1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3079 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Request for purchase of Cream Silver Mines shares. Mr. Bennett — 3079

Increased assessments on golf courses. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3079

Premier's statement on wage/price controls. Mr. Wallace — 3079

Interest rates of proposed "people's bank." Mr. Gibson — 3080

T-shirts for participants in the run-for-fun programme. Mr. Gardom — 3080

Adoptions and registry. Hon. Mr. Levi — 3080

Ban on import of toy drug. Hon. Mr. Levi — 3080

Wrong impression given by river-level statistics. Mr. Curtis — 3081

Re-examination of decision on Cowichan River dam. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3081

Construction industry strike. Mr. Wallace — 3081

Variations in ICBC allowances for body work. Mr. Bennett — 3082

Procedure on delayed expropriation negotiation. Mr. Gardom — 3082

Assistance for flooded non-organized areas. Mrs. Jordan — 3082

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates

Amendment to vote 137.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3082

Mr. McClelland — 3084

Mr. Liden — 3090

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3091

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3092

Mr. Smith — 3093

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3093

Mr. Phillips — 3093

Mr. Smith — 3099

Mr. Chabot — 3101

Mr. Bennett — 3103

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3104

Mr. Chabot — 3106

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3106

Mr. Chabot — 3106

Division on amendment to vote 137 — 3107

On vote 137.

Mr. Wallace — 3107

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3111

Mr. Bennett — 3113

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3113

Statement

Withdrawal of words which might impute corruption. Mrs. Jordan — 3113

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it's a

rare honour that I have today to ask the Members to join me in

welcoming students of the Creston Elementary School, division 22, 33

boys and girls, their principal, Mr. Alf Price, their teacher, Mrs.

Catherall and four very devoted parents.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome

to the House today four constituents from Comox riding, Mr. Bill

Chafer, Mr. and Mrs. Waterman and Karen Waterman. They have taken an

interest in politics for a long time and I know will be watching with

interest this afternoon the proceedings.

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

take the opportunity to introduce to the House and have them welcome

the Fraser Valley regional director for the Social Credit Party of

British Columbia, Mr. Ed. Durr, who is sitting in the Members' gallery.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, visiting

the House today are over 30 senior students from the Queen Elizabeth

School from Surrey. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF

CREAM SILVER MINES SHARES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources: could the Minister confirm whether or

not he's had a request to purchase Cream Silver Mines shares for

approximately $9.75 a share for a total of $19.5 million?

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

I had a letter stating that due to the fact that they couldn't mine in

parks they thought that we should purchase them at $19 million. There

was no discussion and no commitment. It was just a proposal by them and

I don't know where they got it from.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental: could the Minister further advise the House

under what statute he has declared a moratorium on the requirement on the payment

of fees and work requirements on mining claims in parks?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is by order-in-council to relieve them of those responsibilities.

MR. BENNETT: Could the Minister of Mines advise the House

whether or not he has advised the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

that while policy is being decided on this matter, shares of all

companies having claims in parks be suspended on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's nothing in the moratorium

suggesting that we are going to purchase any mines in parks. That

wasn't done for that purpose; it was done to decide the procedure we

were going to use in regard to mineral claims in parks.

MR. BENNETT: My question was: have you had discussions with

the Attorney-General on the suspension of shares of companies that have

claims in parks…that their shares be suspended on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange until such a time as you define a policy on this?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No.

INCREASED ASSESSMENTS

ON GOLF COURSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address a question to our latest doctor in the House, the Minister of

Finance. I'd like to ask him whether he gave his approval to any appeal

launched by the provincial assessor to revise upward the assessments on

golf courses, which had previously been determined by the local courts

of revision. Have you approved any upward assessment appeals?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. Take two aspirins and ask tomorrow. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Will the real doctor please stand up? (Laughter.)

PREMIER'S STATEMENT

ON WAGE/PRICE, CONTROLS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that he made a statement to

the effect that he personally favoured control of wages, prices,

profits and interest rates in Canada while he was speaking in the

United States?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I said that if the research could be done and the work to come up

[ Page 3080 ]

with an equitable programme…. I said my party

didn't have it and that I didn't know of any other party. It has not

been brought to my attention that any other party has a programme. What

I called for was the research and an adequate examination. Certainly my

own party doesn't have that information.

INTEREST RATES OF

PROPOSED "PEOPLE'S BANK"

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): To the Minister

of Finance and Premier, the Premier having come out in favour of a

people's bank that would loan money at 6 per cent, some five points

below prime: would the Premier say whether this bank would also pay its

depositors at a rate of five points below prime?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If the federal government, whichever that

may be at the end of the current election campaign, was seriously

concerned about the Canadian people, I would suggest….

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be NDP.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It won't be NDP, it may not be Liberal or

may not be Conservative. It may depend on minority support of the NDP

again. It may depend on our minority support again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I've never heard a more hypothetical question and a more hypothetical answer. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can't have all the proper diagnosis, Mr.

Speaker. But I will say this: a people's bank with the ability to set

interest rates for mortgages would be a desirable social goal in this

country. It's not a brand new idea; it was first espoused by the CCF in

their first convention in 1933.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): With reference to what the

Premier has just said and the

article that was in the paper this

morning, would the Minister of Finance be prepared to tell the

Legislature how he would capitalize such a bank?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I shouldn't have permitted the

other question and answer because they were hypothetical but everyone

seemed to be amusing themselves, but we can't push hypothetical

questions into question period.

MRS. JORDAN: May I ask you a supplementary question? Is this in fact a policy of this government or not?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must answer by saying

that a former Premier of this province, who was a Member of the Social

Credit Party, at one time espoused the same idea before he chickened

out.

T-SHIRTS FOR PARTICIPANTS

IN THE RUN-FOR-FUN PROGRAMME

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Human Resources, which really has come to

me by virtue of a wire. It's very short and I'll read it:

THE PROVINCIAL RUN-FOR-FUN PROGRAMMES SPONSORED IN SCHOOLS BY

THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES HAS BEEN SPECTACULARLY SUCCESSFUL. 6,400 CHILDREN

HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE MILE AT 51,000 AND EVEN 500 MILES. CRESTED T-SHIRTS

WERE PROMISED BY ORGANIZERS. ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT WE HAVE SO MANY ENTHUSIASTIC

KIDS, WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THEM. HOWEVER BUDGET CAN'T COVER SO MANY, AND

CHILDREN NOW TOLD THEY MUST BUY THEIR OWN SHIRTS.

Mr. Minister, are you going to buy shirts for these children?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I'll take your question as notice, Mr. Member.

ADOPTIONS AND REGISTRY

I wonder while I'm on my feet if I could answer the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) who asked me a question about the adoptions and

registry. I checked with the department and with the Vancouver office

today and there is no such practice in operation. However, if the

Member has any kind of information to the contrary, I'd appreciate

receiving it. As I said yesterday, this matter was raised by the Berger

Commission. There is no government policy in respect to that matter

whatsoever and there's nothing operating.

BAN ON IMPORT OF TOY DRUG

On the other question: last week the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) raised the question of Snort, which I think was referred to

as a toy drug that was being purchased. What I want to say to the House

is that we've heard now from the federal Department of Consumer Affairs

who are now looking at the composition of this. It was imported by

Aphrodite Importers in Montreal from a New York office. It is now not

being imported and I'll have a further statement to make on it once we

get the results on it.

[ Page 3081 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Really I just want to thank the Minister for

the prompt action. I've been in touch with the Consumer and Corporate

Affairs people as well. I would like to ask the Minister if he would

keep us as informed as he has when we get the analysis because I have

further information that I'll pass on to him. If the substance is

talcum powder, for instance, it holds out very serious danger for the

user.

HON. MR. LEVY: Yes, I have a copy of that letter, Mr. Member,

from Canadian Industries Ltd., they mentioned that too. Yes, we'll

certainly keep the House informed.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary on the Minister's answer. Could

I be assured then that some disciplinary action will be taken if it can

be demonstrated that social workers have been defying the department

policy in this regard? — a very serious defiance of department policy.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well I'd appreciate it if the Member would let me have the information first.

WRONG IMPRESSION GIVEN

BY RIVER-LEVEL STATISTICS

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

Provincial Secretary in connection with emergency measures relating to

floods, and the Minister's statement yesterday: I wonder if, on

reflection, the Minister would feel that perhaps he gave the House the

wrong impression on the subject — not deliberately, but nevertheless

giving the wrong impression — on the fact that river levels in many

parts of the province had dropped. Would it not be a desirable

situation, through you, Mr. Speaker, if in fact the river levels were

rising rather slightly and steadily during this May-June period?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes. I just gave you the information

statistically, that's all. I remember well during the debate pointing

out, I think the Member was in the House at the time, that in fact we

probably would want a good run-off at this point in time. We'd like the

passageway, that is the river bed and the river side, to be as full as

is possible as early as possible in order to escape flooding. If the

Member has drawn any inference from my statistics which showed that

river levels were down, and that would be cause for complacency, then I

hastily take it back.

RE-EXAMINATION OF

DECISION ON COWICHAN RIVER DAM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the fact that the committee of cabinet, composed of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the

Highways Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Consumer Affairs Minister

(Hon. Ms. Young), overturned the decision of the Comptroller of Water

Rights and approved a dam on the North Cowichan, and further that the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) in reply to

a question said that he had not been consulted by that committee, and

the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

the local Member, implied that he had not been consulted, and further

that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) had not been on the committee or consulted, may I ask the

Premier whether this matter could be reopened and that a cabinet

committee composed of Members who have line responsibility for dams,

water, conservation and recreation could re-examine this, or at least

that these Ministers be consulted prior to any confirmation of the

decision of the cabinet committee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Labour tell

us what is the present situation in the labour dispute in the

construction industry?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, certain

trade unions involved in the construction industry are on strike and

are picketing — notably the electrical workers' union. The plumbers

have now also started picketing. Construction in the lower mainland is

essentially at a standstill. Discussions are still taking place between

CLRA, the bargaining agency for the construction industry, and some of

the unions involved. The Department of Labour is keeping in very close

contact with both parties, and I have nothing further to report at this

point.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact

that the Minister took such prompt action to assist in the threatened

strike of the police in Vancouver, is he anticipating some similar

action in regard to this dispute which is a very critical one for the

economy?

HON. MR. KING: I certainly take a different view of the

possibility of an interruption in police services in a city like

Vancouver than I do to an interruption in the construction industry,

serious as it is. I did meet with the unions and the CLRA people and I

did make certain proposals to them which they rejected some…a week

ago. However, as I say, we're in close

[ Page 3082 ]

touch with the situation and any positive service

which the department can offer, and which would appear to hold some

hope of bringing resolution, will certainly be considered.

VARIATIONS IN ICBC

ALLOWANCES FOR BODY WORK

MR. BENNETT: To the Hon. Minister of Health. As a director of

ICBC, could the Minister explain to the Legislature why ICBC has chosen

to pay $16 in Campbell River and certain other northern Island points

for body work, while allowing $14 for Port Alberni?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice. I suspect it's not exactly in that way, but I'll take it as notice.

PROCEDURE ON DELAYED

EXPROPRIATION NEGOTIATION

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Highways: there's an account

in the newspaper that a Delta farmer by the name of Mr. Jim Harris is

still waiting to negotiate a price for about 2 1/2 acres of land that

were expropriated from him over a year ago. He has indicated that a

Highways department representative who was supposed to see him is

failing to turn up. Do you have any knowledge of the procedure?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, that was

brought to my attention two days ago by the Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) and I'm having it investigated right now.

ASSISTANCE FOR FLOODED

NON-ORGANIZED AREAS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. Has the Minister, in light of the serious

flood threats throughout the province, made any specific assistance

financially and practically available to people living in non-organized

areas in order that they can take prophylactic steps in protecting

their agricultural lands particularly before the floods come and while

the water is reasonably low? If so, what would this assistance be in

terms of money and equipment?

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

We have the regular budgetary programme, Mr. Speaker, that does involve

some sharing with the local landowner. I'm sure there may be incidental

ones that Water Resources has dealt with, but I'll follow the question

up further.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplementary. That specific area….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we save that for next question period?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS

AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 137: Minister's office, $105,352.

On the amendment to vote 137.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that the site 1 project on the

Peace River has been approved by the Treasury Board and the government.

The project has been estimated at a cost of about $410 million, but

with interest and other costs during construction the total is more

likely to be $500 million.

The location of site 1 on the Peace is about four miles southwest of

Hudson Hope on the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains and about 14

miles downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Williston

Reservoir.

This project provides the most expeditious means of meeting the

increasing power demands being placed upon us as we see it. The

environmental impacts of adding this project to the Peace are minor and

the energy output is considerable.

The project has been reviewed by a British Columbia-Alberta task

force, and the task force has concluded that there will be no

significant environmental impact in Alberta. I would compare that with

the previous work on the Peace, Mr. Chairman, wherein no environmental

impact was carried out and wherein no discussions with the Province of

Alberta were carried out.

The Hon. William J. Yurko, the Minister of Environment for the

Province of Alberta, has accepted this conclusion and the federal

government has approved the project as under their Navigable Waters Protection Act, again something that was not done with respect to the Bennett Dam.

As a significant departure from previous practice, environmental

impact studies were undertaken using outside consultants, Thurber

Consultants Ltd., and public meetings to discuss the project and the

environmental studies were conducted by the staff of B.C. Hydro earlier

this year in the Peace region. Further follow-up meetings will be held

as further work is done on the project, so there will be a continuing

discussion and dialogue in the Peace

[ Page 3083 ]

region regarding this project and its impact on it.

The project is a run-of-the-river project, taking full advantage of

the storage potential in the Williston Reservoir. The resulting 14-mile

lake will be only three square miles in area compared with about 640

square miles for the Williston Reservoir. The project capacity is 700

megawatts, compared with 2,300 at the Bennett Dam, of which 1,800 is

presently developed.

This additional power will be needed in addition to projects

currently under construction: unit 9 at the Bennett Dam, unit 6 at the

Burrard thermal plant in the Vancouver area, the Kootenay canal between

Nelson and Castlegar, and the Mica. All of this is to meet the

projected 1979-1980 winter power demands.

The project will consist of a concrete dam with a height of about

150 feet. The east half of the dam will have a spillway with six large

gates for passing excess water flows. The west half will contain the

intakes for the water to the turbines. The power plant, containing four

generating units with a total capacity of 700 megawatts, will be

located in the river channel on the downstream face of the dam.

The power plant at site 1 will be in hydraulic balance with the

Gordon M. Shrum generating station upstream; that is, the maximum

turbine flows of the two power plants will be the same. This means the

reservoir level will have only minor fluctuations; that is, the new

reservoir behind site 1.

Construction is scheduled to commence this year with completion in

1980. Construction schedules are included in a

schedule which will be

distributed in figures attached to this release.

Direct labour force needs on the project call for 60 people this

year, 280 in 1975, 800 in 1976, 1,070 in 1977, 810 in 1978, 680 in

1979, 210 in 1980, peaking at the 1,100 to 1,200 level in 1977.

There will be special local programmes in the Hudson Hope community

area in order to help the community deal with the impact of

construction and the recreational and other needs and potentials that

will develop in the area. I had the pleasure of discussing some of

those local problems with representatives of the local council when I

was in the north about 10 days ago.

The environmental problems which have been investigated are

considered minimal. The 2,000 acre reservoir will flood 370 acres of

terraced or level land and about 670 acres of steep hillside, the rest

being the existing river bed itself. Reservoir levels will normally

vary less than a foot as the level will be maintained by drawing from

Lake Williston. The site will be cleared before flooding. No

agricultural land is involved and almost all of the land is Crown owned.

There will be no significant change in the patterns of flows of the

Peace River itself. While about one-third of the shoreline is presently

subject to surface sloughing, only a 2 per cent increase in the

shoreline subject to such sloughing is expected. No large slide

problems are expected, unlike Williston.

While the canyon will lose some of its wilderness character, the

resulting lake is expected to have a considerable recreational appeal.

Further studies of the recreational potential are now underway.

The incremental impact of site 1 on the existing fishery is not

expected to be substantial as upstream migration of former populations

has been blocked by the Bennett Dam itself. Suitable spawning habitat

is scarce and the low temperatures of the river and future reservoir

are not conducive to growth.

Consultants have been unable to predict whether or not the fishery would re-establish downstream from site 1.

The wildlife in the general area includes about six moose, 12 mule

deer, three stone sheep, some Canada geese, some harlequin ducks and

small populations of black bear, beaver, coyote, fox and lynx.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a partridge in a pear tree. (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And maybe one or two lost Socreds. (Laughter.) However, we might just compare that….

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: However, we might just compare that with

the 600-odd square miles of Williston Lake where no recreation studies

were carried out, no wildlife studies were carried out, no fisheries

studies were carried out, and very limited hydrological studies were

carried out as well. Hard as that is to believe, it is true. The

increased recreational use of the area will displace some of the

wildlife. Some will be displaced by the reservoir and some are expected

to remain in the immediate area. Further work is being undertaken to

reduce the impact even on this level of wildlife in the pond area.

The area also has some archaeological significance, being suggested

as a possible migration route for prehistoric man. So prior to

flooding, archaeological investigations are being carried out by the

province at sites where artifacts of prehistoric man have been found.

That work is carrying on throughout this summer and subsequently.

I would also like to announce procedures for any future power

projects as they relate to provincial government departments and public

hearings. We have never had these public hearings and the involvement

of Hydro with the communities in the

[ Page 3084 ]

past, or the involvement of the Water Resources

department, openly and directly with the people of the province

regarding these projects.

(1) All provincial dealings with B.C. Hydro on the planning of

possible power projects will be channelled through the secretariat of

the Environment and Land Use Committee which will be responsible for

seeing to it that programmes for study and investigation are arranged

which will meet the standards and criteria of all provincial

departments. In the event of conflict between departments and agencies

which cannot be reconciled, recourse will be to this committee of

cabinet.

(2) While B.C. Hydro will continue to hold public meetings on

projects and informational meetings, all public hearings, however, will

be conducted by the Comptroller of Water Rights who will organize and

conduct them in such a way that all public viewpoints will be

considered, not merely those dealing with water. The comptroller will

then be responsible for making a comprehensive report to the

Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): We appreciate the Minister's comments.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like that clarified, Mr. Chairman.

Was this a statement by the Minister? Were we speaking on the

amendment? If we are speaking on the amendment, then I intend to

continue to speak on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: He should have done it at the proper time, Mr. Chairman, if it was a statement by the Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair is in a difficult position in this respect.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I presume that we can justify what the

Minister said on the grounds that he was speaking against the

amendment. Therefore, the Chair will tolerate comments, I think, on

the…. Order!

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: the Minister, having made this statement in the House — which

in itself is an exciting experience — I think that we should have the

opportunity of posing questions to him on this particular matter,

because they may have importance in either the debate on the amendment

or under subsequent debate on salary vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think, in regard to the

statement made by the Hon. Minister, that some latitude would be

granted, providing that it is related in some way to the amendment that

is before us. However, if further discussion is requested, then I think

that the proper time would be to wait until this amendment has been

dealt with.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the statement by

the Minister. It's the first time he's made any kind of a statement

during this whole debate. We intend to make a statement in response to

his statement, which should have been made before this amendment came

before the floor of the House. If he had done that in the proper

manner, we could have dealt with it in the proper manner, Mr. Chairman.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order. It has been

traditional in this House that when a Minister makes such a statement — by leave of the House, asked by anybody….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. It is not the

Minister who asks for leave; leave is asked for by a Member for

response. I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the tradition of this

House has always been that when the Leader of the Opposition asks for

leave to respond, it has always been granted. If that indeed is the

point made by the….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: May I finish speaking, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If that indeed is the point made by the Member for West Vancouver, I agree with him completely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must rule according to the rules of the House. We are now in committee.

Interjections.

[ Page 3085 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are now in committee and it's

not permitted to ask leave of the committee to deal with a matter

separate from the business before the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is in

order to ask leave any time when the House is sitting, and it is the

responsibility of the person who wishes to speak on a subject to so ask

for leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is not permitted to relax the rules or to change the rules of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The only thing the Chair can do

is to allow some latitude in terms of the dealing of the matter before

the committee, which is the amendment.

Now it would seem to me that if we wish to proceed in the usual way,

the committee should rise. Otherwise we should continue with the

business before the committee, and then, when the amendment has been

disposed of, there would be full opportunity to question the Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, for the past

few days we've been talking in this House about the lack of confidence

in the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We've managed to

document a pretty good case against this Minister with regard to the

confidence that the people of British Columbia have in his performance

— or the lack of confidence that the people in this province have in

his performance.

We've talked about threats; we've talked about coercion; we've

talked about blackmail; we've talked about black marketeering; and in

every one of these instances we've had no answers from that Minister. I

would say that we've documented a pretty good case in regard to the

need to show definitely and concisely our lack of confidence in that

Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to detail another case — to change the

subject slightly — with regard to the kind of performance that this

Minister has been involved in, given what he says is a great concern

for the environmental situations of British Columbia and his concern

about the protection of our environment and his concern about pollution

control, which he has said he has; but in actual demonstration he's

shown that that concern is very shallow.

We in British Columbia have an opportunity before us to lead the

world in effluent treatment. Yet this Minister, through his department

and through the Pollution Control Board for which he has direct

responsibility, has refused through — for some devious reasons of its

own — to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "devious."

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

This Minister, his department and the Pollution Control Board for

some reason have chosen to downgrade the effectiveness of the system

which does offer hope for the whole world in the treatment of effluent

control. For this reason — and I hope to be able to document my case

very correctly and very thoroughly — the people of this province once

again had reason to doubt the effectiveness and the confidence and to

show their lack of confidence in this Minister.

The system that I speak about, Mr. Chairman, is called the

plus-minus system of waste-water treatment and it has exceeded

expectations in all tests that were given.

I've had some close contact with this system, Mr. Chairman, because

it solved the problem at a Langley slaughterhouse some five years ago

when the health people threatened to close that operation down

completely because of its pollution problem. In the last five years,

using the plus-minus system, they've had no trouble and we've saved an

important secondary industry.

Yet this Minister and his department and those departments for which

he holds responsibility have not ignored this process, but actively

gone out of their way to make it difficult for the inventor of that

process to take advantage of the very materials in his own province and

for this province to take advantage of the knowledge of that inventor.

Mr. Chairman, this sewage system operates at a fraction of the cost

of conventional methods and it will operate on any type of land,

because percolation isn't a problem with it. The treated effluent from

the system has no odor and no bacterial content. The results of the

product used makes excellent fertilizer as well.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is a wonder

process and one which we should be doing as a province, and a process

that that Minister should be advocating, championing and carrying to

every person in the world, showing the opportunity to cut through many

of the problems we now have with effluent control.

Perhaps because the method is so astonishingly simple it has passed

right over the Minister's head and over the heads of the members of the

Pollution Control Board. I know that there are some NDP

[ Page 3086 ]

Members who have been championing this cause, but

have had short shrift from their Minister and from the Pollution

Control Board.

The method is so good, so simple, I think everyone should have the

opportunity to see it. I'd like to invite — and I will a little later

on — everyone, especially the members of the press, to come out and

have a look at this process.

Here is a process, Mr. Chairman, invented by a White Rock man which

has been hailed — hailed! — by everyone who has used it. I understand

that it has been — or, at least, is going to be — used to clean up

waste-leakage problems at the atomic energy installation in Hartford,

Washington. I understand it's about to be applied in the State of

Oregon to remove pesticides and other poisons from that state's rivers.

It holds out the promise to clean up our beaches, all of which are

polluted to some degree. And it holds up the promise to clean up the

Fraser River, which is polluted to an astonishing degree.

Yet the Minister, his department and the Pollution Control Board,

attempts once again for some unknown reason to short circuit the plans

of the man who invented this process, a good British Columbian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's exactly what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman.

I'm documenting a case which proves again that we can't have confidence

in this Minister because of the lack of action in promoting a control

system which holds out the opportunity for British Columbia to lead the

world — and not only the lack of action, but the direct action to

stymie the opportunities for a local British Columbia inventor. If that

isn't reason for not having confidence in this Minister, Mr. Chairman,

I wish you'd tell me, because it sure seems like a good reason to me.

The Annacis Island treatment plant, which is proposed by the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, even with secondary treatment, will still

discharge effluent which contains unmanageable toxic substances and

heavy metals which make the water either unfit for re-use or unsuitable

for discharge into the Pacific Ocean.

Yet here is a process that at minimal cost could render that water perfectly safe to be discharged directly into the ocean.

The inventor of this system says — and he has documented studies to

back him up in this — that the system would provide a simple, practical

and economical solution to this most urgent and seemingly unsolvable

problem.

It could provide an upgraded primary treatment together with

secondary and tertiary treatment at the primary sewage stage. It is

proven in every detail. It is known to the government and it is known

to the Pollution Control Board.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you what the inventor of this system says about his own system.

"The advantages are that it prevents sewage from

becoming septic and odour-producing. It absorbs toxic liquids and

substances, thereby enhancing biological oxidation within the sewer

lines and preventing the poisoning of subsequent biological oxidation

stages.

"It coalesces gasoline, off and grease. It removes

heavy metals. It removes colours from water. It buffers acid and

alkaline wastes.

"It can be used to provide chemical pre-treatment of

sewage within the sewage line by the use of the powdered coal as a

chemical carrier. "

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, just for the edification of the Members

that aren't familiar, the system comprises adding powdered coal to

mixtures such as sewage which flow through the collector lines to the

plant. It can be fed directly into the sewer line; the sewage then

becomes a cold-water suspension and is carried between the powdered

coal and sewage contaminants for a sufficient period of time to remove

those contaminants by the absorptive process. So it provides a positive

degree of both secondary and tertiary treatment to the sewage before it

ever gets to the primary treatment plant.

There are many other things that the system does, but perhaps we

don't need to go into that at this time, Mr. Chairman, since we are

speaking directly to the amendment and to the reasons that we consider

this Minister to have lost the confidence of the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the approximate comparative cost between the new plus-minus sewage

treatment system and the proposed secondary treatment system at Annacis Island,

based on the volume of sewage at the Iona plant, is as follows:

"It is estimated that some 70 million gallons of

sewage are treated daily at the Iona plant. At an application rate of

approximately three-quarters of a ton of powdered plus-minus carbon to

4.5 million gallons of sewage, then 12 tons would be required each day.

"Assuming a delivered cost of $35 a ton for the

carbon, then the yearly cost would be $153,000 to provide tertiary,

secondary and advanced primary treatment by this method.

"If we use 100 applicators to feed the carbon into the

sewer lines at an approximate cost of $2,500 each, we would have an

investment of $250,000. Compared with this, a secondary treatment plant

is estimated to cost $13 million and will require more than $1 million

a year to operate."

[ Page 3087 ]

So why are this Minister, his department and the Pollution Control

Board dragging their feet? I wonder if it is because it sees a good

chance to cut the local inventor out of the action? Is it another

example of idea theft?

It might help to go back briefly to sort out the government's

involvement in this whole process. Some 15 years ago, Mr. Chairman, the

B.C. Electric Company petitioned industry all over the world asking

firms or individuals to come up with other uses for the coal at Hat

Creek, other than for thermal development.

One of those to take up the challenge was Cyril T. Jones of White

Rock, the president of a company called Interprovincial Patents

Limited. After having developed other uses for the Hat Creek deposit

and after spending close to $100,000 on engineering studies on methods

of extracting the coal, Jones requested permission to develop markets

for the material. One firm connected at the time was a company called

Stampede Resources of Calgary.

I understand as well that a company called Allow Explorations of

Calgary was about to put up some $5 million for the rights to his

inventions and 35 per cent of the proceeds later on. But those were

lost because of a default by B.C. Hydro, about which we will talk, Mr.

Chairman. I am talking about B.C. Hydro before this government came

into office, just to bring the Members up to date in the whole

procedure.

But I want to relate it to the Minister's direct involvement and his

failure to take advantage of an opportunity, an opportunity which he

should have been taking full advantage of for the benefit of the people

of this province.

About the same time, British Columbia Electric was taken over by the

province, and Hydro officials declined to make a deal with the inventor

at that time. When Jones pointed out that he had fulfilled his part of

the deal he asked for either the right to develop a portion of the

deposit or some compensation for his research and other efforts.

Instead of money, Jones was granted access to 1.5 million tons of

Hat Creek coal annually for a period of 21 years, provided he could

prove to the satisfaction of Hydro and the provincial government that

he had indeed developed alternate other satisfactory uses for the Hat

Creek coal. This option to renew the lease was to be renewed annually

until Jones could prove other uses and come up with necessary financial

backing.

In August, 1970, the government refused to renew the option because

Hydro claimed at that time that Jones had not developed other

satisfactory uses.

Before I continue, Mr. Chairman, I might say that it seems, or it

appears, that there are only two known coal deposits which contain the

properties to remove heavy metals from effluent: at Hat Creek and a

deposit in Washington state for which Jones holds a lease on some three

million tons at this time. It is the Washington state coal which is

being tested right now at the atomic energy plant as a possible way to

contain the radioactive leak at the thermal installation there.

Contrary to all of the people who tell us that we cannot contain

such radioactive materials as plutonium and caesium without elaborate

controls, these tests by Atlantic Richfield in Washington show that

coal supplied by this White Rock inventor does in fact pick up and

contain very high percentages of this radioactive material.

More recently, Mr. Chairman, Atlantic Richfield, an American

company, was testing the plus-minus method developed in British

Columbia — its ability to pick up and absorb some of the radioactive

hot salts which have a half-life of 1,000 years. Leave it to an

American company to exploit a Canadian inventor, and we ignore him — and not only ignore him, but throw roadblocks in his way.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I'm attempting to document this

Minister's failure in this whole effort. One million tons of the

Washington or Hat Creek coal spread over the bottom of Lake Erie would

control mercury contamination at a fraction of the cost of the kinds of

methods that have so, far been approved.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the tests have been well

documented by very learned people, including professors at UBC, of

which the Minister is well aware — and by many people in the United

States. I only pass the message on about this Minister's failings,

that's all.

Tests have proven many, many ways that this process could benefit

mankind, not only in the treatment of domestic sewage, but also in

looking after such hydrocarbons as gasoline, motor oils in sewage,

insecticides like DDT, herbicides like 2-4-5-T and 2-4-D, carrying out

tertiary treatment processes at a fraction of the cost. Yet we are

still locked into conventional thinking.

I wonder if it's because engineering firms don't see any money in

it, since they operate presently on a commission basis in installing

the conventional sewage plants. Maybe there's no money in this

revolutionary new process.

Federal Public Works officials have looked into this process, Mr.

Chairman, and they like it for other reasons. For instance, they'd like

to see the method used at several B.C. locations. They're having

trouble with their pollution control people as well. Environment Canada

has said "no way yet," because they're also locked into conventional

methods.

We start to see some interesting patterns here, Mr. Chairman — perhaps almost a conspiracy — beginning

[ Page 3088 ]

to develop in this whole matter.

First, if you'd bear with me for a moment, I'd like to give you a

couple of other uses of this process. Federal Public Works, again, is

seriously interested in using Jones' patented materials for the paving

of asphalt at Vancouver International Airport on the runways, because

the materials don't break down under high-octane gas. They also have

some special non-skid characteristics. The Hat Creek burnt shales are

ideally suited; yet we've got a freeze on the Hat Creek deposits. It's

been used commercially in British Columbia and Alberta. It's a proven

commodity and it's not the figment of somebody's imagination, Mr.

Chairman.

Another coal deposit on Vancouver Island, I understand, being looked

at by Hydro as a possible source of thermal power, is particularly

useful in removing phosphate from waste water. The nearest coal of

similar product is in Cape Breton. It's not difficult to imagine, Mr.

Chairman, that by blending different coal materials they could be used

to control effluents and clean up waste water from both domestic and

industrial sources.

This technology could put British Columbia on the map, and it may

well do, if the Minister will at least cooperate with the people in

this province who have ideas which they are willing to give to the

government but which they don't want stolen from them. Why would we

want to leave the man who did all of the work on the side of the road,

cast aside by an unfeeling and callous government and an unfeeling and

callous Minister?

Mr. Chairman, during all this time that Mr. Jones was attempting to

develop uses for the Hat Creek coal under the terms of the agreement he

had with B.C. Hydro, he made available to Hydro all new information

concerning the development of patents for the various uses of this

coal. At about the same time his option wasn't renewed, the secretary

of the B.C. Energy Board, John Southworth, offered to assist Jones in

getting the project off the ground. He gained access to certain patents

developed by Jones and somehow those patents were apparently made

available to a firm called Concordia Limited, a Calgary subsidiary of

an American oil company.

Later Concordia, in association with Alberta Coal Sales, an offshoot

company from Mannix Construction, I understand, and apparently also in

association with Southward, hired the B.C. Research Council to

determine if three of Jones' patents could be broken. According to a

B.C. Research Council annual report, some $20,000 was spent, B.C.

Research apparently asked for additional funding to carry on, but the

source had seemed to have dried up.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, the CBC broke the story and the Vancouver Province

put two senior reporters on it — Malcolm Turnbull and Alex Young — who

carried out an eight-week investigation that resulted in a five-page

story that was never used, never published, for some reason.

The whole situation, Mr. Chairman, from that day to the present day

is a can of worms, and it isn't getting any better, thanks to this

Minister. This government's hands aren't too clean, Mr. Chairman, in

this whole matter.

In October, 1972, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) expressed some

interest in the use of Hat Creek coal for sewage treatment. In

December, 1972, the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) also took notice,

and by the spring of 1973 the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources authorized the expenditure of some money — I think it was

$5,000 — for research by Professor L. Colthard of UBC to prove or

disprove the claims that Mr. Jones had about the Hat Creek material.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'd just interrupt the Hon. Member just for a moment. I have received a notice from Mr. Chazottes of Hansard

which is of interest to the Members: "Owing to amplifier failure,

extension loud speakers in various offices will be out of action for a

few hours."

Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In August, 1973, the Pollution Control Board, presumably under the

direction of the Minister, because he has direct responsibility for

that board granted a further $1,000 to cover ongoing research.

One of the questions I'd like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, is:

is it true that the Pollution Control Board subsequently employed Dr.

Bill Oldham of the Faculty of Civil Engineering at UBC to attempt to

disprove Professor Colthard's findings which were, incidentally, very

favourable to Jones' claims? The result of the Colthard research, in

fact, was made available to some people — a select group of firms and

some other individuals — by the university before this government

apparently clamped a lid of secrecy on all details. The Pollution

Control Board to this day does everything it possibly can, Mr.

Chairman, to discredit the plus-minus method.

We are told, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Oldham is now working full time

on testing the Hat Creek material with the assistance of a couple of

graduate students under the auspices of a grant from the Pollution

Control Board.

B.C. Research, the outfit that undertook to break three of Jones'

patents, has also been conducting ongoing research on uses of coal in

the treatment of industrial and domestic effluent.

In November, 1973, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources directed the Pollution Control Board to ask Mr. Jones to

supply it with 17 granted patents that he holds on specific uses of

coal — not just Hat Creek, incidentally, but all coal in Canada.

[ Page 3089 ]

Now, given Mr. Jones' experiences in the past, I

would have said: "No thanks. No way is anybody getting any information

from me until I get some guarantees." And I certainly wouldn't have

given the Pollution Control Board abstracts of five patents which are

in the application stage and which, because of their very nature, are

very, very secret. Yet Mr. Jones did give these secret summaries to the

government because he's a good British Columbian and he wanted to

cooperate with the government in the development of a multi-billion

dollar B.C. resource owned by the people of this province.

To date, Mr. Chairman — and I must remind the House that this was in

November, 1973, when Mr. Jones turned over his patents and his patent

application — nobody has had the decency or the courtesy to even

acknowledge the receipt of those patents. Not a soul from the

Minister's department or from the Pollution Control Board.

Mr. Jones has tried to talk to the Minister's Executive Assistant,

Norman Pearson; Pearson tells him he's too busy. He's tried to see the

Premier; the Premier won't talk to him. He's tried to see the Minister

and the Minister won't talk to him.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm listening to you over here.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yet, Mr. Chairman, this government has that

man's patents in its hands and the abstracts from five other processes

which he hopes to have patented.

I understand too, Mr. Chairman, that the Pollution Control Board has

put up $27,000 for the evaluation of Hat Creek coal in a pilot project

to be installed at Brannen Lake School by the provincial Department of

Public Works. The Provincial Water Rights Branch has apparently been

told to do the testing.

Isn't it interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Industrial Development

Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has been touting the government's takeover of

an equity position in B.C. Research, as was detailed in the House by

the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)? Given these kinds of

intriguing connections, Mr. Chairman, the question arises: has the

government turned Jones' patents over to B.C. Research…

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, we're back in Belgium again.

MR. McCLELLAND: …and/or Dr. Bill Oldham? I'll be very

surprised, Mr. Chairman, if the government hasn't passed those patents

on to somebody else and probably one of those two.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) has apparently told Jones there is

no way the government will give him access to the Hat Creek coal. I

would suggest that Mr. Jones may have a pretty good case of proving

that Hydro is in default of an agreement made with it regarding Hat

Creek coal for about one million tons a year for four years.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You guys are a riot.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you're a riot, too, Mr. Minister. You're a tragedy of incompetence; a riot of foolishness.

The Member for Delta, in telling Mr. Jones that he couldn't have the

Hat Creek coal, said the resource must be protected for the people. The

funny thing about all that is that that's what Mr. Jones wants as well;

he wants his process to be made available to the people of British

Columbia.

But does this protection include the theft of one of its own

citizen's ideas and maybe the theft of his patent applications? Is the

government ripping off a man who has spent a good deal of his life

perfecting and proving out a sewage purification process that holds out

the promise of benefit to people all over the world?

There would have been a worldwide holiday declared if Mr. Jones had

discovered a treatment for cancer. But although he comes up with a

revolutionary new treatment for the cancer of pollution, he is being

cast aside and ripped off by his own government's greed.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Try again.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Pollution Control Board has gone out of its way to try and bankrupt and discredit this British Columbia inventor.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Go on.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Pollution Control Board, for crying out

loud, the very agency that should be most interested and the very

agency that is under the direct responsibility of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources is stalling a process that could

correct sewage problems that the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission claims

is up to 99 per cent effective in removing contaminants from

radioactive wastes, a process that could answer many of the questions

concerning the safety of the use of atomic water which holds tremendous

potential for every man, woman and child in the world.

The reason this government refuses to acknowledge this inventor's

contribution, the reason it would sooner cut him out, is that if the

government acknowledges Mr. Jones' contribution, then it also

acknowledges the government's obligations. It doesn't want to do that;

their greed won't allow them to do that.

The government needs this man's expertise. It

[ Page 3090 ]

should be working with him in complete cooperation

instead of stealing his ideas and handing them over to what is possibly

going to be our newest government enterprise after this government

squeezes its way into the B.C. Research Council. The government is

performing its immoral shenanigans in the name of the people.

It's all so stupid because all this man wants to do is make his product and his ideas available.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame on you. You don't believe that.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's never got a nickel out of it from this

government, yet he has spent $300,000 or more over the years. We have

the opportunity for creating a tremendous value in the Hat Creek coal

deposits. If there are four million tons at Hat Creek and if it's sold

at the price of coal, you get about $8 million. But if we could use it

for pollution control, it could be worth up to $100 million. There

could be built a tremendous industrial complex at Hat Creek worth some

$300 million, and the people are crying to get involved. That's a good

deal for the people. The people can benefit without having the

government in the role of rip-off artist.

I'd like to know where those patents are, and so would the inventor.

Who has been given access to those patents? What have you done with

those secret patent applications? Who have you shown them to? Who has

seen those patent applications which were entrusted to a department of

government? I think it's time to clean up your act and come clean with

the people of this province. I don't think the people should accept

anything less than a complete, impartial public inquiry into this

government's shady, shoddy and shameful treatment of a fellow British

Columbian who just happens to be a pretty inventive and brilliant

inventor.

I said earlier that I think the government's action in this whole

process is pretty shameful. I think there are some Members of the NDP

who agree with me because there are some of these Members who have been

championing, as I said earlier, this process: the Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). Have they been in some

serious conflicts with the Pollution Control Board over this? I'd

suggest they have been pushing pretty hard and haven't got anywhere

either.

Yet the NDP Members went down to California to look at a new system

developed in California. A local man can't even get in to see his

government, can't even get through the doors. It won't be long before

this government will send a committee down to Washington state and

they'll come up with a magnificent discovery that they're using the

plus-minus treatment down in Washington state. They'll come running

back to this Legislature and say, "Look, we've discovered a brand new

and revolutionary process." Yet you've got the chance right now to take

advantage of it. Instead, you're attempting to cut out an inventor from

his own process and steal his ideas.

I said earlier that I think everybody in this House should have a

look for themselves and come to their own conclusions about the

effectiveness of this process. I'd like to invite you to come out

tomorrow at 2 p.m., particularly all of the press, and I'll give you

some written invitations to come out and have a look at this process

and find out what you think about it and whether or not the people of

British Columbia should have this government on their side fighting for

the development of a new, revolutionary idea from a local inventor.

I know I'm taking a leaf out of the present Speaker's book when I do

this, as was pointed out to me, but I'd like to pass around to the

House a jar of water which was taken directly from a septic tank which

is on this sewage treatment. I want everyone to have a look at it and

smell it. There is no odour, it's pure and it works.

This Minister has let down the people of British Columbia in his treatment of this British Columbia inventor.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Will you drink it?

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): I've just listened to what I think is

the greatest distortion of a real, possible future for treatment of

sewage in this province and perhaps this country and all over the

world. If that Member was going to do anything to make a real mark

today, he should have stood there and drank that glass of water he has

been crowing about. Maybe he's going to do that tomorrow; maybe that's

the idea. If you're looking for presenting invitations to the Members

of the Legislature to go out to look at that place tomorrow, I think

you're a little late; the invitations have already been presented to

all the Members. There will be people there looking at that programme,

just like there have been….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, I'd like to take the Member for

Delta up on his challenge. I'll drink the water. I hope you'll drink to

my health as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Member for

Delta to withdraw an untruth which he just gave to this House when he

said all the Members have been invited. All the Members weren't

[ Page 3091 ]

invited until I gave the invitation, Mr. Chairman. That Member should clear that up right now. And here's to your health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order. The Hon.

Member may correct the Hon. Member for Delta, but it's not necessary to

ask him to withdraw.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a point of

order. We've all had phone calls about this thing and I've seen to it

that everybody has been notified.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Where are the invitations?

MR. LIDEN: I want to say this, though. I've met this inventor

and I've spent some time with him. I've worked on this project a lot

more than that Member has or ever will.

Interjections.

MR. LIDEN: Take a look at the record — and the Member

mentioned some of the record — and some of the things that happened

before this government was elected. This man has been working on this

plus-minus programme and this coal treatment for 14 years or 15 years

now.

MR. McCLELLAND: For 15.

MR. LIDEN: But I'll tell you, he never got anywhere with the

old government. All he did was get led down the garden path. He was

told he was going to get a piece of the action at Hat Creek. What a

bunch of nonsense, a bunch of double-talk, a bunch of letters which

meant nothing. And he got nothing in the way of salary for the work he

did or anything in Hat Creek, nothing at all.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: No one has tried to steal his patents today whom I

know of. Certainly what he got before was really a disservice from that

former government. No way was he able to put forward his invention; no

way was anyone willing to listen to him. Since we were elected we've

had meetings with him; we've discussed all of its possibilities.

It's true that there have been studies carried out at the university

— a couple of them and in great detail. They have proven some things.

They've proven that heavy metals can be taken out of waste water by

this process, and there's work still going on the question of

nutrients. That work is not completed yet.

I too have sometimes been critical because this sort of thing moves

too slow and I've been pushing to try and get something done. As a

result of that pushing we have got things done, but that's not what

happened in the 14 years that he was working on the same process when

the old government was in power.

We've talked about some pilot projects and we've got more than one

possibility on the horizon which is being looked at, being examined.

But there's no way any government is going to spend a lot of money

on any process until they've had proper examination. That's the thing

that's going on right now. There's been no secrecy about this thing;

it's been discussed openly. It's been discussed with everyone all of

the time. Certainly the only one who's done any disservice for this

whole process is the Member for Langley and the kind of presentation he

just made. I'm sure that progress can be made on this thing, but it is

not to be made by that kind of presentation where he doesn't prove

anything that he presents, just presents a whole lot of short stories

that don't really tie together and don't make any sense.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In dealing with the amendment, and since

the Minister has spoken in support of his performance as the Minister

of Lands Forests and Water Resources in conjunction with the proposed

development of site 1, I think before I can attack him in the

performance of his responsibilities, I have to ask him some additional

questions concerning his statements. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that you

will find that in order.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate to the committee whether the

anticipated maximum cost of, I believe he said, $5 million including

interest charges, will also include…

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $500 million.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …$500 million, will also include the

cost of new transmission and switching facilities between the dam site

and the eventual destination of the power.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes. Thank you. I notice

that in figure 6 in the statement indicates the preliminary

schedule

for transmissions and stations en route, starting, I assume, with GMS — must mean Gordon M. Shrum — and ending up at NIC. Perhaps the Minister

could indicate briefly, or decipher, the formula that's used to

indicate the switching areas.

Is the power destined for the lower mainland of the Province of

British Columbia or will it be directed in other ways? Will it require

the construction of new transmission lines on new rights-of-way?

[ Page 3092 ]

I think this is a matter which British Columbia Hydro, the

government and the Land Use Secretariat must take very carefully into

their consideration when embarking upon this new project. If there was

one disturbing feature to the people of British Columbia, or to many of

the people in the Province of British Columbia, concerning the Peace

River project, it was the way in which transmission line rights-of-way

were located and constructed. I hope we don't again find ourselves,

over the years indicated in the

schedule which is beginning in 1974

right through to 1980, again finding communities in the Province of

British Columbia and individuals in those, communities up in arms at

the manner in which transmission rights-of-way are located and then

constructed. I would be happy if the Minister could indicate some

further information to the committee in that respect as well.

The Minister was good enough to point out…in fact have these

studies carried out, environmental impact studies. Everyone in the

Province of British Columbia must applaud this method of approaching a

project such as the site 1 dam construction.

I notice that the federal government has given approval to the project under the Navigable Waters Protection Act . Mr. Chairman, the Navigable Waters Protection Act

involves the federal Ministry of Transport. I wonder if the Minister

could indicate whether, in conjunction with approvals, approvals have

also been obtained from the federal Department of the Environment. I

know that department was involved in the environmental impact studies

made in the Province of Alberta arising out of the construction of the

Bennett Dam and I would like to be assured that that same department

has been involved in these studies as well.

It is to be noted that the construction of site 1 is not to have any

additional environmental impact on the Province of Alberta. I wonder if

they have any suggestion in these studies that the construction of site

1 will decrease the environmental impacts in the Province of Alberta,

because I believe that we in this province can look forward to

increasing demands from the Province of Alberta to compensate for the

damage already caused by the Bennett Dam.

I would hope that site 1 might be able to provide a mechanism

whereby flows through the Peace into Alberta could be better regulated.

Now I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, whether that's possible, but I think

this is an area that the Minister should deal with at this particular

time.

The Minister indicated in the proposal the construction of the

initial powerhouse would be a four-unit powerhouse. I notice that in

figure 3, which is the map showing the arrangement of the dam — the

saddle dam and the initial powerhouse — there is also provision made

for a second powerhouse in the future. I wonder if the Minister could

indicate whether that will operate out of the original dam, or whether

it will be functioning by some further and subsequent changes in the

spillway arrangement, or will it come from the saddle dam itself.

The consequences of the construction at site 1 have indicated that

ever since the opportunities were first realized, there would be little

change in the environment of the area. In view of the Minister's

statements as to the archaeological significance, is he satisfied that

the studies necessary to ensure that complete exploration of that

feature is carried out can be concluded within the period when the

actual coffer dam construction…?

I notice that the design will run through until the latter part of

1975, but that site access and clearing will begin in that year and

also the construction of coffer dams, and some work on the spillway. I

would like to be assured by the Minister that the archaeological

explorations that may be necessary can be fitted into this programme.

The Minister indicated that the site of the reservoir would be fully

cleared. Am I to take from that that it will be fully cleared before

flooding begins? I think if we could have those additional comments

from the Minister, it would assist us in examining this proposal in the

detail that will need to come.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to comment, Mr. Chairman.

The reference to the transmission lines, actually, is down to Nicola,

which is the junction of the joining of the two systems, essentially,

from the Columbia system and Mica, with the Peace River System forming

the spine to the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

We're talking about additional transmission lines from the site to

the Nicola location, but not south of that location, so the high

density areas of the lower mainland would not have an impact in that

regard.

The power will be available generally throughout the system. We are

building a major transmission line now between Prince George and Prince

Rupert, so this will mean that Peace power will be available to

northwestern British Columbia as part of the system.

Regarding the Secretariat: yes, the Secretariat of the Environment

and Land Use Committee of the cabinet is now involved in rights-of-way

questions, corridors throughout the province, has been reviewing

proposals such as the transmission line proposed for Vancouver Island

and the like.

The approval we have from the federal government is, as the Member says, with respect to transport and the Navigable Waters Protection Act .

Frequently that is the only vehicle the DOE has with regard to some

problems. I'm afraid that I can't give you more information than that.

I believe that DOE was involved with the Ministry of Transport, but I

cannot confirm that fully.

Site 1, in fact, or the damming of the Peace, has

[ Page 3093 ]

created some benefits in Alberta, despite much of

the public discussion regarding the Athabaska delta, so the impact on

the town of Peace River, for example, is far less severe and flood

problems in settled areas are avoided.

There is a relationship with the Province of Alberta and we do

regulate flow in relation to some of the problems in the Province of

Alberta for which we've recently had letters of thanks from the Alberta

Minister of the Environment, Mr. Yurko.

The archaeological studies. We think there is plenty of time. The

pond would not be formed until 1980. There will be extensive work this

summer and whatever the professionals feel is necessary will be

provided for. The clearing will definitely take place before the

formation of the pond.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I was interested in the

Minister's remarks concerning the development of site 1 on the Peace.

It is a project which the people of northeastern British Columbia have

talked about, and have certainly urged to get it into the formative

stage for a number of years. As a matter of fact, I recall reading some

of the first briefs and information leaflets put together, and from

that a pretty exhaustive survey that was done. If my memory serves me

correctly, it was about seven or eight years ago, Mr. Minister, that

the first impact studies on site 1 were done and the idea of developing

it was reduced to a written form. It was certainly in the possession of

the former government, with plans to go ahead at the time the NDP took

over.

It is also interesting to note the change of the attitude of some

people in the Province of Alberta, and particularly the Town of Peace

River, who now know that if it had not been for the safety features or

the control value of the dam at Portage Mountain last year they would

have had a very, very severe flood. As a matter of fact, the Peace did

overflow its banks and flood some of the lower part of the Town of

Peace River, and it was only because of the restraining influence of

the dam at Portage Mountain that that flood was not so severe that it

would almost wipe the town of Peace River off the map. So there has

been a considerable amount of benefit from that dam, even though some

people have decided that the Mackenzie delta may have suffered somewhat.

So I would like to ask the Minister in this respect, and in dealing

with the Province of Alberta, who incidentally are looking at sites on

the Peace themselves, downstream from site 1, which could be used at a

future time to produce electricity for the Province of Alberta as well

as for south British Columbia: has the Minister entered into any

discussions with the Province of Alberta relating to downstream flood

control benefits that that province now enjoys because of the fact that

the dam at Portage Mountain releases flood waters in a very controlled

manner? Has the government ever brought this to the attention of the

Province of Alberta and had a discussion with them concerning the flood

control that they now enjoy as a result of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam?

It is interesting to note that the work is going to start soon, and

it is going to provide a boost to the economy of Hudson Hope, which has

certainly suffered since the peaking work force on the previous dam and

the resulting disappearance of that work force to other areas of the

province, particularly down into the Columbia River where they were

able to continue their job, but not in that particular area.

Will the Minister comment on this matter of flood control in the

Province of Alberta? Have any discussions taken place with that

province concerning the benefits that they receive?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're carrying on general discussions

with regard to the Peace and the potentials of the Peace with the

appropriate commissions and departments in the Province of Alberta.

Beyond that I don't think I have any comments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I am certainly glad to

see that the government are continuing their policy of following the

research that was done by the previous administration in building this

site 1 on the Peace River area to look after the energy needs of the

province.

MR. LEWIS: Malarkey!

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: But what really concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is

how much research is being done by B.C. Hydro, by the Ministry by the

government, to look after the needs of the province in the '90s and the

year 2000 and upwards. Government hasn't proven to me yet that they are

capable of having the vision and doing the research to look that far

ahead. I presume they will continue to build the other dams on sites C,

D and E on the Peace River to take advantage, again, of research that

was done by the previous administration.

The construction of site 1 was announced about a week ago. But it

was nice of the Minister to come in today and make the formal

announcement to try and defuse the main issue which is before this

Legislature, and that is that the Minister has before him a vote of

non-confidence.

Mr. Chairman, that vote of non-confidence is still here and it is

still very real, and we still haven't heard the Minister answer any of

the questions that we have asked him regarding his dealings in the

forest industry. He hasn't announced his future policy and told the

people of British Columbia his true intentions.

[ Page 3094 ]

The Premier got up yesterday afternoon, after being away last week,

and in his usual manner went off in a tirade. But the Premier didn't

really answer any questions either. He tried to protect his poor little

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell the Premier now that really he doesn't

have to protect this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

because he is really the power in that government. He is the architect,

along with the Premier, of the lands policy. He is the architect, along

with the Premier, on all the other major takeover policies, all the

socialism that is being brought into British Columbia. The two of them

work hand-in-hand.

I suppose that they should work together and the Premier has to come

back and protect this Minister. But it is also amazing, Mr. Chairman,

that the Premier chose to be away last week during the main nucleus of

the debate because I don't imagine the Premier could have stood it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not after what he said.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't imagine the Premier could have

stood it. Now he can bring in some statements that were made to try and

cloud the real issue which is before this Legislature. But every time,

Mr. Chairman, we get to the core of some of the in competency of one of

the Ministers, the Premier has to strike out like a wild man.

That is exactly what he was doing yesterday afternoon — not

answering any of the questions but attacking the opposition with

adjectives like "full of hate." Just because we want to protect the

taxpayers of British Columbia, he says we're full of hate. If we didn't

protect the taxpayers of British Columbia he'd say we were incompetent

and weren't doing our job. But he strikes out and says that the

official opposition is full of hate, that we're

hypercritical…hypocritical….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hypercritical.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hypercritical.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hyper and Hyp.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hypocritical. He says that our attack was offensively contrived and cheaply contrived.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are getting used to this because every time we can always

tell when we're getting to the real core of the inefficiency of the opposition

because the Premier gets up and attacks.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've said it!

MR. PHILLIPS: We've got to the real core of the inefficiency

of that Minister and it is easy to tell, Mr. Chairman, because this

opposition gave good, constructive criticism, well researched by the

opposition.

The Premier, Mr. Chairman, has a habit of saying that he's being

attacked because of his philosophy. We're not attacking his philosophy;

we're merely pointing out that it is going to be to the detriment of

the taxpayers of British Columbia, and that some of the takeovers that

this government is enacting are going to be to the detriment of the

taxpayers of British Columbia and they just won't work.

The Premier, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources really don't want to take our advice. So what does the

Premier do? He referred to the "rapacious capitalist system."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier did. Yes. And that is a system, Mr.

Chairman, that's built up in this province one of the most efficient

forest industries of anywhere in the world — one that returns the

greatest amount of taxes to the owners of the trees which are the

people of British Columbia, and a model which was looked on throughout

the entire world.

The Premier wants to attack the system that's built up this industry

and that is providing him with the tax dollars to carry out his

socialist programmes. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those tax dollars

from this great forest industry are being wasted today by that

government and by that Minister of Finance and by that Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

These remarks, Mr. Chairman, by the Premier make me think that he must have a warped brain or a twisted mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. PHILLIPS: Withdraw? It's an actual fact. All you have to do is listen to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources are conducting their own experiment to set up a

complete socialist state in the Province of British Columbia. This

experiment will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia billions of

dollars, but it won't be for a few years until they actually realize

the results of the socialist experiment here in British Columbia.

That's why the Premier comes out and says that we're attacking him

because of his philosophy. We're trying to point out for the good of

the taxpayers of British Columbia the error of his ways.

The Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

are even embarrassing their own NDP members. Mr. Chairman, they're

quitting in droves because even they didn't expect this much

[ Page 3095 ]

socialism in British Columbia. Even they didn't

expect it. I'm sure that a large number of those letters that the

Premier is signing today are to people who have written him and said:

"I'm tearing up my NDP card because I can't stand any more of your

total socialism."

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Not the way it is in the Peace River, I'll tell you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Please don't leave the Peace River. You too might be lucky enough to have an NDP MLA some day.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there you go. I'd like to see that letter

and see if it actually says…or is this just more of the Premier's…?

I've always said, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier should have been in

Hollywood.

MR. McCLELLAND: MGM wants him.

MR. PHILLIPS: I got a letter a short time ago from an

organization trying to form a clown committee and I would suggest that

the Premier should join that. He should have been the founder of it,

because he's certainly a great actor. But when it comes down to the

hard-headed business of running this province, the Premier is a

complete failure.

MR. McCLELLAND: MGM needs him.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, party members and even your

Members of the back bench are disgusted with the amount of socialism

that this Premier is bringing in.

Listening to the Premier, I feel that he sometimes has a personal

vendetta against anybody in this province who has been successful.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): That leaves you out.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there you are. More following in the Premier's footsteps. Personal attack on the Member for South Peace River….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not attacking me, are you?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but your Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is attacking me — a personal attack on me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you stop that! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Anybody who was successful the Premier, Mr. Chairman,

seems to be against. I think that he wants to haul everybody down to his own

level by creating a complete capitalist state. Take away from the rich; give

to the poor. When he brought in his budget, Mr. Chairman, he said it was a Robin

Hood budget. Robin Hood was a gangster, Mr. Chairman. Robin Hood was a gangster!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd like you to get to the amendment that's on the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm answering the Premier's statement to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources' estimates and there's an amendment. That's what you should

be dealing with.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, can I wait till the Minister comes back

in the House? I have to talk to the Premier because he's the only one

in the House. He wasn't in the House last week so I suppose that he's

sitting in for his twin — the other twin socialist. The twin

socialists, Mr. Chairman.

What I'm saying is, Mr. Chairman — and it's very, very serious….

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, yeah.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, lady luck has ridden with the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and with the Premier in

their 18 months, because the tax dollars have been flowing in beyond

their wildest dreams — tax dollars coming in from the resources of this

province, from the best forest industry of anywhere in the world; tax

dollars flowing in beyond their wildest dreams from a system that was

set up by the very capitalist system that the Premier stood in this

House yesterday afternoon and condemned. I've made many predictions in

this Legislature, Mr. Chairman…

AN HON. MEMBER: All of them wrong.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and a lot of them have come true. I hate to

predict this afternoon that I will stand in this Legislature a few

years from now and say "I told you so."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd hate to predict that too. Come on, get serious.

MR. PHILLIPS: I happen to be dead serious, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I agree with the first part.

MR. PHILLIPS: The questions that we have asked

[ Page 3096 ]

in this Minister's no-confidence vote still have

not been answered. Maybe they're not going to be answered, Mr.

Chairman, because that is typical of this government.

One of the reasons that we want these questions answered is because

we don't want the same thing to happen in British Columbia that

happened to the Churchill Falls industries in the Province of Manitoba.

Now, Mr. Chairman, extradition problems may even prevent the trials

being held in the Province of Manitoba.

What brought this situation about? The NDP government in Manitoba,

in dealing with the Churchill Falls forestry complex, had on its board

of directors people who were involved outside of the Province of

Manitoba in the international forest industries. These people have been

accused of running away with millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in

the Province of Manitoba, and today the trials can't go on because they

can't get these people back into the country.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you: is that what is going to happen here in the Province,

of British Columbia? It was the NDP who continued to deal and continued to get

this operation off the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't really care, Mr. Chairman, whether it

was a Conservative government or a Liberal government or a socialist

government. What I'm saying is that the same thing could happen right

here in the Province of British Columbia with Can-Cel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's my

understanding that a Member can't say indirectly what he's not

permitted to say directly. The Member is casting allegations of

criminal behaviour against a Minister in his statements by saying "If,

if, if." Now, that's against the rules. If he's got something to say

let him say it; otherwise he is breaking the rules of the House by

inferring indirectly what he's not prepared to say directly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken. I'd ask the Member for South Peace River to continue, bearing that in mind.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying indirectly what I

don't want to say directly. What I'm trying to point out and what we're

trying to point out the entire time we're in this Legislature is that

it's time that socialist government started realizing what the history

of some of these takeovers has been and where the socialist experiment

hasn't worked in other countries. They continue on glibly in their own

way, the two of them trying to set up a complete socialist state here

in the Province of British Columbia. It is an experiment that won't

work and an experiment that will cost the taxpayers of this province

billions and billions of dollars!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't stop Pharmacare.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, sure. When you try and talk business the

Premier has to bring in some other smokescreen. We're talking today

about the business in the forest industry. The reason that you're able

to have Pharmacare in British Columbia today is due to the revenue from

the forest industry in British Columbia — a forest industry that was

set up under the free enterprise system. Not one thing that that

government has done to date has brought in any revenue to promote any

of their socialist programmes. Not one single solitary policy! Not one!

I'll tell you they're riding on the coat tails of one of the

greatest forest industries that was established under our free

enterprise system — the same system that you're condemning. You talk

about all the great social programmes you've brought into British

Columbia. You brought them in because of the tax revenues set up by the

previous administration. That's why you were able to bring them in.

HON. MR. LEA: Why didn't you bring them in?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, before I was so rudely

interrupted by the Premier, which is par for the course in this

Legislature, I would like to read into the record one of the problems

that's been experienced in Manitoba through a situation in a

corporation owned jointly by the Province of Manitoba and directors

residing outside of that province.

What I am saying is that we have a similar situation here and the

same thing could happen, Mr. Chairman. I think it very important for

the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Deal with the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am dealing with the estimates. I am also dealing with the incompetency of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could happen here.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it couldn't happen here. We have already

reasons to believe that it could happen here — very good reasons to

believe that it could happen here. Because while you condemn the

multi-national corporations, you are already in bed with them. You

haven't answered any of the

[ Page 3097 ]

questions about why they were appointed or what their connections are. Not one single question have you answered. Not at all!

Mr. Chairman, I want to quote from an

article in the Financial Post

March 23, 1974. It is headlined: "Churchill Forest Industries:

Extradition Problems May Prevent Trials Being Held." There is a lesson

to be learned here, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources will pay attention.

"Winnipeg — Whether the perpetrators of the alleged

fraud at Churchill Forest Industries in Manitoba ever stand trial

depends on extradition agreements between Canada and the countries in

which they are now living.

"In other words, the perpetrators of this alleged

fraud are living outside of Canada, and there is doubt as to whether

legal manoeuvring will ever get them back to stand trial."

It is the same type of situation, Mr. Chairman, that we could have

here in the Province of British Columbia — directors in the company,

owning shares in the company, who live outside of the Province of

British Columbia and who are directors and who are actually the

blueprints of the takeover of the forest industry in this province.

Make no mistake About it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right here in River City?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"These extradition agreements are now being vigorously

explored by the authorities both here and in Ottawa. The charges laid

by the Crown in Winnipeg progressively during the last year alleged

that a group of individuals and companies"

the same type of companies that Can-Cel are involved with in Brussels —

"extracted more than $80 million from Manitoba

Development Corporation, a publicly-financed development agency, by

criminal means between 1964 and 1971."

$80 million of the taxpayers' money. That is exactly what I am talking about here today.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): How's the medicine show?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why we want to know what is going on in

the forest industry. That's why we want some of our questions answered.

And you bet that it is relevant in this case, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Do you sell snake oil, too?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The defendants are charged with theft, fraud, and conspiracy

to commit fraud during the building of CFI Forest Industries complex which was

financed with more than $100 million of public funds."

What do we have going on in Can-Cel? Can-Cel eyes not $100 million, Can-Cel eyes a $300 million extension programme.

Who is going to have the say as to where and how this money will be spent?

Who is going to have the say to where and how this money will be

spent? Who is actually running Can-Cel? It is the directors who reside

outside the province. It is the directors who the Minister stood on the

floor of this Legislature and said had experience in the forest

industry. They are the blueprints, they will be the ones who will be

spending the $300 million of the taxpayers' money to expand Can-Cel.

You better believe it, Mr. Chairman.

"The people charged are Alexander Kasser, a U.S. citizen believed to be living somewhere be in Europe."

Doesn't that seem relevant to Can-Cel? A director living outside of Canada?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Did you say "relevant"?

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven U.S. citizens, three Swiss citizens — I

am not going to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, who these gentlemen

are, but there are, as I said, seven U.S. citizens and three Swiss

citizens.

We have on the board of directors Mr. Litvine, who is living in Belgium.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Shocking, isn't it?

MR. PHILLIPS: How much say, Mr. Chairman, is he going to have in spending this $300 million of the taxpayers' money to expand Can-Cel?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Self-generated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, self-generated, all right. A company that

lost $95 million in the years before the government took it over now is

going to generate in four years $300 million.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You've got it! You've got it!

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, just like it made $12 million last year by stealing chips at below the market price.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are getting used to the garbage, but I would ask the Member to kindly withdraw the

[ Page 3098 ]

statement "stealing chips." We are getting used to those kinds of statements but we shouldn't get used to them.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I will withdraw the words "stealing chips," Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Buying chips below market price.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At a common price, common to the industry.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, common to the industry. You are buying them the lowest in the industry, and you well know it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Plateau Mills sells at $9 to a private firm in Prince George.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are buying it at the lowest price in the

industry. But who is going to be the architect of the expenditure of

$300 million. Why don't you sit down and listen for a while?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You wouldn't know a fact if you fell over it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who is going to be the architect of spending $300 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not you.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it seems amazing, Mr. Chairman, to me that

a company that lost $95 million from its inception, until it was taken

over by the government a number of years later, is now all of a sudden

going to start producing great revenues.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Read the annual report.

MR. PHILLIPS: I read the annual report.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't believe it.

MR. PHILLIPS: How is this going to happen, Mr. Chairman? I

guarantee you that in the long run it will be the taxpayers of British

Columbia who will be generating this $300 million in revenue.

I just want to quote one more short paragraph from this article, Mr. Chairman, because as I said before it is very appropriate.

"It is not yet known whether it will be possible to extradite Alexander Kasser, the key defendant.

"Extradition of the U.S. citizens is more likely, but still

could be touch and go. The U.S. will not agree to extradition in cases involving

taxes or fiscal matters, political or military achievement or conspiracy of

any kind."

Here we could have a similar case. These people are

accused, Mr. Chairman, of running off with $80 million of Manitoba

taxpayers' money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under the Conservative Party.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care what party it was. I am saying it is a similar situation, Mr. Chairman.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, on

a point of order, in all fairness to the House, he is not even in the

right province when he is dealing with these estimates. Could he deal

with the estimates of the Minister from this province? We have earlier

dealt with that question. He can draw a parallel but he should make it

clear that he is talking about another province and not this one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. But when you get to the core

of the situation, when you get to a possibility…. You know, the

government always reacts. I think the lady Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) put it very well the other day — when you step on the

tail of a snake it curls up and strikes back.

What we want are answers. What we want to give here today are

warnings, because we in this Legislature and in the opposition

represent the 79 per cent of the shareholders, the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

I know that it is very difficult for the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources who follows blindly on his own way, following his

own philosophy. It doesn't matter whether it is good business sense or

not. He follows blindly on. He still hasn't tabled the document of the

sales agreement for newsprint from Ocean Falls. It is just like another

Member of the House, Mr. Chairman, who was accused of lying. It is like

some of the other accusations that have been made. We don't get any

answers — just attacks on the opposition.

There they are with a 37-Member majority, and all they can do in

their own defence is attack the poor little opposition, who are

representing faithfully and sincerely the taxpayers of this province…

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, and with a straight face!

MR. PHILLIPS: …who do their research and come up with proper questions, and what do we get? Attacks from the government. Not answers.

It breaks my heart, Mr. Chairman, to see one of the greatest forest

industries anywhere in the world being taken over by a socialist

government that can't

[ Page 3099 ]

even answer a few simple questions about one of its operations. Table the documents, make it an open government.

No, in a political move he comes into the House today and makes an

announcement about the Peace River power dam. I made the announcement

in my constituency four or five days ago that it was going to go ahead.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: How did it go over? How did it go over?

MR. PHILLIPS: But this is a good tactic, I guess, if you can

defuse and try and take the heat off the real question. Try and take

the heat off the real question.

You know, if I were the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), I think I'd resign. Because the real

Minister of Industrial Development, and the real architect of every

phase of operation in that government, is the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

I imagine that when the Minister of Industrial Development goes into

his office, he goes in shaking — wondering what the Minister is going

to tell him. Who makes the real decisions about everything in that

government? It's the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to tell you and I hate to tell this Legislature

that when this vote comes up, I'm going to have to vote no confidence

in this Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Really?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to have to vote no confidence in this Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE: Just like your constituents are going to do to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we'll worry about my constituents. We'll

worry about my constituents, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Health had

better worry about his own constituents.

The Minister of Health is making a big fellow of himself going

around spending tax dollars that were created by the forest industry.

They are tax dollars that were created by this great forest industry

that this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is out to

destruct. He's out to destruct it, Mr. Chairman, and I leave that as a

warning.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious, when I sit in this

House and watch the actions of the Minister, that he really doesn't

take seriously or understand the charges that have been levied by the

opposition concerning the complexity and the web that is woven among

many companies, including now Crown corporations. It includes the

international business world and it includes a number of people whose

names continue to come up through directors' reports and bulletins and

information that we have carefully researched.

It would seem to me that this would be a problem that the Minister

would be concerned with, particularly when it's his number one

responsibility to protect the interests of the people of this province

when he administers the number one industry.

It's interesting to note…. And I intend to document a few points.

These international corporations didn't start overnight. They didn't

develop interlocking boards in a matter of a few days or a few years.

In many cases there is a continuing thread that goes through the

pattern of development in which the Province of British Columbia is now

involved.

I'd like to quote first of all from a weekly bulletin issued by the

Credit Bank: "Concentration and Internationalization in the Belgium

Paper Industry." It's a matter of record in tracing some of the

companies that were involved in the marketing of paper in Belgium. It's

the second-largest Belgium paper producer. Intermills, an affiliate of

U.S. Plywood Champion Paper sprang from Papeteries Du Pont de Warche in

the early 1960s.

We then find in 1961 Papeteries Du Pont de Warche started the

production of KromKote by means of a licence granted by Champion Paper.

In 1963 Papeteries Du Pont de Warche changed its name — guess what it

changed its name to…Intermills — and proceeded in the absorption of

its affiliates, Union de Papeteries, Papeteries Godin and SA Papeteries

Steinbach. The former Intermills became a holding company under the

style of Interwarch.

The latter managed afterwards the majority participation of

Intermills, Scaldia Papier and the 50 per cent participation in

Weyerhaeuser, Belgium, and was absorbed afterwards by Intermills.

Now in 1966 cooperation with Champion Paper was intensified by

setting up, in cooperation with Papeteries de Navarre of France, of a

joint sales organization. In the first place, this company is active in

Europe. Intermills and a French partner could, for the purposes of

their sales in the United States, avail themselves of the Champion

Paper system. And how often have we heard the name of Champion

International in this debate?

At the end of 1966 Champion Paper increased its assets in Intermills

to about 35 per cent of the capital, and its representatives became

members of the board of directors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member: are you going to relate those remarks?

MR. SMITH: Yes, very definitely. I am going to

[ Page 3100 ]

relate these remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the Crown

corporations which are also involved in international companies. But I

have to give you a little background, because it seems to me that the

Minister has completely either denied or does not wish to recognize

that there is a chain that can be traced back through to Brussels, in

this particular instance, and international corporations…

MR. CHAIRMAN: There doesn't seem to be any connection. If there is any connection, please do so.

MR. SMITH: …acquiring a majority participation in Intermills

in exchange for the funds and equipment indispensable to the future

expansion of Intermills.

Intermills may now fully rely on the support of U.S. Plywood

Champion Paper in the technical, commercial and financial fields. And

it also secures a better access to the raw material reserves of U.S.

Plywood Champion Paper.

We deal with another company which the Government of British

Columbia is presently involved in. That's the Papeteries de Gastuche.

It is less clear. This paper producer is probably under the control of

Intermills and Haseldonckx. The latter will, in the course of 1970,

propose an increase of capital by the creation of 16,000 shares,

whereby the total number of shares becomes 36,000. Besides this, the

issue of a convertible bond loan is planned. Both issues are reserved

to the Canadian Columbia Cellulose Company Ltd.

As a result, Haseldonckx will have to give up its independence and

Papeteries de Gastuche would be controlled by Intermills — and

indirectly by Columbia Cellulose Ltd. Now we know that the Province of

British Columbia purchased Columbia Cellulose Company Ltd.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. SMITH: It owns 100 per cent of it. It's also interesting to note that Col-Cel….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're wrong again.

MR. SMITH: One hundred per cent Crown corporation? When it

was taken over and changed to B.C. Cellulose? Pardon me; B.C.-Cel owns

79 per cent of Can-Cel, which was Columbia-Cel.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You've got it; you've got it.

MR. SMITH: Okay, right. We'll get another few things….

Now who's involved in Can-Cel? Well, we notice in reading from a

revised statement of capitalization and a

summary of the position of

Can-Cel — this was Columbia Cel at the time this was printed, but it's

now Can-Cel — that we have Haseldonckx…. A minority interest was

acquired on May 22, 1970, through the purchase of shares and

convertible debentures at the total cost of $1,815,000.

In January, 1971, the company interest in Haseldonckx was increased

to 50 per cent through the conversion of a portion of the debentures

held. Haseldonckx, of course, distributes paper and paper board

products.

Now we've talked about a connection. Where does this all fit together? Well, B.C.-Cel controls 79 per cent of Can-Cel.

Can-Cel owns 50 per cent of the Haseldonckx, a Brussels paper

distributor called the Haseldonckx Corporation. Haseldonckx in turn

owns 86 per cent of Les Papeteries de Gastuche, also a Brussels firm.

It's obvious therefore, when Haseldonckx owns Les Papeteries de

Gastuche, or at least 86 per cent of it, that at the top, B.C.

Cellulose has really 43 per cent of Haseldonckx.

It's interesting to note that in a number of cases we run into the name of Scrimshaw, who is former president of Can-Cel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's on first?

MR. SMITH: It's interesting to note that we run into the name

of Litvine, who's a director of Intermills which I talked about — Champion — and also on the Can-Cel board.

What else? Max Litvine is a director of Intermills. Intermills, it's

known, is controlled by Champion International. Max Litvine is also

managing director of Compagnie (Bruxelles) Lambert, a Belgium bank,

which obviously gives him very direct intervention into the

international market through Champion corporations which owns

international market through Champion corporations which owns

Intermills, which he is a director of. It also gives him access to the

money markets in Belgium through his directorship on a Belgian bank.

In all of this there is a continuing, interlocking relationship and

ownership that traces now the B.C. government, their Crown corporation

and the 79 per cent interest they own in Can-Cel right back to the

international planners.

It would be interesting to note and know, for instance, who owns the

other 14 per cent of Haseldonckx. Which companies are involved there?

Well, we know that Gottesman deals in international markets, but we

don't know that he's a director or is in any way involved in

Haseldonckx. But isn't there a possibility?

Isn't there a possibility that Intermills can also be involved there

through interlocking directors and directorates? Isn't it also possible

then, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 3101 ]

that unintentionally and unwittingly a Minister of

this Crown could have become involved with people in the international

markets and in the international business place which are not subject

to B.C. laws?

Why do you suppose that a number of these corporations have their

head offices in Brussels, Belgium? Is it because of the favourable type

of legislation and the requirements of the securities commission over

there probably not being as strenuous as our own in Canada? It's very

possible that these companies operate out of there for a good reason.

Whether their requirements are tough or lenient, when you're dealing

with international people on your board of directors in international

companies, if in any way the welfare of the people of this province

comes in jeopardy because of those dealings, there's no way that you

can effectively get at them, Mr. Minister.

I would think it would be a concern to the Minister. I would think

that if he has information available to him concerning this

international company, this corporate giant with which British Columbia

government is now involved, then he has a responsibility to present

that information and file it in this House, just the same as he has a

responsibility to the citizens of this province to file a copy of the

agreement between Ocean Falls and Gottesman corporation. That should be

public knowledge in the Province of British Columbia.

You know, we have a bill before us, which will be debated some time

during this legislative session, concerning people in public life, a

disclosure bill. While I realize the rules do not allow me to reflect

upon that bill except to talk very briefly about it, I'd say this: if

it's a requirement of people to disclose, then it is also a requirement

of the government….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules don't allow you to talk about that bill at all. You can talk about the estimates that are on the….

MR. SMITH: I'm finished talking about that bill, Mr. Chairman.

It's a requirement of this Minister to file the information that we

have repeatedly requested since this debate started several days ago.

Mr. Minister, we have no alternative but to ask for that information on

behalf of the taxpayers and the citizens of this province. If you're

not prepared to file that information with this House, and come clean

with all the representatives in this assembly, then you are not fit to

occupy that portfolio and we have very good reason for moving the vote

of non-confidence in your administration, which we did.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A few days ago, when I took

my place in this debate and discussed some of the directions of the

government and of the Minister and the administration of his

department, he suggested to me that he or the government had no

intention of taking over Crestbrook Forest industry. He replied to me

that he wasn't interested in taking over Crestbrook. It was picked up

by the press; I heard it as well. The Blues don't show it, but I guess

that's immaterial.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I question whether the Minister is levelling with us regarding his

intentions on Crestbrook Forest Industry because it was in November of

1973 when the Minister refused to approve the transfer of the cutting

rights from the Kootenay Forest Products in Nelson to Crestbrook Forest

Industries in the East Kootenays. The reasons he gave at that time were

that Crestbrook is foreign controlled and there was a need for

environmental protection in the area.

Yet just a few months before, in June, 1973, we find Gross, the

president of Can-Cel, saying that in a direct quote from him that he

must tackle the overdue expansion of the company's operation at

Castlegar; the Interior operation is overdue for expansion as a matter

of natural growth.

While the Minister is giving his political reasons as to why the

cutting rights of Kootenay Forest Products were not made available to

Crestbrook Forest Industry, the president of Can-Cel suggests that

there's a need for natural growth in the Castlegar area, and that

appears to be the reason why the government took over Kootenay Forest

Products.

Then on June 30, again several months prior to the Minister in November stating his reasons, the Vancouver Province

reported from the closing of the Can-Cel deal the previous day, a list

of items decided upon…a fuller study to be made on the timber

availability in the Kootenay operations with a possibility of

increasing capacity of the Castlegar mill and sawmill.

Then on August 11, Mr. Berkley, the newly appointed director — appointed on June 29, 1973 — in discussion of Can-Cel said that he

believed that Can-Cel would be developed into a major forest company in

a matter of years. Well, it appears obvious that is the direction

they're heading and I'm wondering if that direction involves the

takeover of Crestbrook Forest Industry, despite the denial of the

Minister on Thursday night when I was speaking in the House.

Then on September 19, the Minister, prior to the denial of the right

of Crestbrook to assume the cutting rights of Kootenay Forest Products,

the Minister had this to say — and this is long before the government

moved in on Kootenay Forest Products — in an interview with the

Vancouver Province on September 19:

[ Page 3102 ]

"There are no definite plans for further government investment in the B.C. forest industry.

"However, Williams said he would not eliminate the

option. However, the sale of Kootenay Forest Products Ltd. of Nelson to

Crestbrook Forest Industry at Skookumchuck is still under study as part

of the examination of the whole Purcell Range region."

Does the government plan to buy Kootenay Forest Products as it did

Columbia Cellulose Company Limited? I don't really think so. It's a

different problem. This is in September of 1973. It goes on: "The

Minister doesn't envision any more government investment in the forest

industry at the moment." Yet just a few months later they moved in on

Kootenay Forest Products, paying approximately $175,000 more than was

offered by Crestbrook in their tentative agreement with Kootenay Forest

Products.

That's why I doubt the words of the Minister when he says: "No, we

have no intentions of taking over Kootenay Forest Products." If he did

take over Crestbrook Forest Industry, he'd have a massive monopoly of

the timber resources, not only in the west Kootenays but in the east

Kootenays as well. He's have an opportunity to rip off the small

sawmill operators in the area with the compulsion that chips be

directed to the pulp mill in Castlegar at an unrealistic price.

I think it's time that Can-Cel looked at the purchasing of chips at

a realistic price, a price far more in keeping with their value than

the $10 per cunit they're presently paying. I stated at that time on

Thursday night that Crestbrook pays more for chips than does Can-Cel at

Castlegar in their pulp operation. I wonder how long it's going to take

for the Minister to table that secretive Purcell Range study.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it will all come out one way or another. Don't you read the Sun ?

MR. CHABOT: Well, we're asking you why you want to hide this

report. I think that you should table the report in the House so that

we can look at it. It is a report, I believe, that was carried out at

public expense, and I think it's a report that we have the right to see.

Also the Farquharson report: I don't recall seeing that one tabled

in the Legislature or made available to the public. It was undertaken

some considerable time ago, and the Minister talked, when he was

talking about site 1 on the Peace River, about public involvement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: What a bunch of doubletalk from that Minister!

Public investment! He had the Farquharson study throughout the east and

west Kootenays and Valemount. Did he listen to the people? Absolutely

not! The public inquiry you carried out there was an absolute farce. It

didn't amount to anything. And you refuse to table the report along

with the recommendations made to the committee by the public in the

communities where you held public hearings.

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

MR. CHABOT: I suggest to you…. Yes, in due course, because you've had the report now for about seven or eight months.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's not true.

MR. CHABOT: That is so. You've had it since, roughly, last October in your possession.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's not true.

MR. CHABOT: It is so. When was it given to you?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He hadn't written it by then.

MR. CHABOT: Well, his public hearings were over, if I can

remember correctly, the latter part of July. I can't see the reason for

the tremendous delay in writing the report. But I would think that in

all sincerity, in levelling with the people, you profess to be an open

government. If you are an open government, why don't you table the

Purcell Range study and let it see the light of day? It's gathering

dust in a pigeonhole down in your office. You've locked in in the

Purcell Range 2.4 billion board feet of timber; that's what you've done.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Where do you get that figure?

MR. CHABOT: That figure is from the forest service in the

east Kootenays as well as an assessment by the foresters of Crestbrook

Forest Industry.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What do you mean, "locked in?"

MR. CHABOT: Well, locked in, I mean, within the conservancy

wilderness area. You talked in your press release about 3.4 million

cubic feet of timber at high altitudes. You didn't talk about the

timber at low altitudes in the Hamill Creek, Fry, Carney; you never

talked about the kind of timber that you locked into those basins.

[ Page 3103 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They can still aerial log.

MR. CHABOT: Out of the wilderness conservancy they can aerial log?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

MR. CHABOT: Oh, out of Carney Creek you're suggesting that

they can aerial log? Certainly they can't log Carney Creek by the

conventional means, because it involves the construction of 22

switchbacks to get into the timber of Carney Creek.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Aerial logging. Who's to suggest that it's economic to aerial log out of Carney Creek?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We've had a man in Switzerland.

MR. CHABOT: He's probably still there.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think he'll get lost in Belgium anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister

not to speak from his seat, Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River

continue, please?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I'm being disturbed and I'm not accustomed, and I

can't handle this kind of heckling and interruptions. It loses my train

of thought.

I was wondering if the Minister could tell me, in view of the fact

that he has lost in the vicinity of 2.4 billion board feet of timber

into this wilderness conservancy, what he meant by saying, when I was

in his secretary's office and he walked by: "God-damned Golden is next."

Now what did you mean by that? Did you mean that you're going to

establish a wilderness conservancy in the Golden area that will lock in

2.4 billion cubic feet of timber or its equivalent? Is that what you

meant by that statement? Are you attempting to ruin the forest industry

and the jobs that exist in the forest industry in the Golden area as

well?

I think that these are pertinent questions, and I think the Minister

has a responsibility to say what he meant when he made that derogatory

statement about a community in my constituency.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman,

just a review of some of the questions that haven't been answered that

concern us and have concerned us since the start of this debate — questions concerning us in this opportunity we have to find out about

public corporations under the control of this Minister.

I'd like to know, on the Crown Zellerbach newsprint marketing

arrangement…. I understand that it was cancelled because of price,

but I'd like price and details of that contract tabled in the House, as

partial terms of this contract were