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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Routine Procedings

Oral questions

Pending strike by IBEW. Mr. Phillips — 1187

Extra moneys to municipalities. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1187

Assistance to Saanich hospital. Mr. Wallace — 1188

Discussions regarding secret hospital report. Mr. Wallace — 1188

Revision of game management units. Mr. Chabot — 1188

New numbers for ICBC vendors. Mr. Morrison — 1189

Remodelling of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Gardom — 1189

Details of Princess Marguerite purchase. Mr. Wallace — 1189

Columbia River inquiry. Mr. Gibson — 1190

Use of leghold traps. Mr. Schroeder — 1190

ICBC refunds. Mr. Phillips — 1190

Penalty-and-reward system for car insurance. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1190

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates

On vote 34.

Mr. McClelland — 1190

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1195

Mr. McClelland — 1197

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1197

Mr. Rolston — 1198

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1200

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1200

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1204

Mr. Phillips — 1206

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1211

Mr. Wallace — 1213

Mr. Steves — 1217

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1219

Mr. Gibson — 1220

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1220

Mr. Dent — 1222

Appendix — 1225

[ Page

1187 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, it gives

me great pleasure today to introduce to the Legislature four

members of the Port Simpson Native cooperative, the cannery in

Port Simpson, who were very instrumental in bringing that

cannery from a dream to a reality and a successful reality. I'd

like to introduce to the Legislature and have you welcome here

today: first of all, Simon Reece, the chairman of the

cooperative; an executive of the cooperative, Alan Hall;

Mercy Robinson, another executive of the cannery; and the

general manager of the cannery, Stan Thomas.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I too would like to join in

welcoming this group to the Legislature and to point out that

two of the members of this group are from the constituency of

Skeena. One is from Hartley Bay, and that's Simon Reece, and

the other one is from Kitimat village. We also have Mayor Paul

Monahan from Kitimat in the Members' gallery and Art Currie,

the administrator. I would ask the House to join in welcoming

them.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the MLA for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett), I would

like to welcome a group of students and their teacher from

Centennial High School in Coquitlam.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

understand that Hartley Bay is in the northern terminus of that

tunnel. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure this

afternoon to introduce a group of students from Hull, Quebec,

who are here on an exchange programme. The school involved in

North Vancouver is Balmoral, which I believe is in the

constituency of the other Member for North Vancouver (Mr.

Gibson). The group is accompanied by Ms. Deaton and Ms. De

Lurde from Quebec and also by Mr. Watton from Balmoral. I would

like the House to make the students from Quebec feel welcome

here in British Columbia.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Monsieur

l'Orateur, je les souhait bienvenu.

MR. SPEAKER: Merci, Monsieur.

Oral questions.

PENDING STRIKE BY IBEW

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): In view of the

urgency of the matter I would like to ask the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who is a director of B.C.

Hydro, if he has any answer to my question of yesterday with

regard to a pending strike by the International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'm not able to predict strikes, but it is my understanding, however, that there

have been meetings today between the parties.

MR. PHILLIPS: My question was: has the 72-hour strike notice

been served on B.C. Hydro by the brotherhood?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I don't have the answer.

However, meetings took place this morning.

EXTRA MONEYS TO MUNICIPALITIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Now that the charade of linking gas export prices to

municipal budgets is over and the Premier has announced that

the money will be forthcoming regardless, may I ask the

Minister whether or not he has informed the municipalities of

the amount they will be receiving from the provincial Treasury

so that they can complete their budgets?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, I

haven't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I further ask the Minister when he

intends to make this information available? There are real

pressures upon municipal councils, of which he is aware, and

they would like this information as soon as possible.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have been meeting with the executive of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities in regard to distribution of

the funds. That will be continuing, and I can't say when we

will advise what the amounts of the funds will be. We won't

know the exact amount, of course, until the end of the

year.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A supplementary

on the same subject to the same Minister. I understood the

Minister to say that he won't know until the end of the year

what these amounts will be. But the question put by the Second

Member for Victoria seems to have great validity and must be of

concern. Can the Minister indicate to the House what the likely

amount will be? I understand

[ Page 1188 ]

the Minister had a meeting with the executive of UBCM on

Monday last, but the Minister must agree that there are budget

dates moving up very rapidly. May 15 is the final date — April

30 in Vancouver city.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I can't say that I am going to

advise them in the next day or two, but certainly by May 15

they will be aware of it by that deadline. I am very pleased

with the great victory this was and a great victory for the

municipalities in obtaining these extra grants which will

assist them terrifically in meeting all their municipal

requirements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pie in the sky!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): One further supplementary,

Mr. Speaker. I understand that we won't know the total amounts

until later, but I think it is only fair that the House, at

least, knows the extent of this great victory that you speak

about. I wonder if the Minister couldn't at least tell us what

the total amount of the grants in lieu of the total increase

will be. He must know that at this point.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There will be increases given. As soon as

I can I will be meeting with the UBCM and discussing the

amounts and how the funds will be distributed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you know the amount now?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I did mean to change the

subject, Mr. Speaker, but, having been at the conference, I

didn't hear any figure mentioned by any Minister at any time as

to what the price was going to be. I think there may have been

figures mentioned privately, but they certainly weren't

mentioned at the conference.

ASSISTANCE TO SAANICH HOSPITAL

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Health a

question on a more local issue, Mr. Speaker. In light of the

very serious and increasing bed shortage in the greater

Victoria area and the Minister's initiative in setting up the

Regional Hospital Planning Commission, could you tell the

House, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, whether your

department's offer of immediate assistance for the functional

planning of the Saanich Peninsula Hospital has been

accepted?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Not to my knowledge to this date.

There are discussions going on. I tend, however, to feel that we are getting

to the point where we must go beyond the discussion stage.

I think that Victoria has to now look forward to some very

quick action in this area. I do think that the hospital

services in the area are certainly not up to the standard they

should be and I would hope that there will be a great deal of

action immediately. There was some three years ago: $21 million

was set aside to bring about some immediate action. I would

hope that 'it's going to happen in the immediate future.

DISCUSSIONS REGARDING

SECRET HOSPITAL REPORT

MR. WALLACE: The Minister mentions discussions. Could the

Minister tell the House whether his department has had any

discussions with the regional hospital board or committee with

regard to the fact that one other study has just been

completed? The planning commission refuses to disclose the

contents of that study for which public money has been spent

and is being spent. The taxpayers of the greater Victoria

region are just reaching the end of the rope as far as patience

with planning in the hospital field. I wonder if the Minister

has had discussions regarding this report being kept

secret.

Furthermore, in the light of the Minister's first response a

moment ago, has he set any deadline by which he will brook no

further delay in the planning and step in at the provincial

level to impose some decisions.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that we didn't

have to go that route.

MR. WALLACE: So would I.

HON. MR. COCKE: To date we have not set any deadlines. I am

not privy to any discussions on the report. As far as my

department is concerned, I'd have to take that matter as

notice.

REVISION OF

GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation. Regarding the expansion of the 28

game management areas to 201 management units, can the Minister

advise how these small units will be managed? How will a hunter

be able to identify which small unit he's in?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I

take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page

1189 ]

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: Could you hold it until you get the answer to

the first one?

NEW NUMBERS FOR ICBC VENDORS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Transport and Communications, and it's

concerning ICBC. Could the Minister advise the House if all

dealers doing business with ICBC have recently been issued with

new vendor numbers?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): In answer

to a previous question raised by the Members, I pointed out that action was

being taken to prevent these errors that were made by a particular dealer and

affecting his particular cheque. Yes, we arrived at a decision that new numbers

would be issued which would relate the name of the dealer to the number.

MR. MORRISON: In view of the recent errors which the

Minister referred to and discussed in this House concerning my

own company, Morrison Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, which received a

vendor's number without applying for one and, subsequently, a

cheque, could the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to

make sure that that doesn't happen again and that companies

that are not doing business with ICBC will not receive new

vendor numbers?

HON. W. S. KING (Minister of Labour): Who are you

representing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I pointed out the last time I answered

this question that we had originally received a list from the

Automotive Retailers Association. My information is that we're

checking out that list item by item. We are supplying the

dealers with a stamp so that they will not make transposition

errors in number, and we're changing the number so that the

name of the dealer is included.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to just finish, if I may. Could the

Minister please advise the House how come that company was

again given a new number, issued on April, 1975, and that new

number is 30727? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check into it. (Laughter.)

REMODELLING OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker. Does the government have any proposals to

remodel or renovate the Princess Marguerite or alter its former course of service?

If so, to what extent and at what proposed cost?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Plans are not complete, Mr. Speaker. I

announced yesterday that Mr. Harry Tyson will become the

general manager of operations with respect to the operational

end of the harbour development project. The question of work on

the Marguerite is now being reviewed by the new manager and a

naval architect.

MR. GARDOM: Is the Minister able to indicate to the House if

it's contemplated that the ship will alter its former course of

service? What's it going to be used for in B.C.?

HON. MR. KING: It's right on course.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Labour says it's right

on course. The expectation is that the service will be same as

in the past between Victoria and Seattle, Seattle and Victoria,

and Victoria and Port Angeles.

MR. GARDOM: Is there any validity to the suggestion that the

ship is going to be renamed "The Granny Williams" or "The Good

Ship Condominium" or, perhaps, as symbolic of the government's

economic policies, "The Empress of Disaster"? (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact

that the Liberal Party thought the acquisition of Columbia

Cellulose was the same as the Titanic, I think that we might

well expect this one to revert from its losing position in the

past to one of making money as virtually all the new Crown

entities have.

DETAILS OF

PRINCESS MARGUERITE PURCHASE

MR. WALLACE: Can I repeat the question that the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) was unable to answer the other day?

I understand the Princess Marguerite had a pollution control

device which Canadian Pacific were not happy to part with.

Could the Minister tell the House if, in fact, the pollution

control device was purchased as part of the deal?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. I'm sorry, the Hon. House Leader

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) did have the answer to the question, and I

gather it is on your desk. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1190 ]

At any rate, I'm happy to report that it is my understanding

that some $250,000 was, in fact, expended and that that was

part of what we acquired for $275,000, including the entire

ship. So it seems like a very prudent business deal.

MR. SPEAKER: Please all check your desks.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary to the same Minister with

respect to the Princess Marguerite acquisition.

Mr. Speaker, in view of considerable sentimental attachment

to the name "Princess Marguerite" — I put the question in as

straightforward a way as possible — is a name change for the

vessel contemplated?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is clearly a great investment by

the people of this area in the name "the Marguerite" and there

is no intention of changing it.

COLUMBIA RIVER INQUIRY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the same Minister on

a different subject. In view of the great enthusiasm of the

Minister a few weeks ago, and later of the Premier, for an

inquiry into the activities of B.C. Hydro and the Columbia

River, does the fact that no inquiry has yet been announced

mean the government is losing interest?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it means that the government is

handling the matter in its usual careful way.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if

the Minister could tell us roughly when this inquiry will be

appointed.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In due course.

USE OF LEGHOLD TRAPS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Are any trapping

methods more humane than the leghold trap being tested by the

department? If so, how many?

HON. M. RADFORD: Yes, there are some 15 traps being tested

by the co-ordinator of the federal-provincial humane trapping

committee which was set up across Canada.

ICBC REFUNDS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A question to the Hon. Minister

of Transport and Communications with regard to people who have refunds coming

from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Will they receive the refund automatically,

or must they make a second application?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is my information that they will

receive it automatically.

PENALTY-AND-REWARD SYSTEM

FOR CAR INSURANCE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Could

the Minister indicate when he will be implementing the proposal

of the traffic safety workshop to introduce the

penalty-and-reward system with car insurance which would, of

course, affect the rebate substantially?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have not yet received that report that

is coming to me as a result of that particular safety

conference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have a copy, It's dated April 3.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I haven't seen it yet.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

speak for a few moments about the announcement made by the

Premier in Ottawa last night about the new oil refinery which

is apparently going to be built in British Columbia — according

to the Premier, at least.

I'm surprised that at approximately the same time the

Premier was making that announcement in Ottawa, the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) was waffling quite a bit

on the subject of a refinery, didn't seem to know whether or

not a refinery would be built in British Columbia and certainly

didn't give any indication to this House that the government's

mind had, in fact, been made up to build a refinery.

The only thing he did do in this House yesterday was to

reinforce the thought among many of us that the government had

made its mind up, and that it was

[ Page 1191 ]

going to put that refinery smack in the middle of the lower

mainland, in the Surrey area, whether or not the people of

Surrey want the refinery, and whether or not that's the ideal

place for it, and ahead, apparently, of any real, meaningful

studies being done in regard to an oil refinery anywhere in

British Columbia.

The government now seems to be embarked on an irreversible

course that will have a tremendous impact on one of the most

ecologically sensitive areas of British Columbia, and certainly

one of the most aesthetically beautiful parts of this province — in fact, of anywhere in North America. Not only that, but

given the kind of course the government is taking, it is

forcing and will force a new lifestyle on thousands of British

Columbians without any consultation or, apparently, any concern

either.

The government now seems embarked on a programme that will

alter, without any doubt, a wide area of the lower mainland,

and drastically alter that area with no discussions whatsoever

with the municipalities affected, with the regional districts

affected, not even with the B.C. Land Commission which has

placed most of the land in Surrey under the protection and

umbrella of the agricultural land reserve.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Is any of that land

agricultural?

MR. McCLELLAND: Almost all of it. Almost all of the land in

question is under protection — or what should be the protection — of the agricultural land reserve...

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) says only

200 acres.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...yet in Hansard , yesterday, this

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has as much as

committed the refinery to the Surrey site. He certainly told

this House that one of the other areas that we were told was

under active consideration — the Merritt area — is too far from

the market and is economically undesirable, yet the people of

Merritt have indicated they want that refinery in that area.

This is certainly not what the people of Surrey have said.

Perhaps the only comfort that we can get from the Minister's

statements is that the Premier obviously hasn't taken him into

his inner circle of confidants, and the Minister probably

doesn't know what's going on with regard to an oil refinery

complex in this province because the Premier isn't telling him.

The Premier obviously didn't tell him anything before he made

his statement in Ottawa yesterday.

Somebody in this whole refinery affair is not leveling with the people of British

Columbia and it's time, I think, that the people got the real story and found

out just what this government is planning for them. There have been many, many

contradictory statements made from members of government in direct opposition

to members of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Even yesterday — again in Hansard — the

Minister of Economic Development himself made what I consider to be a contradictory

statement when he said that we had to remember that this was not to be a petrochemical

complex, but it was instead to be simply an oil refinery. Yet one of the directors

of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., John Caplett, has said publicly that the B.C. Development

Corp. has arranged option purchases in the Surrey area for not only the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. but also for what he termed "other large-scale industries,"

including a German firm planning to process minerals obtained from off-shore

Hawaii, for that same area. That's a statement from a director of the B.C. Petroleum

Corp., John Caplett.

Jim Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., has

said that there are various possibilities to be included in

that complex, including textile, chemical and rubber plants.

Well, if that isn't a petrochemical complex, I don't know what

it is. Certainly the indication, even with regard to the amount

of acreage of land that's being purchased — upwards of 700 or

800 acres; could be 1,500 acres; could be 3,000 acres; we don't

know for sure — is not needed just to establish and protect a

simple oil refinery. The government is making plans for a giant

petrochemical complex and has made that announcement right from

the beginning. Yet, the Minister stood in the House yesterday

and says there will be no petrochemical complex, Further to the kind of contradictory statements that are

being made, I'd like to refer to a letter. The Minister said in

this House — as did other Ministers in reply to earlier

questions — that studies are ongoing and haven't been

completed. That's the reason, I guess, why we haven't seen any

studies yet. The members.... I think John Sawatsky of the

B.C. Petroleum Corp. has indicated in public on a couple of

occasions that the studies have all been done. Well, who's

right — the members of the government or the members of the

Crown corporation?

I have a letter of January 17 of this year from the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. to the clerk-administrator of the Corporation

of the Township of Langley, and they're talking about having

been asked whether or not any decision has been made about a

refinery in our area. Mr. Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C.

Petroleum Corp., says:

"The government is now in receipt of a report, an

engineering and economic study, and, of course, I expect to

make a decision whether to proceed or not with the construction

of a refinery. It must then make a further decision — if the

answer is in the

[ Page 1192 ]

affirmative — as to the site."

So as late as January 17 there wasn't even a decision made

to build a refinery, let alone where that refinery is going to

be, and yet today we still don't have any evidence of any real

studies being done but we do have a decision made in Ottawa by

the Premier, and announced yesterday, that we are going to

build a petroleum refinery in this province and the indication

made by the Minister that that refinery will be in Surrey.

Also in answer to a request from the clerk of the

Municipality of Surrey, who asked the chairman of the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. whether or not he would attend a public meeting

of interested citizens in the Surrey area and the councils and

the regional district. If someone from his department or from

his corporation would at least attend.... He refused — that was

in February — to attend any meetings, either Mr. Macdonald or

the chairman or any of his staff, because, he said, he felt

that a meeting at this time would be premature. "Until such

time as the government reaches a decision on whether to proceed

with the construction of a refinery anywhere in the province it

would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly."

We still don't know what.... That was in February. We've

had similar statements in March and we still don't know now in

April, when we still haven't seen any studies, still haven't

seen any reports, why the government has suddenly decided that

the decision can be made to go ahead with the refinery.

I wonder, now that the Premier has made that announcement,

whether the Minister of Economic Development can assure this

House that public hearings will now be held into this whole

question, particularly in the Surrey area. The Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden) made a pledge to a public meeting of the Save the

Beaches Association last month in Surrey that if the people of

Surrey don't want this refinery, the government will not build

it in Surrey. I'd like to know now, Mr. Chairman, if the

Minister of Economic Development will also make the pledge in

the House today on behalf of the Premier of British Columbia

that if the people of Surrey demonstrate clearly that they do

not wish a refinery or a petrochemical complex in the Hazelmere

Valley of British Columbia, the government will not build a

refinery in that location.

I think it's only fair to the people of not only Surrey community, but also

the surrounding areas — the people around the regional parks systems in that

area, the people in the Brookswood area of Langley and, in fact, the people

of the whole of the Fraser Valley. I think it's only fair now that the Minister

make that pledge and that he also pledge, if the government decides that it

does want to go ahead for sure with a refinery, that before it chooses any location

it will put that location to a public referendum within the area affected. I

think that's the fair way to go.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Just like Columbia River.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are many dangers

involved in building this kind of refinery in the area of

Surrey that I've mentioned. There are dangers which are

connected with pollution, for one thing, and for the kind of

impact that this kind of massive industrial development would

have on the complete lower Fraser Valley area.

The area contains inter-tidal zones which support the

largest salmon fishery in the world. That whole area provides

nesting grounds, feeding grounds and breeding grounds for some

four million migratory birds. It's the largest population of

wintering water fowl in Canada. Most of the farm produce in

British Columbia comes from the Fraser Valley and the east

coast of Vancouver Island. But of the total, 70 per cent of our

farm produce is provided by the Fraser Valley, accounting for

50 per cent of B.C.'s annual dollar food crop value, Mr. Chairman, there has been some comment about this kind of

an industrial complex providing jobs. I don't think it's going

to provide very many permanent jobs. In fact, the kind of

refineries that the world is looking at now are almost totally

computer-operated. They don't need any people to run them; so

the impact on the community in relation to providing work for

its citizens is nil and really can't be considered.

The question to be asked, Mr. Chairman, is whether the

increased availability of jobs relating to this kind of complex

would justify the possible destruction of jobs in the

fisheries, farming and tourist industries of the lower Fraser

Valley.

In many parts of North America, the people in those

communities decided that there wasn't enough justification and

have turned down overwhelmingly by public protest the same kind

of development that we're talking about now for the lower

Fraser Valley of British Columbia.

Some municipal people are jumping on the fact that they're

going to get huge increases in municipal revenue because of

this petrochemical complex in their area. But I'll tell you

that for every dollar it brings in in tax revenue, you'll spend

another $2 in services. Where is that money going to come from?

It sure doesn't seem to be coming from the provincial

government to help the local government out. There isn't any

possibility that taxes will be lowered because of any

petrochemical complex.

There are other dangers as well with regard to pollution

problems: harmful air emissions, oxides of sulphur and

nitrogen, a prevailing wind that blows

[ Page 1193 ]

from the refinery over the populated area of the lower

Fraser Valley, harmful water emissions.

Let's remember that if there is oil coming into that

refinery, there will be an oil spill someday. No amount of

technology can guarantee that that refinery will never

experience a major or minor or in-between oil spill. Wherever

oil is handled, an oil spill will occur one day or another.

Human error and mechanical failure are facts of life and facts

which we can't overlook.

Any kind of oil spill would bring tremendous destruction to

the Fraser River and the Delta area systems. Farmland that was

to be protected under the agricultural reserve is apparently,

without any justification or without any reference even to the

Land Commission, going to be appropriated for industrial

purposes just at the whim of the government.

I can't stress enough the social impact that such a

development, when it is completed, will have on one of the best

parts of British Columbia. The industrial activities and the

increased population will probably have a very detrimental

effect on the communities which are near that complex. The

rural nature of the area certainly will be lost. I suggest that

there won't be any gain to speak of, and certainly no new jobs

provided, because of this petrochemical complex.

The head of the University of B.C.'s chemical engineering

department has expressed some serious concern about the

possibility of pollution problems in relation to this refinery.

Dr. Frank Murray says, as a matter of fact, that the pollution

potential of this new refinery is worse than that of any large

pulp mill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if the Minister advanced the

proposition today that we should put a major pulp mill in the

middle of the Hazelmere Valley, he would be run out of this

country on a rail. I think the same kind of thing should happen

for anyone who suggests that this kind of petrochemical complex

go into that beautiful valley either.

Dr. Murray says that the small rivers of Surrey — the

Nicomekl, the Campbell and the Serpentine — would be seriously

polluted by effluent from a refinery. "It would be a case," said Dr. Murray, "of turning a river into an industrial

sewer."

He also points out that as many as 6,000 gallons of oil a

day are contained in refinery effluent if there is no recycling

of water in the plant. He thinks that there probably wouldn't

be any recycling because the plant is located on the ocean.

The noise potential of that kind of refinery, particularly

one that uses air cooling towers, as has been suggested by the

petroleum corporation, is awesome. Coming, as it does, on the

periphery of a quiet, residential area, I can't for the life of

me imagine why the government would even consider this

proposition.

Dr. Murray also points out a serious conflict-of-interest situation with the

government, one that has been recognized before with regard to the government

ownership of certain industries, and what used to be an adversary position of

the Pollution Control Board. But now, with the government owning the refinery

and also being in charge of pollution control, I suggest that that adversary

position is destroyed and the government will serve its own interests before

it will serve the interests of pollution control in this province. What makes

it even worse, Mr. Chairman, is that the Pollution Control Board Chairman, Mr.

Ben Marr, is also the Associate Deputy Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. If that isn't a conflict of interest, and if that doesn't conjure

up some serious conflict positions in regard to pollution control, I don't know

what does.

There is also the question of where the oil will come from.

The Minister assures us that it will all come from Alberta. I

don't know whether Premier Lougheed will go along with that

assurance. The indication is that he might not. If not, then we

are talking about an American supply of oil. That further

weakens our position in regard to being the masters of our own

destiny in the matter of energy reserves. If, too, the plan is,

even in the future, to pump up oil from Cherry Point or some

other place in Washington, that would be ironic after all of

the concern expressed by this government with relation to

supertankers or any kind of tankers on the coast. That too

makes me wonder whether or not this government has ever been

serious about its concern for the environment.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It would be

interesting if he'd do his homework.

MR. McCLELLAND: It would be interesting if the Minister of

Economic Development had done some research in this whole

matter and whether or not a simple phone call to his Premier

yesterday might have let him in on the secret that British

Columbia was going to build in the Surrey area a petrochemical

complex.

HON. MR. COCKE: Who said that?

MR. McCLELLAND: Your Minister of Economic Development. Where

were you?

Mr. Chairman, there are other people who are certainly

concerned about the possible effects on the environment of this

petrochemical complex. I'd just like to read a short letter

from a group of doctors in the Mission area. There are eight of

them who wrote a letter to one of the newspapers in the area

concerned. It says:

"We the physicians of Mission city and district wish to

notify our objections to the

[ Page 1194 ]

location of the proposed oil refinery......

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): On Sumas

Mountain.

MR. McCLELLAND: On Sumas Mountain, that's right. The wind

blows in the same direction from Surrey, Mr. Chairman, exactly

the same direction. This government, the Attorney-General, has

said that as far as he is concerned, the Sumas Mountain

refinery should go ahead too.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): He said he was neutral; he

didn't say that.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not true, Mr. Chairman. He said he

thinks that there's a need for that capacity and, as far as he

was concerned, the Mohawk application should go ahead. He

says:

"Meteorological studies have demonstrated a shift of

polluted air that tends to centralize over the Mission area.

Proven nitrogen and sulphur by-products of a toxic nature, even

with a Class A refinery, have demonstrated a hazard to

health."

The Health Minister laughs about that.

"This will further aggravate the present situation and

prejudice the public health. We give due notification that if

plans proceed for this refinery location, we'll suggest to all

of our patients in their own interests to petition strongly

against any such action."

That's only natural that the same kind of concern, Mr.

Chairman, should be prevalent with the refinery in the Surrey

area, if that's where it's to be built. I can't think of a more

dangerous area to the public health and to the public

sensibilities and to the environment of the area then the

Surrey area, if that's where it's to be built. I can't think of a more

dangerous area to the public health and to the public sensibilities and

to the environment of the area than the Surrey area.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who has been making more

announcements on the refinery than any government Member,

cabinet Member, I understand, when he returns from Geneva, will

attend in Holland to check out a new oil refinery which is

being built for the Dutch somewhere in Borsel, Netherlands. If

that's true, is it true also that this government is now

planning to proceed with a refinery, a so-called grass roots

refinery, along the same lines as the one which is built in

Holland? If so, will the government be using Holland studies,

or will they in fact finally be doing studies of their own and

revealing those studies and the results of them to the people

of British Columbia? Will the government accept the

recommendations of the Member for Delta when he returns from

his study of the refinery in Holland? Or has the government

made up its mind without any studies at all? That's what I

suspect is the fact.

What is the government's position as well, Mr. Chairman, on the relocation of the Burlington Northern

Railroad in conjunction with a refinery if it's put in the

Surrey area? I would suggest that the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

again, being rather more vocal than the Members of the

government, have suggested that one of the results of an

establishment of any kind of industrial complex in the south

Surrey area will mean relocation of the Burlington Northern

Railway and the B.C. Rail line to Point Roberts. In fact, that

was one of the comments made by officials of the B.C. Petroleum

Corp. when they met some time ago with some officials from the

Cloverdale Junior Chamber of Commerce. They told the Jaycees

there also that 176th Street in Surrey is the planned truck

route for that whole area and that the Burlington Northern

Railway will be relocated, likely through the Hazelmere

Valley.

So, Mr. Chairman, while the government has been very silent

on this refinery proposal and its location, it seems to me that

the loose lips of many of the members of the B.C. Petroleum

Corp. have revealed far more than the government intended to be

revealed at this time. I would suggest that it has put the

Minister and the Premier and the members of his cabinet in a

rather embarrassing position.

I think there are some serious questions that need to be

answered now. They include, first of all, why the South Surrey

area seems to have been given a No. 1 priority as a site for

the refinery despite the almost total opposition of

environmentalists, residents and council members of the

Langley-Surrey area. Why would the B.C. Petroleum Corp. even

consider the proposal of the relocation of the Burlington

Northern Railroad through the Hazelmere Valley, despite again

the objection and almost total opposition of Surrey council and

the residents of that area?

I think the government now must be required to answer

questions regarding the long-term commitment to a source of

crude oil for the proposed refinery before any further steps

are taken to establish a refinery anywhere in British Columbia.

The government must be prepared to ensure to the people of

British Columbia that no new pipeline corridors will be cut

through the narrow Fraser Valley, nor will that refinery

receive any crude oil from supertankers, or tankers of any

kind, plying our coastal waters.

Mr. Chairman, the government must also be ready to make a

commitment, I think, that if the refinery ultimately is not

built in Surrey, then the options on the land in that area

already taken will be dropped so that the government doesn't

continue to act as a land speculator. I feel that the

government may not wish to make that commitment because, once

again, Mr. Sawatsky of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. had indicated

to those members of the Jaycees that the government wants the

land at any cost, whether or not a refinery goes up in the

area.

[ Page 1195 ]

I think, more importantly than anything though, it's time

that this government tabled before this House today all studies

relating to the refinery proposal. The people of this province

should have immediate access to all feasibility studies,

marketing studies, engineering studies, environmental studies,

and perhaps, even most importantly of all, any studies which

will detail the social impact which such a complex will have on

the areas in question and what compensation the government

plans to make to the municipalities involved for the

destruction of the area.

In other words, it's time, Mr. Chairman, that this open

government laid all of its cards on the table and began to

level with the concerned people of British Columbia. Finally,

we want a commitment that if the people of Surrey do tell this

government in no uncertain terms that they don't want a

refinery, then the government will not build a refinery in that

area, and regardless of where the government decides it wants a

refinery, that it will put the question to a referendum in any

of the areas which are being considered. Thank you very much,

Mr. Chairman.

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

Member for Langley has covered a lot of ground, and some of it

shifted under him. But it seems to me he's done so very

cleverly because he's taken pieces of information and placed

them together and given us a picture that really isn't the

case. picture that really isn't the case.

Let's talk about the broader issue of an oil refinery. First

of all, referring to the Premier's news release, which I am

sure all of you have (laughter), there is a paragraph....

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you send me one too?

HON. MR. LAUK: He insured that the opposition Members

received one and then I received one. But I didn't need to see

it. I knew substantially what the Premier was going to say in

Ottawa.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why didn't you say that in the House

yesterday?

HON. MR. LAUK: I never for a moment stated to you what the

position, one way or the other, was yesterday for the simple

reason that the Premier was going to make a statement. This

should appear perfectly obvious to the Member for Langley,

because I know he is an intelligent man and he should be the

leader of the opposition party. He should be the leader. He's a

great fellow and he's beloved in his constituency, oh, by two

or three people whom I know of.

MR. McCLELLAND: Name names.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mrs. McClelland. (Laughter.) But, Mr.

Chairman.... Pardon me, I have a note to retract that.

(Laughter.)

Kidding aside, what the Member has done is put together

pieces of information that shouldn't be taken together because

they give an incorrect picture of what the situation is with

respect to an oil refinery and the government's role. James

Rhodes is quoted in the Premier's press release as describing

the kind of oil refinery it will be. He said that he didn't

know what type, but he did say that it would include gasoline,

jet fuel, bunker oil, asphalt and heating products. Now, this

is an oil refinery. It is not a petrochemical complex. I am

going to make that clear. Any kind of decision or consideration

of a petrochemical complex in British Columbia, it seems to me,

must be related to natural gas. I'll just leave that with

you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now, the Member mentions no jobs. Well,

perhaps the number of jobs in operating a refinery, on a

maintenance basis, is not great. But there is a broader issue

involved. The people of British Columbia, in particular the

lower mainland where there is a shortage of gasoline products

such as that described, have to make a decision. They have to

decide whether they want heating fuels, gasoline for their

automobiles, or are they going to import it at great cost?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, it's going to be cheaper, is it?

HON. MR. LAUK: We can see that there will be shortfall. I

can't give you a figure offhand, but the refineries around

Burrard Inlet have indicated and documented how there'll be a

shortfall in the local market and their expansion has been

curtailed by local action there because of objections to the

expansion of these oil refineries. There's been some objection

in Surrey, and probably if we wanted to put it in Merritt or

wherever else, there would be some objection there, but, you

know, the people of this province have to make up their minds.

It's not just the government's problem or the Legislature's

problem, it's the problem of all of us, and the crunch

decisions have to be made.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, let me deal with the broader issue

because it has not been mentioned. You can't have it both

ways.

If you want automobiles and you want these kinds

[ Page 1196 ]

of petroleum product services, you've got to make these

crunch decisions. If you want to eat, you've got to have a

garbage can in the back yard.

MR. CHABOT: No, you don't.

HON. MR. LAUK: Or if you have great wealth, like the Member

for Columbia River you can have a Garburetor. You know, if

bunker C fuel and so on isn't related to the lifeblood of the

forest industry and jobs in this province, I don't know what

is, Mr. Member.

I think you've got to look at both sides of the story. You

can't just give one side of the story. You have a

responsibility to the people of this province, as a Member of

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to present both sides, the way

the government side always does.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's unique in an adversary system, but I

don't think this should be an adversary system. I think the

people of this province want you and I to act cooperatively

and together.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) indicated

there's a pollution problem. He quotes Dr. Murray. Well, I

haven't spoken to Dr. Murray; nor have I seen material from

him. I must apologize to the Hon. Member, but I can't accept a

thirdhand or secondhand report of what he said, because you

did say there were juvenile delinquents who were housed in the

Empress, and your colleagues have made similar misstatements to

this House. So I'm a little bit hesitant to accept your version

of Dr. Murray's words.

Perhaps he did say that, but if he did say that, I think

that it's an exaggeration. I think we have to look at the

modern oil refineries that are being built in the United States

and elsewhere. The indications are, from observations and

information that we have, that the pollution problem is not

very great and that the fears expressed by the Member for

Langley, although I would not criticize him for expressing

those fears in this House, are probably unwarranted.

What really is a surprise to me is the sudden concern of a Member of that particular

party for pollution control and ecological problems. Where were they in those

days when the government, in a very arbitrary and dictatorial fashion, expropriated

Roberts Bank land and backup land — farmland, prime agricultural land, hundreds

of acres — without proper compensation, it seems to me, to the farmers there

who were forced to give their land to the government? It was a typical takeover

of land by the Social Credit administration. This is the kind of situation that

occurred in the previous administration. Where was the Member for Langley then?

Was he an alderman then? I don't know. Why did he join the Social Credit Party

when he has that as the record of his party? He now stands up as a shining white

knight from Langley protecting the environment and the ecosystem and, as I said

previously, only expressing one side of the story.

This government has a responsibility to the public good.

That public good must be expressed in terms of several

priorities. This government, may I remind the members of this

committee, was the government that placed a priority of the

environment at the top of the list and not at the bottom, as

the previous administration had before.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Oh, come on,

Gary!

HON. MR. LAUK: What about the Roberts Bank and what about

the pulp mills that went up all over the province?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not as if these

Members would not have an opportunity to take their place in

committee debate.

What about the pulp mills that were established tinder the

previous administration, with very loose pollution control

measures?

MR. GARDOM: Did the government own them?

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — and I only have to refer to the Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey because his colleague from the same riding (Mr. McGeer) is

never here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in Ottawa.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. Was he invited? That's an amusing

scene indeed: the Premier going to Ottawa and he's closely

followed by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, flying

in one of those DeHavilland Twin Otters from Scare West,

landing on various lakes on the prairies and finally getting to

Ottawa with his little briefcase stuffed with material on the

great injustice to the west.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I wish you'd make an attempt once in a

while, Mr. Liberal Leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). It might raise

the level of your argument.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page

1197 ]

Sound): You're one of the worst lawyers in Vancouver. You had to go

into politics to keep from starving to death.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now so far as the Dutch are concerned, the

Hon. Member raises the question that the, Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) is travelling to Geneva and on his way back he's going

to look at Holland. You know, Holland has a small area. They

have to service a fairly large population for a small area, and

they take very good care of their land. Their land-use policies

are excellent and they're very pollution-control conscious. It

seems to me this is an appropriate thing to do.

I won't deal with the specific details of the oil refinery.

I refer the Hon. Members of the committee to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who is in charge of the

B.C. Petroleum Corp., and to the Premier himself who has made

the announcement.

I think it's appropriate that the questions of this assembly

be directed to those two Members insofar as the details are

concerned.

But I rose in my place, Mr. Chairman, just to bring to the

House's attention that there are broader questions involved and

not just the narrow questions raised by the Member for

Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, to follow up on some of the answers

that the Minister gave, I find it incredible that he considers

the question of pollution problems with regard to a refinery in

the lower mainland area.... Maybe I'm misunderstanding the

Minister, Mr. Chairman, but I again had the distinct impression

that he was telling this House, without putting it in so many

words, that that refinery was going to be in the lower mainland

of British Columbia. He certainly didn't deny it, and he

mentioned the lower mainland on a number of occasions. That

Minister has a callous attitude with regard to the feelings of

the people in this area when he says that the people of this

province — and he mentioned again the lower mainland — have to

make up their minds. "If you want the service you are going to

have to take the pollution." That's about what he said. "If you

want to eat, you have to have a garbage can in your back

yard."

Well, I would suggest that if you want to eat, it might be

nice to have some farmland on which to grow those vegetables as

well, instead of having the government riding roughshod over

the planning authorities and dumping that kind of massive

industrial complex on farmland. You've got to have the farmland

or you don't need the garbage can in your back yard, I'll tell

you that.

He says that if the people want to drive their cars, if they want gasoline,

they are going to have to put up with an oil refinery in Surrey. That doesn't

make any sense. I would suggest that the people also in that area have the right

to decide what they want to have from their environment and what kind of lifestyle

they want in their community. If they decide they don't want a refinery complex

plunked in the middle of their residential area, then this government should

at least have the common sense and decency to at least listen to their complaints

and concern.

With regard to your comments about modern oil refineries not

creating any pollution problems, I'd say that that is just like

an ostrich ducking its head. As I have said before, if there is

oil there will be a spill, because man just isn't perfect. If

there is a spill it is going to have serious effects on the

ecology of the area.

I will just make a couple of quotes that were provided by

the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control, where it

refers to a proposed refinery only 80 per cent larger than the

one under discussion here.

"Dr. Cornelius Wilson, a Rhode Island University engineering

professor and former oil industry chemist said that such an oil

refinery would daily emit hydrocarbon equivalent to that

emitted by 700,000 new vehicles, nitrogen oxide equivalent to

54,000 cars, carbon monoxide equivalent to 156,000 automobiles,

and sulphuric acid on par with the amount of sulphur burned

in oil to generate 166,000 kilowatts."

That was from a report in 1973, when all the present

technology of oil refineries was also known.

From a year earlier, the same source:

"Comparing the relative health hazards of industries main

pollutant, sulphur oxide, and the motor vehicle's main

pollutant, carbon monoxide, the EPA reports that oxides are

10.5 times more toxic to human beings than carbon monoxide."

Finally:

"The stationary polluter, particularly refineries and power

plants, emit almost all of the sulphur oxides monitored by

government agencies in the United States."

For that Minister to stand up and slough off the concerns

over pollution problems with regard to a refinery complex of

this kind is not only callous but is a little stupid, in my

opinion. That Minister should at least admit that pollution

control is going to be difficult, given the nature of the area

involved.

May I just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this

area don't want that refinery there and we certainly don't want

it shoved down our throats.

HON. MR. LAUK: I want to make one point. It is clear from

the press release — and I should make it clear to the Members

of this committee that I could express an opinion about the

desirability of having an oil refinery in the lower mainland —

that there has

[ Page 1198 ]

been no decision made yet about the location. That should be

made clear.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you want to give the land back if you

decide not to use it?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, first of all, you

know there is reference back and forth. There are a whole lot

of things that have been thrown up this afternoon. We will be

discussing the Pollution Control Branch later on in vote 164.

But I think recognition needs to be given that there is more

money definitely in the budget for that; it is a priority with

this government. This particular province, if you take the wood

industry alone, is spending over half the money of the whole

nation in the forest industry on pollution control devices. We

will later on be debating it in more detail in the pollution

control vote.

I happen to believe that Ben Marr is extremely capable, one

of our best public servants. I quite frankly think he is an

excellent chairman of that department.

I want also to correct just a few things. I could have heard

wrong, but I heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

say that this government recognizes that Mohawk Oil is a

private company. Really, quite frankly, he said the government

is neutral; it needs more information.

He's heard me on several occasions. Certainly there needs to

be more information. We are glad at least that the Central

Fraser Valley Regional District is doing a study, I think

through Thurber and Co. In fact, I talked to Barry Jamieson of

the Central Fraser Valley Regional District recently and have

got the Mohawk report, as I'm sure the other Members have. We

are concerned. It is a private company.

It is important, I think, that the politicians make sure

that some really adequate, objective environmental impact

studies be done on the Mohawk site which is up in the saddle

near Straiton on Sumas Mountain. I have said that certainly

we're concerned. As an MLA, I live five miles away from that

site, which is a great deal closer than the Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) does. A great deal of the population

in my riding could be seriously affected by the temperature

inversion and the sulphur dioxide and the smells that we fear

would never get out of the Fraser Valley. I understand that

there is a concern that in the daytime the odious smells leave

the Fraser Valley but don't really leave far enough and are

unfortunately blown back in at night. So these smells of

sulphur dioxide which still are a concern, would stay and would

damage this part of the Fraser Valley.

I think it is also fair to give credit to the industry where due. Little credit

has been given to the industry by these Members. I think the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden) reminded us that if you go down to Long Beach, California, if you

go to Newport Beach and some of these new refineries down there — and certainly,

I gather, if you go to Europe — you see that a great deal has happened in the

20 years since oil refineries were expanded in Burrard Inlet. There's a great

deal of competency. Let's give credit to that. We seem to be very critical of

the industry.

I did visit two large oil refineries in Newport Beach,

which, as you know, is about 40 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

This was only a week ago. Quite frankly, you don't see houses

within three miles, but certainly there are a lot of houses and

a lot of population three or four miles away. It really didn't

seem that bad. In fact, Newport Beach, which is one of the

larger state parks in California, is only two or three miles

away from this refinery. So let's give credit. I think that in

this case it was Gulf.

But I am certainly concerned, and I know that the doctors

who wrote that letter to the editor were certainly concerned

about these things. We are waiting for the environmental impact

study, which is being paid for by Mohawk but is for the Central

Fraser Valley Regional District. Some people get a little

cynical about studies that are sometimes done for clients that

say what the client wants to hear. I am always concerned about

that. But I believe a real job can be done. I think we are open

to it. It is interesting that there was a four-to-two vote by

the regional district, at least, for this study, which seems to

indicate that they want to at least get a lot more information.

I think that in most of these discussions, the House still

needs a great deal more information before politicians here or

politicians in regional districts make these decisions.

This brings up the question, Mr. Minister, that I hope and

pray, as one who took a degree in economics at the university,

that we are not just making economic decisions on things, that

it's not just a profit-and-loss exercise, that we are concerned....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, all right, I'll make my appeal.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your prayers are already answered.

MR. ROLSTON: We have the Ocean Falls decision and,

thankfully, we made $50,000. That's very joyful. If we didn't

have that flood in Ocean Falls, we would have made a little

more money.

You've heard me before. I've made this speech three times in

three separate estimates. Whether it is Mohawk Oil or whether

it is industrial parks in other parts than the Greater

Vancouver Regional District,

[ Page 1199 ]

we don't just make profit-and-loss straight, technological,

economic decisions, You know what I mean. You maybe could be

called the "Department of Social Economic Development."

Certainly, if you'll bear with me, I think I can illustrate the

whole need to move some of the concentration of industry out of

the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Of course I have an

axe to grind.

Sure, I have a riding, not in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District, that is short of industry, where fathers and mothers

do have to leave early in the morning and fight their way

through that traffic into Coquitlam and Burnaby and downtown

Vancouver. Even though we have hourly bus service now from

Maple Ridge, that will never be good enough. So again I repeat

my appeal to you that you appreciate more the dilemma of people

outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District who would like

to see carefully conceived, socially conceived economic

development, where we carefully consult every group that you

can think of.

Please tell me if there is a group I haven't consulted when

it comes to the 131-acre industrial park in Maple Ridge about

which, you know, I have talked to you many times. I appreciated

two weeks ago another meeting with you.

I just remind you that you need to be aware that we can

provide serviced land for $32,000 an acre, which is very

competitive, we believe, to equivalent industrial parks in the

greater Vancouver area and at least as competitive as my

friend, the MLA from Langley (Mr. McClelland). I can detail the

land costs, the flood-proofing costs, the service costs. We're

updating our figures, of course, all the time. Even with the

option money that we as the municipality of Maple Ridge have

had to put out on these properties, we sincerely believe — this

is not just an exercise — that there are clients. In fact, we

have listed clients — Pirelli Cables Ltd. being one of the

biggest clients that we would like to have seen out of

Vancouver into the central Fraser Valley and into the

hinterland of British Columbia.

I sincerely believe — and I would like to hear from other

MLAs — that there are skilled people out there; there are the

skills. A lot of people will move out of the central area with

the skills, but they need attractive, socially conceived

industrial areas. We believe that there is the transport system

now and there is very elaborate telephone and Telex. You can

communicate instantaneously, as MLAs know. That kind of

loneliness really isn't a problem.

But my appeal to you is that we need to stimulate this. It is difficult. Sometimes

the consultants say: "Well, it just can't be done. They must live in Vancouver.

accept that. So I appeal to you again, certainly on behalf of the corporations

of Maple Ridge and Mission and the people there. We believe we have two very

viable sites; we know that these industrial parks are attractive.

Of course, I've said many times that I would like to see

that the three levels of government in a sense benefit from the

elevating of land. For instance, if the Department of Highways

in five or six years' time put a new highway from the

interchange at Riverview past Mary Hill and a new bridge across

Pitt River and through the highland of Pitt Meadows and into

Maple Ridge, which will greatly enhance the Maple Ridge area,

surely it's socially responsible economic development that we

take advantage of that enhancement which will take place with

that new highway corridor. I'm sure this discussion could be

emphasized in many other municipal areas.

Unfortunately, people in my riding and, I'm sure, in every

riding hold land and sometimes don't even pay taxes. They wait

until tax sale. Of course, you have a year's forgiveness after

tax sale. They pay the 8 per cent, plus, I think, a 10 per cent

penalty. You can correct me, but I think it's a 10 per cent

penalty. Those guys don't pay taxes until the last minute. You

talk about social consciousness. They hold the land around

areas that we're trying to develop — Maple Ridge is an

illustration. We should benefit as a municipality and the Crown

should benefit from the appreciation. Incidentally, we will be

paying taxes on an industrial park, I'll assure you.

All I ask is that the Crown guarantee the advances and the

loans to the municipality of Maple Ridge. As I say, a

tremendous amount of work has gone into this. We have updated

our figures. I ask you to go back to BCDC (British Columbia

Development Corp.) Again, I guess it's really my appealing to

you for a certain expectation, shall we say, about social

economic development out of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. You already have commitments at Tilbury, some

commitments in Burnaby, and B.C. Hydro is into Langley. There

are commitments in Kamloops and Prince Rupert.

I would like to ask you, and I think you should tell this

House, how much of that $25 million that statutorily we have

given you is already committed in your programme. I would like

to hear that because I would like to know, of that $25 million,

how much can go to my area.

I, personally, differ with the Minister putting money into

Finlay Forest Products at MacKenzie. Mr. Trethewey, I believe,

is one of the principals. I would have thought that that money,

again in a social sense could go further by providing serviced

areas so that clients don't need to tie up money in land and

buildings. It would be much better. As somebody said last night

at dinner, the big problem with business today is that they're

just desperately short of working capital. They need liquidity,

and there's not much

[ Page 1200 ]

liquidity when everything is tied up in land and in

buildings and in equipment.

So I guess I repeat myself. I would like to see that it's

not just the technicians but it's the social impact — the real

questions about planning. I appeal that stuff be taken out of

the greater Vancouver area. It's already pretty heavy now. I'll

assure you in my case of a tremendous amount of consultation,

if you tell me politically and socially what we haven't done to

prepare the Maple Ridge and the Mission industrial site. The

Mission site is already zoned industrial, according to the

lower mainland regional plan. We would certainly like you to

know.

I think there's a responsibility by this Minister and of the

whole House to promote some unique products that are made in

British Columbia.

If I could just illustrate, just for a moment, I don't know

whether anyone else knows that one of the expanding industries

in Victoria is a floor industry that makes flooring. You should

hear this. There's a young fellow who started out and he's just

incredibly successful. He will design a flooring to suit.

Whether it's the Gardom crest, he will make that flooring, and

he's got sales all over the world. He's doing foyers in hotels

in London, England.

There's another industry out in Agassiz — you ought to hear

this — that's making rugs, tapestries, sculptured rugs, and

these are in some of the outstanding foyers of hotels

throughout the world. This is just a very small one. You read

about this in Beautiful B.C. magazine about half a year

ago. It's a small industry that needs to be encouraged and

there are many like this.

The beautiful thing is that you don't have to look for

customers. There are the customers, but we need to have places

to put them. I would certainly encourage the Minister to get on

with that $25 million. Let's spend it carefully. The House

certainly wants to know where it's going and I think the House

wants to give you some direction. We don't just want to get

press releases on what's happened, but to give you some

direction on what's happening.

I thank you for this time and I feel it's very responsible

that there be work close to where we live. Thank you.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'd like to respond to the Hon. Member, Mr.

Chairman. I don't want to filibuster my own estimates, but I

think the committee and the people of British Columbia should

know he is one of the most hard-working MLAs in this House. If

he spends 10 per cent of the time with other Ministers that he

has in impressing me...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In other words, "Get off my

back." (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: ...with the arguments about Maple Ridge and its industrial

requirements and the kind of thing it can offer....

The most recent change that has occurred, of course, is the

possibility that a highway will be going through the region. It

changes it considerably. Also I met with the city officials

from Maple Ridge who presented me with some different figures

with respect to the development of that industrial park. For

that reason I can inform the Hon. Member and the committee that

I've referred the matter back for reconsideration by the

development corporation.

Again, I support his argument that we'd be socio-economic

planners and not just economic planners, and largely because of

the arguments that you put forward.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the critical

remarks of the Minister in his attack on the previous speaker,

but I wonder whether or not his suggestion that he spends only

one-tenth of the time that he spends with this particular

Minister with others is an indication that he's getting pretty

fed up with the number of times that Member's on his

doorstep.

Nevertheless, the Minister earlier on made some statements

regarding the public making up its mind as to what it wants,

and he talked specifically with reference to an oil refinery.

Those were pretty good words, but the problem we're faced with,

Mr. Chairman, is we can't even, as the Member for Dewdney

pointed out, have a discussion in this Legislature on what we

want, let alone have the public have a discussion upon what

they want, because the facts are not being put forward by the

government Ministers.

For example, we have the press release, referred to by the

Minister of Economic Development, of the Premier talking about

the petroleum refinery. It goes on to say: "He made the

announcement, after receiving an assurance from the federal

energy Minister Macdonald, that the export price of B.C.'s

natural gas would be increased on August 1, 1975." Well, Mr.

Chairman, there's no connection between the two subjects

because, as this Minister has pointed out and as every other

person that's talked about this refinery has pointed out, the

fact is it's to meet a need. It's not connected to some other

product sale price in the United States. There will be

shortfall, as this Minister points out, unless something is

done. To suggest that that's related to any conference in

Ottawa is absolute tripe. The Minister knows it, I know it, and

I'm sure the Premier knows it. When we get press releases like

this which just start off on such a phony, factually inaccurate

basis, we get pretty fed up.

The press release goes on to talk of a few other things.

They've got the ingenious little twist in here, which certainly

should entitle Mr. Twigg to an extra

[ Page 1201 ]

$5,000 a year, whereby within the press release they answer

hypothetical questions at a press conference, which is really

intriguing. They're trying to sort of second-guess the press in

that way. Great stuff, but the fact of the matter is that we do

need factual information on this.

That press release following that meeting in Ottawa came out

on April 9, but an enterprising reporter by the name of Andrew

Ross of The Columbian newspaper on February 12 gave

plenty of details on the refinery. Apparently he had a source

and he talked in The Columbian under the heading:

"Government 'Committed' to Hazelmere Refinery." He says that

his source, who asked not to be identified, "said that he had a

hunch that the government will announce its refinery intentions

during next week's throne speech." They didn't; they announced

it now. But the fact is the decision was made before Ottawa.

This Minister knows it, I know it, this reporter knows it, his

source knows. We all know it. Now why link these things in this

non-factual, indeed quite fictitious, way?

He says the refinery would take up about a third of the

1,800-acre Hazelmere site and would not necessarily include

"supporting industries." The refinery will cost about $300

million to build and will have an initial capacity of 80,000

barrels per day, with expansion to 200,000 barrels within 15

years. Now that's where the billion dollars figure starts

coming in for this refinery. It's not a $350 million dollar

refinery; it is an enormous undertaking if we proceed as the

plans call for at the present time.

Ross goes on to write: "It will be modeled on a

four-year-old 100,000 barrel per day refinery in Goteborg,

Sweden owned by British Petroleum, and will be almost pollution

free, the source said." Now, again, we hear talk about British

interests getting involved in this. Apparently we're to

interest another multinational — BP — in British Columbia

despite the criticisms of this government of multinational

companies.

All this is in The Columbian newspaper back in early

February. It gives details on water, which would be drawn and

discharged into the Nicomekl River. It talks about an attempt

being made to recycle as much water as possible. He goes on to

say that if the government gave the go — ahead today,

construction could begin within three months and the refinery

could be in operation within four years. This is all repeated

information which we've had from this so-called press release,

in this so-called announcement which came out of Ottawa when

the Premier had nothing else to say down there.

The

article — and again my thanks to Andrew Ross — talks of 2,000 persons being

employed to build the refinery, but only about 300 persons would be required

to operate it once it was completed. Then — and here comes the fun part — Ross

went on to ask a few questions as to whether or not public officials, B.C. Petroleum

Corp. officials and representatives of the government would be coming to a public

meeting which was to take place the following day, February 12. It was on the

11th that he wrote this article; the 12th the meeting took place in the valley

at Cloverdale Community Centre.

This is the interesting thing.

"There's no way we'll convince these people. They're out to

hammer us. We'd just be fanning,the flames to speak to them

because the cabinet hasn't made up its mind officially and we'd

appear evasive."

They did not come to that particular meeting. Nobody came to

that meeting except the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who's now

off on some other trip somewhere else. He gave the government's

position when he said that it would not be located there if the

public there didn't want it there.

Now I don't know whether that was a statement of government

policy, but I read something in the Kitimat newspaper about

this Minister's remarks regarding a steel mill, where he said

and I understand he has commented on it since but he said in

the first quote that a small group of people in that particular

area would not be allowed to hold up a programme for the

benefit of all of British Columbia. I believe I'm quoting him

reasonably accurately. He nods his head in agreement.

Well, we have the only government person who came, namely

Mr. Liden, the Member for Delta, saying: "No, you're not going

to get it if you don't want it," and we have the

Minister saying: "We're not going to allow small groups of

people in certain areas to hold up things for the general

benefit and good of the province." I think the Minister's point

of view is probably correct, constitutional, and the

.governmental point of view. You have to take decisions,

occasionally, over the wishes of local people; that's known.

But is the statement of the Member for Delta government policy

in this instance? We don't know. He went on to say that it

would cost 50 cents to $1 a gallon more to have it refined at

Merritt or somewhere else in the interior. I don't think he was

right on that at all.

The fact is, Mr. Minister, You can talk glowingly — and you

do talk effectively — about the absolutely dismal and appalling

record of the previous government in the area of pollution

control and you're right. But it doesn't mean that because

you're marginally better in some instances, you therefore have

carte blanche to go ahead in this instance, or any other

instances, with your pulp mills, with your refinery, with your

steel mill, and act in very much the same manner. It's fine for

you to talk here about letting the public in and the public

must make up its mind, but you're not giving the public

information. Finally, when some decisions come out in the way

[ Page 1202 ]

news releases, they're linked with matters which are totally

irrelevant to the question of building a refinery.

If we're to have a serious discussion of a refinery, a steel

mill, or anything else — any other industrial development

programme in British Columbia — we're going to have to get some

factual information from the government. This secrecy which the

government has — this desire, this determination not to say

anything at any cost — is going to have to be swept away.

Let me, while I'm on that point, thank the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) when she came back to the

House yesterday, for speaking up and saying she's made an error

the day before. We were on to a point, in the opposition, which

we simply could not understand. The previous night she had not answered our questions. The next day she came back with

information. Would more Ministers do that? Would they come

forward with information so that estimates can be put forward

in a reasonable, responsible way and there can be discussion of

issues and facts and not simply hurling of slogans from one

side to the other?

I would like a number of specific questions answered by this

Minister on this particular proposal.

[Mr. Rolston in the chair.]

First, I would like to know whether there is any written

communication signed by the Premier of the Province of Alberta,

any cabinet Minister of the Province of Alberta or any Deputy

Minister of the Province of Alberta or any high officials of

the energy component of their civil service guaranteeing us the

increase in crude oil that a new refinery will require, or, in

that statement of the Premier's where he talks about: "Supply

of crude oil for the refinery will come from Alberta through

the existing transmountain pipeline following talks between the

B.C. Petroleum Corp., the Crown agency, and Alberta officials

It appears that this can be read two ways, but the logical

way to read it is: "We haven't yet had those discussions, there

haven't been those talks yet with the officials in Alberta, and

we have no commitment at the present time with respect to a

source of supply."

It may well be that we will never get a guarantee and the Premier intends to

throw $350 million into a proposal, or more, and then squeal to the federal

government to get some sort of allocation of Alberta crude to make sure that

this refinery will work. That, of course, will be three or four years in the

future when this refinery is finally constructed. It may be that there is no

such guarantee. But if there is a guarantee, if there are the assurances that

this Minister talked of yesterday, for heaven's sake, let us know about them.

This certainly is point one, fact one, about a refinery, and if we've got it,

let us know. I'm worried about it, but obviously I don't have the information

that the Minister has and cannot say one way or the other whether it is available.

Certainly we are going to have to look closely at the

question of conflict of interest. It has been mentioned before

and I'll mention it again: the worst mills for pollution in the

province are government-owned mills. When the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) takes

such pride, which he does, in the profits of these companies, I

respond by suggesting that profits might be substantially lower

and the pollution control substantially higher if he would only

separate the two functions of government — one running the

company and the other protecting the public interest in

pollution control. We must have the government authorities and

the pollution control branch and the Ministers responsible

totally independent to vigorously push and protect the public

interest and insist on environmental protection and pollution

control devices. They are not in that position when they are

directors of companies and responsible for profits of the

companies.

I would like to quote from a very brief presentation by one

Ivor Donald of White Rock, who spoke at that meeting in early

February at Cloverdale. He said, and I am quoting from the

second paragraph.... By the way, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Donald is

the secretary of the Save The Beaches Association and he is

acting here on instructions from the president, Mr. Hastings.

He says in the second paragraph:

"There have been many proposals in the past which, if

implemented, would have endangered our beaches. In those cases

the provincial government was always the final authority, and

by appeal to the provincial government, our group and others

like us have been successful in preserving our beaches. What

gives us the greatest degree of concern is that in this case

the provincial government, through its own agency, the B.C.

Petroleum Corp., is the proposed developer."

He puts in a nutshell there the conflict-of-interest problem

which is bedeviling pollution control and environmental

protection in British Columbia. It was bad enough before.

Previous to this government we had a system which was not good,

but at the present time it's probably much worse because there

is not the independence of the government from the companies,

from the Crown corporations, which existed in the past. Now

you have people who are concerned about environmental problems

totally stymied in their efforts to appeal to their MLAs or to

appeal to the government, because those MLAs, as was indicated

earlier by speeches made by

[ Page 1203 ]

government Members and Ministers, as has been indicated

frequently, are bound up in the success of the Crown

corporation in which the government owns shares.

This is becoming a real problem. I raise it under this

Minister's estimates; I can raise it under the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford'

s) estimates

and I can raise it under the Ministers of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources' estimates, because if the government continues

to get more and more involved in the private sector, more and

more involved in the manufacturing and primary industries of

British Columbia, we are going to see issue after issue of this

nature.

Mr. Donald put his finger on it in the case of this

refinery. The public cannot appeal to the government. They

cannot get the reasonable hearing they would have were that

refinery, for example, a Gulf, Shell, Mobil, or some other

company. Because it's a government refinery they are simply

going to get government justifications of their already-made

decisions.

I urge the Minister, who I must say has been very reasonable

in these estimates so far in attempting to deal with issues and

real facts, to start putting on the record some facts about

this refinery.

It's no good having civil servants say that they are not

going to attend public meetings because they'll get hammered

with questions. It's no good the government waiting until it's

got its whole mind made up. The procedure that we should have

is a proper public examination and public inquiry. We should,

at the same time, have experts, environmental experts, who are

acting independently of the government, doing studies as to the

validity or otherwise of the proposed refinery. We must have an

independent environmental impact study of this refinery. We

must, at the same time, have proper public input as to the

decision on location.

Indeed, as the Minister points out, perhaps we also need a

little bit of examination as to where society is going and

whether or not we could avoid this inevitable, increasing

number of refineries by changing lifestyles. That is a much

more involved subject. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, the United

States would not be importing oil today and would not have

their energy crisis if the United States automobile was of the

average size of the Japanese as opposed to the average size of

the American car. They just wouldn't have it.

The Minister is right in saying the public must make up its

mind. The public is not being given any opportunity by this

secretive government to get the facts and then make up its

mind.

Sure, there are tough decisions. I am not one who says: "Look, no refineries

anywhere. Nothing, nothing, nothing. We are going to go back to horses, which

at least have a biodegradable exhaust." We are not going to do that and we are

not promoting that. We are trying to get the government to come up with some

facts so that reasonable decisions can be made.

Having talked at some length on that one subject, which in

actual fact, Mr. Chairman, comes under the Attorney-General's

estimates, I would like to turn to the specific

responsibilities of this fine Minister. I naturally spoke a

little at some further length because this Minister has taken

pride in his steel mill and also in the refinery. He talked

about them, and the Premier has mentioned them in the context

of this Minister's work. That is perhaps why I discussed it

here.

Also, I must give this assistant Attorney-General credit.

He's a little more energetic that the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) presently in place. If the present Minister

stays around, he too may wind up in the front bench instead of

the back bench, provided the government survives. I think we

may get a more energetic response from him, and I've discussed

it for that reason.

Turning to government programmes, it seems to me that one of

the first things that we should be looking for in government

programmes, be it the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young) or be it this Minister, is efficiency, The first way to

get efficiency is to wipe out duplication. I am concerned that

there is tremendous duplication between the federal Department

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the provincial Department

of Consumer Services. I think they should both be working out

of the same office and that we should not have this system

which we presently have of people being sent every which way

and not really getting the information they desire.

I see that the federal and provincial governments are trying

to co-ordinate their efforts, and I would like the Minister to

perhaps spend a few minutes on what you are doing. The

provincial government programmes are essentially the technical

assistance programmes for expanding facilities; they are

essentially market development assistance programmes to expand

exports; trade mission programmes to get people abroad; trade

show assistance programmes to assist in trade shows; an

incoming business programme; the Farm Products Industry

Improvement Act programme which is designed to help out

agriculture; and finally the development corporation.

I worked for a number of years as an assistant Canadian

government trade commissioner. I was involved in such things as

sending a number of delegations to Canada, some from countries

we didn't recognize, such as mainland China in those days. We

had trade shows in China. We had a trade mission programme; we

had market development assistance programmes. In fact, of the

six headings for programmes under this particular Minister,

three are

[ Page 1204 ]

duplicated by one of the federal government departments. I

wonder whether he would like to say a few words about

co-ordination.

I have a few more minutes. I would just like to run quickly

through some of the programmes that there are. We have DREE

(Department of Regional Economic Expansion) which the Minister

has talked about. I wonder whether he would be a little more

candid than he was yesterday about the DREE programme. He knows

full well that there has been delay after delay after delay in

the signing of the agreement, in particular with respect to the

Peace River. To happily say it is because of power blocs down

in eastern Canada is false. He knows it to be false. He knows

that the delays need not have happened. Indeed, some of these

agreements could have been signed earlier than 1972, had the

previous government got going on it. Some of these agreements

could have been signed between 1972 and today. To make these

bland oversimplifications, which indeed are false, appealing to

prejudice, is unworthy of this particular Minister.

There is the IDB (Industrial Development Bank), I wonder how

the IDB works in with the technical assistance programme?

HON. MR. LAUK: Point of order. I'm sure that the Member

didn't mean to, but for clarification of the record I would ask

the Chairman to ask the Member to withdraw the imputation that

I deliberately made false statements to the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, agreed. Any false statements to the House

should be withdrawn.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Mr. Chairman, perhaps he was

carried away by what he said. I will withdraw that statement of

mine. However, I am sure that the Minister himself would like

to seriously modify his statements yesterday, which I have

before me, regarding DREE — the DREE programme, as he mentioned

it, on pages 138 and on. He goes on:

I think the Minister is sincere, but I think his colleagues

who depend upon the political power base of Ontario and Quebec

call the tune, and that tune is:

"The money goes elsewhere, not B.C."

Well, if he has any idea of the Maritime proposals — the

Maritime DREE programmes — he'll know that that's a pretty

nonsensical statement.

The DREE programme that he talked of....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In your speech yesterday regarding DREE,

where you went on to say.... It was page 138 and 139, I guess

it is — 138-3.

The fact is that DREE programmes in British Columbia have not been affected

by the desire to spend the money elsewhere. We know of the experience of the

Okanagan where the former Premier has agreements with the federal government

leading to industrial expansion most unwise industrial expansion, in my view

which seriously affected the water supply in the area that is essentially a

fragile region, from the point of view of water.

Anyway, the federal programmes that there are, which are

listed, indeed, by the Minister's own department's consultative

services publication, one to two pages.... Joint programmes

are there as well; there are two joint programmes. I'd like to

know how the provincial programmes, which seem to overlap

absolutely directly, are co-ordinated. I feel that the $5

million being spent by this Minister's department is relatively

little. Most of it appears to me to be supplementary programmes

to the federal; perhaps he can comment on that. It is very

small, indeed, in comparison with the amount of money that his

counterparts in other provinces have provided. British Columbia

provides a very, very small percentage to this particular

department in comparison with the other provinces of the

country. It appears that most of what is being done at the

present time is the odd bit of patching here and there.

I wonder whether the Minister might like to indicate what

the proposals are in the future for developments of the

department, as opposed to specific things such as steel mills,

smelters, refineries or whatever, because the department he has

is important. The Premier keeps stressing the need for

secondary industry, yet it appears that this Minister's work is

not being given much priority when it comes to funding. The

Premier talks frequently about the need to get away from

primary industry. Fair enough. A laudable objective. But if

this Minister is to do much in that area, he's going to have to

have a more responsible position in cabinet. He's going to have

to have more available to him than is presently the case.

Perhaps in the future there will be developments with his

department, I don't know what they will be.

I wonder whether the Minister could comment as to the

direction in which the department is going, in what areas they

are going to develop in pioneering new frontiers and in what

areas they are going to leave it up to the federal department

or departments and the large number of programmes that are

presently available under federal auspices.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, it's certainly a

pleasure to take

part in the discussion of this department, as

I have had some personal experience with the Minister and the

B.C. Development Corp. In my riding.

I listened with interest this afternoon to most of the

speech of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). He's not in

his seat at the present time.

[ Page 1205 ]

On two particular points I'd like to compliment him. One was

the exhibition of his lack of knowledge of the construction and

operation of a modern refinery. I think the other was his

guarantee of defeat for Bill Vander Zalm in the next provincial

election for the Social Credit Party.

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) was making a plea to

have the B.C. Development Corp. and the Minister of Economic

Development make decisions using a social conscience as well as

the direct economic impact of studies made on a particular

industry in a particular area. I can assure the Member for

Dewdney that this is the case. In the case of my riding — I

spoke on it before a couple of times in this House — it was

because of the forest policies of the previous government that

a couple of towns in the northern part of my riding were

quickly going down the drain with loss of population because of

the closure of the mills in their areas, caused by the forest

policies of the previous government.

When someone came along with the energy and the know-how to

put an industry into one of these towns — into Blue River —

because of the social need of that area, the B.C. Development

Corp. responded very quickly, inspected the site, interviewed

the developer with a long experience in the sawmilling business

and came to his assistance with a total of $500,000 — part from

IDB, part from BCDC and

part in a guarantee of operating

capital, Now there's a small dispute going on among the partners in

the mill. When they get that cleared up, the money is there.

When I was in Blue River, I made this quite clear to the

principal owner and the people of that area that in no way was

the Development Corp. backing out of this commitment. They'd

made it; the money was there. When they put their house in

order, it was a matter of signing the paper and picking it

up, The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and some of the

other speakers, in the opposition continually stress that

everything was being done from Victoria with no consultation

with the local residents.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, that's exactly what I'm referring

to, Mr. Member for Columbia River, because once again you've

displayed a complete lack of knowledge of facts. You've flailed

and flailed away about something you know very little about. I

can assure you that if you got your facts from your next

candidate in that provincial election, I can understand why

they were all wrong, because as long as that candidate

breathes, Phil Gaglardi will not be dead.

The Member for Columbia River flailed away about valuable agricultural land

that we said we were going to preserve and that now we were ready to give up

to industrial development. Well, there has been complete consultation with the

City of Kamloops. Through my own office, the acting mayor and two of the councilors,

with the industrial co-ordinator and the city planner, had meetings here in

Kamloops with the various departments about this particular piece of land.

Molson's tried to grow hops there for many years. Yes they

did, and there's a sawmill operator in town today who will tell

you — he can get the records — how many tons of sawdust and

chips he supplied to Molson's to try to break up that compact

earth. The Molson records will show you, if you wish to look at

them, that there were approximately 11 tons of chemicals, such

as sulphur and gypsum, per acre per year — nine to 11 tons per

acre per year to fight the alkali in that soil, to try and make

it produce.

AN HON. MEMBER: So where did it go? In the river.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: They also tiled acres and acres of that

property with drain tile in the hopes that when the water table

rose in the spring, the salts would be flushed away. What

happened was, in a very short time....

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I can understand your reluctance to

listen, Mr. Member, because facts are something you don't like

and you never have.

After spending all that money on irrigation tile to drain

away the salts in that field, in a very few years the salts ate

away the tile and the tile collapsed.

Those three miles of land look like they could produce. It

looks like it could produce. But the soil survey division of

the Department of Agriculture in Kelowna has done a detailed

mapping of the area. Their feeling is that a reclamation

project would succeed, but the question is one of economic

feasibility. If someone were to try and bring that land back to

decent agricultural production and get it into agricultural

production it's my estimation that it would take three

generations to get back the capital investment.

There's another point brought forward by the City of

Kamloops in their discussions in Victoria last week and the

week before. Kamloops has absolutely not one acre of industrial

land on railways trackage.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Good agricultural land. Let's look at the

map put out by the soils survey division. These are people who

do know what they're talking about — quite a difference from

you, Mr. Member. When I look on here with all the

[ Page 1206 ]

classifications at the test points: there's class 6, class

6T, class 7, class 5, and the federal Department of Agriculture

says that for all practical purposes classification of land

should be from one to four. So, Mr. Member, you say first-class

agricultural land, and the experts in the soils division say

class 7, class 8, class 5, class 6. So once again you're wrong.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Is it in the reserve? Tell us

that.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The regional district, in drawing up the

maps, made some errors. One error that was made was in the last

submission by the City of Kamloops to have some land included

in the reserve because a dairy farmer owned three separate

registered parcels. Two were included in the reserve; one was

not. It's my understanding that it's now been included.

The land is not good agricultural land. Somehow an error was

made in including it. I support very strongly its exclusion

from the reserve. It is on the CPR mainline. It has the

Okanagan CN line running through it, which gives two railroads

on this one property. It is on Highway I - straddles it on both

sides. It's my understanding that if it is free, and the

Minister picks up the option, most of the waterfront will be

returned to the City of Kamloops for recreational purposes. I

certainly compliment the Minister for this decision.

So the city council wants it; the people in Kamloops want

it. They want to diversify. They want to make up for a complete

and total lack of land on rail. They have no industrial land

whatsoever.

Here are a few of the reasons given by the city: The

agricultural land reserve, as presently proposed, places little

limitation on population growth. There were small pockets of

land, because of the disorganized way the expansion in Kamloops

was taking place, that were surrounded by houses and were not

placed in the reserve, so that there is a lot of residential

land potential in the area. The growth in the area has been 6

to 7 per cent rather than the provincial 3 per cent, but you

cannot realize the potential of residential land without an

opportunity for a commensurate industrial base.

"Industry will become more dependent on the movement of

goods by rail because of the forecast increasing cost of

energy, and rail technology is restricting it in its operating

characteristics to flat grades and shallow curves; hence it is

generally limited to the valleys, and this land lies in the

valley bottom.

"The analysis of the city plan that has taken three years in

its development, the Kamplan plan for the development of

residential, industrial and commercial sites and

[ Page 1207 ]

transportation corridors, indicates that the present

distribution of employment to support the existing population

is extremely vulnerable. There is too high an indicated

percentage of employment in resource-extractive industries,

forest and mining, and the construction trade. Even on the

basis of the present population it may be argued that a

diversification of the industrial base into secondary or

manufacturing opportunities is advantageous.

"Strong industrial enclaves in the suburbs in the periphery

of the city accessible by circle routes and not dependent upon

passage through the congested city core would allow latitude

for greatly increased populations without the necessity for

proportionately increased road construction, since the traffic

pattern resulting from this would merely tend to create a lane

balance — on existing facilities."

All of these reasons given by the city council, by their

industrial planner, by their engineer, have no doubt had an

impact, and in discussing the proposed industrial site with the

Minister who plans for this area.... I've seen several of them

out east of Toronto, as perhaps some of these Members have,

with the proper landscaping and trees and lawns. It sounds to

me as though the same kind of model, industrial suburb is

planned for there.

As a resident of Kamloops, I certainly support it. I think

I've given enough facts with soil numbers here. There are small

patches of class 3 land, but they are very small indeed. In

general, the bulk of the land is unsuitable for agriculture. It

has been proven unsuitable for agriculture over the years, and

that alone is reason enough for the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) to say we are trying to get valuable agricultural

land out of the reserve. Well, we want a few jobs in Kamloops

too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to add

a few words to this debate. Just referring to the previous

speaker: when he starts talking about a lack of facts, I would

suggest that he has a complete absence of facts in some of the

statements he has just made. But the Member, as usual, like the

rest of this government, is earthbound by philosophical

hang-ups, and I can certainly understand the way he thinks.

Mr. Chairman, in this debate thus far on Economic

Development we've had a lot of talk about steel mills, copper

smelters, oil refineries, all of which the government plans to

own in part or parcel, all of which could be provided for in

the Province of British Columbia and could be built by private

capital without the government entering in as a partner or

without the government owning the whole parcel.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's no argument there.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's no argument there, the Minister says.

No argument there. Then I would like the Minister to explain to

me why the government wants to have control. Why doesn't the

government use the money in other areas where it is needed to

provide those extra jobs? There will be no more jobs provided

by the fact that the government owns part or parcel of these

three industries. There will be no more jobs provided whether

they are owned by the government or whether they are owned by

private capital. There will be no more jobs created, except

maybe for some of the bureaucracy which the government will

have to hire to supervise.

As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to venture to say,

Mr. Chairman, that the industries would probably be much more

efficiently run and return a great deal more taxes and benefits

to the taxpayers of British Columbia if these industries were

built and operated by private enterprise. I wonder why the

Minister of Economic Development and the rest of this cabinet

are so determined that the government be a partner in these

businesses.

With all of the preoccupation with these industries, two of

the main industries in this province are deteriorating. Because

of the attitude of the government, because of the uncertain

climate that has been created, we are not attracting the

investment capital we need. As a matter of fact, we are ruining

our reputation as a safe place for private investment. Unless

the government is prepared to take over all of the industries —

and I don't know where they would get the money to do it.

On the one hand, we are trying to scare away investment

capital and, on the other hand, the government is trying to

provide those jobs by going in and taking over the

industries.

I think it's time that the Minister does something to change

the economic outlook of the province and to come out with a

firm policy as to exactly what his department intends to do and

what the government intends to do. After all, he is now the

Minister of Economic Development which encompasses very broad

terms of reference. As Minister of Economic Development he must

be concerned over all of the economy: the economy of the mining

industry, the economy of the forest industry, the economy of

the petroleum industry, and, indeed, the economy of the

manufacturing industry. But the Minister has not made any

statements which would alleviate this worry of private

investment capital. As a matter of fact, the Minister has made

certain promises that he would assist private capital and

private investment, but he has not lived up to his

promises.

I am amazed in the number of hours of debate that we have had on this particular

department, I have listened intently and I haven't heard one firm policy statement

from that Minister as yet as to what the true intentions of the government were

with regard to growth in all sectors.

HON. MR. LAUK: This is committee of supply.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've heard the Minister talk about

development in the northeast, development in the Kootenays,

development in the northwest. It has all been talk; there have

been no firm plans laid out for two years.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It's out of order,

that's why.

MR. PHILLIPS: For two years we have heard nothing but talk

from this Minister. No firm announcement of policy.

HON. MR. HALL: It would be out of order in estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Out of order in estimates? Well, I guess it is

out of order if we ask the Minister what his intentions

are.

HON. MR. HALL: You've wasted the budget debate.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: I can make my own speech, Mr. Provincial

Secretary. If you'd like to make a speech you certainly have

the opportunity to do so at a later date. But with your policy,

I am sure that you won't be much asset to the Minister of

Economic Development so maybe you should leave the House, which

he has already done.

HON. MR. LAUK: Don't be rude.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not being rude. I'm just stating some

facts.

I would like the Minister to indicate to us what the

intentions of his department are. Are we to have growth in the

province or are we to have no growth? Just what does the

Minister feel towards economic development? Does he want to see

it increased or does he want the population to remain

stagnant? Does he want to create more jobs in the province or

does he want the number of people employed in our industries to

remain as it is? I think once we find out how the Minister

feels about growth then we can get on intelligently discussing

where we are going. But, on the other hand, the Minister says,

"Yes, we want growth," and on the other, "No, we don't

want growth."

I'd like the Minister to advise me. Is it the policy of his

department to encourage growth in the primary industries in

this province? By primary industries I

[ Page 1208 ]

am talking about the forest industry, I am talking about the

mining industry, and I am talking about the petroleum industry.

Do you want growth, Mr. Minister? Do you want to expand in

those three areas? I think this is a very key issue.

If you do want growth, Mr. Minister, do you want that growth

to be growth by ownership in the public segment or growth by

ownership in the private segment?

Madam Chairman, I think the Minister should advise us if he

wants growth in the mature industries. By the mature industries

I am referring to the iron and steel industry, pulp and paper

industry, the lumber industry and the petroleum industry. Are

you and are the policies of your department working towards

growth in these areas?

Are you interested in growth in the industries of the

future? If so, what are you doing to create growth? We've heard

no statement of policy from you. When I say industries of the

future I am talking about the plastics industry, the computer

industry, the aircraft industry, petrochemical industry,

medicine and health, and energy. These are the industries of

the future. What policy have you got to develop growth in these

industries, or do you want them?

HON. MR. LAUK: How about used cars?

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be frivolous with me, Mr. Minister. I'd

like to know what your policy is because I have not been able

to determine it.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll get somebody to read you my

speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are going to be strong demands for such

items in the future as recreation items and new methods of home

building. Do you want to encourage these industries in British

Columbia? Do you want to see growth in them? Madam Chairman, if

we're going to keep pace with technological development

elsewhere in the world, we must encourage indigenous research

and development in some fields, and import technology in

others.

HON. MR. LAUK: What's "indigent" research?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll explain it to you after I'm finished.

HON. MR. LAUK: How about derelict research?

MR. PHILLIPS: No. Well, there, the Minister is making light

again. But the point is that we're not putting any emphasis on

research. We're not putting any emphasis on inviting technology

from other fields and other areas in these future growth

industries. The

Minister, as I say, just continues to talk in generalized

terms but doesn't really outline his policy. I'm concerned,

Madam Chairman, about the policy. I would like to know if the

Minister differs, for instance, with the Premier on growth

policies? It wasn't too long ago that the Premier of this

province — as a matter of fact, it would be two years ago now —

made a statement in an

article in The Globe and Mail

report on business:

"Premier David Barrett has expressed himself as a believer

in zero growth, an objective he believes can be achieved only

by bringing the slim secondary manufacturing sector of the

province into balance with the resource sector. He intends to

accomplish this by charging the resource industries more taxes

and using this revenue to encourage secondary development."

Premier David Barrett.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Premier David Barrett has expressed himself

as a believer in zero growth."

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, the Premier didn't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now, maybe the Premier did say that,

Madam Chairman, but maybe the Minister of Economic Development

doesn't want to believe it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Send it over.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get you a copy of it. It's quoted from an

article written by John Slinger to The Globe and Mail ,

January 22, 1973.

This is why it is so important that the Minister of Economic

Development tell this Legislature this afternoon....

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you going to send it over?

MR. PHILLIPS: It doesn't matter whether I send it over or

not. What I want to know from you, Mr. Minister, is whether you

agree with this. Or do you have another policy? Outline to the

Legislature your policy.

Since the debate on your estimates has started, you have not

delineated to this Legislature your policies. You're talking

about a survey being done for a steel mill; you're talking

about an oil refinery; you're talking about a copper smelter.

Maybe all or none of these will ever come into being. But what

I'm saying, Madam Chairman, is that while you're talking about

these airy-fairy industries, which they are at the present time — and I hope that they become reality because we must provide

jobs for an ever-increasing labour force. But in these

broad,

[ Page 1209 ]

general terms others in your cabinet by their policies are

ruining and driving out the primary resource industries, just

as the Premier has said. I'll quote again:

"...by bringing the slim secondary manufacturing sector of the province into balance with the

resource sector. He intends to accomplish this by charging the

resource industries more taxes and using the revenue to

encourage secondary development."

Now certainly that is right on, because you have tried to

tax the resource industries of lumber and mining and petroleum

a great deal more taxes to the point where you have ruined the

mining industry. You have brought it to a standstill, while

thousands of jobs in the province go wanting. This part of the

Premier's statement you have accomplished; you have

accomplished it very effectively. You can say that your lumber

industry is progressing. But the Minister knows as well as I do

that development in the lumber industry is practically at a

standstill.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hansard people are asleep, Don.

Could you speed it up?

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairman, the Minister can make light of

what I'm saying all he wants to. He doesn't bother me one bit.

I want from him some facts. I want him to tell us exactly what

his department is all about and what the policies of his

department are. We haven't heard it thus far.

The Minister will try and say that the lumber industry is in

a healthy state, and he'll talk about Can-Cel and he'll pick

two or three items in the province which are success items and

he'll tell what a great job his government has done. But I

think it is time that you, Mr. Minister, woke up to the true

facts of what is happening, particularly in the lumber

industry.

We'll take that one first. In the Province of British

Columbia, we have over one-half the known softwood in Canada.

Will you, Mr. Minister, tell me how much money is planned in

the growth of the pulp and paper industry in the next three

years? You're ashamed to do-it because you know as well as I do

that we have a commitment of only $168 million, while in the

provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the same period of time,

there is a commitment of $1.35 billion to be expended in the

pulp and paper industry — eight times as much.

Before this period of time of this great day of reckoning, before the socialists

came to power, we had the greatest lumber industry of any jurisdiction in the

world. Not only was it the greatest in terms of processing more of our products

at home, but it was also the most heavily taxed industry of any jurisdiction

and produced more revenue to the Province of British Columbia. This industry

is now virtually standing still in terms of future development.

Mr. Minister, you are the Minister of Economic Development.

I want you to stand in this Legislature this afternoon and tell

me what is the policy of your government in inviting and

encouraging expansion in the lumber industry. It is not good

enough just to talk about steel mills, copper smelters and oil

refineries when our primary industry, which is the lumber

industry, has virtually no plans for expansion in the next

three years. It is not good enough for the Minister of Economic

Development to talk about growth and expansion when he knows

full well that his Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has brought the mining industry in this

province to a complete standstill. It is not good enough to

have mines that could be developed in this province, creating

jobs.

I'll quote some figures here for the Minister in case he has

forgotten. There are currently in this province some 15

important mineral deposits that could be placed into production

if conditions were favourable. It is the responsibility of that

Minister of Economic Development to see that conditions are

favourable for those mines to go ahead, or at least tell the

mining industry, tell the taxpayers of British Columbia, what

his policy is. Is it a policy of growth or is it a policy of

no-growth?

Madam Chairman, we were just presented with what was

supposed to be a job-security budget. It is all very well and

good for the Minister of Economic Development to do what he did

on the floor of the House the other day and make light of the

fact that our unemployment in British Columbia has decreased by

0.1 per cent. You, as Minister of Economic Development, have

to look further than one month ahead. You have to, as Minister

of Economic Development, take a broad outlook and a look into

the future. You have to make the decision where the policies of

your government are such that they are going to have a strong

economy in British Columbia — not just next year or the next

year, but five, 10, and 20 years down the road. It was those

firm policies and the planning that brought British Columbia to

know the standard of living that we know today.

If your policy is no-growth, Mr. Minister, I think you

should have the intestinal fortitude to stand in this

Legislature and tell the taxpayers of British Columbia exactly

where we are going. Tell us where we are going. Tell us if you

are at odds with the other Ministers in your cabinet. Tell us

if you are at odds with their policies. If you are, be man

enough to tell us. We'll respect you more for it.

If you disagree with the policy of the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick), if you disagree with the policy of the B.C.

Petroleum Corp., and if you disagree with the Minister of

Lands, Forests and

[ Page 1210 ]

Water Resources, stand up and be counted. Say so. Stand up

and tell us what you would like to see, because if that

Minister doesn't outline the policies of his government, which

change from day to day and don't give any real security to the

small businesses that depend on these primary industries....

If we are going to be a province and if we are going to

invite secondary industry into this province, as this Minister

of Economic Development has said we are going to do, I would

like him to explain to me why the number of people employed in

planning, research and development has decreased for the year

1975 at a time when, if he is going to encourage growth in the

industries of the future, we should be spending millions of

dollars more in research, planning an