1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1257 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege Authorship of document concerning Columbia River treaty.

Mr. L.A.

Williams — 1257

Routine proceedings

Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1975 (Bill 60). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1257

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development

estimates On vote 34.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1257

Mr. Chabot — 1258

Mr. Phillips — 1259

Mr. Lauk — 1259

Mr. Chabot — 1259

Mr. Smith — 1260

Hon. Mr. King — 1262

Mr. Wallace — 1265

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1268

Mr. Gardom — 1269

Mr. McClelland — 1271

Mr. Phillips — 1273

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1276

Mr. Lewis — 1277

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1280

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1284

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

CLERK: The House is advised that pursuant to standing order 12, and

pursuant to

section 46 of the Constitution Act, the Deputy Speaker, in the unavoidable

absence of Mr. Speaker, will take the chair.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In the absence of

the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) due to

illness, it is my pleasure today to draw the attention of the

House to the presence in the gallery of 11 students, and two

adults who have accompanied the students, from Charles Bloom

Secondary School in Lumby. The names of those accompanying the

young people are Miss Melton and Mr. Dart. You may be

interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the students worked hard

to raise the funds necessary for this trip. I wish the House

would welcome them.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, at noon today approximately 50

will invade the gallery from North Saanich Elementary School,

grade 8 students, and I am very happy that they will be here as

well.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): At 11:30 a.m.

today, Mr. Speaker, there will be a group of 40 students who

are taking the community service worker programme at Douglas

College. I'd like the House to welcome them now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I rise on a matter of privilege. A week ago I received

anonymously in the mail — as did a number of my associates in

Vancouver — a document which appears to have been produced by

Hugh L. Keenleyside. It bears his picture. It deals with the

Columbia River treaty results. It is written in the first

person, but there is no indication on the envelope in which it

was transmitted, or in the document itself, as to the

authorship or publisher of this document.

The reason I raise it as a matter of privilege is that in

the document there are allegations against a Member of this

House, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams). In fact, there is a specific charge that

three statements made by the Minister to this House were false,

and also there is a charge that these statements were made with

the hope of misleading the House.

I placed this document in the hands of the Speaker last Monday, hoping that

he would be able to ascertain, through his offices, the identity of the author

and publisher. Apparently the Hon. Speaker has been unable to ascertain this

information. At least he has not advised me. Therefore I raise it before Your

Honour at this particular time and ask that your offices and the offices of

this House be used to determine the authorship and the publisher of this document

which I send to the table now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This matter will be taken under advisement

and a statement will be made from the Chair shortly.

Introduction of bills.

DRUG ADDICTION

REHABILITATION ACT, 1975

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 60, Drug Addiction

Rehabilitation Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Chairman, yesterday the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

described the purchase of the Kaymor property — or the option

to purchase the Kaymor property — in Kamloops. He said that we

were taken, that B.C. was taken. This is the typical kind of

irresponsible statement made by the opposition. It's smear.

What troubles me is that at least one newspaper picked it up

and printed it the way the Member said it. I just can't believe

it.

Let me run through what the price of land is up in Kamloops

for industrial land, what servicing means, what all kinds of

things mean that some.... I'm not condemning the press

gallery, but at least one of them.... The press has a

responsibility to print these things, and to research these

things out.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Name names.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the property that is under option is 457

acres at $5,000 an acre. The total cost is $2,285,000. In that

total package we paid the premium price for the flatland

acreage. The rest is hillside, so naturally the cost for the

flatland is

[ Page

1258 ]

higher. As part of the deal, I am informed by the

corporation, the vendor is to share part of the cost for

servicing, including roads.

Spuncast is a company in the area. I'm just going to give

you some comparative figures so you'll know that the Member for

Columbia River is all wet. Spuncast bought a piece of the same

property in 1973 — 15 acres — at $9,000 an acre. It has an

option on five more at $15,000 an acre. The average price of

unserviced industrial land in the Kamloops area in 1972-73 was

$25,000 an acre. In 1967 to 1973 — in that period of time — it

was $9,000 an acre.

The reasons for obtaining this piece of property, indicated

by the Development Corp. in the minutes of their executive

committee: the price was better than any other available — and

they reviewed the whole area — there were lower servicing

costs; the property was on both transcontinental railways; it's

on the TransCanada Highway. The result is that the Development

Corp. can put this serviced industrial land on stream with

substantially less than average cost in the Kamloops area. Now

that's if the option is taken.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you in particular sympathize with

my remarks here this morning. The irresponsible fashion of this

opposition with their completely unfounded remarks is bad

enough, but to have that transmitted without any screening

process to the public is even worse.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister can huff and

puff all he wants. What I related to this House last night were

the absolute facts of the case. The facts are that the

purchaser....

HON. MR. LAUK: You don't know what the facts are.

MR. CHABOT: I know what the facts are. I know that the land

was purchased either in 1972 or 1973 at a cost of $1,450....

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): "Either" — that's

some fact.

MR. CHABOT: That's right, either 1972 or 1973. The company,

Kaymor Developments, or Kaymor Properties, was put into place

in 1972. Whether the land was purchased in 1972 or 1973 is

immaterial.

The fact is that that land was purchased at $1,450 an acre

and that that government over there bought that land just a few

months later at $5,000 an acre. It seems that any speculator in

this province who wants to make a quick buck...

HON. MR. LAUK: You tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: ...all he has to do is go and see that Minister

or the Minister of Housing of this government. That's all they

have to do.

HON. MR. LAUK: On a point of order, this Member is acting in

such an irresponsible fashion it's hard to believe my ears.

Half the land that was purchased is on hillside, and he knows

it.

MR. CHABOT: That's no point of order.

HON. MR. LAUK: We can still buy the whole package at a much

lower price per acre.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, Hon.

Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the facts speak for themselves,

despite the huffing and puffing from that Minister over there.

The facts are that you purchased half of the 900-acre Molson

hop farm, agricultural land, which you've succeeded in taking

out of the agricultural reserve, that is 457 acres at $5,000 an

acre. I don't care whether it's hillside or flat land, the

average price is still $5,000 an acre — for $2,285,000. It

seems that all any speculator in British Columbia who wants to

make a quick buck has to do is talk to the Minister of Economic

Development in this province.

This is more wasteful than the $80-per-square-foot tourist

information booth in Golden, a ripoff of $165,000 of the

taxpayers of this province. It's even more extravagant,

exorbitant and ridiculous than the Casa Loma deal where the

taxpayers were ripped off for $750,000. The taxpayers have been

ripped off by over a million dollars on this one piece of

land.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the Member for

Columbia River has stated that the taxpayers of this province

were ripped off. He has stated an amount of $750,000. I want

him to document that. Put up or shut up! Or get out of this

House. Don't mislead this House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. If I could have

a moment, Mr. Member...

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, he is misleading. If he is

doing it through ignorance that is one thing. If he is doing it

deliberately he should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the rules state that a Member may get up

when another Member has finished speaking and correct any

misstatement of fact that he alleges. I would ask the Hon.

Member for Columbia River if he is impugning any improper

motive to any Member of this House. As you know,

[ Page

1259 ]

that is against the rules of this House.

MR. CHABOT: All I'm suggesting is that those Ministers over

there are wasting the taxpayers' dollars in this province. I

suggest that approximately a $750,000 ripoff on the Casa Loma

deal and a $165,000 ripoff on the construction of the tourist

information booth in my riding. Now we have a $1 million ripoff

in the community of Kamloops.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I'm entitled to make my statement. You can make

your speech when you want.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I ask for a withdrawal of that statement

"ripoff."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The term "ripoff" has been used very

frequently in this House without any objection. But I would ask

the Members to please moderate the tone of debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this land that we're talking about

was in the agricultural land freeze and was taken out because

of the requirement of heavy volumes of gypsum to be put on the

land to rehabilitate it, because of the danger of polluting the

land. We find now that the land has been taken out of the

freeze arbitrarily by the government to serve its own purposes.

Really, we come to the conclusion that the agricultural land

reserve is there to protect farmland unless the government or

its various departments wish to use it for some other purpose.

This land, 900 acres, purchased originally for $1.3 million by

Kaymor Investments Ltd. of Kamloops has now been sold — 50 per

cent of it — for almost $2.3 million.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's an option.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's an option. All right. Show me the

details of the option. Will the Minister give us the details of

the option? What kind of down-payment was put by that

government for the purchase of this property? Tell all the

facts. The Minister there seems so disturbed about the facts

about the taxpayers being ripped off for almost a million

dollars in Kamloops, Mr. Chairman. I wish he would file the

appraisal that took place on this land. Is the Minister

prepared to file the appraisal?

Will the Minister tell us also whether the order-in-council to remove this

land from the agricultural land freeze included the entire 900 acres, or was

it merely for the portion of 457 acres optioned by the government? There's no

doubt that these speculators or developers or whatever they are have increased

the value of their land substantially if you've seen fit to remove that entire

block of land from the agricultural land freeze.

Not only have they made $1 million on the purchase of 50 per

cent of that land, but they've increased the value of that

remaining land by $2 million. They stand to make a profit. If

all that land is worth $5,000 an acre, as the Minister suggests

it is, the value of that land — now is $4.5 million for land

purchased at $1.3 million. These people stand to make $3.2

million over a short period of a time, a few months.

Can the Minister also tell me whether services will be

provided to the land that is being purchased by the government?

Will water and sewer be provided, and at what cost? Will this

benefit the remaining land held by this investment company? How

are negotiations going on as far as access in concerned to this

land? Do you believe that the provision of access to the land

you have an option on will benefit the speculators on the

balance of the land which they own?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to

ask the Minister of Economic Development a couple of quick

questions. Has he seen the land in question? Would the Minister

advise the House if he has been and seen the land? He talks

about hillside. Is this a cliff or is it rolling hill?

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet it's a cliff too.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think the Minister is trying to give the

impression in this House that this is steep hillside, and it is

actually rolling land which would be suitable for housing.

Would the Minister just advise the House?

HON. MR. LAUK: It's not suitable for agricultural or

industrial purposes. The land could be used, in my view and in

the view of others who were visiting the site, for housing

sometime down the line.

MR. PHILLIPS: You've seen the land?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: I asked a series of questions to the Minister.

He seemed to want to huff and puff before I asked him a few

questions, but now will the Minister provide the House with a

copy of the appraisal of this land? Will he tell the House the

projected costs?

HON. MR. LAUK: I only answer gentlemen, I'm afraid.

[ Page

1260 ]

MR. CHABOT: Pardon?

HON. MR. LAUK: I only answer gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says he only answers gentlemen. I'm

here speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia and I

don't care whether you like my manners or not! I want answers

on behalf of the people of this province!

I want to know how much has been ripped off on the purchase

of this land in Kamloops, just as they have been ripped off on

other developments by that government. It seems that every

speculator who has something to sell has only to go to that

government and the taxpayers are ripped off again. What is your

appraisal on this land? What is your projected cost for

services to this land? Will the provision of these services to

this land benefit the remaining land held by the investment

company? Certainly these aren't difficult questions for you to

answer. Certainly they are questions that the people of British

Columbia have a right to receive answers on.

I think the kind of callous disregard that government has

for taxpayers' dollars is absolutely ridiculous. The taxpayers

are being ripped off practically every time some housing

development or some piece of land is purchased by that

government. It is about time this came to an end, the ripoff of

the taxpayers of this province. We should have the right to

have the answers from that Minister so that we know how

seriously the taxpayers of this province have been ripped off

in Kamloops. We know how badly they have been ripped off in

other areas of this province.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the

Member for Columbia River made a statement earlier as if it

were a statement of fact that there had been a profit of

$750,000 made in the acquisition and transfer of the Casa Loma — or will be made when the thing is complete. I would like that

Member to substantiate that remark if there is any validity in

it, or else withdraw it. It appears to me a very wild,

irresponsible remark and if it cannot be substantiated it is

misleading. Mr. Chairman, I have filed in this House an

affidavit which says that the accusations made by the Member

for Victoria were unsubstantiated.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The same rule applies to other

Members of this House as cabinet Ministers. Questions may be

asked; they don't have to be answered.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to spend a few minutes this morning discussing

with the Minister his policy with respect to the proposed

building of a $350 million oil refinery in the Province of

British Columbia. I think that after the announcement made by

the Premier as Minister of Finance in Ottawa, we should have a

chance to explore for a few minutes at least the policy or lack

of it of the Minister of Economic Development concerning

industrial installations in the Province of British

Columbia.

As we have viewed the performance of the Minister of

Economic Development and other cabinet Ministers who are

concerned with resource development in the province, and with

the performance of the Premier as the chief spokesman for the

government of this province, the only thing that you can say

about the NDP policy is that it's consistent for one thing —

and that is its predictable inconsistency.

It wasn't long ago. only a few days ago, that we heard the

Premier of this province publicly castigate and chastise the

Province of Alberta and the federal government regarding the

Syncrude project in the oil sands area development. Oh, what a

ripoff it was! How the public was being taken because of the

investment of the federal government along with other private

industry in the Province of Alberta in that particular project!

Yesterday we hear from Ottawa — not even our own Legislative

Assembly — an announcement that indicates that the Premier of

this province is going to go full bore on a project to build a

100,000-barrel-per-day refinery in the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Will you relate

your remarks to the Minister's responsibilities?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will. Is he not responsible for industrial

development in the Province of British Columbia, Mr.

Chairman?

Has the Premier of this province not announced publicly

that he intends to build a 100,000-barrel refinery in the

Province of British Columbia, and that it is a priority, as far

as he is concerned, with respect to the increase in price of

natural gas which the province hopes to receive for the sale of

it to the

[ Page 1261 ]

Americans? Is that not true?

If you'll just give me a few minutes to set the background

and the framework, I have a few specific things that I want to

ask the Minister concerning his responsibility to the Province

of British Columbia.

It has been suggested that it will require $350 million of

the taxpayers' money to build this industrial complex. Now I

don't know if that figure is correct or not, but we do know

that it would take three to four years to build a refinery, and

a lot of people would very much disagree with the price of $350

million. They would say it will be closer to $500 million.

But, in any event, the Premier of the province, who a few

days or weeks ago castigated the Province of Alberta and the

federal government over the Syncrude project in the tar sands

area, has turned around now and said: "Come on in. Take part of

the action. We want your investment. We want private industry

to help us build this 100,000-barrel refinery. We want

investment capital to come in. We welcome the participation of

other provinces if that's what they would like to do." So, it's

fish of one and fowl of the other; it just depends on who is

sponsoring the project — the Province of Alberta or the federal

government or the Province of British Columbia.

I'd suggest that for all of the time that we have canvassed

the department of this Minister, we have asked him repeatedly

what his industrial development policy is for the Province of

British Columbia, and we've heard nothing. Mr. Chairman, it's a

nonentity. There is no policy. It does not exist in the

Province of British Columbia. It's a hip-pocket, seat-of-the-pants approach, subject to change at the whim of each and every

Minister, irrespective of whether it's good for the Province of

British Columbia or not.

We want to know specifically what is the direction and the

policy of the government with respect to resource development.

I say that it doesn't exist. In the mining industry it doesn't

exist. In the forest industry they have to try and live with a

policy and rules that change almost every week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would advise you that policy

matters are not in discussion when the House is in committee.

It's administrative responsibilities only.

MR. SMITH: Policy with respect to the administration of his

department is always in order to be discussed. We have a right

to ask what the existing policy is and the present-day policy.

I know that we can't ask the Minister to reveal in advance

future policy of the government; that's a prerogative of the

Crown. But certainly we can examine, as I am doing, the lack of

policy and direction with respect to resource development in

the Province of British Columbia.

The petroleum industry in this province lives with the

continuous threat of takeover. There seems to be a vendetta to

discredit all the companies which are engaged in exploration

for petroleum products in this province, even though they have

invested over $2 billion in that same field of endeavour in the

Province of British Columbia. Yet the Minister and the Premier

turn around and say: "Come on in. Take part of the action.

Become our partners. We want to build a 100,000-barrel

refinery."

But I would like to address a few other specific remarks to

the Premier. What study indicates that the Province of British

Columbia requires an additional 100,000 barrels per day of

refining capacity in the Province of British Columbia at this

time? Where is the study, Mr. Minister? Why has it not been

filed with the House? Can the Minister answer that? Can he tell

us on whose authority and on whose recommendation the Province

of British Columbia has decided to go ahead, irrespective of

what the economics might be, and build a 100,000-barrel

refinery in the province? I think we should take a look at the

present situation and project it a little bit into the

future.

At the present time there are seven refineries located in

the Province of British Columbia. I would say that from the

standpoint of the delivery of product, they're fairly well

located. There's one in northeastern British Columbia at

Taylor, there's one refinery at Prince George, one at Kamloops

and four in the greater Vancouver area.

The facts are that the total combined capacity of the seven

refineries now operating in the Province of British Columbia is

something in the neighbourhood of 140,000 barrels per day. I

understand that one of the refining companies — Standard Oil,

as a matter of fact — is in the process of increasing their

capacity by approximately 25,000 barrels per day. So with the

existing facilities — and those that will come on stream as

soon as that expansion to their plant can be physically put in

place — we will have in the neighbourhood of 165,000 barrels

per day capacity for refining product in the Province of

British Columbia.

I think it's well to draw to the attention of the government

in this House that we adequately look after the supply of

petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia through

our own refineries at the present time. So what are we going to

do with an extra 100,000-barrel capacity coming on stream, as

it will, when the government gets around to the completion of

that project? Where's the market? At least there's an increase

at the present time in the domestic market, but certainly not

sufficient to take almost a doubling of the refining capacity

in the Province of British Columbia.

The facts of the matter are that there is no shortage of

refined product in the Province of British

[ Page 1262 ]

Columbia, with the exception of one thing — bunker fuel. We

have to import some bunker fuel. We'll have to continue to do

that regardless of refining capacity unless we expand the

refining capacity so greatly that we have a great surplus of

refined gas and those types of petroleum products just to get

the heavy bunker fuel that's required to service the

industry.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: "No," the Minister says. Well, that

happens to be a fact of life. You can't have bunker fuel

without some of the other products being manufactured as well,

right? If you have an integrated refinery you manufacture

product, if you're going to do it economically, from the

standpoint of the total resources that are required in a

refinery and the total return from the refinery.

There's no present existing shortage of refining capacity.

Even with the predictions and projections of increased use, we

don't face a shortage of refining capacity for some little

time. But the other thing is that we can presently only supply

out of the resources of the province — that is, the proven

reserves of the province — about 40 per cent of the stock of

crude that we require for even the existing refineries. The

rest must come by import, presently from the Province of

Alberta. So we have to ask the Minister if, in building a

100,000-barrel refinery, he has any firm commitment from the

Province of Alberta that they'll continue to supply us with the

crude that's required for that refinery. If not, where is the

source of supply? Will it come offshore? If so, does that not

put us in the same position as the Americans with a refinery at

Cherry Point with tankers coming and going not only outside the

coastal area of Vancouver Island, but right into the inner

harbour of Vancouver to supply us with the crude that we

need?

No, it would seem to me that a decision by the provincial

government to invest at least $350 million of the taxpayers'

money in a refining facility that is not presently required is

just plain stupid economics. I think it's time that the

Minister, who seemed to be very much aware of what was going to

be announced in Ottawa, stood in his place in this House and

told the members of this committee just why he feels that we

need another 100,000-barrel refinery in this province at this

particular time — why he feels that that expenditure is

justified. Perhaps the only justification is to fulfill the

whims of a socialist party which seems to think that in order

to prove their worth to the people of the Province of British

Columbia they have to become involved in every facet of

business in the province. That way, I guess, even though it

isn't profitable, they can cover it up somehow so that it looks

to be profitable, at least until the people find out what the

real bill is.

So, Mr. Minister, tell us, if you can, why you think an

expenditure of at least $350 million is a justifiable

expenditure from public funds and why this money is not used to

provide more services to people in the province rather than

duplicate facilities that are already in existence. I think

it's time that we knew where the Minister stands and why he

thinks this is a good deal for the Province of British

Columbia.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): This has been a fairly

wide-ranging discussion over the estimates of the Minister of

Economic Development. It's touched on quite a variety of

subjects, from a concern for unemployment to a concern for the

investment climate of the province, to a commentary on the

political affiliations and philosophy of the New Democratic

Party, references to people such as Professor Mel Watkins, who

to my knowledge held no elected position in the New Democratic

Party nor, in fact, represented anything more than his own

views in what is truly a democratic party. Nevertheless, his

views and the particular attitude he put forward are even held

out as responsible reasons for the lagging economy at the

moment, an economy which is in general trouble, I would

suggest, in many, many parts of this nation and the world.

Of course, British Columbia is a province based mainly on

the forest industry. When our customers find that their

domestic activity is in a sad state of collapse, naturally our

markets suffer and unemployment flows from that lost market.

This has been a cyclical trend in this province for many, many

years, irrespective of government. Anyone who is really

interested can, on the basis of statistical review, find that

in 1961 we were in a much deeper recession in the Province of

British Columbia with unemployment much higher at that time

than we have at the moment. Again, in 1970 we had a very bleak

unemployment picture in the province.

At that time I find it curious that the people, on the

Social Credit side particularly, who are expressing such deep

concern now were curiously silent at that time, perhaps because

they were on the side of the government benches. I don't recall

in that day, Mr. Chairman, any special direct employment

programmes mounted by the government of that day as there has

been by this government at the moment. I don't recall action by

the government to assist the small operators by ensuring that

they received a more equitable price for their chip products

so that they could stay alive and compete to a degree with the

more diversified industries in the province. All of these

things are positive steps that the government has taken. They

involve a variety of departments, not only the Minister of

Economic Development, who in my view is doing a good job of

developing a climate in British Columbia to accommodate

investment.

[ Page 1263 ]

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that while I would be the last

person to oppose the right of opposition Members to question

and scrutinize the estimates of cabinet Ministers, they also

have the responsibility to do so in a mature and sober way. I

think that when they build hypothetical cases, straw men, on

which they pose questions, they are doing neither favour to

themselves as mature politicians nor to the confidence and the

climate set in British Columbia.

I think the business editor of The Vancouver Sun ,

George Froehlich, made the case very well in his column of

Saturday, March 29, of this year, when he commented on foreign

capital that was in fact being attracted for investment in

British Columbia, foreign capital that had been obtained from

Arab nations, which created a controversy in this House and has

now died down. I'm going to read the article, Mr. Chairman,

because I think it bears repeating and it bears consideration

by the opposition if they're serious in their questioning

today. It says:

"Every politician is an opportunist at heart." Well, that's

not a very profound statement. But going on:

"The case in point is the borrowing of $200 million from

unnamed Arab sources by B.C. Hydro through Finance Minister

David Barrett. It started off rather innocently in early

December of last year when the Premier announced that the

government had floated the first $100 million bond issue for

B.C. Hydro with some Arabs.

"The consensus at that time among bond dealers in Vancouver

and Toronto was that the deal arranged through Deputy Finance

Minister Gerry Bryson was a good one. But some opposition

Members, ever eager to gain political mileage, could not resist

putting their two cents in. Social Credit leader Bill Bennett

started the ball rolling when he said that the sale of bonds to

the Arabs marked a tragic period in B.C. history and placed the

province in the grip of international financiers."

The same kind of wild statement we are hearing today, Mr.

Chairman.

"The statement was ludicrous, to say the least, and all the

more ludicrous coming from a former businessman such as

Bennett. He knows better. But I guess it proves that everything

is fair in love and politics. Subsequently, other opposition

Members have chosen to play cheap politics, such as Social

Credit Member Don Phillips and Garde Gardom of the Liberals."

That's quite an indictment coming from The Vancouver

Sun , Mr. Chairman. The business editor of The Vancouver

Sun is no supporter of the New Democratic Party, but out of

his concern for the welfare of this province he was moved to

make this indictment of the kind of questioning that the

opposition came up with.

He goes on, Mr. Chairman, to say — and this is directly

related to the Minister's responsibility to produce confidence

in the economic climate and the financial climate of British

Columbia:

"Phillips at one stage suggested that the money could well

be Mafia money. 'If it is Mafia money we want to know. I think

the people of the province have a right to know where you got

the money, why you had to go outside Canada for it and, if so,

why you couldn't get it within the borders of North America,'

he said.

"Not to be outdone, Gardom said, 'We are entitled to know if

it is clean money.'"

I don't know if he considers Liberal money to be the only

kind of money that is clean or not, but I thought they were

free enterprisers, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's been laundered.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, perhaps you've had some lessons in

washing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Will the Hon. Minister

confine his remarks to the Minister in question?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I'm quoting the

article from the

business editor of The Vancouver Sun . Certainly no one

is in a better position to give a perspective on the climate

for investment or industrial development in the province of

British Columbia.

He's quoting Mr. Gardom here. He says:

"'We have a right to know whether it is clean money. Is it

fair on rates, terms and competition? Was it the best

available? Did he clear it through the federal government? Was

it an offer B.C. couldn't refuse? Were there any heavies

involved?'"

Another hypothetical straw man, Mr. Chairman, which they

have developed.

"Well, here are the facts (says Mr. Froehlich) that cannot be

rebutted. B.C. Hydro, for the period ending March 31, 1979,

needs about $3.2 billion for its various expansion projects.

The utilities get these funds by going to the bond market. In

Hydro's case it has three options available. It can go to the

Canadian, U.S. and off-shore markets, and no market is

bottomless. For example, there is an unwritten rule that limits

the amounts of money a company can borrow.

"In the case of the Canadian markets, the figure for Hydro

amounts to about $75 million. In the case of U.S. markets, the

figures range from $ 100 to $125 million."

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister please relate his remarks to

the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Economic

Development?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you have allowed the opposition

to question the Minister on the basis of the financial climate

which is is inviting in this province. If this is not related

to investment climate and investment confidence in this

province, I then I am at a loss to understand what is. Now the

main point is that even the business editor of the Sun has

been moved to condemn and to categorize as grossly

irresponsible and politically unjustified the comments and the

attack made by the opposition when investment capital indeed

was attracted to the Province of British Columbia. He's pointed out that the main reason that the Arab nation was not

prepared to reveal their precise country of borrowing was

because they are beleaguered by many, many nations to loan

money, and they certainly don't want to offend anyone by

indicating who they have picked and whom they have chosen. So

the only secrecy was for their own internal needs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should read on,

in light of the Liberal leader's (Mr. D.A. Anderson'

s) comments, and put on the record of this House precisely what

conclusion Mr. Froehlich came to when he scrutinized the

opposition's conduct in the House. He said:

"Actually listening to these comments of one of the leading

money-dealers in Canada, a man who is certainly not a Barrett

fan, the kind of accusations and innuendoes that have come

forth from the opposition could certainly jeopardize any future

attempts by Hydro to seek Arab funds, the net result being that

B.C. taxpayers could eventually end up having to pay higher

interest rates, and all because of petty games politicians

insist on playing."

So there you have it, chaps. Keep up the good work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader seems to be exercised

this morning. Perhaps he's not used to receiving that kind of commentary from

a newspaper which is usually friendly to his cause. They can only go so far

in justifying irresponsible conduct and then they speak out also. The Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised the question of the high

unemployment rate, and he raised the question also of the philosophy of this

party, in creating high unemployment. I want to say that perhaps he should look

to some of the other Liberal provinces in this nation if he's very concerned

about unemployment because we find that British Columbia fares very well by

comparison to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, which are mainly Liberal. You

ought to have a look at Quebec and you'll find it's 10.8 per cent unemployed

at the present time; the Atlantic provinces have 15.3 per cent unemployed. I

don't hear the Liberals coming up with any quick solution to the unemployment

problem where they have the responsibility of governing.

Perhaps what bemused me more than anything else was his

analysis of the philosophy of this party, when discussing

unemployment and the soft economy. He referred to Professor Mel

Watkins who, as I said, never represented this party in any

official way. If we want to start looking at the philosophy of

parties, perhaps we should have a took at this ad which I have

found as representing the Liberal Party campaign and platform

in the 1935 election in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: 1935?

HON. MR. KING: 1935. "50,000 Orientals in B.C." is the

title.

"CCF party stands pledged to give them the vote. The Liberal

Party is opposed to giving these Orientals the vote. Where will

you stand on election day?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: It goes on:

"Canada's next government will be Liberal. Under the new

Liberal regime Canada will follow Britain's lead toward

prosperity, even as Austria and South Africa already have done.

It is important that Vancouver and the lower mainland have a

solid Liberal representation at Ottawa in harmony with the new

Mackenzie King government which will be in power after October

14."

MR. GARDOM: What year is that?

HON. MR. KING: 1935. The only reason I bring this up on the floor of the House....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...is because you can't think of anything else to

say.

HON. MR. KING: No, not at all. The second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) attempted to twist the policy of this party on the basis of

a statement made by an individual member who was never elected, and I think

that if he wants to indulge in that kind of twisting, that kind of innuendo,

then he better be prepared to recognize the heritage of the party which he represents

today. If that's not a legacy of discrimination, of contempt for working people,

of prejudice against races in this province, I don't know what is, Mr. Chairman.

That group over there has the gall and the audacity to stand

here today and say that they're interested in the rights of

workers. If they were genuinely interested they would not

associate themselves with a party having a background of that

nature. No way. It's about time that they understood that if

they are going to twist, it they're going to deal in innuendo,

they have to be prepared to have their own records scrutinized

at the same time.

Now, I'm sure the Minister of Economic Development is quite

prepared to answer responsible questions concerning the

policies of this government, concerning precisely the moneys

provided in his estimates to deal with the business of this

province, to strengthen the economy, to try to create more

employment for our people. I suggest that the opposition would

be doing everyone a favour if they directed their comments and

their criticism to sober and responsible types of

questions.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to

finish off on some of the comments I made yesterday, although I

think perhaps the government has demonstrated its new Minister

for Defence today. He's taken over from the Minister of Health

in that role.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): If you want to

filibuster, go ahead.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no, I'll be quite brief, Mr. Chairman. I've

no wish to filibuster.

I want to ask some specific questions. I think the oil

refinery subject is of sufficient significance that we should

get some definitive information.

Initially, as I mentioned yesterday, apart from anything

else, there is a conflict in the use of land in relation to the

philosophy this government has outlined, in that some of the

land in the Surrey area is agricultural. It may not be grade 1

or grade 2 but it is agricultural land and certainly we've

taken the position in this House that the government can't have

it both ways.

After the tremendous ideological battle we had over Bill 42, we now find two

things: the government is acquiring agricultural land destined for industrial

use. Secondly, it has amended the Laws Declaratory Act so that, in fact, it

can do anything it wishes with land which any other citizen or any other group

would not be able to do. I think we have to get some answer from this government

and from this Minister in particular as to where the government plans to draw

the line. Or is it simply just going to be a matter of expediency?

We have also asked questions about alternatives to an oil

refinery. This presupposes that we are going to have one

according to the Premier's statement yesterday in Ottawa, and I

don't think we need go over all that ground again, which was

covered this morning, as to whether or not there should be one.

We now know from the Premier's statement that there will be

one. Some alternative sites have been discussed and this

Minister has said that Merritt has been excluded and yet, at

the same time, we have had statements that it is not a fait

accompli that it will be built in the Surrey area, so I have

one question. First of all, if it isn't the Surrey area, what

other alternative areas are being considered?

I also make the point that this government in opposition

made a great play on the principle that there should be the

greatest public discussion and public input in matters

affecting municipalities. If there's one area in the province

where residents and municipal aldermen are extremely uptight it

has to be in Surrey and Langley, and the Minister is well aware

of this.

Secondly, when are the municipalities of Langley and Surrey

and, for that matter, the Greater Vancouver Regional District

involved in planning? When are they to be given the facts and

the decisions that have been made up to this point because

there certainly seems to be a very secretive approach to the

whole thing? We are told that the government is carrying out

studies about environmental impact. We are told that somewhere

along the line the municipalities will be consulted, but it's

very clear that the municipalities have come to the conclusion

that the consultation, if you can call it that, will be after

decisions have gone beyond a certain point and are probably

irreversible. The municipalities will then be told to take it

or leave it, or perhaps try to modify what decisions have been

taken by the government.

Now, the whole question of the land use has been raised by

other Members and I have already said that I think it's a

hypocritical position by government to espouse so strongly, as

it has done, the rights of the individual and the autonomy of

the municipalities and the need to preserve farmland when, in

point of fact, the government itself appears not to be

following its own principle and its own guidelines. So I would

like to ask the Minister specifically: of the total acreage

involved in the Surrey-Langley area, what percentage is

presently farmland and what measures, if any, has the Minister

taken to have the land rezoned, or will the Laws Declatory Act

be the instrument used to overrule the wishes of the local

municipalities? To what degree has the government consulted

with the municipalities and to what degree are the councils of

Surrey and Langley aware of the government's planning to this

date and the degree to which these

[ Page 1266 ]

municipalities have been informed of the government's

environmental studies? Are these complete? If they are

complete, why haven't the municipalities of Surrey and Langley

been told about it?

I've spoken with various people in the area and I would like

to ask the Minister the exact nature of the company that is

called S&H Development. I can find that this S&H

Development Co. has one solitary director and I find it very

difficult to research this matter in detail, so I think perhaps

I could ask the Minister just exactly whether S&H

Development is the main agent through which options are being

acquired on the land in Surrey.

The information I would also like to elicit is the amount of

money that has already been committed in the form of options.

It's my information that $500 is paid initially and that 1 per

cent is paid two weeks later and 1.5 per cent was to be paid in

March and that the offers expired on June 1. Now these are all

specific figures I've mentioned and a specific date when the

options run out — June 1. In the light of the Premier's rather

abrupt announcement at the conference table this left the

impression, at least in my mind, that he made a snap decision

to commit the government to the building of a refinery. Yet

maybe it wasn't as spontaneous or as abrupt as it appeared,

because according to the individuals in Surrey whom I have

talked to who have been approached by S&H Development....

With the options expiring on June 1, I could ask the

Minister: is there some deadline by which the government had to

make the commitment to build the oil refinery in Surrey?

If, in fact, as statements have been made by the Minister

that nothing has been finally decided, then what is the only

alternative? Is there another area in the province? Does it

have to be the Surrey-Langley area or not, since we've already

been told that the Merritt area is too far from the markets and

the geographic location is so important?

I think, also, that we should repeat the tremendous concern of the citizens

in the area for the danger to the environment which is inevitable. The Minister

said yesterday that every precaution would be taken and that there's more than

can be done in new plants than was previously provided in older plants by way

of preserving the environment. But some of the facts and figures that have been

brought forward by the residents of the area, who have written, I suppose, to

all of the MLAs, are really quite staggering. If this environmental problem

is being studied, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House, first of all,

if the study has been completed. If it has been completed, what, in fact, does

it reveal? Would it not be reasonable to take that study with the House, or

at least make the details of the study available to the mayors, aldermen and

certainly the residents of the area, who are surely the most intimately affected

individuals in this whole issue.

Some of the reaction in the press today from other people,

including members of SPEC, suggests that this really could be

an environmental disaster. As we all know, we use the word

"disaster" perhaps a little loosely. I'm not personally

informed enough yet as to whether that's an exaggeration or

not. One thing I know is that if I lived in Langley or Surrey

and I was told that a refinery was being planned without

consulting me, as an individual, and all the other individuals

who are paying taxes in that area and who are represented by

elected aldermen and mayors, I would feel pretty unhappy also.

So I'm not necessarily agreeing with words such as "ecological

disaster" and so on, but I certainly think it's very

reasonable.

This is the kind of attitude this Minister asked the

opposition to adopt yesterday in debate. He didn't want a

bitter, exaggerated adversary approach; he wanted reasonable

questions from the opposition. Well, I'm trying to ask some

reasonable questions. I'm just saying to the Minister, if you

lived in Langley or Surrey and you realized that at least the

nature and character of the area where you were living would be

substantially changed, would you not feel that you had a very

definite right to ask the provincial government and the

Ministers concerned — regardless of the final outcome, whether

this plan goes ahead or not — what studies have been done and

what they've shown? Don't you think you would want an

opportunity to modify whatever plans the government might be

developing? That's all I'm asking; I think that's immensely

reasonable.

I don't think I'm being an opportunistic, as the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) suggested, and I don't think I'm being

unfair. I'm just asking in an objective way: how would you feel — or how would any Member of the government benches feel — if

he or she lived in Surrey-Langley at the present time and this

was the present status of planning for a large industrial

development, which indisputably must change the character, the

nature, the environment, the air, the water and so on? Among

other factors that have been talked about, I understand that

there's no doubt that the soil in the region is not very

porous, and that the drainage of water is slow compared to

other areas. If that water is to be contaminated in any way

there is real danger to the water supply in that area.

Again, I'm asking the question. If the Minister has

information that scientific studies show that this is not an

accurate criticism, come and tell us. That, really, is all I'm

trying to say at this point in time. A lot of questions are

being asked. Some of the criticisms may be exaggerated, but

until there are some answers from the government or from

whichever scientific body is doing the environmental

[ Page 1267 ]

impact studies, this House and the community and the people

living in the area are left completely in the dark. I don't

think that's fair. It's certainly a very fundamental

contradiction of the kind of promises that this party made when

it sat down here in opposition and time after time after time I

heard the present Premier and other Members of that party

criticize the government of that day for the way in which it

either ignored the individual citizen or flew by the seat of

its pants and made decisions which could not be reversed — or

which the government refused to reverse, even in the face of

some pretty hard data.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel some of the

contradictions require to be explained. I think we should know

some of the specific figures up to this point in time as to how

much money the government spent on these options. Is S&H

Development the government agent? Do the options run out on

June 1? Does that mean that if the options are not exercised by

June 1 the government has changed its direction and there is

some alternative area to be developed in the province?

I certainly feel we should know what mechanism the

government is planning to use in overriding the local

municipalities on the question of using agricultural land for

industrial purposes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Muscle.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says

they use muscle. But I asked the question when we amended the

Laws Declaratory Act as to why this government wanted the

authority to overrule municipalities or individuals. The

staggering answer I got — I still can't believe my ears to this

day, Mr. Chairman — was that the former government did this for

20 years and "we are just reverting to what they did."

If there was ever one area of Social Credit policy which this

party severely criticized, it was autocracy and the

domineering, dictatorial approach by government towards the

rights of the individual.

Now when we find that this government in relation to land

use, the people's government, wants one law for itself and

another for the individual, I think we are entitled to ask the

kinds of questions I've asked this morning. I still think they

are reasonable. It is a people's government, all right. When it

comes to land use, there is one law for the government and one

law for the people.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Who is the government? Is that not

the people?

MR. GARDOM: Thirty per cent.

MR. WALLACE: The government is supposed to represent the

people and to respect the rights of the individual. The rights

of the individual should not be subject to one law and the

rights of the government a different law. That is exactly what

we've got under the Laws Declaratory Act.

I think, particularly in light of the long and bitter and

emotional debates we had on Bill 42, which is such a central

ideological principle of this government, that it conflicts

very strangely with another commitment this government has

frequently made that it will protect the rights and freedoms of

the individual, that it is interested in the little guy. The

little guy who has got a little bit of land can't just suddenly

sell it to an industrial developer. No way! The examples in the

last couple of years since the bill was passed make that very

plain.

Here we have the government doing exactly what it wishes

with land. That is what the four-line amendment to the Laws

Declaratory Act makes very clear: than any law which would

otherwise bind the Crown in relation to the use of land or

improvements does not bind the Crown. In other words, the Crown

can do anything it wishes with any type of land, even though

individuals are compelled to adhere to the provisions of the

Land Commission Act.

There are just too many contradictions. There is just too

disturbing a clash between what this government espouses and

what it actually does when the chips are down. In light of

these very important points I have raised, would the Minister

tell us that once all the studies are completed, or if they are

completed, this government will consider some form of public

inquiry or royal commission for the public, the people you

represent?

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) says: "What is the

government?" The government represents every single person with

a vote in this province, they don't just represent their own

members or our members or any other party's members. They

represent every voter in this province, and there are many

voters in this province very unhappy about some of the

contradictory situations I've outlines, where the government

espouses one kind of thinking and one philosophy but in action

take a very different course. I think that not only because of

the scale of the refinery project that we are talking about —

and let's face it, if the refinery is built and is any kind of

a success, such as industrial complex in our modern times just

does not stay as a single refinery — the whole concept is to

develop an industrial complex.

Although we are having problems of natural gas supply at the

moment, I think anyone would be very naive to suggest that if

this refinery is built, that will be in any way the end of the

industrial development in the Surrey area. Certainly that is

the immediate reaction I sense from people in the petroleum

business today from the comments they've made in

[ Page 1268 ]

the newspaper, plus the fact that they are very interested

to have many of the questions answered that have been asked in

this House already this week.

I think that it is not at all unreasonable that the

opposition should ask to what degree this Minister plans to

involve the public in this very important issue, not only of

whether it should be built or not, but the location, the

protection of the environment, and all the other matters that

I've raised, including the manner in which this government

plans to use the land presently zoned for agriculture.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay is a gentleman.

No one doubts his sincerity in the questions that he asks in

this House. But, Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the

Member, I've got to remind him of a little bit of history and

then cover some of the questions that he's asked.

Perhaps it wasn't alone across the country, but the previous

administration did not consult the municipalities when it

wished to build edifices under the Crown provincial, be it

hydro dams, Bennett towers, whatever. There was virtually and

absolutely no consultation with the City of Vancouver in

building the so-called B.C. tower — Bennett Tower.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The court house is another thing that was

totally approved by the provincial government with very little

consultation with the city.

Mr. Member, you're talking about the acquisition of land,

that the people are having the land purchased from them, and

the rights of the individual. Now ask the people who used to

own the backup land to Roberts Bank. Ask the people in the

valleys in the areas where we built the Arrow Dams and the

Columbia River project — ask those people about rights. This is

the government that brought in a right to sue the Crown, one of

the last provinces in Confederation to bring in such rights.

This is the government that put teeth into the human rights

legislation. This is the government that gives fair deals to

people with whom they deal. And you talk about the rights of

the individual.

MR. WALLACE: I left that other party. Don't you remember

that?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Member

when he says he left the other party. I don't look on him as

being a Member of the Tory party, I just believe he's crossing

from the Socred Party to the socialist party and he's on a Tory

road.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's obvious, but it's never been

announced.

HON. MR. LAUK: We expect to see him over on this side

soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: You've got a situation, Mr. Chairman, that

when you're dealing with priorities in the public interest, you

have to make judgments in the public good. You don't make

judgments the way corporations do: corporate decisions to

maximize profit, corporate decisions for the survival of the

corporation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Tell us about the process.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't understand the Hon. Member's

question. He doesn't know what is in the public good and I

understand that; the Liberal Party has never understood

that.

Mr. Chairman, the so-called conflicts of interest had to be

resolved. The conflict of interest that you've put forward I

don't consider to be a conflict of interest. I consider it a

judgment of priorities. You have some agricultural land and you

have to use some agricultural land sometimes for housing or

industrial purposes.

MR. WALLACE: That's not what we were told on Bill 42.

HON. MR. LAUK: But listen, use your common sense, man! For

example, if you have a piece of land and it was of moderate use

agriculturally, the most logical use would be industrial or

housing. Come on, you know better than that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Throw out Bill 42.

HON. MR. LAUK: Bill 42 was for the preservation of farmland,

the kind of backup farmland at Roberts Bank. It was being used

for industrial purposes. The whole of the upper Fraser Valley

was being used for housing and industrial purposes. Look at

Kelowna, where your leader's home riding is. It's the worst

strip development in North America. Why? Because of the

sell-out boys over there. That's why we have Bill 42 and that's

why I'm glad we have Bill 42.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're a little dictator, that's what you are — a little dictator!

HON. MR. LAUK: You argued against Bill 42, and now you're

strangely silent on it.

With respect to the refinery and the specific questions, Mr.

Chairman, again, as I stated yesterday I'm going to refer you

to the man who's in charge of it, the Attorney-General....

[ Page 1269 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't stand the heat so you turn it over

to someone else.

HON. MR. LAUK: The location of the refinery has not been

decided. There's a commitment to do social impact, environment

and other studies before any decision is made. Naturally this

must include a consideration of the municipalities' attitude,

the people's attitudes who live there. Naturally that must be

taken into consideration.

MR. WALLACE: So you're going to have a public inquiry.

HON. MR. LAUK: We're not going to have a public inquiry. You

see, if we had a public inquiry and there were four people who

showed up and wanted a refinery, would that satisfy you? There

may be, maybe not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Okay, I'm not so sure. Maybe there should be

several public inquiries. I don't know. Ask the

Attorney-General — he's in charge of the progress of this

project.

But, you know, Mr. Chairman, politics sometimes enters into

these things.

MR. WALLACE: The devil you say!

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. There's a politician — the Mayor of Surrey (Mr.

Vander Zalm) — who said that on the one hand he was all for an oil refinery

and, after he talked to four neighbours, he was against it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I think these political situations as they

arise should be examined more closely. It seems to me that if I

were running for mayor or alderman of the municipality, I would

try to act in the public interest and in the interests of the

people of the municipality. I wouldn't take political stands

because of partisan, political points of view.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm glad that he's a rare breed of cat at the

municipal level, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, his political

lifetime is short lived.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, once again we're

back to the very major question that has been a constant pall over this Legislature

and, I'd say, over the whole governmental process in B.C.: the continuing and

haunting question that is in front of the general public as to whether or not

they're receiving value from their politicians and from their civil service

and from the whole governmental process.

We're still having the most serious, if not grave,

difficulty with one word in this province, and that's the word

"accountability." It unfortunately has proven to become

exceptionally apparent that accountability cannot be by whim or

by discretion. It is something that has got to be imposed by

law and available by law. Accountability in the Province of

British Columbia should become part of the rule of law.

As you, Mr. Chairman, said yourself earlier today from your

seat in the chair; it is open to Members to ask questions but

Ministers in the Province of British Columbia do not have a

responsibility to reply. I would commend the House and I would

commend the general public to look to a government that is

perhaps more responsible in this regard and that's the Lok

Sabha in India where Ministers do have a responsibility to

reply. They have to equip themselves. They cannot bury

questions. They cannot sit as mummies in their seats. They

cannot take questions as notice and use them as a "device," as referred to in the press statements coming out of

the offices of the Hon. Premier of this province.

Mr. Chairman, we have had constant and continuing difficulty

in British Columbia in attempting to bring to the attention of

the general public answers and information as to whether or not

they have received value. Look at some situations: the

Glenshiel Hotel, Casa Loma, the Princess Marguerite...

MR. CHABOT: A financial scandal!

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: ...the Kamloops hop farm — there are no end of

others — the situation of the Ocean Falls newsprint

transaction. The general public and the Members of the

opposition are not afforded cost projections, financial

statements or appraisals. It's a situation of dealing in the

dark.

Earlier on today there was a very peculiar attack, which I'd

like to refer to in a few moments, by the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King). But the Minister of Labour in his statements

didn't pay heed at all to the question of having fair and true

and proper accountability in B.C., one that should be imposed

by law. Until such time as we can have somebody who has the

muscle given to him by this assembly to do a job, British

Columbia will never, ever have true public accountability.

When they sat in opposition, "Let the sunshine come in," they said. When they got into office what happened, Mr.

Chairman? They pulled down the blinds, and darkness reigns

supreme. Until we have in

[ Page 1270 ]

British Columbia an auditor-general who is unfettered from

the process to independently account and independently inform

the public as to the financial success or otherwise of

programmes, as to whether or not the public is receiving value,

the public is going to continue to be gypsies or ripped off, as

the Member for Columbia River earlier stated today.

I'd like to say a few words in reference and reply to the

statements of the Minister of Labour today. The Minister of

Labour has an admirable style. I think it's one that pretty

well all of us admire. But his premise today was phony, it was

false, and I think I would be charitable to him to say it was

ethically inexpensive.

He referred to an advertisement in a newspaper — I don't

know which newspaper it was in — but it seems to have written

on it the date October 7, 1935. I've only got a photocopy of it

and I can barely read that. The year 1935 was a time when no

end of the Members in this Legislature were not even born; by

far the majority of them never certainly were enfranchised. It

talks about the Liberal Party being opposed to giving Orientals

the vote. Well, may I say categorically that I reject such a

stand completely and unalterably, and so do all Members of our

party.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm surprised to hear that.

MR. GARDOM: But listen to this. He attempted to tie this

phony strawman into the Waffle Manifesto which has been

subscribed to by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett); by

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer); by the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who is the No. 2

person in the province, I suppose, in the socialistic

hierarchy; by the Speaker (Hon. Mr. Dowding) and by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I have not heard one of

them stand up and denounce the statement:

"The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists in factories and

offices, on farms and campuses."

I've not heard one of them

denounce that.

I've not heard one of them denounce:

"Capitalism must be replaced by socialism by national planning of investment and by the public

ownership of the means of production in the interests of the

Canadian people as a whole."

I've not heard one of them

renounce this:

"...extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of

the economy, such as the key resource industries, finance and

credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy."

haven't heard any of them renounce that.

They subscribe to this, not a statement that came out 40 years ago that he's

relying upon in this premise; they subscribe to this in the matter of the last

two or three years. I believe it was three years ago. Somebody will correct

me if I'm wrong. I don't believe it was more than three years ago.

But not only did they subscribe to it at their convention,

they are following that policy. They are following it totally

and correctly right down the line. The Waffle Manifesto is

alive and flourishing in B.C. today. I repeat it: the Waffle

Manifesto is alive and flourishing in B.C. today. The first

Member to test the water with it was the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who went to an industry

and said: "Thou shalt not be able to operate in a democratic

society. Close your doors." The Castro of the north over there.

That's how that came about.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Now the next thing. The Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) made a great play over the remarks of the business

editor, Mr. Froehlich, in The Vancouver Sun . With every

respect to Mr. Froehlich, I differ entirely with his point of

view. I feel that public money should be under a public

microscope. I do not believe in secret deals, unless they are

in the interests of national security or public decency, and

this loan was neither. I still feel absolutely convinced that

this borrowing should have been made public, and I still make

that same request today. There is no need to have things

undercover.

A lot has been said by other Members as to whether or not

the lender in question happens to be a member of the pact that

has put 150 Canadian companies on a blacklist by virtue of

racial discrimination against Jewish people, or happens to be a

member of the pact that have put 2,000 firms in the United

States of America on the blacklist by virtue of racial

discrimination. How does that fit into your ethical pipe over

there, Mr. Minister of Labour? I wish that you were here in the

House, and I'm glad to see that he has now come back. There is

absolutely no ethics to that premise that he raised here at all

today. None.

I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the ethical

morality of this government when they stand on their little

high horse and they get all excited about South African wines.

Do we hear one single, solitary peep about them when they put

orders for turbines for B.C. Hydro from the U.S.S.R. which

denies free elections and imprisons people without trial and is

a racially discriminatory country? Eh? What's the come-on? If

you are going to start preaching ethics and morality in this

House, Mr. Member, you'd better try to do something a little

bit better than dig up an old newspaper advertisement in 1935

and try to tie the can of anyone to that. It is

[ Page

1271 ]

cheap; it is phony; it is false; it constitutes almost an

ethical lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: An ethical lie on your part. You know full well

that there is not a person in this Legislature who would

subscribe to the principles enunciated in that advertisement,

let alone me, the members of my party or anyone else. Absolute

nonsense.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Didn't you dig up the

Regina Manifesto? It was you, wasn't it?

MR. GARDOM: I would tend to think if the government is going

to continue its policy of filibustering these estimates — which

it is doing, and make no mistake of that — so it can see the

estimates end without a number of sensitive cabinet Ministers

being held to public account.... I've been informed today that

20 per cent of the Ministers have been handled in estimates

with 40 per cent of the time. So what are we going to do then?

We are going to find there is not any time, I suppose, to ask

the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) questions about the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia. We might not even get to the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

Now this programme....

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I hope

so.

MR. GARDOM: You hope so? Well, we hope so too, Mr.

Minister.

But the programme that was designed to curtail debate in

this province is becoming very evident as to its need. Its need

is to protect the sensitive cabinet Ministers from questions

and from having to give true and proper public account.

We've asked the Hon. Minister of Economic Development no end

of questions as to why he feels that he can possibly make a

success out of a portfolio when he's faced with the absolute

contradiction of the directions of the Waffle Manifesto. He's

not seen fit to disclaim it one iota, nor have any of the

subscribers in this House seen fit to disclaim it.

I notice the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is

sitting in her seat today. She can stand up and voice her

views. I notice the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) is also here. There is nothing to prevent him offering

his attitudes as to whether or not he continues to subscribe to

the Waffle Manifesto.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was asleep when he signed it; he never

read it.

MR. GARDOM: The Waffle Manifesto is the policy and it is the

direction and it is the complete lifestyle of the new

Democratic Party in the problems in B.C. today. It was the

first socialistic government in Canada that had an opportunity

to put the Waffle theories to a test. You put them to a test. I

say, fortunately for those of us who believe in free,

competitive enterprise, provided it is free, competing and

enterprising, your test has failed. Come the next election, my

friends, it is going to be "bye, bye, bye."

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha, ha!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just want to ask a couple

of questions of the Minister which weren't answered, and

perhaps a couple of new ones, as well, that he might consider

answering. I rather doubt it, I suppose, because we've asked

for a number of days for answers. Instead of answers, we get

attacks on municipal officials from that Minister.

I was interested in his comments that the government has to

make judgments for the public good. I heard someone on the

other side of the House who asked the Minister across the floor

whether he would define what he feels the public good is.

HON. MR. LAUK : That's not what the question was.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it was. Yes, it was.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not what he asked.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important....

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, let me ask the question, then. I

wonder if the Minister would tell us....

HON. MR. LAUK: He said: "How do you arrive at that

conclusion, of what the public good is?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's totally different.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, maybe....

HON. MR. LAUK: You know there is a difference.

[ Page 1272 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley has

the floor.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are one of the

fairest Chairmen we have had here so far.

I'll ask the question then. Would the Minister, when he

takes his place again, tell us what he thinks the public good

is? And that is another legitimate question. How do you arrive

at the conclusion of what is good for the people? Good

question, because you've said yourself that the government is

forced to make decisions on the public good. I get from that

that you think perhaps it goes against the wishes of the

municipalities in the area, and perhaps even the people.

If I could just quote from something the Minister said to

reinforce that — that he thinks the public good might in fact

not be the same need that the people in the community involved

think it is — he said in Kitimat in a telephone interview which

appeared in the Kitimat Northern Sentinel on March 20,

talking about opposition to a steel mill: "Naturally, if there

is 95 or 100 per cent of a community against establishment of

an industry, there is little reason for one to proceed."

I guess that means that unless the community demonstrates

clearly that it is 100 per cent against any kind of a proposal

from the government, the government will go ahead

regardless.

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the article.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm reading it, and I want to give the House...

HON. MR. LAUK: The whole thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...the benefit of this article.

"He said this week that public opinion cannot, in his opinion, dictate to government. If public

opinion was against something the government felt would be to

the good of all, it might make the decision on the

understanding that perhaps public opinion was in error."

HON. MR. LAUK: Read on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that a fair quote, though?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. Read on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that is fair.

"Asked how he feels concerning a referendum on the steel

issue..." and I assume that means on any issue....

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the article.

MR. McCLELLAND: This is the next paragraph, Mr. Minister. I

am reading it in sequence. "Asked how he feels concerning a

referendum on the steel issue, the Minister said it would be an

abdication of the British parliamentary system." Referendums

now are an abdication of the British parliamentary system! What

do you think happens when we go to an election? That's a

referendum.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, it isn't. Don't be idiotic.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's an abdication of the British

parliamentary system.

"He added, 'The government is elected to government as a

direct, responsible government.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like Lea.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then his next quote, Mr. Chairman, said:

"The checks and balances and all that kind of nonsense in the

United States do not apply."

I feel a little frustrated in even asking that Minister to

take into account political public opinion in the Surrey area,

given that kind of statement he made in March to the Kitimat

Northern Sentinel . But I still have to ask if the

Minister is serious about taking into account public opinion

and the opinion of the municipalities, regional districts and

other agencies involved.

Since the Minister decided not to answer the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he asked how much consultation there has

been with the municipalities of Surrey and Langley and the

regional districts, Central Fraser Valley Regional District and

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, I can answer that

question quite simply by saying there has been absolutely none.

Not one government official has appeared before Surrey council,

before Langley council, before either of the regional

districts, nor has one government official, except for the

Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who is not a Member of cabinet or

a member of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. appeared at any of the

public hearings which were held in connection with a refinery

in the Surrey area. So that's a simple question and a simple

answer. There has been no consultation with any local

governmental agency with regard to an oil refinery in the

Surrey area.

I'd like to ask the Minister if the Environment and Land Use

Committee secretariat has been asked to study in any way the

proposal of an oil refinery anywhere in British Columbia. Has

the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat been

included in the ongoing plans for this refinery? I'd like to

ask the Minister if he would tell us if the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat or any other agency

[ Page 1273 ]

has made a recommendation that a refinery, if built, should

be built in Merritt.

I wish the Minister would listen and take these questions

down so I could get some answers from him later. I'll repeat

that: has any government agency, including the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat, made a recommendation that a

refinery, if built, should be located in Merritt?

I'd like to ask the Minister to confirm today that Thurber

Consultants Ltd. of Victoria was asked to do an environmental

study on the matter of an oil refinery for British Columbia.

I'd like to suggest to the Minister that that study has been

completed and that it has been in the hands of the government

for at least a month. Yet the government refuses to release

that study to the people of British Columbia. Why won't the

government release it?

I'd like to ask the government, if it was really serious in

having three locations under consideration — Merritt, Roberts

Bank and Surrey — for a proposed oil refinery, why it confined

the terms of reference of its study by Thurber Consultants Ltd.

to the lower mainland only.

I believe the government made up its mind a long time ago

that it was going to build a refinery in the lower mainland of

British Columbia and it asked for environmental studies only to

back up its own opinion. Otherwise, it would have asked Thurber

Consultants Ltd. to do an environmental study of all of the

sites under consideration: Merritt, Roberts Bank and

Surrey.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair]

Why did the government confine its study to the lower

mainland only? I suggest because they never considered Merritt,

even though its own Environment and Land Use Committee

secretariat recommended Merritt, the people of Merritt want it,

and the people of Surrey don't. The government flew a kite when

it announced Merritt, and the proof of that is in the fact that

they didn't ask Thurber Consultants Ltd. to go outside the

lower mainland in its environmental study.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he'll tell us whether or not

Surrey is his personal preference for an oil refinery. The

Premier isn't back to tell him, I understand, but I want to

know if it's his personal preference that a refinery be built

in the Surrey area — the Minister's personal preference.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: You have no personal policies either, Mr.

Minister, and that's the problem with this province right

now.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you going to answer my questions, Mr.

Minister? That's the important issue before this House today.

Will you answer those questions? I think really the most

important one is if you'll give us your reasoning for not

telling Thurber Consultants Ltd. to do studies anywhere except

in the lower mainland.

I feel a little frustrated again in asking this question,

but I have to ask it. Will you promise to hold a public

referendum before any location for an oil refinery is chosen?

Will the Minister promise that if the people of Surrey indicate

clearly that they do not want a refinery in that area, it will

not be built there? Will you make that promise today?

Will the Minister promise, Mr. Chairman, that if the

refinery is located in a site other than Surrey, options on the

land already taken will be dropped and that land returned to

private ownership? Will the Minister promise that no plan will

be advanced for any refinery anywhere until a long-term

commitment in a contractual form in writing is received,

guaranteeing an adequate supply of crude oil from Alberta?

I would ask the Minister to promise to table today all

studies — economic, engineering, environmental and any others —

relating to the establishment of a refinery in British

Columbia. I would particularly ask if the Minister will commit

today to table the Thurber report which has been in the hands

of the government for one month and which the people of British

Columbia have a right to see, and which the government has an

obligation to show them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've been here all morning, Mr. Member, and

I'd like to change the subject for just a moment and away from

the steel mill complexes, the oil refineries and the copper

smelters, and get down and talk for a moment about the B.C.

Development Corp. which the Minister mentioned last night. He

said there hadn't been too much discussion about it.

I'd like to ask him a couple of questions about the

Development Corp. of British Columbia. No. 1 is: why has the

report of the corporation not been filed with the Legislature

to this date? What is the Minister trying to hide? Is it that

he's not proud of what the Development Corp. of British

Columbia has done?

In this House for the last two years, I have spoken about a

man who had a new idea, a man who had an idea and a novel way

of building prefab homes. The materials that would be used in

these prefab homes would use what up to now has not been used

and what has been considered a waste resource. I'm referring to

poplar trees.

HON. MR. LAUK: Is he the only one in B.C. with an idea for

prefab homes?

MR. PHILLIPS: It would use a natural resource which at the

present time is going unused, a natural

[ Page 1274 ]

resource which at the present time is a cost when it comes

to the clearing of land. It's a detriment to the clearing of

land; it's considered a weed. It's a natural resource that will

replace itself approximately every 10 years. It would be

putting in industry in an area that the Minister has recognized

requires an economic uplift because of its high unemployment

and seasonal unemployment rates. By the Minister's own

agreement with Ottawa he has stated that the northeastern

section of the province should be improved.

I'll quote from the agreement with Ottawa:

"...to improve opportunities for productive

employment and access to those opportunities in areas or

economic sectors of British Columbia which, relative to other

areas or sectors of the province, require special measures to

realize development potential and promote balanced

development."

This potential industry, this idea, would be in an area that

the Minister has recognized needs attention. It would also be

utilizing a natural resource which, in the Minister's own words

and the words of the overall DREE agreement says:

"Opportunities should be made in these areas that will

activate under-utilized or uncommitted resources, initially in

the northwest, the Kootenays and the northeast. Development

opportunities will be pursued that increase and progressively

maximize higher value, added processing and manufacturing of

the resource base."

This potential industry, this idea, was new; it met the

criteria of the overall DREE agreement. It was something that

would supply a great demand which we have in British Columbia

today — the demand for low-cost housing. There is certainly a

great demand. The Department of Housing is looking for a new

concept and a new idea, an idea that so impressed his

department and the people in his department that they had an

engineering study completed to determine the entire feasibility

of the project.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Economic Development is not interested in any project unless t it's a

glamour project so that he himself can go on an ego trip.

He's not really interested in helping small people nor is he interested in listening to the problems

of small industry in this province, a complete reversal of what

the Development Corp. of British Columbia was set up to achieve

and to help.

This commission was done by Norman Springate & Associates Ltd. of Vancouver

at a cost to the department of $16,000. It was finalized September 9, 1974.

The feasibility showed that the prefabricated housing component idea by Silverton

Construction Ltd. was completely feasible. I'm not going to take the time of

the Legislature to read all of the report, but the idea was so good and impressed

his department so much — they were so enthused about it — that they had this

study completed, as I say, at a cost of $16,000 by a group of engineers.

The report showed the project to be completely feasible. It

showed that there was ample supply of the raw product — poplar.

It also showed that fire-killed aspen, a natural resource which

is standing and going to waste and rotting at the present time,

could be used. There was ample supply of this in the area to

run this plant for approximately two years. It showed that

there would be ample supply after the burned over and dried

product was used up. It showed that it was completely

financially feasible.

The study also proved that there was a great demand for

these prefab houses. Not only was there a demand, but there was

certainly a ready market for the product. The feasibility study

showed it would employ people in the area, use an uncommitted

natural resource that is being wasted today, and supply a

demand for low-cost housing. The feasibility study was

conducted in depth, and what happened? What happened, Mr.

Chairman?

After the feasibility study was completed, the Department of

Economic Development was enthused about the project. They told

the gentleman, Mr. Albert Olivier, who is the owner of

Silverton Construction and who conceived this idea, to go to

the Development Corp. of British Columbia. What happened when

he went to that great development corporation which was

supposed to help small industry get on its feet, help new ideas

to bring in industry?

HON. MR. LAUK: What happened?

MR. PHILLIPS: What did they say? Oh, they said: "Mr. Olivier, you haven't sufficient equity in the project to meet our

terms of reference." Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? Because the

Development Corp. of British Columbia was looking at Mr.

Olivier's financial statement, standard accounting practices,

where his assets were valued at the lowest possible value —

standard procedure for income tax. A lot of he machinery which

Mr. Olivier had bought was lightly used because it was from

mills that had been closed down. By his own hands and the help

of his sons...

HON. MR. LAUK: You've been snowed.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...he put this thing together, and yet the

B.C. Development Corp. looked at the financial statement

instead of looking at the value placed on the buildings and the

equipment by Springate & Associates which showed the value

of the buildings to be $87,650 and the value on the equipment

to be $93,755. Nor did the Development Corp. ask Norman

Springate & Associates if he didn't

[ Page 1275 ]

have sufficient equity to go for a smaller plant and produce

fewer houses per year to get the project off the ground or even

to go for a pilot project. No.

Do you know what they advised him to do, Mr. Chairman? They

advised Mr. Olivier to go to the Industrial Development Bank,

that great eastern financial institution that the Minister of

Economic Development has condemned, decried. I remember when

the Development Corp. of British Columbia was being established

and the legislation was being put through. There was great

emphasis on how it was going to help the small businessman, the

man who couldn't be helped by the ordinary banking system, the

man who had an idea and an enterprise that would employ people

and supply a demand which existed for a product.

I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the Development

Corp. of British Columbia, in this case, has been a complete

failure, has not lived up to its responsibilities, and I have

to put the blame right back on the Department of Economic

Development. Because this wasn't a glamour industry, they were

not interested; because it was not a functioning industry at

the present time, they were afraid to take any risk because

they are afraid in their ability, as businessmen, to assess a

project and know that it could be brought to completion. They

want somebody else to take all the risk.

As I've said in this Legislature, if that department wasted

or put $150,000 into this project and lost the whole thing, it

would be well worth the gamble because we're still building

houses the way we built them in 1902 in the days of the Model

T. I have suggested that to the Minister of Finance.

But this government can find literally millions of dollars

to waste on projects which produce no results. They can

squander money on hiring political flacks. They get fed money

on surveys and commissions with no end result, Mr. Chairman.

But when it comes to a good solid idea that would produce

results, that would hire men, that would use an uncommitted

resource, what is their answer? Go to the Industrial

Development Bank.

Mr. Chairman, $150,000....

HON. MR. LAUK: Pick up the phone and call me. I could have

told you what happened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have talked to the Minister, and I have

talked to the Deputy who no longer prefers to work for the

Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him?

MR. PHILLIPS: I know what happened. It wasn't an opportunity for the

Minister to go on an ego trip. It's not a steel mill or it's not a copper smelter

or it's not an oil refinery. It's an idea, and it would have done something

for that area of the province. It would have done something for the native people

of this province who are ready to buy those houses. It would have used an unused

natural resource. But no. That would have been something constructive, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister and the government would prefer to waste money — $2 million, for

instance, in buying Dunhill Development Corp., which hasn't produced one single

solitary house in this province.

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed, I'm very disappointed.

They dangled this man at the end of a line from September of

1972, working and giving him hope, and giving the people in

that area hope that there might be employment, until the day

that study was finished, December 9, 1974. Even then, the

Development Corporation withheld their decision after they had

had the survey and after bringing that man down to Vancouver, I

don't know how many umpteen dozen times, at his own expense,

dangling him on the end of a line that they were going to help

him. Then just before Christmas, the answer was no.

Some 35 men that this man had employed at the present time

producing lumber had to be let go. They had to be told that

there was no more employment just before Christmas. In an

urgent wire to the Premier before Christmas to see if something

could be done, when did I get an answer? In early January. It

didn't matter to this government that has no heart that these

people would have to go unemployed. It didn't matter that they

had dangled him on the end of a string.

Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman: this man is going to make

it, if he has to make it on his own, because there's one thing

that you cannot kill and that is an idea. There's one thing

that even that Minister cannot kill in this man, and that is

the initiative to make it. They may be able to kill the

initiative in all the other entrepreneurs in this province;

they may be able to kill the initiative in our youth; but they

will not kill this man's initiative. Some day he's going to

make it.

I just have to ask: was the reason this project was turned

down because it was not in an NDP riding? What justification

has the Minister in turning this project down and not offering

some assistance? Money seems to be no problem in any other area

where it's for one of their own grandiose ideas, be it buying

poultry farms, be it buying cattle ranches, be it buying land

for refineries, be it buying land for industrial sites in

Kamloops where somebody makes $1 million overnight. But to

venture just $150,000 on this project, the answer is no. I'd

like to just tell the people of British Columbia that

initiative will be stymied, initiative will be killed.

The Minister talks about improving secondary industry.

Certainly, one of the greatest crying needs in this province

today, and indeed in Canada, is for a new idea in the

construction of houses. The houses constructed by this idea

would have solid walls or no

[ Page 1276 ]

need for finishing the outside or the inside, or all of the

other details of construction in the normal method of building

houses. A completely feasible idea, a completely workable idea

with a ready market was turned down.

I place the full responsibility on the shoulders of that

Minister of Industrial Development. I hope that he has trouble

sleeping at night when people in this province are living in

slum housing conditions because of the lack of an idea and a

new way to build houses in this province, while a natural

resource goes to waste and while people go unemployed. This is

this great Minister that is supposed to be so concerned about

economic development.

I can see, Mr. Chairman, that had this project got off the

ground, it would have grown and grown and grown and supplied

the demand not only in British Columbia and not only in Canada,

but in all of North America, because not only are aspen and

poplar trees a waste resource in northern B.C., they are a

waste resource in all the northern areas of all the provinces,

a tremendous, untapped resource.

Research into the use of aspen is going on by the B.C.

Research Council. It is being conducted by the Research Council

of Canada. It is being conducted by the University of British

Columbia. Studies by the Department of Forestry in Alberta are

finding ways to use this product, and they have a pilot project

producing studs in Slave Lake, Alberta.

All of this research is going on for the various uses of

this natural resource. Here was a man who had a concrete, solid

idea to use this natural resource, a concrete, workable,

economically feasible plan, and what happened to it? It is

being killed by the fact that that Minister has no vision, no

common business sense, is not able to see beyond his nose when

it comes to being able to put together a business

proposition.

But this is the government that can waste literally millions

of dollars on stupid projects, surveys, hiring political flacks

and commissions, but is not interested in providing jobs for

people, filling a demand for housing, or using an untapped

natural resource.

I fear that if this is the type of decision that is going to

come from the Development Corp. of British Columbia, never will

it ever fulfill the idea, the purpose for which it was

created.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm absolutely delighted that the Hon. Member

for South Peace River is so interested in the workings of the

Development Corp. I can inform him not only about the chap in

his riding who managed to get his ear, but of a few others who

have come to the Development Corp. and who have received a

great deal of assistance. I'll just give a few of the many

individuals who have come to the Development Corp.....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm going to answer your questions, Mr.

Member, if you sit quietly and be patient. I'm always very

patient with you, so you reciprocate and hear me out.

I want to give you what the corporation is.... You take one

isolated case and you get all the facts wrong. I'll tell you

about that in a minute. You make it appear as if that was the

only loan application the Development Corp. had to deal with

all year.

Well, we try to spread out the support the Development Corp.

gives throughout the entire province. There is some in

Abbotsford. There is one in Port Alberni, a car cooperative.

There is one creative wood industry, the Celaire Company, in

Vancouver. Then there is Camp River Timbers in Blue River.

There is another one in Vancouver. All are small loans of

$50,000, $30,000, $100,000, $150,000, to little entrepreneurs

with a good idea, with some management background and who

employ anywhere from four or five to 30 or 40 people.

There is another one for a mobile home manufacturer, an

oyster cooperative, an optical company, a sawmilling company.

There is another one in Richmond that manufacturers fiberglass

cargo containers for large aircraft. That's an interesting one;

it employs about 100 people.... No, the company employs 24

people. Manco Homes, another one.

We even made a loan to a company that dry-cleans uniforms

for industrial purposes. We made a loan to an individual

company that employs 34 people and does electrical circuits, a

very labour-intensive industry. There is another one, Quantum

Resources, Summerland, B.C.

Where is Summerland? Can anyone tell me where that is? Maybe

we should take the loan back there. Seafoam Products. Oh,

what's this? Shea Industries in Vernon. Which riding's that in?

Spuncast Industries, We know that's in a good riding. Tahsis

Transport, Thompson Machine Works, Trident Aircraft — we've got

a book full in here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, it's close. It's close. It's very

close. All of these companies and many, many more — and

remember this is since the Development Corp. was ready and open

for business in June of last year. It hasn't been a full year

in operation. And they've made these loans to the little

businessmen of the province — not the big fellows, not the

great corporations that put their campaign funds into the

Social Credit coffers, but the little guy with an idea who can

raise a few dollars with his friends to show his good faith to

get into the business.

The Development Corp. informs me they have met with the

president of Silverton Construction Ltd. and suggested a

programme for financing with the project which the corporation

is prepared to advance. This

[ Page 1277 ]

was done on December 16, 1974. The corporation informs me

that they have received no further approaches from the company.

They made an offer and the offer was refused.

MR. PHILLIPS: They made an impossible offer and you know it.

HON. MR. LAUK: They made an offer and the offer was refused.

The corporation cannot loan money to someone who comes in the

door and says: "I've got a great idea."

MR. PHILLIPS: There was $16,000 worth of survey. He just

didn't come in the door and say he had an idea and you know it.

You made an impossible offer.

HON. MR. LAUK: If we're going to support someone in a

business venture, surely to goodness they can raise some money

of their own to put into it. Are we going to invest the

taxpayers' money with everybody at a wicket to give out money

to people with good ideas? Even you have a good idea on

occasion, and we wouldn't even do it for you. Mr. Chairman, a

little bit of equity was all we wanted.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not the answer!

HON. MR. LAUK: We promised that we would finance them and

we'd get another financial institution to back them up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you study the report? You wouldn't be able

to read it.

HON. MR. LAUK: We guaranteed that we would provide them with

financing. We said we could involve another financial

institution. We bent over backwards and there was a refusal,

Now I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, the door is still open

to the president of Silverton because we did spend that money,

we do think it's a good idea, and it's feasible from an

engineering and technical point of view. But does that mean

we're going to give away the taxpayers' money? Shouldn't he put

some money on the line? You put money on the line when you sold

used cars, didn't you? You made your own investment. You

probably even mortgaged your house because that's the kind of

businessman you are. You're a good businessman. You back up

what you're going to do, even if it's a small amount.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you read the report?

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, we have dozens and dozens and dozens of businessmen

all over this province who have done so. And you know what delights me about

this? He's crying now about the Development Corp. Ignoring this chap in his

riding; he's so upset about the way the Development Corp. is operating. I've

got the Journals of the House here for the 1973 session. On Tuesday, April 17,

1973, was the motion for third reading of the Development Corporation of British

Columbia Act. Guess who voted against it. The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: He voted against the Development Corp. I

didn't tell the president of Silverton when he came to see us.

The door's still open to him, Mr. Member. You send him back.

Don't give him bad advice. Send him up to us for good

advice.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I am indeed

privileged and honoured to stand up in this debate and express

my views on the Minister and the fine job that he has done in

this province. The Minister is known as being small in size but

very, very large in stature. He has, in my opinion, excellent

ability and probably exceptional ability. I think the job that

the Minister is doing in the province is one where planning is

being used, one that's going to shape the province in a

direction where people are assured of jobs, and not a

hodge-podge type of thing that's happened in this province in

the past. For this I commend the Minister. I really admire his

style and his abilities.

It just amazes me, you know — the opposition's stand. I

really feel sorry for them because time after time, Minister

after Minister, they can't get a handle on anything where they

can be an opposition that can make a point that's worthwhile

covering in the press, so the press has to finally pick up a

story such as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) came

up with last night in regard to the land prices in the Kamloops

area.

I'm certainly pleased to see the stand taken by the Member

for Columbia River because it indicates to me that he's

prepared to support legislation that will give us some control

over these developers and people who are in a position to pick

up land around these cities, in the areas where it's needed so

badly, and then stick it to the government or anybody else who

wishes to come into that area to develop an industry that's

needed in that community.

It's amazing that he would use a $5,000-an-acre figure as

being exorbitant and a ripoff. I certainly don't agree with a

developer making a large profit in a short period of time, but

it's the free enterprise system. It's the one that we live

under. I'd like to

[ Page 1278 ]

know that Member's reaction if this government moved to correct that situation.

Where would your vote be?

That same Member was in the past Social Credit Party; he was

even a Minister of that government. And from that same city

where he's got so many worries now, we had a very famous

cabinet Minister known as Gaglardi.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh!

MR. LEWIS: He's worrying about ripoffs and the type of thing

that's happening — in regard to this Minister picking up land

to protect the citizens. I never remember him standing up in

this House and saying, when Gaglardi was in a position to give

access to highways.... Well, one piece of property in the

Langley area, owned by the Elks, changed hands three times in

one day. Each time it changed it sold for a higher price. Who

do you think was involved in that whole dealing? None other

than a very close relation to that Minister of Highways at that

time. Now, if you have any principle in regard to ripoffs, why

didn't you stand up in the House at that time and condemn that

type of thing?

You talk about this government doing away with the rights of

people. There has been less expropriation taken place in this

province by far in the two and a half years that we've been in

power than ever took place in one month under your

government.

MR. CHABOT: Because you've done nothing.

MR. LEWIS: Done nothing? My friend, the record speaks very

well for this government, I'll tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: They went on to everything. They attacked the

Minister on the railway. The Minister has only been on that

board for a matter of a month. He said how wonderfully it was

looked after under the Social Credit government.

Well, I've moved around this province and I've worked for

that railway on bridge construction during the time you were

extending it up north. I'll tell you, it was sure managed in a

fine manner. I worked on a crew, and we laid in the bunkhouse

for 10 days because we didn't have a radio to put on our

speeder so we could communicate with the traffic moving on that

line.

I also saw a great extravagance put forth by that government when they wanted

to get their Premier up to Dawson Creek for the official opening of that railway.

There were all kinds of crazy things done. Trains were running on tracks where

it wouldn't hold up a train, where they were falling into the ditch with just

a locomotive, where crews were turning in 24-hour-a-day wages. Then they have

enough nerve to tell us that we're mismanaging the railway.

I used to travel on the transportation system on that

railway too, and I can remember one man on the train

complaining to the conductor.

He said: "This is the slowest, worst thing I've ever

travelled on."

The conductor said: "Well, if you don't like it, you can get

off and walk."

And the guy said: "Well, I would, but I'd have to wait at the station for my

luggage anyway.", That's the type of thing that was going on with that railway

at that time.

We talk about refineries, and the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) stands up and says: "I don't want it in Surrey.

Take it to Merritt." Those stupid hicks in the interior can

have the things we don't want, but the I things that we want we want to keep in

the lower mainland.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. Merritt wants it.

MR. LEWIS: Well, maybe Merritt does, but Merritt should be

able to have a say on it.

MR. McCLELLAND: So should Surrey.

MR. LEWIS: They say that the government of this day doesn't

listen to the people. That's a bunch of nonsense. The

government of the past never listened to the people.

My friend Mr. Williston, while in California, made a

statement there which said there shall be diversion of the

Shuswap water system into the Okanagan. He made it in

California. Never once did he consult the people of the

Okanagan and the Shuswap areas to see what their views

were.

HON. MR. LAUK: Shame.

MR. LEWIS: And talking about developers, who was the

promoter of that scheme? A real estate man in Vernon who wanted

a nice little waterway to ran boats from the Okanagan system to

the Shuswap. It wasn't for reasons of economics at all; it was

for reasons to help the developers and to help the real estate

business.

I'm sure glad the Member brought up this about development

rights and the ripoff that developers are making. You know, you

woke me up. I for one am going to check twice to see that

something can't be done when a zoning change takes place so

that developer doesn't profit from that zoning change.

MR. CHABOT: He's concerned about that.

[ Page 1279 ]

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'm concerned about it — I am. You've really

pointed it out, I'll tell you that.

I hope you will vote for legislation if it ever comes before

this House where that profit will go to the public or to the

community in which the development takes place, not to some

entrepreneur who can come in there, have enough capital, and

with no work pick up a large mass of land and then hold up that

entire community for an unreasonable price.

He talks about $5,000 being a ridiculous price. Well, I'll,

tell you that there are developers in the Salmon Arm area who

have tied up land — four acres of it — for $100,000 an acre.

That's in a small community like Salmon Arm. How do you expect

a community like Salmon Arm to be able to expand if this type

of thing is allowed to happen?

MR. CHABOT: It was only worth $1,450 before the government

bought it.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'll say that's what the case is because the

developer is in a position, under our present legislation,

where he can rip off the public. It's happened throughout the

years. You would be the last Member to vote against that

legislation if there was any controlling legislation that came

in.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: You attack the tourist industry booth at Golden.

I'm going to take the time to send...

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: ...the Chamber of Commerce in Golden and the

people in Golden.... If they don't want that booth, I ask the

Minister to see that it comes into the Shuswap area where it

can be used for the benefit of the people in this province,

instead of a negative attitude like that.

MR. CHABOT: I hate waste and extravagance, regardless of

where it's at.

MR. LEWIS: You know....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Shuswap has

the floor.

MR. LEWIS: Also, the Liberals attacked the Minister and said

that he's not doing anything for development in this country.

They couldn't get a hold on anything either, but they sure got

up there and had a....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: You know the type of thing that happened under

Liberal...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEWIS: ...under Liberal incentive programmes, where a

very large distillery in the Okanagan area got $5 million to

help them build a distillery. In my view, that's corporate

welfare of the worst kind, $5 million to a company of the

magnitude that that one was — an international company.

HON. MR. LEA: Which company?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I hate to name them because they're all one

as bad as the other.

Then there's also a glass plant at Lavington. I think it was

about $1.5 million that they put into that company — Consumers'

Glass — a poor company from Ontario that's destitute. Northwood

Pulp, or Northwood Timber....

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Well, it's the same company, as a matter of fact.

That company ran an advertisement for months last year on

television costing many, many thousands of dollars saying:

"We're a good citizen. We care." There were pretty pictures of

the forest and how they protect it. I'll tell you what happened

when the lumber markets went slack. They were the first ones to

lay off their entire mill in that area. That company received

for the two mills — the one at Okanagan Falls and the one at

Princeton — $2.5 million from the federal government in

incentive programmes to operate those mills. I say that those

mills had a responsibility to this province and to the people

of this province to live out a low period in the lumber market.

The small mills in my riding were the ones that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're contradicting the

Minister.

MR. LEWIS: If I contradict the Minister I apologize, because

I certainly respect his opinion. (Laughter.)

Anyway....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: The parent company is Noranda Mines, which made

exceptionally large profits. They were helped by the federal

government to establish and yet they showed no responsibility

whatsoever to

[ Page 1280 ]

this province. I say it's regrettable and a shame. If any

other incentive grant of this type happens in the future, I

would hope that it's tied in with a quota system for their

product. If they don't honour their responsibilities in this

province, then that quota should go to a company that is

responsible, and that's the British Columbia citizen.

MR. CHABOT: It should go to the interior.

MR. LEWIS: That Member down there says it should go to the

interior. Well, I'll tell you that under Waldo Skillings there

wasn't too much concern about what happened in the interior of

this province. Your attitude, when you spoke about the

development in Kamloops.... I'm certainly disappointed in that

because there has almost forever been a centralized attitude in

this province toward development in the lower mainland. At

least this Minister has taken some action to break up that

centralization.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What's he done?

MR. LEWIS: He's made some very significant moves, and the

one in Kamloops is one of them. The move that he's made in

Kamloops makes it possible for industry to come in there and

locate on that land at a reasonable price.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: It just amazes me that the opposition will come

into this House and be so negative.

HON. MR. LAUK: Political charade.

MR. LEWIS: They should recognize a fine Minister when they

see one. They should recognize the fine job that he's doing and

not be out to kill everything that will benefit B.C.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in his comments in

regard to the oil refinery left the impression that that land

is all farmland. Well, I'll tell you that I know that piece of

land in that area better than anybody else in this House, I was

raised in that area, I played cowboys and Indians throughout

that area (laughter), I fished in that area, I hunted in that

area, and about 70 per cent of that land is gravel, straight

gravel. It's the best gravel in the whole country, and anybody

who lives out there and knows the area knows that's a fact.

MR. CHABOT: How old were you?

MR. LEWIS: Nobody has ever said that the agricultural land

that was in that area would even be considered for

development.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: How old was I? Well, I was old enough to shoot

arrows. We didn't always have enough Indians and I had to be an

Indian quite often. I really enjoyed it because I saw Hollywood

discriminate against them.

I would just like the opposition to take a little more

constructive view of what's happening in B.C. The other day I

had the deputy leader of the House come to me and say: "Don,

would you consider going down and sitting with the Socreds and

try to help them out a little bit? Show them what constructive

opposition can be like."

I said: "Eileen, I'd sure like to, but to go down and sit

with that bunch is more than I can stomach." Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We have had a fine performance

from government Members. It reminds me of that story of the

fellow who first got into politics. When he won, the fellow he

defeated said: "Look, you're just starting off; let me give you

four envelopes. Each is full of advice and each to be used one

after the other if you get into trouble." So he took the four

envelopes, thanked the fellow and went off.

Finally he got into a real jam. He opened the first envelope

and it said: "Attack the previous government." So he attacked

the previous government, got out of a jam, and all was

well.

So then he went on another year or two and he got into

another problem. He thought that he'd better do something, so

he opened the second envelope. It said: "Attack Ottawa." So he

attacked Ottawa, got out of his jam, and all was well.

Then we went on a little longer and a third problem came up.

All of us know political problems come up. So he opened the

third envelope and it said: "Attack the opposition." He did

that, and all was well for another week or two.

Finally he got into his No. 1 jam of the works and he opened

the fourth envelope. It said: "Find previous envelopes. Start

again."

That's what we see this particular crowd of backbenchers

doing. They are not dealing with some of the issues that are

before us at the present time. Of course, they are taking this

attack because that's the lead they get from