1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Insurance coverage for destroyed Plateau sawmill. Mr. Fraser — 3043

Protection of rights of suspended teachers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3044

Programme

to place adopted children with natural parents. Mr. Wallace — 3044

Permits for private use of chemical 10-80. Mr. Smith — 3044

Study of European transit techniques. Mr. Curtis — 3045

Meeting with Block Bros. Mrs. Jordan — 3045

Inquiry into abortion procedures. Mr. Wallace — 3045

Sale of municipally-owned land. Mr. Bennett — 3046

Short-fall of rental housing. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3046

Statement

Present situation in Kamloops area flooding emergency.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3047

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates

Amendment to vote 137.

Mr. Phillips — 3047

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3052

Mr. McGeer — 3057

Mr. Bennett — 3059

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3062

Mr. Wallace — 3064

Mr. Phillips — 3066

Mr. Fraser — 3069

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3071

Mr. Smith — 3076

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we

have a Minister of Recreation and Conservation who practises what he

shoots. I'm sure the Members would like to join with me in

congratulating the Hon. Jack Radford for winning five trophies this

weekend at the Vancouver Island Trap Shooting Championships.

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

would like the House to join with me in welcoming a large group of

students from Kensington Junior Secondary School in North Burnaby.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, during the

weekend recess I had an opportunity to be in the north country, in the

Town of Terrace, speaking to some northwest loggers up there. They seem

to think that we have some problems in this House with respect to the

manner in which the decorum is handled and the keeping of law and order

in the chamber, occasionally.

MR. SPEAKER: Did you promise to behave? (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Oh, I always behave — you know that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course.

MR. SMITH: They suggested that if it was the right of the

Chairman and the Speaker to electronically gag the opposition, perhaps

I should have some sort of an equalization available to the Members of

the opposition. I suggested to them that perhaps when I had to deal

with the Hon. Whip from the government (Mr. Barnes) I certainly needed

something to equalize the difference in size. (Laughter.) Anyway, this

is a gavel the size and type of which they use in the north. I am sure

the Speaker on occasion would wish that he had one of these available.

MR. SPEAKER: Merely to get your attention.

MR. SMITH: I am going to keep it. I think I could probably

reach across to the Chairman if that were necessary but I hope that

will never be necessary in this chamber, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Hon. Members, I'd appointed at 2

p.m. today to go further on the question of whether there was a breach of privilege

raised by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) respecting remarks made

in the House earlier by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

In the meantime the Hon. Member for North Okanagan has been in touch

with me in my office in regard to the transcripts. I have requested all

transcripts — not merely the first statement that was read to the

House, but all of them — so that I can verify them upon listening to

them. In view of the delay that this causes, the matter will have to be

adjourned to a later time, presumably today.

May I also point out to the Hon. Members that when a verified copy

of a transcript is requested by a Member relating to a matter of

privilege, the verified copy should not properly be described in the

press as a "rough transcript." It is the final copy that will formally

be printed in the final form of Hansard . Therefore it has been

verified, the corrections having been made and examined as far as the

transcript is concerned. Consequently, it is not a rough transcript.

The question therefore is adjourned until the verified transcripts are ready for the Hon. Members to inspect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would request, Mr. Speaker,

some guidance from you on when the committee dealing with the question

of Blues will meet. I have been waiting for the past week for....

MR. SPEAKER: I have been waiting for all the House Leaders to

be in the House so that appointments could be made to discuss the

question with them. Until I have all House Leaders here, it would be

rather a waste of time to discuss it with three out of four, or two out

of four.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True. But, Mr. Speaker, I must again

repeat my regret that we seem to be able to read the Blues in the

newspapers and yet we are not able as Members of this Legislature to

have Blues ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: An interesting problem, isn't it?

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR

DESTROYED PLATEAU SAWMILL

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question for the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Was the Plateau sawmill at

Vanderhoof that was destroyed by fire on the weekend insured

[ Page 3044 ]

and, if so, for how much and with what insurance company?

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

I have been in discussion with Mr. Martens, one of the directors in

Vanderhoof, Mr. Speaker. It is insured, but beyond that I can't provide

the Member with any details. I might do so at a later stage.

PROTECTION OF RIGHTS

OF SUSPENDED TEACHERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Education, Mr.

Speaker, what steps she has taken to make sure that any teacher who has

been suspended by the BCTF for reasons not connected with his or her

teaching ability has his or her civil rights protected and continues to

be permitted to continue to teach? This question has been asked

previously, but it was delayed until the Minister had had an

opportunity to discuss it with the BCTF. I wonder if she would report

now.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I told the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

recently — just last week — that I had a meeting planned with the BCTF

to discuss this very matter. They were not prepared at that time with

the material they needed to present to me in our discussion. They asked

for a delay in the meeting, which I agreed to. We will be setting up

another meeting very shortly, and I will keep you informed. It will be

discussed.

PROGRAMME TO PLACE ADOPTED

CHILDREN WITH NATURAL PARENTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Human

Resources, Mr. Speaker: is the Minister aware that social workers in

Vancouver are presently taking positive steps to bring together adopted

children under natural parents?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, I am not

aware of that. If you are referring to the statement by Ms. Vidas from

the commission, that is something that evidently the commission is

dealing with. I am not aware that there is existing in the department

such a programme.

MR. WALLACE: I have evidence that this is happening. I just

wonder if the Minister could confirm it. And if he does confirm it,

would he intend to advise the social workers in Vancouver and

elsewhere, if necessary, to discontinue this policy for the very reason

that the issue is being brought before the royal commission?

HON. MR. LEVI: I certainly will do that, because the Member

may recall that in the House I said, when I raised it last year, that

this was an idea, it was not policy and was not likely to become

policy. I'll certainly report back to the House on what the results are.

PERMITS FOR PRIVATE

USE OF CHEMICAL 10-80

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Could the Minister comment and tell us if it is true that the

Department of Agriculture is issuing permits in the Creston area for

the use of the chemical 10-80 in the control of ground squirrels and

rodents?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it isn't true, Mr. Speaker. For some

time the policy has been for representatives from the Department of

Agriculture in the case of a very serious infestation to actually use

this particular poison bait, but not to issue permits for other people

to use it. The total amount used in 1973 was 200 pounds of 1 per cent

bait. It is very carefully used.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister

intend to have officials or members of his department continue using

10-80 as a control for rodents and pests?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In very selective cases, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the light of the Minister's obvious briefing on this subject, may I ask him whether The Creston Valley Advance

advertisement, which said that people who wish to make use of this

chemical as poison for control purposes could apply to the Department

of Agriculture and get it, was either a false report or a mistake in

the advertising? Indeed, will it be impossible for people to obtain

this other than under the strict supervision of the Department of

Agriculture?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the message the advertisement

intended to convey was that it's quite impossible to get this material

to use it and that anybody having a problem where they thought this

should be used had better not go on in the hope that they would

eventually get this themselves. The only way to have application of

this is to apply to the department, to have it applied by department

officials.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So the advertisement was faulty.

[ Page 3045 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: It conveyed the wrong message. It is faulty, yes.

STUDY OF EUROPEAN TRANSIT TECHNIQUES

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

Municipal Affairs: in connection with his proposed forthcoming trip to

Europe to examine urban transit equipment and techniques, does the

Minister intend to invite municipal or regional district representation

to accompany him on that trip?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, yes and no. I will notify them of when I'm going.

That's the good news. The bad news is that if they wish to come, they will finance their own way.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I take it then that

regional district people from greater Vancouver, greater Victoria would

be welcome in your delegation if they chose to attend?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, I'm advising them and I've done it

publicly. But I will send them letters to the extent that if they wish

to accompany us in this area, they will be welcome.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, finally, to the Minister and on

the same subject. Will the Minister communicate with regional districts

— greater Victoria and the Capital Regional District in particular —

before he makes any purchase commitments while he is in Europe?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

MEETING WITH BLOCK BROS.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): There is a lot I'd like to say on the former question. But I would Re to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Housing.

Some few weeks ago the Hon. Minister took as notice the question

from the Member for North Okanagan regarding the date when first the

Minister or anyone on his staff, or any other Minister or any staff

member of the government of British Columbia had a personal meeting

with Mr. Henry Block or his brother, of Block Bros. Realty, and the

Minister committed himself to take that question as notice because he

wanted to check with his calendar. I'm asking now two weeks later if he

is prepared to file the answer to that question.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I haven't got that date but the whole point is that this meeting was not at the request of the Department of

Housing. We get requests from all kinds of people and we attempt to

accommodate as many people as we can with meetings, and so really the

point of the question is that we met with Mr. Henry Block at his

request. We listened to what he had to say and this is just a matter of

policy to try and meet with as many people as we possibly can within

the limits of our timetables.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary. Is the Minister telling the House

then that when he has meetings and is conducting business for his

department at taxpayers' expense, he does not keep a calendar of these

meetings and that there is no date that he can recall of when he first

met with any members of Block Bros. Realty in regard to the current

housing policies that he's developing?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the question rhetorical?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking if he keeps a

calendar of his activities as every Minister is required to do, when

they are involved in activities which are at the taxpayers' expense.

Perhaps he'd like to file his whole calendar.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister tell us if he has a time clock in his office?

INQUIRY INTO ABORTION PROCEDURES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health if he has initiated a specific inquiry....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think that the question

that was asked by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is a

proper question. Whether a Minister keeps a calendar is really, I

think, a matter of his internal administration, but I know of no law or

statute on the basis of what the Hon. Member indicated or implied.

MR. WALLACE: Has the Minister of Health initiated a specific

inquiry to determine if abortions in certain British Columbia hospitals

are being carried out where the pregnancy has reached beyond the

20-week stage?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'm almost

tempted to say that I didn't take a roll-call of this morning's

meeting. Maybe I should do that at each meeting. There were 14 people

there, Madam Member.

But I did meet with the Medical Association incidentally this morning, and we discussed that

[ Page 3046 ]

subject and it's a subject that I have Hospital

Insurance looking into at the present time. What I was quoted as having

said in the paper is exactly what I did say. I'm very disturbed about

the whole question.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of

the fact that there is mention made of abortion committees and since

the system at the present time makes the abortion committee merely a

procedural situation as a rubber stamp in fact, has the Minister made

any approach to the federal government seeking a change in the Criminal Code to restrict the grounds for abortion to more serious physical and mental disease on the part of the mother?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I have had informal

discussion with the other health Ministers and as a matter of fact, the

last time it was discussed in Ottawa it was unfortunate that it had to

be struck from the agenda, as an official item on the agenda. But it's

a matter under discussion on a health Ministers' basis at the present

time. As a matter of fact we've agreed to talk about it the next time

we meet.

SALE OF MUNICIPALLY-OWNED LAND

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). Could the Minister

clarify for the House what the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi)

had in mind when he said on his northern tour, as reported in The Vancouver Sun ,

May 6, that the government was considering methods of preventing

municipalities from making a profit on the sale of municipally-owned

housing land?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is

asking me to interpret the remarks of another Minister. Why didn't he

ask the other Minister?

MR. BENNETT: Well, supplemental then. Because it dealt with

policies dealing with the Housing department, and it was referred to as

being discussed by the government, I thought the Minister would answer

for his own department. Could the Minister advise then if he is

considering himself — if it is his intention to limit, put profit

controls on municipalities where they have municipally-owned land for

housing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Member knows that the

question must deal with an existing policy but not future policy,

because that's....

MR. BENNETT: Well it was announced as....

MR. SPEAKER: What the Hon. Member should be doing is asking what the policy is in relation to this subject as it is now.

MR. BENNETT: That's what I just asked him.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you didn't. You asked what the future policy was.

MR. BENNETT: Then I'll change it, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Would the Minister please advise what his policy is now in dealing with

municipalities on the amount of profit they're allowed to make on

municipally-owned land for housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, municipalities are free to make whatever profit their conscience and their economic sensibilities dictate.

SHORT-FALL OF RENTAL HOUSING

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

light of his press release of last Friday saying that he hoped that 1,

5 00 new homes would be built under a new programme and 500 in Victoria

— about 1,500 in Vancouver,500 in Victoria — may I ask him what is the

expected short-fall of rental housing in the year '74 as opposed to the

year '73, and what is the expected short-fall over the need of the

coming year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Member is asking for a comparison of short-fall of rental housing. I think that a person jus 3044 t cannot compare rental housing to rental housing.

You have to look at the entire housing picture, and the advent of

strata titles and cooperatives is one aspect that has to be taken into

account. People are no longer faced with one alternative or two

alternatives in either fee simple or rental. There are other

alternatives now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Precisely, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the

Minister, then, as a supplementary, what studies he's done to take into

account these other factors and what his conclusions are — leading to

the suggestion that he has in the press release that we're going to be

very short of rental accommodation? Surely he's done the very studies

he's talked about. Would he please inform us of the results?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the obvious thing one can

look at is the vacancy rate, which is extremely low or non-existent.

There is a need for rental housing. This is our effect. I wish the

federal

[ Page 3047 ]

government would start to recognize some of the

inflationary effects which they have caused and the 11 per cent sales

tax and inflationary effect that has on the cost of building housing. I

wish that they would make as large a commitment as we're prepared to

make here in this province toward this problem.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): With leave of the House,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement regarding the emergency

situation we debated on Thursday last.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the river heights as of today

are: in Mission, 13.91 feet compared to 14.69 feet on Saturday; Prince

George, 24.34 feet compared to 26.03 feet on Saturday; Nechako, 15.9

feet compared to 17.5 feet on Saturday; Kamloops, 18.94 feet compared

with 19.29 feet on Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that the work has started on the dikes

in Kamloops and good progress is being made. Similarly, I'd like to

advise the House that in the Chilliwack-Vedder River area arrangements

have now been finally concluded regarding the installation of the

pumps, and that installation will be completed within two weeks.

As a final note may I tell the House that the emergency air search

for those lost in the Powell River area has been successful and the

occupants of that small plane have been found safe. Unfortunately I

cannot report the same happy circumstances surrounding the search

that's going on in the Prince George area for the missing canoeists.

Thank you.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

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

On the amendment to vote 137.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would certainly

yield the floor to the Minister if he would care to answer some of the

charges that have been laid against him and his department — if he'd

care to give some answers. But the Minister's not going to give any

answers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): What charges?

MR. PHILLIPS: What charges? The Minister of Health says: what charges?

There has been evidence laid before this Legislature that there were

deals made in the selling of paper from Ocean Falls that were not in

the best interests of the people of British Columbia. There have been

charges made-of questions asked regarding the trading in Col-Cel

shares. We've asked the Minister to advise us when he started

negotiations. There have been charges laid about Gottesman and company

making millions of dollars in profits, reselling the paper from Ocean

Falls on the black market. The Minister of Health says: what charges?

You know, it's time that this Minister started answering some

questions and, indeed, started telling the House about his policies in

the Department of Forestry. Throughout this debate this Minister has

been arrogant and callous; he looks upon the opposition as a sort of a

fly in the ointment. But maybe, if the Minister would tell the people

of British Columbia what is going on.... This matter certainly is not

going to be cleared up, the light of day is not going to show forward,

until such time as the Minister does answer these allegations.

There has been talk of presenting documents; we have presented

documents of scare tactics in the takeover of Plateau Mills. We have

presented sufficient evidence to certainly bring the Minister to his

feet and defend his position or tell us that what we feel has been

going on is not so. I don't know how we can give this Minister his vote

unless he changes his attitude.

This Minister prepared a paper quite some time ago which lays out a

policy of the complete takeover of the forest industry in British

Columbia. I'd like to quote from a policy paper which is attributed to

the Minister where he says:

"An NDP government would take over and operate firms

unwilling and unable to function adequately under the above conditions,

" — the above conditions being mainly: "the acquisition of privately

owned corporations in the resource field prior to major resource tax

changes would be a mistake because the market price of those companies

would be grossly inflated because of a wide range of tax holidays they

presently enjoy."

But what I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is what he considers to be

the meaning of "unwilling and unable to function adequately." In a

forest industry, when does he consider it to be functioning adequately?

Who is to make the decision? That Minister has charge of letting the

private forest industries utilize the forest resources of this

province. He has a say over what royalties and what stumpage and what

taxes they shall pay, what portions they shall cut down, how much they

must reforest.

He is able to lay down all the rules and regulations,

[ Page 3048 ]

Mr. Chairman. So he can lay down rules and

regulations whereby any forest industry may not function adequately. He

can force them, in other words, to function inadequately because of

some of the rules and regulations which he can lay before him.

But this Minister seems to have taken a holier-than-thou attitude,

as if to question his ability is a breach of parliament in itself. But

I feel that this Minister is in breach of parliament by not answering

to this Legislature as to exactly what is going on in his department.

He is the one who is in breach of parliament. The Minister has, from

the time he took over his department — which, by the way, is one of the

heaviest and largest departments in government — been hiding behind a

cloak of secrecy. He doesn't seem to want to let the industry know what

their future is or where they are going. And he certainly doesn't want

to let this Legislature in on what his intentions are.

Mr. Chairman, of the 73 questions left on the order paper, 25 of

them are to this Minister. I doubt very much if this Minister ever

intends to answer any of the questions on the order paper. We've

clearly stated that there is a great deal of doubt about the trading in

Col-Cel shares which went on prior to the takeover.

There were people who had prior knowledge of what was going on in

Col-Cel — prior certainly to it becoming public knowledge. We have

outlined that there were definitely unusual trading patterns in the

trading of Col-Cel shares before the official government announcement.

Then we find some of the directors of this corporation owning

personally as high as 7,000 shares, and I refer to Mr. Berkley, one of

the directors who lives in the United States.

As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, it was stated policy of this

company that no individual should be able to make profit on shares

owned in a company in which the provincial government had over 51 per

cent. In this case of Col-Cel, the government owned 79 per cent of this

company. Directors living outside of the borders of British Columbia,

not British Columbians owning....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He was up when I left.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I thought maybe the Premier was back but he doesn't want to come in this Legislature.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): He's heard it all before.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's heard it all before. I will suggest that we would like to hear some answers.

I thought maybe the Premier would stay away; he made a special

attempt to be away last week while this Minister's estimates were

before the Legislature. But maybe the Premier is going to come in and

answer for this Minister.

I'd like to reiterate again that during the takeover of Col-Cel, the

price of shares of Col-Cel, was, on the move; they were rising. Early

in December of 1972 the common shares of Col-Cel in Toronto traded at

60 cents per share and the preferred shares traded at $1.25. By

February 8, 1973, still prior to the official announcement by the

provincial government that they were going to take over this

corporation, the shares had moved to $2.60 for common shares and $6.50

for preferred shares. That's an increase of $2 in the price of common

shares from December, 1972, until February 8, 1973. On March 29, just

prior to the suspension of trading, the common share was selling for

$3.30 — an increase in just under four months of $2.70 per share.

If the directors, Mr. Berkley, Mr. Gross and Mr. Wallach owned these

shares prior to the takeover, you don't have to be too much of a

mathematician to figure out the profit they have already made by being

partners and shareholders in a British Columbia corporation. The

Minister, whose estimates are under study now, is the key figure in

whether this company will make money or not. As I said, this Minister

has access and makes the rules and regulations that will say whether

this company will make a profit or not.

As I stated before, some of the directors seemed to think shortly

after Col-Cel became a entity in the forest industry of British

Columbia, 79 per cent owned by the province, that this corporation

would be a major corporation in the forest industry in British Columbia.

Since that time, a lot of predictions by these directors residing

outside B.C., who seem to know more about what's going on in the forest

industry in British Columbia than the people who own the resources seem

to know, Col-Cel has indeed expanded and taken over Plateau Mills.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly Col-Cel is going to be.... Who

took over Col-Cel mills, then? Maybe you would give me that answer, Mr.

Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Crown.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the Crown took it over. Well, didn't the Crown take over Col-Cel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The information the Hon. Member is requesting is public information.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister knows full well what I'm talking

about. In the entire web of Kootenay Forest Products, the takeover of

Plateau and all the

[ Page 3049 ]

rest of the takeovers that are planned, the

Minister has the say-so. This is what he means when he says if they

can't operate adequately....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's an inflammatory speech. I'm shocked to come back and find....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier says he is shocked to come back to

his home. I would think he would be shocked to come back to British

Columbia after the revelations in the department of forestry last week.

I think he would be ashamed to come back to British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sure that he is ashamed to come back to British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia are also shocked at some of the

revelations that have taken place in this chamber since our Premier

left last week.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You betcha! And there he is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, indeed. But nobody prefers to give any

answers. Your Minister, Mr. Premier, seems to put himself above

approach. He doesn't have to answer to this Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down! How can he answer when you're standing up?

MR. PHILLIPS: I won't sit down — not until I get some answers

or at least the promise of answers. Well, if you had stayed in the

Legislature last week, Mr. Premier, you would have known what went on

in the precincts of these four walls.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would have thrown up!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says he would have thrown up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person who has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sick at heart but I'm not that sick.

Maybe the Premier wants us to get that sick so we will give up before

we get the answers.

But I'll tell you, this talk of open government was one of the

platforms of the NDP prior to taking office — which seems to be rule of

thumb with that particular party. They've got lots of promises and

they're going to do great things and they're going to be an open

government and they shall trust us. But six months after they're in

power — and I say "power" because they're not there to govern; they're

in power. That's what they are; they're in power. Unfortunately, they

abuse their power.

I wonder if the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has

appeared before the group doing the checking into the insider trading

on Col-Cel; the investigating team the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) has appointed. I'll bet if he has or if he ever does, he'll

have a tale of intrigue to tell that will shock all of British

Columbia. That's if he ever tells it. I would suggest that he would

probably go before this investigating committee with the same

"holier-than-thou" attitude he seems to express here in this

Legislature.

There have been many reasons given for the takeover of Col-Cel. I

recall very vividly last spring in May attending a meeting in Terrace

of the truck loggers' association where the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources made a specific point of telling the people in that

northwestern community that he had taken over Col-Cel to protect the

small investor from a loss. The Minister certainly hasn't denied it,

and there were several other people there. My colleague from North

Peace River (Mr. Smith) was there and heard these words. Not just a

passing sentence, not just a passing phrase, but specifically the point

was made that Col-Cel was taken over to protect the minority

shareholders in what was previously Columbia Cellulose. That was the

explicit reason given for taking over this company: the rights of the

minority shareholders. I thought to myself at the time that this leaves

me free to invest in any corporation in British Columbia, and, if I

make a bad investment, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources will come in and buy it out to protect me from a loss in the

stock market.

However, since then the Minister has given several other reasons.

Now he says that he took over the forest industry to protect the jobs

of those people who were employed in those industries prior to takeover.

I wonder if maintaining these jobs is strictly a smokescreen that

the Minister has thought up since there have been charges of

irregularities in the marketing place, charges of conflicts of interest

and forceful takeovers. Is this just a smokescreen, Mr. Chairman, to

sort of hide the very fact that there have been so many irregularities

in these takeovers?

I have to think, due to the fact that these shareholders are also

shareholders in worldwide lumber marketing institutions.... I don't know

[ Page 3050 ]

whether they were shareholders prior to the

takeover or if they bought in at a low price, but I wonder if it was to

protect their investments, Mr. Chairman. How are we ever going to know

if the Minister is not prepared to advise the Legislature of some of

the intrigue prior to this takeover?

There were certain shareholders, Mr. Chairman, who were preferred

shareholders, who really don't feel their interests were protected.

Some of them feel they didn't receive a fair share for their shares.

How much money, we have to ask, is the government going to put into

Col-Cel to protect these jobs? The government has assumed liabilities

in taking over Col-Cel of over $70 million and they have predicted an

outlay in the very near future of some additional $80 million to bring

that corporation up to standards of pollution and to get it onto a

paying basis.

This means, Mr. Chairman, that within eight years, according to this

article — and I'll quote certain portions of this — the taxpayers of

British Columbia are going to pour into Can-Cel, or be responsible for,

$150 million.

The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that if the

government spends an additional $70 million or $80 million on improving

the operations of Can-Cel, how much money are the other shareholders

going to put into this company? If they are not going to put any money

into it, Mr. Chairman, they are going to reap the benefits from the

taxpayers' money put into this operation, because if you plough enough

money in and are able to make the rules under which this company will

buy the raw material, which are the trees from the people, owned by the

people, then this 21 per cent of shares owned by private individuals is

certainly going to increase greatly in value.

Is this the reason, Mr. Chairman, that the government didn't buy 100

per cent of this corporation? Did the government know who was going to

own this additional 21 per cent of shares? Were there deals made with

these directors to hold a large portion of the remaining 21 per cent of

the shares? Were these shares purchased prior to the price going up?

Don't you feel that these questions should be answered in this

Legislature, particularly as I have stated before that it is the stated

policy — not more than three months ago in this Legislature — that no

private individual should capitalize on an increase in the price of

shares of a company owned by the Government of British Columbia, owned

by the people of British Columbia? And here, less than three months

later, we are asking questions about who owns the other 21 per cent of

the shares.

Why is it a stated policy in the takeover of Dunhill by the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that he will use this Legislature, if

necessary, to acquire the additional 20 per cent of shares when that

company was being taken over by the government? The Minister of Housing

says we shall use force, if necessary . We shall use legislation, if

necessary, to acquire the additional 20 per cent of shares held by

private individuals. We will bring in legislation, if necessary, to

acquire those additional 20 per cent of shares not owned by the

directors of Dunhill when the government was taking it over.

But now, Mr. Chairman, in the case of Col-Cel, the government only

owns 79 per cent of the shares. Twenty-one per cent are owned by

private individuals, and a large number of those shares are owned by

the directors appointed from outside British Columbia. We want to know

if they owned the shares before. The Minister doesn't seem to be too

concerned. He doesn't seem to be concerned at all.

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, what the Minister is trying to hide.

Not once has this Minister denied that he intends to take over the

entire forest industry. Indeed, as I quoted a short time ago, in a

position paper or a White Paper that was allegedly prepared by the

Minister, and he can deny this if he doesn't want to take credit for

this paper...that the NDP place major industries such as pulp, paper,

lumber, mining, manufacturing, transportation, communications and

finance under public ownership.

The Minister hasn't denied this. But what bothers me, Mr. Chairman,

is that if it is going to be a series of takeovers and acquisitions,

what type of trading, what type of manoeuvring is going to go on in the

acquisition of the remaining independent forest industries in British

Columbia? Are there going to be deals made under the table? Is the

government only going to buy out portions of these companies and leave

certain directors with large shareholdings to make rip-off profits that

are justly due to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

These are the questions that must be answered in this Legislature

during this Minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman. The answers to these

questions are due to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Normally during a Minister's estimates it is the policy of the

Minister to relay to the House and all the Members of the House, both

the government and the opposition Members, what the policies of his

department are going to be. But this Minister, who carries the heaviest

portfolio in the government, who has been the architect of portfolios

in many of the other departments, chose to tell us of a trip he took to

northwestern British Columbia, not really outlining the policies of his

government.

We have continually asked, Mr. Chairman, for papers relating to

Col-Cel and papers relating to the dealing in Ocean Falls newsprint. We

have asked for studies recently completed on the expansion plans of

Ocean Falls. We have asked for sales agreements of the newsprint with

Gottesman and Company of New York. No answers, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3051 ]

Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman, has cost the taxpayers of British

Columbia over $3,850,000 thus far. I suppose the Minister considers

this peanuts, but to the taxpayers of British Columbia this is not

peanuts. These are their hard-earned tax dollars.

In The Province , business

section, Wednesday, April 3, there was an

article headlined "Can-Cel

Sees Heavy Outlay." I would like to quote from that

article to give you

some indication of the amount of tax dollars that this Minister plans

to pour into Can-Cel in an attempt to make it a viable operation.

There again, I have to ask how many years it is going to be before

the taxpayers are really going to ever reap any of the benefits 3044

from this British Columbia corporation. When they do, they will only be

reaping 79 per cent of the benefits. Stockholders — maybe some of them

in Brussels; maybe a lot of .them in New York, in Phoenix, Arizona and

elsewhere — are going to reap the other 21 per cent. I would like to

quote from the article:

"Canadian Cellulose Co. Ltd. Will need to spend about

$30 million over the next eight years to meet pollution control

standards in its two kraft pulp mills at Prince Rupert and Castlegar.

This estimate given at present day costs is made by President Ronald M.

Gross in the annual report to Canadian Cellulose which was released on

Tuesday."

This

article is dated April 3, 1974.

The provincial government took control of Can-Cel last June 29

buying out 92 per cent of the holdings of Celanese Corp. of New York in

Columbia Cellulose Co. Ltd. There was a legal deal on their several

companies and the government eventually wound up with 79 per cent of

what is now Can-Cel. But the government is going to have to pour

millions and millions more taxpayers' dollars into this corporation

before it becomes a viable operation.

The report is out that this Crown corporation made $12 million last

year. But when we look at the price they paid for wood chips — had they

paid the going market price in the Vancouver area, the corporation

would have lost money. The Minister knows that.

We've also asked how much stumpage 1s going to be paid by this

corporation. The Minister, as I've said previously, can set all the

rules in the game as he goes along. He can make this corporation either

make or lose money. He can set the stumpage fees. He can set the

transportation fees. He can also make it very difficult for other

private forest industries to make money by not having them under the

same rules and regulations as his own corporation.

But we would like to know more about the policies and future plans

of this Minister. I think that if the taxpayers of British Columbia are

going to be faced in the next several years with putting hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars into taking over the entire forest

industry, then, Mr. Chairman, they should be told about this Minister's

plans. Let the taxpayers know if they are going to have to invest; and,

if they are going to take over the whole thing, we are talking about

billions of dollars. Where is the money going to come from? Or is the

Minister planning to put on the squeeze play, making these operations

unsuccessful?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he is tending to be repetitious. Therefore, I would ask him

to think of something new to introduce into the debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what I would like more than

anything else in the world is to have the Minister answer some

questions in this Legislature — to table some papers. After all, in one

sense of the word, being a taxpayer in British Columbia — not only

sharing directly but, I guess, indirectly — I am a shareholder in

Can-Cel.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Read your annual report.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are millions of people in British

Columbia who are also shareholders in an indirect way in Can-Cel. They

would like some answers. They might be shareholders in a much larger

way if the Minister continues in his present trend of the last 18

months since he took over his portfolio.

I think these would-be shareholders in the forest industry would

also like some answers as to where they are going. Maybe we could call

this a shareholders' meeting. Maybe we could say that I represent here

in this Legislature 79 per cent of the shareholders in Can-Cel.

Mr. Chairman, If I represent 79 per cent of the shareholders in

Can-Cel, do you not think I am entitled to some answers from this

Minister? You are one of the shareholders, Mr. Chairman. A number of

people in the galleries are shareholders in Can-Cel; but they don't

have the floor, so I am representing them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure they feel proud.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that if I had my way, the first thing I would do is probably make some changes in some of the directors.

All we want — representing here in this Legislature 79 per cent of

the shareholders — is some answers. We want the Minister to unfold some

of the intrigue that allegedly went on prior to the takeover. We want

to know how a few private individuals may have access to making huge

rip-off profits when the taxpayers of British Columbia who, at 79 per

cent, are the largest shareholders in this corporation, have not maybe

had access to the same information.

[ Page 3052 ]

We would like the Minister to give us reasons why these shares increased in

price. We would like the Minister to tell us when he started negotiations, why

he feels the shares increased. We would like the Minister to tell us if his

main reason for taking over this corporation was to protect the small investors. Was that the same reason he took over Kootenay Forest Products? Was that the

same reason he took over Plateau Mills?

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sit down now. Maybe the Minister would

like to enlighten us on some of the questions. If not, we are going to

have to ask these questions again. We must know the answers. If we are

wrong in our allegations, we want to know about it.

We can't settle for the Minister being arrogant and not answering

the questions that are placed before him in this Legislature. That

isn't good enough. The taxpayers of this province want this whole

rotten mess straightened out. They want the answers. We are here, on

their behalf, to get the answers.

Mr. Chairman, before this Minister gets his vote we must have the answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the current items, Mr. Chairman, it seems

clear that the opposition doesn't have its facts clear again. The 21 per

cent minority shareholders presently in Canadian Cellulose

include many employees — many employees that had bought shares at an

earlier time at a far higher price than they currently are today.

Had the sale gone through as the private companies wanted to do, the

minority shareholders would have been left with absolutely nothing.

They would have been left penniless. The stock would have been very

nice wallpaper, but that is all it would have been.

This administration saw a kind of fairness through the whole event

and felt that the minority owners should continue to be represented in

an equity sense within the company. So we saw to it that these minority

owners would have this 21 per cent representation. That was both the

common and preferred share owners. All of that is history and I think

it has been fully documented in the past.

The Hon. Member talked about tax dollars financing programmes at

Can-Cel. Once again he is confused. The $19 million in capital

expenditures that will be expended this fiscal year in CanadianCellulose will be self-generated dollars as a result of selling pulp and lumber, the products that the company produces.

The Hon. Member doesn't seem to understand that this is self-generating

capital that we see at this stage with the markets as they are. So $19 million

in new money will be obtained by that corporation through its own activities

in the marketplace. All of the people of British Columbia will benefit as a

result, not only the minority shareholders, but the majority shareholders —

all of us, equally, as shareholders in he company. So tax dollars are not what

we're talking about in terms of the capital expenditures hat we presently

see at Canadian Cellulose. Maybe we can get that straight.

Last week the Hon. Member had trouble figuring but if it was a Crown

corporation or not. Now he understands it is a public organization on

the market, on the stock exchange in this country. He's got that and

it's taken a week. Now that's a blessing, that's progress, but it's a

long, long walk to get to the truth with the people in the official

opposition.

Wood chip price. Once again, a little bit of knowledge is a

dangerous thing. The wood chip price hat is being paid by Can-Cel is

generally comparable o what others are paying in similar markets. Let's

face it — it is not a free market. But the people in the official

opposition don't seem to understand the difference between a cartel

market, a free market, free enterprise, socialism or what you will, and

I can hardly start with a primer book for the Hon. Member.

Wood chip price is primarily related to location and production of

the chips. The former government et up an allocation system; I did not.

I realize that he system is inadequate. That is why we have a task

force headed by Dr. Peter H. Pearse and joined with Ted Young, the

chief forester, and Mr. Backman of Can-Cel, outstanding gentlemen.

They're reviewing the numerous inequities that were given to us on a

platter from the former Minister and the former government.

On the question of stumpage, I assure you, Mr. Member, that standard

stumpage is paid by Canadian Cellulose. Any special agreements would

have been made by the former Minister, Mr. Williston. I assure you they

face a standard stumpage situation like other companies in similar

situations. So let's get that straight.

Now, the Plateau Mills. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) brought Plateau Mills into his arena on Friday last. This was

a matter which was discussed in the public media for some time last

summer, at the time the government acquired some 97 per cent of the

Plateau Mills and related companies.

We now have the new leader reading us a letter from one of the U.S.

shareholders, as well as the statements from a Smithers accountant and

a company he was a part of called Synco. What we have in fact is the

Leader of the official opposition playing he role, once again, of the

willing messenger boy, who is ready and willing always to believe the

worst of a government, as he sees it, composed of people not born to

govern, like he was.

On the one hand, he'll use Synco statements that strong-arm tactics

were used. He won't use the American director's statements that such

was not the

[ Page 3053 ]

case. He won't use the American director's

statements that there was no evidence of financial capacity on the part

of Synco, the Canadian company that he chooses to champion. But he will

use a minority American director statement, albeit a year late, that is

confirmed by no one else — that is confirmed by no one else.

This new leader assumes no responsibility for the truthfulness of

the statements. There is no double checking. There is no checking with

the shareholders in Canada — the Mennonite holders in the Vanderhoof

community — and no checking with the other American holder who is now a

resident in Canada in the lower mainland.

Why, the Leader of the Opposition's role is a very simple one — it's

that of the willing messenger boy. If that's all that the job is about,

then no judgment is necessary at all. But that, Mr. Member, isn't what

leadership is all about.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Daddy now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's interesting to compare Saturday's Province

story, which most of you have read — "Williams Accused of Coercion, "

et cetera, et cetera — with the statements that are in it, and even the

added information that is obtained just a few hours later in the

Saturday evening edition of the Sun . It's an interesting comparison.

Now the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to unveil this latest

letter from one representative of the American group. He quotes in

effect that I as Minister would have preferred acquiring Plateau Mills

a l'Allende. He quotes this one person, suggesting that I suggested

they could experience difficulties, et cetera.

What did I say? I'd like to set the record straight at this time and

on this floor. I said that for all or most forest companies in British

Columbia in the future, the picking would not be as good as it had been

under Social Credit. Now that's hardly news. We won an election

campaign arguing for a better deal for the public, the people who own

the forests in the province.

What I did say as well was that the treatment of Plateau would be

equitable, that we would not discriminate against Plateau, no matter

what their decision was, which I believe is fair and proper and right.

I'm sure that the Mennonite owners in Vanderhoof will confirm that, as

will the American in the Fraser Valley.

Since then we've brought in the Interior end use appraisal system and that

applies equally to all companies. I was fair to the point of making the point

that there would be new stumpage appraisal systems in the Interior and they

were made aware of that at that time. It was the new appraisal system that I

was referring to.

Reference to Allende? What nonsense. Only in relation to IT&T

and the rather sorry history of IT&T in the United States and in

South America.... Ironically, Mr. Chairman, the Americans couldn't

understand our lack of interest in having IT&T expand in northern

British Columbia. I asked them at that time — that is, the American

directors — if they were aware of the Republican convention payola that

had been fully reported at that time. You remember the payoff and

paying the cost of the convention in California with Mr. Nixon and all?

I asked them if they had not read about the Dita Beard memos that were

current at that time, and I asked them if they had not read of the

interference in the democratically elected regime of Mr. Allende in

Chile. That was the only reference. I asked them if they even read Time magazine in their own country, because it was fully reported in Time

magazine. But it was in reference only to the IT&T expansion in

British Columbia and when that was not desirable from this government's

point of view.

I'm sure that if the Socreds had been in power we'd have IT&T in

nor-them British Columbia. We wouldn't have public shareholders, the

people of the province owning this important facility in the Vanderhoof

area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Anybody except our own people.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, anybody but our own people. The

former Minister of the former government always approved what big

business wanted in this province, and this carbon copy is no different

than the old one. Let's look at the Sun story in relation to this, but first let's look at the Sun story of last summer. What was the Sun story of last summer? Why, it was a banner headline saying: "Terror Tactics Charged in Government Purchase." That was the big Sun sensational story of last summer. The screaming, sensationalist Sun was doing its thing.

Well, after a year the Sun even is getting more of the

picture. They haven't reached the truth yet, but they are de-escalating

their headlines a little bit. What did the Sun say, Saturday

night last? — "Williams Accused of Arm Twisting." Last summer it was

terror tactics; this spring it's arm twisting. This summer maybe we'll

get the truth in The Vancouver Sun headline. Just maybe.

I think the basic points should be made again. We told the Plateau

owners at that time that we preferred a Canadian buyer, and high time.

We said that if they did not have a Canadian buyer satisfactory to

them, the government would buy the company at the same price that

IT&T had offered. We said that we would be happy and willing to

live with the existing

[ Page 3054 ]

ownership as well. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman,

that's a reasonable range of choice in terms of public policy. It was

made abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no

discrimination against Plateau if they followed any of these three

courses of action.

Let's look more closely at the Sun story of last Saturday,

where at last the reporters got down to doing just a little bit of

digging — not much, not just a matter of scooping up the garbage from

the opposition, but a little bit of digging too.

What do we have here? Why, Mr. Goodwin, the American shareholder down there in Utah, explained to the Sun

reporter Friday that he had sent the letter to Bennett as a legal

manoeuvre in his efforts to obtain a favourable ruling on the deal by

the U.S. Internal Revenue Department.

Well, well, well! Isn't it amazing what a little bit of digging will do? Isn't it amazing what a little bit of digging will do?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He helps the big companies beat the tax here. Now he helps them down in the States, for crying out loud!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: "As a legal manoeuvre," says the man from Utah. A legal manoeuvre!

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it's the American tax

man.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, isn't it strange that we never

heard those kinds of statements at the height of the controversy last

summer? Isn't it strange that we never heard those kinds of statements

at the height of the controversy last summer when all these people were

interviewed by some fairly good, digging reporters of the day? Isn't it

strange that there is this kind of new recall from Mr. Goodwin and that

it should occur just at the time he is carrying on his fight with the

tax collector, Uncle Sam, down there in the U.S. of A.?

Isn't it strange that this man didn't even recall the date of the

meeting in the Minister's office here in Victoria? He says in the Sun "Why, it was February or March of last year." He's just not sure which month the meeting took place.

Isn't it strange that top-notch, digging reporters, like Alec Young of The Province ,

who at least got off of his backside and flew to Idaho and to the

States and interviewed some of the people down there at the time,

didn't get those kinds of statements last summer? Isn't that strange?

All of sudden, when this man can't even remember the date of the

meeting here in Victoria, he comes up with this new information. It is

information that is not corroborated by others. In fact, it is refuted

by myself, by Mr. Martens of Vanderhoof, the major Mennonite holder in

the Vanderhoof area, refuted by the other American now resident in the

Abbotsford area of the lower mainland and refuted in the newspapers of

last summer by Mr. Ralph O. Brown, the major shareholder, in Provo,

Utah.

What did the major shareholder say, even last summer? If the Leader

of the Opposition and his research expert, the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs, chose to do any proper work, they might have at

least checked the newspapers of last summer. What did he say?

That is Mr. Ralph O. Brown, in Provo, Utah. He says in The Province of June 30, last summer:

"Brown said Williams told him Plateau was completely free to consider an offer of any Canadian company."

And that is basically the spirit of our understanding with him. That is the

major American shareholder. He says further:

"Asked to explain, he said, 'Williams said conditions

would not always be as rosy in the future in the forest industry as in

the past.'

And I confirmed that earlier.

"Mr. Brown said, 'I think he only means that for

corporations in general there would be perhaps higher taxation and

higher stumpage rate and charges for raw material.' " 'But,' said Mr.

Brown, the major American shareholder, 'I don't think that was even a

veiled threat. It was simply a statement of fact of what was going to

be.' "

That's the major shareholder. And the Synco deal?

Again, what did one of the major U.S. shareholders say about the Synco

deal last summer? Here's what he said. And that's in The Province of June 29. He said this:

"The only thing that stopped us from taking the Synco deal is that they didn't have any money."

They didn't have any money.

That's Dr. Claude Brown, the director who lives in Boise, Idaho. They didn't have any money.

Why, they had a $1,000 cheque for a $10 million operation, and the

cheque wasn't even certified. And Dr. Brown says: "They didn't have any

money; that's why we didn't deal with them."

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that how he would do business?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At that time, Goodwin was also interviewed by the business editor of The Province .

[ Page 3055 ]

None of these news statements were made at the time. You can check

for what Mr. Goodwin said at that time. It is all there in the

newspapers, if your research executive would just take the trouble to

check the files.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You came in and dumped garbage.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Beyond that, who was the negotiator that

we appointed, as a government, to handle the acquisition of Plateau

Mills? I would like to make it clear who the government's prime

negotiator was at the beginning of the acquisition of Plateau Mills. It

was an excellent lawyer, Mr. Henry Hutcheon, Q.C., who is an

outstanding member of the bar in British Columbia, a man who is now

Judge Henry E. Hutcheon of the county court here in British Columbia.

All these charges that have been made by this irresponsible

opposition tear away not only at myself, but at some outstanding

citizens of the Province of British Columbia who are involved. I regard

this as an incredible slur against people like Henry Hutcheon, who is

now a judge.

Doesn't the Leader of the Opposition know, Mr. Chairman, that the

partners weren't getting along — the Mennonite and Mormon shareholders

— and that this was partly attributable to Mr. Goodwin? Doesn't he know

that?

Isn't it strange that all the other parties I checked with refute

Mr. Goodwin's statement? And isn't it true that Mr. Goodwin has a

special axe to grind? He is trying to avoid paying taxes in the United

States of America.

Isn't it true that Mr. Goodwin and the others would have liked to

have called this acquisition an expropriation for tax reasons in the

United States? We refused to do so, just as we refused to do so with

the Columbia Cellulose acquisition as well.

Isn't it true, Mr. Chairman, that in fact Mr. Goodwin is politically motivated? Isn't that true?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Isn't it true in fact that Mr. Goodwin

has been a Member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia? Isn't

it true that even though he is an American citizen and has always

resided in the United States, he still joined the Social Credit Party?

And doesn't that really explain a great deal in terms of what the

Member put before us last week?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Check the donation lists. Your Dad has got them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He was showing off his card in the Prince

George area a few years ago. It seems to me that the new leadership of

Social Credit, Mr. Chairman, is spawning the most dangerous elements

yet to surface in that party.

I frankly don't think it's surprising, Mr. Chairman, given the

non-factual, untrue, distorted material coming out of the mouth of the

Leader of the Official Opposition. In the past week we have had some

excellent examples of distortion at the hands of the new leader.

One, just one small example: why was that ship that the Minister of

Transport bought...? Why, he said that we were taken to the cleaners.

He said they were the same ships — sister ships — and what about the

capacity? Why, the one we bought could handle 170 cars and the one he

said was a sister could handle 90. Some sister! Big sister!

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Stepsister. Out-of-step sister! That was

the Stena Danica. That was the rush to judgment, the rush to the

printing press, again with his ever-handy executive assistant.

Another was the Ashcroft Du Pont deal where he said it was the fault

of the government again, that we had lost an industry to British

Columbia. In fact, it was poor marketing work on the part of Du Pont,

and they have said so in correspondence to the Minister of Trade and

Industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

That's just another example of the rush to judgment from the new

leader. There is a consistency of failing to check your facts,

consistency in terms of jumping to incredible conclusions and

becoming.... It's a trademark of the new leader, Mr. Chairman: this

jumping to conclusions and inadequate facts.

Remember the earlier so-called list of political hacks that he

listed? It included 30-year and 40-year career civil servants. Remember

that from the opposition office? That from the opposition office —

that's what we got a few months earlier.

Now, now....

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): When did I read such a list?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Given that kind of leadership, is it any wonder that the Socred group carries on in the way that it has?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder you are out of the House.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is it any wonder, given this kind of

attitude, that the rest of those Members over there carry on the way

they do? Is it any wonder at all?

Here are some of the choice quotes of the last

[ Page 3056 ]

week or so from the lovely people from Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Why, from the leader himself, a beautiful

statement: "...the pudgy little funny fellow and the cruel,

calculating, beady-eyed companion."

Proud of it, eh? Proud of that one, eh? Who's the author? Did Dapper Dan do that one for you too?

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett); Plateau; using terror tactics! He's a year behind The Vancouver Sun . That means it will take him two years to catch up with the truth. It has taken the Sun one year.

Well, what about the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)?

"The possibility of receiving kickbacks." That's the kind of great

stuff we get from the opposition.

How about the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)? "They are the

seven little dwarves," she said. "Is this what they are up to: Litvine,

Berkley, Gross, Wallach, Williams, Barrett and a man behind the

scenes." That was the choice item from the Member.

But, in addition, they're laughing at either the naivety of the

government or — as may be the most unpalatable alternative — the

corruption within government." That's the kind of incredible nonsense

we're getting from the opposition at the hands of this kind of

leadership in the opposition.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): What leadership?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And what about others? "The people of

this province call it dishonesty. The Minister should not receive a

salary at all." That's from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

Now, given the kind of leadership they've got, Mr. Chairman, is it

any wonder that Socred group carries on the way it does? The facts just

don't seem to matter with you people over there; the truth just doesn't

seem to matter with you people over there. Is that what the new

leadership of Social Credit is breeding? You're leading them to greater

and greater depths, Mr. Leader.

When the Socred leader started this non-confidence motion Tuesday

last, almost a week ago, he carried on in a kind of mysterious way. He

described a so-called international web of intrigue. The Member for

South Peace River talked about this web of intrigue just now. It was a

story that didn't seem to hang together at all. The names came out, the

countries, all those kind of strange names, strange countries, all came

tumbling out in the speech last Tuesday. But it didn't really hang

together.

The newsprint price question was one thing; and we made it clear how

we feel with respect to that. We are obtaining the highest mill net in

the nation, despite transportation problems, isolation at OceanFalls, and the like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But there was all that strange stuff from

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), with those strange "names"

and references to Belgium — imagine, Belgium — and the like. And it

didn't make sense as part of the speech that was being given. It didn't

make sense unless you have the kind of mind the Member for Chilliwack

(Mr. Schroeder) has. And what did he say about this international web

of intrigue and these strange names?

He said:

(The Minister) is the super pawn and I have to remind him that

he's playing in a league to which he was not born to play.

He's playing in a league.... But I want you to know, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you were born under the wrong star. You

were born under the wrong star to play in that league.

When they're all finished with you, after they've moved

you as far as the opposing Queen's row, they'll kick you aside like

they do a finger nail that's too long. They'll kick you aside and they'll

say to you, "Sorry, fella, you belong to the wrong sect. You belong to

the wrong community."

...you have to have a name like Wallach, you have to have a

name like Berkowitz, "

not Berkley, he said.

...you have to have a name like Litvine....

You have to have a name like Gross.

And we responded at the time.

Then you carried on, as confused financially as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). You said:

I'm wondering about the $70 million that had to come from

nowhere to create B.C. Cellulose. I'm wondering whether the...the money

for this didn't come to British Columbia from foreign sources, and I'm

wondering whether or not it didn't have to come from Belgium, because one

of the boys who was appointed as a director of the company happens to be tied

in very tightly with the financial structure over in mutterland.

Mr. Chairman, it is evil material that is being spawned in that

group over there. Evil material. The incredible item about $70 million

coming out of nowhere. The belief that it came from the mutterland .

It's a strange, twisted view of the world of international intrigue.

You said, "born under the wrong star," you said, "of the wrong sect,"

you said; "not having a name like Litvine, Berkowitz, Gross," et

cetera, you said. Then, $70 million from the mutterland .

Seventy million dollars, Mr. Member — if we can start the education

at this late, late, late stage — is a mortgage we paid nothing for. Do

you understand

[ Page 3057 ]

that? We simply guaranteed it. We assumed it and

guaranteed it, like when you buy a house and there's a mortgage on it.

The mortgage was already there; the money was already there. It didn't

come out of nowhere; it was already there in the capital assets of the

company. Do you understand that?

Well, that's a beginning. The simplest points in the past have been lost on these Members, Mr. Chairman.

Ah, but not their leader's speech. That wasn't missed by the Member

for Chilliwack. It is when you look at what the Member for Chilliwack

said and then you reflect back on what the Leader of the Opposition

said that the earlier speech all starts making sense. It starts making

sense, that is, if you've got the kind. of mind that the Member for

Chilliwack has. Obviously, the Member for Chilliwack was taking his

leader's speech the next logical step, as he saw it. Not so smooth,

mind you, but the next logical step.

In all my time in this Legislature, I've never heard such evil stuff coughed up on the floor of this House.

Let's get it clear. The original speech, the early talk about the

international web; it was your speech that encouraged your Member for

Chilliwack to carry on with his own sleazy and twisted view of the

world. Your speech. And there has still been no condemnation from you

regarding that speech. None whatsoever.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that leadership either brings out the

best or the worst in people. It is now abundantly clear what the new

Social Credit leadership is bringing out of that group. I ask you, Mr.

Member, to reflect on what you are spawning within that group because

it is the very kind of thing that has destroyed parliaments in other

lands.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, thank

you for the opportunity of giving our party a word or two to say

finally in this debate. I've listened with some interest to what the

official opposition has laid before the House as charges to the

Minister and to the government.

Our party has checked with the principal figure involved in Plateau

Mills. I must confirm what the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water

Resources has just told us. This man has made no secret of the fact

that his accusations against the Government of British Columbia are for

the purposes of getting a favourable tax deal in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. McGEER: This man has used the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Willingly.

MR. McGEER: ...and the Leader of the Opposition has left with

this House a false impression of arm-twisting. I am persuaded that our

conversation with the principal would confirm that he makes no secret

of it.

I am not a socialist; I believe that private enterprise should

operate the businesses of this country, including the forest industry.

But I must say as well that I am not in favour of our giving forest

privileges and cutting rights to foreign countries. I do not approve of

the manipulation of Canadian companies for profits to entrepreneurs in

the United States. What was involved in this, quite clearly, is that

the government of British Columbia was offering the same deal to

Plateau Mills that IT&T offered to Plateau Mills, with one

difference. The American offer carries with it tax favours and the

Canadian offer didn't. That is the sum and substance of it. The Leader

of the Opposition realized that, or should have realized that. Whatever

faults the NDP may have, the accusation of arm twisting is simply false.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to see three further things done in this

matter. One, I would like the letter that was written by Mr. Barney

Goodwin to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources tabled in

this House. In it, I understand, he asked the Minister to write to him

saying that the Minister had twisted his arm.

I would also like to see tabled in this House the letter that Mr.

Barney Goodwin wrote to the Leader of the Opposition which he frankly

admits was written for tax purposes in the United States.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. McGEER: I think we should have this laid out in the public too.

Thirdly, I would like to make darned sure that the Government of

taxes are collected from these people for the profits that they made

out of our Forest Service.

It's quite evident from the desire of Mr. Barney Goodwin to have the

Government of British Columbia tell a white lie to him so he can tell

it to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States that he made a

killing in British Columbia. He didn't do badly or he wouldn't be

worried about those taxes. We in Canada should be the ones that are

worried about those taxes.

Having said that, I want to come back to an earlier matter raised by

the Leader of the Opposition in originally moving the motion of

non-confidence in the Minister. I spoke up in favour of what the Leader

of the Opposition had said because the Minister had not answered those

charges satisfactorily, and our efforts to get at the facts led to a

dead end.

The Minister is very careful about admitting to us the selling price of the newsprint which leaves Ocean

[ Page 3058 ]

Falls. He tells us only that he gets top price. He

refuses to table with this Legislature the contract which would

presumably reveal the truth.

The broker is not a Canadian. It seems as though the broker is

making profits from turning over that newsprint far in excess of what

our Canadian mill is making. However you want to regard the hold-up

prices that we suspect are being charged for our newsprint, whether you

want to call it spot sales or a black market, that doesn't matter. It

is very clear that in this field the people of British Columbia are

taking a shafting. The profits and the taxes on those profits are going

to the United States. We are getting neither the wages, nor the return

for the capital investment in our mill, nor the taxes to government —

that's going to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask this question. If we are selling our

newsprint to third world countries, or even to Europe, why in heaven's

name is it necessary for us to have an American broker? What

justification is there for that? What purpose is there in it? The

profits he makes go to assist Americans, the taxes he pays go to an

American government, and in a very real and literal sense our timber is

serving foreigners — government and salesmen and entrepreneurs. We are

working for wages in British Columbia at that mill. We are losing

money, as I understand it, on the operation, and all the gravy is going

to a New York broker who, incidentally, sits on the boards of our

Canadian corporations.

Mr. Chairman, if what I say is wrong I hope the Minister will tell

me. If he can prove that I am wrong in making these assertions and

drawing these conclusions from the charges that have been laid and the

information we have been able to gain so far, then I will support the

Minister and vote against this amendment to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, we have two sets of charges by the Leader of the Opposition:

one irresponsible, where he's working not to help Canadians but to help

an American entrepreneur, but another set of charges where he's working

to help Canadians and where the Minister is working to help an American entrepreneur,

Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to agree with either one. One is as bad as the

other.

Mr. Chairman, I thought what the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources had to say about the general content of the Social

Credit opposition charges against him were just a little bit on their

hypocritical side. I can remember that Member when he was in opposition

standing up and laying smear in this Legislature like no Member ever

had before.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Or since.

MR. McGEER: Remember the charges he made against Myrnes and

all the things he brought up in this Legislature, trying to weave a web

of intrigue about people who owned apartments and people who were

tenants in those apartments, trying somehow to draw a phony web of

intrigue between directors of the D.C. Hydro, respected members of the

B.C. bar, like Doug Brown and Nathan Nemetz, the people who are serving

British Columbia, as Bill Myrnes did when he was on the B.C. Hydro

board of directors? He may not have been your cup of tea but he was

doing his duty for the people of British Columbia.

The fact that these people live together in the same apartment

building should hardly have been a matter for you to lay a smear on

this House as you did years ago. The muck still sticks to you, Mr.

Minister, and it ill behoves you to stand up in this House and make

those kind of charges against anybody else.

What you should have been doing when you answered the attack of the

Leader of the Opposition was getting up and explaining the nature of

your contract with the Gottesman people. You should have been laying on

the table the contract you signed with them. If you made a mistake, and

if they are holding up people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Then what he should have done,

Mr. Chairman, is to put that on the table with you and make a clean

breast of it. If he's made a mistake, let's know it now. It's better to

know the nature of the mistake and make the necessary corrections.

If the Minister wants to go back tomorrow and tell those people the

contracts have to be renegotiated because of the fuss we raised in this

Legislature, the better for the people of British Columbia. We cannot

be in a position in this province where we're black marketing our

products, where we're giving the cream to a foreign corporation, when

we're allowing people to take profits out of this country and not pay

legitimate taxes to the people of Canada or the people of British

Columbia.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Is this a Liberal speaking?

MR. McGEER: I would hope that no member of any party — even

the Communists — would object to fair taxes being paid by any citizen

of this country or any other country who makes profits out of the

efforts of the workers of that country.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is what the NDP is permitting to take

place today. I tell you that if the Minister does not stand up and

answer these charges satisfactorily, if he is unwilling to lay this

contract on the table before the people of British Columbia, then the

NDP backbenchers should take this Minister into

[ Page 3059 ]

caucus tomorrow and see that he is dismissed.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I think I should have to respond

both to the Minister and to the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) because obviously they didn't listen to my speech last

Tuesday night.

First of all I'd like to discuss the whole connection of the

international directors was to prove the hypocritical attitude of this

government in its attitude towards its association with foreign

ownership and how this Minister. uses foreign ownership as an excuse to

take over companies in this province and yet through a series of

interrelated companies is associated with one of the largest companies

in the United States, Champion International, not only through their

Belgian contacts but also through the fact that Champion International,

which owns Weldwood, is a major part of the Babine Forest Products in

Burns Lake.

Now, if foreign ownership was bad for Plateau Mills and other

ownership was wrong for Kootenay Forest Products, this whole link shows

two things: this government is willing to go to bed with foreign

companies when they think they can get away with it, but when the

Minister is looking for a handy excuse to take over Plateau Mills,

foreign ownership becomes very, very important to him. It's the very

hypocrisy of this Minister in a double standard. Foreign ownership's

wrong when he needs an excuse, but it's all right for Babine Forest

Products, it's all right to be part of the Belgian companies with

Weldwood, right through to Champion International.

If the Minister had taken the time to see the charge that we turned

out, and which was delivered to the press, it related strictly to the

connection between the directors and their former connection with

Champion and the continuing and new relationship of this Minister,

through the government, with Champion International in the north and in

Belgium. We were pointing out that this Minister in his preoccupation

with taking over the forest industry was doing it with all sorts of

excuses that didn't hold up. We pointed out the Minister of Trade (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) and even the Premier were in Japan looking for foreign

investment to do with a steel mill. Yet he used it as an excuse to take

over Plateau Mills. He used it as the government wanting control in

Kootenay Forest Products. Here we have him giving new concessions to a

company in Burns Lake — Babine Forest Products — and who is there but

Champion International? Champion International has a connection with

many of the directors that we were questioning that are directors of

Can-Cel.

We wondered, and I asked the Minister the other day, what criteria

he set up. What were the standards for appointing these directors? Why

were these particular directors chosen? Are these directors directing

our province and part of our wood industry into the hands of Champion

International — 62nd largest American corporation, with annual sales of

$1,872 million?

HON. MR. COCKE: Who owns Can-Cel, for heaven's sakes? Who owns Ocean Falls or Plateau?

MR. BENNETT: You're not even listening now, because I'm

responding to comments that this Minister made that I had some devious

plot, some devious reason, which he implied was wrong, for listing

those companies. If the Minister for Little Mountain hadn't been out

having coffee as usual when I spoke, he would have heard the same

speech, the same reasoning and the same presentation.

If that Minister had got up and answered the very serious question

of.... In his preoccupation with taking over companies, was that the

policy for the government? We were asking for answers. In our

questioning for those answers, we questioned and raised some concerns

that have been brought up time and again outside this House, through

the news media and through people who are dissatisfied with their

negotiations with this government.

When the Leader of the Opposition gets mail, as I get quite a bit of

mail, and if the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was

considered a champion of the people or raising their concerns, I'm sure

he'd get mail which he'd raise in the Legislature.... But when someone

who has been part of a controversy, who was a shareholder in a

corporation that was taken over by the government writes a letter to

the Leader of the Opposition to present his case, I present this letter

to the Legislature as part of this person's question. It's not up to me

to give answers, it's up to the Minister.

If the Minister had given the answer the other day, all would be

well and good, but he chooses to use and twist and try and say that the

Leader of the Opposition knows when a letter writer in Blackfoot,

Idaho, has some means of trying to get a tax concession in his own

country. Now that Minister may have time to be aware of all the tax

laws in each individual case in Blackfoot, Idaho, in Washington, D.C.,

or anywhere else, but I accept letters that are written to me in good

faith.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I make the time.

MR. BENNETT: I read the letter and in the contents of the letter and in my further discussion with Mr. Goodwin on the telephone....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): You did check with him, eh?

[ Page 3060 ]

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I talked with Mr. Goodwin on the telephone.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Not at all. Not at all. I questioned him on the

contents of the letter and his concern was exactly as he wrote it, and

as I read it. If the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development.... I will

read this letter again. It says nothing about tax concessions, but it

levels from someone who, though not a citizen of our country,

participated in an equity position and who was concerned about his

treatment by this Minister and wrote a letter to the Leader of the

Opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition, I present this letter to

this Legislature.

HON. MR. LAUK: Were you suspicious about that letter?

MR. BENNETT: No, because the very reason that got me to go

back into the headlines of last year was the very fact that this letter

reactivated this case. In getting this letter I did go back and I went

through the newspaper accounts.

HON. MR. LAUK: Is he a member of the Social Credit Party?

MR. BENNETT: It might be easy to identify everyone and judge

them on their party membership but believe me, there is no penalty or

favour for anyone being a member of our party. It's quite obvious that

that Minister and that government know who their members are because

they get appointed to special jobs.

There's no way that I monitored the membership of our party. The

only criterion that you have to belong is that you are concerned about

British Columbia, that you join through the local constituency, not

through me, and that you offer to participate. The card gives you the

opportunity to serve; it doesn't give you special rights, nor does it

guarantee you'll get the job in one of the special commissions that

this government appoints its members to. It's an obligation. That card

purchasing that membership in our party is an obligation to service and

the right to serve. It's not a ticket to special favours, as we've seen

in your party with your record of appointments since you became

government.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just go down the list.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to further in my remarks answer the

very serious charge of discussion of prejudice and bigotry. First of

all, I'm speaking for myself as a person, and secondly as a Member of

this Legislature and as leader of the Social Credit Party in B.C.

I want to state unequivocally that I'm not in favour of anything or

anybody who preaches bigotry, either on ethnic or religious grounds.

And if it's not clearly understood, then I'll say it again as I said

outside this House: myself and this party....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Four days too late.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. BENNETT: I made a statement outside this House immediately — immediately.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Four days too late.

MR. BENNETT: My statement was immediate; this Minister's

non-answers — some he gave today — are four days late. Some of them are

a year late, and some we may never get.

I'd like to say that it's been brought to my attention that there's

a hidden type of prejudice when people have to continually, during

their speech, refer to shareholders because they were Mormons or

Mennonites.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. BENNETT: Those people are shareholders like anyone else.

Why bring up the fact that they belong to a particular religion? Who

did that in this House? Who did that? Those people are people. The very

fact that some Ministers of the Crown specifically had to mention the

religious persuasion denotes to me a particular type of prejudice. And

I dissociate myself from that too.

Each Member that makes these types of charges, or uses these types

of phrases, must be responsible for their own words and make their own

apology. It's to the credit of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

that when he was misunderstood, he made a correction in this

Legislature. I accepted it. I will accept it from anyone.

I state clearly now that this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, in trying to associate me with those attitudes, is

completely false. It's completely against any statements or any

practice that I've made in living my life.

I believe that actions go along with words. And there's no way I'll

qualify a shareholder of a company because he's a Mormon as that

Minister did.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Have you consulted with your own Member yet?

MR. BENNETT: The Second Member for Victoria

[ Page 3061 ]

asks me.... I've had three discussions with that

Member. That Member and I have discussed his remarks. His statement to

me as to the content and his further statements directly to the group

involved and ultimately to the press on the weekend satisfy me that

there was a misunderstanding, and I accept that. And the Second Member

for Victoria, who wasn't watching television or seeing the statements

or his statement in the House the other day....

Interjection.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Wake up, for crying out loud!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: I feel it's unfortunate that the type of

twisting that's going on will cloud what I consider a very serious

discussion of the Minister's department, the purpose for which the

Minister is taking over companies, the intent of the forest industry in

B.C.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) summed it up. He said,

fine, that he believes in private enterprise, or free enterprise; so do

I. And if the Minister believes in complete socialism of the industry,

say so. That's the question we're asking.

If he believes in it to the detriment of operating the industry in,

as I believe, a responsible manner right now, and is more concerned

with takeover, announce it. Let us know exactly where this Minister

stands, where our remorse is in the forest industry, where he's taking

us and how they'll be managed in the future. Those were questions,

serious questions, questions about the whole intent of his

administration and how he administers that department.

Plateau, Kootenay were only examples of the type of action this

Minister uses to get his fondest dream: complete control and ownership

of the industry — and maybe to the detriment of the public.

The very fact that Plateau was reactivated upon the sending of a

letter from someone who dealt with this Minister certainly brings to

mind his attitudes and his tactics in taking over Plateau last year,

tactics that were questioned by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) last year and by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson). This letter reopened such charges.

It's not up to me to pass judgment on people who have been involved

with dealings with this Minister, but to present them to the Minister

in this Legislature and ask for what we got an answer for four days

late, an answer twisted in charges against the Leader of the Opposition

and anyone else to divert attention from what we're discussing here:

the administration of his department, the responsibility of taking us

into...letting us know, taking the public into his confidence as to how

he's managing our affairs.

He's not working for a private corporation; he's working for the

people of British Columbia, and he should report to the people of

British Columbia.

Where there are concerns on letters that are sent, it's his

responsibility to answer them. I accept his answer on this letter

today. I accept it today. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) asked me to table this letter, and I'll be pleased to

table it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not table in committee. He should wait until we return....

MR. BENNETT: Fine, well, I'll be pleased to table it. I'd like to just go on.

We asked some more questions over and above the tactics he uses to

take over. And over and above the twisting of our questions and our

intent, there was the question of the newsprint contract from Ocean

Falls. Now today for the first time the Minister says he is getting the

highest prices in Canada. Now that wasn't the impression we got....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I said that last week.

MR. BENNETT: That isn't the impression we got when you see in

the newspaper that he announces that he's going to renegotiate the

contract. When you've got a good contract, why, when the heat starts,

are you renegotiating it? If it's renegotiated, why can't we see the

old contract, if you don't want to show us the new contract?

I believe both of them should be tabled — and the old one with Crown

Zellerbach — because the Minister said that that doesn't bother him. He

was willing to give the details of that. He was willing to share the

details of the Crown Zellerbach agreement with the Legislature. Why not

any agreements with Gottesman? Why not the agreement you made with Mr.

Wallach?

I still believe that there's a conflict of interest when you have a

director of one government corporation making a deal — a major deal of

this magnitude — with the government for the sole marketing at what are

reported to be unusual terms with this government.

In the interest of easing the public mind this document should be

tabled. We asked for that. Some of the questions of where our newsprint

was being sold or taken directly — from news releases from Mr. Vesak,

of Ocean Falls.... He's named the countries; they're his words, not

mine.

We say that if our newsprint's being sold in that market, that

market traditionally pays black market prices. And we questioned, if

there was no protection

[ Page 3062 ]

to the people of British Columbia, that their

newsprint would be sold to these companies at rip-off prices. Perhaps

the Minister could assure us that he would write it into any future

agreement that British Columbia's newsprint will not be sold on the

world black market and that indeed our newsprint will be marketed in

the normal way at the normal prices, reflecting the normal market

fluctuations, not any weird third black market to the disadvantaged

countries of the world.

These are the types of questions we haven't had answered — questions

to do with the attitude of the Minister, the administration of the

office, his intent for the forest industry, his preoccupation with

takeover, his attacking American companies and Japanese companies on

one hand and his new association or continuing association and recently

increased association with Champion International and their subsidiary

Weldwood. These are the things that we question from that Minister, and

these are the very serious things that Minister hasn't answered.

We've heard a lot of flim-flam and stirring up and charges against the motivation as to why we were asking these questions.

But with office and the responsibility of office in the

administration goes the responsibility, particularly in government, to

keep the people informed. As Leader of the Opposition I'm asking

questions that are being asked by citizens of this province — some

through the news media, some as late as last year and some currently —

as to how our forest industry is being managed, how the Minister is

managing his portfolio and, indeed, whether we are being ripped off on

a newsprint contract made in an unusual way and marketed in an unusual

manner.

There are the questions that should be answered. These are the questions we are waiting to hear answered.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to add a few words in this debate, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the debate basically comes down.... This is pretty

well the first full week of it; I think we started it on Tuesday last.

It comes down to the question of the Col-Cel deal with the New York

sales agents and why the Minister will not release it.

It was a question I asked him over a week ago in the House. At that

time he said — and I quote him at that time — since it is the most

specific statement he has made on it:

I've indicated on two occasions, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the contract

would not be deposited in this House. However, the contract, which was superior

to prices on the west coast and consistently has been so, is under renegotiation

at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether or not "consistently" means that the price is higher at the present time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an agreement that does, in fact, relate to the market.

That is the most specific statement so far by the Minister on the

question of the Ocean Falls sales contract. My colleague from

Vancouver–Point Grey has gone into the reasons why we feel this should

be tabled in the House. The Minister came back late last week saying it

would not be ordinary sales practice of a private company to release

such details. I think the only thing he should have added at that point

was that Ocean Falls is, of course, not a private company to which such

rules would apply but a public company and that the people do have some

rights.

We in this House, as the representatives of the people — the shareholders, if you like — have, therefore, some right to know.

He talked about the price being consistently superior to the price

on the west coast. He has talked of this as a good deal, yet we have

lost something slightly under $1 million on the Ocean Falls deal and we

have no knowledge whether a better and different sales agreement might

well have saved the people of British Columbia from that loss.

I'm not going to go into the full debate on whether or not a black

market — whatever that may mean — does exist in parts of the Far East.

I would assume that people who would like to deal with third world

countries responsibly would be willing to sell them products on the

world market and not adopt a superior attitude which would, of course,

be that we don't wish their money and we think it is not good for them

to buy the products they would like to buy. I think that is an absurd

proposition put forward by the official opposition.

I don't think we should really go into the hypothetical case raised

by the Leader of the Opposition without the slightest shred of evidence

of any one roll of newsprint being sold anywhere in the third world by

Gottesman from Ocean Falls. Had research been done and had they checked

with the people who actually do the shipping, the guys who put the

stencils on the side, the guys who load the boats, they would have

found that, sure, Ocean Falls newsprint goes around the world. But then

so does MacMillan Bloedel newsprint and so does the newsprint from any

other company in B.C. They would also have discovered from the people,

had they checked, that there is no appreciable difference in the

shipping pattern of Ocean Falls newsprint with the shipping pattern of

any other major British Columbia company. It is a pretty simple thing

to check out. They could have done it. What I fail to see is why the

Minister himself, who must have more specific

[ Page 3063 ]

information than I could receive from the fellows who do the actual shipping, has not made this information public.

The argument breaks down into a two-fold one. On the one hand, we

are being ripped-off because we don't sell on these fantastic black

markets — totally unspecified, totally unknown to us — that exist in

the Far East. In other words, the suggestion is that the government

should get in there and make that sort of money.

On the other hand, the question also comes up — and I think

free-enterprisers such as ourselves in the opposition should put this

on the floor of the House — that if it is such a great market, why

aren't our free-enterprise companies involved in that area? Obviously

they are not. It strikes me as being totally fallacious to say that

because it may be that in certain parts of the world 1 or 2 or even 10

or 20 of the millions upon millions of rolls of newsprint that are sold

in the world get sold at something above the world market, therefore

British Columbia's smallest company, I believe, in terms of output

should be able to sell its entire production on that very favoured

market. I just don't understand the arguments put forward there.

We have had a case based entirely upon "if," "would," "perhaps,"

"therefore," and this type of hypothetical case put forward by the

Leader of the Opposition. It adds up to the fact that he really doesn't

know where the newsprint is being sold. He has created a hypothetical

case of allegedly lost profits — from $8 million to $20 million. We

have no idea of the size of the market; he has no information on the

actual sales cost; he has no information on any British Columbia

newsprint, whether it be private or from a public corporation, arriving

on these markets. All this could have been checked out.

The next thing, of course, is the IT&T case. We have had a

director, a former shareholder, complaining bitterly about mistreatment

at the hands of the government. Yet he had a ruling, prior to any deal

with !T&T, from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States

that a share transfer would not result in capital gains being taxed. In

other words, he could make the deal with IT&T without tax. Of

course, when IT&T was blocked by the government or, I should say,

when the government put forward the same offer as IT&T had put

forward — then the deal with IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and these

two gentlemen fell through because they were no longer selling the

corporation for which they had received the ruling. Thereupon, they

needed documentary evidence to indicate coercion, to indicate a blocked

sale so that they could save 45 per cent of their capital gains which

totalled something in the neighbourhood of $300,000.

Naturally, I don't blame them, and I don't doubt if the Minister

blames them, for their attempt to get him to indicate that there was

some sort of concerned. People who have $300,000 to lose or to gain,

depending upon the decision of the IRS, would certainly do their utmost

to ensure that they got a favourable ruling. To do that, of course,

they wanted to get that letter from the Minister, stating that pressure

had been put upon them by the government, they could not complete the

deal and it had been a forced sale.

The other shareholders were in different positions. Shielded by the

corporate shield, many of them didn't care; they did not have this

particular tax problem. But for the two in question, their personal and

corporate capital gains would have led to a loss of $300,000. I don't

really think we can blame them very much for attempting to get the

Minister to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion being used

and that it was a forced sale.

Having said that the situation as outlined by that absolute prince

of accuracy, the man who did so well on Du Pont that he had two

vice-presidents of Du Pont in the province to come and say, no, it was

not as he has said; it was a corporate mistake that led to the

cancellation and was not action related to Bill 31. Two of their

vice-presidents were so upset about the statements that they came

around to tell people about it. I understand they flew out from eastern

Canada, they were so concerned about the misinformation put forward.

Despite the misinformation on the ferry, despite the misinformation

on the contracts with Ocean Falls, we are still left with the question

which was asked to the Minister prior to the debate on his estimates:

what is the Gottesman contract? What is the relationship between

Gottesman and Ocean Falls? Is he enjoying substantial profits from the

Crown corporation or is he simply acting as a sales agent?

Why is it that Gottesman was involved and not British Columbia

companies who manage to sell their own pulp and paper — most of them at

least — by themselves? They have their own sales organizations. Why

were they not involved rather than a New York agent? Why was it that we

did not try and make British Columbians further involved in this so

that, as my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out, profits,

taxes and jobs would continue to accrue to British Columbia rather than

to an American corporation based in New York?

Those are the questions that were asked prior to the debate, prior

to the phony questions that were put forward. I would, once more, ask

the Minister to reply to them. I ask him in this sense: I said before,

when I spoke in this debate, that the case in terms of Ocean Falls

certainly had not proven that there were these losses in the Far East.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't you vote against Ocean Falls? Now you're switching your position. I

[ Page 3064 ]

don't understand you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will explain in due course. Mr.

Premier, you have been away for three out of the last four weeks. You

may have a little difficulty understanding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have it both ways; you have to make up your mind sometime.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps when the good Premier has had a

chance to reclimatize himself to British Columbia. The good doctor from

the American south, as he is now.... May I congratulate him, Mr.

Chairman? This is the first opportunity the House has had to

congratulate him on acquiring a doctorate, I believe, without any work

at all. We only trust that he won't now try to muscle in the Minister

of Health (Mr. Cocke) who has been so far exempt from the influence and

interfering of the Premier. Back to the case of Ocean Falls. The

company has been taken over by the government; it is publicly owned.

The question that comes up is whether or not the deal with Gottesman

was a good one, whether or at it could have been made with a British

Columbia organization, whether or not there has been a loss of profits,

loss of jobs, loss of tax revenues, resulting from the decision of the

Minister.

There is really only one way we can find that out and that is by the

Minister making public the maximum amount of information that he ran

regarding the existing contract which, as he says, is now up for

renegotiation and is being renegotiated. What was the agreement? How

long did it last for? The Minister was very candid, and I thank him for

this, with respect to the Crown Zellerbach sales contract. Why can he

not now be as candid with the Gottesman contracts?

We feel that the key to any decision by this House as to whether or

not his salary should be reduced, whether this motion should be

supported or rejected, is here. Once more I request at least the bare

minimum information that an opposition party or all opposition parties

and backbenchers should be entitled to when the company is question is

not a private corporation but a public corporation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It seems to me sometimes when I

sit in this House that I keep saying to myself that I've heard all this

before. It only seems to be the sides that have switched around in the

House. Whether the smear is going from right to left or left to right

really I don't think is the point. I've listened to the debate and must

confess that at times I've found it very difficult to follow the

accusations and counter-accusations that have gone back and forth.

I think there's little question — no question at all, in fact — that

this government is dedicated to widespread takeover of the private

forest industry. Much mention has been made over the past weeks and

months to the Waffle Manifesto, which I just mention very clearly

states in unequivocal terms that the NDP will work for the

nationalization of Canadian resource industries, including the

petroleum industry, gas well, pipe lines, refineries, coal, uranium,

the forest products industry, and the hard metal mineral industries and

related smelting. So there's no secret that this government is

dedicated to that takeover. That, in their view, is fine.

I don't know how often we've said in this House that this is just

the differing philosophy between that side of the House and this side

of the House. What worries me a little bit, apart from the fact that I

differ with the Minister's philosophy, is the bitterness that is thrown

back and forth across this House by both sides — by the Minister and by

the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Bennett). I realize that the

function of opposition is to probe and investigate and make sure that

not only is the government carrying out the business of the people

efficiently and with careful regard to the taxpayer's dollar, but also

with honesty and integrity and with no deals under the table. There

have been a lot of implications made in the course of the debate that

something fishy is going on. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I've tried to

listen carefully both in the House and on the squawk box in my office,

and I have come to certain conclusions.

In talking about bitterness, I just happen to feel that people can

have basic philosophical differences without becoming bitter. I think

the measure of bitterness which exists in one area was where a person

who told me of a meeting which a certain delegation had with the

Minister of Lands and Forests. The Minister, I understand, never

referred to the private sector of the forest industry; he just referred

to "these bastards." It seems to me that if that is a kind of a basic

attitude which this Minister has to the people in the private forest

industry, it bodes very badly for any really objective, cooperative

kind of endeavour between the government and the private sector. Yet

just recently the Minister was looking for a private-sector participant

in the Ocean Falls enterprise.

A moment ago the Premier was interjecting that he cannot understand

some of the inconsistencies in this House, particularly the position

taken by some of the Members in the Liberal Party on the Ocean Falls

issue. This party did support the Ocean Falls takeover for reasons that

were clearly stated at that time. As taxpayers ourselves and as

representatives of an

[ Page 3065 ]

opposition party, we do feel that the government

has a very clear and serious responsibility to make sure, as far as is

possible, taking into consideration the isolation and the turnover of

staff and social problems which are an inherent part of the Ocean Falls

site.... I'm not minimizing the difficulties. I said at the time that I

don't think it would matter very much if Father Christmas was trying to

run Ocean Falls plant. There are inherent social problems which arise

related to the isolated location and the fact that problems arise in

physical and emotional health of people in that setting. It's difficult

to run a mill when the turnover of staff is very frequent, and this is

another factor that's been mentioned already in northern development

which we may touch on later in debate.

So I'm not decrying that for a moment, but I am saying that there

are serious doubts in the mind of the private sector in this province,

not just because there is this basic philosophical difference between

the NDP and the other parties that public ownership is the answer to

the problem. There is that difference, but that isn't the only problem.

The problem is the manifest attitude by the Minister that he is very

bitter in his own personal attitude, and presumably in his goals,

towards the private forest industry in this province.

I just feel it is an unhealthy sign for the future of the forest

industry in British Columbia in having to deal with a Minister who has

made this very clear-cut, bitter commitment that, in effect, to quote

the Minister, they're bastards, they're not people of repute that he

feels he should deal with. If I'm misquoting the Minister, I'm

certainly willing to be corrected. But this kind of attitude and this

definition of the Minister's approach to the problem, I think the

Premier affirms by being a man interested in human relationships.... I

think the Premier would acknowledge that a Minister of the Crown,

holding perhaps the most important portfolio in the cabinet, showing

this particular attitude towards the private sector, is hardly likely

to promote and develop harmonious relationships where the Minister

himself has stated that in the Ocean Falls situation it would be good

to have a partnership with private enterprise.

Now I say to the Premier, who was talking a minute ago, that you

can't have it both ways; I'm saying to this Minister that he can't have

it both ways. If he wants to have a happy partnership with the private

sector, then I suggest that there has to be a greater willingness on

the Minister's part to demonstrate publicly that while we are not in

agreement philosophically there is a part which each side can play for

the benefit of all of the people of British Columbia and for the most

judicious use of our resources.

I'm not just talking about the amount of tax money that the

government may or may not extract from the resources. I'm talking about

the harmonious development of his whole department or of al! the

functions of his department, with particular reference to the forest

industry. But this is certainly the kind of heading we see in the

press. On March 30, the Sun says: "Partner Sought for Ocean Falls." I quote:

"Lands and Forests Minister Bob Williams in a joint

announcement with Ray Jones, chairman of B.C. Cellulose, said Friday

the government is inviting proposals from private companies to form a

new organization."

I won't read the whole article, but:

"Williams said the proposal is the beginning of major

changes at Ocean Falls. He said the government is not committed to

public ownership of the planned venture and that a joint undertaking

with a private group is probably the best answer."

That may well be, but I leave that point. I happen to think — and I

say this with respect — that the Minister could do more publicly to

diminish some of the bad influence he has created in terms of the

bitterness I mentioned and attempt to work out harmonious operations

with the private sector of the economy.

Just to finish, Mr. Chairman, I have simply to repeat what I've said

twice already in this debate. I sometimes wonder, when I wake up in the

mornings, if I can believe what I know: we're coming back into this

House to debate this amendment for, I think, the fourth or fifth day.

But regardless of many of the charges and counter-charges that have

been raised in this debate, one fact is quite clear: the government

moved in and used taxpayers' money to further its own philosophy that

public ownership was the answer to the particular problem in Ocean

Falls. Whether we even listened to one word that has been said in this

House, the record is in the newspapers, as I quoted last week, that

there is a discrepancy between the explanation given by this Minister

to deal with Gottesman-Central and the statement made by Mr. Wallach,

the president of that organization.

The Minister in this House has assured us that there was flexibility

in the contract and that it was not a fixed price for a fixed period of

time. I don't have the clipping with me, but Mr. Wallach is on clear

record as saying that they bought the complete output for three years.

On that basis, I feel, as an opposition Member, that I have every right

to expect the Minister who is, in effect, dealing with public money to

tell the House the exact details — at least in regard to the financial

aspect — of the deal with Gottesman-Central.

I refute the argument the Minister has presented that private

companies don't go around waving their agreements in public. I refute

it for the simple reason

[ Page 3066 ]

that that is not a fair comparison. Private

companies have private investors taking their own risk with their own

private funds. In the case of Ocean Falls, this government is taking

the money which taxpayers have paid and using that money, albeit,

maybe, with the best of intentions. But when government takes over a

corporation using taxpayers' money and spending taxpayers' money in the

operation of that corporation, I say this is quite a different kettle

of fish, or wad of pulp, or whatever — or red herring.

While I cannot be too impressed by a great deal of the issues that

have been raised as to whether there is any less than honourable

behaviour on the part of the Minister or whether he twisted arms or

used terror tactics or anything else, I think that is something we

should perhaps certainly consider. But the important issue before us is

one which raises a very definite philosophical issue and a very

practical issue.

The philosophical issue is that the government believed they could

do a better job with Ocean Falls by taking public ownership of the

company. The practical issue is that in so doing they utilized

taxpayers' money. We now find that this year the company will lose on

the order of $850,000. In fairness to the government, maybe nobody

could have prevented the operation losing money. I'm not even

questioning at the moment whether that's disastrous or not bad

considering all the circumstances or what. That's not what I'm

questioning. I'm just saying we have a very practical issue. The

company is losing money, and one of the ways in which it is probably

losing money is that it entered an agreement with an American broker at

a price far below the price at which the broker in turn can sell on

international markets. Now, if a private company does that....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you go and sell your ice cream, Roy; go and

sell some of your Dairy Queen ice cream. Never mind. I'm talking about

newsprint; you talk about ice cream.

The question has been raised as to whether the government has fallen

short in its responsibility at Ocean Falls by making an agreement with

an American broker and selling newsprint to that broker at a price well

below what could be obtained.

The point I was trying to make before we had the in