonds, then I wish you would rule them

out of order, because that's the point they make all the time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is going to be ample

time to discuss this whole matter in the full light of this Legislature

in the committees of this Legislature, which is the main committee of

this House, and you people have now spent in excess of three hours in

open debate on this question in the Legislature, and you are going to

spend some more. So, Mr. Speaker, their annual legislative snow-job,

that they don't get an opportunity to talk about this in the

Legislature, is just completely that and nothing more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver

East.

MR. A. B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Monday, February 23rd,

1970, is a black day for the people of the Province of British

Columbia. I'm not going to talk, except for a few moments, and I am not

going to talk about the hydro rates, the electricity rates. I am going

to talk just for a moment about transit, because on Monday, February

23rd, 1970, we decisively took the wrong direction in transit. We

marched away from public transit. We embraced all of the costs on the

other side of the ledger, which are traffic congestion, pollution costs,

which are the costs of super highways and through highways and so

forth, to take care of the private automobile, which is the accident

cost, which is a pretty significant thing. We have done all that, we

here in this Legislature of British Columbia, because we have been

reluctant to increase a piddling subsidy to urban transportation in the

big metropolitan areas of Vancouver, the lower mainland and Victoria,

and that subsidy is $2,000,000. Everything else has gone up in this

Province, all the educational estimates, and the highway and all the

rest have gone up with inflation, and this Government has the lack of

social vision that to save a little money they have kept to that

$2,000,000 subsidy.

The Hydro comes here, and they say we're losing money on our

transportation. We don't know. We favour the committee proposed by the

Liberal leader, because we would like to see what's being charged in

the way of electricity going into the transit and all the rest; we

would like to see that examined. But maybe they are losing money. And

maybe they need another $2,552,000 to keep in the black at present

rates on transit. Well, I say that we as a Legislature, out of the

consolidated revenues of this Province, should give them that subsidy,

and if we don't do it, we have the social blind staggers.

We've taken the wrong path, believe me. Sure we have. We've plumped

for bigger highway costs, congestion, pollution, the whole bit, and

these sums are insignificant. But that's what we've done, and that's why

this is such a black day. Instead of moving toward the encouragement of

public transit and rapid transit — public transit, I don't care if it's

rapid or not, I want it public and I want it cheap — instead of

encouraging the people of the Province, for a piddling sum of money, in

comparison to the social consequences involved, as I say, we've taken

the wrong path.

That $2,000,000 in the Estimates that's allotted as a subsidy to

Hydro for transit is grossly inadequate, and everybody in this Chamber

knows it is inadequate, and everybody in this Chamber knows that by

spending only that amount that we are going to have other social costs

that are going to be far more than the $2,000,000. That's why I say

this is indeed a black day — I mean it — a black day for the people of

British Columbia.

[ Page 541 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether a

power increase or a transit increase, the question that we are

discussing today or as I interpret it, is a question of whether or not

we should have a committee to discuss this whole question, and we are

asking for a working committee, Mr. Speaker, not a committee that is

formed and that's the last you ever hear of it. We're talking about a

committee something along the lines that the Insurance Committee

hopefully will be.

Now a few moments ago, it was suggested by a Minister that a

committee is not desirable, you know, give everybody a chance to speak.

Mr. Speaker, for the very short number of weeks that I have been here,

I would wonder at whether or not people are listened to when they speak

— from either side, I agree. But I do think that people, if exposed to

experts on any subject, if exposed to experts on any subject, will at

least have an opportunity to go back to the people that they represent

and say, "Yes, we heard, we heard the reasons why." Now, Mr. Speaker,

to keep away from rancour with regard to rates and who is at fault and

so on and so forth, I just think we really have to get down to these

facts. We, in the N.D.P., for many, many years have been certainly in

favour of the national development of public power. The Social Credit

Government, a few years ago, committed a socialistic sin of taking over

the power corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you call it.

MR. COCKE: That is what you call it. Fine. Okay. I'll call it

anything I like. I can do it. I'm impervious. At least we know that

it's our power corporation, and we feel that we should have all the

facts. Now we can't be other than suspicious, Mr. Speaker, you know

naturally, what are we trying to hide in here? This matter of getting

up and making speeches is really of no great significance unless we can

have all the facts on paper, and have the experts there who help

interpret those facts. Telling us little tidbits about wages and so on,

I don't really think is enough. The committee has to explore the truth.

Now, there is another thing, too, I thought of discussing, just for

a moment, and that is this matter of public atmosphere we were talking

about a little while ago in one of the Minister's speeches. I don't

know what the climate was originally, because I wasn't here. You know

all I got at that time was the newspaper

interpretation and what I hear

by rumour, but I wonder if we had a full discussion then. The kind of

discussion we are talking about now. The kind of discussion that looks

into the future and looks at the present. You know — where are we now

and where are we going? We are the people that should be most

interested in this because, after all, we are the people that represent

those that voted for us to get us here.

You know, they were saying that we in the Opposition don't have any

responsibility. Give us some responsibility, Mr. Speaker, that's all we

ask. Give us some responsibility. Now I think that the decision is a

serious one. We knew that there was a serious decision coming up some

months ago. I don't think anybody here, certainly if they read a

newspaper, doesn't know that this matter has been in private

discussion, at least, for some many months. There could have even been

an emergency Session of this Parliament at an earlier date, if that in

fact is the big problem that if we must have our final decision by

March 31st, and in order to effect the rates by April 30th. I think

that that could have been, at that time, part of the consideration. Why

do we have to be placed in a position where now it's a crisis? It would

seem so.

Now, you know, this car insurance business, Mr. Speaker, has been an

embarrassment to the Government, an indirect embarrassment, therefore

we called a committee, and I believe it is going to be a working

committee. But there is no committee on Hydro. Why not Hydro? Is Hydro

sacrosanct? Who owns Hydro in British Columbia? Let's not hide that

fact from the shareholders — every person in British Columbia.

I say to the backbenchers in here, when you go home, tell the people

how you voted on this issue, for or against the committee, nothing to

do with hydro rates or transit rates, whether or not we should have had

a full disclosure — that's the kind of thing you are going to have to

tell those people. And don't forget your jobs were given to you by your

constituents, nobody else, your constituents. Vote for the committee;

it's your duty to your constituents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: So I say, Mr. Speaker, and through you to your

friends, to the backbenchers in the Social Credit party, I say to them

— vote for a committee. It's their duty to their constituents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief because

today we have listened to a fairly long discussion on hydro rates and

the principles of going to committee, which, of course, is before the

House at this moment. It has amazed me, listening to the report by the

members of the Opposition, and hear the Leader of the Opposition deal

with this as a democratic right of committee, and I would point out

that if they are talking about the democratic rights of committee under

their own principles, that I am rather amazed at the recent committee

formed in the New Democratic House in Winnipeg, for example, to study

rates on insurance.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, the question of democratic principles in

studying in committee, but that recent committee was appointed, not

with members from each side of the House, not with total

representation, but a complete representation from one side of the

House only. All the members on that particular committee are members of

the New Democratic Party, and if that is their indication of a

democratic way of conducting a study of any rate, then I would point

out that that's a rather amazing socialistic principle. I would

however, Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to the Motion?

MR. CAPOZZI: I think that's very pertinent to the motion, Mr.

Speaker. They stood up and spoke about the democratic rights of

committee, to have this presented before a committee, and mentioned

that this is the way they felt it should be done. If that is the same

principle, it should apply in every place that they talk about

committees, not just here in this particular House, when they are

trying to use it for a

[ Page 542 ]

political purpose only. Because as it has been pointed out, the

rights in hydro rates are being discussed, and have been discussed in

front of the major committee in which both sides of the House may

discuss it quite freely, not in a committee as it is there where it is

closed off to any outside conversation, any outside discussion. If that

is a form of discussion that they are talking about under committee,

then I am rather amazed. I will say however, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Get Gordon Shrum to speak….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The member knows full well

that this is the Legislative Assembly and only members of the

Legislature speak here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wanted to get him in front of a committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order then. I think his remarks are quite out

of order. And they are quite repetitive.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, in speaking again very briefly,

however, to the question of B.C. Hydro, I would feel that on behalf of

the members representing Vancouver, it is important to all of us, in the consideration of the future increase in rates and

particularly in transit rates, that serious consideration be given to

the possibility of not converting over to the type of buses that they

are presently discussing, and going into the use of electric buses,

whether they are using the trolley wire or not using the trolley wire.

I must agree and find some reason in the statement made by the first

member fro