[ 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 brought up by the Minister.

After April 1, 1973, how many tons of Ocean Falls newsprint was marketed by Crown Zellerbach? How much newsprint was produced at Ocean Falls from April 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973? This is information that we think should be public. Does the opposition have to rely on trying to calculate from the press releases of Mr. Vesak the fact that machine No. 2 was down for 92 days, and try to estimate the amount of production of newsprint that we're getting out of our corporation at Ocean Falls?

Was our production only as high as 89,000 tons in 1973? Was it 102,000? If we take the 92 days downtime, we come up with a maximum production of 89,000 tons.

What is the production at Ocean Falls? What was the production in 1973? How much newsprint has the Ocean Falls corporation shipped to each of the countries reported as destinations in the press? These destinations were reported in an interview with Mr. Vesak, manager of Ocean Falls Corporation.

He said: "The newsprint is sold through Central National Corporation of New York and is shipped to Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Thailand, Burma, India."

How much of the production was shipped to these countries? If the manager has that information, and has issued a partial release to the press, why can't this Legislature have the information?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition standing order 43: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech…." I would request that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition raise some new matter rather than repeating arguments that have already been….

MR. BENNETT: I'm just reviewing questions which I asked and which haven't been answered. I've only asked them twice before, and I believe the record for repetition is 50-some-odd times in the House, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-seven.

[ Page 3104 ]

MR. BENNETT: Well, at 50 times I'm willing to take my chances.

I would like to know if the Ocean Falls corporation has shipped newsprint to any other countries other than the five listed and, if so, how much?

Why did the Ocean Falls corporation make a contract with Central National, or Gottesman, for the marketing of its newsprint?

Why does the Gottesman contract have a provision for outright purchase other than the normal brokerage arrangement at a fee of 3 per cent?

Why was the outright purchase in the Gottesman contract fixed at the California price? If the contract was good, why has the Minister announced he is renegotiating it? Did the old contract contain guarantees that Central National would not sell its newsprint to third-world emerging nations at excessive prices? If not, will the new contract, which the Minister is renegotiating, carry those guarantees for the citizens of British Columbia?

These are concerns that people have about their corporation, concerns that they are asking about, questions that have been asked — questions that have been asked on speculation in the newspaper and the media and elsewhere. These are questions to which, I think, we are entitled to an answer — questions which have come to mind because of news releases of the manager, Mr. Vesak, as to how the newsprint is being sold.

He quotes that the mill's production is curtailed during the time of record newsprint prices. Spot prices of $200 a ton are being paid on the North American market, and $225 a ton on the overseas market. Ocean Falls production was commanding prices that were a little more conservative because it was committed on contract. These aren't our statements; these are statements of the manager, Mr. Vesak.

These are some of the basis of why we are asking these questions, questions that we believe thy public requires an answer for.

We believe the intent of the Minister on the actual equity ownership of the government in the forest industry is of concern. It is a concern raised right through the companies that were under question that have been taken over. These are questions raised not by this Member, and not in this House this session, but outside this House by people having involvement with this Minister and with this government — Kootenay Forest Products, Plateau Mills — the concerns around Columbia Cellulose and its purchase.

Why can't we have the information given to this House? Where we have contracts, why can't we have them tabled in the House? Why can't we have answers to these questions? Mr. Chairman, we have been waiting for four or five days for answers to some very simple questions relating to a subject of great public concern.

Why can't we have the Sandwell study, which was recently done on Ocean Falls, tabled in the Legislature? Rumours of its recommendations are already causing concern in Ocean Falls. One of the rumours is that it recommends that they hang on while prices remain high — they are high now — but as soon as they drop, close out the mill.

Why can't we have the Sandwell study and find out the future of Ocean Falls, and even whether it is recommended in the study, and if the Minister is going to be prepared to listen to the study of whether he'll keep the mill open for other than economic reasons?

These are the questions I believe the opposition has asked. These are the questions we'd like to see answered.

If it's the government's intention for a continued and expanding equity ownership in the forest industry — a simple yes. The direction of its intent on purchase, the direction of its intent on purchase, the direction of its ultimate aim in the equity ownership in the forest industry — it shouldn't be a secret from this Legislature and the people of the province.

I hope, before we finish with this motion on which these questions are based, that the Minister will give us some answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I might deal, Mr. Chairman, with some of the points made by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He talks about 2.4 billion board feet in the conservancy, that is the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, some 400 square miles, most of it alpine land in the Purcell Mountains.

Once again the facts, the fact-toys that the opposition plays with, are simply, totally, absolutely wrong. The figure in fact is: 283,000 cunits within the conservancy, which, on a board-foot measure, would be 169 million board feet.

Well, you know — wrong by 2.2 billion. Now, C.D. Howe was in trouble because he said, "What's a million?" But I'm sure this Member doesn't think he's in trouble, and he's missed by 2.2 billion. But it's consistent in terms of the kind of standards that are applied by Her Majesty's official opposition.

Now, the plus-minus stuff, the a-plus-b stuff, the coal stuff, let's look at that. As the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) said, we listen to Mr. Jones; the former administration would not listen to Mr. Jones. Dr. Shrum wrote Mr. Jones and told him so. That was Dr. Shrum's decision. That's fine.

Maybe we should go over some of the history of our involvement. In October of 1973 the Pollution Control Board carried out a preliminary study of the coal bed at Borsato Meats Ltd. in Langley. They found that about 70 per cent of inlet b.o.d. and 75 per cent of inlet suspended solids were removed by

[ Page 3105 ]

the bed. However, the bed operation was difficult to monitor due to flooding with surface run-off water and possible effluent exfiltration. Residence time of effluent in the bed was approximately three days. The results on nitrogen and phosphorus removal were inconclusive.

November 6, 1973, a meeting was held between PCB representatives, Mr. Jones and Edward Chow, who was representing Richmond Packing Ltd. The company had applied for a pollution control permit and wanted to install a coal bed for effluent treatment. At the meeting the PCB proposed to supply all detailed monitoring for the operation, subject to certain conditions. That was since withdrawn because of a lack of cooperation from Mr. Chow and Richmond Meat, although the company proceeded with other work.

In December of 1973, Professor Colthard submitted a report on removal of organics, nitrates and phosphates with Hat Creek coal. The results of his bench scale tests showed b.o.d. removals of 70 per cent to 90 per cent, as long as aerobic biological film was first allowed to build up on the coal. Nitrates and phosphates were not removed by the coal for all practical purposes. Professor Colthard is consolidating all his reports on organics and heavy metals into a single report.

On December 17, 1973, a meeting was held between representatives of the Department of Public Works and the PCB. Mr. Jones had interested Public Works in trying out a coal-based treatment facility on a pilot scale at a provincially operated institution. The PCB agreed to cooperate with Public Works on piloting a project at Brannen Lake School for Boys, near Nanaimo. However, Mr. Jones subsequently did not believe that a coal bed similar to the one at Borsato Meats would work at Brannen Lake, and he proposed adding powdered coal to the sewage before treatment at the coal bed. It was agreed that method might well also be tested under a kind of laboratory condition at Brannen Lake. Various processes with the same types of effluent in the same site situations might have been tested at Brannen Lake. Mr. Jones has since indicated he doesn't want to cooperate on that project. That's fine. That's Mr. Jones' decision.

The evaluation by the PCB staff — and this includes professionals of various fields, PhDs of various kinds — shows that coal, including Hat Creek coal, exhibits no special properties in the removal of organic material from waste water other than those which might be expected from a biological filter. They have estimated that the cost of coal alone, used as a filter bed to treat primary effluent from the Iona treatment plant, would be approximately $4.5 million a year — $4.5 million a year. Coal requirements would be in the range of 300 tons a day, and a disposal method for the coal would then have to be devised.

On the other hand, the total cost of operating an activated sludge plant on Iona would be in the order of $650,000 a year — $650,000 compared to $4.5 million annual cost.

The coal process, they conclude, is therefore unlikely to compete with established biological processes for waste-water treatment. That coal shows no special ability to remove nitrates and phosphates from waste water is their conclusion.

Coal does not appear, they conclude, suitable for removal of heavy metals at the low concentrations present in sewage treatment.

The cost for coal alone of removing 90 per cent of heavy metals from Iona treatment plant effluent would be in the range of $500,000 to $1 million a year. The effluent would require clarification to at least secondary-treatment standards to avoid rapid plugging of the coal bed.

Coal requirements would be in the range of 30 to 60 tons a day and the disposal of the coal would have to be worked out.

That, I think, concludes the general kind of analysis and some of the involvement there has been with Mr. Jones. The bulk of Mr. Jones' complaints are with the former administration, primarily at the hands of Dr. Shrum of B.C. Hydro. I have no judgment with respect to Dr. Shrum's conclusions one way or the other.

I do know that Mr. Jones is an elderly man and he has his own very special views of these questions. I think one should consider that before becoming, again, a willing messenger boy in this Legislature. But the pattern has already been set.

This talk about patents. What were the terms used? "Idea theft — a million dollars is owed." If $1 million is owed, you had better check with Dr. Shrum; he was the man who talked to Cy Jones when all that discussion was going on. Check with your own boys; check with your own appointees. It was a Social Credit appointee who dealt with Mr. Jones. If you have a fight with Gordon Shrum, I'm sure he would be glad to meet you on any public platform and discuss the issue. I'd be glad to hire the hall for you both. (Laughter.)

The other point: stealing patents. You can't steal a patent, even when it's a pending patent on application. Needless to say, I hate to lower myself to answer the kind of garbage that continually is dumped by the official opposition. This government is not the least bit interested in stealing any patents whatsoever, any time, any place, anywhere.

What do we get? What kind of incredible invective did we get from this man with his bag of water — and with something that couldn't hold water? He said: "…failure to take advantage…shame!…. Shocking!…immoral shenanigans!" On and on and on! There is just no end to what the official opposition is willing to say, willing to dump,

[ Page 3106 ]

willing to do. There is simply no end.

To not check anything…. I would suggest that he didn't check with other sources; he listened to Mr. Jones, but he didn't even listen to Mr. Jones very well. He got a lot of that mixed up. It is just becoming standard procedure for the official opposition to feel they can say anything, do anything, and it just doesn't matter.

You have been embarked on a programme that is so self-destructive it is hard to believe. Right before my eyes: a self-destruct programme. You're determined to destroy your credibility every time you stand up in this chamber and open your mouth. You're doing very well indeed; keep it up.

MR. CHABOT: In reply to the amount of timber locked into the Purcell wilderness conservancy, the Minister stated that there were 283,000 cunits of timber locked in, basically in high-altitude areas.

I agree that the majority of the land which has been set aside as the wilderness conservancy is at high elevations. But what about the land and timber which is in the low-elevation areas — Hamill Creek, Fry Creek, Dewar Creek, Carney Creek? The economics of balloon logging or helicopter logging have not been proven yet.

The Minister talks about 283,000 cunits. The resident forester for Crestbrook Forest Industries, their woodlands manager, has this to say about the kind and volumes of timber that is locked into the conservancy:

"They are all choice areas with choice; timber and logging grounds. The Fry-Carney area holds the best stands of spruce. The Lardeau, Dewar and Skookumchuck stands are also prime, starting at 4,500 feet. Sub-alpine is considered to start at 6,000-feet altitude.

"Mr. Murray's estimate of the amount of timber within the conservancy is higher than Williams' estimate by 100 times. He says about 350 million cubic feet will be lost to the industry. He also maintains that little of it is in the sub-alpine area."

They're not anxious to log the sub-alpine area; and I'm not opposed to the establishment of a conservancy within the alpine area to protect the fragile wilderness which we have in the Purcell Range. But the Minister's statements are in complete variation from his Forest Service statements of what is locked into the conservancy. Here it is stated:

"Forest Service figures would put the loss in the Lardeau area at 1,850,000 cunits, in upper Kootenay at 1,290,000 cunits and in Windermere at 227,000 cunits. Total loss would be 4,022,000 cunits."

That is substantially greater than what the Minister attempted to portray this afternoon, that there would be only 283,000 cunits lost in the establishment of this wilderness conservancy.

Your information is at odds with statements made by your forestry officials in the Nelson Forest District.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe we can clear it up. Do you want it cleared up?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I certainly do want it cleared up.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The problem is simply this: the earliest discussions involved various drainage areas in various elevations. But the final, determined boundaries of the Purcell wilderness had an impact of this nature — 283,000 cunits.

The various drainage areas in which aerial logging and so on can take place in the future and can be used industrially…provided they work to new environmental standards.

But what the Hon. Member doesn't understand is that the figures I presume he is talking about — even then, I think he is way out in the sky — are the original proposals. What was finally approved by order-in-council, by the Environment and Land Use Committee, after analysis by the various departments, the regional people, the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee, is the figure you have from me this afternoon: 283,000 cunits. You are wrong by 2.2 billion.

MR. CHABOT: Had the Minister tabled the Purcell Range study, maybe we would have had a little more information. But the Minister is so secretive down there in his trench that it is difficult for us to relate to what actually has transpired.

He suggested as well that the woodlands manager, who is a registered forester employed by Crestbrook, doesn't know what he is talking about. Mr. Murray of Crestbrook made this statement not too long ago as to volumes which would be locked into the wilderness area. As well, I imagine it would include some of the timber which is in the Carney Creek area that is not within the conservancy but which is impossible to log.

I would assume that there is some of that timber there as well. It hasn't been proven that it is economical at this time to log it through the means which the Minister envisages it should be logged — either by balloon logging or helicopter logging. I don't know.

Nevertheless, at the moment it appears that the type of timber which is locked into the conservancy…. About 100 million cunits within Hamill Creek is locked in; no doubt about that. The inaccessibility to Carney Creek is going to have a serious, detrimental effect on the ability of Crestbrook Forest Industries to maintain their

[ Page 3107 ]

present production in the east Kootenays.

I am wondering if the Minister will tell us now whether he has any intentions as to when he will table the Purcell Range study. What did he mean when he suggested that Golden is next, regarding the establishment of a wilderness conservancy that is going to have a serious effect on the ability to continue logging to the same percentage that is being logged at this time in the Golden area?

I think these are pertinent questions which require some clarification and some answers by the Minister, and not just to gloss over in political answers just what is taking place. There is concern.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. If the Minister wants to dispute newspaper statements and quotes from newspapers, he has only himself to blame, because he won't get out of that trench and bring the facts forth. The people in the Golden area are concerned as to what your intentions are. Are you going to destroy jobs in that region as well?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 28

MR. CHABOT: Would you advise the Speaker that a division took place and ask leave for recording?

On vote 137.

Interjection.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, that's very interesting because that's the point I tried to make three times when I spoke for 10 minutes in the course of the last five days. I reserved the right to speak on the Minister's vote because I didn't feel overwhelmed at the need to speak on the amendment. I felt I had my position plain. I assure the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) I will not be lengthy.

But I would like to mention a few general points, Mr. Chairman. First of all I would comment on the announcement about site 1 today. Our party looked at the past studies that have been done. We recognize that the energy board report in 1972 suggested that this would be one means of meeting some of the short-term power needs of the province.

I think it's fair to recognize that the government has carried out an environmental study and has worked in association and communication with the Alberta government. In fact, the federal government has also given its blessing under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These are signs, as we see it, of a desirable kind of cooperation. We certainly would like to be on record as favouring the kind of public hearings that were held in the area and at which the public Were given every opportunity to express themselves.

I would just say that, in principle, we feel this project is appropriate at this time in the development of our power needs and that the general approach to the problem by the government and by this Minister has been favourable.

I would just like to ask the Minister one or two questions. The one particular question in this regard is the particular degree to which a study on the social impact of this scheme will be carried out. I have a quotation at the time from Mayor Rod True of Hudson's Hope. This is going back to February of this year when he said the construction would push Hudson's Hope through an intense boom over the next decade and probably leave the town in the throes of an agonizing bust in the early 1980's. He went on to say that the people are keenly aware of the problems that will inevitably follow when the transient construction workers pack up and move away. "How can we go through this without getting a hangover?" was the way the mayor put the question.

Another person commented,

"For a short while it will look like we're in a big city, and a few years later only a few people are left to pay taxes. What is needed is a social impact study that catalogues the effect of site 1 on the local people."

There's also a quotation from Mr. Charles Nash — who is the Hydro assistant general manager. In this particular clipping that I have from The Vancouver Sun on February 12, Mr. Nash told the residents, 'I give you an undertaking we will have a social impact study to answer your questions.'"

I don't want to belabour the point but I wonder if the Minister would give us some comment as to what is being done and the approach which the Minister is developing in regard to a social impact study.

[ Page 3108 ]

In debating the amendment that has just finished, there were some issues raised which I don't mean to repeat exactly but to refer to again in a slightly different light perhaps.

This party and certainly all non-socialist thinkers were certainly perturbed by the now-famous speech of the chairman of the standing committee of the Legislature on forestry when he spoke in Kelowna on February 15. He said that if private enterprise wants to continue in the forest industry in British Columbia it must be prepared to take second place to the government. Skelly said that if private enterprise wishes to continue in the forest industry it must do so as a competitor. Of course, we believe as free-enterpriser's that competition is healthy.

Later on, the Minister, as he had every right to do, denied that the statement by the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was indicative of government policy.

But one of the other points which the chairman of the forestry committee mentioned was that if forest companies say they cannot operate profitably in a way that protects the environment, then the government should take over. If private industry cannot return as much in the way of direct revenue to the province as public enterprise, they should give up and become contractors to the Crown.

Now, them strong words, Mr. Chairman. If the government feels we're being over-reactive in relation to that kind of comment or to some of the comments of the Minister, I won't bore the House by repeating again the basic thrust of the Waffle Manifesto which makes it very plain that this government is dedicated to the takeover of the major industries in the province.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Why don't you go read one of Churchill's speeches?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that's old history, Mr. Minister. Churchill was good in his day. We don't need Churchill. I don't think Churchill was in favour of the general takeover of industry by the government anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps one of the….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I've got a copyright here. But if there's one characteristic I happen to share with Churchill, it is that we change parties occasionally. Maybe that's the only similarity. I'll say it before you do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address himself to vote 137?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: No, there is no change anticipated.

But regardless of whether this takeover of the industry is a good idea or a bad idea — and recognizing the philosophical differences we have — I would just like to make one point. It's all very well to scorn private enterprise and competition and so on. When this government comes up with the idea that the government should compete with private industry, that's fine. I think that's a great idea, provided we do it on equal terms.

At the risk of boring the House once more by mentioning the name of Plateau Mills, I think it's very significant that the government has taken Plateau Mills under direct ownership with the very specific purpose of avoiding the paying of federal income tax.

How can the government talk about competition in this light when, in fact, not only is the government one of the competitors but happens to be the referee as well, and can move the goal posts according to its own personal advantage? I don't think there are any private-enterprise companies in this province, in the forest industry or any other industry, which don't have to pay federal income tax. I think it's just not quite accurate to leave the impression that the government, by moving in to the private sector or by taking over private companies, is challenging the private companies to become efficient and effective competitors. If there's to be competition, it should be on the basis that the same rules apply to both sides in the competition.

It's a little bit like being in a ball game, as I say, where government is one of the competitors but also happens to have the referee on their side, and he can change the ground rules whenever he likes or give certain advantages to the government, as happens very clearly in the case of Plateau Mills which is not paying income tax.

One of the other points I would like to raise relates a little bit to the comments I have made on site 1 but in a slightly different light. It relates to northern development in the northwest part of the province.

Now, I've just recognized that in regard to the Peace River developments and this further dam at site 1, the government has done a fair amount of preliminary work and study. But I would like to ask the Minister if he could explain what similar kinds of studies and public hearings have been done with regard to northwest B.C.

Again, I'll try not to repeat a lot of what has been mentioned already. As we know, there has been a great deal of publicity given to the fact that there will be new sawmills and an extension of the railway and

[ Page 3109 ]

many other developments. Road construction is reputed to be worth $500 million; there is the railway port development about which we've asked for information from the Minister of Industrial Development Trade and Commence (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Of course, with this kind of growth of industry, there's the whole question of a very substantial increase in the population.

I thought a very excellent article was written by Bob Hunter in the The Vancouver Sun back in February where he pointed out the pieces of information that had been made available on a seemingly haphazard basis. Nobody could seem to get specific information from the government or from the Minister. But on May 25 of last year, Mr. Williams, the Minister, announced that he was looking at a new transportation network, new lumber mills and mines that would probably create 25,000 new jobs in the north. Allowing for the associated people and families and service industry, this would mean perhaps a total of 75,000 people living in the north. It was also pointed out that some commitments had already been made in relation to railway development in cooperation with the federal government.

Anyway, without going through all these details, the fact is there are some enormous projects planned for the northwest, with instant towns and new sawmills and so on. The people up there are clearly on record that they are concerned because they don't know enough about it and they're not being consulted about it.

There was a great reaction to the suggestion that several dams would be built on different rivers. The Minister has denied this and we accept his denial, although even there I would also like to ask a question in passing. One of the senior officers of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Ellis, is reported as stating that studies are going on involving at least nine B.C. rivers. I don't know if one of the gentlemen on the other side of the floor is Mr. Ellis and, if he is, I'm not — I'll make it very plain — attacking Mr. Ellis as a person. I'm trying to find an explanation for the discrepancy.

In February, Mr. Ellis, manager of engineering systems, stated that power developments are being studied by Hydro on at least nine B.C. rivers, and he gave the details in a letter to the Steelhead Society of British Columbia. When the Minister was questioned, he conceded that certain river studies had been recommended at the internal staff level of B.C. Hydro, but he insisted that the recommendations had not even gone to the politicians at this stage. The article goes on to point out that when the letter went from Mr. Ellis to the Steelhead Society, it was marked, "Carbon copy to the Hon. R.A. Williams." So there does seem to be some discrepancy in relation to the question of dam development.

Although the Minister has certainly clarified some of the plans of the government by the announcement today, I wonder if he would be kind enough to tell the House what the future planning is. As I understand it, the site 1 dam is a part of the programme to deal with the short term power needs and that there must be further planning of other dams for the long term.

But to get back to the local concern of the people in northwest British Columbia. Again, I won't go into all the details, but the mayors in these different towns are certainly on record, as recently as March 21, as saying that they don't know what the government is planning for their area with any degree of detail. They know in general what we read in the newspapers.

Mayor Williams of Smithers says, "There is no question we'd like to know more about what's going on and what their plans and outlook are."

Mayor Gordon Rowland of Terrace said, "I haven't seen any report and they haven't seen any report and they haven't consulted us in any way or form, not even at the discussion level."

Prince Rupert Mayor Peter Lester, also chairman of the Skeena–Queen Charlotte Regional District, said all he knew about the government proposals was from press reports. These are comments in the newspaper on March 21.

Really, in this regard, I think if the Minister has shown the kind of foresight which he did in the investigation of the site 1 project, I hope the same kind of consultation, if it hasn't already happened, should be about to happen in regard to northwest B.C.

The statement by SPEC, the people who are very interested in the environment, I think was circulated to all the Members of the House, and it certainly emphasizes the theme. Just in case the government would suggest that I am exaggerating the fact that the people most concerned are not being consulted, there was a very interesting outburst from the Member of this House for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) who was in the north when the Minister was touring — not only the Member for Omineca, but the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder).

The Member for Atlin is absent. But I should maybe just quote what the Member for Omineca said to a convention of the northern New Democratic Party Members. This quote is April 29.

"Doug Kelly, of Omineca, told about 60 delegates that communication between the cabinet and the backbenchers has been 'terrible — ghastly, in some instances.'

"Northern MLAs have to fight with the government to get information on northern development. Both Calder and Kelly said they had to come to meetings such as this convention at which cabinet Ministers are speaking to find out what the government plans are.

[ Page 3110 ]

"Both said in interviews that they learned nothing new from Resources Minister Williams on Saturday when the Minister answered questions for two-and-one-half hours at the convention. Williams maintained that the government has been open with residents about its economic plans.

"Calder said in an interview that the general government announcements on rail and road building in the northwest are ancient history. Residents need details about construction timing and direct social and economic effects of the development."

This meeting went on to pass a resolution which I am sure the Premier would find very interesting. The resolution said:

"The report written for the government on the area was based" —

and I hope the Premier is listening to this —

HON. MR. BARRETT: I always listen.

MR. WALLACE:

"…on values and economic aims of the Social Credit government. If it is carried out, it will be denying the social and environmental and economic considerations promised by the NDP leadership."

And on and on — the same theme, I don't want to prolong it.

The point, I think, Mr. Chairman, is quite clear. The people in the local regions of northwest B.C. and even the MLAs who represent these people are making the point unmistakably clear that they are not adequately informed early enough in the game about the government plans for this development. Since it can have far-reaching impact, it seems to me very reasonable that the Minister should explain what his plans are with some measure of detail, both for the benefit of the Members and also for the people of British Columbia.

In passing, without going back over Ocean Falls all over again, I would however, like to know, as a result of the Minister's statement about Ocean Falls seeking a private partner, whether in fact, since that announcement, the Minister has had any approaches from the private sector.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: About six.

MR. WALLACE: That's good. I think perhaps the Minister could give the House some detail on that when he answers these comments.

Another area that I think should be mentioned without necessarily going into great detail is the general policy of the Minister in regard to this growing controversy over the Indian cut-off lands. The picture which emerges from newspaper reports and from interviews with the Indian chiefs is that they appear to be having some recognition of the validity of their charges or their problems by the federal government, but that in fact the federal government is having great difficulty establishing any kind of rapport and communication with the provincial government.

I know and I recognize — and it is a subject in itself, I suppose — that the government has offered the Indian people an 8 per cent investment in the Babine Forest Products venture at Burns Lake, but that really is only the first faltering step, I feel, in giving the Indian people more involvement and more consideration of what seem to be very legitimate claims.

I am not forgetting some of the efforts at Fort Simpson, but I am saying that this government can be blamed for the kind of decisions that were taken by that Commission back in 1904 or whenever it was. But I think that this government has been many times on record as recognizing that the Indian people have not been well treated by previous administrations and that, as I have said many times in this House in debates on health and education and human resources, they really don't get equal treatment with the non-Indian.

Here we have a clear situation in land ownership which the federal government is willing to consider as being a just and valid approach to an historic problem. Yet the questions that have been asked during question period in this House of the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) have been only given stalling answers. There has been no commitment that this government will sit down in good faith and negotiate the problem with the Indian people. In fact the one meeting that was set up was attended not by any cabinet Minister or by any Deputy to a Minister, but simply by officials of the government departments concerned.

I think that is an unfortunate reflection of the government's sense of priority in regard to the Indian land claims. It is certainly not a matter that I am suggesting for a moment has a simple or a rapid answer. It goes back many years. The problem was created many years ago.

The question, I suppose, could be asked philosophically: why should this government be responsible for the sins of governments 50 years ago, or 100, or whatever is the number of years. The accuracy of the years isn't the important thing — it is the principle of whether a modern government today recognizing the rights of the Indian people is prepared to sit down and attempt to restore some of these rights and correct some of the wrongs that have been done in the past.

It concerns various areas of the province. As the Minister knows, there is a sense of impatience, perhaps even hostility developing. We have Indian

[ Page 3111 ]

leaders making the statement that the kind of Wounded Knee situation is possible in British Columbia. We hear about them planning to barricade highways and so on, and I think this is an example of their strong feelings and one that at least the government should take cognizance of to the degree of sitting down to find more about the Indians claim and their point of view and what negotiated measures could be taken to try and help this problem.

The other more specific question that I'd like to ask the Minister is that when we debated the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), I asked about the use of land on the waterfront in Victoria, commonly described as the Reid property. Without rehashing all that question, I would just like to sum up the situation by saying that I understand that at one point three of the cabinet Ministers, including the Minister of Lands and Forests, met with the mayor of Victoria, (Mr. Pollen) and it was considered that there might be a 50-50 cost-sharing between $1.5 million and $1.7 million.

The answer I was given by the Minister at that time regarding the disposition of this land was that the Ministers concerned heard no more from the mayor or the council of the City of Victoria and they assumed that the proposal for the 50-50 sharing, for whatever reason, was unacceptable. Subsequently the government decided to place a freeze on that property when it was heard that the proposed deal between the city and Holiday Inns Limited would go ahead.

With that very brief resumé of what's happened, my information now is that Mr. Reid, by making a financial, legitimate payment — I'm not suggesting for a moment anything illegal or underhand — I understand that he has, by making a payment to Holiday Inns, again become the sole owner of that very valuable waterfront property. He had a commitment to the Holiday Inns people, I understand. It is my information that that commitment has been nullified by certain negotiations.

What I would like to ask the Minister is whether or not he personally has either…. I don't know that I have the Minister's attention but I would like to be sure the Minister understands specifically and clearly what I am asking him. Since the land freeze was placed on the waterfront in Victoria by government, can the Minister answer two or three questions?

First of all, has he himself negotiated with Mr. Reid on the possibility that the government would buy the land outright from Mr. Reid? If this is the case and he has negotiated, I think it would be fair, because of the tremendous controversy that has raged over this issue in the greater Victoria area and because of the tremendous implication for the wise use of the waterfront land and access by all citizens to the waterfront, if he could tell us whether or not he has plans to have negotiations with Mr. Reid for an outright purchase of the property by government. Is it still his intention to hold public hearings in the course of the next few weeks to listen to public opinion as to how that land should be dealt with? Can he, in fact, tell us whether any deal has been completed at this point in time about the disposal of the so-called Reid property on the waterfront?

It's an issue in which the citizens of greater Victoria area have shown a tremendous amount of interest. The city council has had the problem around their necks for some considerable time. Now that there seems to be at least some kind of hiatus in the whole development, it's time for government leadership. I don't necessarily mean for government to move in and buy it, but that might be one very desirable solution, I don't know.

The point is that the people in the greater Victoria area have been somewhat confused and some of them not a little angered by all the wheeling and dealing that seems to have gone on on this site. Now it would appear that the ownership has reverted to Mr. Reid and presumably Mr. Reid has some plans whereby he feels the final disposition of this important site is at hand. I just feel the Minister would do the people of Victoria a great service if he would tell us today just at what point these negotiations are at in relation to the provincial government.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased to go through the hon. leader's file on Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I think we covered most of the department one way or another. Maybe we could start at the beginning.

With respect to the social impact of the construction of site 1, the half-billion-dollar dam. There has been discussion in the area, as you indicate, with Mr. Nash of B.C. Hydro and other staff people. They are obligated to return to the region and the town and tell the people just what they intend to do regarding the problem the people raised at the first meeting. So it is seen as a continuing process.

I'd like to point out that the number of employees at the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett dam was about 2,500 employees. We are talking about half the construction impact that there was at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, the social impact studies have begun and there will be this continuing dialogue. In the Columbia River basin we are carrying out very significant social and economic impact studies regarding the possibilities on the Columbia. That again has not been done in the past. So we started a new approach in terms of environmental analysis and studies prior to any decisions being made. Now we are taking it the next logical steps in carrying out social and economic impact studies as well. Never done before under the former administration.

Obviously, when you're into a half-a-billion dollar

[ Page 3112 ]

project, there is, it seems to me, a range of spin-offs that can be of permanent benefit to the communities near the damsite — obvious things such as, say, trailer campsites. In the Columbia Basin they might subsequently become very significant tourist trailer sites in the summertime and so on. Or in storage areas we might well establish sites in relation to dam construction that would subsequently make fine local, municipal or departmental industrial estates in the region so that we wouldn't waste the infrastructure and materials that we put to use with respect to the dam project.

We see the cycling and recycling of our activities in relation to these damsites in a way that has not been perceived before by former administrations in this province.

I think the question of specific facilities in Hudson's Hope will be pursued very actively in the near future by the staff, the council and the local people.

Regarding the forest industry, I think we've shown that we have a responsible attitude toward the forest industry. We now have an excellent task force headed by Dr. Peter Pearse from the University of British Columbia giving us excellent advice which we do not intend to see pigeonholed. They are an active, hardworking task force of excellent people and we look forward to their future recommendations. We hope they are of the calibre and quality of the recommendations to date.

Regarding the northwest corner of the province, it is a quarter of the province; it's like Washington and Oregon thrown together. There are only 85,000 people there and it's the equivalent of Washington and Oregon. Our refined thinking in the work of the Secretariat in relation to the programme sees 1,000 jobs a year in the immediate, foreseeable future. So we're not talking about any mammoth programme; we're talking about what we perceive as a reasonable fairly careful growth programme in the northwest quarter of the province.

The community of Smithers is the one most concerned about the question of growth. I have now just received a letter from the mayor of Smithers indicating that, in his view and the council's view, the majority of the people in that community, which was the most concerned about growth, perceive our programmes with respect to sawmill development as sound and reasonable.

Regarding Mr. Ellis' letter, yes, the Hydro organization is carrying out studies on numerous rivers. I do not believe we shouldn't carry out studies. I think we have to know the environmental impacts of a wide range of choices: dollar costs, environmental costs, human costs. The more information we have, the better the decisions will be further down the line. I make no apologies for more studies being done by Hydro. The problem is they didn't do enough studies in the past.

We're tooling up so they can give us the kind of data and information we want in the future when we have to make more difficult choices than we presently have to make. We see the immediate future prospects with respect to run-of-the-river dams on the Peace and Columbia systems, rivers that are already committed to hydro-electricity.

But beyond that, we've also established a task force inside of Hydro. I think we've created a stimulating group inside the organization that is pulling back and reflecting on the choices, looking at questions like demand and the elasticity of demand for energy. That's an obvious kind of question, it seemed to me, when I became Minister that Hydro should address itself to. They are bringing in some of the best people in the world who know something about the question of elasticity of demand for energy and what the implication of various choices, pricing and whatever, might mean.

We're not taking just a blinker-type approach to the question of hydro energy demand in the province. We have some of our best people in the Hydro organization pulling back and trying to gain a perspective in terms of the choices we genuinely have with respect to this organization.

The cut-off land question. I think that has been covered generally by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Premier, myself and others.

The cut-off lands with the Union of B.C. Chiefs. We've indicated we would pay the cost of counsel. The matter should go to the courts and then there could be subsequent parliamentary action in relation to the process that was begun. That's with respect to the cut-off lands which are a federal-provincial question. The commission in the early days involved both the federal and provincial governments.

The question of the Reid property here in the harbour. I would hope that the hearing will be held fairly shortly and that I might be involved. I guess that depends partly on how long we spend on the estimates of the department so I'm not making any predictions.

It is the intent of the government to proceed with hearings. We want to know what the basic attitudes in the community are regarding those lands. I think I have a fairly good idea because of the response we've received with respect to the step the cabinet took in terms of designating the land between the Johnson Street Bridge and the causeway.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, we have not. Nevertheless, the public attitudes, again in the Victoria area, will play a very significant part in the decision made by the government regarding the way those lands are to be used.

[ Page 3113 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution — no, just progress — and ask leave to sit again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there's a ruling that we couldn't talk on the power now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we're going to meet tonight. I don't understand how you fellows operate. Who's making the decisions over there? I'd like the leader to speak for his group, if that's what the understanding is.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't presume in five months to have the knowledge the Premier has in 14 or 15 years in this Legislature…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just stand up, that's all.

MR. BENNETT: …and I wish to make a comment on the Minister's announcement of the site 1 project. It's a continuation of the original projections of the Peace River development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BENNETT: And one which started construction in 1961 and one which is necessary in the continuing hydro needs of this province.

I was also pleased to notice that you take advantage of the successes and you learn from the misadventures in construction of these projects. I was pleased to see the Minister quote from the September 1973 environmental impact study that he had done on this site, a study that has been available for seven or eight months and was contained in this announcement.

Part of the necessity for hydro requirement was part of my question to this Minister in this House some two weeks ago when I questioned him about the power supply to Vancouver Island and the fact that it continues to be critical, and the fact that in those two weeks I haven't had an answer from this Minister.

Over and above the announcement of site 1, which has been with us for some time, I would hope the Minister will give us some actuality of cost projection, time projection on the seven-mile project, Duncan Bay project, Kemano 2 project, Revelstoke project, Vancouver Island Transmission system, Vancouver Island thermal project, and the fact that these requirements may cost us almost $7 billion in the next 10 years.

I'd like to know, now that the Minister's taking advantage of the problems we had, whether he's going to call for environmental studies on some of these projects like Duncan Bay, Vancouver Island thermal, Revelstoke and Kemano 2. I'd like to know, later in his estimates, if the Minister will give us more detailed information beyond the site 1, which has been projected for some time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a defence in that manner before. If the Member says that he hasn't been in the House for 14 or 15 years, then don't run for the leadership of a party if you want some time to catch up on what you should know as your duty.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious….

Interjections

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, look, I'm not responsible for your inadequacies and if you can't….

MR. BENNETT: Just adjourn the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What do you mean, just adjourn the House? You come in here and ask for leave to make a statement and then beg for mercy because you don't have 14 or 15 years experience. What kind of nonsense is that? You ran for leadership of the party. You're supposed to be Leader of the Opposition, and you're crying for mercy after shooting your own Members. That's nonsense, Mr. Member. I find it absolutely incredible.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I don't want to embarrass the Member before supper.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) took offence at some remarks that were made during debate, and you afforded me the right to examine the record in this. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that my recollection of my

[ Page 3114 ]

remarks was that they were honestly conditional, and I believe that the transcript bears me out. However, I withdraw any words which might impute corruption to any Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. The matter, I think, just is closed there.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.