1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 19, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1409 ]

CONTENTS

Motion to adjourn

On signing of agreement to purchase Ocean Falls. Mr. McGeer

— 1409

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1409

Mr. McGeer — 1410

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1410

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ferry terminal at Hyde Creek. Mr. Chabot

— 1411

Purchase of Ocean Falls. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1411

Compensation under the Municipal Act. Mr. Wallace — 1412

Willingdon Girls' School. Mr. Curtis — 1413

Railway accident chlorine spill. Mr. Nunweiler — 1413

Altering of oil spill proposal. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1413

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources estimates.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1414

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1415

Mr. Smith — 1417

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1425

Mr. Wallace — 1428

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1429

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1430

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

sitting in this House for a number of years leading one of the

great parties, a great Canadian today is in the Speaker's

gallery. I'm sure we would all welcome him on the floor of the

House, Mr. Speaker — the Hon. Arthur Laing.

He was not only an MLA here, he not only was the leader of

his party here, but he was also a federal Member, he was a

federal cabinet Minister and now is in the Canadian Senate. A

great Canadian.

As person who has been leader of the government here for 20

years and gotten to know him very well indeed — all his

talents and abilities and the contribution he has made to

public life — I want to say that tribute to him here this

day, Mr. Speaker, and ask all the House to join me in that

tribute.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to

welcome the Senator. I had the opportunity of meeting him

earlier this morning. I have no knowledge of those great

historical battles; I am too young to remember those old

political fights. (Laughter). I am sure they were relevant in

their day.

I want to say how happy I am that the Senator is here with

us. He has on occasion met with me and given me sound advice,

and I hope he will continue to do so in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It is a delight to find that

other parties are so quick on their feet that they beat me to

it, to welcome the former leader of the provincial Liberal

Party in British Columbia, a former leader of the British

Columbia caucus in Ottawa, a fine Canadian, an outstanding man

and a great friend of mine, the Hon. Arthur Laing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative

Party also would welcome Mr. Laing. I am too young to know all

that went on before also. (Laughter). But any man who can stand

that much of public life must be a hero. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little later this afternoon there will be a

group in the gallery from Fort St. John — a touring

hockey team that participated this past weekend in the B.C.

championships, competing against other teams in B.C. to see who

was the best peewee rep hockey team in British Columbia. They

didn't win but they gave a good account for themselves and I am

sure the assembly would welcome this group of students from

Fort St. John.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I

move under standing order 35 (1) the adjournment of the House

to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance,

namely the signing of an agreement by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to purchase

industrial facilities from the Crown Zellerbach Corporation

without the authorization of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia and on behalf of a provincial Crown

corporation which does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I attach here a Press release from the

Minister's office.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on the

point raised, the Hon. Minister in question will be before the

House with his estimates — as a matter of fact, I think

today. So there is lots of opportunity for this House to

discuss this and other matters within that portfolio.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Start on the Minister today and then

legislation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to that particular

order, the House has no knowledge at this point of what the

order of business will be. We do know, however, that the Press

release was given after this House had risen on Friday. This is

the first opportunity for us to call to your attention that an

act outside the jurisdiction of the Minister has been

undertaken in our absence. Accordingly, we should deal with the

matter of the Minister's transgression as the first order of

business today.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The point of order has been taken as part of the

argument, I presume, on whether it is urgent to discuss the matter that was

raised by the Hon. Member today at this time, adjourning thereby the priority

or precedence motion that is before the House which says that the estimates

have first priority in this House during this time of

[ Page

1410 ]

the session. That is what we are engaged in by decision of

the House: the priority of the estimates. It is, I think, known

to the Members that when it comes to precedence of those

estimates, the Minister's estimates are to be before the House

as one of the urgent consideration to be taken up, I presume,

today.

Now, I cannot know definitely — I can't know anymore

than the Member — that that will happen, except the House

has ordered that those matters take priority over other

business. Therefore there is an early opportunity available to

the House to debate in full the statement made by the Minister

that you allege, if it was made.

Secondly, there is the opportunity to question him in regard

to it fully in the estimates.

Thirdly, the Member has raised another point; that is that

the Crown apparently, in his view, has not the power to make

transactions in regard to purchase, or otherwise, of land. Of

course, I can't see how that in any way affects the urgency of

debate because this House does not have the jurisdiction to

make purchases of land. That is retained within the royal

prerogative when one looks at standing orders and the

Constitution Act . It is not for this House to do it.

MR. McGEER: May I answer those points?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly…

MR. McGEER: The first of these is that there is nothing in

our estimate books which applied to this particular purchase.

Since our debate is therefore limited to votes that are

specified in our estimate books and which are in resolutions

that the House Leader now has in his diplomatic pouch, then

there is no way that we can properly bring forward this point

under the Minister's estimates.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, with regard to the authority of the

Crown to purchase land; the challenge is not to that authority,

but to purchase it on behalf of a Crown corporation which does

not exist. Sir, if you check the legislation governing our

existing Crown corporations, you will see that none of them are

entitled under the legislation to undertake the kind of

business…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want an argument on the merits; I just

want the point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with last year's budget

when the Crown makes a decision up to April 1, this year. The Member knows very

well that the Crown must be delegated authority and was delegated authority

for this present budget during the last full legislative session. April 1 is

when the new budget comes into power.

Secondly, if the Opposition is attempting to say that the

Crown has no authority to conduct the business of this province

while we're sitting here in this House, then the Opposition is

missing its responsibility in scrutinizing the estimates for

next year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Government missed the point

altogether. The point surely is that the House, Mr. Speaker, is

in session.

This matter has no doubt been discussed by the Government

for some time. The Government had every opportunity to advise

this House about this particular proposition. He could have

advised the House the same day he did it. This announcement

should have been made in the House first. It wasn't, Mr.

Speaker, and therefore the Minister is open to criticism on

that account.

The official Opposition will support the point taken by the

First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Hon. Members for their advice. I

have, as you all know, the difficulty here of determining

whether the regular ordered session should be adjourned for this

special matter in consequence of what the Hon. Members have

drawn to my attention — both by the statement of the

matter by the Hon. First Member for Point Grey and a Press

release dated March 16 re Ocean Falls from the Hon. Minister

concerned.

The Hon. Minister's salary estimate comes up today, and it's

traditional in May's Parliamentary Practice and in our

standing orders that his conduct in his office, and what he

does and what he announces are the subject of the most

strenuous debate.

MR. McGEER: He doesn't want the leader of the Government to

answer questions asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The point is that we have not yet got

before us anything other than a statement of the matter which

is the purported purchase or agreement to purchase the company

town of Ocean Falls for $1 million according to the Press

release sent up by the Hon. Member. Therefore I have to

determine not whether this is a matter of urgent importance

today but whether there is an opportunity to debate it. If

there isn't, then it's my duty, as I see it, to agree that the

matter be put to the House. But I can foresee that this matter

will either be dealt

[ Page 1411 ]

with today or in the near future as the most important

precedence matter before the House. The Minister's estimates

are next in line, I understand — certainly alphabetically,

and by practice in this House.

So I must rule that the matter is not of such urgency, in

view of the rules by which we are bound.

MR. McGEER: Point of order. May I just speak to that

point?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I've heard you on that point, and I have to

make up my mind on the matter. There is no appeal from this

decision under our rules. I can invite submissions — I

don't have to listen to them — but I always try to hear

what you have to say. So we must go on to the next order of

business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't challenge my ruling

under that section, unfortunately. I would be glad to argue

that out with you, but that standing order does not permit a

challenge.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

FERRY TERMINAL

AT HYDE CREEK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have a question, Mr.

Speaker, for the Minister of Highways.

In view of the fact that 356 of the residents of Cormorant

Island and Malcolm Island have expressed their desire to locate

the ferry terminal at Hyde Creek as being a better solution to

the transportation problem on the north island, is the Minister

able to give the House an undertaking that the wishes of these

residents will be respected?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the Member who

asked the question only told part of the story. There's another port involved

— Port McNeill. It's a three-point landing — the ferry touches on three points.

You ignored completely it's not between Cormorant and Malcolm Island; it's running

between Cormorant Island, Malcolm Island, and Port McNeill. The three of them

could not agree as to where the terminal should be located. They continually

disagreed, no matter where it was going to be, and as Minister of Highways I

took the decision of putting it in Port McNeill, which meets the needs of the

people and is the most economic.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: does the Minister not

agree that, applying the shorter run principle which he applied

to the Gabriola mainland run, the same principle should apply

to the north island?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the Hon. Minister has to

answer theoretical questions, or something that he has not

already decided or that has been concluded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What, in fact, we're discussing is the

perimeter of an isosceles triangle. You can move the three

points in an isosceles triangle in different ways without

increasing the length of the run.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

PURCHASE OF

OCEAN FALLS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Lands

and Forests whether he would inform the House why the decision regarding Ocean

Falls was not made to this House prior to the release to the public.

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

of Recreation and Conservation): I'd like to advise the House, Mr. Speaker,

that the agreement that was made with Crown Zellerbach Corporation was not made

in fact until Friday afternoon, so that the earliest possible time this House

could be advised was today.

Now we feel we have an obligation to the people themselves

as well outside this chamber. The people most directly affected

are the people in that region and the people in that town. They

are the people that were first advised, and I'm proud of that,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: Too little, too late.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary to the Minister's reply:

may I ask the Minister why it took over six months to make this

decision and why it was taken within two weeks of most of the

residents leaving the town when this was a subject of debate

last summer during the electoral campaign?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've advised this

House, I think on two occasions in the

[ Page 1412 ]

oral question period, that negotiations and discussions were

going on with Crown Zellerbach. That is simply the case.

Discussions carried on with Crown Zellerbach despite the fact

that that previous administration had not pulled things

together. Discussions carried on until last Friday afternoon,

Mr. Speaker. Negotiations carried on. As a result I think the

people of the province have benefited from the length of

negotiations, in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? The Hon. Member for Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. McGEER: …if he has firmly committed this legislative

assembly by signed contract to the expenditure of $1

million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! When I call for order, I expect the Hon.

Member to be seated. If we don't have rules of order then we'll

get into the situation that has prevailed at other times. And

it's not a happy situation.

I point this out because you were starting something that

was entirely irregular, that is, that this Legislature has the

primary jurisdiction and that this was taking it from the

Crown. As you know, in our standing orders that is not correct,

and to argue a question in a question is certainly stating a

false premise. That's why I brought you to order.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. McGEER: May I rephrase the question?

MR. SPEAKER: After the Member for Oak Bay, if you have a

supplementary. Is it on the same thing, Hon. Member?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm asking on a different matter, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same supplementary? The Member for

Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, on the same

subject with regard to Oak Bay…(Laughter). I beg your

pardon — with regard to Ocean Falls; Oak Bay will be

taken over next.

Mr. Speaker, pollution control standards for pulp mills

throughout British Columbia were laid down by the previous

government and there was about to be required a series of

improvements in those standards. I'd like to ask if the

Minister could indicate to the House whether pollution control

standards will be expected at Ocean Falls under the

Government's operation of the mill, and what those standards

will be. Will they be as severe as will be called for in other

parts of the province? Forthwith, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The standards are all under review by the department

at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Anybody else on the same subject? I hope the

next ones are in order.

MR. McGEER: With your guidance, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Minister what Crown corporation he has made this purchase on

behalf of. Is that in order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that's in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to advise the House, Mr.

Speaker, that the question of the details of the acquisition

itself is in the hands of the Attorney General's department.

Whatever necessary programme is needed, I'm sure will be

carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

COMPENSATION FOR

EXPROPRIATION UNDER

THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker — I

thought I'd never make it. Could I ask the Premier a question?

Inasmuch as

section 706(

c) of the Municipal Act states

that when expropriation takes place when land is zoned

exclusively for public use in the Municipal Act

compensation shall be paid. Would he like to comment on the

public statements of the weekend which are completely

contrary to this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out May, at page

327. You cannot ask an opinion from an officer of the Crown on

any question of law. The Attorney General is an example. So it

would be out of order.

[ Page 1413 ]

MR. WALLACE: But, Mr. Speaker, does this apply in such a

public statement in all media by the Premier which clearly

contradicts what is in law, stated in 706, sub

section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the comments referred to by

the Member are dealing with the debate under Bill 42. I would

be happy to engage in an exchange of opinion under that bill

according to the orders and rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

WILLINGDON GIRLS SCHOOL

ALTERNATE LIVING PROGRAMME

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Could he

inform the House with respect to some form of pilot programme

which is about to get underway or which, in fact, is underway

in the vicinity generally south of Duncan, which has been

described as a community opportunities programme and which

involves some form of farming?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I was asked a question yesterday by the Member from that area, Mr.

Strachan. We're having a meeting this afternoon in my office with the people

involved.

This is a group of people that we contacted last November to

help us set up some alternate living arrangement for some girls

who would be released from the Willingdon girls' school. I

might say that I'm somewhat disturbed by the kind of open

meetings that have been going on because at the moment we have

not made any decision about budget. I would be quite prepared

to tell the House after my discussion this afternoon what is

actually taking place in respect of the group.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: at

this time no provincial funds have been allocated for such a

programme?

HON. MR. LEVI: The only funds that have been made available

are to individuals who did a series of interviews for us last

— December and January with all of the girls in the

Willingdon school. As to the actual project itself, it is still

under consideration. No specific funds, other than the

day-to-day consultant fees that we've been paying,

have been allotted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

CHLORINE SPILL

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources on the matter of a railway accident by the Canadian

National Railway about 100 miles east of Prince George which

involved four chlorine cars. One of them had a chlorine spill.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he has the results of the

investigation that would have been conducted, this being in the

Fraser River watershed.

Number two, are certain actions being taken to have the

Canadian Transport Commission review the safety railway

conditions such as speed requirements, running gear

requirements and roadbed requirements?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question of jurisdiction

here really involves the federal Transport Commission. I

certainly will obtain all material with respect to our own

department and take action with respect to the federal

authorities.

I might note that there is a meeting with the federal

Minister of Transport just later this month. I'd be pleased to

take up this serious question with the federal Minister at that

time.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the second part of the

question relates to the federal jurisdiction and is not,

therefore, within this chamber. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

ALTERING OF

OIL SPILL PROPOSAL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier

arising out of a report in Friday's Vancouver Province

newspaper where the head of the Premier's task force on the

British Columbia Railway, which we know as "The Way Out

proposal," indicated that the British Columbia proposal

is inferior to the Mackenzie Valley one. In the light of this,

does the Premier intend to revise his submission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Mr. Law's opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. As Prof.

Law headed up the task force and is described as the team

leader of the British Columbia government's proposal, would the

Premier perhaps think that it's more than just a professor's

opinion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to respond to

the Member by pointing out to him that Prof. Law's first

proposal was made to the federal government where it was

dismissed without examination. On behalf of the Province of

British

[ Page 1414 ]

Columbia and responsible for the railway, the BCR, we took

Prof. Law's proposal, which had been rejected by one

administration, and attempted to adapt it to our own

administration on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

The federal government refused to take initiatives. We, the

Province of British Columbia, with the backbone of our B.C.

Rail, offered an alternative that is workable and feasible.

That's why we proposed it. If the federal government wishes to

pick up Prof. Law's first proposal, we would be happy to see

that leadership from Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. First, I

would point out that the inaccurate statements made about the

federal position are not helping getting tankers off this

coast.

Second, is whether or not the British Columbia proposal,

which has been described by the head of the task force which

drew up the British Columbia proposal as being inferior to

another…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Is the Hon. Member asking a

question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would the Premier in any way alter the

submission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What I'm suggesting is exactly what I said

in the beginning. If the federal government will come up with a

proposal of its own and if Prof. Law's proposal is superior and

the federal government will back it as an alternative to those

oil tankers, I'll endorse that. What we're doing is being

responsible, not just criticizing like the federal government

with no alternative plan whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey. Oh, I'm sorry. The bell has just rung.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee of supply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): When was the question, Mr.

Speaker? We were informed on Friday last that we would be

dealing with legislative reports. I'm wondering whether…

MR. SPEAKER: I think that whether you were informed that or

not, that does not constitute any binding decision on this

House. The House Leader can choose the business for the

day.

AN HON. MEMBER: The man you can trust.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

House in committee of supply; Ms. Young in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

On vote 131: Minister's office, $64,032.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Madam Chairman, it is the

practice while we're in estimates to move immediately to

estimates for a short period so that we follow orders of the

day, then go on to legislation. I want to say that in calling

the Minister's estimates today and then finding the Opposition

opposed to it after they wanted an emergency debate is somewhat

contradictory. Despite the contradictory position, I have asked

the Minister if he would come on today because an important

Government policy decision was announced late Friday as soon as

the arrangement was consummated.

Before the Minister goes into his report and questions on it

in his estimates, I want to say that one of the proudest

moments I've had as Premier of this province is participating

with the Minister in arranging for the purchase of Ocean Falls.

Through that purchase, we are saying to the people of this

province and demonstrating that we consider jobs and the

resources of this province to be paramount, and we would not

let that town die as Social Credit had allowed it to.

This Minister has worked many, many hours pulling this

package together after we inherited the mess from the previous

administration. I notice now, as we see a pattern developing

— and I want the people of this province to notice it

— as soon as we get down to discussing cases, the

official Leader of the Opposition leaves the House and refuses

to participate in the debates in this House.

We want a full debate on the purchase of Ocean Falls. They

wanted an emergency debate and the official Leader takes off

out of the House to arrange another meeting somewhere else.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You call them to order, Madam Chairman,

while I speak on this important purchase. I want to praise the

Minister. I want to thank him and I want to tell all the

working people

[ Page 1415 ]

of this province that this purchase demonstrates…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rip-off

Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …that we intend to govern this

province, through this purchase…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Premier. You must speak to the

vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am, and under this vote, Madam Chairman,

the purchase of Ocean Falls has been managed by this Minister.

The purpose of this purchase is to assure all British

Columbians that we are concerned with their security first.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

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

Madam Chairman, it's typical of the Opposition in this House that the real issues

are always ignored. The question of jobs, the question of the protection and

preservation of a region…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, what do these people

really care about? They've talked about jobs throughout this

session.

In this particular situation we wanted to protect jobs in a

region that has been left listless and on the vine by the

former administration. When we took up the cudgel and dealt

with the problems of that region, what did we get from them? We

got the kind of nitpicking, narrow presentation that we've had

throughout this session.

We see a responsibility to the region up there, a

responsibility to the people who are affected, and to the rest

of the taxpayers of this province. We feel we've carried it

out.

That agreement was not signed until after this House rose on

Friday last. It wasn't signed until later Friday afternoon.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Why not? Because we wanted to get the

best possible deal for the people of British Columbia. That's

why not.

Then, Madam Chairman, the Hon. Leader of the official Opposition (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) said…this is the man that signed the Wennergren deal, remember

that? Where did he sign that? Was that announced in this House? Not on your life.

Remember the Northern Pacific Railway, the one that started

nowhere and ended up nowhere — but elected that group

once more? That kind of bafflegab, of promising jobs, promising

the development of regions and never, ever produce.

The same Hon. Leader of the official Opposition even agreed

to the Columbia Treaty outside of this Legislature, and made

commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of

what even he anticipated. And all of it outside of this

Legislature.

I challenge the Members of the official Opposition to go up

with the MLA from McKenzie (Mr. Lockstead) to Ocean Falls and

to debate this issue there and see what the reaction will be in

that community.

Just the same old narrow nonsense from the bafflegab crew

that produced nothing in northern British Columbia.

I'd like to say what's happened just over the last couple of

days in terms of a report from Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The

report that we have is this, from Mr. Vesek, the man who will

head up the management team in Ocean Falls.

Mr. Vesek advises me this morning that 87 people in Ocean

Falls have already indicated they want to work in the new

community and for the new group governing Ocean Falls. In

addition some 10 people who formerly lived in Ocean Falls have

indicated they want to come back and work in the community. In

addition, there are those who want to stay for a period of time

to make sure that the new venture is successful so that they

can work through the initial six month period as well. So it's

very clear what the reaction has been from both the people of

Ocean Falls and, I think, from the province itself.

I'd like to talk generally, Madam Chairman, about some of

the problems of northwestern British Columbia. Ocean Falls is a

small part of a range of problems facing northwestern British

Columbia. I must say that the former administration let this

region just drift. Northwestern British Columbia has stagnated

under the former administration.

It is no accident, Madam Chairman, that the New Democratic

Party won every riding from Prince George west. It is no

accident whatsoever. That was a region long neglected and the

people knew it was a region long neglected. That's why they

turfed you out. It's as simple as that.

Part of the reason for the neglect, Madam Chairman, was the

fact that they could never cooperate with the federal

government, no matter what. If it meant hurting the region, it

didn't matter. If they could gain a few points in a narrow

fight with Ottawa, they'd take it every time. So the future

[ Page 1416 ]

that region was held back because that former administration

could never co-operate with the federal government.

The question of harbours, the question of rail development,

the question of integrating our resources with the development

and working closely with those in the federal sphere just

didn't happen. The gradual hardening of the arteries of the

former administration plugged first in northwestern British

Columbia under that administration.

I'd like to say, Madam Chairman, that we've had considerable

co-operation with the federal government in northwestern

British Columbia, with the Canadian National Railway Company.

I'd like to say here and now that that company has been most

cooperative. The problems of that region and of those

towns depends on a co-operative pattern between Ottawa

and Victoria. We are determined to see that that

co-operation continues as it has in the last six

months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That includes the question of railway

spur lines, the question of the relationship of the railway to

the British Columbia Railway; that includes the kind of

infra-structure that is necessary for the existing

industries in that region to develop and prosper.

You know, the kinds of things that happened in that part of

the province under the former administration… I suppose the

best example is the Bulkley Valley Forest Industries at

Houston. There's a community that relied on the policies of the

former administration and paid the price.

A single-shot answer: a multi-national

corporation to solve all the problems of the region, parcelling

out huge regions of this province to single

multi-national corporations. That was the pattern of the

past. The people of Houston paid for that pattern of the past.

And the people on the coast have been infected as well.

It's a region that has been underdeveloped and

underestimated, Madam Chairman. The forest resources of the

tributary band along the Canadian National Railway is most

significant. It's been underestimated by our staff in the past

and it's an area that has received first priority consideration

by this Government.

The analyses and work that have gone on by our staff in that

region is excellent, I am proud to say. It was an opportunity

in terms of overviewing the hopes and prospects and the sound

economic base of a region that had never taken place

before.

There are other remaining large companies in the northwest of British Columbia,

Madam Chairman, that also have very serious problems — problems that can in

fact be overcome. But they're problems that can't be overcome without considerable

effort, both on the part of the companies and on the part of the government.

It's the kinds of problem in that region that can't be tackled by any one group

alone. That's why there has to be co-operation between Victoria, Ottawa, ourselves

and the companies that are concerned.

The timber resource of that region, Madam Chairman, has

neither been used wisely nor well in recent years. My staff in

the forest service I think can document that; anyone with half

an eye to see could document it as well.

The pulpmills up in that region are essentially using

roundwood, wood that can be used for better purposes —

for chipping and turning into pulp. It's very clear that the

kind of industrial base that is necessary for both those mills

and those communities to survive satisfactorily has not yet

developed.

We cannot put these other communities in the same category

as Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The problems of the industries

and the future of those towns are indelibly intertwined. The

problems of a community such as Prince Rupert are most

significant. I don't think the people of this province realize

how serious the problems of Prince Rupert are at this time.

It's been one of the prime concerns of this Government to see

to it that the economy of the northwest of British Columbia is

stabilized. It's in the interests of all of us in this province

to see that that is the case.

Prince Rupert, Madam Chairman, is heavily dependent on the

two mills at Watson Island. Terrace, Kitwanga and the whole

Skeena region are heavily dependent on the mills on Watson

Island in Prince Rupert. The very fact that these communities

in northwestern British Columbia are so dependent on the mills,

both at Kitimat and Prince Rupert, is the reason we've spent

the time we have on the question. It's the reason we took the

kind of bold stand that I suspect the former administration

would never have taken with respect to the Weyerhaeuser

deal.

I can't believe, Madam Chairman, that Weyerhaeuser would

have spent the time it did in trying to consummate a deal with

Columbia Cellulose unless they had the tacit approval of the

former administration. Had the Weyerhaeuser deal gone through

in terms of turning over the southern profitable operations

of Columbia Cellulose to Weyerhaeuser, then northern

communities again would have been left in an extremely

vulnerable position; one that this administration was simply

unwilling to accept.

It's too important to that region and too important to the

province to just let the usual kind of "business as usual"

market transactions that the former administration was willing

to live with continue. That's unacceptable to the new

Government of British Columbia.

The economic viability of those towns in north-

[ Page

1417 ]

western British Columbia would have been under a dark cloud, and the future

prospect of the economy in northwestern British Columbia would have been very

black indeed had that deal gone through. These things are not just simple market

transactions between a couple of companies. These are towns, communities, smaller

businesses, regions affected. The transactions in the marketplace must reflect

some kind of social responsibility.

This is a government that is determined, Madam Chairman, to

see that the transactions in fact reflect social

responsibility. We want those communities protected and we will

not see the companies make their decisions unilaterally. The

future of Prince Rupert, Terrace and Kitimat depend on that,

Madam Chairman.

I've explained earlier, Madam Chairman, that the narrow view

of the relationship between this province and the federal

government has greatly hurt northwestern British Columbia

— a narrow view too, I think, of the urban potential of

these towns.

If we're really going to develop the north of this province,

we're going to have to have important, significant cities that

provide a cultural and commercial base for the hinterland as

well. We can't really think in terms of just Prince George

orjust the lower mainland being the key centres in the

province. There has to be a strong urban base developed in

northwestern British Columbia as well, Madam Chairman.

I believe that Prince Rupert was almost threatened as much

as Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The prospect of breaking up the

Columbia Cellulose Company and selling off the profitable

southern end would have put Prince Rupert in almost as

vulnerable a position.

The future viability of those major companies in

northwestern B.C. is dependent upon major government action.

The future of those communities is dependent upon major

government action. There have to be changes in the

infrastructure of northwestern British Columbia. There have to

be significant highway activities, Madam Chairman. There has to

be significant railway activity. There has to be significant

co — operation with respect to the rate structure on the

Canadian National Railway line from Prince George to Prince

Rupert.

There must be, in addition, a major buildup of sawmill

capacity and production in the region so that more and more of

the residuals from sawmills are providing the base for the pulp

industry of the northwest, rather than good groundwood that

could either produce veneer or plywood or lumber. The future of

those mills and those towns is dependent upon major change,

Madam Chairman, and major action.

I'm afraid that the seriousness of the problems of northwestern British Columbia

have not really got through to the general public. I think in a sense the Ocean

Falls situation is one that has registered upon the general public of British

Columbia because there's been a fairly long period for the public to absorb

the situation of that one single community. But the problems of the other communities

I don't think have got through to the people of British Columbia, and I must

point to them today.

There's going to be much discussion, Madam Chairman, in the

coming months with respect to those communities and those

operations. It won't be just discussion, Madam Chairman; it's

going to be action as well. This is a new era of social

responsibility in British Columbia.

We as a Government are determined to see that regions such

as the northwest, regions that have been allowed to drift and

stagnate, will be transformed, will have a new sense of hope, a

new sense of direction that they never had before. It is, Madam

Chairman, a new era. It is a new attitude. It is a new

government, one that is not afraid to move both with the times

and with the people.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Madam

Chairman. If you'll give me one moment to organize my

notes.

It does seem to me, Madam Chairman, that perhaps we should

deal with one of the most important events of the weekend

first, since this is the reason given by the Hon. Premier for

bringing the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources before the House this afternoon — when we

were told on Friday that we would be in legislation this

afternoon. So let's discuss this matter, Mr. Minister, of the

intended deal and purchase of Ocean Falls by the provincial

government.

According to the news release that I have before me, "NDP

resource Minister, Robert Williams, who announced the purchase

in Victoria on Friday night, said the facilities will likely be

placed in a new Crown corporation to be set up by special

legislation."

While the question was put to the Hon. Minister in the

question period, he managed to escape really directly saying

how this purchase was to be financed. I think the question is

valid, Madam Chairman, and one that the Minister, when he is

back on his feet again, should answer in detail.

How, Mr. Minister, do you propose to purchase the assets of

a town for $1 million, when the legislation which would provide

for the purchase of that asset is not through the House at the

present time? What are the source of funds then, that you

anticipate using? Is this an agreement that is tentative? Is it

a firm agreement? Do you have a commitment to pay $1 million

for those assets of Crown Zellerbach or don't you have that

commit-

[ Page 1418 ]

ment? If you do, what are you going to do; bring down a

special warrant to Treasury — an order-in-council

through Treasury to finance the purchase?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Are you for it or

against it?

MR. SMITH: I think, Mr. Attorney General, before the day is

out we'll be asking for answers to a lot of questions; not only

on the Ocean Falls purchase, but on a number of other important

points that come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

So let's just analyse without even knowing what the

agreement says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: We've got to see an agreement first. But just

let's analyse and build some of the matters that are involved.

We can be fairly specific, because I think that we do know

enough about the situation at Ocean Falls to realize that there

are problems both ways — both for the government…that's already been admitted by the Hon. Minister. He doesn't

see this as any great startling accomplishment in terms of a

viable company that they're purchasing, or that you're

purchasing.

As a matter of fact, there is serious doubt whether it will

make any profit at all, if that is the situation. On the other

hand, we have a situation of a community occupied by a number

of people, the main portion of which has already left Ocean

Falls. Some are there that have not been able to find a means

of getting out or, for one reason or another because of their

commitments have been delayed. So just let's take a look at

some of these points.

Who is going to benefit by the retention of Ocean Falls, and

who may lose by that? Let's see. Well, what is this to the

person who lives presently in Ocean Falls? Obviously they have

a choice now as to whether they wish to remain in that

community or not. If their decision is to remain, those that

are left and who have not sold either their property or any of

their assets are probably no worse off financially than they

were a few weeks ago.

But what about the people who have already left, who have

sold their property and their possessions at distress prices;

what about them? The ones who have sacrificed a great deal

knowing that they would not have a job in this particular area

in a few short weeks or two months at the longest, so they have

sacrificed a great deal and they've left, a lot of them; are

they going to return?

Well, according to the Minister's own statements, a few have said they'll come

back to work — ten, as a matter of fact, want to come back says the Minister.

Ten, out of how many hundreds of people that have left, wish to return.

Of those that are there there is an indication that 87 want

to remain in Ocean Falls and work there. Well, the disadvantage

to those people that have left is that now it is too late to

recoup the financial loss they may have suffered from moving

out.

Frankly, Mr. Minister, I don't think that those who have

left and found gainful employment elsewhere will be in any

great hurry to move back. What is to say that the future in

Ocean Falls under the NDP government is going to be any better

or any brighter for them than the future was before under the

management of Crown Zellerbach.

As a matter of fact, unless it is the position of the

Government to subsidize that operation by one means or another,

I don't see any department or any agency of government

operating that plant any more efficiently than the people who

have been in the business for 50 years.

If they are unable to make a financial success of that

particular operation, then tell us, Mr. Minister, how you

expect a Crown agency to make a greater success of it. What

type of money will be involved in subsidies, either direct or

indirect? What type of money do you plan to spend, for

instance, on the modernization of the plant which, if you are

going to be consistent, you must do? How much money will be

involved in modernizing that plant and putting in pollution

abatement controls which, if you are going to follow the

policies that you have said were necessary in this province,

you must do?

Certainly, you are not going to operate a plant, are you,

that's old, antiquated, out-dated, wasteful, inefficient,

just to supply a few jobs? Is this what you are going to do? Or

are you going to not only be the authors of the type of

controls that you want to see put throughout the entire

industry or installed throughout the entire forest industry by

the Province of British Columbia, but are you also going to

abide by those rules and regulations yourselves?

In relation to the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in relation to the actual costs

in terms of financial commitment by the taxpayers of this

province, we might very well find the number of jobs that are

retained, the number of jobs you actually end up providing in

Ocean Falls, could very well be the most expensive jobs that we

had ever created in the Province of British Columbia. I think

we are entitled to know a little bit more from the Minister

than what he has given us in his opening remarks this

afternoon.

It would seem to me that the biggest beneficiary from such a move is the ego,

perhaps, of the NDP. Certainly it satisfies the party position of a socialist

government that they must get into business, that

[ Page

1419 ]

they must control, that they must take over. I presume it

also satisfies a minority of the backbenchers within your own

party that it is going to be satisfactory in terms of a number

of jobs to those people who will be employed at Ocean

Falls.

While we are at it what about this price of $1 million which

is quoted as being the purchase price? Is that a price subject

to negotiation or change or is that a firm price? What could

the Government have done in terms of a negotiated agreement if

they really dealt toughly? After all, they were in a position

to.

Certainly, when a company has indicated that they were

prepared to close out the operation and suffer their losses at

that particular time whatever that loss might be, it would seem

that perhaps the Government was overly generous in the price

they offered; overly generous with a private corporation, the

type that this particular Minister continually berates when he

speaks on the floor of this House.

There is also a situation with regard to the operation of

the mill. As I understand it the present company, Crown

Zellerbach, will continue to operate at least for a period of

time — up to, I believe, 1975. If this is true…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: It's not true…the Government themselves will

take over the complete operation? Is this what you are saying,

the Government itself will take over the complete operation of

that particular plant?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With agreements from Crown

Zellerbach.

MR. SMITH: With agreements with Crown Zellerbach, the

Minister says. What kind of agreements, Mr. Minister? What type

of agreements? Part of it's in the Press release, yes.

Regardless of that, just what type of a deal is this in

terms of the economics of the Minister who represents a Crown

corporation. What type of continuing finance do you foresee

that you will have to pump into that operation in order to make

it viable?

Even with an increased price of pulp and paper today —

and we will grant that fact that there is an increased market

demand and price for it — what type of money do you

foresee the taxpayers of this province will have to pump into

that particular project to keep it running, to keep it viable,

to do all the improvements that must be done if you are going

to conform even to your own legislation?

Has the Minister considered the problem that has been with that mill ever since

it was first put into operation: that is the problem of people employed in a

very isolated community? It is one of the great problems with respect to staffing

a mill in a situation like that because it is isolated in respect to the rest

of the lower mainland and places that people would like to visit occasionally.

Has he given that any thought?

What type of money will we be committed to, to put in a

modern ferry service to accommodate the people of that

community so that they can have the same facilities available

to them as other parts of the Province of British Columbia? In

terms of investment, in government investment, how much money

is involved in that one particular area?

What has happened in terms of loss of key employees in that

particular situation? Certainly a number of these people have

left. From what I understand and from what I read most of them

have found jobs in the industry because there was a shortage of

their particular skills.

Do you think they are going to be in any hurry to go back to

a semi-isolated community? It is very doubtful. The only

advantage a community like that has over some of the

communities in the rest of British Columbia is that it has a

different pace of life; that it is a small community not

subject perhaps to the pressures of the large city.

In this day and age, for every one family who are perfectly

satisfied with those types of situations because they enjoy

that type of life, there are a hundred more that will have no

part of it because they do not readily adapt to a situation in

which isolation is part of their everyday life.

So how many good employees have been lost to other agencies

or perhaps even moved by the same company to other positions?

What is the cost of upgrading the plant to provide the type of

pollution abatement equipment that will be required in order to

continue that operation in a safe manner?

What is the situation with regard to the agreement between

yourselves and Crown Zellerbach? What if the operation

continues to show an operating loss? Is the Government prepared

to make that information public? Or is it the intent of the

Government to bury it in some manner so that the people of this

province will never know what they have had to pay out in terms

of dollars of tax money to keep the operation going?

Certainly the people who are left there will feel a

temporary sense of relief. They know that their jobs will be

continued for a short period of time. But I'll tell you this,

Mr. Minister: in a situation like that, if I was a person

living in Ocean Falls at the moment, I'd be very, very

reluctant to tie my future and the future of my children into a

community which might have a very limited life even under the

artificial props that may be contemplated by the NDP.

I would think that any man or woman living there must have

serious doubts about their future in that community. The

tendency will be to try to find employment in the forest

industry in other parts of

[ Page 1420 ]

the Province of British Columbia. Frankly, at the moment I

understand there is quite a shortage of skilled technicians and

skilled personnel in the lumber and logging industry and I'm

sure that a lot of those people will find employment in other

areas.

The Minister was speaking about northwestern British

Columbia and how it is stagnating — how the communities

seem to be drying up. He made quite an impassioned plea about

the position of the NDP with respect to the growth of these

areas, and that you were committed and the Government was

committed to a growth policy that would help bolster the

economy of northwestern British Columbia, which he referred to

in particular. He referred to such communities as Prince

Rupert, Smithers, and so on.

Let's take a look at some of the communities that are

supposed to be drying up or growing smaller because of the lack

of activity.

What does the record show? In Prince Rupert the population

from 1966-1971 has increased. Not a large increase, but

an increase. In Burns Lake it's remained almost the same; in

Kitimat it has increased by 2,000 people; in Terrace it has

increased by 2,500 people; and in Prince George by 10,000

— according to the information that I have, comparing the

1966 population with the 1971 population.

That proves this, Mr. Member: if the communities were dying

for lack of an economic base, the population would not be

increasing, it would be decreasing. It would be going down, not

up, because the tendency would be to leave those areas and

migrate to some other part of British Columbia where the

possibilities of gainful employment would be better, chances of

advancement would be greater.

So these communities, just on that basis alone, if you want

to use that as a yardstick, have not dried up. They're not

disappearing. Certainly something can be done to bolster their

economies. But to leave the impression within this House that

the communities are slowly disintegrating, that they're slowly

stagnating because of policies of a former government is

completely unfair and completely incorrect, Mr. Minister, and

you know it.

The development of all parts of northern British Columbia,

be it northwestern, north central, or northeastern, for a

number of years to come will be dependent upon the development

of basic resources in those areas.

For either you, or the Hon. Premier, or any other Minister of the Crown to

suggest that these communities should be looking towards secondary industry

as a means of survival at this particular stage of their growth is complete

nonsense. They're not in an area where they can economically get into the second

growth types of industry that we would like to see attracted to this province.

As a whole, this province with the salary scales that we have prevalent are

uncompetitive with other parts of Canada, even though we have the seaports right

at our back door, and the Minister knows that very well.

So the economy and the development of these areas will be

based upon resource development. It will be based upon further

mining activities, the exploitation of forest resources, and

the manufacturing of forest resources.

Certainly those are two areas of northwestern British

Columbia, north central British Columbia, that will come into

the fore. But it will only come into the fore, Mr. Minister, if

the government of this day is prepared to carry out a programme

of development. If the no growth policy that has been bandied

about this province is the policy of this Minister, then these

communities do not have a future in British Columbia because

they will, in fact, disintegrate and dry up.

If the policy that we have heard enunciated time and again

by Members of the NDP affects the entire province of British

Columbia, and if you continue in the manner which you have

started since being elected to office, then the communities of

northwestern, north central and northeastern British Columbia

are indeed in trouble. Because the manner in which you speak,

and the policies which you lay before the people of this

province in the bills that have come before this House are

diametrically opposed.

In one breath you say you are going to stimulate the growth

of British Columbia — that you're going to look after

northern B.C. like it's never been looked after before. And 24

hours later we see a bill coming onto the floor of the House

that is going to do nothing but suppress growth activities in

these newly populated areas of the province.

Why doesn't the Minister say one thing or the other? If you

are dedicated to a growth policy, well say so. But you'll have

to do more than say so, Mr. Minister, through you Madam

Chairman. You'll have to show the people of British Columbia

that you mean what you say, and that you say what you mean

because at the present time there is no resemblance between

what has been said and what you are actually doing to the

province. At the present time there are more bills before this

House that will have the effect of suppressing our economy than

anything we could have dreamed would happen in any government

in the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're out of order.

MR. SMITH: I didn't refer specifically to a bill. I said "a

number of bills," Mr. Attorney General. And we'll be

discussing and debating those bills, Mr. Attorney General, as

they come before the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

[ Page

1421 ]

MR. SMITH: Yes, Madam Chairman. I know the rules of the House enough

to know, Mr. Attorney General, that there's nothing wrong with reflecting upon

bills, as long as you don't deal with them in detail. And I don't intend to

deal with them in detail at this particular time, Madam Chairman.

My point is this, purely and simply: what is being said and

parroted by the Ministers in Press conferences, and what

actually will be done by legislation which is before this House

is completely and, I repeat, diametrically opposed.

People in northern British Columbia should know this —

whatever smokescreens may be thrown up, whatever suggestions

are made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams), or by any other Minister of the Crown, you

cannot have a viable and growing and prosperous economy in

those areas of this province without paying particular and

special attention to the base of their growth which is the

development of natural resources.

Now if we can turn to a few other matters within the

framework of the Minister. If I might address a question to the

Hon. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, before we proceed

further: is it the intention of the Minister that he would like

to deal with all the debate in this House regarding the Ocean

Falls proposition before he moves on to other areas of his

department?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: O.K. In that case, I see the Minister has

indicated we can go beyond the Ocean Falls proposition into any

of the other matters within his jurisdiction. So I would be

happy then, Madam Chairman, to continue on a number of other

points.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …and conservation might be considered

separately.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, I didn't really intend to get

into the Recreation and Conservation portfolio. I wanted to

deal with other matters within your administration as Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources only.

One of the questions that I'd like to pose to the Minister

is the matter of a new practice which I understand is not only

contemplated but is now part of the policy of the department.

This is the practice of establishing study reserves within

certain forest areas of the Province of British Columbia. As I

understand it, they may be within tree farm licences; they may

also be in areas that are under some other form of tenure.

I would like the Minister, when he's addressing his remarks to the House, to

indicate to us just how far and how widespread this practice will become. Does

he have certain specific areas in mind within, say, the entire Vancouver forest

district, or any other forest district, or just certain areas within tree farm

licences within the province to set up study reserves?

I would also like to know if, in setting up the study

reserves, the Minister has taken into consideration the loss of

revenue to the Crown with respect to the allowable cut which

will now be suspended for an indefinite period of time —

at least it's indefinite with respect to the people who have

the tree farm licences. They do not know at this time how long

the study reserve will be in effect. They do not know when it

will be cancelled or if it will ever be cancelled, for that

matter. So I would like to know when you balance the allowable

cut, which has now been suspended, against the loss in revenue

for stumpage and royalties, against the potential loss of jobs

for our labour force — because if the particular habit of

establishing these reserves becomes widespread you can easily

visualize companies cutting back on their labour force —

if that's been taken into consideration. If it has, how many

men will be laid off as a result of suspending these cutting

privileges?

I would also like to know if the Minister has taken into

consideration the impact that this will have upon the forest

companies, the majority of whose allowable cut is going into

the export market. Certainly, with the allowable cut in British

Columbia, I think it's readily apparent to all of us that we

cannot, as a province, begin to use domestically a very large

percentage of that cut, regardless of how hard we might try,

and that a good percentage of all the mill products

manufactured in the Province of British Columbia must of

necessity go into the export market, at least at the present

time.

I would also like to know the position of the Minister with

regard to the latest forestry guidelines that affect the

Vancouver forest district. Certainly the guidelines, if they

are to be enforced to the letter of the law, would place a

number of problems upon the back and the shoulders of the

forest company which it might find very difficult to live

with.

In talking to the departmental officials who have appeared

before the agricultural committee, there seems to be a tendency

to indicate that there should be flexibility involved in the

interpretation and the actual provisions within the guidelines

— so that one forest area might be allowed to do certain

things because of the actual topography of that area and the

ecological problems involved, while another area might be

allowed to proceed in a different manner.

I do think that this is of great concern to the forest

industry generally in the province, and that the Minister would

be doing a great service for not only his department but for

the forest industry too if he were to indicate to them within

general terms, while his estimates are before this House, what

he really has in mind.

[ Page 1422 ]

When you read the new guidelines, and if you place a very

strict

interpretation on each one of them, it could very well

result in many companies being placed in a position where they

could not harvest the trees within their areas due to the

strict

interpretation of guidelines.

On the other hand, I find that in my travels the companies

who operate in the forests of British Columbia are becoming

very much more conversant with the desire and the need to take

into consideration the multiple use of forests, the ecological

problems that are involved and the preservation of areas for

not only themselves, through reforestation, but also for the

game and the fish and so on that might be involved with regard

to either grazing areas or spawning grounds.

Certainly the attitude is changed from a few years ago by

all people who occupy the forest areas.

One of the problems seems to be that it will be difficult to

provide accurately, until they have had some experience, a plan

for logging, particularly with regard to stream bank areas and

so on, until they can find someone who is expert in that field

to give them advice. They are entering new phases in the forest

industry. I think that the spirit of the companies that I have

talked to is that they wish to co-operate with the

forestry and the department. But they are at a bit of a loss

right at the moment to know not only how they'll proceed but

also who they'll go to to get advice that's required.

Perhaps the Minister in broad terms could outline what his

thoughts are on the matter and how he proposes to not only

outline the requirements but perhaps to give some direction to

the companies at to where they may go to hire the professional

help and the services that are required.

I see the Minister is dealing with the same problem within

his own department, because a clipping from the Vancouver

Sun dated March 14, 1973, indicates that the department

is seeking the services of an economist and that you have had

some discussions with people in the State of Washington. It

would seem that they may have people down there who have had

more experience than we have. If not, we should certainly be

looking to other parts of Canada, if these people are

available.

The comment that I would like to make to the Minister is

that by all means if the type of expertise is available

anywhere within Canada then we, as part of this nation, should

be concerned about providing jobs for Canadians and not

particularly as concerned about providing jobs for people who

may immigrate to Canada from the United States or other parts

of the world.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I know there is concern on the part of the forest industry with regard to reforestation

and what part, if any, the provincial government will play in the reforestation

requirements. The industry naturally would like some guidelines and also an

indication, I believe, if there is to be either financial help or any offsets

against either stumpage or royalty with respect to the amount of money that

they will be involved in spending for reforesting ever greater areas of the

Province of British Columbia.

"A senior forestry official said, 'The department is

evaluating industry reaction, and it is not yet known how much

the new regulations will cost industry. For the reforesting,

however,' he said, 'the government is currently spending about

$6 million a year on replanting but this now will be borne

directly by the companies.' Williams said, 'At least some of

this will be absorbed by the government in charging lower

stumpage fees to the companies."'

This was reported on Saturday, March 10, in the Vancouver

Sun . I do believe that the companies have a right to

know just what the Minister has in mind in this respect and

what type of rebate or reduction will be allowed to companies

who wish to take on a much larger and increased reforestation

programme than ever before.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister another

problem which is really somewhat of a local nature. This is the

matter of the rates of stumpage charged in an area like Fort

Nelson, which is a new area, as compared to many other parts of

the province. As I understand it, the rate of stumpage they pay

there is comparable and approximately the same as that paid by

people logging on either Vancouver Island or the lower mainland

where transportation is a matter of a few miles to the mill or

to a ship in order to ship that lumber to an export market.

The industry in Fort Nelson is really just an infant

industry in respect of its stage of development at the present

time. It's really just starting to grow. If the facts that have

been given to me with regard to stumpage rates are correct, no

consideration is given to the fact that they're almost 1,000

miles from an export market. You can well imagine that a great

deal of the timber that they cut and make into dimension lumber

in the Fort Nelson area will not go to a local market. There

aren't enough people in the area to consume it, so most of it

is export market.

They feel that the province should be divided off into divisions. Some of the

matters with respect to the costs of operation and the distance from market

should be taken into consideration in setting stumpage rates in different areas

at different levels. Certainly, it's not as major a consideration at a time

when lumber prices are good as it is when the market dips. They very quickly

get to a position not of return but of net loss in any fluctuations in the

[ Page

1423 ]

lumber market.

Another point I would like to refer to. It's a widely held

misinterpretation, I do believe, that whenever the price of

lumber increase $10 a thousand, lumber and lumber alone has

been responsible for the increase in the cost of building a

home. I think it should be pointed out to the public that the

increase in the price of lumber has not been nearly as

responsible for the actual final price of a new home as has

been the requirement of higher interest rates and the price of

property.

An

article that I have before me indicates that the average

home today requires around 10,000 board feet of lumber. Taking

your average monthly mortgage payments on a 25-year

mortgage on a $30,000 home, which is an average price, a $20

per thousand increase in the price of lumber will amount to

only $1.25 per month increase in the actual amortization of the

mortgage. A $40 per thousand increase in the price of lumber

will increase the monthly mortgage payments only by $2.49. But

a 1 per cent increase in the interest rate charged for the

average CMHC home will result in a $14.57 per month increase in

the mortgage payments, amortizing a $30,000 mortgage over 25

years.

So it does seem to me that in some respects the forest

industry has been the butt of bad public relations in that

respect, No one will quarrel with the fact that lumber prices

have been increasing, but for people in public office to

indicate that the price of houses went up substantially because

of a $10 increase in the price of lumber is just not correct.

It's a matter of land acquisition at the prices of today and

it's a matter of interest rates more than anything else that

has increased the price of new homes to a substantial

degree.

I'd like to comment on another couple of matters. One is the

whole matter of TFL licences within the province. The Minister

has indicated that he's unhappy with a number of the TFL

licences and that he's in the process of developing policies

which will ultimately reflect upon the TFL licences. Some of

these licences are in effect now for a period of 21 years on a

renewable contract basis.

Is it the position of the Minister that he is going to force

renegotiation of these TFL licences before the initial contract

period is up? Is he going to place the industry in a position

where they will not be able to count upon the presently

negotiated contract, which was negotiated in good faith, to be

in effect six months, a year or two years from now? I think the

companies have a perfect right to know the position of the

Minister and whether he will honour the contracts which are

presently in force, or whether it is his intention to

renegotiate those TFL licences regardless of the term that was

originally involved when the licence was issued.

I'd like to know the position of the Minister with regard to the retention

of the small independent logger in the operations in the Province of British

Columbia. We have the truck loggers, of course, who do a great deal of logging

under the umbrella of a TFL licence through a negotiated contract with whatever

company happens to hold a TFL. Certainly they've had their problems in the past

with respect to the unions trying to force them into a union shop whether they

desire to be or not. They've had troubles in the past with respect to trying

to provide the service that they've contracted to provide because of interference.

They have a right to know if they're going to be allowed to

continue to operate in the manner that they have operated in

the past. They have a right to know what their position will be

in the plans of the forestry department as administered by the

new Minister. These are problems that an industry that provides

a great deal of employment to our province needs answers to,

Mr. Minister. The independent logger would also like to know

where he stands with respect to continuation of his

operations.

One of the things in this respect that I believe is of

paramount importance right now is commitment of timber to a

number of small independent operators scattered throughout the

length and breadth of the province. As a matter of fact, if the

Minister wishes to talk about northern development I think he'd

be well advised to look into the number of small operators who

can provide a service, particularly to local people within the

province and particularly to the local economy of that area, by

staying in the business and providing those people with their

dimension lumber.

It's a little difficult and perhaps almost impossible for

them to stay in the logging business if they cannot get a cut

or an area assigned to them. It's also impossible if they are

required to bid against the larger, better-financed

companies that operate within the province.

So I would hope that somewhere within the forestry industry

in the province we will find a way of preserving the right of

the small independent logger, that we will find a way of

preserving the right of truck loggers to operate within the

woods, without being detrimental to them or to the whole

logging operation and the industry as we presently know it in

the Province of British Columbia.

One other point — this has to do with pollution

abatement. Many of the companies have been told by the

Pollution Control Board that they must update their plants and

bring in modern equipment to replace some of the antiquated

types of operations that we presently have.

Is the Minister prepared to indicate to the House today his

policy with respect to the installation of pollution abatement

equipment? What type of programme does he anticipate? How long

a period of time will he provide for the industry to phase in

what

[ Page 1424 ]

could be very expensive new types of processes?

I notice in a clipping from the Vancouver Province ,

dated December 13, 1972, that "B.C. Forest Products indicate it

will cost them $13.5 million to do a particular job in

controlling pollution." That's no small piece of change for any

company, regardless of the size of it. So if other companies

are faced with the same proposition they would like to know,

naturally, just how long a period of time they will have to

phase in the particular requirements.

It's interesting to note also, Madam Chairman, that when the

Hon. Minister was in Opposition we used to hear him take strips

off the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Mr. Williston) for allowing the export of logs from the

Province of British Columbia. It was one of his favourite

topics, as I recall, sitting in this House listening to him. He

took the Minister apart a number of times on that and many

other matters and that one too, Mr. Minister.

It's interesting to note then that the Minister indicated in

the Victoria Times of February 28, 1973 that he has no

intention of cancelling the export permits that are presently

in effect: "Williams said he hadn't seen the IWA's request, but

added that log exports make up only 0.5 per cent of provincial

production." I presume that if that figure is correct today it

was also correct a year ago and the year before that.

All I can assume, in view of the position that the Hon.

Minister took when he was a Member of the Opposition regarding

matters of forestry policy, is that the position that he is

taking today is somewhat watered down and moderated. If it's

not, then he has a responsibility to reveal to this House in

much broader detail than we've had at least so far the policy

of the lands and forests department and the direction that you

intend to proceed within the foreseeable future, because the

forest industry is important to this province, being one of our

prime natural resources, and one of our largest employers, both

directly and indirectly, of working people within the province.

It plays a very important

part in our total economy. Any time

the forest industry becomes depressed in the province, the

whole economy — I'm not saying that it is right now, Mr.

Minister, I think it's a known fact that when the forest

industry becomes depressed the whole economy of the province

becomes depressed.

That is why I would suggest to the Minister that everyone in

the province, and particularly those intimately involved in the

forest industry, are watching with great concern the directions

that will be taken by the NDP and the policies that will be

initiated by the Minister, where substantial change may be

involved from whatever policy we had before. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think probably most of

the general points about Ocean Falls were covered in the

earlier lengthy statement — except that the idea that the

$1 million dollar price was overly generous seems to me to be

stretching it a little. I suspect that we probably have $1

million of scrap metal alone in Ocean Falls, and that 400

homes, a power plant, a hotel, town houses, apartments,

shopping facilities, and so on, are hardly insignificant. I

think, in addition, that there are presently 140 people there

now directly employed.

I gave the figure as being 87 with respect to the people

there now who are interested in staying. That's a very

significant indication of the attitude of the people in the

community with information over just a couple of days. It does

seem to me that the prophets of doom and gloom, in fact, are on

the other side of the House, and that they take that attitude

with respect to the northern coast of this province. It's one

that we don't share. There is an underused resource base on the

north coast and we intend to see it more intensively used in

order to provide employment in the province.

The question of the towns in the north themselves: those

towns are vulnerable, because their future rests on two major

corporations that have had a fairly rocky road in recent years.

Unless the infrastructure of the region is changed, unless

there is a build-up in sawmilling capacity and a range of

other things, unless there is something done with respect to

freight problems and so on — they'll continue to have a

rocky road, and the towns themselves will be more vulnerable

than they should be.

Regarding study reserves in forest areas: yes, that's right;

we're making up for the lack of study in the past and the lack

of integrated resource management in the past. As a result we

are putting reserves on certain areas. We have a study area at

the moment in the northern part of Vancouver Island, covering

Schoen Lake and Tsitika. We've also got a study reserve in the

Purcells, and Frye Creek, and around the St. Mary's Alpine

area. Those are the prime ones at the moment.

That has not had any direct impact on job creation at this

stage, and it seems apparent that the programme on the northern

part of Vancouver Island, which is a two year study programme

with respect to the Roosevelt elk and other wildlife in the

area, can continue without having an impact on job creation.

That is, there can still be an annual cut that will create the

same number of jobs that we've always had in the region. We

simply have to shift the operations to some degree.

Regarding the forestry guidelines: as the Member is aware it is before a legislative

committee. We do

[ Page

1425 ]

want it reviewed. I haven't been able to attend the

committee, but I gather the committee met with the council of

forest industries just this morning. We're certainly open to

suggestions and we don't want regulations wallpapered over the

landscape unnecessarily. We are interested in preserving the

environment where it needs to be preserved — not just

coming up arbitrarily with proposals.

The appraisal system: in the question of reforestation

requirements that are presently under consideration, I think

the key element there is that the old tenures were in fact not

required to reforest. We do not see the old tenures as the kind

of special privileged enclave that they've always been in the

past. We want to see proper management of all the forest lands

of the province, regardless of the tenure form.

Fort Nelson stumpage rates: there are already two factors

applying with respect to the rates there. One is a distance

factor which is a problem which is reflected in the appraisal

methods, and there is similarly a differential with respect to

being adjacent to the PGE area as well. So there's two

additional factors that apply there.

The tree farm licences themselves — that's a matter of

major government policy that will require considerable review.

Each situation will be somewhat different from the other. It's

very clear, though, that there have been great changes in the

industry and that that kind of tenure in many instances simply

is not required. In fact, as I indicated in the north for

example, what they really need is a residual base to work from

for the pulp mills, rather than the huge TFL tenure itself.

There have been some where there has been considerable

non-performance. That will be a matter of concern,

certainly.

The question of small loggers: we're sympathetic and we hope

to establish some policies that will encourage smaller scale

activity. It's not easy, though, in terms of achieving the kind

of utilization that we want to achieve as well. I would

certainly have to commend the former Minister in that area, in

terms of the progress he made with respect to increased

utilization of the resource in the province.

The question of the pollution control board I might cover in

more detail later. With respect to the B.C. Forest Products

plant and their investment at Chemainus, however, it was not

just pollution equipment that was involved; it was part of the

actual guts of the operation.

With respect to log export — I think the bulk of my

speeches were, in fact, in other areas — but there was an order-in-council two or three weeks ago

that cut back on exports so that non-peeled logs are not

allowed to go out of the province. The total export in the past

year was 0.53 per cent, so it's an extremely low level. I think

there's something to be said, just in terms of understanding

markets, for some amount of export. I think that covers the

main point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll

try to confine myself, not to the whole range of the Minister's

responsibilities — which is probably next to the Premier,

the most extensive in the House, and he has many things on his

mind — but to only two points, the mill at Ocean Falls

and northern transportation, which he mentioned himself.

First the mill at Ocean Falls: the question, Mr. Chairman,

that we simply have not had satisfied in this party, is the

question of time. We knew full well during the last election

campaign that Ocean Falls was slated to be closed. Indeed, at

that time it became evident that the previous Minister had been

informed by the company in April of last year that this

wind-down was proceeding. That was the date at which he

knew — almost a year ago. Now many parties, all of us in

fact, during the election campaign commented upon this, but as

the NDP won I guess we have to ask the NDP why they didn't take

this matter up earlier. I am asking the Minister.

The newspaper reports the Minister as saying that he has

been negotiating this for three months. I really wonder why it

wasn't done somewhat before that, inasmuch as it was an active

issue back in August of last year, and the previous Minister

— I believe rightly — was criticized for not taking

it up prior to August of last year. Well if that's the case,

I'm sure that the present Minister would like to explain his

own somewhat tardy interest, in that he was Minister for many

months before he took it up. As far as I can understand, it was

taken up at the beginning of this year or else at Christmas of

last year. I wonder whether the Minister will indicate

something more, in terms of time, as to what led to the delay

to even start negotiations with the company. Then once he's

done that I trust he'll take on the second time factor —

why did it take three months?

The Minister stated that the company was extremely friendly,

well-disposed and helpful. Well, if that's the case, why

was it necessary to wait right until the wire before going

ahead with announcing this proposal? The fact that it is late

is shown by statements in the paper. The statement in this

[ Page 1426 ]

morning's paper, which was I believe referred to earlier, on

page 2 talks about: "Half of Ocean Falls Workers Say They Are

Willing to Stay." Well, apparently that is half of those that

are there now. We must remember that another 50 per cent of the

original group have already left. So that half there is

essentially, I understand, about 25 per cent of the total work

force of Ocean Falls.

Friday's paper — I must say I'm forced to quote the

paper because it was not announced in the House —

indicated that: "Of all the Ocean Falls employees, all but 34

out of the present employees had found new jobs by Friday."

So I don't know, and I'd like the Minister's comments on

this. Are we really talking about $1 million being spent and an

outdated mill being kept in production to find jobs for 34

people, or is it indeed a great deal more than that? Because we

must realize that other mills exist in this province, and the

products of these various mills share the same market. It may

not be that we're expanding the overall employment or the

overall amount of paper being sold; it may simply mean that

another mill elsewhere will have to cut back. The Minister

shakes his head and I'll be delighted to hear comments from

him on this. Is this a net increase in the number of jobs in

the province, or is it simply keeping an old mill in operation

when other newer mills could have taken up the slack, taken up

the production runs, taken up the market and employed people

elsewhere?

As far as the people in the area are concerned, the real

question is: why did it take so long? The paper talks of the

600 people in the town, "all of whom were ready to move out

within a month. Most were leaving in two weeks." It goes on to

say that "the leaving was compounded by the minor material

losses. Thousands of dollars of bulky household belongings were

junked. Small pleasure boats were burned or given away, but the

surplus of belongings was such, according to one resident, that

'you can't give anything away.'" Some of these people have

purchased homes in other communities; they've found work

elsewhere. Some are commuting — indeed there's a reference

here to a person commuting between his new job and his home at

Ocean Falls.

Now, I find it a bit difficult when we are told about a meeting at Ocean Falls

which was to explain everything, Mr. Minister, and yet I see in the paper that

there's a quotation from a local resident who went to that meeting. She says:

"They haven't really come out with any definite plan at the meeting. We're

not going to delay our move." Well, what precisely was said at the meeting if

the local residents are not of the opinion that this plan will permit the mill

to keep going?

The talk of this, and again the emphasis on why the timing

has been so bad, is about the churches and service clubs."The

town's many clubs and organizations had dissolved themselves

and had distributed their assets or donated them to others," is another reference.

There was a year's notice in this affair. There was a year's

notice to the previous Minister. What beats me is that even

though there has been a change of government you do have, Mr.

Minister, civil servants who are working on these matters, one

hopes, on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis.

These people evidently have not done their job if it takes you

right till two weeks before the town is to really close down

for anything to happen.

There has been a tremendous amount of material loss. I

mentioned the items early in my speech. There's been a great

deal of shake-up of the individuals concerned. But there

has been no explanation, Mr. Minister, that really makes any

sense to reasonable people of why it took so long and why these

people have to suffer that way. As far as jobs are concerned, I think it's interesting to

quote the newspaper here again: "With a year's notice there are

few complaints about Crown Zellerbach's handling of the affair.

About 150 employees were phased out in August and, according to

industrial relations manager, Frank Robertson, almost all found

jobs. 'The secret to beating the high unemployment statistics,'

he said, 'was that Ocean Falls people like small towns and

that's where the jobs are.'" Well once more this brings up the

question of whether or not we are really keeping people

employed, or whether or not it's just keeping them employed in

one place, and the job will not be filled in another.

Those are the questions, Mr. Chairman, that I think are most

important because they deal with the people of Ocean Falls: Why

were they treated this way? Why was the department so late in

handling this matter? Why was there no carry-over from

the previous government by your civil servants, Mr. Minister?

What was the reason for this delay that led to such a loss in

terms of private property, in terms of the school year for the

kids, in terms of a community? It hasn't been answered, and I

trust it will.

As far as the proposal itself goes, we'd like some

indication of future costs. We do know that this mill is an old

one; we know that it's fairly well run down.

[ Page 1427 ]

It may be that this mill will be viable — I trust it

will. But we really haven't heard anything from you, Mr.

Minister, as to what the cost factors are. If it was not a

viable operation for the company concerned, why does it become

a viable operation when the government is concerned? The

statement has been made about rising of newsprint. That's fine,

that's well and good. But what happens if there's another

turnaround and the price goes down? Do we then have to have

Ocean Falls phased out a second time or will some steps be

taken to keep it open again then?

These are the types of things which I really don't feel that

your statement to the House, Mr. Minister, through you Mr.

Chairman, let us know what the true facts are.

What are the cost factors? What is the expectation? Why did

the company make the decision it did? What was their expected

loss had they kept going? What is your expected loss — or

your expected profit — if you continue? What is the price

of paper that has to be maintained to keep this operation

viable?

In the same line I'd like to know about re-equipping plans.

Is this whole scheme simply to keep the present equipment going

for another five or six years and then it's inevitable again

that Ocean Falls closes down because the machinery will simply

collapse on us? We just don't know how good it is. We don't

know what re-equipping will have to be done.

There's a statement in the paper that a million dollars will

be needed to repair a single-men's hostel in the

community. How many other facilities in the community are in

need of substantial amounts of cash to keep them functioning

and operating in the community?

The Minister shakes his head. But I wonder whether he could

list these things. I am not in any way trying to suggest that

he hasn't thought of them. I am simply saying that we don't

know. If the people representing the citizens of the province

have no idea, I am not at all surprised that the citizens of

Ocean Falls themselves find it very difficult to make decisions

based on what was said.

The question of pollution abatement equipment was raised

earlier, and it really has not been answered. This mill is an

old one. What will be the cost of putting it in the best

possible condition from this point of view?

It's a question of cost. The laws exist, and I trust the government will apply

them equally to private companies as well as to Ocean Falls when it's owned

by the government. What will the cost be? If it's to be paid for by the government,

will the same concession be granted to other companies? And in this light, what

other special treatment might be offered in the case of Ocean Falls?

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, those are my views on Ocean Falls.

It's mostly a series of questions, which is of course why we're

here in this debate.

We haven't yet heard and, until we get more definitive

answers to these questions, I'm afraid they'll keep on cropping

up.

With respect to the northwest, I was very pleased to hear

the Minister's statements. I found it difficult to reconcile

them with statements made earlier about B.C. Rail. I found it

difficult to reconcile them with the map in the budget which

indicated that the hinterland of many of the northern ports,

Kitimat and Prince Rupert in particular, would be considered,

as far as the government is concerned, the hinterland of

B.C.Rail and Howe Sound instead, of course, of the area to be

serviced by the port of Prince Rupert.

I am very pleased that there is in the Minister's statement

some real concern for the northwest, which we really haven't

seen up to now by this Government, with all due respect. We've

had talk of developments in Kitimat, in Prince Rupert and in

other parts of the area, but so far it's been talk.

The Minister was kind enough to say the federal government

has been very co-operative. I'm delighted to hear it. I

had the impression, from previous statements, that unless $19

million to $27 million was paid, there would be no further

discussions with the federal government on the questions of

integration and expansion in the north. I am glad to see there

has been this departure in policy from…

AN HON. MEMBER: Get it straight.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you'll get it straight in your mind,

and if you'll get your Minister to get it straight in his,

perhaps I'll get it straight in mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know what you're talking

about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The inevitable statement of the Premier.

If anyone has any questions, they don't know what they're

talking about.

[ Page 1428 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In terms of the north there are great

potentials for development. If the Premier wants this subject

discussed at greater length at this time, I'm happy to do so.

There's the old Hedlin-Menzies report, Mr. Chairman

— I say the old one. It came out in November of 1970. I

would like to read six sentences from it, if the Premier is

interested in this sort of thing. At page 84:

"It is evident in short that the Canadian northwest can be

virtually transformed within the next two decades.

"

(1) Annual timber harvested could be increased by 446

million cubic feet to a total of 466 million cubic feet. Major

new rail facilities would in themselves generate approximately

three-quarters of this growth potential;

"

(2) Annual mineral production could increase by more than

$560 million to a total of at least $620 million. Major new

rail facilities would in themselves generate at least 10 per

cent of this growth potential as well as acting to provide

reduced transportation costs for mineral products throughout

most parts of the region.

"

(3) Employment in the region's forest and mining industries

could be increased by 18,500 jobs, creating a total increase in

regional employment of approximately 87,000 jobs.

Major new rail facilities would in themselves generate resource

development responsibilities for approximately one quarter of

this employment growth."

The last point in this Hedlin-Menzies report is

this:

"Population of the Canadian northwest could increase by some

129,000 people to a total of 236,000 people."

Mr. Chairman, the quotes from the Hedlin-Menzies report

indicate that there is real opportunity in the Canadian

northwest for this integrated transportation development. I

don't want to go through the six proposals of, I think it was

last June, which the Minister's predecessor discussed with

Ottawa. I don't want to go into these things because I do feel

that this is a debate more on Ocean Falls than it is on

northern transportation, although I am commenting upon it

because the Minister talked about it and the Premier indicated

keen interest at one stage or another.

What I will say is this: if there is to be this type of integrated

joint federal-provincial responsibility and progress, can we have some

better indication of it than two, to my mind, conflicting speeches, one

from the Premier and one from the Minister himself? I think it's very

important that the rail routes in the area and the port development in

the area be integrated and be phased together instead of having

isolated developments for coal at Sukunka delivered to Howe Sound, even

though economists say that this would result in a loss to the people of

British Columbia of up to $1 per ton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member get back

to the estimates before us, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister mentioned

the question of northern transportation. He mentioned it at

some length. I am quite willing to discuss it now or later in

his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to address himself

to the Minister's estimates and to his sphere of

administration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was referring specifically and directly

to the comments made by the Minister in terms of northern

transportation and particularly port development in the north.

One of the two ports he mentioned, Mr. Chairman, happens to be

in your riding. So I am quite sure it interests you very

much.

The point I want to get across is this: if we are to take

advantage of proposals made last year, we're going to have to

do better than we've done so far. It's no good simply leaving

them in limbo. It's no good not integrating the proposals for

development elsewhere with the northern development

proposals.

It's simply to suggest that they're two separate things, but

really they're not. The northern transportation proposals have

to be integrated or a tremendous amount of money will be

wasted. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister had to say.

I thought his speech was constructive, helpful and very useful

in this regard. I would just like him to expand upon it,

indicating what is taking place now along these lines and what

he hopes in the near future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief

and confine my remarks to Ocean Falls, so that the House might

be aware of the views of the Conservative Party on this

important issue. We look at the problem in terms of people as

well as economics. We think that the situation in Ocean Falls

signifies perhaps an exception to the general rule. We are

[ Page 1429 ]

becoming involved in enterprises which are financially in

the red and appear to be destined to remain in the red.

We already have negotiations between Government and Brameda

Resources, which is not financially sound, or which has had its

problems. We have statements by the Minister, in answer to

questions the other day, that the Government in negotiating

with Columbia Cellulose, which is another company losing money

and is in considerable financial difficulty. Now we have the

Government investing in Ocean Falls and particularly in an

industry which has been abandoned by the company concerned

simply because they consider that it could not be made a

financially viable proposition.

We must make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that we're deeply

concerned that while the Government has expressed a policy of

participating in business in this province, we are deeply

concerned that so far the only enterprises that they've become

involved in are all losing money.

The reason we look at Ocean Falls a little differently is

that nobody wants to see a town die; to see input of human and

material resources abandoned and have the wilderness grow over

the town. So there are strong humanitarian reasons why we feel

that Ocean Falls can be looked at a little differently from the

other two examples I've mentioned.

In saying this I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman,

that in our party we will strongly oppose any continuing action

by government to participate financially in costly enterprises

which are losing money. This is taxpayers' money, whichever way

you look at it, that will be invested in losing enterprises;

but in the case of Ocean Falls, it is very difficult for social

and human reasons to sit back and let the town die and all

these very considerable assets — and I don't just mean

bricks and mortar. The efforts that went into creating the

school and the facilities and these other parts of the town

which have all, in fact, been purchased.

From reading comments by businessmen in the industry, I feel

that the pulp market seems to be on an upswing, which possibly

— and only possibly — means that a new approach to

Ocean Falls might make it at least break even. The comments

made by the Minister at the weekend make it plain that this is

the Government's hope. We also hope that the enterprise can

break even.

There's been so much written about Ocean Falls as to other possible uses. Having

accepted the fact that it should be saved, we would like to know what reasonable

hopes there are that in the future the town shall not be so utterly dependent

on one economic base.

Many proposals have been put forward. I presume that no

matter how you try to develop a town, one of the biggest

obstacles is the question of communication and its degree of

isolation and lack of access. Not being familiar with the area,

I can't make suggestions. It seems to me, from what I've read,

that this is a very fundamental reason that solutions are not

easily forthcoming. Presumably, secondary industry of some

other type is very difficult to develop in such a town where

isolation is so much a problem. How technically difficult is

the problem of highway access between Bella Coola, presumably,

and Ocean Falls? These are some of the questions we ask.

In terms of the decision made by the Government, we just

want it clearly on the record that we are opposed to the

government participating with taxpayers' money in business

enterprises which are clearly in the red and losing money. In

the case of Ocean Falls, however, there is a human element

which I've mentioned which we feel makes this rather a unique

situation. We feel that the enterprise shown by the Government

and the respect and concern for the people who are most deeply

affected, taken with the fact that the pulp market perhaps can

lead to a viable industry, and if the Minister can assure us

that every effort will be made to change the situation so that

the town and the people are not totally dependent on one

enterprise, then we would support the decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to

hear the positive attitude on the part of the Progressive

Conservative Party.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They're finding that in several areas

certainly.

Regarding some of the points that have been made by the last

two speakers: the question of time was tied to price, I'm

afraid. I don't know if the Hon. Member has negotiated with

hardnosed businessmen or not, but time was affected by price

and price was affected by time. We're happy now with the price.

We're not as happy as we might be with the time. That's the

reality of the situation.

However, the former administration was aware of

[ Page 1430 ]

the problem long before it was made public. I think that

should be made very clear. The former Minister was aware in

early fall of 1971 with respect to Ocean Falls. I don't know if

he informed the remainder of his colleagues. I suspect that he

may not have. That may be part of the problem.

So the former administration had this problem on their table

for a considerable length of time and chose to do nothing. The

former administration also said one thing to the company and

another thing to the people of British Columbia. That certainly

isn't the case with respect to this administration.

I'm pleased that there is that feeling on the part of the

Conservatives in terms of not seeing a community die. We don't

want to see the community die either. That's a major factor in

making the decision. But there are other communities that are

in considerable trouble at the moment too. They're all human

problems, all of these things. You can't just say it's a human

problem in Ocean Falls and it isn't a human problem in Prince

Rupert. I'm afraid it's a human problem wherever we go.

I think the question of diversification is a good point and

one that concerns us very much. We've even got research people

working right now on the question of aquaculture, for example.

That is, can you grow fish in an accelerated way in a certain

situation and so on. It appears, with tentative research, that

that might, in fact, be feasible but we don't know for sure. We

intend to carry on intensive work in terms of looking at ways

of diversifying the economic base of the community.

One small point regarding the railway question that the

Member for Victoria raised — leaving them in limbo. We're

not leaving the northern transportation question in limbo at

all. There's continuing discussion and research with the

federal people in relation to resource development in the

north. It's a most productive exercise that's going on at

the moment.

I think those were the main points that were raised, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move the House

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 42, Mr.

Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River adjourned

the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's

been nearly a week since Bill 42 has been debated. During that

week, of course, there have been certain things take place in

the province concerning Bill 42. Now that we're back on Bill

42, I would hope that we would continue with the debate until

such time as either it is withdrawn or the debate is finished.

The time lapses in between the talks on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker,

certainly just add more fuel to the fire.

Before continuing my discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

I would like to ask the Government and ask the Premier —

I see he's in the House — and ask the Minister of

Agriculture if they will withdraw Bill 42 at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want your answer now?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask you if you would make a

gentlemen's agreement to withdraw the bill…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not going to withdraw Bill 42.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not going to withdraw Bill 42. There's

a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker, out there in the

province. There's a great deal of concern. There's too much

concern, Mr. Speaker, out in the province concerning Bill 42

— too much concern from the free thinkers in the

province. Mr. Speaker, there's much unrest out there in the

province concerning Bill 42.

The inhabitants of this great province of ours — all

of them, Mr. Speaker — are greatly concerned. They

[ Page 1431 ]

should be concerned. As time goes by, the more time there is

for them to think about Bill 42 and the more time that the

Minister of Agriculture and the Premier go around the province

discussing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, the more concern arises out

there in the province.

The city dwellers are uneasy, Mr. Speaker, and the

householders are nervous. The islanders are bitter and the

villagers, Mr. Speaker, are champing at the bit. There is a

great deal of concern. The people in the towns are restless.

Most people in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, are unhappy over

the principle of Bill 42 and it is not necessary that they be

unhappy. The Government could withdraw this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, Member, when the Hon Member adjourned the

debate, he had mentioned that as a major point of his speech at

least four times and expounded on it for many, many minutes.

Each time I drew his attention to the fact that he was

repeating himself. He's now doing it again.

I will be forced, regretfully, to ask the Member to resume

his seat if he continues repeating the arguments and the

statements that he made in the previous debate on this

question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, after I cover a point I thought that the

Government might reconsider, Mr Speaker, and want to change

their mind. If they do, I wouldn't wish to prolong the debate

of the House. However, maybe if they do reconsider, Mr. Speaker,

they will notify me.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to listen to the people,

certainly, on this side of the House. We have to give the

people in British Columbia the answer to have their say on Bill

42. We have to listen to all of the people in British Columbia

because Bill 42 does not only affect the land owners; it

affects homeowners, it affects farmers, it affects the

environmentalists who are trying to preserve certain things in

British Columbia.

We certainly have to listen to everyone who has an open

mind, Mr. Speaker, whether he owns land now or not because Bill

42, the principle of Bill 42, is going to have a bearing on

their future life.

Workable legislation, Mr. Speaker, could be brought in. The

suggestions we are receiving now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to

changing Bill 42, are being brought in from people who are

under pressure. The pressure they are under is from statements

being made by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Premier of

this province concerning the principle of Bill 42.

The Premier has said he will not back down from the

principle of Bill 42 but he has said that he will amend it. On

an open line show recently the Premier said we were doing in

British Columbia, with Bill 42, a similar principle to what

they were doing in the province of Alberta. However, I think if

he looks at what is happening in the Province of Alberta…and I would like to refer to the same

article that he referred

to recently on an open line show. It is an

article from the

Financial Times with regard to land use in British

Columbia and he referred to it.

He said that in British Columbia we were doing a similar

thing to what Alberta was thinking of doing, or what Alberta

was doing. This is not the case at all. The Agricultural

Minister in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, has certainly warned land

owners; but what he is doing in Alberta is saying that there

will be a survey carried out and we will go to the people and

we will get input. This is a lot different than the way in

British Columbia we have brought in Bill 42.

A survey carried out by the Edmonton Journal showed

only about 1 per cent of all real estate in Alberta in any year

involves American funds. They are having the same statements

made in Alberta that were made here — that the Americans

were buying up all the land. About 95 per cent of that action

came from U.S. nationals, mostly farmers and ranchers who were

seeking a future in the province and who wanted to become

citizens.

So, it is not a case, Mr. Speaker, of the Americans going

into Alberta and buying up their land and being absentee

landlords, which is what we are mainly concerned about. I think

if people are coming into British Columbia and are going to

take out their Canadian citizenship papers and are going to

become residents of British Columbia, they should have the

right to buy land whether they come from the United States of

America or whether they come from England or whether they come

from Italy, or no matter where they come from. I think this is

a principle that we should certainly take into consideration

when we are talking about Bill 42.

There was a conclusion to this survey done in Alberta and I

would just like to read it to you. Here is the conclusion of

John Tompkins, the Journal 's reporter.

"With the negligible volume of deals in public lands,

Albertans can rest assured that current ownership by Americans, many of

whom become Albertans themselves in time, progresses at the rate of

about .02 per cent of the land in the province each year."

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a similar

situation if we had such a survey done here in the province of

British Columbia. At that rate he suggested the complete

purchase of Alberta by U.S. dollars should take about 5,000

years or about halfway to the next ice age. The reason I am

pointing

[ Page 1432 ]

this out is again, I think we might be panicking under this.

I am bringing it up because the Premier thought it important

enough to bring it up on his open line programme not too long

ago.

I think their suggestion and the way they are handling this

in Alberta is a good suggestion and I think we could certainly

take a lesson from what they are doing. The free enterprisers

in Alberta are warned the same as they were warned here. The

free enterprisers may be in for a rude shock some day in the

future when they try to sell their own small farms. They cannot

say they were not warned.

Premier Lougheed has said plainly that any land use

regulations must not be discriminatory, must not be contrary to

the Bill of Rights and must apply to everyone. The task facing

the land use forum is not an enviable one.

This is the attitude they have taken in the province of

Alberta. Yet the Premier would have led the people on his open

line show to believe that Alberta was bringing in similar

legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is just not the case. I resent the

Premier making — particularly on a province-wide

show — I particularly dislike him making statements that

might have a tendency to mislead the people of this great

province, who hang on every word the Premier says,

sometimes.

Certainly if he continues to make statements on which they

can't put any faith, then in the future they certainly won't

take that much stock in them.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we did what we should do and

what our conscience dictates to us to do, we would take this

problem to the people. Mr. Speaker, the principle of Bill 42

has been changed somewhat since the bill was brought in. I

would suggest the Minister of Agriculture has retreated from

his original position already during the last week.

He has said, Mr. Speaker, in Kamloops at a farm meeting last

week after the bill was discussed here in the Legislature and,

I might say, after the bill was basically brought to a halt

here in the Legislature — the Minister of Agriculture went

out to a farm meeting and tried to pour salve on Bill 42. Mr.

Speaker, I am suggesting that it will take a lot of salve to

heal the wounds that Bill 42 has caused.

He says the bill is going to have four basic amendments. Now

basic, to my way of thinking, is something that gets at the

fundamental roots of the bill. So if he is going to have four

basic amendments to the bill, why he actually maybe is even

going to change the original intent of Bill 42, and this is

something that should be cleared up.

We are expected to continue the debate on the bill. We have been told there

are going to be amendments and yet we are in this House continually being asked

to pass second reading of Bill 42, knowing full well that the Minister of Agriculture

intends to make some four basic amendments to the bill.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, you say that I cannot ask the Government

to withdraw the bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill cannot

be amended. The basic principle of the bill still is to have a

five-man commission. What I say, Mr. Speaker, is that a

broad new approach to Bill 42 is needed.

The day after the Government came to their senses and

realized that Bill 42 was not going to slide over the heads of

the official Opposition, the Minister of Agriculture went out…and I want to say something about the amendments that he

proposed at the Kamloops bull sale the day after we had a

lengthy debate on Bill 42 in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture soft-shoed

through the bull sale at Kamloops on Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Soft-shoed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Soft-shoed!…through the bull sale. I

want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of those bull shippers

up there in Kamloops were on the verge of losing their temper.

At this bull sale he made a lot of promises to amend Bill 42.

The day before, Mr. Speak