British Columbia

Bill Vander Zalm has hijacked an entire
province.

For five weeks political parties, the
media, and most ordinary people awaited
the premier’s television address to hear the
political fate of the province. The options

to a Socred leadership convention to a
* general election.

But when the masses duly assembled
Wednesday, Vander Zalm announced
nothing. With Trudeauesque arrogance,
he used his free time media broadcast to
line up all opposition to his government
and strike it down with a middle finger.

Rarely has there been such abuse and
manipulation of public process. It is cause
for reflection on the quality of democracy
in this part of the world that the political
course of society could be so easily taken
over by one person.

After six consecutive elections and
_almost three years of continuous turmoil
which has demonstrated the lack of confi-
dence in the government, the premier
retreated into his castle and emerged with
his very personal decision (which he claims
not even other members of the govern-
ment were consulted over) that nothing
will change.

Vander Zalm’s soap opera returns the
‘province to the situation following the
byelections — a blind and recalcitrant
government facing a population which has
withdrawn its mandate. NDP leader Mike

- ranged from the resignation of the premier

Vander Zalm ‘hijacked the province’

Fred Wilson

Harcourt’s renewed demand for a general
election is the only answer to such an
impasse and the call for an election now
should resound throughout the province.

Buried in the premier’s rhetoric, there
was notice of one issue that threatens great
harm to B.C. Vander Zalm’s renouncing
of the Meech Lake Accord may indeed
reflect opinion in this province. But he
made it more than clear that a Socred
flip-flop on Meech Lake will be motivated
by the lowest kind of anti-French Cana-
dian bigotry. It is the nature of extreme
right wing demagogues like Vander Zalm
that they will rapidly sink into scapegoat-
ing and racism.

The progressive movement in B.C. has
been arrayed against Meech Lake from its
inception. The labour movement, the
NDP provincial council, the coalitions
and many others spelled out their opposi-
tion to Meech Lake in terms of its threat to
universal social programs, to Native and
women’s rights, and for its linkage to the
free trade agenda. But on the central issue
in Meech Lake — self-determination for

COMMENTARY

Quebec —the B.C. left has been all too
silent. Given the Vander Zalm strategy of
exploiting anti-Quebec chauvinism, it is
vital that those opposed to Meech Lake
speak out strongly in support of self-
determination for Quebec. Failure to do
that could have tragic consequences in
Quebec, and here.

In fact, Vander Zalm’s attack against
big business, the media and labour had too
many of the undertones of right wing
authoritarianism. The Zalm also was
quick to kiss goodbye the MLAs and oth-
ers expected to jump ship to form a new
“Private Enterprise Party,” which, of

. course, put the lie to his hollow appeal for

party unity. Together, these two signals
should serve notice also of the dangers
inherent in a Socred strategy of consolidat-
ing the ultra right and campaigning
around demagogic populist appeals. That
kind of strategy threatens to take B.C. to
the far right edge of neo-conservatism.
There is no doubt many in the NDP
who saw salvation in the Zalm’s non-
announcement. If, however, it is taken as

jected the idea of a new political alliance in

licence for a “‘do nothing that will take the
focus off of Vander Zalm” strategy, disas-
ter could result. It would deny the lessons
of all the electoral defeats since 1975, and
seriously underestimate the ability of
Vander Zalm and the Socreds to pursue
their agenda.

Last fall, the Communist Party pro-

B.C. that would bring together sections of
the environmental movement, the labour
movement, women’s movement and the
political left in an extra-parliamentary
campaign around policies for social
change.

The idea was based on the premise that
with the possibility of political change at
the next election, such a movement, which
would have a positive attitude to the elec-
tion of an NDP government, could play
an important role in setting the issues and
influencing the direction of political
change.

Now that Vander Zalm has laid out the
parameters of the pre-election debate,
there is a more pressing need for anti-
Socred unity. Vander Zalm’s right wing
appeal to the people must be countered
effectively with our own brand of popu-
lism, based on the grass roots people’s
movements. This kind of movement with
its demands for environmentalism, social
justice and democracy, and for the Zalm
to go, is the best way to stop the right wing
revival that the premier has staked his
future on.

Questions linger over Columbia power return

More than 30 years after the treaty that
was termed the “sellout of the century” —
the Columbia River Treaty — was signed,
British Columbians will be getting back the
their share of the downstream power that
was sold for a fraction of its value in 1964.

But people in this province still don’t
know whether that power will again be
traded away as a “bargaining chip” to gain
access to U.S. markets. And they still don’t
know why the government is proceeding
with the bitterly-opposed Site C dam when
the return of Columbia River power will
offer energy beyond the capacity of Site C.

Energy Minister Jack Davis announced
Jan. 11 that the government would repat-
riate its share of the so-called “(downstream
benefits” (DSBs) beginning in 1998 when
the first of three 30-year power sale agree-
Ments expires. His announcement coin-
cided with his meeting in Vancouver with
Bonneville Power Administration president
Jim Jura, B.C. Hydro chair Larry Bell and
Brig.-Gen. Pat Stevens of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.

Under the terms of the Columbia River
Treaty, Canada was entitled to one-half of
the additional power generated in the U.S.
as a result of Canadian dams built upstream
on the Columbia River. Those downstream
wee were sold to the U.S. for $254 mil-

ion.
_ The sales were covered by three 30-year
agreements, which commenced with the
completion of each of the three Canadian
dams. The agreements expire in 1998, 1999
and 2003.

Davis said in a release that the repatria-
tion of the DSBs was “‘key to long term
power planning on both sides of the
border.”

He added that the increasing power
needs in the province, and “British Colum-
bia’s buoyant economy mean that we will
need the power here.”

He also noted that even with the addi-
tional power available with the renegotia-
tion of the DSBs, the province would still
proceed with the construction of the $3.2

Canada’s share of Columbia power
is being repatriated — but will our

rivers still be dammed to provide

power for export?

billion Site C dam, despite the widespread
opposition to the project.

Since it was made, Davis’ announcement
has prompted more questions that it has
answered, although with the legislature not
in session, there have been few opportuni-
ties for answers.

Community groups, the labour move-
ment, the New Democrats and the Com-
munist Party have pressed the government
repeatedly over the years to negotiate the
return of the DSBs as a means of providing
additional power for the province without
having to build new dams. But the govern-
ment has stonewalled on the issue.

As recently as last year, both B.C. Hydro
and the provincial ministry were continuing
to talk about using the DSBs as a “bargain-
ing chip” to gain access to U.S. power
markets in order to sell B.C. electricity to
utilities in California. The Bonneville Power
Administration has traditionally restricted
B.C. access to transmission lines, limiting its
export sales.

Last March, at a speech to a power sym-
posium in Portland, Ore., Hydro chair
Larry Bell stated that the disposition of the
DSBs had yet to be determined but the final
decision would be made by the Social
Credit government.

But he noted that the Crown corporation
“expects energy quantities equivalent to and
in excess of the DSBs to be available
through opportunities being pursued by
Powerex, our export subsidiary ....”” He
added that B.C. Hydro was “most inter-
ested in the prospect of increased capacity
for the north-south intertie’ and that
further power connections, to Spokane and
Bellingham, were being pursued, with
approval expected in 1990.

Bell’s comments suggest that power
exports to the U.S. will continue to be the
priority for both B.C. Hydro and the minis-
try and that U.S. markets, not domestic
needs, are behind the government’s efforts
to increase power generation capacity with
such projects as Site C.

They also suggest that the return of the
DSBs may be largely a political ploy
intended to give the appearance of repatria-
tion of resources, while Canadian river val-
leys continue to be dammed to provide
exports sales to the U.S.

Under the terms of the power sales
agreements, British Columbia’s share of the
DSBs is 1,400 megawatts — some 300
megawatts more than is expected to be gen-
erated at Site C. If the DSBs were repat-
riated and no new power sales to the U.S.

were undertaken, B.C. Hydro could meet

even increased domestic demand without -

incurring the massive additional debt and
the environmental havoc that would
accompany construction of the controver-
sial dam on the Peace River.

B.C. Hydro has argued that demand for
electricity is growing at 2.8 per cent per year
and will result in nearly a doubling of the
demand for power over the next 20 years.
But even the B.C. Utilities Commission
noted in 1982 that the Crown corporation
had overestimated demand and current
estimates could be altered substantially in
an economic downturn.

NDP energy critic Anne Edwards also
noted that Hydro and the ministry “don’t
really know what we need.

“We don’t have any realistic idea of our
needs, particularly one that takes into
account what could be accomplished with a
major conservation program,” she said in
an interview. ?

Last year, B.C. Hydro launched its
“‘Powersmart” program by which the
Crown corporation hopes to curb power
demand through a’number of conservation
measures. But Edwards noted that the pro-
gram was immediately criticized by the U.S.
Northwest Power Council for being far too
conservative in estimating potential savings
and suggested that conservation forecasts
could be tripled.

And that doesn’t even take into account
new developments, she noted, citing as an
example the growing demand for paper
companies to use recycled pulp in paper
production — which requires one-fifth the
energy used in processing virgin pulp.

_ The Kootenay NDP MLA said that she
welcomed the repatriation of the Columbia
River downstream benefits, emphasizing
that it would be ‘tan excellent source of
power for the domestic market.

“But we certainly don’t need Site C,”
added.

Edwards said she would be pressing
Davis for answers when the legislature re-
convenes.

she

Pacific Tribune, January 22, 1990 « 3