[ Page 1257 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege Authorship of document concerning Columbia River treaty.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1257

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 1257

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates On vote 34.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1257

Mr. Chabot — 1258

Mr. Phillips — 1259

Mr. Lauk — 1259

Mr. Chabot — 1259

Mr. Smith — 1260

Hon. Mr. King — 1262

Mr. Wallace — 1265

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1268

Mr. Gardom — 1269

Mr. McClelland — 1271

Mr. Phillips — 1273

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1276

Mr. Lewis — 1277

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1280

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1284

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

CLERK: The House is advised that pursuant to standing order 12, and pursuant to section 46 of the Constitution Act, the Deputy Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, will take the chair.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): In the absence of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) due to illness, it is my pleasure today to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of 11 students, and two adults who have accompanied the students, from Charles Bloom Secondary School in Lumby. The names of those accompanying the young people are Miss Melton and Mr. Dart. You may be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the students worked hard to raise the funds necessary for this trip. I wish the House would welcome them.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, at noon today approximately 50 will invade the gallery from North Saanich Elementary School, grade 8 students, and I am very happy that they will be here as well.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): At 11:30 a.m. today, Mr. Speaker, there will be a group of 40 students who are taking the community service worker programme at Douglas College. I'd like the House to welcome them now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. A week ago I received anonymously in the mail — as did a number of my associates in Vancouver — a document which appears to have been produced by Hugh L. Keenleyside. It bears his picture. It deals with the Columbia River treaty results. It is written in the first person, but there is no indication on the envelope in which it was transmitted, or in the document itself, as to the authorship or publisher of this document.

The reason I raise it as a matter of privilege is that in the document there are allegations against a Member of this House, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). In fact, there is a specific charge that three statements made by the Minister to this House were false, and also there is a charge that these statements were made with the hope of misleading the House.

I placed this document in the hands of the Speaker last Monday, hoping that he would be able to ascertain, through his offices, the identity of the author and publisher. Apparently the Hon. Speaker has been unable to ascertain this information. At least he has not advised me. Therefore I raise it before Your Honour at this particular time and ask that your offices and the offices of this House be used to determine the authorship and the publisher of this document which I send to the table now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This matter will be taken under advisement and a statement will be made from the Chair shortly.

Introduction of bills.

DRUG ADDICTION
REHABILITATION ACT, 1975

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 60, Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) described the purchase of the Kaymor property — or the option to purchase the Kaymor property — in Kamloops. He said that we were taken, that B.C. was taken. This is the typical kind of irresponsible statement made by the opposition. It's smear. What troubles me is that at least one newspaper picked it up and printed it the way the Member said it. I just can't believe it.

Let me run through what the price of land is up in Kamloops for industrial land, what servicing means, what all kinds of things mean that some.... I'm not condemning the press gallery, but at least one of them.... The press has a responsibility to print these things, and to research these things out.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the property that is under option is 457 acres at $5,000 an acre. The total cost is $2,285,000. In that total package we paid the premium price for the flatland acreage. The rest is hillside, so naturally the cost for the flatland is

[ Page 1258 ]

higher. As part of the deal, I am informed by the corporation, the vendor is to share part of the cost for servicing, including roads.

Spuncast is a company in the area. I'm just going to give you some comparative figures so you'll know that the Member for Columbia River is all wet. Spuncast bought a piece of the same property in 1973 — 15 acres — at $9,000 an acre. It has an option on five more at $15,000 an acre. The average price of unserviced industrial land in the Kamloops area in 1972-73 was $25,000 an acre. In 1967 to 1973 — in that period of time — it was $9,000 an acre.

The reasons for obtaining this piece of property, indicated by the Development Corp. in the minutes of their executive committee: the price was better than any other available — and they reviewed the whole area — there were lower servicing costs; the property was on both transcontinental railways; it's on the TransCanada Highway. The result is that the Development Corp. can put this serviced industrial land on stream with substantially less than average cost in the Kamloops area. Now that's if the option is taken.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you in particular sympathize with my remarks here this morning. The irresponsible fashion of this opposition with their completely unfounded remarks is bad enough, but to have that transmitted without any screening process to the public is even worse.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister can huff and puff all he wants. What I related to this House last night were the absolute facts of the case. The facts are that the purchaser....

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

MR. CHABOT: I know what the facts are. I know that the land was purchased either in 1972 or 1973 at a cost of $1,450....

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

MR. CHABOT: That's right, either 1972 or 1973. The company, Kaymor Developments, or Kaymor Properties, was put into place in 1972. Whether the land was purchased in 1972 or 1973 is immaterial.

The fact is that that land was purchased at $1,450 an acre and that that government over there bought that land just a few months later at $5,000 an acre. It seems that any speculator in this province who wants to make a quick buck...

HON. MR. LAUK: You tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: ...all he has to do is go and see that Minister or the Minister of Housing of this government. That's all they have to do.

HON. MR. LAUK: On a point of order, this Member is acting in such an irresponsible fashion it's hard to believe my ears. Half the land that was purchased is on hillside, and he knows it.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: We can still buy the whole package at a much lower price per acre.

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

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the facts speak for themselves, despite the huffing and puffing from that Minister over there. The facts are that you purchased half of the 900-acre Molson hop farm, agricultural land, which you've succeeded in taking out of the agricultural reserve, that is 457 acres at $5,000 an acre. I don't care whether it's hillside or flat land, the average price is still $5,000 an acre — for $2,285,000. It seems that all any speculator in British Columbia who wants to make a quick buck has to do is talk to the Minister of Economic Development in this province.

This is more wasteful than the $80-per-square-foot tourist information booth in Golden, a ripoff of $165,000 of the taxpayers of this province. It's even more extravagant, exorbitant and ridiculous than the Casa Loma deal where the taxpayers were ripped off for $750,000. The taxpayers have been ripped off by over a million dollars on this one piece of land.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the Member for Columbia River has stated that the taxpayers of this province were ripped off. He has stated an amount of $750,000. I want him to document that. Put up or shut up! Or get out of this House. Don't mislead this House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. If I could have a moment, Mr. Member...

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, he is misleading. If he is doing it through ignorance that is one thing. If he is doing it deliberately he should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the rules state that a Member may get up when another Member has finished speaking and correct any misstatement of fact that he alleges. I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River if he is impugning any improper motive to any Member of this House. As you know,

[ Page 1259 ]

that is against the rules of this House.

MR. CHABOT: All I'm suggesting is that those Ministers over there are wasting the taxpayers' dollars in this province. I suggest that approximately a $750,000 ripoff on the Casa Loma deal and a $165,000 ripoff on the construction of the tourist information booth in my riding. Now we have a $1 million ripoff in the community of Kamloops.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I'm entitled to make my statement. You can make your speech when you want.

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The term "ripoff" has been used very frequently in this House without any objection. But I would ask the Members to please moderate the tone of debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this land that we're talking about was in the agricultural land freeze and was taken out because of the requirement of heavy volumes of gypsum to be put on the land to rehabilitate it, because of the danger of polluting the land. We find now that the land has been taken out of the freeze arbitrarily by the government to serve its own purposes. Really, we come to the conclusion that the agricultural land reserve is there to protect farmland unless the government or its various departments wish to use it for some other purpose. This land, 900 acres, purchased originally for $1.3 million by Kaymor Investments Ltd. of Kamloops has now been sold — 50 per cent of it — for almost $2.3 million.

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

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's an option. All right. Show me the details of the option. Will the Minister give us the details of the option? What kind of down-payment was put by that government for the purchase of this property? Tell all the facts. The Minister there seems so disturbed about the facts about the taxpayers being ripped off for almost a million dollars in Kamloops, Mr. Chairman. I wish he would file the appraisal that took place on this land. Is the Minister prepared to file the appraisal?

Will the Minister tell us also whether the order-in-council to remove this land from the agricultural land freeze included the entire 900 acres, or was it merely for the portion of 457 acres optioned by the government? There's no doubt that these speculators or developers or whatever they are have increased the value of their land substantially if you've seen fit to remove that entire block of land from the agricultural land freeze.

Not only have they made $1 million on the purchase of 50 per cent of that land, but they've increased the value of that remaining land by $2 million. They stand to make a profit. If all that land is worth $5,000 an acre, as the Minister suggests it is, the value of that land — now is $4.5 million for land purchased at $1.3 million. These people stand to make $3.2 million over a short period of a time, a few months.

Can the Minister also tell me whether services will be provided to the land that is being purchased by the government? Will water and sewer be provided, and at what cost? Will this benefit the remaining land held by this investment company? How are negotiations going on as far as access in concerned to this land? Do you believe that the provision of access to the land you have an option on will benefit the speculators on the balance of the land which they own?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like to ask the Minister of Economic Development a couple of quick questions. Has he seen the land in question? Would the Minister advise the House if he has been and seen the land? He talks about hillside. Is this a cliff or is it rolling hill?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I think the Minister is trying to give the impression in this House that this is steep hillside, and it is actually rolling land which would be suitable for housing. Would the Minister just advise the House?

HON. MR. LAUK: It's not suitable for agricultural or industrial purposes. The land could be used, in my view and in the view of others who were visiting the site, for housing sometime down the line.

MR. PHILLIPS: You've seen the land?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: I asked a series of questions to the Minister. He seemed to want to huff and puff before I asked him a few questions, but now will the Minister provide the House with a copy of the appraisal of this land? Will he tell the House the projected costs?

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

[ Page 1260 ]

MR. CHABOT: Pardon?

HON. MR. LAUK: I only answer gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: The Minister says he only answers gentlemen. I'm here speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia and I don't care whether you like my manners or not! I want answers on behalf of the people of this province!

I want to know how much has been ripped off on the purchase of this land in Kamloops, just as they have been ripped off on other developments by that government. It seems that every speculator who has something to sell has only to go to that government and the taxpayers are ripped off again. What is your appraisal on this land? What is your projected cost for services to this land? Will the provision of these services to this land benefit the remaining land held by the investment company? Certainly these aren't difficult questions for you to answer. Certainly they are questions that the people of British Columbia have a right to receive answers on.

I think the kind of callous disregard that government has for taxpayers' dollars is absolutely ridiculous. The taxpayers are being ripped off practically every time some housing development or some piece of land is purchased by that government. It is about time this came to an end, the ripoff of the taxpayers of this province. We should have the right to have the answers from that Minister so that we know how seriously the taxpayers of this province have been ripped off in Kamloops. We know how badly they have been ripped off in other areas of this province.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the Member for Columbia River made a statement earlier as if it were a statement of fact that there had been a profit of $750,000 made in the acquisition and transfer of the Casa Loma — or will be made when the thing is complete. I would like that Member to substantiate that remark if there is any validity in it, or else withdraw it. It appears to me a very wild, irresponsible remark and if it cannot be substantiated it is misleading. Mr. Chairman, I have filed in this House an affidavit which says that the accusations made by the Member for Victoria were unsubstantiated.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The same rule applies to other Members of this House as cabinet Ministers. Questions may be asked; they don't have to be answered.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to spend a few minutes this morning discussing with the Minister his policy with respect to the proposed building of a $350 million oil refinery in the Province of British Columbia. I think that after the announcement made by the Premier as Minister of Finance in Ottawa, we should have a chance to explore for a few minutes at least the policy or lack of it of the Minister of Economic Development concerning industrial installations in the Province of British Columbia.

As we have viewed the performance of the Minister of Economic Development and other cabinet Ministers who are concerned with resource development in the province, and with the performance of the Premier as the chief spokesman for the government of this province, the only thing that you can say about the NDP policy is that it's consistent for one thing — and that is its predictable inconsistency.

It wasn't long ago. only a few days ago, that we heard the Premier of this province publicly castigate and chastise the Province of Alberta and the federal government regarding the Syncrude project in the oil sands area development. Oh, what a ripoff it was! How the public was being taken because of the investment of the federal government along with other private industry in the Province of Alberta in that particular project! Yesterday we hear from Ottawa — not even our own Legislative Assembly — an announcement that indicates that the Premier of this province is going to go full bore on a project to build a 100,000-barrel-per-day refinery in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Will you relate your remarks to the Minister's responsibilities?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will. Is he not responsible for industrial development in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman?

Has the Premier of this province not announced publicly that he intends to build a 100,000-barrel refinery in the Province of British Columbia, and that it is a priority, as far as he is concerned, with respect to the increase in price of natural gas which the province hopes to receive for the sale of it to the

[ Page 1261 ]

Americans? Is that not true?

If you'll just give me a few minutes to set the background and the framework, I have a few specific things that I want to ask the Minister concerning his responsibility to the Province of British Columbia.

It has been suggested that it will require $350 million of the taxpayers' money to build this industrial complex. Now I don't know if that figure is correct or not, but we do know that it would take three to four years to build a refinery, and a lot of people would very much disagree with the price of $350 million. They would say it will be closer to $500 million.

But, in any event, the Premier of the province, who a few days or weeks ago castigated the Province of Alberta and the federal government over the Syncrude project in the tar sands area, has turned around now and said: "Come on in. Take part of the action. We want your investment. We want private industry to help us build this 100,000-barrel refinery. We want investment capital to come in. We welcome the participation of other provinces if that's what they would like to do." So, it's fish of one and fowl of the other; it just depends on who is sponsoring the project — the Province of Alberta or the federal government or the Province of British Columbia.

I'd suggest that for all of the time that we have canvassed the department of this Minister, we have asked him repeatedly what his industrial development policy is for the Province of British Columbia, and we've heard nothing. Mr. Chairman, it's a nonentity. There is no policy. It does not exist in the Province of British Columbia. It's a hip-pocket, seat-of-the-pants approach, subject to change at the whim of each and every Minister, irrespective of whether it's good for the Province of British Columbia or not.

We want to know specifically what is the direction and the policy of the government with respect to resource development. I say that it doesn't exist. In the mining industry it doesn't exist. In the forest industry they have to try and live with a policy and rules that change almost every week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would advise you that policy matters are not in discussion when the House is in committee. It's administrative responsibilities only.

MR. SMITH: Policy with respect to the administration of his department is always in order to be discussed. We have a right to ask what the existing policy is and the present-day policy. I know that we can't ask the Minister to reveal in advance future policy of the government; that's a prerogative of the Crown. But certainly we can examine, as I am doing, the lack of policy and direction with respect to resource development in the Province of British Columbia.

The petroleum industry in this province lives with the continuous threat of takeover. There seems to be a vendetta to discredit all the companies which are engaged in exploration for petroleum products in this province, even though they have invested over $2 billion in that same field of endeavour in the Province of British Columbia. Yet the Minister and the Premier turn around and say: "Come on in. Take part of the action. Become our partners. We want to build a 100,000-barrel refinery."

But I would like to address a few other specific remarks to the Premier. What study indicates that the Province of British Columbia requires an additional 100,000 barrels per day of refining capacity in the Province of British Columbia at this time? Where is the study, Mr. Minister? Why has it not been filed with the House? Can the Minister answer that? Can he tell us on whose authority and on whose recommendation the Province of British Columbia has decided to go ahead, irrespective of what the economics might be, and build a 100,000-barrel refinery in the province? I think we should take a look at the present situation and project it a little bit into the future.

At the present time there are seven refineries located in the Province of British Columbia. I would say that from the standpoint of the delivery of product, they're fairly well located. There's one in northeastern British Columbia at Taylor, there's one refinery at Prince George, one at Kamloops and four in the greater Vancouver area.

The facts are that the total combined capacity of the seven refineries now operating in the Province of British Columbia is something in the neighbourhood of 140,000 barrels per day. I understand that one of the refining companies — Standard Oil, as a matter of fact — is in the process of increasing their capacity by approximately 25,000 barrels per day. So with the existing facilities — and those that will come on stream as soon as that expansion to their plant can be physically put in place — we will have in the neighbourhood of 165,000 barrels per day capacity for refining product in the Province of British Columbia.

I think it's well to draw to the attention of the government in this House that we adequately look after the supply of petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia through our own refineries at the present time. So what are we going to do with an extra 100,000-barrel capacity coming on stream, as it will, when the government gets around to the completion of that project? Where's the market? At least there's an increase at the present time in the domestic market, but certainly not sufficient to take almost a doubling of the refining capacity in the Province of British Columbia.

The facts of the matter are that there is no shortage of refined product in the Province of British

[ Page 1262 ]

Columbia, with the exception of one thing — bunker fuel. We have to import some bunker fuel. We'll have to continue to do that regardless of refining capacity unless we expand the refining capacity so greatly that we have a great surplus of refined gas and those types of petroleum products just to get the heavy bunker fuel that's required to service the industry.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: "No," the Minister says. Well, that happens to be a fact of life. You can't have bunker fuel without some of the other products being manufactured as well, right? If you have an integrated refinery you manufacture product, if you're going to do it economically, from the standpoint of the total resources that are required in a refinery and the total return from the refinery.

There's no present existing shortage of refining capacity. Even with the predictions and projections of increased use, we don't face a shortage of refining capacity for some little time. But the other thing is that we can presently only supply out of the resources of the province — that is, the proven reserves of the province — about 40 per cent of the stock of crude that we require for even the existing refineries. The rest must come by import, presently from the Province of Alberta. So we have to ask the Minister if, in building a 100,000-barrel refinery, he has any firm commitment from the Province of Alberta that they'll continue to supply us with the crude that's required for that refinery. If not, where is the source of supply? Will it come offshore? If so, does that not put us in the same position as the Americans with a refinery at Cherry Point with tankers coming and going not only outside the coastal area of Vancouver Island, but right into the inner harbour of Vancouver to supply us with the crude that we need?

No, it would seem to me that a decision by the provincial government to invest at least $350 million of the taxpayers' money in a refining facility that is not presently required is just plain stupid economics. I think it's time that the Minister, who seemed to be very much aware of what was going to be announced in Ottawa, stood in his place in this House and told the members of this committee just why he feels that we need another 100,000-barrel refinery in this province at this particular time — why he feels that that expenditure is justified. Perhaps the only justification is to fulfill the whims of a socialist party which seems to think that in order to prove their worth to the people of the Province of British Columbia they have to become involved in every facet of business in the province. That way, I guess, even though it isn't profitable, they can cover it up somehow so that it looks to be profitable, at least until the people find out what the real bill is.

So, Mr. Minister, tell us, if you can, why you think an expenditure of at least $350 million is a justifiable expenditure from public funds and why this money is not used to provide more services to people in the province rather than duplicate facilities that are already in existence. I think it's time that we knew where the Minister stands and why he thinks this is a good deal for the Province of British Columbia.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): This has been a fairly wide-ranging discussion over the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development. It's touched on quite a variety of subjects, from a concern for unemployment to a concern for the investment climate of the province, to a commentary on the political affiliations and philosophy of the New Democratic Party, references to people such as Professor Mel Watkins, who to my knowledge held no elected position in the New Democratic Party nor, in fact, represented anything more than his own views in what is truly a democratic party. Nevertheless, his views and the particular attitude he put forward are even held out as responsible reasons for the lagging economy at the moment, an economy which is in general trouble, I would suggest, in many, many parts of this nation and the world.

Of course, British Columbia is a province based mainly on the forest industry. When our customers find that their domestic activity is in a sad state of collapse, naturally our markets suffer and unemployment flows from that lost market. This has been a cyclical trend in this province for many, many years, irrespective of government. Anyone who is really interested can, on the basis of statistical review, find that in 1961 we were in a much deeper recession in the Province of British Columbia with unemployment much higher at that time than we have at the moment. Again, in 1970 we had a very bleak unemployment picture in the province.

At that time I find it curious that the people, on the Social Credit side particularly, who are expressing such deep concern now were curiously silent at that time, perhaps because they were on the side of the government benches. I don't recall in that day, Mr. Chairman, any special direct employment programmes mounted by the government of that day as there has been by this government at the moment. I don't recall action by the government to assist the small operators by ensuring that they received a more equitable price for their chip products so that they could stay alive and compete to a degree with the more diversified industries in the province. All of these things are positive steps that the government has taken. They involve a variety of departments, not only the Minister of Economic Development, who in my view is doing a good job of developing a climate in British Columbia to accommodate investment.

[ Page 1263 ]

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that while I would be the last person to oppose the right of opposition Members to question and scrutinize the estimates of cabinet Ministers, they also have the responsibility to do so in a mature and sober way. I think that when they build hypothetical cases, straw men, on which they pose questions, they are doing neither favour to themselves as mature politicians nor to the confidence and the climate set in British Columbia.

I think the business editor of The Vancouver Sun, George Froehlich, made the case very well in his column of Saturday, March 29, of this year, when he commented on foreign capital that was in fact being attracted for investment in British Columbia, foreign capital that had been obtained from Arab nations, which created a controversy in this House and has now died down. I'm going to read the article, Mr. Chairman, because I think it bears repeating and it bears consideration by the opposition if they're serious in their questioning today. It says:

"Every politician is an opportunist at heart." Well, that's not a very profound statement. But going on:

"The case in point is the borrowing of $200 million from unnamed Arab sources by B.C. Hydro through Finance Minister David Barrett. It started off rather innocently in early December of last year when the Premier announced that the government had floated the first $100 million bond issue for B.C. Hydro with some Arabs.

"The consensus at that time among bond dealers in Vancouver and Toronto was that the deal arranged through Deputy Finance Minister Gerry Bryson was a good one. But some opposition Members, ever eager to gain political mileage, could not resist putting their two cents in. Social Credit leader Bill Bennett started the ball rolling when he said that the sale of bonds to the Arabs marked a tragic period in B.C. history and placed the province in the grip of international financiers."

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

"The statement was ludicrous, to say the least, and all the more ludicrous coming from a former businessman such as Bennett. He knows better. But I guess it proves that everything is fair in love and politics. Subsequently, other opposition Members have chosen to play cheap politics, such as Social Credit Member Don Phillips and Garde Gardom of the Liberals."

That's quite an indictment coming from The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Chairman. The business editor of The Vancouver Sun is no supporter of the New Democratic Party, but out of his concern for the welfare of this province he was moved to make this indictment of the kind of questioning that the opposition came up with.

He goes on, Mr. Chairman, to say — and this is directly related to the Minister's responsibility to produce confidence in the economic climate and the financial climate of British Columbia:

"Phillips at one stage suggested that the money could well be Mafia money. 'If it is Mafia money we want to know. I think the people of the province have a right to know where you got the money, why you had to go outside Canada for it and, if so, why you couldn't get it within the borders of North America,' he said.

"Not to be outdone, Gardom said, 'We are entitled to know if it is clean money.'"

I don't know if he considers Liberal money to be the only kind of money that is clean or not, but I thought they were free enterprisers, you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's been laundered.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Will the Hon. Minister confine his remarks to the Minister in question?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I'm quoting the article from the business editor of The Vancouver Sun. Certainly no one is in a better position to give a perspective on the climate for investment or industrial development in the province of British Columbia.

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

"'We have a right to know whether it is clean money. Is it fair on rates, terms and competition? Was it the best available? Did he clear it through the federal government? Was it an offer B.C. couldn't refuse? Were there any heavies involved?'"

Another hypothetical straw man, Mr. Chairman, which they have developed.

"Well, here are the facts (says Mr. Froehlich) that cannot be rebutted. B.C. Hydro, for the period ending March 31, 1979, needs about $3.2 billion for its various expansion projects. The utilities get these funds by going to the bond market. In Hydro's case it has three options available. It can go to the Canadian, U.S. and off-shore markets, and no market is bottomless. For example, there is an unwritten rule that limits the amounts of money a company can borrow.

"In the case of the Canadian markets, the figure for Hydro amounts to about $75 million. In the case of U.S. markets, the figures range from $ 100 to $125 million."

[ Page 1264 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister please relate his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Economic Development?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, you have allowed the opposition to question the Minister on the basis of the financial climate which is is inviting in this province. If this is not related to investment climate and investment confidence in this province, I then I am at a loss to understand what is. Now the main point is that even the business editor of the Sun has been moved to condemn and to categorize as grossly irresponsible and politically unjustified the comments and the attack made by the opposition when investment capital indeed was attracted to the Province of British Columbia. He's pointed out that the main reason that the Arab nation was not prepared to reveal their precise country of borrowing was because they are beleaguered by many, many nations to loan money, and they certainly don't want to offend anyone by indicating who they have picked and whom they have chosen. So the only secrecy was for their own internal needs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should read on, in light of the Liberal leader's (Mr. D.A. Anderson's) comments, and put on the record of this House precisely what conclusion Mr. Froehlich came to when he scrutinized the opposition's conduct in the House. He said:

"Actually listening to these comments of one of the leading money-dealers in Canada, a man who is certainly not a Barrett fan, the kind of accusations and innuendoes that have come forth from the opposition could certainly jeopardize any future attempts by Hydro to seek Arab funds, the net result being that B.C. taxpayers could eventually end up having to pay higher interest rates, and all because of petty games politicians insist on playing."

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader seems to be exercised this morning. Perhaps he's not used to receiving that kind of commentary from a newspaper which is usually friendly to his cause. They can only go so far in justifying irresponsible conduct and then they speak out also. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised the question of the high unemployment rate, and he raised the question also of the philosophy of this party, in creating high unemployment. I want to say that perhaps he should look to some of the other Liberal provinces in this nation if he's very concerned about unemployment because we find that British Columbia fares very well by comparison to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, which are mainly Liberal. You ought to have a look at Quebec and you'll find it's 10.8 per cent unemployed at the present time; the Atlantic provinces have 15.3 per cent unemployed. I don't hear the Liberals coming up with any quick solution to the unemployment problem where they have the responsibility of governing.

Perhaps what bemused me more than anything else was his analysis of the philosophy of this party, when discussing unemployment and the soft economy. He referred to Professor Mel Watkins who, as I said, never represented this party in any official way. If we want to start looking at the philosophy of parties, perhaps we should have a took at this ad which I have found as representing the Liberal Party campaign and platform in the 1935 election in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: 1935?

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

"CCF party stands pledged to give them the vote. The Liberal Party is opposed to giving these Orientals the vote. Where will you stand on election day?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: It goes on:

"Canada's next government will be Liberal. Under the new Liberal regime Canada will follow Britain's lead toward prosperity, even as Austria and South Africa already have done. It is important that Vancouver and the lower mainland have a solid Liberal representation at Ottawa in harmony with the new Mackenzie King government which will be in power after October 14."

MR. GARDOM: What year is that?

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

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

HON. MR. KING: No, not at all. The second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) attempted to twist the policy of this party on the basis of a statement made by an individual member who was never elected, and I think that if he wants to indulge in that kind of twisting, that kind of innuendo, then he better be prepared to recognize the heritage of the party which he represents today. If that's not a legacy of discrimination, of contempt for working people, of prejudice against races in this province, I don't know what is, Mr. Chairman.

That group over there has the gall and the audacity to stand here today and say that they're interested in the rights of workers. If they were genuinely interested they would not associate themselves with a party having a background of that nature. No way. It's about time that they understood that if they are going to twist, it they're going to deal in innuendo, they have to be prepared to have their own records scrutinized at the same time.

Now, I'm sure the Minister of Economic Development is quite prepared to answer responsible questions concerning the policies of this government, concerning precisely the moneys provided in his estimates to deal with the business of this province, to strengthen the economy, to try to create more employment for our people. I suggest that the opposition would be doing everyone a favour if they directed their comments and their criticism to sober and responsible types of questions.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to finish off on some of the comments I made yesterday, although I think perhaps the government has demonstrated its new Minister for Defence today. He's taken over from the Minister of Health in that role.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): If you want to filibuster, go ahead.

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

I want to ask some specific questions. I think the oil refinery subject is of sufficient significance that we should get some definitive information.

Initially, as I mentioned yesterday, apart from anything else, there is a conflict in the use of land in relation to the philosophy this government has outlined, in that some of the land in the Surrey area is agricultural. It may not be grade 1 or grade 2 but it is agricultural land and certainly we've taken the position in this House that the government can't have it both ways.

After the tremendous ideological battle we had over Bill 42, we now find two things: the government is acquiring agricultural land destined for industrial use. Secondly, it has amended the Laws Declaratory Act so that, in fact, it can do anything it wishes with land which any other citizen or any other group would not be able to do. I think we have to get some answer from this government and from this Minister in particular as to where the government plans to draw the line. Or is it simply just going to be a matter of expediency?

We have also asked questions about alternatives to an oil refinery. This presupposes that we are going to have one according to the Premier's statement yesterday in Ottawa, and I don't think we need go over all that ground again, which was covered this morning, as to whether or not there should be one. We now know from the Premier's statement that there will be one. Some alternative sites have been discussed and this Minister has said that Merritt has been excluded and yet, at the same time, we have had statements that it is not a fait accompli that it will be built in the Surrey area, so I have one question. First of all, if it isn't the Surrey area, what other alternative areas are being considered?

I also make the point that this government in opposition made a great play on the principle that there should be the greatest public discussion and public input in matters affecting municipalities. If there's one area in the province where residents and municipal aldermen are extremely uptight it has to be in Surrey and Langley, and the Minister is well aware of this.

Secondly, when are the municipalities of Langley and Surrey and, for that matter, the Greater Vancouver Regional District involved in planning? When are they to be given the facts and the decisions that have been made up to this point because there certainly seems to be a very secretive approach to the whole thing? We are told that the government is carrying out studies about environmental impact. We are told that somewhere along the line the municipalities will be consulted, but it's very clear that the municipalities have come to the conclusion that the consultation, if you can call it that, will be after decisions have gone beyond a certain point and are probably irreversible. The municipalities will then be told to take it or leave it, or perhaps try to modify what decisions have been taken by the government.

Now, the whole question of the land use has been raised by other Members and I have already said that I think it's a hypocritical position by government to espouse so strongly, as it has done, the rights of the individual and the autonomy of the municipalities and the need to preserve farmland when, in point of fact, the government itself appears not to be following its own principle and its own guidelines. So I would like to ask the Minister specifically: of the total acreage involved in the Surrey-Langley area, what percentage is presently farmland and what measures, if any, has the Minister taken to have the land rezoned, or will the Laws Declatory Act be the instrument used to overrule the wishes of the local municipalities? To what degree has the government consulted with the municipalities and to what degree are the councils of Surrey and Langley aware of the government's planning to this date and the degree to which these

[ Page 1266 ]

municipalities have been informed of the government's environmental studies? Are these complete? If they are complete, why haven't the municipalities of Surrey and Langley been told about it?

I've spoken with various people in the area and I would like to ask the Minister the exact nature of the company that is called S&H Development. I can find that this S&H Development Co. has one solitary director and I find it very difficult to research this matter in detail, so I think perhaps I could ask the Minister just exactly whether S&H Development is the main agent through which options are being acquired on the land in Surrey.

The information I would also like to elicit is the amount of money that has already been committed in the form of options. It's my information that $500 is paid initially and that 1 per cent is paid two weeks later and 1.5 per cent was to be paid in March and that the offers expired on June 1. Now these are all specific figures I've mentioned and a specific date when the options run out — June 1. In the light of the Premier's rather abrupt announcement at the conference table this left the impression, at least in my mind, that he made a snap decision to commit the government to the building of a refinery. Yet maybe it wasn't as spontaneous or as abrupt as it appeared, because according to the individuals in Surrey whom I have talked to who have been approached by S&H Development....

With the options expiring on June 1, I could ask the Minister: is there some deadline by which the government had to make the commitment to build the oil refinery in Surrey?

If, in fact, as statements have been made by the Minister that nothing has been finally decided, then what is the only alternative? Is there another area in the province? Does it have to be the Surrey-Langley area or not, since we've already been told that the Merritt area is too far from the markets and the geographic location is so important?

I think, also, that we should repeat the tremendous concern of the citizens in the area for the danger to the environment which is inevitable. The Minister said yesterday that every precaution would be taken and that there's more than can be done in new plants than was previously provided in older plants by way of preserving the environment. But some of the facts and figures that have been brought forward by the residents of the area, who have written, I suppose, to all of the MLAs, are really quite staggering. If this environmental problem is being studied, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House, first of all, if the study has been completed. If it has been completed, what, in fact, does it reveal? Would it not be reasonable to take that study with the House, or at least make the details of the study available to the mayors, aldermen and certainly the residents of the area, who are surely the most intimately affected individuals in this whole issue.

Some of the reaction in the press today from other people, including members of SPEC, suggests that this really could be an environmental disaster. As we all know, we use the word "disaster" perhaps a little loosely. I'm not personally informed enough yet as to whether that's an exaggeration or not. One thing I know is that if I lived in Langley or Surrey and I was told that a refinery was being planned without consulting me, as an individual, and all the other individuals who are paying taxes in that area and who are represented by elected aldermen and mayors, I would feel pretty unhappy also. So I'm not necessarily agreeing with words such as "ecological disaster" and so on, but I certainly think it's very reasonable.

This is the kind of attitude this Minister asked the opposition to adopt yesterday in debate. He didn't want a bitter, exaggerated adversary approach; he wanted reasonable questions from the opposition. Well, I'm trying to ask some reasonable questions. I'm just saying to the Minister, if you lived in Langley or Surrey and you realized that at least the nature and character of the area where you were living would be substantially changed, would you not feel that you had a very definite right to ask the provincial government and the Ministers concerned — regardless of the final outcome, whether this plan goes ahead or not — what studies have been done and what they've shown? Don't you think you would want an opportunity to modify whatever plans the government might be developing? That's all I'm asking; I think that's immensely reasonable.

I don't think I'm being an opportunistic, as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) suggested, and I don't think I'm being unfair. I'm just asking in an objective way: how would you feel — or how would any Member of the government benches feel — if he or she lived in Surrey-Langley at the present time and this was the present status of planning for a large industrial development, which indisputably must change the character, the nature, the environment, the air, the water and so on? Among other factors that have been talked about, I understand that there's no doubt that the soil in the region is not very porous, and that the drainage of water is slow compared to other areas. If that water is to be contaminated in any way there is real danger to the water supply in that area.

Again, I'm asking the question. If the Minister has information that scientific studies show that this is not an accurate criticism, come and tell us. That, really, is all I'm trying to say at this point in time. A lot of questions are being asked. Some of the criticisms may be exaggerated, but until there are some answers from the government or from whichever scientific body is doing the environmental

[ Page 1267 ]

impact studies, this House and the community and the people living in the area are left completely in the dark. I don't think that's fair. It's certainly a very fundamental contradiction of the kind of promises that this party made when it sat down here in opposition and time after time after time I heard the present Premier and other Members of that party criticize the government of that day for the way in which it either ignored the individual citizen or flew by the seat of its pants and made decisions which could not be reversed — or which the government refused to reverse, even in the face of some pretty hard data.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel some of the contradictions require to be explained. I think we should know some of the specific figures up to this point in time as to how much money the government spent on these options. Is S&H Development the government agent? Do the options run out on June 1? Does that mean that if the options are not exercised by June 1 the government has changed its direction and there is some alternative area to be developed in the province?

I certainly feel we should know what mechanism the government is planning to use in overriding the local municipalities on the question of using agricultural land for industrial purposes.

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

MR. WALLACE: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound says they use muscle. But I asked the question when we amended the Laws Declaratory Act as to why this government wanted the authority to overrule municipalities or individuals. The staggering answer I got — I still can't believe my ears to this day, Mr. Chairman — was that the former government did this for 20 years and "we are just reverting to what they did." If there was ever one area of Social Credit policy which this party severely criticized, it was autocracy and the domineering, dictatorial approach by government towards the rights of the individual.

Now when we find that this government in relation to land use, the people's government, wants one law for itself and another for the individual, I think we are entitled to ask the kinds of questions I've asked this morning. I still think they are reasonable. It is a people's government, all right. When it comes to land use, there is one law for the government and one law for the people.

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

MR. GARDOM: Thirty per cent.

MR. WALLACE: The government is supposed to represent the people and to respect the rights of the individual. The rights of the individual should not be subject to one law and the rights of the government a different law. That is exactly what we've got under the Laws Declaratory Act.

I think, particularly in light of the long and bitter and emotional debates we had on Bill 42, which is such a central ideological principle of this government, that it conflicts very strangely with another commitment this government has frequently made that it will protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, that it is interested in the little guy. The little guy who has got a little bit of land can't just suddenly sell it to an industrial developer. No way! The examples in the last couple of years since the bill was passed make that very plain.

Here we have the government doing exactly what it wishes with land. That is what the four-line amendment to the Laws Declaratory Act makes very clear: than any law which would otherwise bind the Crown in relation to the use of land or improvements does not bind the Crown. In other words, the Crown can do anything it wishes with any type of land, even though individuals are compelled to adhere to the provisions of the Land Commission Act.

There are just too many contradictions. There is just too disturbing a clash between what this government espouses and what it actually does when the chips are down. In light of these very important points I have raised, would the Minister tell us that once all the studies are completed, or if they are completed, this government will consider some form of public inquiry or royal commission for the public, the people you represent?

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) says: "What is the government?" The government represents every single person with a vote in this province, they don't just represent their own members or our members or any other party's members. They represent every voter in this province, and there are many voters in this province very unhappy about some of the contradictory situations I've outlines, where the government espouses one kind of thinking and one philosophy but in action take a very different course. I think that not only because of the scale of the refinery project that we are talking about — and let's face it, if the refinery is built and is any kind of a success, such as industrial complex in our modern times just does not stay as a single refinery — the whole concept is to develop an industrial complex.

Although we are having problems of natural gas supply at the moment, I think anyone would be very naive to suggest that if this refinery is built, that will be in any way the end of the industrial development in the Surrey area. Certainly that is the immediate reaction I sense from people in the petroleum business today from the comments they've made in

[ Page 1268 ]

the newspaper, plus the fact that they are very interested to have many of the questions answered that have been asked in this House already this week.

I think that it is not at all unreasonable that the opposition should ask to what degree this Minister plans to involve the public in this very important issue, not only of whether it should be built or not, but the location, the protection of the environment, and all the other matters that I've raised, including the manner in which this government plans to use the land presently zoned for agriculture.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay is a gentleman. No one doubts his sincerity in the questions that he asks in this House. But, Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the Member, I've got to remind him of a little bit of history and then cover some of the questions that he's asked.

Perhaps it wasn't alone across the country, but the previous administration did not consult the municipalities when it wished to build edifices under the Crown provincial, be it hydro dams, Bennett towers, whatever. There was virtually and absolutely no consultation with the City of Vancouver in building the so-called B.C. tower — Bennett Tower.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: The court house is another thing that was totally approved by the provincial government with very little consultation with the city.

Mr. Member, you're talking about the acquisition of land, that the people are having the land purchased from them, and the rights of the individual. Now ask the people who used to own the backup land to Roberts Bank. Ask the people in the valleys in the areas where we built the Arrow Dams and the Columbia River project — ask those people about rights. This is the government that brought in a right to sue the Crown, one of the last provinces in Confederation to bring in such rights. This is the government that put teeth into the human rights legislation. This is the government that gives fair deals to people with whom they deal. And you talk about the rights of the individual.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Member when he says he left the other party. I don't look on him as being a Member of the Tory party, I just believe he's crossing from the Socred Party to the socialist party and he's on a Tory road.

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

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

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

HON. MR. LAUK: You've got a situation, Mr. Chairman, that when you're dealing with priorities in the public interest, you have to make judgments in the public good. You don't make judgments the way corporations do: corporate decisions to maximize profit, corporate decisions for the survival of the corporation.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't understand the Hon. Member's question. He doesn't know what is in the public good and I understand that; the Liberal Party has never understood that.

Mr. Chairman, the so-called conflicts of interest had to be resolved. The conflict of interest that you've put forward I don't consider to be a conflict of interest. I consider it a judgment of priorities. You have some agricultural land and you have to use some agricultural land sometimes for housing or industrial purposes.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: But listen, use your common sense, man! For example, if you have a piece of land and it was of moderate use agriculturally, the most logical use would be industrial or housing. Come on, you know better than that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Throw out Bill 42.

HON. MR. LAUK: Bill 42 was for the preservation of farmland, the kind of backup farmland at Roberts Bank. It was being used for industrial purposes. The whole of the upper Fraser Valley was being used for housing and industrial purposes. Look at Kelowna, where your leader's home riding is. It's the worst strip development in North America. Why? Because of the sell-out boys over there. That's why we have Bill 42 and that's why I'm glad we have Bill 42.

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

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

With respect to the refinery and the specific questions, Mr. Chairman, again, as I stated yesterday I'm going to refer you to the man who's in charge of it, the Attorney-General....

[ Page 1269 ]

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

HON. MR. LAUK: The location of the refinery has not been decided. There's a commitment to do social impact, environment and other studies before any decision is made. Naturally this must include a consideration of the municipalities' attitude, the people's attitudes who live there. Naturally that must be taken into consideration.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: We're not going to have a public inquiry. You see, if we had a public inquiry and there were four people who showed up and wanted a refinery, would that satisfy you? There may be, maybe not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Okay, I'm not so sure. Maybe there should be several public inquiries. I don't know. Ask the Attorney-General — he's in charge of the progress of this project.

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

MR. WALLACE: The devil you say!

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. There's a politician — the Mayor of Surrey (Mr. Vander Zalm) — who said that on the one hand he was all for an oil refinery and, after he talked to four neighbours, he was against it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I think these political situations as they arise should be examined more closely. It seems to me that if I were running for mayor or alderman of the municipality, I would try to act in the public interest and in the interests of the people of the municipality. I wouldn't take political stands because of partisan, political points of view.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm glad that he's a rare breed of cat at the municipal level, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, his political lifetime is short lived.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, once again we're back to the very major question that has been a constant pall over this Legislature and, I'd say, over the whole governmental process in B.C.: the continuing and haunting question that is in front of the general public as to whether or not they're receiving value from their politicians and from their civil service and from the whole governmental process.

We're still having the most serious, if not grave, difficulty with one word in this province, and that's the word "accountability." It unfortunately has proven to become exceptionally apparent that accountability cannot be by whim or by discretion. It is something that has got to be imposed by law and available by law. Accountability in the Province of British Columbia should become part of the rule of law.

As you, Mr. Chairman, said yourself earlier today from your seat in the chair; it is open to Members to ask questions but Ministers in the Province of British Columbia do not have a responsibility to reply. I would commend the House and I would commend the general public to look to a government that is perhaps more responsible in this regard and that's the Lok Sabha in India where Ministers do have a responsibility to reply. They have to equip themselves. They cannot bury questions. They cannot sit as mummies in their seats. They cannot take questions as notice and use them as a "device," as referred to in the press statements coming out of the offices of the Hon. Premier of this province.

Mr. Chairman, we have had constant and continuing difficulty in British Columbia in attempting to bring to the attention of the general public answers and information as to whether or not they have received value. Look at some situations: the Glenshiel Hotel, Casa Loma, the Princess Marguerite...

MR. CHABOT: A financial scandal!

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: ...the Kamloops hop farm — there are no end of others — the situation of the Ocean Falls newsprint transaction. The general public and the Members of the opposition are not afforded cost projections, financial statements or appraisals. It's a situation of dealing in the dark.

Earlier on today there was a very peculiar attack, which I'd like to refer to in a few moments, by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). But the Minister of Labour in his statements didn't pay heed at all to the question of having fair and true and proper accountability in B.C., one that should be imposed by law. Until such time as we can have somebody who has the muscle given to him by this assembly to do a job, British Columbia will never, ever have true public accountability.

When they sat in opposition, "Let the sunshine come in," they said. When they got into office what happened, Mr. Chairman? They pulled down the blinds, and darkness reigns supreme. Until we have in

[ Page 1270 ]

British Columbia an auditor-general who is unfettered from the process to independently account and independently inform the public as to the financial success or otherwise of programmes, as to whether or not the public is receiving value, the public is going to continue to be gypsies or ripped off, as the Member for Columbia River earlier stated today.

I'd like to say a few words in reference and reply to the statements of the Minister of Labour today. The Minister of Labour has an admirable style. I think it's one that pretty well all of us admire. But his premise today was phony, it was false, and I think I would be charitable to him to say it was ethically inexpensive.

He referred to an advertisement in a newspaper — I don't know which newspaper it was in — but it seems to have written on it the date October 7, 1935. I've only got a photocopy of it and I can barely read that. The year 1935 was a time when no end of the Members in this Legislature were not even born; by far the majority of them never certainly were enfranchised. It talks about the Liberal Party being opposed to giving Orientals the vote. Well, may I say categorically that I reject such a stand completely and unalterably, and so do all Members of our party.

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

MR. GARDOM: But listen to this. He attempted to tie this phony strawman into the Waffle Manifesto which has been subscribed to by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett); by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer); by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who is the No. 2 person in the province, I suppose, in the socialistic hierarchy; by the Speaker (Hon. Mr. Dowding) and by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I have not heard one of them stand up and denounce the statement:

"The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass base of socialists in factories and offices, on farms and campuses."

I've not heard one of them denounce that.

I've not heard one of them denounce:

"Capitalism must be replaced by socialism by national planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole."

I've not heard one of them renounce this:

"...extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the key resource industries, finance and credit, and industries strategic to planning our economy."

We haven't heard any of them renounce that.

They subscribe to this, not a statement that came out 40 years ago that he's relying upon in this premise; they subscribe to this in the matter of the last two or three years. I believe it was three years ago. Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe it was more than three years ago.

But not only did they subscribe to it at their convention, they are following that policy. They are following it totally and correctly right down the line. The Waffle Manifesto is alive and flourishing in B.C. today. I repeat it: the Waffle Manifesto is alive and flourishing in B.C. today. The first Member to test the water with it was the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who went to an industry and said: "Thou shalt not be able to operate in a democratic society. Close your doors." The Castro of the north over there. That's how that came about.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Now the next thing. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) made a great play over the remarks of the business editor, Mr. Froehlich, in The Vancouver Sun. With every respect to Mr. Froehlich, I differ entirely with his point of view. I feel that public money should be under a public microscope. I do not believe in secret deals, unless they are in the interests of national security or public decency, and this loan was neither. I still feel absolutely convinced that this borrowing should have been made public, and I still make that same request today. There is no need to have things undercover.

A lot has been said by other Members as to whether or not the lender in question happens to be a member of the pact that has put 150 Canadian companies on a blacklist by virtue of racial discrimination against Jewish people, or happens to be a member of the pact that have put 2,000 firms in the United States of America on the blacklist by virtue of racial discrimination. How does that fit into your ethical pipe over there, Mr. Minister of Labour? I wish that you were here in the House, and I'm glad to see that he has now come back. There is absolutely no ethics to that premise that he raised here at all today. None.

I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the ethical morality of this government when they stand on their little high horse and they get all excited about South African wines. Do we hear one single, solitary peep about them when they put orders for turbines for B.C. Hydro from the U.S.S.R. which denies free elections and imprisons people without trial and is a racially discriminatory country? Eh? What's the come-on? If you are going to start preaching ethics and morality in this House, Mr. Member, you'd better try to do something a little bit better than dig up an old newspaper advertisement in 1935 and try to tie the can of anyone to that. It is

[ Page 1271 ]

cheap; it is phony; it is false; it constitutes almost an ethical lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: An ethical lie on your part. You know full well that there is not a person in this Legislature who would subscribe to the principles enunciated in that advertisement, let alone me, the members of my party or anyone else. Absolute nonsense.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Didn't you dig up the Regina Manifesto? It was you, wasn't it?

MR. GARDOM: I would tend to think if the government is going to continue its policy of filibustering these estimates — which it is doing, and make no mistake of that — so it can see the estimates end without a number of sensitive cabinet Ministers being held to public account.... I've been informed today that 20 per cent of the Ministers have been handled in estimates with 40 per cent of the time. So what are we going to do then? We are going to find there is not any time, I suppose, to ask the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) questions about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. We might not even get to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

Now this programme....

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

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

But the programme that was designed to curtail debate in this province is becoming very evident as to its need. Its need is to protect the sensitive cabinet Ministers from questions and from having to give true and proper public account.

We've asked the Hon. Minister of Economic Development no end of questions as to why he feels that he can possibly make a success out of a portfolio when he's faced with the absolute contradiction of the directions of the Waffle Manifesto. He's not seen fit to disclaim it one iota, nor have any of the subscribers in this House seen fit to disclaim it.

I notice the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is sitting in her seat today. She can stand up and voice her views. I notice the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is also here. There is nothing to prevent him offering his attitudes as to whether or not he continues to subscribe to the Waffle Manifesto.

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

MR. GARDOM: The Waffle Manifesto is the policy and it is the direction and it is the complete lifestyle of the new Democratic Party in the problems in B.C. today. It was the first socialistic government in Canada that had an opportunity to put the Waffle theories to a test. You put them to a test. I say, fortunately for those of us who believe in free, competitive enterprise, provided it is free, competing and enterprising, your test has failed. Come the next election, my friends, it is going to be "bye, bye, bye."

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha, ha!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister which weren't answered, and perhaps a couple of new ones, as well, that he might consider answering. I rather doubt it, I suppose, because we've asked for a number of days for answers. Instead of answers, we get attacks on municipal officials from that Minister.

I was interested in his comments that the government has to make judgments for the public good. I heard someone on the other side of the House who asked the Minister across the floor whether he would define what he feels the public good is.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, let me ask the question, then. I wonder if the Minister would tell us....

HON. MR. LAUK: He said: "How do you arrive at that conclusion, of what the public good is?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary!

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

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

[ Page 1272 ]

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are one of the fairest Chairmen we have had here so far.

I'll ask the question then. Would the Minister, when he takes his place again, tell us what he thinks the public good is? And that is another legitimate question. How do you arrive at the conclusion of what is good for the people? Good question, because you've said yourself that the government is forced to make decisions on the public good. I get from that that you think perhaps it goes against the wishes of the municipalities in the area, and perhaps even the people.

If I could just quote from something the Minister said to reinforce that — that he thinks the public good might in fact not be the same need that the people in the community involved think it is — he said in Kitimat in a telephone interview which appeared in the Kitimat Northern Sentinel on March 20, talking about opposition to a steel mill: "Naturally, if there is 95 or 100 per cent of a community against establishment of an industry, there is little reason for one to proceed."

I guess that means that unless the community demonstrates clearly that it is 100 per cent against any kind of a proposal from the government, the government will go ahead regardless.

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the article.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: The whole thing.

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

"He said this week that public opinion cannot, in his opinion, dictate to government. If public opinion was against something the government felt would be to the good of all, it might make the decision on the understanding that perhaps public opinion was in error."

HON. MR. LAUK: Read on.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. Read on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that is fair.

"Asked how he feels concerning a referendum on the steel issue..." and I assume that means on any issue....

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the article.

MR. McCLELLAND: This is the next paragraph, Mr. Minister. I am reading it in sequence. "Asked how he feels concerning a referendum on the steel issue, the Minister said it would be an abdication of the British parliamentary system." Referendums now are an abdication of the British parliamentary system! What do you think happens when we go to an election? That's a referendum.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like Lea.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then his next quote, Mr. Chairman, said: "The checks and balances and all that kind of nonsense in the United States do not apply."

I feel a little frustrated in even asking that Minister to take into account political public opinion in the Surrey area, given that kind of statement he made in March to the Kitimat Northern Sentinel. But I still have to ask if the Minister is serious about taking into account public opinion and the opinion of the municipalities, regional districts and other agencies involved.

Since the Minister decided not to answer the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he asked how much consultation there has been with the municipalities of Surrey and Langley and the regional districts, Central Fraser Valley Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, I can answer that question quite simply by saying there has been absolutely none. Not one government official has appeared before Surrey council, before Langley council, before either of the regional districts, nor has one government official, except for the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who is not a Member of cabinet or a member of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. appeared at any of the public hearings which were held in connection with a refinery in the Surrey area. So that's a simple question and a simple answer. There has been no consultation with any local governmental agency with regard to an oil refinery in the Surrey area.

I'd like to ask the Minister if the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat has been asked to study in any way the proposal of an oil refinery anywhere in British Columbia. Has the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat been included in the ongoing plans for this refinery? I'd like to ask the Minister if he would tell us if the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat or any other agency

[ Page 1273 ]

has made a recommendation that a refinery, if built, should be built in Merritt.

I wish the Minister would listen and take these questions down so I could get some answers from him later. I'll repeat that: has any government agency, including the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, made a recommendation that a refinery, if built, should be located in Merritt?

I'd like to ask the Minister to confirm today that Thurber Consultants Ltd. of Victoria was asked to do an environmental study on the matter of an oil refinery for British Columbia. I'd like to suggest to the Minister that that study has been completed and that it has been in the hands of the government for at least a month. Yet the government refuses to release that study to the people of British Columbia. Why won't the government release it?

I'd like to ask the government, if it was really serious in having three locations under consideration — Merritt, Roberts Bank and Surrey — for a proposed oil refinery, why it confined the terms of reference of its study by Thurber Consultants Ltd. to the lower mainland only.

I believe the government made up its mind a long time ago that it was going to build a refinery in the lower mainland of British Columbia and it asked for environmental studies only to back up its own opinion. Otherwise, it would have asked Thurber Consultants Ltd. to do an environmental study of all of the sites under consideration: Merritt, Roberts Bank and Surrey.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair]

Why did the government confine its study to the lower mainland only? I suggest because they never considered Merritt, even though its own Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat recommended Merritt, the people of Merritt want it, and the people of Surrey don't. The government flew a kite when it announced Merritt, and the proof of that is in the fact that they didn't ask Thurber Consultants Ltd. to go outside the lower mainland in its environmental study.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he'll tell us whether or not Surrey is his personal preference for an oil refinery. The Premier isn't back to tell him, I understand, but I want to know if it's his personal preference that a refinery be built in the Surrey area — the Minister's personal preference.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: You have no personal policies either, Mr. Minister, and that's the problem with this province right now.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you going to answer my questions, Mr. Minister? That's the important issue before this House today. Will you answer those questions? I think really the most important one is if you'll give us your reasoning for not telling Thurber Consultants Ltd. to do studies anywhere except in the lower mainland.

I feel a little frustrated again in asking this question, but I have to ask it. Will you promise to hold a public referendum before any location for an oil refinery is chosen? Will the Minister promise that if the people of Surrey indicate clearly that they do not want a refinery in that area, it will not be built there? Will you make that promise today?

Will the Minister promise, Mr. Chairman, that if the refinery is located in a site other than Surrey, options on the land already taken will be dropped and that land returned to private ownership? Will the Minister promise that no plan will be advanced for any refinery anywhere until a long-term commitment in a contractual form in writing is received, guaranteeing an adequate supply of crude oil from Alberta?

I would ask the Minister to promise to table today all studies — economic, engineering, environmental and any others — relating to the establishment of a refinery in British Columbia. I would particularly ask if the Minister will commit today to table the Thurber report which has been in the hands of the government for one month and which the people of British Columbia have a right to see, and which the government has an obligation to show them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've been here all morning, Mr. Member, and I'd like to change the subject for just a moment and away from the steel mill complexes, the oil refineries and the copper smelters, and get down and talk for a moment about the B.C. Development Corp. which the Minister mentioned last night. He said there hadn't been too much discussion about it.

I'd like to ask him a couple of questions about the Development Corp. of British Columbia. No. 1 is: why has the report of the corporation not been filed with the Legislature to this date? What is the Minister trying to hide? Is it that he's not proud of what the Development Corp. of British Columbia has done?

In this House for the last two years, I have spoken about a man who had a new idea, a man who had an idea and a novel way of building prefab homes. The materials that would be used in these prefab homes would use what up to now has not been used and what has been considered a waste resource. I'm referring to poplar trees.

HON. MR. LAUK: Is he the only one in B.C. with an idea for prefab homes?

MR. PHILLIPS: It would use a natural resource which at the present time is going unused, a natural

[ Page 1274 ]

resource which at the present time is a cost when it comes to the clearing of land. It's a detriment to the clearing of land; it's considered a weed. It's a natural resource that will replace itself approximately every 10 years. It would be putting in industry in an area that the Minister has recognized requires an economic uplift because of its high unemployment and seasonal unemployment rates. By the Minister's own agreement with Ottawa he has stated that the northeastern section of the province should be improved.

I'll quote from the agreement with Ottawa:

"...to improve opportunities for productive employment and access to those opportunities in areas or economic sectors of British Columbia which, relative to other areas or sectors of the province, require special measures to realize development potential and promote balanced development."

This potential industry, this idea, would be in an area that the Minister has recognized needs attention. It would also be utilizing a natural resource which, in the Minister's own words and the words of the overall DREE agreement says:

"Opportunities should be made in these areas that will activate under-utilized or uncommitted resources, initially in the northwest, the Kootenays and the northeast. Development opportunities will be pursued that increase and progressively maximize higher value, added processing and manufacturing of the resource base."

This potential industry, this idea, was new; it met the criteria of the overall DREE agreement. It was something that would supply a great demand which we have in British Columbia today — the demand for low-cost housing. There is certainly a great demand. The Department of Housing is looking for a new concept and a new idea, an idea that so impressed his department and the people in his department that they had an engineering study completed to determine the entire feasibility of the project.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Economic Development is not interested in any project unless t it's a glamour project so that he himself can go on an ego trip. He's not really interested in helping small people nor is he interested in listening to the problems of small industry in this province, a complete reversal of what the Development Corp. of British Columbia was set up to achieve and to help.

This commission was done by Norman Springate & Associates Ltd. of Vancouver at a cost to the department of $16,000. It was finalized September 9, 1974. The feasibility showed that the prefabricated housing component idea by Silverton Construction Ltd. was completely feasible. I'm not going to take the time of the Legislature to read all of the report, but the idea was so good and impressed his department so much — they were so enthused about it — that they had this study completed, as I say, at a cost of $16,000 by a group of engineers.

The report showed the project to be completely feasible. It showed that there was ample supply of the raw product — poplar. It also showed that fire-killed aspen, a natural resource which is standing and going to waste and rotting at the present time, could be used. There was ample supply of this in the area to run this plant for approximately two years. It showed that there would be ample supply after the burned over and dried product was used up. It showed that it was completely financially feasible.

The study also proved that there was a great demand for these prefab houses. Not only was there a demand, but there was certainly a ready market for the product. The feasibility study showed it would employ people in the area, use an uncommitted natural resource that is being wasted today, and supply a demand for low-cost housing. The feasibility study was conducted in depth, and what happened? What happened, Mr. Chairman?

After the feasibility study was completed, the Department of Economic Development was enthused about the project. They told the gentleman, Mr. Albert Olivier, who is the owner of Silverton Construction and who conceived this idea, to go to the Development Corp. of British Columbia. What happened when he went to that great development corporation which was supposed to help small industry get on its feet, help new ideas to bring in industry?

HON. MR. LAUK: What happened?

MR. PHILLIPS: What did they say? Oh, they said: "Mr. Olivier, you haven't sufficient equity in the project to meet our terms of reference." Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? Because the Development Corp. of British Columbia was looking at Mr. Olivier's financial statement, standard accounting practices, where his assets were valued at the lowest possible value — standard procedure for income tax. A lot of he machinery which Mr. Olivier had bought was lightly used because it was from mills that had been closed down. By his own hands and the help of his sons...

HON. MR. LAUK: You've been snowed.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...he put this thing together, and yet the B.C. Development Corp. looked at the financial statement instead of looking at the value placed on the buildings and the equipment by Springate & Associates which showed the value of the buildings to be $87,650 and the value on the equipment to be $93,755. Nor did the Development Corp. ask Norman Springate & Associates if he didn't

[ Page 1275 ]

have sufficient equity to go for a smaller plant and produce fewer houses per year to get the project off the ground or even to go for a pilot project. No.

Do you know what they advised him to do, Mr. Chairman? They advised Mr. Olivier to go to the Industrial Development Bank, that great eastern financial institution that the Minister of Economic Development has condemned, decried. I remember when the Development Corp. of British Columbia was being established and the legislation was being put through. There was great emphasis on how it was going to help the small businessman, the man who couldn't be helped by the ordinary banking system, the man who had an idea and an enterprise that would employ people and supply a demand which existed for a product.

I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the Development Corp. of British Columbia, in this case, has been a complete failure, has not lived up to its responsibilities, and I have to put the blame right back on the Department of Economic Development. Because this wasn't a glamour industry, they were not interested; because it was not a functioning industry at the present time, they were afraid to take any risk because they are afraid in their ability, as businessmen, to assess a project and know that it could be brought to completion. They want somebody else to take all the risk.

As I've said in this Legislature, if that department wasted or put $150,000 into this project and lost the whole thing, it would be well worth the gamble because we're still building houses the way we built them in 1902 in the days of the Model T. I have suggested that to the Minister of Finance.

But this government can find literally millions of dollars to waste on projects which produce no results. They can squander money on hiring political flacks. They get fed money on surveys and commissions with no end result, Mr. Chairman. But when it comes to a good solid idea that would produce results, that would hire men, that would use an uncommitted resource, what is their answer? Go to the Industrial Development Bank.

Mr. Chairman, $150,000....

HON. MR. LAUK: Pick up the phone and call me. I could have told you what happened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have talked to the Minister, and I have talked to the Deputy who no longer prefers to work for the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him?

MR. PHILLIPS: I know what happened. It wasn't an opportunity for the Minister to go on an ego trip. It's not a steel mill or it's not a copper smelter or it's not an oil refinery. It's an idea, and it would have done something for that area of the province. It would have done something for the native people of this province who are ready to buy those houses. It would have used an unused natural resource. But no. That would have been something constructive, Mr. Chairman. The Minister and the government would prefer to waste money — $2 million, for instance, in buying Dunhill Development Corp., which hasn't produced one single solitary house in this province.

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed, I'm very disappointed. They dangled this man at the end of a line from September of 1972, working and giving him hope, and giving the people in that area hope that there might be employment, until the day that study was finished, December 9, 1974. Even then, the Development Corporation withheld their decision after they had had the survey and after bringing that man down to Vancouver, I don't know how many umpteen dozen times, at his own expense, dangling him on the end of a line that they were going to help him. Then just before Christmas, the answer was no.

Some 35 men that this man had employed at the present time producing lumber had to be let go. They had to be told that there was no more employment just before Christmas. In an urgent wire to the Premier before Christmas to see if something could be done, when did I get an answer? In early January. It didn't matter to this government that has no heart that these people would have to go unemployed. It didn't matter that they had dangled him on the end of a string.

Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman: this man is going to make it, if he has to make it on his own, because there's one thing that you cannot kill and that is an idea. There's one thing that even that Minister cannot kill in this man, and that is the initiative to make it. They may be able to kill the initiative in all the other entrepreneurs in this province; they may be able to kill the initiative in our youth; but they will not kill this man's initiative. Some day he's going to make it.

I just have to ask: was the reason this project was turned down because it was not in an NDP riding? What justification has the Minister in turning this project down and not offering some assistance? Money seems to be no problem in any other area where it's for one of their own grandiose ideas, be it buying poultry farms, be it buying cattle ranches, be it buying land for refineries, be it buying land for industrial sites in Kamloops where somebody makes $1 million overnight. But to venture just $150,000 on this project, the answer is no. I'd like to just tell the people of British Columbia that initiative will be stymied, initiative will be killed.

The Minister talks about improving secondary industry. Certainly, one of the greatest crying needs in this province today, and indeed in Canada, is for a new idea in the construction of houses. The houses constructed by this idea would have solid walls or no

[ Page 1276 ]

need for finishing the outside or the inside, or all of the other details of construction in the normal method of building houses. A completely feasible idea, a completely workable idea with a ready market was turned down.

I place the full responsibility on the shoulders of that Minister of Industrial Development. I hope that he has trouble sleeping at night when people in this province are living in slum housing conditions because of the lack of an idea and a new way to build houses in this province, while a natural resource goes to waste and while people go unemployed. This is this great Minister that is supposed to be so concerned about economic development.

I can see, Mr. Chairman, that had this project got off the ground, it would have grown and grown and grown and supplied the demand not only in British Columbia and not only in Canada, but in all of North America, because not only are aspen and poplar trees a waste resource in northern B.C., they are a waste resource in all the northern areas of all the provinces, a tremendous, untapped resource.

Research into the use of aspen is going on by the B.C. Research Council. It is being conducted by the Research Council of Canada. It is being conducted by the University of British Columbia. Studies by the Department of Forestry in Alberta are finding ways to use this product, and they have a pilot project producing studs in Slave Lake, Alberta.

All of this research is going on for the various uses of this natural resource. Here was a man who had a concrete, solid idea to use this natural resource, a concrete, workable, economically feasible plan, and what happened to it? It is being killed by the fact that that Minister has no vision, no common business sense, is not able to see beyond his nose when it comes to being able to put together a business proposition.

But this is the government that can waste literally millions of dollars on stupid projects, surveys, hiring political flacks and commissions, but is not interested in providing jobs for people, filling a demand for housing, or using an untapped natural resource.

I fear that if this is the type of decision that is going to come from the Development Corp. of British Columbia, never will it ever fulfill the idea, the purpose for which it was created.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm absolutely delighted that the Hon. Member for South Peace River is so interested in the workings of the Development Corp. I can inform him not only about the chap in his riding who managed to get his ear, but of a few others who have come to the Development Corp. and who have received a great deal of assistance. I'll just give a few of the many individuals who have come to the Development Corp.....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm going to answer your questions, Mr. Member, if you sit quietly and be patient. I'm always very patient with you, so you reciprocate and hear me out.

I want to give you what the corporation is.... You take one isolated case and you get all the facts wrong. I'll tell you about that in a minute. You make it appear as if that was the only loan application the Development Corp. had to deal with all year.

Well, we try to spread out the support the Development Corp. gives throughout the entire province. There is some in Abbotsford. There is one in Port Alberni, a car cooperative. There is one creative wood industry, the Celaire Company, in Vancouver. Then there is Camp River Timbers in Blue River. There is another one in Vancouver. All are small loans of $50,000, $30,000, $100,000, $150,000, to little entrepreneurs with a good idea, with some management background and who employ anywhere from four or five to 30 or 40 people.

There is another one for a mobile home manufacturer, an oyster cooperative, an optical company, a sawmilling company. There is another one in Richmond that manufacturers fiberglass cargo containers for large aircraft. That's an interesting one; it employs about 100 people.... No, the company employs 24 people. Manco Homes, another one.

We even made a loan to a company that dry-cleans uniforms for industrial purposes. We made a loan to an individual company that employs 34 people and does electrical circuits, a very labour-intensive industry. There is another one, Quantum Resources, Summerland, B.C.

Where is Summerland? Can anyone tell me where that is? Maybe we should take the loan back there. Seafoam Products. Oh, what's this? Shea Industries in Vernon. Which riding's that in? Spuncast Industries, We know that's in a good riding. Tahsis Transport, Thompson Machine Works, Trident Aircraft — we've got a book full in here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, it's close. It's close. It's very close. All of these companies and many, many more — and remember this is since the Development Corp. was ready and open for business in June of last year. It hasn't been a full year in operation. And they've made these loans to the little businessmen of the province — not the big fellows, not the great corporations that put their campaign funds into the Social Credit coffers, but the little guy with an idea who can raise a few dollars with his friends to show his good faith to get into the business.

The Development Corp. informs me they have met with the president of Silverton Construction Ltd. and suggested a programme for financing with the project which the corporation is prepared to advance. This

[ Page 1277 ]

was done on December 16, 1974. The corporation informs me that they have received no further approaches from the company. They made an offer and the offer was refused.

MR. PHILLIPS: They made an impossible offer and you know it.

HON. MR. LAUK: They made an offer and the offer was refused. The corporation cannot loan money to someone who comes in the door and says: "I've got a great idea."

MR. PHILLIPS: There was $16,000 worth of survey. He just didn't come in the door and say he had an idea and you know it. You made an impossible offer.

HON. MR. LAUK: If we're going to support someone in a business venture, surely to goodness they can raise some money of their own to put into it. Are we going to invest the taxpayers' money with everybody at a wicket to give out money to people with good ideas? Even you have a good idea on occasion, and we wouldn't even do it for you. Mr. Chairman, a little bit of equity was all we wanted.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not the answer!

HON. MR. LAUK: We promised that we would finance them and we'd get another financial institution to back them up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you study the report? You wouldn't be able to read it.

HON. MR. LAUK: We guaranteed that we would provide them with financing. We said we could involve another financial institution. We bent over backwards and there was a refusal, Now I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, the door is still open to the president of Silverton because we did spend that money, we do think it's a good idea, and it's feasible from an engineering and technical point of view. But does that mean we're going to give away the taxpayers' money? Shouldn't he put some money on the line? You put money on the line when you sold used cars, didn't you? You made your own investment. You probably even mortgaged your house because that's the kind of businessman you are. You're a good businessman. You back up what you're going to do, even if it's a small amount.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you read the report?

HON. MR. LAUK: You know, we have dozens and dozens and dozens of businessmen all over this province who have done so. And you know what delights me about this? He's crying now about the Development Corp. Ignoring this chap in his riding; he's so upset about the way the Development Corp. is operating. I've got the Journals of the House here for the 1973 session. On Tuesday, April 17, 1973, was the motion for third reading of the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act. Guess who voted against it. The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: He voted against the Development Corp. I didn't tell the president of Silverton when he came to see us. The door's still open to him, Mr. Member. You send him back. Don't give him bad advice. Send him up to us for good advice.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I am indeed privileged and honoured to stand up in this debate and express my views on the Minister and the fine job that he has done in this province. The Minister is known as being small in size but very, very large in stature. He has, in my opinion, excellent ability and probably exceptional ability. I think the job that the Minister is doing in the province is one where planning is being used, one that's going to shape the province in a direction where people are assured of jobs, and not a hodge-podge type of thing that's happened in this province in the past. For this I commend the Minister. I really admire his style and his abilities.

It just amazes me, you know — the opposition's stand. I really feel sorry for them because time after time, Minister after Minister, they can't get a handle on anything where they can be an opposition that can make a point that's worthwhile covering in the press, so the press has to finally pick up a story such as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) came up with last night in regard to the land prices in the Kamloops area.

I'm certainly pleased to see the stand taken by the Member for Columbia River because it indicates to me that he's prepared to support legislation that will give us some control over these developers and people who are in a position to pick up land around these cities, in the areas where it's needed so badly, and then stick it to the government or anybody else who wishes to come into that area to develop an industry that's needed in that community.

It's amazing that he would use a $5,000-an-acre figure as being exorbitant and a ripoff. I certainly don't agree with a developer making a large profit in a short period of time, but it's the free enterprise system. It's the one that we live under. I'd like to

[ Page 1278 ]

know that Member's reaction if this government moved to correct that situation. Where would your vote be?

That same Member was in the past Social Credit Party; he was even a Minister of that government. And from that same city where he's got so many worries now, we had a very famous cabinet Minister known as Gaglardi.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh!

MR. LEWIS: He's worrying about ripoffs and the type of thing that's happening — in regard to this Minister picking up land to protect the citizens. I never remember him standing up in this House and saying, when Gaglardi was in a position to give access to highways.... Well, one piece of property in the Langley area, owned by the Elks, changed hands three times in one day. Each time it changed it sold for a higher price. Who do you think was involved in that whole dealing? None other than a very close relation to that Minister of Highways at that time. Now, if you have any principle in regard to ripoffs, why didn't you stand up in the House at that time and condemn that type of thing?

You talk about this government doing away with the rights of people. There has been less expropriation taken place in this province by far in the two and a half years that we've been in power than ever took place in one month under your government.

MR. CHABOT: Because you've done nothing.

MR. LEWIS: Done nothing? My friend, the record speaks very well for this government, I'll tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: They went on to everything. They attacked the Minister on the railway. The Minister has only been on that board for a matter of a month. He said how wonderfully it was looked after under the Social Credit government.

Well, I've moved around this province and I've worked for that railway on bridge construction during the time you were extending it up north. I'll tell you, it was sure managed in a fine manner. I worked on a crew, and we laid in the bunkhouse for 10 days because we didn't have a radio to put on our speeder so we could communicate with the traffic moving on that line.

I also saw a great extravagance put forth by that government when they wanted to get their Premier up to Dawson Creek for the official opening of that railway. There were all kinds of crazy things done. Trains were running on tracks where it wouldn't hold up a train, where they were falling into the ditch with just a locomotive, where crews were turning in 24-hour-a-day wages. Then they have enough nerve to tell us that we're mismanaging the railway.

I used to travel on the transportation system on that railway too, and I can remember one man on the train complaining to the conductor.

He said: "This is the slowest, worst thing I've ever travelled on."

The conductor said: "Well, if you don't like it, you can get off and walk."

And the guy said: "Well, I would, but I'd have to wait at the station for my luggage anyway.", That's the type of thing that was going on with that railway at that time.

We talk about refineries, and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) stands up and says: "I don't want it in Surrey. Take it to Merritt." Those stupid hicks in the interior can have the things we don't want, but the I things that we want we want to keep in the lower mainland.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. Merritt wants it.

MR. LEWIS: Well, maybe Merritt does, but Merritt should be able to have a say on it.

MR. McCLELLAND: So should Surrey.

MR. LEWIS: They say that the government of this day doesn't listen to the people. That's a bunch of nonsense. The government of the past never listened to the people.

My friend Mr. Williston, while in California, made a statement there which said there shall be diversion of the Shuswap water system into the Okanagan. He made it in California. Never once did he consult the people of the Okanagan and the Shuswap areas to see what their views were.

HON. MR. LAUK: Shame.

MR. LEWIS: And talking about developers, who was the promoter of that scheme? A real estate man in Vernon who wanted a nice little waterway to ran boats from the Okanagan system to the Shuswap. It wasn't for reasons of economics at all; it was for reasons to help the developers and to help the real estate business.

I'm sure glad the Member brought up this about development rights and the ripoff that developers are making. You know, you woke me up. I for one am going to check twice to see that something can't be done when a zoning change takes place so that developer doesn't profit from that zoning change.

MR. CHABOT: He's concerned about that.

[ Page 1279 ]

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'm concerned about it — I am. You've really pointed it out, I'll tell you that.

I hope you will vote for legislation if it ever comes before this House where that profit will go to the public or to the community in which the development takes place, not to some entrepreneur who can come in there, have enough capital, and with no work pick up a large mass of land and then hold up that entire community for an unreasonable price.

He talks about $5,000 being a ridiculous price. Well, I'll, tell you that there are developers in the Salmon Arm area who have tied up land — four acres of it — for $100,000 an acre. That's in a small community like Salmon Arm. How do you expect a community like Salmon Arm to be able to expand if this type of thing is allowed to happen?

MR. CHABOT: It was only worth $1,450 before the government bought it.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'll say that's what the case is because the developer is in a position, under our present legislation, where he can rip off the public. It's happened throughout the years. You would be the last Member to vote against that legislation if there was any controlling legislation that came in.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: You attack the tourist industry booth at Golden. I'm going to take the time to send...

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: ...the Chamber of Commerce in Golden and the people in Golden.... If they don't want that booth, I ask the Minister to see that it comes into the Shuswap area where it can be used for the benefit of the people in this province, instead of a negative attitude like that.

MR. CHABOT: I hate waste and extravagance, regardless of where it's at.

MR. LEWIS: You know....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Shuswap has the floor.

MR. LEWIS: Also, the Liberals attacked the Minister and said that he's not doing anything for development in this country. They couldn't get a hold on anything either, but they sure got up there and had a....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: You know the type of thing that happened under Liberal...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEWIS: ...under Liberal incentive programmes, where a very large distillery in the Okanagan area got $5 million to help them build a distillery. In my view, that's corporate welfare of the worst kind, $5 million to a company of the magnitude that that one was — an international company.

HON. MR. LEA: Which company?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I hate to name them because they're all one as bad as the other.

Then there's also a glass plant at Lavington. I think it was about $1.5 million that they put into that company — Consumers' Glass — a poor company from Ontario that's destitute. Northwood Pulp, or Northwood Timber....

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Well, it's the same company, as a matter of fact. That company ran an advertisement for months last year on television costing many, many thousands of dollars saying: "We're a good citizen. We care." There were pretty pictures of the forest and how they protect it. I'll tell you what happened when the lumber markets went slack. They were the first ones to lay off their entire mill in that area. That company received for the two mills — the one at Okanagan Falls and the one at Princeton — $2.5 million from the federal government in incentive programmes to operate those mills. I say that those mills had a responsibility to this province and to the people of this province to live out a low period in the lumber market. The small mills in my riding were the ones that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're contradicting the Minister.

MR. LEWIS: If I contradict the Minister I apologize, because I certainly respect his opinion. (Laughter.)

Anyway....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: The parent company is Noranda Mines, which made exceptionally large profits. They were helped by the federal government to establish and yet they showed no responsibility whatsoever to

[ Page 1280 ]

this province. I say it's regrettable and a shame. If any other incentive grant of this type happens in the future, I would hope that it's tied in with a quota system for their product. If they don't honour their responsibilities in this province, then that quota should go to a company that is responsible, and that's the British Columbia citizen.

MR. CHABOT: It should go to the interior.

MR. LEWIS: That Member down there says it should go to the interior. Well, I'll tell you that under Waldo Skillings there wasn't too much concern about what happened in the interior of this province. Your attitude, when you spoke about the development in Kamloops.... I'm certainly disappointed in that because there has almost forever been a centralized attitude in this province toward development in the lower mainland. At least this Minister has taken some action to break up that centralization.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What's he done?

MR. LEWIS: He's made some very significant moves, and the one in Kamloops is one of them. The move that he's made in Kamloops makes it possible for industry to come in there and locate on that land at a reasonable price.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: It just amazes me that the opposition will come into this House and be so negative.

HON. MR. LAUK: Political charade.

MR. LEWIS: They should recognize a fine Minister when they see one. They should recognize the fine job that he's doing and not be out to kill everything that will benefit B.C.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in his comments in regard to the oil refinery left the impression that that land is all farmland. Well, I'll tell you that I know that piece of land in that area better than anybody else in this House, I was raised in that area, I played cowboys and Indians throughout that area (laughter), I fished in that area, I hunted in that area, and about 70 per cent of that land is gravel, straight gravel. It's the best gravel in the whole country, and anybody who lives out there and knows the area knows that's a fact.

MR. CHABOT: How old were you?

MR. LEWIS: Nobody has ever said that the agricultural land that was in that area would even be considered for development.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: How old was I? Well, I was old enough to shoot arrows. We didn't always have enough Indians and I had to be an Indian quite often. I really enjoyed it because I saw Hollywood discriminate against them.

I would just like the opposition to take a little more constructive view of what's happening in B.C. The other day I had the deputy leader of the House come to me and say: "Don, would you consider going down and sitting with the Socreds and try to help them out a little bit? Show them what constructive opposition can be like."

I said: "Eileen, I'd sure like to, but to go down and sit with that bunch is more than I can stomach." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We have had a fine performance from government Members. It reminds me of that story of the fellow who first got into politics. When he won, the fellow he defeated said: "Look, you're just starting off; let me give you four envelopes. Each is full of advice and each to be used one after the other if you get into trouble." So he took the four envelopes, thanked the fellow and went off.

Finally he got into a real jam. He opened the first envelope and it said: "Attack the previous government." So he attacked the previous government, got out of a jam, and all was well.

So then he went on another year or two and he got into another problem. He thought that he'd better do something, so he opened the second envelope. It said: "Attack Ottawa." So he attacked Ottawa, got out of his jam, and all was well.

Then we went on a little longer and a third problem came up. All of us know political problems come up. So he opened the third envelope and it said: "Attack the opposition." He did that, and all was well for another week or two.

Finally he got into his No. 1 jam of the works and he opened the fourth envelope. It said: "Find previous envelopes. Start again."

That's what we see this particular crowd of backbenchers doing. They are not dealing with some of the issues that are before us at the present time. Of course, they are taking this attack because that's the lead they get from the government Ministers.

I'd like to say a quick word, more in sorrow than in anger, about the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King's) efforts to bring up something — an advertisement which took place in the federal campaign before I was born. I feel that when you are dealing with racism — and this is essentially the question raised by the Minister of Labour, straight racism — you should perhaps adopt the attitude of taking the beam from your own eye before you take

[ Page 1281 ]

the mote from anybody else's.

British Columbia, let's face it, is historically a racist province. It has been this way more than most others. I am saying this in charity and kindness.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you justifying that ad?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am not justifying that ad. You shut up and listen.

British Columbia has had a history dating back to the time when demonstrations prevented the landing of East Indians in Vancouver harbour. It goes back year after year. It affects labour unions; it affects political parties. Not the NDP, no. But it affects the CCF; it affects the Tories.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'd better look at your own history. I am telling you this: you had better try and take the beam out of your own eye before you start going after the mote in other people's. We'll do the same.

It's more in sorrow than in anger that the Minister dredges up something which reflected public attitudes of the mid-Thirties, immediately post-Depression and enormous unemployment, at a time when he knows, if he looks back there, union after union was asking for the same type of discrimination. He knows that, and we all know it. I am not justifying it; I'm condemning it.

But I am saying, when we have this dredging up of things that took place before I was born, attitudes which are obviously totally different, attitudes which obviously do not hold today, where we have a Liberal (Mr. Lee) of Chinese-Canadian extraction sitting in the House in Ottawa, elected from British Columbia, and we have others of different racial backgrounds and faiths, when your own party, indeed, has Members of other racial extractions, I feel that to dredge this type of stuff up is shabby indeed.

HON. MR. LEA: Truthful but shabby.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think I can categorically state.... Sure, it's truthful, and everything I've said is truthful too.

HON. MR. LEA: No, it isn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You look back, Mr. Minister of Highways, and check. Perhaps you weren't in the province and perhaps I wasn't either in those early years, but if you look at the historical record you will find Woodsworth and others, if you want to check it out...

HON. MR. COCKE: That's absolutely wrong and you know it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...you'll find that attitudes were identical throughout.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's a lie.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You check that out. I do know it to be a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are lying to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting that these people, who are so quick to shout start looking at their own records, start taking the beam from their own eyes instead of the mote from other people's, and we will do the same. All of us. Every British Columbian is a product of the history of this province, and the history of this province has been racist — and you know it. So let's leave aside things that took place before most of us here in this room were born, things that in any event were in federal elections at that time, and start dealing with some of the issues that affect us here today.

Now the first one I will deal with is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). Again it deals with a question based on racial grounds: the Arab loan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the Minister of Economic Development?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I feel this is an important matter and I'd like to comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. We expressed our concern about the Arab boycott and the Arab loan because of articles such as in Newsweek: "The Furor of the Blacklist," which talks about the U.S. government bowing to Arab pressure on the issue of the boycott.

The Saudi list was presented by Senator Church. I phoned his office and got the names of some companies which were on it. The Saudi list is basically the same as the Arab League's official blacklist, a copy of which came to Newsweek: 1500 firms. It is the real area of Arab concern and Arab investigation.

HON. MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the financing of Hydro, the use of Arab money: both those items are not within the purview of my responsibility. They have absolutely been designated elsewhere.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm not finished with mine.

[ Page 1282 ]

The second point to support my point of order was a that this matter was completely and thoroughly canvassed under the Minister of Finance's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I accept the point of order of the Minister. He is correct. It is not under his jurisdiction. However, it was permitted earlier on for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to make a very savage attack in this particular area involving federal elections in the 1930s — perhaps, when you were born, but before the Minister of Economic Development and I were born. I would like simply to respond to that point. I would request the House — as I admit that the Minister is correct and it is not in order under his estimates — to grant me leave to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the record will show that I brought the Minister of Labour to order four different times on that very subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You did it four times. The point is, Mr. Chairman, he carried on and did not obey your ruling. I will say finally, then, that the concern is on the blacklist. The Financial Post, Time, Newsweek all talk of the blacklist. It is a major problem. It is not something you can dismiss. The area that the Arab nations are most involved in is, of course, financial houses. As I said, the squeeze is on top-drawer investment banking houses in Europe, squeezed out of underwriting syndicates. We, as you know, have underwriting syndicates as well for our loans. All these have major Jewish family ownership. I find that a legitimate area of concern.

I think that for the Minister of Labour to pooh-pooh our concern over this blacklist, when there is so much evidence of this taking place and interference by other countries in domestic policies, domestic policies which affect the human race within the States and Canada, is most unfair. There is genuine concern and we have it.

Let me turn then, to the Minister of Economic Development's responsibility. First, the question of the refinery itself. Yesterday I raised the question of the $350 million figure. I notice that today, once again, it has been questioned by people much more expert than I am.

HON. MR. LEA: Who would that be?

HON. MR. LAUK: Rodney Lovelace, you can't be serious!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The person I'm referring to, Jack Hayes, regional adviser on governmental affairs for Shell Canada Ltd., talks of the minimum cost being approximately $500 million. This was the information I gave the House previously some time go during the budget speech, I believe, when I talked of the cost of Texaco's latest refinery in Ontario being approximately $5,000 per barrel — in other words, a $500 million programme instead of $350 million for the 100,000-barrel refinery.

The second question is, of course, size. Again, this has been raised. When the Premier talks about a massive oil refinery of world size, he is essentially talking about something substantially above 100,000 barrels, which is very small in terms of new construction at the present time. Again, you have to double the figures, because if it is to be a world-size refinery of major proportions, you are going to have to start dealing in terms of 200,000 barrels a day, not 100,000. We are talking now essentially in terms of a $1 billion refinery.

The question comes up — and I didn't deal with it yesterday, but I did refer to it in the budget speech — of whether you intend to replace the existing refining capacity which we have in British Columbia, which presently totals $150,000 barrels a day, with your new refinery. Are you intending to wipe out, dismantle, the existing refineries so, that the new refinery will have a market?

HON. MR. LAUK: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says quickly, "No."

The next question, therefore, is: if it is "no," are we going to attempt to sell refined products outside of British Columbia? We apparently will have a surplus, excess capacity, if the plan proceeds and if the existing refineries are not phased out.

HON. MR. LAUK: Unlikely.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says: "Unlikely." But again it is an area where we would like some information, because the industry statistics on an increased market do not coincide with that of the government unless....

HON. MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will give it all to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thought that this assistant Attorney-General, who has taken a lot of interest in this area, might perhaps be a little more energetic in responding to questions. The difficulty we have with the Attorney-General is that he is not particularly energetic.

In any event, the question of sources of raw material is critical, Mr. Chairman. At the present time, Washington refineries are importing oil by sea. There has been a sevenfold increase in the amount of crude sent to Washington refineries by sea in the past four years, a sevenfold increase. Within the next three

[ Page 1283 ]

to eight years it's going to increase to 24 times the 1971 figure. In other words, in that decade it will increase 24 times. There's going to be an enormous increase which will go to approximately 360,000 barrels a day transported by sea.

In addition, Standard Oil of Ohio has a proposal to trans-ship Alaskan oil from the American ports and send it to the midwest by pipeline and that involves approximately one million barrels a day. So in other words, American sea transportation of crude products will be equivalent to essentially 10 times the existing British Columbia consumption of crude. There will be enormous movements of crude by sea, and naturally this poses a real threat to British Columbia.

My fear, of course is that we will not receive guarantees of Albertan crude. Indeed, I believe I'm still correct in saying there's been no indication to date from the government that we have received any firm assurance from Alberta in writing.

HON. MR. LAUK: We're just going to have to get it, aren't we?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says we're going to have to have it. Can you get it? I don't know whether he can get it, and that's been the question all along. The Minister says: "Well, we'll have to got it." Well how, if Alberta decides that it wants to have the refining done on its own soil? Lougheed has refused to guarantee this oil for this refinery, and therefore the government, which by then no doubt will have started construction of a refinery which will cost anywhere from $350 million to $1 billion, will say, of course: "We will have to bring in oil by sea to make up the source of raw material that we're not getting from Alberta." So in addition to American imports into the Puget Sound area of some 1.4 million barrels per day, we're going to have British Columbian imports of approximately 10 per cent to 20 percent of that amount. We're going to have a phenomenal increase in transportation by sea and it appears to me that the government policy in this area is just encouraging that very thing.

You should know, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you do, that the four largest refineries in Washington state, which have 93 per cent of their refining capacity, are all located in the Bellingham-Anacortes area, immediately south of the Canadian border. There are very, very few in the rest of the state. There's a threat to British Columbia posed by that, plus the threat posed by our own imports which at the present time look as if they're going to have to come by sea to this refinery. We're posed with a threat of really enormous proportions.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate whether he has made representations to his federal counterparts about the corporations in British Columbia which currently refine crude — Imperial, Gulf, Pacific Petroleum, Shell, Union Oil, Chevron — so that they can start discussing with the government the possibility of a joint consortium without violating the laws regarding combinations in restraint of trade, whether the combines legislation can be weighed so that they can at least enter into preliminary negotiations, because at the present time, as I understand it, it's virtually impossible for Canadian oil companies to get together, under Canadian law, to deal in a way that has been rather loosely suggested they should with the government.

In addition, I'd like some information on BP. Currently BP is not a major force in British Columbia. I wonder whether the negotiations with British Petroleum have reached the stage where something could be made public.

Another question which is extremely important is whether or not we're going to have a proper impact study, done impartially and outside the government service. We've heard the Thurber report. We've heard that it is an adverse report to building in the presently proposed sites. We've heard that this report has been received by the government and it has not yet been released. Well, I'd like to know from the Minister whether it has been received (if it was received a few weeks ago, as has been indicated) and when it will be made public.

The Minister has talked rather glowingly about public participation and decisions in the public interest and we would agree that these are laudable objectives, but when the public itself cannot get involved because the government is not making information available, you have a situation which is absolutely intolerable. We have no proper system in British Columbia for impact studies. We have nothing approaching the Berger commission in the North West Territories dealing with the impact of that potential gas line. We have no system set up.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's quite untrue and you know it. Having for many years, been involved in the question of impact studies, having had it before my committee in Ottawa, the Committee on Environmental Pollution, Mr. Minister.... Members of the Arctic Land Use Resources Committee back in 1971 had done preliminary work, much of which has also gone into the Berger commission. I can tell him that his statement is untrue — the Berger commission is far from cut off. It's a tremendously important commission and I would be the first to be critical, were it cut off, and it has not been cut off as you suggest — you know that.

HON. MR. LAUK: That decision has been made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can assure you that that

[ Page 1284 ]

decision has not been made.

HON. MR. LAUK: How can you do that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can assure you on the strength of seven years involvement in the energy transportation far exceeding your more sophisticated and localized knowledge.

The fact is that the preliminary work we did back in 1971, work that was done by that committee on transportation of oil and gas, particularly on oil, the studies we did in terms of the research necessary, has made it perfectly clear that the Berger commission was critical. Indeed, that is probably why the Berger commission was set up — because of that preliminary work. I am convinced that no such decision has been reached; there is no need for such a decision. As Dr. John Halliwell of UBC has so aptly pointed out: we don't need a pipeline at the present time in any event. The suggestion that a decision has been made for a pipeline that isn't currently needed is foolish.

That criticism that the Minister is making might well be put to the refinery at the present time, where we don't have information, where there is no delay, where announcements are made that it will be built, linking it to a gas price hike which apparently has no connection whatsoever. That's the type of attitude that you should be critical of, Mr. Minister, not the attitude which sets up proper research beforehand.

I cannot, obviously, go much more into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. But if you want a contrast between the way things should be done and the way things are being done in British Columbia, you couldn't have hit on a better one. The northern pipeline proposals, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposals are being looked at in an analytical and critical way where the public, the residents of the area, the tribal groups in the area have the opportunity to speak up and have their voices heard right across the country, where we have no such machinery in British Columbia. Indeed, the Minister himself has made statements to the effect that no small group is going to be allowed to hold up things which are for the general benefit of all of British Columbia.

We would like to know exactly how much public participation there is going to be. We would like to know at what level the government will permit environmental studies to be introduced into the stream of decision-making. I think it should be preliminary; I think it should be the very first. I don't think we should be making announcements in Ottawa and then deciding to tailor an environmental statement to suit the decision already made by the government.

Anyway, the question was asked yesterday; it has been asked again today. You have three minutes to answer it. What type of system, Mr. Minister, are you going to set up to make sure the environment is properly protected and to make sure the public interest is properly heard?

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have indicated on several occasions that this is a responsibility of the Attorney-General. I think there has to be a time when individuals in this House listen to what other individuals are saying. The Attorney-General is in charge of the oil refinery. Have his estimates been passed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

HON. MR. LAUK: They haven't been passed. You ask him. If you can't catch him during estimates, catch him at the Union Club.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, we intend to move on to Education on Monday.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.