1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bin 127).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act (Bill 13 1).

Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Oral questions

Community resource board election procedures. Mr. Bennett — 2959

Proposed Chemainus River dam.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2960

Construction industry strike.

Mr. Wallace — 2960

Cost comparisons on Stena Danica purchase.

Mr. Phillips — 2960

Poor conditions of the Trans-Canada Highway in Kicking Horse

Canyon.

Mr. Chabot — 2962

Steel supplies for B.C. Rail plant at Squamish.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2962

Use of M.V. Klatawa on Quadra-Cortes run.

Mr. McClelland — 2962

Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act (Bill 13 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2963

Mr. Chabot — 2964

Hon. Mr. King — 2965

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2965

Mr. Wallace — 2967

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2968

Mr. Fraser — 2969

Hon. R.A. Williams — 2969

Mr. Gibson — 2970

Mr. Cummings — 2970

Mr. Gardom — 2971

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2971

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2972

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

section 3.

Mr. Gardom — 2975

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2975

Mr. Gardom — 2975

On the title.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2975

Mr. Gardom — 2975

Report and third reading — 2976

Presenting petitions.

Request for careful consideration of Bill 3 1, Mineral Royalties Act.

Mr. Bennett — 2976

Royal assent to Bill 131 — 2976

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates.

Amendment to vote 137.

Mr. Fraser — 2976

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2979

Mrs. Jordan — 2984

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a couple of gentlemen from a

community which many of you probably don't know exists. That is the

Village of Elkford in the far eastern part of the province — Mayor

Maartman and the city clerk, Mr. Benson.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I have two special guests

in the galleries today. They are here for a series of meetings — the

former mayor of Delta, Clarence Taylor and a spokesman for the chamber

of commerce, John Friesen.

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

sacrifice to their studies, a number of students today have journeyed

across the waters from Vancouver, and I'd like all Hon. Members to

extend a very cordial welcome to the students from Lord Byng High

School and their teacher, Mr. Sankey.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, there will be visiting

the Legislature today, and in the gallery for a period of time, some

students from Smithers in Skeena constituency. I'd like the House to

join with me in welcoming those students to Victoria.

Introduction of bills.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Companies Amendment Act , 1974.

Bill 127 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Agricultural Credit Amendment Act , 19 74.

Bill 129 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY

FLOOD CONTROL ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hall, Bill 13 1, Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act , introduced and read a first time. Hon. Mr. Hall asks leave for second reading following question period today.

Leave granted.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

May I thank the Members of the House that during the question period,

with leave of the House…. I'd say this, Mr. Speaker: if any Members

or if the leaders want to delegate anybody for the period of time to

get any information from me…but I hope to make a full statement on

second reading, and certainly will be making an even fuller statement

probably in response to your questions in closing second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. the Minister at this stage

wants to make a Ministerial statement, or will we proceed to question

period? Is that agreed?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm in your hands. I want cooperation, obviously, and I think we can do something.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There is a shortage of copies of the bill. I appreciate the fact that some have come in….

MR. SPEAKER: They'll be distributed during the question period as quickly as they can be produced.

Oral questions.

COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARD

ELECTION PROCEDURES

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

the Minister of Human Resources: could the Minister advise the House of

the current status of questions being raised in Vancouver about the

illegal election procedures connected with the community resource

boards?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, no, nobody has been in touch with me about this. Not in a formal way.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. What is the source of funds for

the request by the Point Grey-Dunbar-Southlands area request for paid

officials at the polling stations?

[ Page 2960 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Those matters are dealt with by the Vancouver resource board. They're not dealt with by our department.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental. Alderman Darlene Marzari

of Vancouver described the whole process of elections to community

resource boards as illegitimate because legislation has not been passed

by the House. What comment does the Minister have for the Legislature

to this change at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think a question asking for a legal opinion would be proper under the rules.

PROPOSED CHEMAINUS RIVER DAM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications, which comes as a result of

the claim by the municipal clerk of North Cowichan that the community

asked that the application to the Water Resources Board be turned down.

May I ask the Minister whether he made representations on behalf of the

North Cowichan Municipal Council to the cabinet committee which

overturned the decision of the Controller of Water Rights which denied

the application to build a 100-foot, $2 million dam on the Chemainus

River?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll repeat it as the Minister

apparently didn't hear it. May I ask whether he made representations on

behalf of the council to the cabinet committee of four which was

looking into the matter of building this particular dam?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

As you may have noticed, I was not on the committee, which was proper,

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

Williams) was not on the committee, which was also proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation whether in the three-month period between January 14, when

the committee met, and April 9, when a decision was announced or at

least was made, if he was in consultation with that three-man and

one-woman committee?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I wasn't, Mr. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a supplementary, may I ask the acting

Premier how it is possible for decisions on resource use to be made by

cabinet committees when the Ministers responsible for the line

responsibility at the departmental level are not informed by their

cabinet colleagues of committees and are not informed of decisions and

are not requested to have their views made known?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I think that question is based entirely on your

interpretation, which I do not happen to agree with.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of

Labour tell the House what percentage of construction projects in the

province are now at a standstill as a result of the current labour

dispute?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don't

have it broken down into percentage, but I would say that a very, very

substantial part of the construction industry is at a standstill.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the

Minister if he has any up-to-date information as of today regarding

progress in the negotiations between the unions and the CLRA?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the Member and the House that I am indeed in daily touch with the parties in the dispute.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the very serious interruption of the

provincial economy, is the Minister at this point contemplating any

direct government intervention?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have said that we are involved

on a day-to-day basis in consultation with the parties. I'm not

prepared to announce any further anticipated action at this time.

COST COMPARISONS ON

STENA DANICA PURCHASE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct

my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Can the

Minister offer an explanation to the House as to why the almost sister

ship to the Stena Danica, namely the Stena Britannica has been sold to

Greek interests for $10 million while British Columbia must pay $14

million plus federal duty, refitting, et cetera?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would depend on the age of the craft. It would depend on exactly when it was purchased. I don't know whether or not you pay

[ Page 2961 ]

attention to international currency, but what has happened to the value of the Krona in the last two months could be a factor.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary. This ship was purchased…now

known as the Wickersham, from Alaska State Ferries by Greek shipping

interests just recently for $10 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean by recently?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it was in the last few months.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I asked you….

MR. PHILLIPS: Within the last few months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I asked the Member if he pays any

attention to the international money market and what happened to the

value of the Krona vis-à-vis the Canadian dollar. If you don't know the

answer to that, you have no right to ask the question, my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: What do you mean I…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You have the right, but it gives a display, my friend, that indicates that you haven't done your homework.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would Members please stick to the strict question-and-answer routine, on both sides of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Editorializing.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. If editorializing is taking place, I don't think it is right.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you relate it to this ferry that is within the Minister's jurisdiction and not the Greek government's, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the purchase price and the

waste of taxpayers' money. I would judge that to be under the

jurisdiction of that Minister, and if it isn't a proper question to the

Minister then I don't know what a proper question is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's editorializing again. Have you a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Did the government, while dickering for the

Stena Danica at $14 million, try to get the Stena Britannica from the

Alaska State Ferry System for the $10 million which the Greeks are

apparently paying for it, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because as far as I knew, it wasn't for sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this was just purchased

recently by Greek shipping interests from Alaska State Ferries. I want

to know from the Minister: did he check this out before paying $4

million more, before wasting $4 million of the taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, that Member is simply quoting from a completely erroneous

article in a morning paper — point No. 1.

Point (2) unless you can tell me when that ship was purchased, no

hazy, phasey "recently", because what has been happening in the

shipping market recently…. And unless you can tell me what you mean

by "recently"…then I can give details and dates as to when the

negotiations took place so far as our ferry was concerned. I can tell

you what happened to the money market in that period. I also tell you

this: when we went looking for ships, the ship you are referring to was

not for sale. It had already been sold. That's how long ago it was.

MR. BENNETT : In your search for ships, did the Minister make an inquiry

of the Alaska State Ferry Service, being so close to British Columbia, for a

ship?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You realize I didn't make any personal

search myself. I asked them to search everywhere and anywhere for ships

that were available that met our standards.

I'll have to ask them that specific question: did they ask

Alaska…. But to the best of my knowledge that ship was not for sale.

Certainly it was never reported to me as being for sale.

MR. PHILLIPS: They did approach the Alaska State Ferries.

[ Page 2962 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I would find out.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, okay.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why didn't you say that instead of haranguing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you phrase your questions in such a way that you invite it, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is taking that question as notice, I take it.

POOR CONDITION OF THE

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

IN KICKING HORSE CANYON

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Highways. There are complaints from Albertans as well as British

Columbians regarding the condition of the Trans-Canada Highway in the

Kicking Horse Canyon — regarding the potholes, the broken asphalt, the

lack of protection from falling rocks. I wonder, as this is the main

link across this nation, whether the Minister is going to take some

remedial action. If so, how much and how soon?

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

already been raised with me by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King).

Apparently it was brought to him by one of your constituents….

MR. CHABOT: That's not true. That's a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the Hon. Member didn't mean to impute a lie to the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. What's the answer? When are you going to do something?

HON. MR. LEA: Because we don't want to follow an old pattern,

what we would like to do is do some research before we take action.

Because this is a bad year for frost heaves, I've asked my department

to have an assessment done of the entire province in terms of what is

happening with potholes, so we can do something. But I want to know….

MR. CHABOT: Will the Minister be giving preferential treatment to the Trans-Canada Highway?

HON. MR. LEA: No, I won't be giving preferential treatment to any section.

STEEL SUPPLIES FOR

B.C. RAIL PLANT AT SQUAMISH

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): May we have some preferential treatment to questions? (Laughter.)

To the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce:

with reference to the operation of the B.C. Rail car plant in Squamish,

has the Minister's department satisfied itself that there will be

continuing supplies of steel available for the operation of that plant,

not only at its outset, but in subsequent years — either in steel

supplies available domestically or through the new arrangement with the

Japanese?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Yes, any steel supplies through existing contracts of suppliers that

have already been arranged through the BCR. There have been some

confirmed contracts, and we're confirming for the second line of 100

chip cars. The first 300 cars are confirmed.

Because of the steel supply situation we can't get the long-term,

two- and three-year contracts unless you establish some relationship

with some supplier. Whatever shortfall there is has been guaranteed to

us through Japanese steel suppliers. So the long-term production of the

plant has been secured.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the Minister's

response that all the assurance we have is for the initial production

of 300 cars plus the subsequent production of 100 chip cars and

thereafter, it will depend on making other arrangements?

HON. MR. LAUK: No, that is not the nature of my answer. My

answer is simply that we have confirmed — and this was before we went

to Japan — supplies of steel for the 300 cars of the initial run. The

second run being planned by the boxcar factory is 100 chips cars. We

are presently confirming steel for those. By the time we reach that

stage we are going to be assured a steel supply.

If we don't get that steel for that 100 cars or any subsequent run

through that factory from Canadian steel suppliers, we will get it from

Japanese steel suppliers. I am convinced that we will have steel from

one source or another.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: For continued operation.

HON. MR. LAUK: For continued operation.

USE OF M.V. KLATAWA

ON QUADRA-CORTES RUN

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

[ Page 2963 ]

I have a question for the Minister of Highways. I

wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not he has received a

petition from the residents of Quadra and Cortes Islands expressing

their displeasure over the change of ferry service on the Easter

weekend, in which they ask for an investigation by the Highways

Minister into what they consider to be the provision of an inadequate

and unsafe vessel, the M.V. Klatawa, called upon to serve that area

over the Easter weekend.

It was signed, I understand, by the president of the Quadra Island

NDP constituency. Has the Minister received that petition yet, and what

action is he going to take into the request for an investigation?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I did receive it and I passed it on to the

Minister in charge, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan).

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I understand that it's a Highways department vessel, is it not?

HON. MR. LEA: If you had followed the legislation, you would have found out that it was all transferred.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question would be to the Minister

responsible, the Minister of Transport and Communications. Will the

Motor Vessel Quadra Queen be withdrawn on the May 24 weekend and be

replaced by the inadequate services of the M.V. Klatawa? And once more

will we have tourists in another part being served before the residents

of Quadra Island?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to take that question as notice.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 131, Mr. Speaker.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY

FLOOD CONTROL ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Bill 131,

which was distributed in an unusual style a little while ago, would

indicate the very true nature of the emergency that the House, the

province, the government and the people face in the area of Kamloops

today.

As an opening statement, may I say that the reason for the

legislation presented this afternoon is the serious danger of the

flooding of the Thompson River in Kamloops. The flood threat requires

immediate action to construct dikes and repair dikes and other

emergency measures along the banks of the river in order to protect the

homes and the property of the inhabitants of the area.

This work cannot be done under the existing circumstances and

existing legislation because that municipality is in the middle of a

labour dispute. The dispute, between the municipality and the Canadian

Union of Public Employees, involves a strike and picketing which is

impairing the ability of the provincial government to take the

necessary emergency measures. We consider that this emergency must be

considered separate from the labour dispute. The government has taken

that action throughout these past few days in which we have been

attempting to get some solution to the problem.

You have been advised from time to time of the presence of both the

Ministerial committee and a staff committee dealing with flooding with

our entire river system. We have had some success; and I want to pay

tribute publicly to those who have cooperated with us in, for instance

— as I understand it, late today — coming to a peaceful solution of the

Chilliwack and Vedder River area by dispensation and by agreement

between individuals to get on with the job and respond to an emergency.

Yesterday a special cabinet committee, which was comprised of the

three cabinet Members who are on the standing committee on emergencies

of flooding and disasters generally, aided by the Minister of Labour,

met with the parties to the dispute in an effort to resolve the matter

on a voluntary basis. This followed a series of contacts made last week

by myself and phone calls hither and yon to try to get that voluntary

acceptance for us to rally round this emergency and make sure that this

disaster does not take place.

Without attaching any blame, Mr. Speaker, that meeting was unsuccessful in resolving the problem.

Nevertheless, even after 3:15 yesterday, when the last meeting was

adjourned, we continued to make efforts by phone. The Deputy Ministers

of a number of departments were busy right until this morning, trying

to get some voluntary solution to the problem.

The government made it abundantly clear during the meetings

yesterday — and I made it abundantly clear in telegrams last week — that the government was not prepared to sit by and see flooding take

place behind the alleged non-interference theory involving a completely

separate labour dispute. We made it abundantly clear yesterday that

there would have to be a time limit. The time limit, Mr. Speaker, has

now passed.

That is why the legislation is in front of you. For

[ Page 2964 ]

that reason, an emergency bill was introduced into the House today.

You will see the bill before you sets out the situation: the rising

water of the Thompson River and an unresolved dispute that prevents us

from adequately controlling the flooding. We deal with an

interpretation of words so that there can be no misunderstanding as to

what the powers we are seeking will mean.

We take unto ourselves the powers to deal with the emergency. As you

know, we have adequate precedent in that, going through a number of

statutes, including my own emergency programme. We put a time limit on

these powers, and I think that is entirely responsible and entirely in

keeping with speeches made on all sides of the House regarding an

impasse on a normal dispute or a normal disagreement in the private

sector.

I think that it finishes up by pointing out, for those Members who

are always conscious of money, where the money to do this work is going

to come from.

The background to the government's efforts started in an official

way — although unofficial contacts have been made — when I sent a

telegram asking for the relaxation of the local union's strike in the

specific area to accomplish the work that I have referred to. The

telegram read:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED REPORTS OF THE IMMINENT DANGER OF

FLOODING IN THE CINNAMON RIDGE AND AIRPORT AREA OF GREATER KAMLOOPS. REPAIR

AND REINFORCEMENT WORK IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY ON THE DIKING SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE

THIS CRITICAL DANGER.

I REQUEST THE COOPERATION OF YOUR LOCAL UNION IN RELAXING YOUR

CURRENT STRIKE AGAINST THE CITY OF KAMLOOPS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH

THE WORK REFERRED TO. THE CONSEQUENCES OF HEAVY FLOODING WOULD IMPOSE GRAVE

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION TO THE PEOPLE AFFECTED.

I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A COOPERATIVE RESPONSE BY RETURN

WIRE.

I was advised that my telegram would be placed before the

appropriate committee expediently by the business agent of that local

of the Canadian Union of Public Employees the same day. That was May 2.

On May 6 I received a telegram which, in essence, denied cooperation to

the extent we required.

We then called special meetings yesterday and, as I said earlier, we

met with the representatives of the work force and we also met with the

city council. They have attempted on both sides to seek some solution.

But, frankly, the conditions that wereplaced on such a relaxation were such that this government could not accept them.

They involved, essentially, the government getting involved directly

in the labour dispute itself by either compulsory arbitration or

reference to boards or taking

part in the actual dispute itself. We

made it abundantly clear from the very first contact that this

government was not prepared to do so.

In the meantime, as this was going on, as you know, as you received

a report from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams), the committees were meeting. The staff was ready. The

work is identified. Everything was ready for go. A very successful

meeting took place at the Matsqui Armoury in Abbotsford that I think

two or three of you might have been at, chaired and advised in great

detail by my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

In addition, there was another meeting yesterday by staff people in

Kamloops looking at the situation. My information is that the river

levels in Kamloops are rising. I'm not sufficiently an expert to know

just how bad the rise is and what it implies. But, certainly, we are

advised by our staff. The Minister's staff advised the committee

yesterday that we've reached the point now when action must be taken.

The temporary dikes that were erected and built, or scraped together,

with not particularly good material last year just won't withstand the

kind of flooding that is anticipated.

In addition to that, a fresh protective barrier must be erected to protect Brocklehurst and the airport itself.

I feel that it is an emergency. I intend to respond to the Member's

questions in as simple and succinct and direct fashion as I can. It is

the government's intention, however, upon the passage of second

reading, to swiftly and promptly go into committee stage and to get

royal assent today.

I therefore move second reading of Bill 131.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I haven't had very much

time to examine this piece of legislation. However, the Minister has

made certain statements in justification for its presentation at this

time.

One statement left me slightly bewildered was the fact that he said

this piece of legislation was separate and distinct and had no

relationship to the labour dispute now taking place in Kamloops. Well,

it's part and parcel. It's spelled out very clearly in this legislation

in the second "whereas." It mentions the unresolved labour dispute and

that it's necessary to get sufficient personnel to adequately control

the flooding and prevent further flooding in the Kamloops area.

I hope the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) will stand in his

place and tell us just where that labour dispute presently stands and

why he hasn't taken the necessary action to ensure that the labour

dispute

[ Page 2965 ]

which is threatening the municipalities in the

Kamloops area is not dealt with under the new Labour Code of British

Columbia without the necessity of the introduction of a piece of

legislation by the Provincial Secretary. There are adequate remedial

measures in the Labour Code of British Columbia which could have been

utilized without going to this special Act.

I'm glad to see that the government at last, in a public interest

situation, will take some form of action. We had legislation on the

books until it was thrown out by that government over there that dealt

with the public interest. Now we have the Legislature sitting and we

see a special bill being introduced by the Provincial Secretary which

is, in fact, something primarily dealing with a labour dispute in the

Kamloops area.

I hope the Minister will tell us in closing the debate on this piece

of legislation what action would the government have taken had the

Legislature not been sitting? Would it have been dealt with under the

special officer provisions of the Labour Code of British Columbia? How

would you have resolved the very pressing public interest situation in

the Kamloops area? I think you must have some legislation that will

ensure the kind of protection which you're requesting.

We approve of it in this Legislature at this time. I, for one, will

be supporting the legislation despite the fact that it appears to be

strikebreaking tactics on the part of the government. In fact, it is

strikebreaking tactics by that government. But, nevertheless, I've

always been one to say that when the public interest is at stake that

should always be considered first.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I do feel impelled to make some comments on this situation.

Quite frankly, I'm reluctant to render this kind of emergency

measure into a political debate. I think that an issue of this kind is

of such overriding public importance that one should not attempt to

make political points on the basis of existing legislation or on the

basis of past practices of dealing with this kind of question.

I would simply point out that there is no provision in the Labour

Code to deal with this kind of situation in an expeditious way. The

right to strike is granted and maintained to unions under the Labour

Code. This emergency measure does not seek to strikebreak or to impair

the effectiveness of the strike against the City of Kamloops in any

way. It simply seeks, Mr. Speaker, to remove from the area of conflict

and dispute an emergency situation on the periphery of that city and on

the periphery of that dispute.

The relative issues in dispute, either from the union's point of

view or from the city's point of view, are not going to render the

province and the city incapable of responding to the dire emergency of

flooding which threatens a significant part of the community. That in

no way impairs the legality or the effectiveness of the strike on the

union's part or the city's position in the labour dispute that exists

in that community. I think one has to view it as a separate issue and

one of extreme emergency.

Interjection

HON. MR. KING: With the emergency aspect of the dispute only;

it in no way restricts picketing or the conduct of the dispute in the

city proper where the main effect of the strike is taking place.

I had quite frankly hoped that the union and the city would respond

in a mature way to the requests by this government to recognize the

emergency and to act like responsible citizens. You cannot legislate

people into responsibility. If they refuse to accept that

responsibility in this case or any other, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that

the Legislature of this province is the appropriate agency to make that

determination and to show a higher sense of responsibility and to deal

expeditiously with it.

That is the situation here. It is an isolated case. I think it

should be recognized as that and I think it should be dealt with in

that light.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the hair-splitting

by the Minister of Labour as to what or what does not constitute

strikebreaking was interesting, but I think the real point at the

principle stage of this bill is to point out that this is not a problem

which has sprung upon the people of Kamloops suddenly. The water levels

have been a matter of concern for a considerable amount of time.

In 1972, they were a matter of considerable concern and, during the

election campaign, many people, including myself, many politicians in

this room, including myself, found ourselves inspecting the dikes and

looking at the problems they had at that time.

I think, however, the government should have certainly, instead of

bringing in a bill — which we're quite willing to agree to in light of

their failure to bring it in earlier — put forward a bill earlier when

the indication was that we would have flooding. We should have

proceeded with it in a more normal course.

I can understand the government's desire not to bring forward such a

bill because, indeed, by bringing forward such a bill, as the Minister

of Labour made clear, they have underlined a failing in the Labour

Code. I believe I quote him correctly: "The Labour Code has nothing to

take care of this." That is true, and that was pointed out, of course,

during the discussions on the Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, on the principle of bringing in

[ Page 2966 ]

legislation into the Legislature in a rush

essentially — let's face it — to break a strike in terms of protecting

the property and lives in the Kamloops area….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's simply no other way it can be

described. The Member who indicated that it was not a strikebreaking

bill I think should look at the legislation.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Would you sooner see the people flooded out?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's exactly the point we're trying to get to, if you will understand it, Mr. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have a strikebreaking bill here to

prevent the effects of a strike from taking place. The important

principle which I think should be understood even by the Member who

spoke a moment ago is that this type of thing should exist in

legislation. It should exist in a calm, rational period prior to when

you strike, where there is no industrial dispute on the horizon. It

should be known by the parties concerned when there is indeed an

industrial dispute. That means both parties, not just one side. I'm

thinking of both parties.

The fear I have is that legislation of this nature brought in at the

11th hour, when perhaps — and I'm hypothesizing here — the people

involved in this strike believe that the conditions in the town are

such as to create a very favourable climate for the settlement they

wish. This type of pulling the rug out from under them at the fifth

hour may well lead to bitterness and a quite correct charge that we are

changing the rules in the middle of an industrial dispute.

Doing this cannot encourage industrial peace. Mr. Speaker, during

debates on the Labour Code and other legislation we in this party and

other Members of the opposition pointed out that the right to strike in

certain areas is illusory. We were told by the government that the

right to strike was there, but we knew full well, every one of us, in

our hearts that police, firemen, hospital workers and others in

essential services would not be permitted to exercise a right which we

were telling them in this Legislature that we were granting them — or,

at least, the government was telling them that it was granting them.

The fact is that this bill proves the correctness of the opposition's

point of view at that time.

Strikes in essential services, where risk to human lives is involved

— or, indeed, simply risk to property…. It's simply a property case

in the case of Kamloops, not risk to human life. Risks of property and

human life will result in government taking action. I foresaw precisely

the same type of bill that the government brought in at the time I

spoke, when we were discussing in principle that legislation.

The fact is that this government has to face up a little more

realistically to the situation which exists not only in the case of the

outside workers in Kamloops, but also with respect to others who work

in delicate, essential services, the curtailment of which would mean a

serious impairment to the effectiveness of our society.

We think of the Vancouver police situation which was referred to by

questioning by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson), questioning which the Attorney-General apparently did not have

a response for at the time.

We simply cannot continue, Mr. Speaker, to allow both management and

labour to live in the world of pretence where we know full well that

the right to strike will be denied just as this legislation denies the

right to strike where essential services and human life and property

could be seriously affected.

We in our party will be supporting this bill in principle; we had no

objection to bringing it in in this way. But I would like to point out

to the Hon. Minister that we would prefer in future, when a potential

situation arises over many days, indeed weeks, where the situation is

known, as was the Kamloops case, we would like to have the legislation,

if possible, introduced in the normal manner.

Secondly, we would prefer to have the maximum warning of any

legislation that might come in in an emergency way. As I said, we

waived the rules, and any one in the opposition could have objected to

this. We're willing to waive the rules to help the government out of

its bind at the present time. But we hope that in future we will not be

subjected to legislation such as this hitting us with so little notice.

The whole question of the Labour Code, the right to strike for the

people in essential services — be they in hospitals, fire halls or

police stations — comes up when we discuss this bill. We think it shows

pretty clearly the need for some sort of fall-back legislation in

emergency situations. We do not like the principle of having separate

bills coming in and then have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

tell us somehow or another that a strike-breaking bill is not a

strike-breaking bill. We trust that we will have a more honest approach

to both sides, both Labour and management, in these delicate areas such

as I mentioned: police, hospital and fire.

If we don't have that, we're simply not being fair; we're not being

candid with the very people whose lives and livelihood and wages are

affected by industrial disputes and, of course, by legislation in this

[ Page 2967 ]

House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd

like to thank the Minister for the full statement which he gave in

introducing the bill. He pointed out the measures that had been

attempted and the communications which had taken place, and this was

useful background information for the opposition.

I personally, speaking to the principle of this bill, am nothing

less than shocked at the attitude of both parties concerned in

Kamloops. How can we have individuals in our modern society put a

labour dispute before life itself? We're not just talking about damage

and money in the principle of this bill; we are talking about human

lives. People can be drowned — children, women, adults — and it

certainly is a staggering realization that people in our society are

still prepared to put, albeit important, issues to themselves ahead of

not only public interest but human lives.

I think that if I've ever in this House been misunderstood about my

attitude to strikes, we've got it right here on the nose today. My

attitude to strikes remains unchanged. If I ever looked for vindication

of my opinion and the stance of this party — and I'm not proposing to

go on to a party debate on this…. But I believe that whether this

government is in power or any government were in power, society has

taken this attitude to the right to strike which has reached a point

where I really do believe that human life and danger to human life is

being neglected for the sake of the advantage of one or the other party

to a labour dispute.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in taking

part in this

debate on principle, said this bill was justified because of overriding

public interest. I agree. There can't be anything more overriding than

the risk to human life itself. But in passing I think it's fair to ask

the question: who decides what the definition of overriding is?

We've already entered into discussions, and there have been

questions asked in the question period, about the public interest.

There is the clear policy of this government, both in the debate on the

Labour Code and in subsequent events, of non-intervention in strikes.

Yet, and I'm pleased to say this, it's obvious that this government at

least does take action when that ultimate point is reached that human

life is being endangered by the absolutely rigid attitude of two

parties to a dispute.

Frankly, as I say, I can't find a strong enough word. Because I

never, ever — despite some cynicism that it's easy to develop — thought

I would see the day in British Columbia or in Canada where two parties

to a dispute couldn't even call a truce. Why can't they deal with the

situation until the danger has passed and then go back on strike? Can't

they ever agree to do that?

I never really thought — I know I've spoken in this frame of mind in

the House in debates — but I really never felt that the day would come

when parties would insist on striking regardless of the danger to life.

The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has more or less said exactly

what I feel: that surely it must give the government reason to

reconsider the so-called right to strike for employees in public

service. He detailed hospital, fire and police in particulars. But it

must indeed give the government reason to reconsider whether in fact

there is such a right in these particular forms of public service.

I just don't think there is; I don't think there should be. As long

as I'm in the political sphere, that's the position I'll be taking. I

do ask the question that I think the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) asked: if the House had not been in session…. Perhaps the

Minister could tell us in winding up the debate what other alternative

means existed in dealing with a situation where it isn't just a

question of property damage, bad as that might be, but the fact that

people might be killed.

I agree with the other Members who have spoken in the opposition

that whichever way you try to use the words there's an element of

strike-breaking involved. It might well be, as the Minister of Labour

has explained to us — most of the picketing is in the centre of

Kamloops, where the union feels that it is being most effective — that

the effectiveness of the strike will continue. And I accept the

Minister's explanation of that.

Nevertheless, it's quite clear in the legislation before us in Bill

131, Mr. Speaker, that there must be no attempt by the strikers to

picket or interfere in any way which would prevent

section 3, "engage

in picketing or in any way interfere with any operation respecting the

control and prevention of flooding…." So that I think it's indulging

in semantics to suggest that this bill is not a strike-breaking bill.

But I don't think that's by any means a big aspect of the argument.

The fact is that the Minister is asking the House to approve an

emergency measure and 1, and this party, will certainly give it the

strongest support. But I think it would be negligent of the opposition,

at the risk of indulging in a political debate such as the Minister of

Labour suggested we should not indulge, it would be wrong of us and

we'd be falling short in our obligation as opposition Members in the

House if we did not say that the background to this emergency

situation, the debates which took place on the Labour Code and in fact

the admission by the Minister that he has no alternative but to bring

in such a bill, must surely lead to the government's reconsideration of

the question of the so-called right — and I question the validity of

[ Page 2968 ]

that word — but the right to strike in public

service where withdrawal of that service may well, and would in this

case, unquestionably lead to loss of life.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I certainly would like to

compliment the previous speaker on some of the remarks he made and the

concern expressed, excellently put. I wish I could say the same for all

of the comments of the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, but I have

good reason not to and I'll get to that a little later.

I was home last week-end, of course, for two days and for two days

the office phone and my home phone were ringing with many, many calls

from people who were not concerned, who were not worried about the

threat of flood — but were simply frantic about it.

We had a situation in 1948 where half of the Brocklehurst area, all

of where the airport now stands, the oil refinery and many other

sections of the Kamloops district were under water.

But at that time there was less than half of the population we have

now. These areas were vacant and the harm wasn't there in the flooding

that there would be now that they have been covered with houses without

any proper protection in unorganized areas with the full knowledge of

the previous government.

In 1972 when I lived there the flood was quite serious and I spent

many long hours filling sandbags on the dikes in the Brocklehurst area

that the Provincial Secretary has mentioned.

In that time, of course, as we all know, the so-called dike approved

by the previous government broke at Oakhills. It broke at 4 o'clock in

the afternoon, fortunately, instead of 4 o'clock in the morning. If it

had broken at 4 o'clock in the morning there would have been many lives

lost.

The only saying thing of the breaking of that dike was it drew

attention to its weakness, to its poor construction, and the fact that

it was in the daytime and there was no loss of life.

Even at that time of the day it was fortunate because there were

many close calls. This is not a slow leaking, slow water-rising

situation, it was a complete giveaway of a rotten

section of the dike

containing tree stumps, wood, anything that could be used to be piled

up and covered with dirt. This was the dike approved by the previous

government down here in Victoria for that development.

I know that the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

was there in that situation also, after the dike broke. If you remember

we were very close to a provincial election. He arrived on the scene

and strolled down the Oakhills dike along with the local candidate,

some of the usual Liberal Party flacks, cameramen, and writers to

record the whole thing for posterity and publishing in the local press.

The people up there are not concerned in the main with the labour

dispute and like them, I feel the same about the dispute. I take no

sides with either party in it. I sympathize with both.

I'm sure the Kamloops city council does not enjoy the situation they

find themselves in. I'm sure the members of the union do not enjoy the

position they find themselves in, but we have got to a situation, and,

Mr. Member, you're absolutely right.

When I was home last week-end, my answer to these people's concern

was that I felt quite sure of the emergency committee, with the

Provincial Secretary and others of the cabinet, that this situation was

being kept very close tabs on. But on returning to Victoria I would

certainly press them for some kind of a solution to the problem — any

solution, no matter what it was, no matter whose dignity it involved,

no matter if someone's pride was a little injured. This protection had

to be put in. The people had to be looked after.

Many, many, many of these areas do not have sewerage and we cannot

look at a situation of eight weeks with septic tanks and fields

flooded. I'm sure the previous speaker is quite aware of this

situation, much more aware than I am of the dangers of flooded septic

tanks on the community, and there isn't the housing there to

accommodate these people in some other area.

My own house, I have no particular concern for. In 1948, which was

an extremely high year, the house didn't flood. You had to have a boat

to get to it, but at least there was not a dangerous situation there.

Let us look for a minute at money, because money sometimes with some

people concerns more than lives. Sometimes they are more concerned in

their pride than in lives.

There was approximately $1.5 million paid in reparations for damage

in the Oakhills flood situation and this was only damage to the houses

that were there at that time. My own opinion was that perhaps all of

the houses should have been moved out of the area and it given back to

the river and to cattle grazing as it had been used for before. It

would have meant an awful lot more money and with the availability, the

'short situation of land in the Kamloops area at the time, it was

thought better to build the dike. Needless to say it is a dike and not

simply a pile of dirt.

That dike was built at a cost of between $1.3 million and $1.5

million and this is in one small area that doesn't hold more than 300

families at a time. There were other hundreds of thousands of dollars

spent on the whole North Thompson area, areas outside of the Oakhills

situation.

I know that the problem is complicated by a labour dispute and, as I

said before, I have sympathy for both sides. But I don't think the

pride, I don't think the problem of losing face, I don't think that

[ Page 2969 ]

has one single thing to do with the protection of the residents of this area.

Also, with the amalgamation of the city last spring, most of these

dikes were not the consideration of the city workers before. Most of

the threatened areas are outside what was the original City of

Kamloops. No work has been done on the small dikes, and they are very

small dikes that were built in 1972 with the cooperation of the

Highways department. It was excellent cooperation at the time but it

was a race with time to have the level of the dike maintained at two or

three inches above the steadily-rising river.

All sorts of pumps were used. Electric, gasoline, irrigation pumps,

conversions, anything to save the situation. What we have now is time

to put in a proper remedy where these dikes have been worn down and

rained down. Some of them have not the proper material in them. Some of

them need rock riprap and protection where the current is in danger of

eating them away.

There is an old people's home in North Kamloops where the only way

it was saved last time was by sandbags and a couple of large pumps

inside to pump the water over.

We cannot have that type of situation this time. For that reason I

certainly want to compliment the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall),

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea), all of whom I was with in a meeting with both sides to

the dispute — both the union and the city.

I would assure this House that every effort was made to resolve that

dispute peacefully with regard to the dikes only and no interference

with the dispute that they have with the city. I do not consider that

if garbage isn't picked up that this is an emergency for the area. I

don't think it is necessary to pass

an Act in this Legislature if it

takes an extra couple of weeks to get a building permit because of

shortage of staff. But when we are in danger of sudden breakages of

dikes, flooding of septic tanks — a real health and life problem as

well as a property problem — I certainly support this bill in principle

and will certainly be voting for it in final reading.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't want to hold this bill up

but I'd like to make a few comments here and certainly not on the

labour. I agree with a lot of the remarks that have been made but

regarding the formula for revetment of river banks and so on, I really

think this is part of the problem here.

What I'd like to point out to this House is that the bells rang in

this community in 1972 and what have we done since then to help these

people? I feel sorry for Kamloops and as they could have a recurrence

to what happened in 1972, it appears to me that we've all skipped over

this period of time from 1972 until now, which is almost two years.

I realize this boundary extension has been made and so on, but I

can't understand why. I want to tell you that I was the mayor of a

community that flooded on the Fraser and I know all about the problems

you're trying to fight when the water's there and it's not the time to

be looking after these things.

Why, I say, Mr. Speaker, weren't some preventive measures taken in

at least the fall of 1973? Now I had a phone call today, and maybe I'm

off the bill, but a phone call today showed this concern is now coming

on the Fraser River system.

I am advised today by an individual that when he asked for help, he

was told there was no fiscal help available to save his land from

falling in the river.

Now I really think that this is where we're at. The formula, whether

it is with a municipality or an individual — it is my understanding — is 75-25. If the provincial government hasn't got the funds for the 75

per cent, well, we're sure not going to get these things resolved. I

really think that this is part of this difficulty in Kamloops. I would

like to be told otherwise if it is so, but it is most unfortunate; this

work should have been done all last winter when the water was low and

not while it is on the rise at this time.

I only hope that there will be some answers given. I can assure you

that there is going to be difficulty on the Fraser River if we don't

have proper runoff. The weather has the answer to that, but we have a

terrific snowpack not only on the Thompson but on the Fraser, and those

rivers are up extensively now. If they continue to go, we are going to

have a repetition of this in places like Prince George, Quesnel and so

on.

I would like to know why something has not happened, particularly in

Kamloops, when the bells rang there in 1972. We are standing here with

emergency legislation now to try and do something. In my opinion, this

isn't the time at all to be doing this work; it should have been done a

year ago.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's all very well to hear now the official

opposition, the former government, saying: "Why wasn't something done?"

The people that can take the full responsibility for the mess in

Oakhills, the people that without one film of doubt can take the full

responsibility for the Oakhills mess….

MR. FRASER: You've got all the answers and you've been government for 20 months. What have you done?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2970 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is interesting to check the files.

What this government has done is to build the major dike that was

needed in Kamloops — and built it without any argument, built it

because it was needed. It was the major facility that was needed,

funded by this government whether we were going to get federal aid or

not.

This government was stuck again, literally, with a mop-up job after

the previous administration. We compensated the homeowners and the home

buyers in the Oakhills area, as the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) indicated. We subsequently built the dike as well. It is now

apparent after further work that additional work is needed at

Brocklehurst at this time. It can be done. But the Cinnamon Hills area

— so-called, even though it is more a lake than Cinnamon Hills, to the

west of the airport — is an area of continuing dispute between the city

council and the landowners.

That is still, as I understand it, unresolved. And it is very clear

that there have been arguments between the two, primarily related to

getting benefits from rezoning in that particular area, that has

complicated the issue over the last year.

Now it is just a bit thick again to hear the official opposition

talk about lack of activity by the government, because you just have to

check the approving officer's files, the Department of Highways files

and the advice that the professional staff of Water Resources,

Municipal Affairs and the Highways department were giving the

politicians of the day.

Gentlemen, you should see those files, because one after the other

the professional staff said: "Do not allow building in Oakhills; you

are asking for a disaster." Those reports hit cabinet desks, and what

happened? A former cabinet Minister, your research adviser, the former

Minister of Municipal Affairs, despite all the advice, writes at the

bottom of the file: "Okay to proceed — Dan C."

That's the kind of mop-up mess we continue to clean up at the hands of the former government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of every Member

in this House for the situation on the ground at Kamloops, and

therefore I very much support the principle of the bill. I congratulate

the Provincial Secretary on his neutral statement of the facts of the

case as we have them at the moment.

I share the concern as well for what must be an incredible

labour-relations situation when the two parties can't get together to

solve a community problem of this great import to both of them.

One point I would wish to make, not to hold up this debate in any

way, is simply to make the point to the government that by this bill

the government has recognized that there do exist cases where innocent

third-party interests require the shielding of those interests from the

effect of a labour-relations dispute.

I would suggest to the government that this happens in every case

where there is a clear and present threat to life and property caused

by such a dispute. I would urge, while we pass this measure quickly,

that at the same time the government should not consider that the end

of the problem, but rather should say: "What other cases in British

Columbia are likely to fall into this category, and what continuing

legislative provision should we make in the Labour Code for shielding

of innocent third-party interests in emergency cases of this kind?"

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

in 1948, which the present situation is being compared to, I was a

student in Kamloops. My dad was an alderman. I support this bill but I

would like now to tell the city council and tell the union involved

about what happened in 1948. They think that Oakhills, Cinnamon Hills,

is it. The dikes were built from the CNR bridge right around to just

below Brocklehurst. They didn't build a dike from Brocklehurst because

it wasn't populated in those days.

If this is anything like the 1948 flood, you have got another

disaster. What happened in 1948 was that water backed up sewer lines.

There was talk of typhoid. Now you talk about a health problem! Now

typhoid…. Am I correct, Doctor?

Another very unusual thing happened. The North Thompson, which is

the river that's in flood, came down and created such a problem that

the South Thompson couldn't come in. So areas in Kamloops who thought

were absolutely safe had a dam built of water where the exhibition

grounds are now — I think there is a $1 million yacht club there. It

was all under water. There are people in houses all over North Kamloops

and up that south arm that probably haven't even realized that if this

is like the 1948 flood, there is trouble.

I think the unions and the city…. I just have to keep on coming

back to the fact that the situation, if it is like 1948, is going to be

beyond belief. It is going to cause millions and millions of dollars

worth of damage. A lot of innocent people have been building on

property they thought was well above flood level.

Now there is another thing that's happening in Kamloops. There are

areas up the North Thompson which are on floodland that has been diked.

This will again create more flooding downstream in areas like the

Riverside Park area. All the park area was flooded out completely.

What I am worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill is not

strong enough. I am very, very reluctant to take away any man's right

to strike. I feel it can only

[ Page 2971 ]

be done in this Legislature. But I feel that this

bill, which I am supporting, should serve notice, and I hope that there

is sufficient publicity given to the problem in Kamloops so that they

realize it is for more dangerous than…. In 24 or 25 years you forget

a lot. I think that a lot of those people in authority there didn't

know what it was in 1948. I had the pleasure of being almost killed by

a Minister called P.A. Gaglardi. This was when he first came to fame.

He saved North Channels but he almost killed half the students

because he didn't know how to drive this Caterpillar he was driving

around in. He was a man of his era. He got publicity and he became a

great person — rather a dangerous person, as W.A.C. Bennett learned.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Kamloops city council and the

union involved — realize that there is a great danger to Kamloops.

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

request of the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I'd very much like

to welcome to the House 28 students from South Canoe school in Salmon

Arm, and their teacher Mr. Gordon Murphy.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very, very sad, sad commentary

upon the responsibility and the activities of the participants in this

dispute in Kamloops. It's terribly unfortunate, in my view, that

legislation such as has been presented to the House this afternoon is

necessary in a contemporary democracy.

Under it, Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), prior to making a few additional

remarks. I see that he has the power to employ, conscript and summon

assistance of people, and requisition and use equipment. Then under

section 4 it refers to moneys required for the purpose of the Act to be

paid via the flood relief Act provisions which refers to the source of

funds in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I fully assume, Mr. Speaker, and certainly knowing this Minister as

I do, that he will grant the assurance that reasonable and proper

compensation will be afforded to anyone who is affected by the very

strong powers granted under this bill because it could be open to

question as to whether there is actually a provision for compensation

clearly provided within the terms of the legislation. So I would ask

the Hon. Provincial Secretary for such assurance that compensation

would be provided if the powers that are stated therein are exercised.

I would indeed hope that the very force of this Act coming into

being, as I feel it will — it's certainly been indicated that it has

the consent of all Members of the House — I would certainly hope that

this in itself would declare at least a moratorium in the conflict

between the parties in Kamloops, and they would be able to do the job

themselves without the intervention of the statute.

The Act has certainly done one thing — or perhaps we could say the

act of nature, the flooding, has brought fully home to the people of

this province, and I'd say fully home to the individuals within this

Legislature, that by virtue of the terrific interdependency and

proliferation of society, people can no longer isolate, be islands unto

themselves, and wage their own wars for their own ends and to the devil

or disregard to the general public in any harm which could possibly

ensue unto that third partner. Because there are three partners

involved, Mr. Speaker, in a contemporary labour-management dispute such

as this. Not two partners but three: there is labour; there is

management; and there is the general public who may suffer from the

consequences of inaction of the other two.

Under these circumstances where irreparable public damage could

ensue, such as would be the case here, surely for us to continue to say

as elected representatives that under these circumstances there is a

right to strike or a right to lockout, I think is anachronistic

nonsense.

I would say that under circumstances such as are prevalent here,

there is not a right to strike, and there is not a right to lock out,

but only a privilege, and a privilege which should certainly not be

abused; and if so abused, it would be at the peril of those who are at

fault for pay for any damages resulting from such a dispute.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved, by virtue of the interdependency of

society and, as I said, by the proliferation of people, into different

times, and I think we have to apply different standards. We have to

remember that this labour-management situation is no longer a two-party

situation, certainly in the public sector, but is a three-party

situation. If damage is occasioned, those responsible for those damages

must pay them.

I regret, as I say, to see a bill such as this coming into the

Province of British Columbia because I think it's a denegation of the

responsibility of and the duties of those persons involved, If they had

acted responsibly, this legislation would not have been required.

I do hope it is a signal to them to act responsibly. I do hope if

they do that, that which is contemplated in the provisions of this bill

will not have to be utilized.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, briefly I wish to express my support for this legislation.

I don't believe that this is strikebreaking legislation. I trust

that neither the union in Kamloops nor the City of Kamloops will

consider the action which we are taking here today as in any way

[ Page 2972 ]

interfering with their lawful right to adjust the relationships between them.

What we have here is a classic instance of the preeminence of the

public interest. Indeed, it's a classic instance of the basic

responsibility of this Legislature in any given circumstance to

consider whether the public interest is affected to the extent that the

rights of private individuals, be they unions, cities, or individuals,

must give way to the pre-eminence of public interest.

That's the issue. That's what the principle of this legislation is all about.

We must from time to time take action in this House in the public

interest regardless of how the consequences may be felt by other

individuals in our society.

Dealing specifically with the legislation — I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary might respond to this concern I have when he

closes this debate. It is dealing with the municipality of Kamloops and

the powers that he has to exercise in preventing flooding, or the

damage from flooding, which appears to be imminent.

We all recognize that the Thompson River and its tributaries will

affect areas other than those within the municipality of Kamloops. I

would just like to have the Provincial Secretary indicate whether the

authority that he will exercise under this legislation, or under other

legislation which we have, will enable him with the people that he uses

under this legislation to protect areas outside the municipality of

Kamloops because the flooding there can have all the consequences of

damage that could occur within the municipal boundaries.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members for

their contributions and their expressions of support for the principle

of the bill.

Dealing with the matters that were raised in chronological order,

from the start of the debate I tried to make it abundantly clear in my

opening remarks that the House should, if they took my opinion, avoid

mixing up the proposition of involving itself in the settlement of

dispute and that which was the essential body of the bill, mainly the

protection of the people of Kamloops.

I thought that was fully understood and I think the majority of

Members of the House who engaged in debate accepted that.

Unfortunately, the first spokesman for the official opposition just

didn't do that. In fact, he chose to take the other course to, in my

view, deliberately mix the two things up. I feel that didn't do the

debate much good to begin with.

That was the trouble under the legislation he used to produce as

Minister of Labour. He always mixed those two principles up. So we

should feel sorry and carry on to the next speaker who was the Member

for Victoria, the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) who

called the whole thing hair-splitting; he called it strikebreaking. He

said that we should have acted earlier. He again called it a

strikebreaking bill and so generally bemoaned and bewailed the fact

that it was too little — the usual expression — too little too late,

and all the rest of it.

I can only commend him to discuss it with his partner, who sits to

his left, who said the bill was not strikebreaking. Just say to that

Member that he again, unfortunately, didn't listen to him as

attentively as I do when I introduced the principle of the bill in the

first instance.

Mr. Speaker, for him to tell us that he gave permission for this

bill to go ahead — it was very nice of him to do that — so we could

save the area of Kamloops, and to talk about what should be in our

labour legislation, and what we should be doing is all very well and

good. But I do want to remind him that we wanted cooperation; that's

why we asked. We could have gone under standing order 81 if we wanted

to.

I don't really like those kinds of remarks which so frequently come

from the Member. I also want to remind that Liberal leader of his own

party's position on the debate on Bill 33 which dealt with areas such

as this.

The Liberal Party's position, reiterated over and over again

throughout that debate on Bill 33, that was when items like this come

up, there should be special measures individually organized,

individually motivated, and that we should indeed get this kind of

legislation. I wish some of you would remind him of his party's

history, of where they've been in labour legislation in this province.

The Liberal position in all those nights — and I remember them well

because I used to sit next to them — was that this Legislature should

be called together and there should be a bill for an issue. If you care

to search the records you'll find that amendment, Mr. Speaker, as I

well remember that you were in that debate in the small hours of the

morning.

Mr. Speaker, the two Members who have spoken today — namely, the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) — asked what would happen if we weren't sitting. I say that a

whole wide range of things could happen if we weren't sitting. The

first one is that you'd be called together to sit. That has been the

position of this party over and over and over again — and the position

of the then Liberal Party leader, who is not here today, during those

debates on compulsory arbitration.

But I pose this question, Mr. Speaker: what would have happened it

we had had the kind of powers that the Member for Columbia River and

the Second Member for Victoria wanted? Supposing we had some statute,

some emergency measures authority that the

[ Page 2973 ]

Liberals like? We would have had sweeping,

swooping, awesome powers the like of which you have never seen; and if

I'd have operated them in the corridor outside this morning at 10

o'clock or at 2 o'clock, can you imagine the row there would have been

in here by about 2:25 p.m. — that we hadn't come to the Legislature to

discuss this?

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, the kind of row, the

kind of remarks that were coming from Members over there at the time I

announced the contingency plan to deal with the postal strike? Do you

remember how they shouted, "strike-breaking" — how they shouted that

kind of stuff? Messrs. Members, you really must do better than that in

terms of remembering where you have been.

Mr. Speaker, the next speaker was the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), who supported the legislation. Like us all he chose the

opportunity — and I respect him for it, and I see why he did it — to

vindicate his position in terms of Bill 11 and the fact that certain

areas shouldn't have the strike privilege.

I can see how he got to that situation; but by a curious twist of

politics and thought and logic, this bill also vindicates our position,

Mr. Member. We believe there should be the right to strike, and when

things go wrong we have to declare public interest and do something

about it, so I suppose from Oat point of view we find ourselves on the

same side of the question.

But you then referred to the definition of "interest." There we have

really the nub of the whole question. I was so careful and so hopeful

that we wouldn't mix up the two things: the question of the lawns and

the parks and the boulevards in Kamloops not being mowed, the sewage

pipes not being attended to, and all the host of duties that municipal

people do, and this question of flooding on the outskirts of the city.

He asked who decides interest, who decides public interest. I want

to say with all the sincerity I can muster for the Member that's what

politics is about; that's what we fight to achieve power about. The

buck has to stop somewhere, and that's what government's about. We've

got to face up to it. And I don't know of any group of people I'd

sooner face up to those decisions with than my colleagues on the

Treasury benches, supported by the government Members.

I think it is that kind of attitude, that kind of responsibility,

that kind of pressure, that kind of realization that the buck has to

stop somewhere, that makes for the responsible government and

responsive government that I think you are getting today.

So, unfortunately, the responsibility is ours. We can duck it. We

can run from it. But it is ours, nevertheless, and I think we are

responding to it.

The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) recognized the public

interest, and I think he worries about it. He asked if any changes were envisaged

because of this happenstance in the Labour Code. I can't speak for the Minister

(Hon. Mr. King), but I would be very surprised, because I think we've dealt

with the public interest; we've dealt with the way we want to tackle these

problems. I repeat to that Member: what would have happened if we had had those

powers and not come before this Legislature to do something — just announced

it in the corridor and not come before this Legislature to do something about

it?

I want to assure the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) that certainly as far as

section 2 is concerned, in the

compensation that may flow from the operation of

section 2, we will

naturally fully compensate for the use of equipment and the assistance

and the measures that are carried out.

The extent of the disaster, if there is a disaster — and I hope that

our actions today are going to prevent that; but we all know there will

be some wet ground around in this province over the next little while — it will, of course, be dealt with in the normal way as it was dealt

with before: by reference to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and myself and the emergency funds that

we have for that kind of work.

I would like to assure the Member, in closing the debate on second

reading, that it is still my hope, even though I am just as upset as

the Member for Oak Bay was about the fact that this is necessary, that

even at this late stage there may be some cooperation. I haven't,

obviously, had an opportunity to chat with the Minister of Highways and

the Minster of Labour, who I know have been out contacting people even

while this debate has been going on, as to whether there has been any.

But let me finally say — and this is really what bothered me a

little bit about some of the remarks…. I expected this to come up.

But I can't think of an occasion, and I have watched labour and

management matters for a long time, when some dispensation hasn't been

given in a situation like this. Time after time after time governments

of all political stripes have gone to unions, in and out families of

labour, at all times over the last years and years and years and asked

for dispensation to deal with a problem. Similarly, we have gone to

employees and asked for their assistance in dealing with an emergency,

the severity of which was well described by the Member for Oak Bay.

I can't think of it being refused. I say that that in itself is

partially the answer to the Member's worries about public interest. I

still hope that cooperation will be ours by the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 131 now.

[ Page 2974 ]

Oh, there was a question from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). The authority applied only to the City of

Kamloops. The area described: we've gone right down the river. We've

got all the reports in and, as far as we are concerned, this is the

only area of concern. I am advised by the committee members that their

resource people tell them that, and that's why we've specifically

confined it to this area.

There is no labour dispute anywhere else. I hope that the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound doesn't become a prophet and prove me wrong.

I know he does but that's where we are at the moment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 131 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 131 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY

FLOOD CONTROL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 13 1; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. HALL: May it be understood — I'm not sure of the

constitutionality of it; I'm sure this is not critical — but could we

give the correct designation and call it the City of Kamloops…? I

think that could be done by the Law Clerk when he presents the bill

finally.

Recitals approved.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. WALLACE: As I said earlier, I certainly support the bill,

but one part of it gives me some considerable concern. It is the use of

the words "conscript and summon the assistance of any person."

These words "conscript" and "any person" give me some real concern.

In an emergency situation, I sense what the Minister is trying to do,

but I would just like to ask two questions. One is on the possible

involvement of an individual who, unknown to the coercing party, is

really in no position to assist or do what might be expected of him.

You can't judge people just by looking at them and saying they can fill

sandbags. They may have heart disease or epilepsy or anything, and they

might not be in a position to give the assistance which is being

conscripted.

Also, what kind of

labour force, if I can use that phrase, does the Minister have in mind

to conscript and summon the assistance of any person. Are there active

moves being made, for example, through the Canada Manpower or some

other vehicle to provide a list of people who perhaps would even

volunteer or otherwise provide service?

Thirdly, can the Minister comment on the degree to which an

individual being conscripted is liable to penalty if he refuses to be

conscripted?

I'm not trying to split hairs. I realize that the Minister, I'm

sure, would attempt only to call upon people and use compulsion where a

really serious situation existed. But

section 2(1)(

a) I think is a

very serious degree of power which might lead to great suffering on the

part of some individuals quite beyond their own control. I wonder if

the Minister could give us some guidance as to how 1(

a) will be

implemented or is intended to be implemented.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, it's a copy of the language

that's used in the fire-fighting measures of the Forest Act. It's

exactly the same language. It's our intention to use the same

experience in that. We're not likely in the original work that's going

to go on to be doing much conscripting. The labour force is ready to

move in. Department of Highways people will be doing most of the work.

The conscription powers in my view have to be there, similar to those

that are in the fire-fighting sections of the Forest Act. They include

the experience and the various rules and procedures that have been

adopted many, many times for many, many years regarding people who are

unprepared to…. There has been a great deal of experience gained

already in that. Lastly, the penalties if people refuse to operate are

those laid out in the

Summary Convictions Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I have the same concern raised by the Member for Oak Bay. As I read the

fire protection sections of the Forest Act, they do not contain the

word "conscript"; they do contain the words "employ and summon." If it

was the attempt of the draftsman of this legislation to equate what we

have here with the Forest Act, then he's gone far astray. It

specifically provides that in respect of fighting fires and forest

service may employ or summon assistance of any male person between the

ages of 18 and 60. It exempts certain people who have specific

occupations and it exempts persons who are physically unfit. It then

goes on to provide that any person who fails to render assistance,

having been summoned, is guilty of an offence. There's no question

under

section 5 of the

Summary Convictions Act that if a person fails

to abide by this legislation he is guilty to a

summary conviction fine

of $500.

[ Page 2975 ]

But to insert the word "conscript" gives to the Provincial Secretary

far more power than exists under the fire-fighting section. Mr.

Chairman, I move an amendment to delete from

section 2(1)(

a) the word

"conscript."

HON. MR. HALL: I accept that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If I may just say one thing further, Mr.

Chairman, I trust that in the light of the temper of this debate any

physically fit male or female person in the City of Kamloops will be

very happy to accede to any summons for assistance that the Provincial

Secretary gives out. It they don't I think they should get the $500

fine.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record,

this is a very important bill and I thought we could do it by leave and

give the Law Clerk power to change the words "municipality" to "each

city." Apparently the Law Clerk is uncertain of his powers and I would

therefore move that in line 12 we strike out "municipality" and replace

it by the word "city." I think that should cover it, as the recitals

earlier on don't have legislative effect.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): In order to have

section 3 consistent with

section 2, Mr. Chairman, I would move after

the word "tributaries" in the last line thereof to add the words "in

the city of Kamloops."

It was the intention under

section 2, as illustrated by the

Provincial Secretary by his remarks, that these powers would be

restricted to the flooding of the Thompson and its tributaries in the

city of Kamloops if the prohibition

section does not restrict it to the

City of Kamloops. I'm just saying for purposes of consistency we should

have a similar restriction under

section 3 as we find under

section 2,

Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not against the clarification at all. It

seems to me that it's duplication rather than clarification. It seems

to me that the powers of the Provincial Secretary as laid down by

section 2 are conditioned finally by the words "the flooding of the

Thompson River and its tributaries in the municipality of Kamloops."

MR. GARDOM: City of Kamloops.

HON. MR. HALL: City of Kamloops.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm talking about 3.

HON. MR. HALL: I was trying to attract the Chairman's

attention before you got up because I have an amendment that…. Can I

say to you that I want to change the number on the first line of the

second page from 3 to 2? It's a misprint, so that would explain the

whole thing away, I think.

MR. GARDOM: You wish to change which line?

HON. MR. HALL:

Section 3 reads currently: "During the time

the Provincial Secretary has power and authority under

section 3." It

should read "under

section 2." Then I think we've got the whole thing

wrapped up.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the figure 3 in the first line of

section 3 be struck out and the figure 2 replaced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed with the

amendment of the Hon. Provincial Secretary would the Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey withdraw his amendment?

MR. GARDOM: Well I think that he's provided the clarification

so my amendment would be unnecessary. If the clarification had been

required it would be necessary. So I'm happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. HALL: The title is Kamloops Emergency Flood Control

Act. I see no argument about that. We've passed the recitals which are

the

whereas, and as they have no legislative effect I don't

particularly want to get involved in….

MR. GARDOM: We've a little trouble with the Chairman ourselves, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendments.

[ Page 2976 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 131, Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): By leave, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 131 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: May I advise the House, Mr. Speaker, it is my

intention to have the Lieutenant-Governor come in to give royal assent

to this bill just as soon as I can possibly request His Honour to be

here.

MR. SPEAKER: In the meantime, I wonder if leave of the House

could be granted for the presentation of a petition by the Hon. Leader

of the Opposition.

Leave granted.

Presenting petitions.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to present a petition on behalf of the citizens and residents of

Texada Island and directed to me to present in the Legislature:

"We the undersigned residents of Texada Island wish to

place ourselves on record as strongly protesting the mineral royalties

bill, Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The procedure is just to give the names

of the petitioners and the actual prayer for relief itself and not all

the body of the petition. Is there any prayer for relief?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, that's it. "The petition of the undersigned

humbly show" and they go on to place themselves on record as protesting

the Mineral Royalties Act because it will strangle the mining industry

in their island.

MR. SPEAKER: That's merely argumentative. What I'm asking the

Hon. Leader is: do they say at the end after that

preamble anything

about what they have done?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, he says, "Wherefore, your petitioners

humbly pray that your Hon. House will move carefully with consideration

of Bill 31 and make a fair study to find out how this royalty bill will

affect the residents and the undersigned workers of Texada Island,

British Columbia, before its enactment, and, as in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray."

MR. SPEAKER: And that's the prayer for relief, at last.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: With relief?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is now in the precincts of the building, could we have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER: I would declare a short recess and ask the Hon. Members to remain seated.

The House took recess at 4:00 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY FLOOD CONTROL ACT

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the Chamber.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

Vote 137: Minister's Office, $105,352.

On the amendment to vote 137.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we are now on the amendment, I believe to reduce the Minister's salary by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. The Hon. Member will speak on the amendment.

MR. FRASER: We discussed yesterday afternoon about the Minister's competence in the management

[ Page 2977 ]

of certain things, and the sale of Ocean Falls' products where it

could cost the citizens of British Columbia a lot of money due to the

sale arrangements made. This Minister absolutely refuses to table this

document so it can be examined.

At least he said himself yesterday that he was going to keep this

document secret like any other large forest company would keep it

secret, implying that they were really one and the same.

Mr. Chairman, I can't agree with that because there is a great

difference between the public and privately owned forest companies and

the Government of the Province of British Columbia being the owners of

this. It is owned by all the people of this province. This Minister has

no right to take the position that this agreement, or any other

business of the public of British Columbia, should be kept secret. But

he has up to this point maintained that this is exactly what lie

intends to do. This is where we certainly disagree.

It would appear that an iron curtain has been drawn by this

Minister, in this particular instance, over the sale agreement which

certainly has consequences with and for the people of this province

because they are the owners of this and he only represents them and has

no rights at all to deny them the fact that they can look into this

agreement.

I want to go on from where I left off last night. I want to deal

with the government-operated Plateau sawmills located at Vanderhoof,

and go into the operation there on the information I have.

First of all, timber has been taken away from other areas and

assigned to Plateau sawmills. The Minister shakes his head. But I

realize this timber was not allocated, but now is allocated to Plateau

sawmills. The fact is that this timber was in the area of Kluskus, a

native community 150 miles west of Quesnel. The reason I mention

Kluskus is the fact that this is where this timber was unallocated,

which has been allocated to Plateau sawmills.

In the normal progression of logging, which is proceeding west from

another Indian village of Nazko, it would have been natural for this

timber to come out through that way and come in to Quesnel. But this is

not going to happen now. I say that because the native population of

Kluskus have always done their business — it's in the watershed of that

flows to the Fraser River. Now because of the Plateau operations,

located at Vanderhoof, there is an access road of 50 miles being built,

so this timber can be taken in to the Plateau sawmill operation at

Vanderhoof.

I would like to know several things about the road construction, Mr.

Chairman, due to the fact that it is in progress and has been since

last year sometime. I would like to know what environment studies were

made prior to the construction of this pretty substantial forest road.

It is being built to the standard that a logging truck and trailer of

100,000 lb. gross can run on it, so it's certainly not a wagon road or

a trail. It is a substantial road and it takes a lot of swath through

the country. It is my information that the vehicles such as bulldozers

are ripping all over the place and the local people are wondering just

who is directing this whole operation.

I would ask the question, Mr. Chairman, whether any environment

studies were done in any shape or form because I know that this is now

required of the private companies.

The other side of this is that there is a fair amount of timber on

the right-of-way that has been cleared to make room for road

construction. I have been given to understand that this timber is put

up for sale, but other bidders can't bid this timber because they know

they have to pay for the use of that road and they can't find out what

that is. The point I'm making is that we are not getting competition on

this Crown timber for this reason. I would like to know what the

Minister has to say along that line.

The Plateau sawmill operation has two mills, one located at Engen,

west of Vanderhoof, and then another one in Vanderhoof. Okay, two in

Vanderhoof. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what this Minister is

going to do about the illegal operation of these mills, of Plateau

sawmills.

When anybody else, individuals or companies, apply for Crown timber,

they must have a barker and chipper operation in their mills. I

understand that at least one of these mills in Plateau sawmills has no

barker or chipper equipment. It is a definite requirement of the

Forestry department that anybody bidding on Crown timber must have that.

Of course, I agree with this stipulation for the simple reason that

rather than waste being burnt in a burner, which is the case in the

Plateau sawmills…and we have a serious shortage of chips. I think it

is disgraceful that a Crown Corporation has let this go on. They

certainly wouldn't let it go on in the case of a private operation.

They would have had their warning by now that they would cease to get

Crown timber if they didn't become legal in their operation.

I am further given to understand that the burner…. By the way,

this Minister is the Minister of the environment and pollution control,

and one of these burners has had the top burned off it. It is near the

town of Vanderhoof and is causing pollution to that area. I am sure the

citizens of Vanderhoof would like to know when this illegal and bad

operation is going to be cleaned up.

I think it is notable, Mr. Chairman, to make note of the fact that

there is a serious shortage of chips. That applies to Can-Cel of Prince

Rupert. This Minister has already directed other operators to, whether

they like to or not, ship chips to Can-Cel at cost to them, while here

we have this real waste going

[ Page 2978 ]

on in a government-operated sawmill, namely Plateau Mills. I really don't think any of these things add up.

I would like to know when the Minister, through this Crown-operated

sawmill, is going to start and live and abide by the laws this same

Minister applies.

If Crown operations do get preferential treatment — and I suggest

they do — there is certainly proof of this in the case of Plateau Mills.

Something else that has come up here before, but I would like to

bring it up again, is a conflict of interest. The prior District

Forester of the Fort George Forest District was on the board of

Plateau. This Minister told us a year ago that he would certainly look

into it. While this gentleman is certainly a very competent person — I

don't want in any way to make any slurs on him — but I can't see, when

he was the District Forester at Prince George in charge of the

allocation of timber, how he can be impartial on how timber is

allocated in reference to a government-operated sawmill.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I would like to know who made the final decision on the Kluskus

timber to go into Plateau instead of where it was originally intended

to go. I am sure this gentleman wouldn't do it.

The point I would like to make is: this man has now been promoted — and I am happy to see that. He is now the Assistant Chief Forester for

the Province of British Columbia. Is he still a Director of Plateau

Mills? Is it the intent of the Minister to keep him on the directorate

of Plateau Mills?

There's certainly a conflict of interest there. How can he be fair

and not rule in favour of a Crown corporation such as Plateau? It seems

human nature to me that he would be biased, and I don't think that

should happen. In any case, this man has severe responsibilities and

more than he had when he was chief forester in Prince George, now

becoming assistant chief forester for the whole province.

I'd like to just say a few words about Tree Farm Licences as related

to municipalities. The Minister stated quite clearly that he and the

government is in favour of municipalities acquiring Tree Farm Licences.

I'm not clear here; I believe Burns Lake has been offered a Tree Farm

Licence; Quesnel has been invited to apply for a Tree Farm Licence. I

would like to know more about this and I'm sure the citizens in these

municipalities would like to know more.

Have these municipalities the expertise to manage Tree Farm

Licences? If you're dealing with a municipality within a regional

district, where does the regional district fit in? They are also a

municipal level of government.

I predict there will be a lot of conflict created at the local

level, whether you're dealing with the regional district or the

municipality. You're dealing with one and not the other, and that

appears to be coming on the horizon in the case of Burns Lake and

Quesnel, where the municipality is being dealt with and the regional

district is out of it. In fact, the Tree Farm Licence area is certainly

far more effective in the area of the regional district than it is in

the municipality itself.

What is the Minister's position on this? Does he feel the regional

districts should be in on this or just the municipalities? I can see

problems coming here. Maybe the benefits, if there are going to be

benefits from these Tree Farm Licences going to municipalities, should

be going to the entire district where that Tree Farm Licence is rather

than just into the core municipality. Indications are that that is

going to take place, the way negotiations are going on now.

I know there is a Tree Farm Licence of several years standing at

Mission. I haven't looked into it fully, but it's my information that

the tax rate in the Town of Mission is not much greater or less than

surrounding municipalities. I question whether they will be an asset or

not.

Where any municipality in this province decides to go into the Tree

Farm Licence and take one of these on, they're going to have to go out

and hire professional help and expertise. When they've done this maybe

they will certainly accrue some benefits but have to spend it all by

hiring management teams and professional experts

I question whether they are of distinct benefit to the municipality

when they have the expertise such as the forestry department has. I'm

sure the rural people in the areas are quite concerned whether the

provincial government is going to be the masters of this area as

they've always been or whether it's going to be at the local level. I

think they are very concerned about it. I would like to hear some more

comment from the Minister on it. Where does he feel regional districts

stand in relation to these Tree Farm Licences with municipalities?

These municipalities, after all, are members of their respective

regional districts.

Sometime ago I raised in the House the problem of rail car shortages

in the forest industry of the Interior. That shortage still exists.

There are lots of forest products being trucked out of the Cariboo,

either north to Prince George or south to Ashcroft where they can get

rail cars. They have even been trucked all the way to the coast so the

product is put for overseas shipments.

This is costing the industry various rates but we'll use a figure of

$10 a thousand. I would like to know, as I asked before, if this extra

cost for them to get to market is going to be passed on and considered

in their stumpage appraisals. It is no fault of these shippers that

they find themselves in this situation. It would appear that this

situation is going to last for

[ Page 2979 ]

probably at least two years and maybe longer because of the North

American demand for rail cars. I think it's a serious situation. It

really is affecting the economy of the whole of the province and the

treasury when they can't get their products to market when the market

price is good. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.

I will have more to say later, but I would just repeat that we want

to see the sale agreement tabled of the Ocean Falls products. The

Minister has absolutely refused to do this and I say to him that he is

wrong. He is a representative of the public of British Columbia in the

position of Minister of Lands and Forests and he has no right to deny

this House that very vital information.

On the situation at Plateau Mills, where I say they are operating

illegally regarding the pollution laws of our province, I remember this

Minister when he was in opposition saying the government of the day

gave licences to pollute. He is now in a position to do something about

it, and this is what we find going on. It's certainly most unacceptable

in this day and age.

I might say, while I am on the situation of burners, that this

Minister said the prior administration gave licences to pollute. In

1972 they banned all the beehive burners north of Quesnel by

order-in-council. This Minister has just recently granted a permit so

they can start polluting again in that area. It was granted by

order-in-council to Cariboo Pulp and Paper.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No way. That could have been located in a lot of

other places than a centre of population. To put it right back where

they had already been banned doesn't make any sense at all. This is

what has happened there.

I think all the mills that have dispensed with their burners should

now be allowed to install their burners again in view of the fact that

one has been licensed. Why favour one over the others? This burner is

burning hog fuel and is supposed to have a real modern setup. The

company has already said there will be a little smoke and fly ash on

Mondays. We've heard those stories in the Cariboo for a long time.

Monday goes right through to Saturday. That's why the public is

suspicious of this. There would probably have been nothing wrong with

it if it had been out further from the centre of population. It should

never have been allowed to go in that location. It's in the process now

of being constructed.

I say that this Minister's defence yesterday of his policies was

hopeless. I only hope that he changes his mind and will put more cards

on the table for this Legislature where the public business of this

province should be conducted.

I certainly will be voting in favour of the motion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been listening to most of the debate

which has taken place over the last couple of days. I missed a part of

the opening remarks of the leader of the inquisition but I did read the

news reports of what he said and picked up the rest of the remarks

stated by the leader of the inquisition by reading the newspaper and

the Blues.

In the course of this debate there have been some jocular remarks

across the floor of the House. From that side they say, "When that

Minister says, 'jump,"' we say 'How high?'" Well, it's pretty jocular,

pretty jovial, in the middle of this rather serious debate.

As I listened to the debate, it was obvious that there was an order

given from across the way too by the Leader of the official Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) to his Members. The order he gives his Members is "crawl"

and they say, "How low?"

We've had an example these last few days as to how low they are

prepared to crawl in pursuing what they call debate in this Legislative

Assembly. I've listened as they rolled those non-aryan names off their

tongues, positively drooling over the pronunciation of these non-aryan

names. It left me with a feeling of disappointment as to what this

opposition are bringing to the legislative procedures of this House.

Mr. Chairman, over the years that I've been in this House, people

have asked me, "How do you stand it in that House year after year? How

do you survive?" I say: "It's very simple. Don't allow yourself to get

bitter deep down inside; otherwise it'll poison your system, it'll warp

your judgment and it will destroy you."

It's very obvious to me that there are people in this House in the

official opposition who are bitter, who have allowed this bitterness to

penetrate deeply into their very being. It has warped their judgment.

It has poisoned them inside with the result that we get the kind of

debate we've been listening to, and this motion now before us.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that what we've seen in operation by

the official opposition, occasionally reflected by some of the other

parties, is a group of people who have forgotten that, despite the fact

they are in opposition, they must carry with themselves into opposition

a certain loyalty to the Province of British Columbia and a certain

loyalty to the democratic system of government.

Mr. Chairman, I worry because the evidence I get in debates like

this, and the fear I get, is that we're faced by people who don't

recognize the need for loyalty to the system, and who perhaps

unconsciously, I hope unconsciously, are following procedures that can

only hurt the system.

Mr. Chairman, there is history — and while people jeer at me once in

a while because I happen to quote from history — if you don't learn

from history, you'll live to suffer through it again. What we learn from

[ Page 2980 ]

history is that many times in the past there have been groups of

people who have been used to power and found that because of

circumstances the power was taken away from them….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Minister that you're dealing with the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with a

motion of non-confidence in a Minister, and with the remarks that were

made relating to this motion of non-confidence in this Minister.

I suggest that, perhaps unconsciously, the sort of procedure we've

been listening to here for two days is the sort of action that's taken

very often which leads to the destruction of the system that every

Member of this House, I feel, should be trying to preserve.

I suggest that very often the official opposition are blinded to the

needs of this province, and in their bitterness are hoping, praying,

and doing everything possible to try and prevent any of the endeavours

of this government from succeeding.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen this pattern develop and grow where they

set out and attacked. They don't care what they say; they know it will

be printed, they know that some of it will stick. They say, "You're

guilty, you're guilty, you're guilty; prove yourself innocent, " time

after time.

This motion of non-confidence and the statements that have been made

by the Members across the way are a continuation and an enlargement of

that procedure we've seen growing in this House.

Can-Cel: when we became the government in this province that

Minister came to the cabinet and told us the situation with regard to

the future of northern British Columbia. He told us what to expect if

things that were allowed to take their course. What would have happened

was, had the sale gone through as originally anticipated, to a certain

company, the operation in the southern part of the province would have

been kept going, the operation in the northern

section of the province

in Prince Rupert would have been closed down. It would have meant the

end of the logging operations in Terrace and it would destroy the whole

economic base of the northwest quarter of the Province of British

Columbia.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, could any responsible government stand idly

by and see the economic base which is necessary to build the northern

economy go down the tube?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No way is right. It was a responsible

action by a responsible government dedicated to maintaining and

building economic strength in the Province of British Columbia.

To find him being harassed and bedevilled and called the things he's

been called in this House in this way, shows a completely irresponsible

attitude on the part of the so-called official opposition.

That operation had to be maintained as the base on which to build

future growth, because if there's anything we've learned from what's

been happening in this province, it is that there's a complete lack of

balance in this province insofar as economic growth is concerned.

With the lower mainland acting as the magnet that attracts all

industry or people — 75 per cent of the people in this province live in

the lower mainland — we have to find ways of at least trying to halt

that trend. But what happens? Had the economy of the north closed down,

where would they have gone? — social welfare or move to the lower

mainland. That base had to be preserved, and that's exactly what that

Minister did. And to have a motion of non-confidence brought in on that

Minister, who saved the economy of northern British Columbia and

strengthened the whole economic fabric of this province, is utter rot.

As I say, it shows complete irresponsibility.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) — and I have been listening to him — I think The

Vancouver Sun the other night gave us the real story of what's

been happening in this session and the procedures that have been taken

the last few days.

Alan Fotheringham, a Vancouver Sun columnist, talks about the

estimates now underway and the Minister affected by this amendment. He

says: "Bennett, the elder, had more than hinted that he regards son and

heir as the answer to the Williams' slur on the family reputation, and

Bennett, the younger, clearly has a private ambition to demolish

Williams." It's a vendetta. Truth, facts and the Province of British

Columbia are being subjugated and pushed aside because he is pursuing a

family vendetta. That's what's going on in this House right now — the

pursuit of a family vendetta no matter what it does to the Province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, it is shameful. It's no way for any responsible Leader

of the Opposition to bring his father's vendetta into this House and

have his own people crawl to pursue that vendetta. He gave the order,

"Crawl." They said, "How low?" in the pursuit of that vendetta, that's

what we're finding.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I find the Minister's debate hardly worthy of comment, but I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: When the Minister says that I was advised by my leader to crawl, I consider that a point of order.

[ Page 2981 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, all right. I withdraw the statement that he told you to crawl. He set the example and others followed; that's all.

Mr. Chairman, let's pursue this column a little further.

"Obviously some bright young people in downtown

Vancouver have been doing some thorough research and someone with a

liberal cheque book has turned them loose. These stories on newsprint

have been bouncing around the rumour market for some weeks but Bennett

— yards and yards of big briefs in front of him — has pinned down the

facts."

Two questions:

(1) Whose cheque book? Whose "small-l" liberal cheque

book?

(2) Who provided the briefs? Is the leader of the inquisition

prepared to table those briefs in this House? Which companies prepared

those briefs? I don't know. I would certainly like to know. Which

clique in the Vancouver Club decided that this was the course to follow

and provided this help to the Leader of the Opposition? Who paid for

them? Who provided them?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting yourself in deeper.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Who made them up?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Or who made them up?

You know, Mr. Chairman, I listened to the talk about the black

market. I listened to the talk about the black market. I listened to

the talk about pricing. I listened to the demands that a contract be

tabled.

Mr. Chairman, there is an historic parliamentary right accorded to

every government, and that is the right to refuse to answer questions

if the premature release of that information would damage or hurt a

programme of that government — an historic parliamentary right.

But, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition presented these

briefs and made these accusations, I then ask the questions: whose

cheque book, and who provided the briefs?

I think it is fairly obvious that that information came from the

private forest industry of the Province of British Columbia. When the

Leader of the Opposition, and those who succeeded him and repeated his

statements, were making those statements, they weren't worried about

the people of British Columbia. They weren't worried about the future

of this province. They were fronting for the forest industry of British

Columbia — the private forest industry of the Province of British

Columbia. They are demanding that this government table information

with regard to a market operation that the companies themselves refuse

to make public.

Here is this morning's Province:

"The Province was unable to find a 'standard Canadian newsprint price' for offshore sales when it checked with

other B.C. producers. Prices vary according to demand and freight

costs."

This is what the other producers in this province say. They were

unable to provide The Province with standard Canadian prices. Mr.

Wallach said:

"We recently sold some newsprint, for instance, in

Thailand at a price quoted in Swedish kronor. If we put a price on that

it may lead to controversy and unclarity instead of clarity."

As I said earlier, if you know what has been happening to the

Swedish krona recently vis-à-vis the Canadian-U.S. dollar, then you can

see how the price fluctuates. But, Mr. Chairman, listen to this:

"Officials of the company are reluctant to discuss prices."

Officials of the company are reluctant. Why?

MR. BENNETT: This is public business. Don't you know the difference?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the difference. When you were out of the House I explained why….

MR. BENNETT: I wasn't out of the House. I was listening in my office.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I have trouble with those things in my office and I listen in the House.

"Officials of the company are reluctant to discuss

prices. They say that, including the freight, prices could be in the

range of $300 per metric ton in the Pacific Rim. The price per short

ton in the California market is $213,5000.

"But offshore, there isn't 'a standard Canadian newsprint price.' There can be a 'wide scattering of prices.'"

MR. BENNETT: You haven't done your research.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Look, you had your opportunity and you

flogged it very well for the private forest industry of this province.

You flogged it very well.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They don't want the information. It's not the opposition that wants the information.

Mr. Chairman, do you know who wants the information?

AN HON. MEMBER: File the documents.

[ Page 2982 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The private forest industry of this province wants the information. That's who wants it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're fronting for the private forest

industry and you're asking for information so that they can know

exactly what is happening inside the operation. You'll get your report.

You'll get your report. Don't you worry.

MR. BENNETT: You're only protecting Mr. Wallach. You are protecting Mr. Wallach.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not protecting anybody. I'll come to your web later, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll come to your web and you'll be snared

and wrapped up in a cocoon so tight that you'll never get out. You'll

never get out. I'll tell you who you're talking for.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're talking for Champion International.

MR. BENNETT: Tell us what you're talking about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Listen, this is how the press picked up what you said, my friend. From The Vancouver Sun :

"'If the Ocean Falls plant had not become locked into

the contract with Gottesman Central International it could sell on the

black market for prices that have gone as high as $640 per ton,'

Bennett said."

MR. BENNETT: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is how the story is out there, my

friend. As far as the people of this province are concerned, you're

saying that we could go into the black market. That is what you're

saying.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to push this government into operating on the black market. That's the way the people are being told the story.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now you back off. Yes, I would run for cover if I was you too. I'd run for cover if I was you too.

MR. BENNETT: You weren't, listening.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

MR. BENNETT: You weren't even in the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to the Member for Langley, and he tried to push us into the black market too.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we are not getting into the black

market. We are not, no matter how much you want us to go into the black

market, no matter how long that Member wants to get into the black

market. We are not going to get into the black market.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. The Minister has said that I

stated that I wanted the B.C. government into the black market. I would

ask him to withdraw it. We have Hansard in this House, and at no time

did I ever suggest…. In fact, if he had been in the House to listen

to my statements…. Part of my concern was that the Minister, dealing

with Mr. Wallach, had given the opportunity for B.C. newsprint to be

sold in the black market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: It most certainly is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you disagree with the statement you can have your turn on the floor when the Member is finished.

MR. BENNETT: No, I ask him to withdraw it. That Minister stated that I said that.

MRS. JORDAN: Wake up!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order. You can

get up when the Minister has finished his statement and correct his

statement if you please.

[ Page 2983 ]

MR. BENNETT: Well, if I had to correct every statement of this Minister I would have to make a one-hour speech after he has finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Member for South Okanagan to take his seat.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, the Leader of the Opposition says

that there is a web which connects Can-Cel through its directors and

into the owne