1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2857 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Statement Death of Hon. George Gregory. Mr. Speaker —

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act (Bill No. 180). Second

reading.

Mr. Chabot — 2857

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2857

Mobile Home Tax Act (Bill No. 181). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 2857

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2857

Mr. Smith — 2857

Mr. Brousson — 2858

Mr. Wallace — 2858

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2859

British Columbia Cellulose Company Act (Bill No. 179).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2859

Mr. Smith — 2862

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2862

Mr. Dent — 2864

Mr. Wallace — 2865

Mr. McGeer — 2867

Mr. D'Arcy — 2871

Mr. Brousson — 2872

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2873

Division on second reading — 2875

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before embarking on the orders of

the day, I want to express my sorrow and regret at the passing

of a very distinguished jurist who was a Member of this

Legislature for many years, the Hon. George Gregory. I'm sure

it would be the feeling of the whole House that it would be

proper for me to express on behalf of the House our condolences

and sympathy to his grieving family. Agreed?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, just a brief

personal comment. In the House today is the man who was my

first supervisor as a social worker. You can blame him or

credit him, depending on your point of view, for me staying on

in social work. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Jack

Sanders.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 180, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CONSTITUTION ACT

(continued)

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

the debate.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I won't speak on the

principle of the Act because, in my opinion, it's a bill that

can best be discussed in committee. It's in bits and pieces and

so there's nothing further to say on second reading.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this party will

take the same position. The principle of this bill is fairly

long established, namely paying Members of the Legislature. We

feel that it would best be dealt with clause by clause.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I call the question,

Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 180 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

No. 181, Mr. Speaker.

MOBILE HOME TAX ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan adjourned

the debate.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in our party

this bill is called the Smith bill. I think the Hon. Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) referred to it as the Smith bill.

We support the bill, and I'm sure the Hon. Member who is

vitally interested in this area would wish to speak to it. We

do support it.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the number of mobile homes

which are now being sold indicates that there is a great need

to put the so-called mobile home more on the same footing with

regular housing in terms of taxation and treatment by the

provincial and other governments, the municipal government in

particular.

I believe that the numbers now are that approximately one

out of every five new homes established is a mobile home. I

should say "so-called" mobile home because so often these homes

are taken to a site and are not moved again.

We appreciate the fact that the government is taking steps

along this line to treat the mobile home more in the same way

as regular land and housing. We will be supporting this bill in

principle.

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

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

In speaking to the principle of the bill, it is

an Act that we

originally had before the House as the Mobile Home Park Fee

Act . You're repealing that and replacing it with this new

Mobile Home Tax Act .

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Wakey, wakey, it's Monday morning.

MR. SMITH: The principle of the bill is very much

[ Page 2858 ]

in line with the thoughts that we expressed when we

originally put the bill before the House at the fall session

and again at the start of this session. We're happy to see that

the Minister saw the wisdom of the suggestion that we made,

that you do listen occasionally to what the opposition have to

say. We would only hope that we will see legislation come

before this House in future bills that will recognize the help

that we try to give you in providing for types of legislation

which we think are good.

This puts the owner of a mobile home upon the same basis as

any other homeowner in the province with respect to financing

and with respect to the home acquisition grant and the

homeowner grant.

Certainly it is a way of life with a great many people

today, that they will be for many years to come using mobile

homes as their private accommodation. I think this bill

recognizes that fact now and puts them on the same basis as

everyone else.

There is only one thing that I would ask the Minister to

comment on when he's closing the debate; and that is that this

bill provide, for the control of mobile homes within trailer

parks so that we have any home in a registered trailer park

subject to the same rules and regulations regarding assessment

and so on as any other home, regardless of location.

Many mobile homes, of course, are located outside of mobile

home parks on individual pieces of property or individual

subdivided lots. Will the Minister comment on their position?

Are they going to be discriminated against just because they

happen to choose to locate their home, mobile home, on a

serviced lot within a municipality rather than move the home

into a mobile home park?

I know some of the municipalities now do tax these homes as

an improvement. It's sort of a dicey situation as to whether

they are actually classified as an improvement under the

assessment Act or not. I'm sure that if they are to be taxed on

individual lots, then the privilege and the right of extending

the homeowner grant to those people who live on individual lots

as well as those people who have their homes in a mobile home

park should be one and the same. The principle should apply to

all mobile homes regardless of their location.

The other thing is that we know a number of mobile homes are

located either within the municipal boundaries or outside the

municipal boundaries on subdivided property — small

acreages and small holdings. So I would hope that the Minister

would comment on the position with respect to the homes that

are not located in a mobile park, and whether or not they will

qualify on the same basis as every home within the park as

pointed out in and classified under this Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would

certainly like to echo the question that the last speaker

raised, and I hope that the Minister will comment on this.

The main comment I want to make, however, is to point out

that the former Act, the Mobile Home Park Fee Act, which

is being repealed by this Act — and which was a creature

of the former government — was one that was very, very

unfair to almost everybody concerned in the mobile home

field.

It was unfair to the park operators, the mobile home park

operators. It was unfair in terms of encouraging the use of

mobile homes in the applications where they do help so greatly

to reduce the cost of housing for certain classes and kinds of

people. The whole thing became a regulatory mess that was just

a "dog's breakfast" that was impossible to work one's way out

of. I'm delighted to see the present government amending it

— I'm sorry, not amending it but replacing it.

However, I want to point out to the Minister that there

are– still some very serious problems in developing the

regulations that are going to make this bill work. Unless there

— are good, practical, and carefully-thought-out

regulations, it's still going to be a very difficult thing to

administer because of the conflicting interests of a variety of

kinds of people.

I would urge the Minister to consult with the people who use

mobile homes, the municipalities, the park operators and the

mobile homeowners' association, in developing the regulations

to make this Act work for a very good purpose.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

Conservative Party supports this bill. I think the interesting

thing is that we are not really dealing with mobile homes at

all. The legislation is necessary because the purpose for which

they are originally manufactured then is changed to make them

fixed homes, in fact. The bill certainly excludes or tries to

differentiate between what remains a truly mobile home and

what, in effect, is a fixed residence.

I think the other point worth mentioning is that the reason

this market is so much an increasing market — the whole

problem that we have discussed many times — is because of

the cost of housing in this country, and particularly in

British Columbia. If one in every five is a mobile home, this

very much exemplifies the problem of housing per se in this

province.

The increasing number of mobile homes means that we should

have fair and just legislation. People who choose to buy their

mobile home and then fix it in a certain place — I think

beyond 60 days is the

[ Page 2859 ]

limiting factor in the legislation — that they should

indeed be entitled to all the provisions and also the

responsibilities of any other homeowner. So we appreciate the

provision of the homeowner grant and the acquisition grant to

people owning these homes.

We think it is a bill which has cleaned up a lot of the

unfairness which previously existed, and we hope that it's a

step in the right direction for the whole housing policy of

this government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, I'm

pleased to close the debate on this Mobile Homes Tax

Act. It is another one of our election promises which is

coming to fulfilment.

I appreciate the remarks made by the Hon. Members across the

way. I might point out that the Mobile Home Park Fee Act

which was brought in a few years back was

an Act which this

party did not support. I'm glad to see that the Hon. Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has had second thoughts about

that particular bill, and it shows that there are some good

ideas that do come from the other side of the House.

As I say again, this was to fulfil the promises that we

previously made.

Mobile homes on private property are entitled now to receive

the homeowner's grant. If they own their own lot and they're in

a separate lot, they can get their homeowner's grant.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 181 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 179, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

COMPANY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

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

Resources): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to move second reading

of this bill. I think it might be worthwhile to first summarize

the agreement. I think that was done before the Press after the

previous announcement in the House, but that hasn't taken place

in the House. The Statute essentially establishes a Crown

corporation, British Columbia Cellulose Company Limited, which

will be a holding company with respect to the proposed breakdown of

ownership of the operating company, which would be 79 per cent

in the hands of British Columbia Cellulose, the remainder being

in the minority shareholders.

All of the assets of Columbia Cellulose would be transferred

and that would include the tree farm licences, the various

cutting rights, the existing plants and sawmills, the leased

companies, the paper company in Belgium and all of the various

assets of the Columbia Cellulose operation.

The minority shareholders, in addition to obtaining a

position with respect to the assets of the company — a

position they presently don't have — would be paid

dividends and rearages that are owing to them, or were owing to

them prior to the agreement. So each of the holders of

preferred shares would receive $1.08 in cash under the

agreement.

In addition, the Crown would guarantee the liabilities with

respect to the two major mortgages held by Prudential and

Metropolitan Assurance Corporations as well as the debts of

Celtran, which is the leasing company which leases most of the

equipment to Columbia Cellulose. That would total approximately

$73 million.

In addition, Celanese, the American parent, would be

required to increase the level of working capital within that

company to $16.2 million, and I think that probably covers the

main elements of the agreement itself, Mr. Speaker.

It does seem to me that when we consider this statute it's

interesting to look at it in relation to the decision already

made in this House with respect to second reading of the Ocean

Falls statute. There, a small town in the mid-coast region was

affected. Here, we're talking about two major regions of

British Columbia; both the north-west part of the province and

the towns of Prince Rupert and Terrace are the major ones

affected by this decision. In addition, in the south-east

— in the west Kootenays — there, the town of

Revelstoke, the town of Nakusp and the town of Castlegar are

greatly affected by this decision as well.

The decision that was made with respect to Ocean Falls, Mr.

Speaker, indicated, I think, a change of attitude on the part

of the older line parties in British Columbia, that is the

Liberals and Tories. And I welcome that because it was an

indication that they agreed that the governments should step in

where there were major economic, human or regional problems and

where the multi-nationals will not look after those problems or

serve the interests of the people of the regions that are

affected. That is a major departure on their part and I for

one, welcome it. I'm sure the government welcomes it as

well.

It does seem to me that if one makes that decision with

respect to Ocean Falls and maintaining the life-blood of that

small community, then one has

[ Page 2860 ]

really no choice but to endorse the kind of action this

government is taking with respect to the future of

north-western British Columbia as well, because the future of

Prince Rupert as a port, as an important northern city, as a

regional centre, as a town with an industrial base is indelibly

tied to this statute.

If those on the opposition side decide to vote against this

statute, I suggest they're saying that they are not concerned

with the future of the north-west because, I suggest, there

really is no alternative to the proposal and the bill we have

before us today.

I indicated at the Council of Forest Industries meeting last

Friday that the problems of the north-west of this province

were indelibly intertwined with the operations of Columbia

Cellulose. If we want to achieve rational, integrated resource

management in north-western British Columbia, then we have to

be able to operate the Columbia Cellulose Company in a rational

way in relation to all of the other decisions that have to be

made.

This is a chance to rationalize the tenure systems of the

north-west, a residue of the past, a residue of the problems

that were created along the way by the former

administration.

There are problems in terms of railways in the north-west

the likes of which probably haven't been faced since the early

rail building days of the CPR and they are indelibly tied to

this corporation as well. There are problems of freight rates

along the national railway in that region that are indelibly

tied to this corporation and the other major one, Eurocan and

Kitimat. There are problems with respect to port development

that again are indelibly tied to the forest base of

north-western British Columbia. We really need to be able to

work with the various elements of the problem in the north-west

to solve the problem in a reasonable way.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the past, the former

government tended to accept a twisted development pattern in

this part of the province, tended to concentrate their efforts

more in the north central part of the province and more in the

lower mainland — in effect leaving the north-west

separate. I suggest that part of the reason was the continuing

antagonism between the federal government and the former

provincial administration. They would try and bypass the

federal administration at almost any cost.

I would suggest much of the rail line built in north-western

B.C. in recent years has been a costly duplication of what the

federal government had already done many decades ago. But, it

is now a fact; and the choices we face there are the decisions

to be made in the future. We have to deal with that fact. But,

we have an opportunity to rationalize the rail system of that

region; we have an opportunity to maximize the returns to the

public of British Columbia and the people of that region. This

statute will provide us with that opportunity.

We've tended to concentrate on the north-west because it's

such a fascinating problem, Mr. Speaker. But beyond that,

there's the question of the Arrow Lakes which are also greatly

affected by this statute. The Arrow Lakes, as I mentioned

earlier, and the communities of Revelstoke, Nakusp and

Castlegar again have futures that to a very great extent are

tied to this corporation.

This corporation — American Celanese Corporation

— as parent-owners based in New York in the past have

received a return — there's always been a profit from the

Castlegar operation. But there hasn't been the input of capital

into that region or that plant that was deserved, partly

because of the problems in the north-west. As a result, that

part of the west Kootenay has become a static region when it

needn't have been a static region at all. It was a static

region because the resource, in effect, was enclosed.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is not all that different from

the early enclosures in Great Britain — the enclosures of

the commons. The enclosure of these great common lands, the

forest lands of British Columbia in this manner — in

effect, absentee landlords — has been a cost to this

province, and certainly a cost to that region and to the

north-west.

The enclosure of the commons — that is, the Arrow

Lakes north of Castlegar and up into the Big Bend, has meant

that the trees, the basic resource of that region, have been

grossly under-used for decades. There is a need to apply more

capital in the west Kootenay; and there's a need to apply more

labour in the west Kootenay, and this multi-national proved

unable to bring that about.

We have the resource; we can do the job in the west

Kootenay, as we can in the north-west. This statute will

provide us with the opportunity of doing so.

Rather than having another decade of an under-used resource,

a lack of application of labour where it's needed, a lack of

application of capital where it's needed, we can provide a

major spurt to the growth of the west Kootenay as well as

north-western British Columbia. The people of that region, the

towns of that region, the region itself has suffered under the

situation they've had to live with. This is an opportunity to

change that.

The enclosure that I've talked about in the west Kootenay is

even more massive in the north-west. The northerly part of the

tree farm licence in the north-west has never been touched

— never been touched and yet allocated. An allocated

resource for over 20 years; sitting there enclosed, but never

touched — never the application of labour, never the

application of capital. And we need all that in order to

develop these regions in B.C.

This is no small enclosure, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about

9.1 million acres. That's 1 1/2 times the state of Switzerland.

That kind of enclosure, that

[ Page 2861 ]

kind of withdrawal of the landscape from the people of this

province is what we've lived with for the last 20 years. Those

regions can be opened up. They can be developed; they can be

used productively and in perpetuity and it will be a great

opportunity for this quasi-public corporation to take on.

Now the question of the minority shareholders. I think in

view of the history of the former administration, we should

talk about the position of the small shareholders in the

Canadian economy, because the history of the former

administration is not all that good. Let's not forget

Commonwealth Trust and the kind of position that former

administration took with respect to those small shareholders

here in British Columbia.

We've carried on discussions in a responsible manner, Mr.

Speaker. We've met with Merrill Lynch and the great people in

this kind of business in Toronto, in Boston, in New York. We've

had discussions with them regarding the position of the

minority shareholders, and we've had various advisers in this

regard.

It has become abundantly clear though, as we initially

analyzed the problems of this company that those minority

shareholders, essentially Canadians, had no call whatsoever on

the assets of the company. The debts that the company had with

respect to the parent — the Celanese Corporation —

were such that there was absolutely no way that the Canadian

shareholders could have any future whatsoever.

This concerned us, Mr. Speaker, because many of these

minority Canadian shareholders are people who work in the

plants themselves — people who work at the plant at

Castlegar, people who work in the plants at Prince Rupert. To

ignore them, as I suggest might well have happened otherwise,

would have been totally irresponsible.

I would suggest that the deal that the former government was

looking at, that is the severance of the southern operations of

this company, allowing the acquisition of the southern

operation by Weyerhaeuser, would have meant the end for the

minority shareholders within the company. The annual reports of

the Celanese corporation in New York actually spelled that out:

that, in effect, there would be no assets whatsoever that the

small minority of essentially Canadian shareholders could call

upon with respect to the deal that was underway.

I suggest that the former administration was prepared to accept that kind of

deal, Mr. Speaker; that is, the severing of the company's profitable operation.

It's very difficult to understand the company carrying on to the extent they

had with a virtually completed deal as of August 30, the time of the last provincial

election. It may seem ironic to some, Mr. Speaker, that it takes a left-wing

administration in this part of the world to protect the position of the minority

Canadian investors, but apparently it does.

I think that the Columbia Cellulose problems and the

problems of an absentee-managed corporation, as it was to some

extent, should be a lesson to us all. These are our trees that

we're talking about. It's our land we're talking about.

Frequently, it's our savings that we're talking about. And it's

our people that we're talking about. Do we really believe that

we can't do the job here at home that the absentee owner could

not do? I think not.

One can't help but compare it with the situation in the

Maritimes with respect to the steel corporation that had to be

acquired as a public corporation. This is one of the success

stories in Crown corporations in Canada in recent years. The

absentee owner in that case, a British absentee owner, decided

to pack it up. The people of that area decided they could do

the job and they could make it work profitably for them and

their region. They proved to be right.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the people of British Columbia

can do the job that needs to be done, both in north-western

British Columbia and in the west Kootenays.

As a result of this whole exercise, we might reflect on the

role of absentee multi-national corporations and their

responsibility in our society. Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that

this is a problem of a major scale. But more than that, it's a

grand opportunity to change the future for both the north-west

of British Columbia and the west Kootenays at the same

time.

I'm pleased to move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, commenting on second reading

regarding Bill 179,

an Act to establish the British Columbia

Cellulose Company, a Crown corporation, it's just one more

indication of the direction the NDP wish to take in this

province.

It is blank cheque authority similar in nature to the blank

cheque authority that the government has seen fit to place in

its hands with many other bills that were before this House and

have been debated. The final results of the entry of this

government into the private sector, I suggest, Mr. Minister,

will not be known for some time to come. You can have a field

day today, expounding the virtues of the government going into

the private sector of business, and no one can say positively

whether you made a correct decision or not.

But the time will come, and I suggest that it's not very far

down the road, when we'll all be able to look at the business

deal of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on a

much broader basis than we can right now and in a much more

critical manner. This deal has been put together on the basis

that we were going to repatriate 9.1 million acres to the

[ Page 2862 ]

Crown, as if somehow 9.1 million acres of forest land

resources had disappeared forever out of the control of the

people of British Columbia. What nonsense.

The Minister himself realizes that the Legislative Assembly

and the government always had control of those 9.1 million

acres. While it was leased out on the basis of a TFL licence

(Tree Farm Licence), rearrangements would and could be made for

any land under the TFLs in this province. So the idea that this

had to be put together and that somehow you had to use the

credit of the Province of British Columbia to purchase 79 per

cent control of a corporation just to repatriate 9.1 million

acres of forest lands is, in my opinion, nonsense.

The only way that this will be put together in a manner

which will make it economic will be to provide transportation

facilities for those areas of forest lands presently not

serviced. I suggest that the transportation facility that will

be built to service that area will be an extension of the B.C.

Railway at a cost of some $200 million at least — that

that will come directly out of the taxpayers of this province

— that the Minister has been very careful not to say

anything about the amount of money that will be required to

update plant and equipment in the areas to bring them up to

pollution control standards that we would like to see in this

province; that the total cost before we even know whether this

will be an economic venture or not, could exceed $500 million,

directly out of the taxpayers of the Province of British

Columbia.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the full ramifications of this particular

bill will not be known for a year or two. But we do know this:

that it is the same type of blank cheque legislation that the

government has repeatedly put before this House in this

session. We do know that the government is determined to move

into an equity field not only in the forest industry but in

many other sectors of private and individual enterprise in the

Province of British Columbia.

It's a takeover government. It's a takeover bill. It's blank

cheque legislation. We don't accept it.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the

proposal in the principle of this bill was well-explained by

the Minister. There are a number of things that I would like to

comment upon at this stage.

I did listen with surprise to his statement that if one supports any public

ownership, one must therefore virtually support all. At that time he was referring

specifically to the two old-line parties which presumably includes myself. He

stated that we had accepted public ownership in another bill. Therefore, we

were honour-bound to follow suit and support him in this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I thought you might be

consistent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps I should point out to the

Minister that his knowledge of history is a trifle weak.

Old-line parties, both Conservative and Liberal — I won't

speak for the Tories but I will speak for ourselves —

have consistently in the past gone in through Crown

corporations where it was required in the public interest or

where there was no alternative by way of other private

facilities. Federally, there are at least 30 examples of this.

Provincially, the PGE was the first example of old-line parties

getting involved in an area where the private company was in

difficulty. B.C. Power Corporation was another. Federally, we

have Polymer and Pan-Arctic, which have been mentioned in

recent days in this House.

So to suggest, as the Minister did, that this is the first

time that we have ever become involved in the question of

public ownership in a Crown corporation is fallacious.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're in favour of Pan-Arctic?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We'll discuss Pan-Arctic in the forum

where Pan-Arctic is discussed. I have discussed Pan-Arctic

there. But if you're putting in a bill on Pan-Arctic, Mr.

Minister, I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You're not sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact of the matter is that here we

have a difference in point of view and philosophy which is

shown up very clearly. We don't think it is good for the

government to be in business. We think it's preferable to keep

private industry in its area and for government to restrict

itself to where it has many things to do.

So the distinction I make there is important when dealing

with this bill, because the Minister has suggested, without

giving proof, that somehow or another a Crown corporation is

the only thing that could work in this area and could help the

north or the north-west.

He shakes his head and I can take him as being firmly

convinced of this, because of his philosophy that he's

expressed over the years in favour of public enterprise as

opposed to private.

Yet the facts on this particular problem of transportation

and the cost factors of the forest industry in the north-west

are not quite as simple as the Minister made out.

Back in July of last year proposals were released dealing

with transportation in the north-west by the

[ Page 2863 ]

federal and provincial governments. At that time it was the

Social Credit government which was in power, of course, and

they were discussing with the federal government improvements

to transportation, which was described then as the key to

making operations in the north-west successful. Indeed, I

gathered from the Minister's statement today that he believes

that to be the case as well, when he talked about

rationalization and other things.

We have no quarrel there. The Hedlin Menzies report, which I

will quote in a few moments, makes the same point. It is really

rationalization of transportation and lowering of

transportation costs which give the opportunity to the

north-west to flourish — not Crown ownership or public

ownership or private ownership, for that matter. It is an

improvement of transportation facilities which is the key in

this area and not simply the creation of a Crown

corporation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who owns the railroads?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Governments own them. I pointed this out

earlier, Mr. Premier — perhaps you missed the point. I

mentioned the PGE which, of course, became the BCR shortly

prior to your taking the presidency.

So, we are in an area where transportation is probably the

key factor. As I said earlier, Mr. Premier, providing

infrastructure is one of the functions of government; we

certainly have always believed that. This goes back with the

old-line parties, the Conservative Party in particular, to the

building of the CPR.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have the CPR now. We know your

policies.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, sometimes we wish we knew yours a

little better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

address the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The proposals that were put forward last

July, Mr. Speaker, were recorded in the Vancouver Sun of July

4. They talked about construction of three new railway lines to

serve the forest area in the Prince Rupert-Nass River-Babine

Lake area, and this was considered to be the key in terms of

lowering the costs of raw materials. Reducing costs of

transportation was considered the key to making the operations

of the forest industry in the north-west profitable.

There were other proposals put forward, not all of which are applicable to

this particular industry in that particular part of the province, but the spur

lines were considered to be critical, and they were put forward by the then

Minister of Transport, Mr. Jamieson, and commented upon by the then government.

I think it is important at this stage to go back and have a

look at some of the things that were said about the north-west

and its potential in the Hedlin Menzies report, which I have in

my hands, dated November 1970, when dealing with transportation

in the area. May I point out at this stage that he's not

talking about a Crown corporation in the area. He's simply

talking about — or the report simply talks about improved

transportation facilities. It says, Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 17:

"A major benefit created by new rail facilities would be to

assist directly the development of the mining and forest

resources in the Canadian north-west. Resource net benefits

estimated to result from this resource development range from a

low of $96 million to a high of $366.1 million (at 7.5 per cent

discount rates)."

Paragraph 26:

"Employment in the region's forestry and mining industries

could be increased by 18,500 jobs during the next two decades,

creating a total increase in the regional employment of

approximately 37,000 jobs. Major new rail facilities would in

themselves generate resource development responsible for

approximately one-quarter of this employment growth."

It goes on to talk about population, which would increase by

some 129,000 people in that particular area.

So we have a situation where a report was done in 1970,

released last year, which talks about the development and the

improvement of existing economic conditions in the north-west.

It talks in glowing terms about the returns that can come from

improved transportation facilities, and it in no way suggests

that a Crown corporation is necessary to achieve either that

growth in population or that growth in employment.

This point I felt would have occupied the Minister for some

time in his introduction of this bill, because if the Crown

corporation is to do all the things he said it was, something

is seriously wrong with the Hedlin Menzies report, which

indicated that it could come regardless of whether a Crown

corporation was set up or not. Indeed, the report was written

with no thought, apparently, as far as I can see, of the

establishment of a Crown Corporation.

So once more we are in the problem area. What will create

improvements in the area in terms of jobs and in terms of

economic conditions? It certainly, from what the Minister has

said, is not dependent on a Crown corporation.

What is important, and that is utterly clear to us all, is

that transportation be improved, I'm delighted that the

Minister talked about the now successful

[ Page 2864 ]

negotiations that he is having with the federal government

with regard to the north — a position which contrasts

sharply with the statements of the Premier, but contrasts

sharply in terms of making a great deal more sense than the

statements of the Premier on this particular issue.

So what we have, then, is a proposal for a Crown corporation

to enter into the forest industry which is not, and has not

been, supported by the facts of the case or by the economic

studies done in the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go on!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is not a case of having to have a

Crown corporation in this area to achieve the increases in jobs

and productivity which the Minister talked about.

. He knows, and I know, and anyone who has read the Hedlin

Menzies report knows as well …

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have to be fed with a silver

spoon?

MR. D-A. ANDERSON: Your own backbench can't find that

funny, either. Tell them when you want them to laugh, in

future.

The fact is that we just don't need a Crown corporation in

this area, and there has been no proof, or at least no evidence

produced by the Minister, that it is needed.

Sure, there have been mistakes in judgment and bad

management by Colcel — there's no question about that.

The same mistakes and the same errors occur in Kaiser and in

other major international corporations he talked about,

including Sydney Steel in Nova Scotia, where better management

was the key to improving its financial fortunes and not the

Crown corporation structure which was set up.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They provided it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, it did. And in many cases Crown

corporations, Mr. Minister, have provided bad management as

well.

You're perfectly right in stating that foreign corporations

are not always best in judging local conditions. You're

perfectly right in saying that they often have bad management,

and we've had plenty of examples of that in this province. But

that is no excuse for suggesting that therefore you must have

public Crown corporations taking over in the private

sector.

You are, I am sure, intelligent enough to understand that.

Good management does not necessarily follow in Crown

corporations and bad management does not necessarily follow in

private corporations.

You know that and I know it, but please don't argue that because there are successes in Crown

corporations, many Crown corporations set up by this party

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I promise.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …that somehow or another a Crown

corporation is necessary to have good management.

We think that had the government done more in terms of the

tree farm licences in allowing perhaps more of the smaller

operators, had they done more in terms of rational

transportation, we could have achieved, or we would achieve and

will achieve, the growth of the area, protection of the

existing jobs, development of new jobs, without getting

involved at the government level in ownership of this

particular corporation.

We realize that the reasons for it are of course the

ideological position of your party, and we respect that —

you believe in public ownership of private corporations and in

the private sector. But to suggest, as you have done, that

first, good management always follows Crown corporations, and

secondly, that the key problem is not transportation, but is

ownership, is fallacious, and we reject that. In rejecting it

we will reject this bill in principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great

sense of pride that I support Bill 179, a bill to create the

British Columbia Cellulose Company. I want to begin by saying

that there is a new sense of security in the whole of the

north-west of the province as a result of the action of this

government.

It's an action similar to that in regard to the Ocean Falls

situation, but it is of far greater significance and with far

greater ramifications than the actions regarding Ocean Falls

and the Kitwanga area and in other parts of the riding.

There are the employees of Pohle Lumber in Terrace, a

company that traces its history right back practically to the

beginning of the Town of Terrace. There is the Kitwanga Lumber

Company at Kitwanga. There is also the Twin River Lumber

Company in Terrace, another significant lumber-producing

operation in the north-west.

The direct employees involved in these operations number in

the hundreds. As I said, these men and their families enjoy a

new sense of security today as a result of the action of this

government. There was a serious possibility that their jobs

might be in jeopardy had the original plans been carried

through by Celanese of the United States. They would have sold

out all of their southern operations and possibly closed down,

either temporarily or permanently, some of their northern

operations. Or they may have

[ Page 2865 ]

sold them on a piecemeal basis. There was a great

undercurrent of uncertainty which has now been removed.

But it's not just the direct employees and their families

who enjoy this new sense of security. It's all of the

subcontractors and contractors who service these Colcel

operations as well. Then there's the business community. The

small businessmen through the whole area, and especially in

Terrace, again enjoy this sense of security that has come as a

result of government action.

It doesn't really need to be explained that thoroughly

— I think people understand — but the

infrastructure of small business depends on a viable economy.

That is true for those involved in the tourist trade as well.

There are large hotels, such as the Terrace Hotel, the Lakelse

Hotel and many others, that depend on the year-round business

of the full-time employees living in Terrace and their families

who may go to the local pub or whatever. They maintain the

viability of these businesses.

If these operations close down, it's very likely that places

like the Terrace Hotel and Lakelse Hotel and many other

businesses would no longer be able to operate. They would also

have been in jeopardy. They too enjoy a new sense of security

as a result of this government action.

Then there is transportation, which has already been touched

on. In the Skeena area we have hopes of moving ahead with the

development of new transportation facilities — with a

railway to the north and with a highway ultimately to Stewart.

We're not certain what the route will be. Perhaps it will be

through the Kispiox Valley. Perhaps it will be Kitwanga. Maybe

it will be another route. But some day this is coming. It may

be a surprise to many people down here to know that there is

still no first-class road or highway connecting Highway 16 to

the Stewart-Cassiar road. We have hopes of that coming

soon.

All of these hopes for improved transportation facilities

— whether rail, highways or whatever — would depend

on having continued stability in the forest operations now

existent in that area, namely the Colcel operations. Had they

got into serious trouble, it could have put back improvements

to the transportation network there for some time. That would

have affected development in mining and many other industries

in the future. So again the prospects for improved

transportation facilities, and the security that is necessary

to maintain the present facilities and other government

operations in the area, have been greatly enhanced by the

action of the government in establishing this Crown

corporation.

We've already talked about the humanitarian concern shown in regard to Ocean

Falls. I repeat that what happened at Ocean Falls was just a small thing compared

to the humanitarian considerations in the actions of the government in establishing

this Crown corporation in the north-west of the province.

The formation of this Crown corporation is a tremendously

human Act. It was done for the purposes of benefiting people,

giving them security, and ensuring that they have jobs, that

they have a future and that they can get proper transportation

facilities. It's a human consideration, not merely an economic

one. However, I am confident — and the average worker who

works for Columbia Cellulose or any of its subsidiaries in the

north-west is convinced — that it can be made economic by

our government.

In fact, many men who work for Colcel operations have come

to me and given me suggestions as to what could be done in

practical ways to help make this company a success. They want

it to succeed and they're willing to help the government make

it succeed.

The crises of uncertainty for the north-west of the province

is over. The people are happy. They're confident that we have

done the right thing in forming this corporation and they're

now looking forward to an era of great progress in the

future.

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

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In opening the comments

for the Conservative Party, I would say that this is perhaps

the most difficult bill of this whole session for me to reach a

decision about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm speaking as to what I think, Mr. Member. I

always will in this House.

While many of the considerations are similar to the Ocean

Falls situation, on this bill one has to take into account the

very much wider ramifications of attempting to bolster a whole

area, as the Minister has pointed out. In the case of Ocean

Falls we were trying to prevent the death of one town, where

many of the considerations were somewhat unique in relation to

its geographical location and its isolation. We needn't go over

all that again.

In the case of the Colcel bill we're dealing with vast sums

of money. With respect, I think that for the Minister to talk

about the replacement value of $200 million is really not

nearly as relevant as the possibility of the project

functioning profitably once it is resuscitated. I read a very

appropriate comment somewhere that to talk about a replacement

value of $200 million was like saying that you could get a good

deal on the Maginot Line.

I think that what is so central to this question is the

judgment of the government as to whether the action it is

taking can result in a profitable enterprise providing more

jobs. It's as simple as that.

[ Page 2866 ]

I think that one point should be made clear. As a party, we

are eager to stimulate and support the private sector of the

economy of this province. To me, the history of Colcel makes

staggering reading. When you read some of the mistakes which

that company made in setting up the sulphite pulp mill at

Prince Rupert, you have to wonder what kind of management was

in charge at that time. We don't have to go into all the

details, but I gather that up until that time Celanese had

never built a pulp mill. This was their first venture. The

consultant who was given the job had never been on the west

coast to build pulp mills either.

I also understand that their No. 1 woodshop was on the

highest part of the island, so they had to use all kinds of

power to drag the logs up to be processed. They neglected some

local advice also and had some million board feet of lumber

float out into the ocean, and things of this nature.

So to try to put this whole debate into context, it's not my

contention that the private sector can always do things well.

In the main they do, and this is why we believe in supporting

them as far as possible. But it should not be blind support.

There are exceptions to every general rule or principle.

Although in principle and in general we encourage private

industry and at all times would wish to encourage the industry

rather than have government participation, the sad and sorry

record of this particular private enterprise doesn't bear very

close scrutiny.

Therefore, the question is whether or not government

participation can make the whole industry in the north-west

area both profitable and job-creating. In an earlier debate I

quoted the Premier, who was interviewed by the Financial

Post. He stated that of course the government wasn't going

to be taking over losing enterprises and small towns where

there would be continuing losses. That would be exactly our

policy if we were government. We wouldn't take over a series of

losing enterprises either.

So that brings us back to the very central question in this

bill: can the government convert what was a badly-managed

money-loser into a well-managed, profitable enterprise?

The sums of money involved are considerable. We're assuming

about $70 million of debt for starters. So much also seems to

depend on the advantage which the government claims to have

over any private corporation: namely the advantage of building

a transportation strategy to take spur lines of the railway

closer to the timber and mineral reserves and to negotiate

agreements with the other national railways.

The claim, of course, is that no private corporation could establish that prerequisite

in order to make the operation profitable. I think this is the other very contentious

aspect of this bill. In humanitarian terms no one can question that if the government

is convinced it can convert this into a profitable venture with wiser and better

use of our resources and at the same time create jobs and prevent Prince Rupert

from going the way that Ocean Falls was headed, then it's very difficult to

argue against such a well-motivated and humanitarian goal.

The people of British Columbia, I think, in general are

expressing concern at the first moves which this government is

making in the area of trying to create jobs and revive

industry; that they are taking over companies or towns that are

in real financial difficulty.

But I think it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the letters

I've received from people living in the Terrace-Prince Rupert

area, some of them from members of the Conservative Party I

might say, have chided me for the comments I've made already

that we view with some apprehension the government moving into

proven money-losing areas.

The letters that I have received point out to me that maybe

I'm taking a rather tunnel-vision approach and looking too

consistently at the whole question of profit and loss in terms

of dollars only.

One or two of the letters from Prince Rupert say that the

people up there are certainly very pleased at the government

action, and that they faced what they considered a very

uncertain and dim future if there was not some stimulus taken

to save that industry.

Of course this is not the only way that it could've been

done. The question really that we have to decide, each one of

us for ourselves in the debate, is whether there were

alternatives other than this very major step which government

is taking with the taxpayers' money.

It's all very well to state that you have humanitarian aims

of creating employment, and saving a town from withering on the

vine; but if the government has miscalculated about the fate of

their endeavours in this particular large segment of the

province with such large sums of money involved, then the money

that might be lost in the ultimate analysis could well be a

great deal more than the money involved in rehabilitating

Prince Rupert or providing alternative solutions to the

unemployment problems in that town.

We recognize and agree with the government as to the obvious

sense in developing Prince Rupert as a deep-sea port to a

greater degree than has already been done.

Another factor which I would like the Minister to comment

upon is the whole question of labour relations in that area.

Could the Minister tell us to what degree there have been

discussions with the labour unions concerned, and to what

degree the government anticipates cooperation and harmony

— as far as ever can be reached between employee and

[ Page

2867 ]

management in these days in which we live.

Because in fact the Minister is offering this project to

save jobs and create jobs, has he had any sign or any promises

or guarantees of labour peace to the degree that that could

ever be established?

On the other hand, does he have any apprehension about the

degree to which the labour unions will cooperate in this very

far-reaching project? I would also like to ask the Minister to

comment on the role that senior management will play and to

what degree he is expecting that new blood will be brought in,

or whether he can depend on those that are already there.

But we also appreciate the comments the Minister has made

about protecting the minority shareholder. I think for this the

government deserves credit.

But to reach the nub of the problem and to sum it up as far

as I am concerned, I am apprehensive because of the very major

involvement by the government financially in an operation which

has been a money-loser, and in which the whole background to

the problem, or the whole reason for the government taking this

action, is predicated on the statement that they have

advantages which private industry could not have in terms of

transportation. Having supported the Ocean Falls concept, which

was the same kind of thing on a small scale, I feel that it

would be inconsistent of this party not to take the same

attitude towards Colcel.

But for the other reasons I have also mentioned, and the

massive nature of this project and the kind of sums of

taxpayers' money which could be lost, I cannot in all

conscience say I am as enthusiastic about this very large scale

project as I was about Ocean Falls.

I suppose that will immediately bring remarks that I'm

waffling. But I'm really not waffling in the sense that the two

are comparable only in terms of humanitarian goals. But in

financial terms they are really not comparable to a great

degree because of the massive sums of money we are involved

with here.

I often am teased about my ethnic background — but my

concern for money I think is one that every politician should

have. We are entrusted with handling the taxpayers' money and

I'm sure nobody in this House or in this province would be

reluctant to approve the kind of deal which would achieve these

two goals that I mentioned — and I'm being repetitive

— the goals of creating jobs and converting this into a

profitable enterprise.

While I've also voiced my apprehension, in balance I feel that this project

is one that will achieve these two goals. I'm afraid that other factors may

crop up which could well put the project in jeopardy. We are certainly going

on the Minister's word that he anticipates fruitful negotiations regarding the

railways, and that with negotiation on freight rates we can have the advantage

which the private sector did not have.

But on balance, we feel that the widespread effect which

would have happened in a large part of the province had this

company been allowed to go bankrupt justifies the action of the

government. But we reserve our right in the years to come that

if the government, in its management policy through this Crown

corporation, is no more efficient than the Celanese Corporation

was, then we'll bring all the wrath of' the taxpayers down on

your head. We're telling you that right now.

The position that I take on this bill is based on — it

probably should not be assumed — the hope and confidence

that you, as government, in this enterprise will do a great

deal better in simple planning and management than was

demonstrated by this particular aspect of the private sector of

the economy.

And therefore, for these various reasons, this party will

support the bill.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a

pleasure to be back in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have a good trip?

MR. McGEER: Very nice, thank you.

It's a pleasure to discuss a bill with the Minister of Lands

and Forests who is the real driver of the economy in British

Columbia and, I suspect, the person who controls the economic

destiny as far as the cabinet is concerned. It isn't just that

this is the biggest deal as far as this session of the

Legislature is concerned — and I hope it's the biggest

deal of the tenure of the government because I would hate to

think that the government was going to attempt to bite off

boluses of this size at regular intervals — but mostly

because the attitude towards the north and its development has

undergone quite a transformation since the days when the

Premier — I'm only going back to last fall now —

expressed such a disinterest in north-west British Columbia

when we were having a debate about port development. At that

time the Premier could think only of the need to develop

Britannia and the Howe Sound region for industry.

Now that the real leader — as far as the economy is

concerned — has taken an interest in things, we're back

to heavy development in north-west British Columbia and

particularly Prince Rupert. Well, that's fair enough. It's

really quite a significant swing in emphasis and it tells us

something about the personalities in the cabinet as well.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we can't support this move. I

want to outline to the Minister and to the Legislature our

reasons for doing so. They've been very well-covered by the

Liberal leader, and he quite clearly indicated that we're a

party that's prepared to examine any proposition on its

merits.

[ Page 2868 ]

In the case of the Ocean Falls deal, we were into something

that had high social value and limited economic consequences.

The consultants' report indicated that, at least in the short

run, that corporation could make money and it wouldn't require

a heavy capital investment. Naturally, our party thinks in

terms of phasing out that operation before we get hooked in too

deeply. At least there's breathing time in which the Minister

can think of good and imaginative alternatives for the future

of that particular community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we come to north-west British

Columbia, we're looking at something with fantastic potential

and where the economy of that region can take off without the

assistance of heavy capital investment from the public in the

private sector, in the forest facilities themselves. What is

required, Mr. Speaker, is the investment of public funds in the

infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, could I go back for just a moment to the key

report? The key report was the Hedlin Menzies report tendered

to the federal government in 1970. I'm sure that the update is

an optimistic one, Mr. Minister, but even going back to 1970,

the Hedlin Menzies report pointed out that the timber harvest

could be increased by 446 million cubic feet. The way that I

work that out, it is more than 2,000 per cent — twenty

fold; that's a lot of per cent — without any need for the

government itself to build the forest facilities.

As a dividend the report indicated that mineral production

could go up by 560 million, an increase of almost 1,000 per

cent, without any need for the government to invest in mining

development. What was involved to bring the 2,000 per cent

increase in timber production and the 1,000 per cent increase

in mineral production was only to build the railroad

facilities.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Only!

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to that. The

Minister says, "Only." The whole reason why we oppose this

entry is that it will take all the reasonable capital that this

province can find to create that infrastructure. Our return,

Mr. Speaker, on the infrastructure itself will be handsome.

More than that; in those operations that are attracted into the

area by this adequate infrastructure, we will be more than

half-partners in all the profits that they make.

The provision of capital that those firms, whoever they

might be, can supply, the profits that they make, the

initiative that they show, the management skills that they

assemble — all of these things, Mr. Speaker, we share in

to considerably better than 50 per cent.

We're more than major partners to begin with because we get corporation tax,

logging and mining tax, royalties and stumpage, local taxes, income taxes from

the workers, sales taxes from all the equipment and machinery that's been brought

in. This adds up to such a large percentage of the total of whatever is obtained

that our task, Mr. Speaker, is to use the public capital to lever as much of

this as is possible.

The Hedlin Menzies Report indicated that the number of jobs

that could be produced in north-west British Columbia within

two decades was more than 37,000. So what we're talking about,

Mr. Speaker, is something very, very big; something we submit

that the government and the people can profit more from in

financial terms and benefits to every citizen of British

Columbia by becoming partners rather than controllers.

Mr. Speaker, if this was the best way to go about things,

every country in the world and every province in this nation

would have a socialist government. The fact that these

socialist governments are not common is because of their almost

universal failure in endeavours of this kind.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is not

Swedish-style socialist government. It's more like what the

British Labour Party did after the Second World War, moving

into the private sphere at a time of great opportunity when

other European countries were expanding rapidly to fulfill a

void in supply of almost every conceivable kind of consumer

good. The lesson for Britain was a grim one, as the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the Minister of Social

Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi) should realize. That country has

been under-performing ever since the Second World War and is

dragging behind the other nations of Europe despite an

enormously talented people.

Similar arguments could be set forward with regard to Canada

because in the Province of Saskatchewan there is the same

enthusiasm to move into the private sphere that this government

entertains.

Finally the great day has arrived when different values can

be put forward from government; where we can do the right

social thing and we can do the right economic thing for the

workers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You'd better believe it.

MR. McGEER: "You'd better believe it," says the

Minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, what the public of British

Columbia had better believe is that this brought disaster to

the Province of Saskatchewan, and so many of the people from

that delightful province moved out to British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Let's hope, Mr. Speaker, that the

[ Page 2869 ]

current NDP government in Saskatchewan doesn't feel

compelled to go into a box factory …

AN HON. MEMBER: They went into the meat-packing

business.

MR. McGEER: …a shoe factory and into the meat-packing

business. Because it was five corporations up, and five

corporations down within a very short period of time after that

Tommy Douglas government in Saskatchewan took over.

If one goes back and analyzes what was involved in those

early and disastrous days, it was exactly the same kind of good

Christian thinking that lies behind some of the decisions of

the current NDP government. Mr. Speaker, I know that you will

understand this particularly well. The need to save jobs, the

need to look after communities — excellent motivations,

Mr. Speaker, but done without sufficient attention being paid

to the dictates of the marketplace and the overwhelming need in

any enterprise to have management skills.

As with the new NDP government in British Columbia, that

first socialist government of Tommy Douglas lacked capable

industrialists with management skills. Nevertheless, they

rushed in — I won't say "like fools," Mr. Speaker.

But the results were not happy results for the government or

for the people or for the individuals involved in those

enterprises.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when decisions have been

required on the part of the new government, there has been

very, very little reluctance on the part of the cabinet to dash

into the private sector of the economy. Certainly the Columbia

Cellulose situation invited some kind of intervention.

Mr. Speaker, the Columbia Cellulose deal years ago was the

first entry that the provincial government made into the tree

farm licence field. It set a pattern. Mistakes were made

— I think we're all aware of those mistakes. The

corporation that moved in, the Celanese Corporation, wasn't

interested in forestry. They were interested in a long-term

supply of alpha cellulose as the basis for their fibre mills

Because of that, they went about the business of looking after

that tree farm licence in an unfortunate way. They built their

pulp mill in the wrong location. They decided to use round wood

for their pulp supply — clearly a waste of the good

lumber in the trees.

The board of directors of that corporation had little interest in the forest

industry. When other attractions appeared before that company, they began to

neglect their investment in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the attractions for

the Celanese Corporation were really twofold. One was that they had an alternative

and cheaper long-term source of supply for their fibre. They didn't need the

trees; they could get it from cotton. Secondly, they had other fibres that were

of interest to them and which turned out to be more profitable for their operation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: But their primary interest was not in forestry.

Their primary interest was in fibres. One of the fibres that

the company went into was a competitor for one that I had

worked on developing as an industrial chemist when I was with

the Dupont company. Starting with the test tube, Mr. Speaker

— which is what we did in our corporation — a

product was developed which soon exceeded in sales value the

total amount of fibre that could have been made from all the

cellulose operations in British Columbia. Naturally, that

corporation became more interested in investments that had

greater consumer promise for them.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I mention this little side issue to explain how vulnerable

the economy of British Columbia is to changing inventions and

consumer developments as a result of advanced technology, based

so much as it is on a limited variety of natural resources.

This is an aspect of industry that we don't participate in at

all. But when the total output of a town, such as Woodfibre, is

to supply a single mill with alpha cellulose, such as at Marcus

Hook, Pennsylvania, and when the demand for that product is

decreased because of competition from other fibres, then the

town virtually shuts down. We had this happen a few years ago

at Marcus Hook.

So, being a supplier of natural resources, British Columbia

is very much at the mercy of technological developments in

other countries. Certainly this sapped the will of the Celanese

Corporation to develop the promise that is revealed in the

Hedlin Menzies report.

What the departure of Celanese offered to the government and

to the future of the province is a complete renegotiation of

the tree farm licence concept.

In our view, Mr. Speaker, what the government should have

done was to have committed itself to its traditional job, which

is to supply the infrastructure to transportation; to use

whatever capital we can get from the pensions funds and all the

other captive sources of supply to build those railroad

facilities. It should have then opened up that tremendous area

of timber to a new type of forest management contract that

would be attractive to any forest giant, but which would

compensate for all of the ills that were built into the

original contract and which were perpetuated and extended with

the other tree farm

[ Page 2870 ]

licence agreements that were signed in subsequent years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: "Pipe dream," says the Member opposite,

Mr. Speaker. That Member opposite, if he can't use more

imaginative thinking than that, should not be sitting in this

House at all.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the precedents that are set

by the initial deals that a government makes, have a profound

and lasting effect over a number of years with all of the

subsequent negotiations that have to take place. Mr. Speaker,

instead of the government supplying and guaranteeing the

transportation infrastructure that would be attractive to any

investment, what it has done is to see the investment crippled,

try to take it over at bargain prices and run the whole

operation itself. Mr. Speaker, a person would have to be blind not to see the

damage that that will do the confidence in other

operations.

The other aspect, Mr. Speaker, that everyone has to be able

to see is that we have a new and senior partner sitting down

now at the bargaining table with labour. The big question on

the minds of everybody today in the private sphere of the

forest industry is whether or not the B.C. Federation of Labour

will be sitting down with the Ministers in Victoria to

determine what the wage rates are or whether they will be

sitting down with the bargaining agents of the industry.

Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, there are any number

of ways that governments can adjust the situation to make their

own operation appear profitable while creating conditions that

will kill off their competitors in the private sphere.

You can build the roads, you can be selective as to where

you put your transportation facilities, you can adjust the

stumpage rates, and I don't need to list the hundred different

things a government can do to provide advantages to its own

corporations without it being obvious that the deck has been

stacked.

But, Mr. Speaker, if you are sitting on the side of an

industry trying to compete and do its job well in competition

with other private firms, you wonder where your future is going

to lie with this sort of Damocles sword hanging over your

head.

The philosophy of the government is to say, "Do it the best

you can and if you are in trouble we'll review the situation on

stumpage policy," or whatever it might be. What they

will be sitting and doing, if past history is any example, is

chuckling in the cabinet room and rubbing their hands with glee

because this is another one they can get hold of at bargain

basement prices.

So, Mr. Speaker, no matter how successful this operation might be — and I would

submit that it will be successful. Any donkey could make it successful by building

the transportation facilities. All you have to do is put the railroad in there

and set an attractive rate per carload of chips. Anybody would want to build

a sawmill along that right-of-way for attractive transportation facilities to

deep water. It would be a breeze to be able to sell your chips in carload lots.

Anybody with a sawmill can make money along that right-of-way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No question that it can be successful. But you,

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, will control the success

of all of these operations by providing the transportation

facilities and setting the rates. Whether it is profitable or

whether it is a loss depends entirely on those two factors.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: No, not up north at Terrace. There isn't any

railroad at all there, Mr. Speaker. I presume when the proposal

is going to go ahead, the CNR and B.C. Railway will share 50

per cent in the construction of the new lines and that each

will have free running rights along the trackage. Is that to be

the deal, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker?

Don't say it is a national railway if that is what the deal

is. What it is is an opportunity for the B.C. government to

make an operation as profitable or as unprofitable as they like

by the simple device of investing in the railway and

controlling the rates.

Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to do better for the people

of British Columbia by the technique of building the railway

and controlling all of the forest lands and investing in all of

the capital expansion that will go with that; if it were

possible to do better for the people of British Columbia in

that way, I personally would be in favour of it. But the reason

why I am against it, Mr. Speaker, is that I don't believe this

will be better for the people of British Columbia for these

several reasons:

1. The government has limited capital. By putting that

capital into the infrastructure first and accepting the private

capital for the superstructure, more development can take place

and more jobs can be provided. That is the first reason.

2. Down through history it has been established that the

management skills are better in the hands of private enterprise

than in the hands of government. People can go ahead and

dispute this as a matter of philosophy but when it comes to

performance that is what the record says.

3. The entry of the government in a major way into the

forest development of British Columbia will place the

competitors in the private sphere at a

[ Page 2871 ]

distinct disadvantage as far as labour negotiations are

concerned. Make no mistake about it, the smart thing for the

B.C. Federation of Labour to do now is to come and negotiate

its next raise in the forest industry with the Minister and not

with the council it normally deals with.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed that.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): You don't

belong to the federation.

MR. McGEER: Well, who knows what is going to happen in the

future up there.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Pardon. I'm suggesting you shouldn't be in this

operation, and if you had been listening in the last 20 minutes

you would have gotten that.

4. The development of forest facilities by the government is

going to leave an open question as to how far the government

will or should go. It will have a depressing effect on

investment in the forest industry in the private sector all

over British Columbia.

The pattern of raising the stumpage, lowering advantages on

transportation, squeezing the private sector of the industry in

order to make the next grab, is going to become a fairly

obvious one which is bound to deter and restrain what would

otherwise be a normal development.

Already, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are the

senior partners in every forest venture. They are the senior

partners by virtue of control and ownership of the forest

lands; by virtue of taxes in the form of royalties, stumpage,

logging tax, corporation tax, local taxes, sales tax and

personal income tax. All of these sources of funds take up

considerably more than two-thirds of the operating profit of

the forest companies.

That senior partnership, Mr. Speaker, costs us nothing in the way of capital

investment, demands nothing in the way of management skills, and in many cases

doesn't even make it necessary for us to provide the staff to collect the taxes.

That is not a bad arrangement, and if that arrangement will lead to greater

total productivity in the province in the future than we could get under any

other system, then we should encourage it and see that it flourishes The government,

Mr. Speaker, is using its options, its initiatives and its capital to do things

that others can do. It will have to do this ultimately at the neglect of the

responsibilities that only government can take on. In the end we are going to

be a poorer and unhappier province because of this direction that the Minister

of Lands and Forests has taken.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the short term virtues might be of

this particular deal, in the long run it's going to prove to be

a mistake. That's the reason why I and the other Members of my

party oppose this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Rossland-Trail.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

few brief words. First of all to compliment the Minister on the

arrangement that he made, the appointment of the negotiating

team and the manner in which they discharged their duties as

directed by the Minister. I think that we have some

disagreement in the House as to the desirability of this sort

of arrangement on philosophical grounds, which is all right

because that's really what we're here for. But I think anyone

who criticizes this arrangement on business terms is either

very ignorant of the issues or they simply haven't looked at

the industry at this time.

I'd like to mention, Mr. Speaker, how happy I am to see that

there has been a change in direction of the standards of

pollution control of the Social Credit Party. The Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said about half an hour or 45

minutes ago that it's going to cost, "millions of dollars to

bring the effluent standards of these two plants up to the

level of which we would like to see."…"we would like to

see," Mr. Speaker. Now we know the standards they liked

to see before August 30; we know all about those standards.

That's all right; they can have a second look, they can have a

third look and they can upgrade their standards.

I'm glad they're with us because the standards that this

party would like to see in the forest industry or any other

industry are going to cost millions of dollars too. But I want

to assure that Member and those Members in that party that the

standards that will apply in this industry in the Province of

British Columbia are going to be across the board. So when we

talk about standards that apply to Colcel or B.C. Cel, we're

also talking about standards that will apply to

MacMillan-Bloedel, Rayonier, B.C. Forest Products, Crestbrook,

Noranda, Weyerhaeuser and every other corporation operating in

the province. It will cost a lot of money and I'm glad to know

that they're going to be with us when we move in that

direction, because we are going to move.

The other area on which I would like to say a few words is

the matter of transportation costs. First, the Member for North

Peace River (Mr. Smith), and in a slightly different approach,

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), talked

about

[ Page

2872 ]

the need for better transportation facilities and how they

felt this should perhaps be a charge against the operation.

Well, this is not such a bad idea.

I've called in this House before for rationalized

transportation costs. Now, if we want to follow that philosophy

of saying, "O.K., new railroad facilities are going to be a

charge against this corporation," that's fine. There'll

also perhaps be a charge against Eurocan, Alcan, Granduc Mines,

Bulkley Valley Timber. Let's be consistent; let's be equal

about it.

There's a railroad to Pine Point which made those vast and

rich ore deposits on Great Slave Lake so profitable. I've

nothing against Pine Point Mines making money up there; but the

fact is that if we are going to account for that, let's send

them a bill for that railroad that was paid for by the

taxpayers. Every time we have a development anywhere in B.C.,

let's send the mining company or the forestry company a bill

for the schools and the roads and the hospitals and the hydro

development. Let's get the taxpayer off the hook if that's what

the Member wants.

He's got a double standard. It applies to Crown corporations

but it doesn't apply to private corporations. There's nothing

in this bill that suggests that the new corporation in the

forest industry or that the Ocean Falls operation won't operate

on competitive terms with private industry in an open and free

market. They will make it on their own or they won't make it. I

commend the Minister for his action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, certainly it is

difficult to speak and comment on this bill because of the lack

of any real knowledge and any real financial depth, despite the

comments of the last speaker. There is little of the depth of

financial detail behind the scenes available to us on which to

make these decisions. The negotiating people presumably had

that information but the people in this House do not have it

and I haven't seen those details tabled. Without that sort of

information, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have to resort

to the first principles, the basic principles.

In those principles, I for one in our party oppose the

creeping socialism that we are seeing take over more and more

of British Columbia. This Legislature is encouraging and

developing that theme day after day.

I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker, that government in general does not do a good job

of running business. It certainly does not do a better job in most circumstances

that I'm aware of and that I've observed. This applies especially wherever we're

involved in the problems of marketing. In this particular industry we're discussing

today, we're certainly going to be involved in the problems of marketing.

I appreciate the problem faced in Prince Rupert and the

north-west and I very much agree, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister

said earlier, that the profitable part of this particular

corporation should not have been dealt off separately as was

proposed last year. I support him in not having allowed that to

happen. I approve of that.

But I would support, Mr. Speaker, or greatly prefer the

changing of the ground rules and the conditions to force a

better method of operation and better development in the Arrow

Lakes and the west Kootenay country which could have been done

without a takeover. That has been suggested by the two previous

speakers from this party.

At the same time, I would support making it possible for the

north-west part of the province to improve and eventually to

make a profit. There's no question that that can be done. If

the government can do it alone, Mr. Speaker, by taking certain

actions, why could the government and the company not do it

together as partners with a far greater incentive for both to

succeed if they were working together?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, within the last six months the

government and the Premier have actually been giving no

encouragement in northern transportation. They've been

discouraging it by putting all of the emphasis on the southern

route — the development of Britannia, Squamish and Howe

Sound — and downgrading every possible improvement to

Prince Rupert. That's the very sort of thing we're talking

about. All of sudden, because now this is a socialist takeover,

we're getting excited about northern transportation,

cooperation, developing new routes and new rates and so

on.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the government is successful in

this venture — and certainly it's a very big "if" and one

that's very difficult to judge without the detailed, insider

kind of knowledge — will the government make it possible

in a year or two for the private citizen to buy into the

company? Instead of this being big government running and

owning this and more and more companies in British Columbia,

will it let the little people, the citizens of the province,

the investors, participate in the investment and the share

structure of these companies, making it a truly public British

Columbia company?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Twenty-one per cent already.

MR. BROUSSON: That's a pretty small part, Mr. Speaker. I'd

like to let people buy in more if it is available to them. Will

the government make this available?

Alternatively, at some point, perhaps sell the

[ Page

2873 ]

shares of this company to the development corporation and

let the public buy shares in that as I suggested last week.

In other words, maybe there are times under certain

conditions and certain situations, Mr. Speaker, for government

to exercise its prerogatives of moving into certain areas to

create the conditions it needs. But will the government state a

long-run commitment to getting out of those areas, making it

possible for private enterprise, for the private investor, for

the small investor to buy shares directly in those

corporations? Let them be truly public.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's been fascinating

to watch the Members of the Liberal opposition dig in in this

debate. They certainly dug themselves in. It's fascinating also

to have silence from the official opposition ranks. I'm not

knocking it; it's a delightful change. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, bailing out the multi-nationals.

Yes, they're walking away without the $73 million that was owed

them. They're walking away paying the dividends that have never

been paid to the private Canadian minority shareholders.

They're walking away beefing up the working capital, leaving

money on the table in British Columbia. They're walking away

paying off the debts of the Belgian Paper Company that are part

of the holdings. That's bail-out, my friend. If that's a

bail-out, I'd like to be in that kind of boat.

But to watch the Liberals waltz around on this one is really

something. What a performance. The leader says, "Well, it's all

right for us to pump money into the infrastructure; it's all

right for us to serve people; it's all right for us to pay out

subsidies — it's all right for us to pay incentives. But

only as a last resort should we have an equity position in the

company that benefits. That's the position of the Liberal

Party.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Good Lord! What the Liberal Party is

saying is, if we dump public capital on a massive scale into a

region, we should do it for the benefit of the multi-national

corporations that can take the returns back to New York. That's

what the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting.

The real irony, and it seems to me that this hasn't got

through to some of the Members of the opposition, is that this

step by government will free these regions so that genuine

private enterprise in fact can take place within the

region.

He may smile, and he can shake his head — whatever he

likes, but it's just one of the ironies of the economy, the

kind of world we are in today, that by the acquisition of this

corporation we can free the region so that there can be more

individual entrepreneurs in the logging industry — that

is, ones that aren't contracted — indentured loggers

— to the major multi-nationals. There can be more genuine

independent sawmills, independently financed, that aren't tied

to the multi-nationals as well.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The question of the railway plans: again the Hon. Leader of

the Liberal Party talked about the Hedlin Menzies report. Well,

it was a major and important report and it was a major

beginning in terms of looking at north-western British

Columbia, but I suggest that it didn't maximize the return,

that we can in fact increase the returns to the people of

British Columbia and the people of Canada beyond what the

Hedlin Menzies report suggested. I suggest that there is that

opportunity; and by cooperation with Canada — with the

national government and the B.C. government — we have the

opportunity of maximizing returns on a scale probably

unprecedented in this province. That is why this is all so

important. That's why Colcel is important.

The question is once government decides to work in a region

on this scale — to change the economy of a region —

then to whom do the returns of that activity rightfully belong?

I suggest they basically belong to the people who put up the

funds — the people who put up the funds for the railways,

for the highways, for the infrastructure you were talking

about.

And the idea that we should do all these things — sell

the family farm, give up our birthright if you will —

that we should spend all this money, build these systems for

multi-national corporations to have the main direct benefit, is

the kind of mixed-up economics that has got this whole nation

into the kind of situation that it is in today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, profits, tax write-offs — you

name it, it's all in aid of the multi-nationals and sending the

money across the border and out of Canada.

But what about the small investors, the kind of people that

you've talked of in the past? What about them? By the decisions

you are making today, you're saying "in the crunch we go along

with ruthless corporate multi-national enterprise." That's what

you're doing, because there was simply no position whatsoever

for those people if we had not taken this action. None

whatsoever. And I wouldn't happily live

[ Page 2874 ]

with that on my shoulder in this province.

We had a mess with Commonwealth Trust under the former

government. Countless small investors — working people,

middle class people — the average people of this province

— invested in that outfit and thought they had something.

It turned out they had nothing or very close to nothing.

In this situation, we have dealt with the best accountants

available. We've dealt with the best investor advisers

available on the continent. They advised us that there is

simply no position for those private investors. And they

advised us further that no private corporate commercial

enterprise would have looked after them. None of them. That's

the kind of ruthless game you're talking about. In the crunch,

that party and that party are willing to go along with that

ruthless game.

We won't live with that kind of ruthless game that will

destroy the savings of the average people of this province.

You know, I was really fascinated by the various Members of

the Liberal Party because I am not so sure that they've

caucused on this one; the opinions seem to overlap and

contradict one another. The interesting one is of the former

leader of the party. The First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) said "Good Lord, in this kind of situation,

if you look on it in a broad enough scale, why even donkeys

could make it successful." Well, I don't really resent that,

but what he failed to remember is that the new leader of the

Liberal Party said "Why, it's like buying the 'titanic after it

hit the iceberg."

Well, that's the problem when you belong to a party that is

always super-glib. It finally catches up with you. And it can't

be the Titanic after the iceberg one day and a money-maker the

next day. That's the way you are trying to have it today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member, if he has any comments,

make them from his own seat.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) said "Well, the

southern operation is profitable all right, so it should go to

the private groups. Why, they're making money down there and we

should turn that over to the private sector."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's the impression I got.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then I take that back. I misread you. But there's

no question anyway that the official opposition would take that position, because

that was what was being set up on August 30.

Had that taken place, we would have had a southern

corporation — for all that the Member for Point Grey says

— would not have paid corporation income tax on what is

in fact a profitable operation because they would have slid all

of the tax losses from northern B.C. down to the south. Then we

would have had another American multi-national residing in

splendour in a profitable valley basin, and not paying taxes

for some 15 years. That's the kind of situation we would have

had had that former government remained in power and had we

accepted the idea that we do get it all back in corporation tax

in the end. It just isn't so. A tax deferred is a tax never

paid. And that's the kind of game multi-nationals are in, and I

think our national leader has made that abundantly clear in

recent years.

The question of divesting: that's certainly a possibility in

terms of further participation by the people of this province.

We looked at what has been done with respect to KLM in Holland;

we looked at what has been done with respect to Volkswagen, and

with respect to Lufthansa — so that this is a

possibility.

But the major problem is regional development and

turn-around at this stage of the game. But the option is there

and it's open.

I'm pleased to have heard the statements of the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), because it strikes me that there is

a certain consistency to them. I can't say that with respect to

the Hon. Members in the Liberal opposition at all.

The Member for Oak Bay said that in humanitarian terms, if

we do what we say then it is difficult to argue against it.

Well, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that we intend to

do what we say. We intend to develop that region. We intend to

turn the company around, and we intend to see the people of

British Columbia be the main group that benefits from all of

that activity.

As to labour relations — I have had no formal

meetings. I've had no meetings with labour leaders with respect

to these questions. I expect there will be cooperation.

I would say, however, that in any formal contact with rank

and file people that I've met from Castlegar and Prince Rupert,

there is a genuine feeling of elation that we are repatriating

our economy and that we are doing something to assure them of a

job in the coming years, and we are taking the insecurity that

was like a cloud over them away — insecurity that was

bred by an American multi-national that didn't carry out its

responsibilities in this province.

The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) suggests that

the returns are in the infrastructure itself. Good heavens, why

should we want returns directly

[ Page 2875 ]

from the company that is involved?

We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in

public investment, and the returns aren't obtained from the

railway company. The CNR is not a great money-maker, but it is

necessary. B.C. Rail is not a great money-maker, but it is

necessary. What we do when we build these infrastructures is

increase the value of the resource that we hold; we in fact

create a massive capital gain situation. And that's a party

that's been willing to live with capital gains for a long time

in this province, in this country.

There are huge capital gains to be made in north-western

British Columbia. There are major capital gains to be made in

the west Kootenays. We want to see that those huge capital

gains, these huge unearned increments in fact are given to the

people of the province in various ways in various benefits.

This is the way to assure that the benefits of all of this

government activity will flow to the people of British

Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're filibustering

your own bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think this may turn out to

be one of the most exciting steps this government has taken. It

assures the future of north-western British Columbia. It

assures the future of the west Kootenays. It's with great

pleasure that I move second reading now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Skelly

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 14

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Brousson

PAIRED

Williams, L.A.

Hartley

Bill No. 179 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada