1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4877 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Cancellation of Cariboo

Pulp expansion. Mr. Fraser — 4877

B.C. mineral revenue advertisements. Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4877

Extent of decline in claim-staking. Mr. McGeer — 4878

Allegations of partiality of Labour department to IWA

Mr. Dent I — 4878

Court workers wage dispute. Mr. McClelland — 4878

Tendering of comic book printing. Mr. Wallace — 4879

E&N withdrawal of services. Ms. Sanford — 4879

Drivers dropped from ICBC rolls. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4879

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 17 1). Second

reading.

Mr. Phillips — 4880

Mr. Schroeder — 4888

Mr. Morrison — 4889

Mr. Cummings — 4890

Mr. Curtis — 4890

Mr. McClelland — 4892

Mr. Lewis — 4898

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4900

Division on second reading — 4903

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill

168).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

section 3.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4903

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Report stage — 4904

Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 166).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 4904

Amendment to the schedule.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4904

Report stage — 4904

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4904

section 1 as amended.

Mr., Curtis — 4904

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4905

Mr. Curtis — 4905

Hon. Mr. Lorimer 4905

Amendment to

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Curtis — 4906

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4907

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4907

Report stage — 4907

Statute Law Amendment Act

(1974) No. 2(Bill 178). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4907

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4907

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4908

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4908

Mrs. Jordan — 4909

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4909

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4909

Mr. Smith — 4910

Statement Correction on earlier statement. Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4910

Mr. Gibson — 4910

Appendix — 4911

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Speaker, observing our deliberations today will be a small

group of students from Parkland Senior Secondary School on the

northern part of Saanich Peninsula, accompanied by Mr. Don

Sanford, their teacher. Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to

note that among the group is Rosa Maria Guevara, an exchange

student from El Salvador. I thought the House would like to

welcome them today.

Oral questions.

CANCELLATION OF

CARIBOO PULP EXPANSION

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): This question is to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Because of the

announcement yesterday by Cariboo Pulp and Paper not to expand

the pulp mill at Quesnel, will the Minister now request a

meeting with this company, and ask them to reconsider their

decision not to expand?

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, Cariboo Pulp had never made a

decision to expand, that I'm aware of. Any cancellation is a

cancellation of something that wasn't ever firm in the first

place.

I've met with Mr. Bowle, who is a representative of and

partner in Babine Forest Products which the government is

involved in indirectly, on numerous occasions regarding both

their location in Quesnel and their aspects of their operation.

We are in fairly continuous dialogue.

Mr. Fraser: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Minister now going to ask Mr. Bowle to come to a meeting that

he will call about the planned expansion?

Hon. R.A. Williams: I've always been willing to meet

with Mr. Bowle, and if he so requests, I'd be glad to meet

him.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): A supplemental

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

From his reply do we understand that he feels that the

representative of Cariboo Pulp and Paper misled the public, or

was not true in what he said when he made a statement yesterday

to the press?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don't think that the

proper method of approaching it is by that type of question

which is hypothetical, actually.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

an attack on a private citizen of this province. Terrible.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not

hypothetical. There was a press release made yesterday by a

reputable citizen of the Province of British Columbia, and this

Minister has repudiated that. Now, either he gets up and backs

up what he says or he backs down; one of the two.

Mr. Speaker: I really don't think you can ask

somebody to comment on what some other citizen has said in the

province. That is really not….

Mr. Smith: He already commented on it.

Mr. Speaker: If you can find a rule where it is said

you can do it, for heaven's sake let me know.

B.C. MINERAL REVENUE

ADVERTISEMENTS

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources): I was asked a question yesterday in regard to this

ad in the press about mineral revenue in British Columbia. At

that time I didn't give any figures, and I don't know what

figures got out. But I hope the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) didn't give the figure of

$150,000 to $200,000 as what we're spending on that. Otherwise,

he doesn't know my position because I'm not the kind of a

person who would spend money like that.

The total figure for that run will be, I'm informed,

$16,000. That will cover it all.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'm

relieved to get these figures. Could the Minister clarify that

this is for the prospector's assistance programme — not for the

current programme, but for the prospectors' assistance

programme which was the big one?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Mr. Speaker, this was the big ad he

had out yesterday: "Mineral Revenue in British Columbia."

That's the one that's in the paper today, and I'll repeat what

it said:

"The B.C. Government is spending $150,000 to $200,000 on

completely biased full-page newspaper advertisements dealing

with mineral revenues in legislation."

Gordon Gibson's name is following it.

The total amount that was spent is $16,000, and I

[ Page 4878 ]

think it's terrible that that kind of news gets out.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the figure of $150,000 is a

figure that I was given by somebody who had studied the

prospectors' assistance programme ads which were much more

extensive.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): A supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Minister has clarified the

costs of $16,000, is it going to be the policy of his

department to continue to advertise all the speeches delivered

by Hart Horn at a cost of $16,000?

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: What do you mean? I asked the Minister

… this is Hart Horn's speech. Are you going to spend $16,000

on all his speeches?

EXTENT OF DECLINE IN

CLAIM-STAKING

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to ask

the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker, whether he would give us

factual information today on exactly how much the reduction has

been in claim-staking in British Columbia to date this year

compared with last year? Is it down more than 60 per cent or

less than 60 per cent?

Mr. Speaker: Is there one on the order paper on that,

Hon. Member?

Mr. McGeer: No, not to date, Mr. Speaker, besides

which, the Ministers are not answering any questions on the

order paper now.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. P.F. Young (Minister of Consumer Services): The

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey made a false statement

inasmuch as he said that none of the Ministers have answered

any questions on the order paper. I have answered three, and

other Ministers have answered quite a few.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure it was hyperbole.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we're getting

beyond the purpose of question period into points of order.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, may I tender an abject

apology to the Minister, and say how much I'm hoping that the

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

Williams) and other Ministers in the cabinet will follow her

example?

ALLEGATIONS OF PARTIALITY

OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT TO IWA

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): In light of the current

dispute taking place over the

interpretation of a letter of

intent signed by the FIR and the IWA, which is leading to some

difficulties in labour-management relations in my constituency,

I would like the Hon. Minister of Labour to indicate whether he

has heard of allegations that the Labour department has aided

and abetted or supported the IWA in this dispute and, if he's

heard of these allegations, what he's done about them.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker,

that question arose, I think, last week — a similar question by

the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). At that time I

indicated that I had no request or no overture from any of the

industry in this regard.

I must say that this matter did arise some time ago last

year. That specific charge that the Department of Labour had in

fact supported the IWA in their desire to organize the

contractors in the forest industry was leveled in the media. It

has arisen since that time, To put the matter to rest once and for all, I do have an

exchange of correspondence between my office and the interior

independent loggers' association, which corrects any charges,

withdraws the allegations that were made by that management

association, apologizes profusely for that kind of allegation

and acknowledges that there's no basis in fact whatsoever for

that charge.

I'm prepared to table this with the House, Mr. Speaker.

COURT WORKERS WAGE DISPUTE

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I'd like to ask a

question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) but

I notice he hasn't been in the House for about a week. I hope

that his health isn't too bad and that the $100 million overrun

isn't affecting him too much. I'll ask my question of the

Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker.

Since the takeover of the courts by the provincial

government, I understand that a number of people were being

paid at the same wage scale as they were when they worked for

the municipal government. But in recent weeks, for some reason,

the government seems to have found that they don't want to pay

the

[ Page 4879 ]

same scale as the municipal governments were paying.

Now the employees in the courts are getting dunning letters

from the provincial government asking them to repay some of the

wages that they have been paid in the last several months. Some

of those letters are asking for repayment of as much as $600

from those employees in the municipal court system — or what

used to be the municipal court system. I understand that the

Surrey court system is really in an appalling condition. I wonder if the Provincial

Secretary could confirm this, and whether or not he could tell

us whether some steps will be taken to ensure that those people

don't suffer because of the takeover of the courts by the

provincial government.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I'm sure he's

projecting most of the premise the question is based on. I'll

take it as notice on behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald).

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of

order, is it not possible that the Minister could justify that

remark he's made, because I understood that all the provincial

employees were under his jurisdiction, not the

Attorney-General's.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Well, the Member made a number of

speeches, most of which I disagreed with, during the passage of

the bill setting up the Justice Development Commission. I

suggest you look at the bill, Mr. Member.

TENDERING OF COMIC BOOK PRINTING

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the

Minister of Transport and Communications a question regarding

the very colourful safety bike comic book. Was the publication

of that comic book put out to tender, competitive bid? It

carries no notification that it was done by a union shop, Mr.

Minister.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not sure whether it was put

out to tender or not. It was handled by a public relations

firm, not Dunsky. There are three separate public relations

firms….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, I don't know if it was put out

to tender or not.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Minister tell. us what the usual practice is in

relation to the government's policy to employ union labour? In

this case, was this a contravention of the usual policy?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, I don't know. I'll have to

take that as notice. Whether or not it's union labour — it

could be union shop without union labour.

E&N WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Transport and Communications as well. Many of

my constituents are concerned at the moment because the E &

N is again going to be making representations to the Canadian

Transport Commission to withdraw its passenger service on the E

& N. My constituents would like to know:

(

a) Whether or not the government has taken a position on

this, and (

b) Whether or not they will be making any

representations on behalf of the government to the transport

commission.

An. Hon. Member: It's a plant.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Hon. Minister just happen to

have the answer to that? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I have the answer to most

reasonable questions that are questions, Mr. Speaker. To answer

the Member, the government is opposed to any attempts by the E

& N to close down its passenger or any other service and,

yes, the department is preparing a presentation to the Board of

Transport Commissioners opposing the E & N closing these

services.

DRIVERS DROPPED FROM ICBC ROLLS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to pose a question asked earlier in the week to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. Has he yet had an

opportunity to compare the Motor Vehicle Branch and the ICBC

comparison of vehicle registrations, drivers licences and

insurance policy records to determine whether a substantial

number of people have been dropped from the rolls by mistakes

in the ICBC computer?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No one has been dropped from the

rolls. We can find them. We have a record of every transaction

that's taken place.

An. Hon. Member: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: In the ICBC offices. As I say, we

have the records.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I was misquoted a little

earlier on by the Minister of Mines, and I'd like to take the

earliest opportunity, not taking the time

[ Page 4880 ]

in the question period, to correct it. The Minister of Mines

stated that I said that the current advertising programme was

costing $150,000. If he had taken the trouble to cheek

Hansard yesterday, he would have said:

"…and in view of the fact that the prospectors'

assistance programme advertising was estimated to cost something like

$150,000…." That was what I was talking about, Mr. Minister. I wasn't

talking about the current programme.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): In relation to the

statement made by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young) in question period, would she clarify if the fact she

answered questions on the order paper justifies the extra cost

of her picture in her political…?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this Member has

on a number of occasions abused the question of raising a point

of order by using it as a device to make a statement. I wish

the Hon. Member would cease doing this, because it really isn't

fair to the Chair that I recognize a Member that is using that

type of device. It's not fair to the rules of order. No more

points of order?

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on Bill

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

Mr. D.M Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

just want to spend a few moments with a few windup remarks on a

very important bill. Last evening I covered some of the points,

but I do want to take this time to emphasize to the House that

this is the most important bill ever introduced into this

Legislature.

I say it is the most important bill, Mr. Speaker, because it

affects the future of the forest industry in this province, the

industry that is responsible for generating approximately 50

cents out of every dollar in our economy.

I was to further emphasize that, in view of this fact, the

economy of this province hangs in the balance here today. I

fear if this bill is passed and all the in-depth implications

of the bill which the Minister has in mind come to pass, the

economy of this province will sink to an all-time low.

I want to say that this bill is the greatest use of political cosmetics that

this government has come up with to date — and they've had some dandies. But

this is really political cosmetics. It's the complete use of shading the truth

and the real intent of the bill not only from the eyes of the public but from

the eyes of the industry.

Our Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would do

well with Max Factor or Cover Girl or Elizabeth Arden because

he's really used cosmetics here to cover up the true intent of

the bill. He has, as is usual in the use of cosmetics,

accentuated the good features in the bill, which we agree with — the wood chip price — but has completely hidden the bad

aspects and the true intent of the bill.

He outlined to us the aspect of the bill which would

increase wood chip prices to the independent sawmill industry

but he cleverly hid and tried to overshadow the powers given to

the British Columbia Forest Products Board.

The Minister was very specific this morning in a radio

broadcast to emphasize and reassure the public that no takeover

of the industry was intended. In the opening remarks yesterday,

he said he is so concerned about the little fellows in the

industry that he wants to protect them. My word to the

independents in this province is that if the Minister starts

protecting them the way he protects them, he'll protect them to

death. In this bill he sets out to protect an industry that

really doesn't want protection.

I'd like to refer to some of the comments made recently by

some of the independents in the industry. I'd like to quote

from a recent

article in The Vancouver Sun . One

independent operator, John Kerr of Lignum Limited who runs a

sawmill at Williams Lake put the matter this way:

"I am not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth. I think

there will be a substantial increase in chip prices. We believe

we have a valid argument for increased prices but we would have

preferred to negotiate higher prices with the pulp mills

without the government stepping in."

That is a comment from one of the independents that this

Minister wishes to protect.

What does the President of MacMillan Bloedel (Mr. Timmis)

say, the man who is with the Premier on his trip to China?

Cleverly timed, that trip. He says:

"We have already indicated that we would prefer to negotiate

both log and chip prices on the open market without government

intervention. The price charged by our outside suppliers has

more than doubled in the past year but our selling price for

pulp and newsprint has increased at a much lower rate.

Moreover, lumber price decreases are having a very serious

negative impact on our revenues.

"There is no point, however, in further comment until the

government announces its new chip prices."

What does Ian Mahood, president of the Truck

[ Page

4881 ]

Loggers Association say? He says:

"We absolutely deplore the alarming powers to destroy

existing contracts."

He realizes what's in the bill. We've heard that in this

Legislature before that this government takes the power, What about Herb Doman, the president of the Duncan-based

Doman Industries Limited? What does he say about the bill?

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): He said he's

going to build a new mill.

Mr. Phillips: He's going to replace an existing

industry; that's what he's going to do. He's not going to

create any new jobs. He's going to replace an existing

industry, mainly not because of this bill but because of

federal government income tax changes that allow him to write

off his equipment in two years. That's why he's building a new

mill.

He says:

"They would have the power to borrow money and issue any

amount of bonds guaranteed by the government. The Minister

would have the power to buy up companies he wanted and to shut

down the ones he doesn't want and put those that are not

competitive out of business. I really don't know what the full

implications will be."

There are hundreds of other independent operators in this

province who realize that they must have more money for their

chips but who are frightened about the full implications of

this bill. Power without restraint.

Why was the timing of the introduction of this bill so

important? The Minister has known for some time what his

intentions were with the lumber industry of British Columbia.

He threw up a smokescreen via one of his backbenchers on

February 16, 1974, just to see how it would settle — just a

sort of a warning.

"MLA Bob Skelly at an annual meeting of the B.C.

Professional Foresters said on Friday that if enterprise wants

to continue to the forest industry in British Columbia, it

better be prepared to take second place to his government."

An. Hon. Member: Oh, oh! Now we know.

Mr. Phillips: That was the message given.

"The independent sector of the forest industry is going to

take second place to a government-owned-and-operated forest

industry."

That was the message from the chairman of the forestry

committee. Maybe that's why the forestry committee was

disbanded.

I quote again from the article:

"Skelly, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on

Forestry and Fisheries said the provincial government is

determined to see public enterprise succeed in the forest

products field in British Columbia. 'This means,' he said, 'the

government will use the most sophisticated technology available

and will hire the best available staff, whether they come from

Canada or abroad.'

" 'I also believe that the government is under no obligation

to provide our resources on an equality-of-access basis to

public and private industry,' he told a noon meeting at the

Capri Motor Hotel.

"Publicly-owned firms should have access on a priority

basis. If railcars are required by Can-Cel, the province should

provide them. If chips or timber are required by Kootenay

Forest Products, then the government should allot them."

This is what we are talking about when we say there is a

conflict of interest when the government enters into one

segment of our economy against the segment that has been

operated successfully by the private sector.

"The government has advantages that the private sector

doesn't have. If new technology or marketing information

becomes available through the efforts of government-sponsored

research, that technology and that information should be made

available exclusively — exclusively to the publicly-owned

industries." There's another advantage, Mr. Speaker — an unfair

advantage — that the government will have in their own Crown

corporations: "Skelly said that if private enterprise wishes to

continue in the forest industry, it must do so as a

competitor." This was just a cloud that was sort of floated up

to see how it would settle on the industry. The real settling

effect is here in the fallout when Bill 171 was introduced.

The Minister purposely waited until a crisis situation

developed in this province with regard to the price of chips —

waited purposely — and then he brought his bill in later. I

wonder, Mr. Speaker, if bringing the bill in late had something

to do with the whole timing.

Did the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources want

to wait until the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) were out of the province before

bringing in this very controversial bill, or was it that the

Attorney-General wanted to be off in China before this

completely socialist-stateism bill was brought in? I don't

think the Attorney-General wanted to have any part of this

bill; I think that's why he went off to China. That's why the

Premier's away, and that's why the Premier was away for a long

time during the debate on some of the controversies we had last

year.

[ Page 4882 ]

He can't….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, all I have to do is look at what

the situation is, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's away when these controversies rage over this

important industry in this province. He's not here to protect

the Minister. Maybe he doesn't agree with the Minister, but it

really doesn't matter, because the Minister has so much power

that whether the Attorney-General or the Premier agrees, he

goes ahead anyway.

They know — I'm sure the Premier knows and I'm sure the

Attorney-General knows, Mr. Speaker — that it is that

Minister who will kill their chances of being re-elected in

this province again, because that Minister has a heart full

of hate. That same Minister walks around with a chip on his

shoulder most of the time — and it's not a wood chip.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister was in trouble last spring over

the Can-Cel trading deal. There's supposed to be an enquiry

going on; I don't know when we'll ever get the information.

That Minister, Mr. Speaker, seems to be preoccupied with making

a profit in his own little domain, on his own little

privately-run companies, under the guise of public

ownership.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, when you have complete control you

can buy your chips at the price you want to pay for them, get

your stumpage at the price you want to pay for them, get

boxcars when you want them, have all the other advantages —

he's going to show that his privately-run little corporations

make money.

But the Minister says that there is no takeover intended. I

say, Mr. Speaker, to that Minister that he's shielding us from

the truth. What he plans on doing, Mr. Speaker, is making

utilities out of the forest industry in British Columbia. He's

determined, Mr. Speaker, to get that big giant, MacMillan

Bloedel, and when he's finished with the controls and the

regulations which he can bring in under this bill, he will have

MacMillan Bloedel exactly where he wants them, along with all

the other forest industries in British Columbia.

The British Columbia Forest Products Board will control,

will regulate, will buy and sell, will tell who can export and

under what price, and the forest industry will become a utility

similar to the other utilities established under the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation.

I think there was an excellent editorial in the Colonist on Sunday. They put

it fairly and squarely where it's at, Mr. Speaker, and I'd just like to read

the last two paragraphs of this editorial because this really outlines the true

intent of this bill. It says:

"But obviously the board is intended not only to advise the

government, for it would be authorized, subject to cabinet

approval, to raise money by notes, bonds, debentures and other

securities and could acquire shares, debentures or securities

of a company and thereupon appoint such person as it considers

advisable to be the representative of the board at any meeting

of the company or at any meeting of the directors of the company or any class of members or creditors of the

company."

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the true intent of his bill

is not to take over and control and regulate the forest

industry, why are these powers outlined in his bill?

An. Hon. Member: Right on.

Mr. Phillips: The editorial goes on:

"And if this gives a strong hint of the board moving into

the forest industry itself as a Crown corporation, more

significant still, perhaps, is a simple little

section — 19 —

of the bill: 'The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make

regulations….' The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, of

course, is the formal way of saying the government.

"The purpose of keeping the small mills in business and

perhaps of helping a whole lumber business through a slump is

commendable, but the creation of vague and almost limitless

powers naturally leaves the industry beset with uncertainty,

and perhaps in peril of takeover."

This Minister, Mr. Speaker,

has great big eyes in the back of his head, but very little

forward vision, because he fails to realize that planning in

the forest industry must be not in terms of a year or two

years, but planning in the forest industry must be in terms of

10, 20 and 30 years.

We have an industry, as I said last night, Mr. Speaker, one

of the greatest forest industries of any jurisdiction in the

world. It's a complex industry, and now we have a Minister who

was in charge of that industry travelling around the world

advising other jurisdictions on how to get more production and

a better utilization our of their forest industries. Yet this

Minister would tell you, or lead the public to believe, that

our forest industry was in chaos in British Columbia. He took

over one of the best-run departments of any forest industry

anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker — the best-run department of

forestry anywhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke briefly yesterday about

waste on the forest floor. I suggested to the Minister two

years ago that he do something to curb the waste of aspen in

the northern part of this

[ Page 4883 ]

province where literally hundreds of thousands of board-feet

are being burned up and wasted every year in land clearing,

where it goes to rot. And that Minister, Mr. Speaker, has not

made one single, solitary move in the direction of curtailing

this waste.

There is a plant in Slave Lake, Alberta, which is using this

local native tree, but this Minister has done nothing. I

pointed out to him two years ago — and to the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) — a project in the north

that was going to utilize that local tree, the one that's being

wasted today, and not one move in two years — not one single,

solitary, positive move.

Mr. Speaker, how will there ever be a pulp mill in the Peace

River area to utilize the vast stands of timber there that

today are not being utilized with this bill and the threat of

takeover hanging over the heads of anyone, or any would-be

investor in this province? No; it will be like the

"Can-Cel-lation" in Quesnel, only that isn't even in the

planning stage yet, and it'll never get off the ground — it'll

never come to the planning stage with the threat of Bill 171

hanging over their head.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): There won't even be

a feasibility study.

Mr. Phillips: Let's take a look, Mr. Speaker, at the

political cover-up in this bill.

Our leader yesterday afternoon, in speaking, termed it very

aptly when he said it was a "political lie". But this bill is

really a sinister bill because the Act gives the B.C. Forest

Products Board the power to do almost anything it wishes to do

in the industry. That power, Mr. Speaker — that power contained

in this bill — is without recourse to the Legislature.

Yes, it's in there, Mr. Speaker. You look puzzled — it's in

there.

But, oh — take heart. We're going to have a report once a

year; we're going to have a report a year later. Maybe it'll be

like the statement of public accounts — it'll not only be a year

later, but it'll be eight months after the year — the report

like we're going to have from ICBC after injections of hundreds

of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to make the report

look good.

This new board, under the terms of the bill, will be able to

have complete government financing. The government will back

their bonds, back their loans with taxpayers' money. Under this

bill the B.C. Forest Products Board has the power to borrow

money, the power to issue bonds, the power to issue debentures,

the power to issue other types of securities, the power to

mortgage, hypothecate or pledge real property. These are pretty

strong powers. This board is backed by the taxpayers of British

Columbia and we in the Legislature will have no access to their

workings.

If the bill was not designed as a takeover, why is there

power in the bill to acquire shares and debentures in any

company? If this is not the intent, maybe the Minister, in

closing debate, will outline….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: It's all right for you to make light of

the situation; it is all right for you to make light of the

discussion. But I would like you, in closing debate, to outline

to the Legislature why all of these powers are in the bill, why

you didn't mention these powers when you were introducing the

bill — explain to the Legislature why the powers are in the

bill if you are not going to use them.

An. Hon. Member: He didn't want to talk about

that.

Mr. Phillips: No. He is trying to shade us from the

truth.

He will have the power, Mr. Speaker, to appoint to this

board of directors of the B.C. Forest Products Board his own

stooges who will take his orders and do what he says without

recourse to the cabinet or without recourse to the Legislature.

And what the Minister can't do directly, he will do

indirectly.

He decries big business, and yesterday during introduction

of second reading he made this abundantly clear — that he is

against big business. Yet when it came to appointing the

directors, or getting into bed with big business in Can-Cel —

directors live in the United States, the directors of Can-Cel

are directors of multinational corporations. He decries it on

the one hand, and does it on the other.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Gets

special contracts on Ocean Falls.

Mr. Phillips: How are we supposed to think about this

Minister when he has a sort of a double-barreled effect? One

time he shoots out of one barrel, and the other time he shoots

out of another.

Mr. Bennett: Most of the time he misfires!

Mr. Phillips: Yes, most of the time he misfires, and

I'm afraid he's misfiring on this one.

He used this crisis in the wood chip business as a method of

bringing in this very controversial bill.

This party has consistently complained to that Minister

about the price of wood chips in British Columbia. We advised

him and told him last spring that there should be negotiation,

that there were going to be problems for the small sawmill

operator. But what did he do? He brought in a new formula

[ Page 4884 ]

that compounded the problems for the small operator. He

didn't relieve the situation; he compounded it. He created this

crisis and he must take full responsibility for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to keep hammering the same

old points in this Legislature, but as long as this type of

legislation is placed before us we are obligated, because all

of the legislation seems to have the same points of view —

takeover, powers, limitless powers.

I'm afraid the people of this province may be put to sleep

and not realize exactly what is going on. That is the great

danger. Maybe that is what the Minister has been planning on.

Maybe that's why this bill was brought in at this time.

The same old points of takeover, central state control,

power over all aspects of the economy, control over production,

control over distribution, control over pricing — I know it

sounds like the same old story. Indeed, it is the same old

story that we've heard from this government for the last 2 1/2

years.

This bill is a double-barrelled bill, somewhat like a gun I

used to have. It was a 22 over-and-under 410 shotgun. The top

barrel was 22 calibre, and that's the first shot this Minister

has. It's aimed directly at increasing the wood prices, and

it's making, to some extent, the small lumber, the small mill

operator happy. But I warn them about the bottom barrel because

that's a shotgun, and the shot will spread and these same small

operators, who may be protected from the first shot, will get

splattered and hurt with the second shot. That is exactly what

will happen.

We have seen in the last 2 1/2 years control over land,

control over the marketing of agricultural products, control

over mining, control over insurance, control over housing,

control over rental accommodation, and now the big fuss — the

final blow comes — control over the forest industry.

This should be a lesson to other industries in this

province. I ask them now; never come to this government for

help because if they come to this government for help, this

government will let the crisis deteriorate to such a point that

they can justify stepping in and taking over under the guise of

saving it. This seems to be the series of events which follows

most of the legislation. So I warn other segments of the

economy: don't come to this government for help.

This Minister could have offered to negotiate, help the

small lumber operators negotiate with the pulp mills to get a

better price. This government could have led the way through

their large control of Can-Cel to increase the price of wood

chips. We didn't need this bill to do what the Minister wants

to do — increase the price of wood chips.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that our forest industry will not only not grow,

but will decline, and it will be then that the people of this province will

suffer in unemployment.

One of the biggest problems that is causing a great deal of

concern among the small mill operators in this province in the

length of time that it takes today to get a cutting permit. I

don't know whether this bill is going to solve that problem,

but that is one of the problems being experienced by these

small operators who are suffering financial problems today.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The morale of the Forest Service of British Columbia is at

an all-time low. Where it used to take approximately three

months to get a cutting permit, it now takes two years. Why,

Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: "Oh," the Minister says. The

truth hurts, doesn't it? Two years to get a cutting permit. Two

years where it used to take three months.

Can you imagine some logger, Mr. Speaker, trying to get a

cutting permit, trying to plan his operation, going through the

bureaucracy that now exists in this man's department, in this

Minister's department? Overlapping of jurisdictions — one

department that doesn't want to cut trees, another that does —

one that wants to preserve the ecology. What we have got is a

bureaucratic jungle. How can these small independents,

struggling with a new stumpage rate, new formula, trying to get

cuts, trying to preserve themselves, and then wading into this

bureaucratic jungle that this Minister has created…?

The cost of logging under this Minister's jurisdiction is up

approximately 25 per cent. That's one of the problems; that's

one of the reasons why the small operators are suffering

economically in the province today. That's one of the reasons.

Two years to get a cutting permit, and their costs go up 25 per

cent.

No, Mr. Speaker, the morale in that bureaucratic jungle that

has been created by this Minister is at an all-time low because

of that Minister's bungling. And the Minister knows it. The

Minister knows now that it takes two years to get a cutting

permit; the Minister knows that it only used to take about

three months.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate

his remarks to the principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll take your

comments under advisement. But if you feel that the economic

liability of the small operator is not part and parcel of the

principle of this bill, well, I will certainly stand

corrected.

I'm glad you mentioned the point. I say this to

[ Page 4885 ]

you, Mr. Speaker, as I said before you took the chair: this

crisis that exists today has been created by this Minister.

No. 1, the new stumpage formula that he introduced.

No. 2, the length of time to get a cutting permit.

No. 3, all of the rigmarole and red tape that these

operators have to go through has increased their cost of

operation by some 25 per cent, at a time when wood prices are

down.

That is what has compounded the problem. That Minister could

have cleared up this problem without bringing in this bill.

This bill is nothing but an overkill on the part of that

Minister, the true intent of which is to take over and control

the entire forest industry. That is the intent of this bill,

Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for bringing it to my

attention.

Now let's examine some of the facts.

The Minister went to great lengths yesterday afternoon to

talk to us about the Pearse report as being the basis for Bill

171. He stated in the Legislature when he was introducing the

bill that this was recommended. So this is how he was able to

go ahead and this was the basis for Bill 171.

Let's take a look at some of the facts about the Pearse

report; let's take a look at the composition of the task force

that compiled the Pearse report.

One man on it was a civil servant, the Chief Forester, E.L.

Young, who is under the direct control of that Minister. And

you expect an unbiased report? I'm not trying to discredit this

civil servant, but the man is human and he's under the wing and

under the control and under the direction of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Who was the second man on the board? A man employed by

Can-Cel. What is Can-Cel? Can-Cel is a public company owned 79

per cent by the provincial government under the control of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Pearse is very knowledgeable and very educated, but he

was not given sufficient time to complete his report under

definite stringent time limits. He is a very knowledgeable man

who didn't have time to check into the complete aspects of the

forest industry in British Columbia. He is a man maybe not as

well-versed in the business end of the forest industry as he

could have been but, nevertheless, a very capable man. But with

him on this task force are two people under the direct control

of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Would you call that an independent study, Mr. Speaker? No

way would I call it an independent study.

A task force, Mr. Chairman, was given an impossible deadline for the first

report which dealt with only one particular tenure and the royalty rate for

it. The task force did not have time to consider them in the context of the

entire framework of forest management in the province, in spite of repeated

recommendations by the industry and, in particular, by the independent sector

of the industry.

Now, would it be possible for this Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources to reach his conclusions and then

tell this task force to go out and bring in the study to prove

him right? Why, if we wanted an independent study, didn't we

have independent people to complete the study?

Now, I'm not saying that the report is….

Hon. G. R. Lea (Minister of Highways): What are you

saying?

Mr. Phillips: I'm questioning the report that the

Minister based his whole bill on. Why didn't we have an

independent study? Why, didn't we have a study where those who

were having input to the report could be cross-examined and be

made responsible for their submission to the task force?

The very language of the second report would indicate that

it also was rushed for lack of time, A great deal of it was

extracted from government reports already written, particularly

the

section on page 127 on the timber authority.

The value of a man like Professor Pearse was not fully

realized because of the time limits given.

We have heard in the past that we're going to have open

government. We've heard in the past that the committees are

going to do work and bring in recommendations. What happened to

the forestry committee? Why would this Minister not give the

forestry committee the terms of reference so they could have

done an in-depth study into the reports that he wanted brought

in? I have to ask again: was it because the Minister wanted

certain conclusions reached in this report so that he could

justify his bill?

No, the Minister took a great deal of time to give

credibility. I was wondering why he was spending so much on the

Pearse report as an independent report on which he would be

given the authority for the terms of reference to introduce

this very controversial bill. This task force did not even

operate under the Public Inquiries Act. What was so secret? Why

the rush?

Why didn't the Minister have his $5 million think tank at

the University of Victoria do the report? The taxpayers are

paying $5 million….

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, The taxpayers of this province are

paying $5 million to have a task force advise the government on

economic development and economic planning.

I want to tell you, there is no segment of our economy as

important as that segment which we are

[ Page 4886 ]

discussing here today. Yet with a $5 million task force at

the University of Victoria, under Dr. Mason Gaffney, the

Minister didn't even utilize it. Why? Is it because we know

that Dr. Gaffney and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources think alike and the report would have not had

credibility? Did he want to utilize another area, another

professor to give his report credibility?

This Minister has got what he wants from this task force and

is letting it die before we have full time to consider it.

That's why he rushed in with this legislation. He is letting it

die before we have time to consider and recommend on the entire

terms of reference. This is typical of what to expect from this

Minister.

The great fear of every clear thinking and fair-minded

British Columbian is that the investigative sections of Bill

171 can be misused to the advantage of this Minister. Clear,

open reports are necessary for decision-making in market policy

and in forest policy.

I certainly have a great deal of respect for Professor

Pearse, but a lot of the terms of reference in the report were

never even mentioned in the report because there was. not time.

For instance, terms of reference were,

" — that the full potential contribution of the public forests to the economic and social welfare of

British Columbians is realized, recognizing the diverse

commercial wood products, recreation and wildlife benefits,

domestic stock grazing and environmental values of forest

resources."

What happened to that segment of the report?

" — that the payments made for Crown timber reflect the full

value of the resources made available for harvesting, after

fair and reasonable allowance for harvesting costs, forestry

and development costs and profits; and that the marketing

arrangements for timber products permit their full value to be

realized."

That is a very wide, broad-ranging term of reference, and

there is no way that this task force could complete an in-depth study of the forest industry in British Columbia in the

time allotted. So I say again: is it possible that the Minister told them what

he wanted in the report and then went out and said: "Bring in a

report that will prove that I'm right, because this is what I

want to do"?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister tabled a report from the B.C.

Research Council. It outlined what pulp mills should pay for

wood chip prices. Let's take a look at that report, because the

Minister is going to base his price that he and the cabinet are

going to set on this report.

All right, the report was started sometime in early summer. The report was

shrouded in secrecy. The industry really didn't know that the report was being

prepared. There was no input from the pulp mills involved. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Speaker, a letter was written in August to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources offering on behalf of eight pulp mills in British Columbia

to completely open their books to the B.C. Research Council so that they could

really do an in-depth study of the cost of producing pulp in this province.

What happened to that letter, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): What happened to the

offer?

Mr. Phillips: What happened to the offer? What

happened to the letter? No reply from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

Another letter on October 1 was sent to the Minister, again

offering to open the books of the complete pulp mill industry

in British Columbia to that Minister, so that the B.C. Research

Council could go in and do an in-depth study using facts and

figures as they existed. But no answer from the Minister. He

chose to ignore the offer made by the pulp companies in British

Columbia to open their books so that a proper and thorough

research could be carried out so that the report that would be

tabled in this House would be factual.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you:

why did the Minister not accept the offer to open the books of

these pulp companies? They are the ones that are using the wood

chips. The books would have been there — the costs, the cash

flow, the investment, the debts — so that a study could have

been done. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: where did this price of $60

a cunit originate from, without him knowing the full facts? Why

did that Minister turn his back on the industry? Why did he not

accept their offer? I have to conclude that that Minister

doesn't really want to know the facts. He and the cabinet are

going to set the price. No reply. How could the B.C. Research

Council compile a report without knowing the facts?

Well, the Minister said that in this report the researchers

found that mills felt it was necessary that they earn 25 per

cent on their equity, taken after interest and before taxes, in

order that further investment not be discouraged. To realize

this, the mills would have to earn between 13 and 20 per cent

on their total investment.

Now let's look at some facts and figures from Price

Waterhouse & Co. I'm not going to go back over all the

years, but just briefly and for the record, Mr. Speaker, I want

to outline that the return on investment in 1967 from eight

pulp mills in the province, based on a Price Waterhouse report,

was minus 1.8 per cent. In 1968 it was minus 0.4 per

[ Page

4887 ]

cent; in 1969, 1.9 per cent; in 1970, 3.2 per cent; in 1971,

2.2 per cent; in 1972, .8 per cent; in 1973, 4.3 per cent; and

in 1974, 11.6 per cent.

So you must realize that in 1974, as I stated before this

afternoon, lumber prices were never higher in the history of

British Columbia, and the world demand was never greater. They

received a return on investment of 11.6 percent.

Now I'm not attempting to protect the big pulp companies,

I'm just outlining some facts and figures. The report prepared

by the B.C. Research Council states — and that's return on

investment, 11.6 per cent — that they must have a return on their

investment of between 13 and 20 per cent. Now that return on

investment of 11.6 per cent is when they were paying last

year's prices for chips. What would happen, Mr. Speaker, if the

chip price goes to $60 per cunit, f.o.b. the pulp mill? It's

projecting, and I didn't project these figures, but it's

projected.

Well, B.C. Research Council wrote the report and Price

Waterhouse wrote the other report that the return on investment

would be 7.5 per cent. All right, let's look at the return on

equity. The report says that the return on equity should be 25

per cent after taxes. The return on equity…and I won't go

back over the years again because they flow in the same ratio

as the return on investment. In 1974 it was 18 per cent. That

was paying the price they paid for chips last year.

Now if they pay $60 a cunit for chips, the projected return

on equity would be 9.8 per cent, Well, the report from the B.C.

Research Council itself says that they should receive 25 per

cent.

But oh, no, who's going to set the price? It's not going to

be from an in-depth study, where somebody goes in and looks at

the books of the pulp mill companies, as was offered. No, no.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the

cabinet are going to set the price — based on what?

You know, I have to look at the credibility of the B.C.

Research Council report, in view of the circumstances I have

outlines in the House this afternoon. Yet these two reports are

what the Minister is basing his whole philosophy and the whole

future of the forest industry in British Columbia on.

It doesn't appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that we're on very

sound ground. The report was not an impartial report. What we

need, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make major changes and

move in entirely different directions in the forest industry in

British Columbia, is an in-depth, impartial study, because it

affects the livelihood of all of British Columbia. It affects

the economy of British Columbia. It's not just some small part

of our economy.

As I said at the outset, it is the industry that generates 50 cents out of

every dollar, and this Minister is choosing the direction that he wants this

industry to go, without really having impartial, in-depth studies. That's why

we're concerned, Mr. Speaker. That is why every person in the industry is concerned.

Here is a man who thinks he must have some gift from above,

I'm sure that he must in his own mind think this, because he's

going to take this industry in a completely new direction. He's

going to control it through his B.C. Forest Products Marketing

Board. He alone will have the control, with unlimited power,

basing it on the assumption and on the recommendations of what

I consider to be not impartial reports.

Can you wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we say this bill is a

sinister bill? Do you wonder why we keep asking why these

powers are necessary in this bill? I'll tell you why, Mr.

Speaker. It's because we are concerned, and I want to tell you

that this government is not listening. As I said last night,

this government is not listening to the people of British

Columbia. They are working on their pet theories and they

really do not have their ear to the ground.

You know, it concerns me just how much lower we can go.

There's an old saying that it is pretty hard to fall off the

floor. Well, I think that that's where this Minister is trying

to direct the economy of British Columbia — right on the

floor.

There has been a lot of talk about the decline in the number

of small sawmills in this province. Our Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) last night expounded at some length

about the decline. "Were you over there proud of the decline of

the small lumber operators in British Columbia in the last 20

years from 22,000 to some 600-odd?" But let me point out again

for the benefit of this Legislature what happened, and let's

take a look at the real issue.

The decline is the small lumber industry and the small

lumber operators in this province was a result of

recommendations from the Sloan Report on forestry where, in

essence, it said: "We are having too much waste and not enough

utilization in our forest industry."

Then what happened? Pulp mills and small operators, small

lumber mills, got together to work together in the north and

central part of our province for close utilization. This meant

that a small sawmill would be a more complex operation. If

further meant that sawmills must be on the railroads so that

they could move their chips and move their other products

between the pulp mill and the small operator. This is why there

was a decline in the wasteful use of our lumber. The small

sawmill that used to operate in the woods was a wasteful unit.

This is why they declined.

But let's look at the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker.

Now there are approximately 20 times as many people employed in

our forest industry as there were in 1952 — 20 times as many

people employed in our forest industry now as there were in

1952. So the Minister can stand up and make a big thing about

the

[ Page 4888 ]

decline of the small sawmill operator. As I said before,

he's got big eyes in the back of his head, but I sometimes

doubt his vision for the future.

It is all right for him to condemn and pick out the one

segment of this society that he thinks people will buy for

political reasons, but let's look at the true facts. There are

20 times as many people employed in the forest industry today

as there were 20 years ago.

How much more utilization are we getting out of our forest

industry than we did 20 years ago? No one can estimate it. I'm

not going to go into the number of board-feet and the

multiplier effect, but the Minister has a report, called the

Reed report, which outlined to him how the lumber industry and

the growth of pulp mills in Prince George related to the economy

of that sector.

Maybe that Minister doesn't want growth. Maybe he doesn't

want investment capital. Maybe he wants to control his own

little kingdom. But for him to stand on the floor of this

Legislature, and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) to stand on the floor of this Legislature, and make a

big thing about the decline of the small sawmill operations

when he knew and understood the economics behind it, knew that

we were getting better utilization out of our natural resource

than ever before…. No, Mr. Speaker, we need some more study

before this bill passes second reading.

We need some appeal procedures, because in this bill there

are no appeal procedures. In no way can a small operator appeal

a decision of the Minister if this bill becomes law. No longer

can anybody appeal the price that that Minister will regulate.

No longer will anybody be able to appeal any segment of the

control that he intends to take over in that industry.

Is this democracy, Mr. Speaker? I ask you in all conscience:

is that democracy?

An. Hon. Member: Dictatorship.

Mr. Phillips: No, it's dictatorship. You're right on,

dictatorship.

We have an instance just recently where Rim Forest Products

was damaged to the tune of $500,000 by a procedural error in

that Minister's department. That's why Rim Forest Products are

closing down. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: what right of appeal did

they have? No, he's in control. "Close them down and we'll take

them over, or start up somewhere else; only we'll be in it the

next time." That's why Rim Forest Products are closing down: a

clerical error on stumpage 1n his department. No appeal

procedure, no appeal procedure. Surely to goodness we are

moving just a little bit too fast and in the wrong direction

with this bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time this government

stopped for a moment and realized what they are doing to the

economy of this province.

Surely to goodness they can see the effects of some of their

legislation, the effect it is having?

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) over there claps his hands when unemployment is

increasing in British Columbia greater and faster than in any

province in Canada. The Minister of Labour claps his hands.

Shame on that Minister!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by asking the Minister to

use some common sense. Have a proper in-depth study done. Have

a royal commission before you move ahead in this direction,

because not only will you live to regret it, but all of the

citizens of British Columbia will live to regret it, But you

won't be there, Mr. Minister, so you won't care.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): I want to speak just

briefly on a subject that is brought up in the bill, a subject

which we have had to refer to before during second reading of

other bills in this House, and one which we are almost ashamed

to talk about here again today.

The subject is the matter of the disregard for contracts.

Again we have to draw this to the government's attention. We

had to do it under the PNE Act, if you remember, under this

same Minister. We have had to talk about it under the marketing

board Act where it occurred again, a completely callous,

blatant disregard of contracts. We talked about it under the

Energy Act, and now here again under the Timber Products

Stabilization Act — a complete disregard for contracts.

Whether this be a certified contract or an implied contract,

we have a moral responsibility for recognition of a contract of

the administration of the province to the people of the

province.

Here is an example of an industry which has been kept

floating because of investment confidence. Here is an industry

that we are debating today, debating the business of chip

prices for the interior;

whereas not too many years ago chips

were not even being utilized in the interior. There were dozens

of little sawmills, yes, but there was no utilization of chips.

There was no close utilization. The reason for it was that

there wasn't a pulp plant within earshot of the place so that

you could utilize the chips.

Here we have a company — a private company to be sure —

investing $125 million to ensure that there could be a use for

the chip products from the interior. They brought the pulp

industry to the interior. Without it, we wouldn't even be

debating the bill we have today as there wouldn't have been an

industry in the interior to bring an investment of $125 million

into.

Let them build their plant. And before they've had

[ Page 4889 ]

an opportunity to realize their return on that investment or

the investment itself, or had an opportunity through tax

advantage to write it off, bill is brought in that completely

shuts them out of the opportunity to realize this. That is a

breach of contract.

Here in the interior we have an industry that exists today

because there was enough confidence in investment to construct

that particular plant. Now we have a bill that sets up the

enabling procedure where the Minister by regulation can

regulate the price of chips which that plant must pay without

due respect — I hope it's with respect — but without due

respect to the operating expenses of that particular plant. The

Minister is able to say, "In our opinion, that plant is able to

pay more without due regard for the contract."

We could say, "Yes, now they are able to pay more, but in

the future who knows whether or not they will be able to pay

more?"

With the installation of this new lack of confidence in the

province one thing is certain: that company or any other

company will not be investing or expanding its facilities to be

sure that they can be a viable operation. The disregard for

contract that we have had to talk about so many times in this

House has eroded that confidence.

If we take this step now of providing higher chip prices by

regulation, it will only necessitate another Band-Aid job a

little later on if and when the price of paper drops. This

suggested price of $60 per cunit is possible only because of

the high value of end product. When that end product drops in

price, we will have to come along and do another regulatory

Band-Aid job.

To say the indicators are that the market for pulp and paper

are firm and that the prices have been increasing — which we

heard the Minister say; he gave us the track record over the

past years — is fine. But to say that market will be stable

enough to support the cunit price of $60 is futile because the

price of lumber just a year ago appeared to be on an upward

trend and appeared to be stable with great demands for building

both here and south of the border. Great demands on sale;

possibilities of foreign trade. Indeed, that Minister said in

this House, "The lumber industry in this province is better

than it has ever been before."

But just a year later, here we face sawmills which are

saying to us that no longer can they continue operations, and

we have to take some kind of action. The most obvious action,

although perhaps not the best-thought-out action, is the action

which this Minister has taken to simply guarantee them a

greater price per cunit for their product.

I think that it is better to have a formula that ties the chip price to the

end-product price, particularly without the 80 per cent penalty which this Minister

brought in by regulation.

This disregard that I talked about earlier for contract

is a strange thing. It appears in this bill near the beginning, and it simply

says:

"Notwithstanding any other Act or regulation, or any agreement or arrangement made before or

after this Act comes into force, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council….

and so on and so forth.

This bill starts out by stating clearly the disregard for

contracts, but, Mr. Speaker, a little later on page 7 in

section 13 of the bill, the Minister clearly decries this lack

of disregard for contract and wants to inject some longevity

into contracts. He says:

"… the Crown in right of the province, notwithstanding

that the person whose signature is so reproduced may not have

held office at the date of the notes, bonds, debentures, or

other securities or at the date of the delivery thereof, and

notwithstanding that the person who holds any such office at

the time when any such signature is affixed is not the person

who holds that office at the date of the notes, bonds,

debentures, or other securities or at the date of the delivery

thereof."

He wants longevity to the contracts which he makes but he

does not want to give any continuity of contract to contracts

made before the date that he took office.

Mr. Speaker, we have to decry that kind of practice; we have

to decry that kind of attitude. When we see the conflict that

appears within a very few pages of each other, this bill

clearly cannot be supported again in the area of the disregard

for contracts.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

speak against this little chip bill — this little simple chip

bill which has been more than two years in the making. It has

been jelling slowly, waiting for the appropriate time in the

British Columbia economy, waiting for some need to show itself,

waiting for some point where the Minister could divide and

conquer the woods industry. But be not mistaken; the woods

industry is not divided.

The sawmills know and they know full well that they're being

set up now for future problems. Perhaps they feel better the

devil they know now than the devil down the road a little way.

Perhaps they're hoping for a miracle. Or perhaps they're

hoping, better still, for the defeat of this government.

The independent operators know that they have lost their

independence of action. They know that once this bill passes,

no longer will they be independent operators. They know that

their independence has gone.

They had hoped, I'm sure, for a temporary measure to ease

them over this current problem. They

[ Page 4890 ]

knew this government had ample power to do exactly that on a

temporary basis. But this is not a temporary bill. This is not

a simple solution to a pressing immediate problem. This simple

little chip bill has nine pages of powers to give this Minister

the power to control the forest industry. And that is his goal,

without question — the goal of control of the forest

industry.

We have seen in some other bills the power that this

government has, and they passed it in the other segments of the

economy. Everyone in this province has known that sooner or

later the other shoe would fall.

An. Hon. Member: Clang!

Mr. Morrison: Clang, that's correct. This bill brings

it down. You're absolutely right. Now we have it; now we have

the other shoe.

We know it matters not what is said in this House concerning

Bill 171, for we know — and I'm sure the public knows — that

this government is determined to pass this legislation. And we

know that in due course it will pass.

But let no one forget how this little bill was presented to

this House. When we look back to this day, when we have the

advantage of history, when we may look back through the eyes of

history to the results of this legislation, when we see that

the Minister wants the power to cancel all existing contracts…. But we also know that he wants his contract to live on

long after he's gone. And incidentally, that can't be too soon

for the majority of the people in British Columbia.

This bill, this contract is one of the most dangerous

contracts that we're ever going to see in this province. When

the public understands completely what has happened to their

rights since this government came to power, when they see their

tax dollars used to destroy the system by which they were

attracted to this province originally, I'm sure that the public

will express their wishes, and they will express them clearly

at the ballot box.

Therefore, why not give us that opportunity soon? Why not

give the public the opportunity to say what they think about

this bill, and give them the opportunity to say so, too.

This bill will give the Minister a Crown corporation in

direct competition to the operators, if he wishes. If he

wishes. Those private operators will be required to give access

to their confidential and competitive information — if he

wishes. But the Crown corporation can be excluded from this

part of the legislation — if he wishes.

The industry is not divided, but it is apprehensive. It is

apprehensive of the powers which will end up in one man's hands — this Minister's hands.

I'm sure that the public understood the implications of Bill 74, when the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) was given the power to spend from general revenue,

and to purchase shares in any company. I'm sure that the public will understand

this bill when they see the powers that Minister has — even wider powers — and

powers which require the Minister of Finance, under sections 13, 14 and 15,

to supply the money necessary for his various schemes.

The Minister said just a few minutes ago: "We're happy."

Happy for what? Happy that the B.C. economy is in a decline?

Happy that unemployment is rising? Or is he happy now that he

has the opportunity to take complete control of the forest

industry?

The responsibility is his: is he right? I don't think so,

and I'm sure the public doesn't think so.

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate.

This rump group here, that's speaking for monopolies — H.R.

MacMillan, Crown Zellerbach — tell us about your poll of the

independent sawmills. How's it going, fellows? Have they told

you: "Shut up; sit down; keep quiet. We need this bill to

survive"?

What do you really think as businessmen? I was always more

scared of the big competitor up the street, not the government,

because the big competitor wanted every cent I had — he wanted

me out of business. H.R. MacMillan would drive every small,

independent sawmill operator out of business. And you people

pretend you speak for free enterprise. You're the worst type;

your party has sold out to monopoly.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the previous speaker who

always has pearls of wisdom for us.

Interjection.

Mr. Curtis: I'll be brief. Unlike the last speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Curtis: Oh, does the Member wish to carry on, or…?

Unlike the last speaker, I am not happy to take my place in

this debate, because I'm sorry that we have this bill to debate

in this Legislature in British Columbia in 1974.

Of course I am opposed to Bill 171 — the Timber Products

Stabilization Act.

Others more familiar with the forest industry and its

complexities have observed — but I am satisfied — that it is,

really, two bills, or perhaps a quarter of a

[ Page 4891 ]

bill and one and three-quarters of a bill. The smaller

portion dealing with an immediate problem related to wood

chips, and the other altering, or at least giving this

Minister, during his term in office, an opportunity and full

power to alter the entire forest industry structure as it has

grown and prospered in British Columbia.

It will be in committee, I think — in third reading — that

we will be able to deal with the very large percentage of the

bill, which the Minister chose to overlook when he introduced

second reading. He spent most of his time, as others have

commented, on the wood chip section, which is really one

section out of 21 in the some nine pages which comprise Bill

171. I think that is perhaps more significant than any comments

which can be made by any Member of this House — that behind the

smoke screen of wood whips, we have this total-control

document.

Mr. Speaker, it's a negative bill. It is motivated by

negativism, and it's destined, in our view, to do irreparable

harm to an industry, to confidence in that industry, to

expansion of that industry on any significant scale, and,

ultimately, to hoped-for increased employment in all sectors of

that industry. We have to ask why the Minister touched so

lightly on really what this bill is all about and sent most of

his time on chips. Again, the point must be made that, in

general, this Act gives the B.C. Forest Products Board the

power to do almost anything in the forest industry that the

government or the Minister directs, without reference to this

duly-elected Legislature. Let no one forget that vital point —

without reference to this Legislature.

I've read many of the newspaper comments which have been

published since this bill was introduced just a few days ago.

I'm not going to quote the entire

article in any case, Mr.

Speaker. Jim Lyon in The Vancouver Sun says:

"The B.C. government's proposed Timber Products

Stabilization Act, advertised as a measure aimed primarily at

assisting the small independent sawmiller by increasing the

prices he is to receive for his wood chips, was being viewed

with alarm by forest industry executives. Many industry people,

as they wrestled with the fine print of Bill 171's nine pages,

saw in its provisions the potential for ultimate government

control of all aspects of forest products marketing."

And later in the article:

"The consensus is that the NDP government has done nothing

by the introduction of this bill to remove the investment

uncertainty which has plagued the forest industry in the

province since it" — that is, the government — "took power 2 1/2

years ago."

We won't forget this week in the history of British Columbia in terms of legislation

which will exercise such tremendous control over one industry. But, at the same

time, Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised because the intent of Bill 171

was telegraphed to the people of British Columbia very early this year when

the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) spoke what is now about to become law. It was

a speech which caused concern at that time. There were denials; there were suggestions

that perhaps it was not interpreted quite the way in which it was intended,

and so on. Nevertheless, the Minister did not deny it, and now we know why.

The Hon. Member, who is not in his seat at the present time — the Member for Alberni — is chairman of the legislative

committee which deals with forestry. We now know that he was

flying the kite; he was trying out the concept which is about

to become law in British Columbia until it can be removed from

the statute books by a new government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, an

article in The

Vancouver Sun relating to Australia screamed at me in terms

of the comparison between the situation there, in a nation,

admittedly, and here in British Columbia.

Again, with your permission — I'm not going to read all of

the article. A number of Members may have seen it, but it is

titled: "Aussie Confidence Blown". It's The Vancouver

Sun , November 18:

"It has all happened so fast that no one down there is yet

giving any satisfactory explanations. Just the other day, it

seems, the Australian economy was doing fine — everything looked

very good. No more. Suddenly the Australian economy is in bad

shape and getting rapidly worse. Unemployment has more than

doubled in 10 months — 140,000 workers, or almost 3 per cent of

the work force now being jobless."

That percentage would be hailed with delight in British

Columbia, but for Australia it is abnormally high. Later in the

article:

"In the past two quarters the trade balance of exports and

imports has swung sharply against Australia, after having been

favourable for a decade. An alarming loss of confidence is

discernable in the private sector of industry." —

An alarming

loss of confidence is discernable. —

"Blame for this state of affairs is laid by the Australian

community at the door of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's Labour

government. Since coming to power two years ago, after 23 years

in opposition, this government, according to its critics, has

shown little understanding of economics realities. It chose to

ignore inflation's dangers.

"Until a few months ago the Whitlam administration was

taking steps such as yielding to the unions, approving large

wage hikes

[ Page 4892 ]

throughout industry and boosting government spending, which

added to the inflationary process. Economic nationalism was

applied with such severity that the inflow of foreign capital

investment was practically halted.

"An authoritative Sydney economic commentator, Brian Frith,

wrote last week: 'If it is possible to solve the problems of an

economy it has brought to the brink of collapse, the Labour

government will have to show a lot more strength of purpose and

a lot more economic understanding than it has so far.'"

The end of a lengthy

article dealing with the problems in

Australia which bear a marked similarity to what is developing

in British Columbia.

We have a Minister of the Crown who now is finally in a

position to exercise tremendous control and gross interference

with this province's No. 1 industry. That's what he wants, and

through this legislation, because of the government majority,

that is what he is going to get.

I have to conclude with the observation that it does seem

very strange that in spite of the heckling which has gone on

back and forth across the chamber over the last couple of

weeks, we have a mission in China at the present time — the

Premier, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the government Whip (Mr.

Barnes) and others. It seems very contradictory — contradictory

in the extreme, as a matter of fact — that if the Chinese visit

is really aimed at discussing and examining the possibility of

expanded timber markets, that the Minister of Economic

Development for this province (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who usually

indulges in cross-talk and heckling from other than his own

seat, is sitting here rather than in China, and that the

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

Williams) is also here rather than in China. Where are they?

They're not in China; they are here.

If we are to expand our forest markets, surely one or both

of them should have been included in that group. Instead, the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for this

province, in this NDP government, is in this House undertaking

what only can be described as a hatchet job on the British

Columbia forest industry. And we won't forget it.

Interjection.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I thank you for that

compliment.

I rise to express my opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker. But in one way I

find it a little different to understand what all the fuss is about. Certainly,

I don't think anyone in British Columbia should have been surprised that we

are sitting here discussing this particular bill today. In fact, everybody in

British Columbia probably should have been expecting exactly this bill if they

had been watching this government, and particularly watching and listening to

this Minister over the years.

This Bill 171 is the final proof that the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources is the major architect for major

government policy and for the government's programme of state

socialism.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill 171, is the final proof that

that Minister, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, is really the grey eminence behind the crown of King

David.

We've all watched as this Minister has forced his influence

to spread into every part of government in British Columbia as

he plants his henchmen in every major government department,

and as he has manipulated policy to reflect his own socialistic

and slightly twisted, at times, views.

We've all watched in this province as that Minister brought

in people like Dr. Mason Gaffney, and elevated the so-called

think tank and the Environment and Land Use Secretariat into

the two most powerful and influential bodies in the government

structure of British Columbia today.

No, we shouldn't have been too surprised about this bill.

While the Premier, who might be called the monkey in this

little scenario, is off at play in China, the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who can be referred to as

the organ grinder, is laying the final planks in his road to

socialism, British Columbia-style.

Nevertheless, while this Bill 171 comes as no surprise, it

certainly should alarm all the people of British Columbia —

even though they're not surprised. Make no mistake, Mr.

Speaker, the people of British Columbia are getting the message

finally. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

mentioned that the people are finally getting alarmed over the

route this government is taking and that this government isn't

listening. I'd like to suggest that the majority isn't silent;

the government is dead — that's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, like all true socialists, and like all true

socialist bills, the true intent of this bill is bidden or

obscured, at least, by a diversionary tactic. Of course, in

this bill that diversionary tactic is just a simple

section

which refers to chip prices, and really has very little to do

with the total intent of the bill.

In fact the Minister, during the opening debate on this

bill, really only dealt with that one diversionary

section

dealing with chip prices, while he had an obligation to really

tell the people of British Columbia exactly what he was up to.

The bill is a smoke screen because the regulation of chip

prices, as has been mentioned by other Members, could have been

achieved by negotiation with the people involved. The Minister

never even tried that route. He

[ Page 4893 ]

never even tried.

The title of this bill is the "Timber Products Stabilization

Act." It should be called the "Williams for king" bill. Mr.

Speaker, I can only feel pity for a Minister of the Crown who

would allow the economy of this great province to be driven

into the ground simply to satisfy his ideological urges. That's

what we're seeing in this bill.

It's strange that every bill which has felt the influence of

that Minister — as the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

has pointed out already — always seems to have some provisions

in it which allows for the wholesale cancellation of contracts.

Here we see it again. The Minister certainly hasn't mended his

ways concerning any kind of sanctity of legal agreement,

probably because he doesn't understand the word "sanctity." He

mends the contracts.

While the Minister dealt only, really, with wood chip

prices, the bill is full of areas for which the people of

British Columbia should be most concerned. Even in the

establishment of the British Columbia Forest Products Board …

simply another catch-basin for political appointees — hacks,

friends of government. The same old story that we see in

practically every bill that comes before this House.

section 4(

l) we have a

section which allows Members of

the Legislative Assembly to get on the gravy train and, I

guess, to provide the court jesters for King Bob on the

board.

Another

section of the bill,

section 19 is a simply

incredible

section in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may make regulations about anything, anytime, without any

reference to the Act, apparently, without any reference to any

kind of accountability on the part of that Minister. The

cabinet may make regulations. That's the kind of power that

Minister likes; that's the kind of power that Minister is going

to have, come hell or high water; that's the kind of power that

Minister will abuse once this bill is passed.

When he opened debate on this bill, the Minister didn't talk

about the alarming discretionary power that will be vested in

King Williams. Nowhere in this bill are there any sections

which ensure that someone will be able to appeal those

dictatorial regulations and rulings made by that Minister.

Nowhere in this bill is there provision for appeal either

against the decisions of the Minister, or the decisions of the

board, or any of the officials of the board. Mr. Speaker, those

kind of powers are frightening for the prospects of the future

of this province.

Here is a bill that gives to a board arbitrary powers on

matters which will have enormous, long-term and far-reaching

significance to the economy of British Columbia. No appeal.

More particularly this board can make decisions that will effect, in a most

immediate way, the economic survival of individual businesses and, indeed, individual

men and women — many of them in your riding, Mr. Speaker — who have spent their

lives establishing a business that they may be looking to as a hedge for their

retirement, or perhaps to look after their families when they're gone.

Here in Bill 171 the Minister stands in this House and says

that he wants to help the independent sawmills. What nonsense!

The Minister gave the Legislature some figures that show there

has been a reduction in the number of sawmills operating over

the years. Probably that is due, in a large measure, because

many of those small mills of old wasted just as much wood as

they cut. Sawdust and chips were burned or left on the ground

and the cost to produce 1,000 foot-board measure of lumber made

many logging chances uneconomic.

Further, with the limited production facilities of many of

the old-time sawmills, much of the wood was left in the bush

because they couldn't economically convert the smaller logs

into lumber. These were the bush mills that cut most of the

lumber in the province at that time. It's far less costly to

move the logs to central converting plants, rather than a

number of small sawmills throughout the woods. Modern

technology in recent years, most recent years, has advanced

that trend.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to bring you up to date on a

little bit of the history of things that happened in this

industry in British Columbia. But you will recall, I'm sure,

that to increase the utilization of these forests, the former

government encouraged the construction of pulp mills, and

incidentally, gave this province a much needed boost in its

economy in so doing.

In the interior, many of these pulp mills have no facilities

to consume whole logs, and they depend on their neighbours for

their chip supply. The cost of a barking and chipping facility

is about $1.5 million, a pretty considerable sum of money.

Because it's so expensive, it wouldn't make very much sense to

install this kind of machinery at every small mill which

operates in the bush. Also, to ship the chips, the people had

to locate on the railroad in order to facilitate that shipping.

Thus the trend to centralization was started.

At first only the medium and the larger logs were put

through the centralized sawmills. The former government, to

improve the utilization of our forest industry worked out a

plan that made it economic to bring that small wood to the

sawmills. If you don't remember, Mr. Speaker, that was called

close utilization. The loggers and the sawmills were given an

incentive to turn that wood, formerly wasted, into lumber, pulp

and paper. The waste was turned into jobs and income for the

people of British Columbia. And what's wrong with that? Are you

against that?

[ Page 4894 ]

Mr. Speaker, this close utilization programme worked

effectively until the present Minister changed the way that

stumpage charges were levied. The Minister took away the

incentive which made that close-utilization programme work. He

took away, as does this government in so many instances, and he

didn't replace it with anything.

Instead of the Minister talking about the declining number

of sawmills, he should be talking about the increased number of

jobs that were provided when the former government's programme

to encourage pulp mills in the interior was realized. More

jobs, more income, for the people of British Columbia. That

Minister should be talking about the jobs and wealth that were

created by the former government's close-utilization programme,

though he doesn't mention that.

To get back to the appeal procedures that are needed in this

bill, Mr. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Member, before I

leave the chair I would like to make one point — I didn't want

to interrupt your speech. I'm quoting from comments made by

Speaker Murray, January 31, 1969, as contained in the

Journals page 25, of that year:

"Hon. Members, during the course of the debate, some Hon.

Members, perhaps through inadvertence, have referred to other

Members by their proper names. It is my duty to remind the

House that from long-established usage, both in England and in

Canada, a Member while speaking may not refer to any other

Member in this manner, but only by his constituency or

portfolio. Authority will be found in May , 17th edition,

page 455 and Beauchesne , 4th edition, page 127."

The Hon. Member for Langley referred to the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) by his proper name….

Mr. McClelland: I never referred to the Member for

Esquimalt at all, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I believe it was the previous Member

in that case. But he did refer to the Hon. Premier by one of

his proper names rather than by his title.

An. Hon. Member: King Williams, was that it?

Mr. McClelland: Oh, was that who I was talking about,

Mr. Speaker, when I said King David? Oh, all right.

Deputy Speaker: When the personal name for the Hon. Member for Esquimalt was

used…. And I believe one of the government Members also referred to an opposition

Member by his proper name. I just draw this to the attention of the House.

Mr. McClelland: I appreciate your guidance, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): You are in Hansard for

today. (Laughter.)

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, once again I must

mention that there is a vital need within this bill, Bill 17 1,

for some kinds of appeal procedures.

I'd like to pose the question of what might happen if the

Minister, who has this total discretion under this bill, sets

log prices that are so low that they could have the effect of

bankrupting a logging company. Mr. Speaker, that could

happen.

Well, maybe this Minister wouldn't do that, but we certainly

have no assurance that that couldn't happen or wouldn't happen

under the terms of this bill, because the Minister has total

discretion and no appeal procedure is built in.

We see the situation that because the Minister today thinks

the pulp economy is so profitable that he should raise the

price of chips, and thereby take the profit from one group of

people and give it to another. Politics and socialism setting

the prices.

The same kind of situation confronted us in ICBC — politics

and socialism setting rates in a major Crown corporation.

Now we see politics and hard-core socialism about to start

setting the prices of products, and that's an appalling

concept. Politics and hard-core socialism using distorted

figures to arrive at the conclusion that the Minister wants to

arrive at, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

pointed out so clearly. Politics and hard-core socialism using

short, shallow, investigative inquiries that are rigged to get

the right answer.

An. Hon. Member: Right on!

Mr. McClelland: What is the scenario to the makeup of

the board? Well, we've heard already from the Member for South

Peace River, and I don't have to repeat that for the Members of

this Legislative Assembly, but they've got a token academic and

a couple of people who are under the heel of the Minister.

That's about the size of it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So the inquiry comes up. This year an inquiry came up — the

B.C. Research Council, was it? — which showed that the price

should be $60 per unit. Next year, what happens?

[ Page 4895 ]

An. Hon. Member: They refuse to look at the

books.

Mr. McClelland: That's right. Refused offers to look

at the books of the major pulp companies. The Minister ignored

their letters. Nobody paid any attention to them. But they came

out this year with a price of $60 per unit. Next year? What

happens next year?

If the pulp mill prices decline, and if Can-Cel, the

Minister's company, isn't making a profit, I wonder if we'll

see a new study by some tame bears put in by the Minister to

determine that chips are suddenly worth $10 a unit.

Politics in pricing. The second time in a major operation

and a major part of this economy that we've seen this kind of

politics in pricing. Because of this politics in pricing, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the value of the products

that we sell in competition with the foreign markets will be a

disaster. And what happens if a mistake is made — a mistake

made on the kind of improper facts the Minister's been

getting?

What happens if that mistake really precipitates the

bankruptcy of a business operating in this province? Where's

the right of appeal of that business? There's no right of

appeal either from the board or from the Minister.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Not under Bill 171, Mr. Speaker. Not

under the kind of hard-core socialism that we see in this bill.

Not under the anti-business, emotional make-up of this

Minister. There must be appeal procedures put into this

bill.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned

Rim Forest Products. That's a perfect example of the reason why

there should be an appeal procedures built in. Rim Forest

Products couldn't provide us with a clearer picture of what has

happened, what will happen and what could happen under the

total discretionary powers of the Minister and the board. For

those of you who don't know about Rim, it was a company located

in Hazelton which went bankrupt and had to close down because

of a clerical error. The company had a stumpage assessment of

35 per cent of the total value of their lumber produced, higher

than any other company in the province. In 1973 Can-Cel had

stumpage of 6 per cent of their sales — compared to 35 per

cent. Yet Can-Cel had stumpage of 6 per cent of their

sales.

In Rim's case an error of valuation was made by the Forest

Service — an error. The department used the lumber sales value

in no way applicable to Rim.

The overcharge was at least $0.5 million. There was a

$500,000 overcharge and no appeal. No appeal. If there was any

justice, and if this Minister had any genuine desire to help

independent sawmills, he'd give that $0.5 million back to Rim

Forest Products and let them get back to work and put those

employees back to work as well.

Do you know what happened to Rim Forest Products? I had the

good fortune to be up in Terrace at the same time that our

illustrious Premier was in Terrace, with his smiling fact

plastered all over the newspapers, asking people to come and

talk with him. As a matter of fact the Premier even told them

that they were having a public inquiry into the affairs of Rim

Forest Products, and that he'd like people to come and talk to

them about that as well.

He said, "Come on and see us; we want to hear about you.

We'd like anyone who has any kind of an interest in Rim Forest

Products to come to this public meeting."

What happened, Mr. Speaker, when that public meeting was

held? The doors were locked, barred and chained, and you

couldn't get in unless you flashed your NDP card first. Do you

realize that? Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? And the local

constituency paid for the ad.

Mr. Speaker, the bank manager, who held a substantial piece

of paper on Rim Forest Products, was told: "Well, we don't

really think you have an interest in this; you shouldn't be at

this meeting." That was the bank manager who held the note of

Rim Forest Products.

The secretary of the loggers' association was told: "I'm

sorry, you don't have any interest in this." The directors of

the company were told: "I'm sorry, you don't have any interest

in this association."

A fellow came all the way up from Terrace, on the basis of

the Premier's comments on the radio, to go to this meeting. He

had some bills the company owed him for some trucks that he had

sold. He was told that he couldn't come in. Who told him that?

It was the president of the local NDP association, who locked

and barred the doors of that public meeting and didn't allow

anyone who had a serious interest in the affairs of that

company to come in. Whether they were employees, shareholders,

creditors, or whoever they were, they were barred because they

had the wrong kind of card.

Mr. Speaker, that's the exact kind of thing that the

opposition has been warning the people of British Columbia

about. We've been saying that unless you have an NDP card,

unless you're like the Minister of Northern Affairs' executive

assistant, and are a good party worker, you don't have any

place in the affairs of British Columbia. That's the sad scene,

Mr. Speaker, and one that must be eradicated as quickly as

possible.

Anyway, what happened to Rim? Can-Cel refused

[ Page 4896 ]

to pay the rate of stumpage charged by the Forest Service on

the pulp logs that Can-Cel was contracted to buy. Can-Cel

refused. Under that contract Can-Cel was to buy Rim's pulp logs

at the cost of logging plus the stumpage. But the Minister's

company refused to pay the stumpage and left $80,000 unpaid

under this contract.

Mr. Phillips: That's how they made a profit.

Mr. McClelland: That's how they made a profit —

stealing from the little guy, while the company makes the

profit. They wouldn't pay an account payable. That's what it

was, Mr. Speaker — an account payable.

What happened next? Can-Cel moved in like a vulture to take

over Rim Forest Products. Break and take: that's the policy of

this government — break and take. Where was the Minister? Where

was the MLA, who sat back on the sidelines and watched all this

happening? He watched while a company in his own area,

affecting the constituents in his own area, went under, ruined

by the practice of this government.

There has to be some kind of an appeal procedure built into

this bill to protect an individual's business from the

socialists, or from clerical errors by the bureaucracy. Without

any kind of appeal procedure those errors can go unchecked, and

that's not fair. Bill 171 has no appeal procedure. Without it

this province is going to be scattered with Rim Forest Products — businesses set up and then taken over because of the

power-hungry appetite of a government bent on controlling

everything in this province by boards, commissions,

secretariats, or a bureaucracy of one sort of another,

particularly the kind of board that is set up which ensures a

conflict of interest among its Members, Mr. Speaker, people

with a bias and a blatant conflict of interest making the kind

of life-and-death decisions that will affect the very economy

of this province for years and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 171 hides the true meaning. But a

study of the history of things that have happened in the

socialist development of this country will show where the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources wants to lead

this province. His leadership holds out a frightening prospect

for the future of British Columbia.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources isn't

original, but then socialists seldom are. They're neither

original nor practical. But then history is full of power-mad

people who don't have any regard for the consequences of their

actions.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Mr. McClelland: He's not original. All you have to do is to look back

into the development of socialism in this province, starting with the Calgary

programme in 1932. The No. 1 priority of that programme was the system of socialization

of the production, distribution and exchange of all goods and services.

Then we move on to the Regina Manifesto in 1933 —

socialization of all transportation, communications, electric

power and all other industries and services essential to social

planning, and their operation under the general direction of

the planning commission, which was something else. I don't know

whether that's Williams or Orwell, but it's one of the two.

It also said that that management by the planning commission

would be freed from the day-to-day political interference. Does

that sound like what happened at ICBC, or what will happen

under this vicious bill? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. Again,

the manifesto of that year as well insists that the resources

be brought under control of public ownership. The election

manifesto of 1944, Mr. Speaker. Once again — that was passed in

Montreal — public ownership of resource industry. Bill 171

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon.

Member would indicate where this deals with that subject. I

can't see it in the bill.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I would commend you to

go out and read….

Mr. Speaker: What

section are you referring to?

Mr. McClelland: I'm not allowed to read the

section-by-section….

Mr. Speaker: I have to determine whether a person is

speaking beside the principle of the bill or speaking to the

principle of the bill. I would like your assistance in telling

me which

section you say deals with that principle so that I

would know.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I have no obligation to

tell you which section….

Mr. Speaker: I have the obligation to the House…. .

Mr. McClelland: The whole bill deals with what this

socialist government wants to do to the people of B.C. The

whole bill — every section.

Mr. Speaker: My question to the Hon. Member is

whether he would indicate how it does speak to the principle of

the bill in what he's saying.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill is a

socialist bill. It provides for the takeover

[ Page 4897 ]

of the forest industry. It allows the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources to have total, unbridled powers in

the development of the forest economy, which is socialistic in

nature. The whole bill is permeated with that kind of tripe.

That's why we're talking about the socialist manifestos.

Mr. Speaker, I'm building a case that will show that this

bill is a takeover bill, nothing more and nothing less, and

that's my right under debate of the principle of the bill; and

I thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'm still not sure what

section

you're referring to.

Mr. McClelland: Well, read the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you'll be kind enough to tell

me.

Mr. McClelland:

Section 1, Mr. Speaker —

section 2

really doesn't apply —

section 3,

section 4,

section 5,

section

section 7,

section 8,

section 9,

section 10,

section 11,

section 12,

section 13,

section 14,

section 15,

section 16,

section 17,

section 18,

section 19,

section 20,

section 21, the

explanatory note and the title. Now does that satisfy you, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, it doesn't, because you haven't

indicated at all how it has anything to do with….

Mr. McClelland: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the whole bill has

to do with what I'm talking about. Now let me get on with it

and I'll finish as briefly as possible.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my time has been suspended while

you interrupted me.

Mr. Speaker: I have a heard a great deal of

discussion that is not related to the general principle of the

bill. I'm trying to draw the attention of the Member to the

fact that you must speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. McClelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has

my time been suspended while you interrupted me with your

points — about four minutes? I don't intend that my time is

taken up by your speeches.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the Hon. Member

has an obligation to speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. McClelland: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the

principle of this bill has to do with socialism and the

take-over of the forest industry in British Columbia.

It makes it very clear that the Minister has the kind of

power which this opposition has been warning the people of

British Columbia about for so many years.

I'm only saying that this bill is not really original. It

takes its origin from the manifestos of the past, delivered by

the various socialist conventions throughout the years.

We move on from the Winnipeg manifesto into the new party

declaration in 1961 when the NDP was established. "Once again

we'll establish and expand public ownership" — which is quite a

part of this bill, in allowing the Minister and the board to go

into public ownership and marketing of forest products, and if

you can't see that in the bill, Mr. Speaker, read it again —

"and the operation of major enterprises."

I wonder if the people of British Columbia are listening

when we talk about that. Then we go into the Waffle Manifesto,

which shows most clearly that the NDP will work for the

nationalization of Canadian resource industries. It gets even

more specific than that later on under the terms of the

manifesto and says: "The NDP must commit itself to the

immediate nationalization of resource industries and financial

institutions and to the public ownership of major

corporations." Are the people of British Columbia listening,

Mr. Speaker?

The resources, the manufacturing, the transportation, the

financial corporations. The real thrust says: "The corporations

which obstruct nationalization by economic sabotage or other

undemocratic means will be expropriated." Over and over and

over again we see the thrust of this government which has been

developed over all of these years. While it isn't original,

it's certainly frightening, Mr. Speaker.

Then we move right into the Williams manifesto of 1971, in

which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

said:

"First of all, we should establish an equity position by every right in every mine in British Columbia.

The acquisition of privately-owned corporations in the

resources field prior to major resource tax changes would be a

mistake, because the market price of those companies would be

grossly inflated because of the wide range of tax dollars."

I don't know whether that's Williams or Gaffney, but it

doesn't matter, because the thoughts are interchangeable. Mr.

Gaffney — or Professor Gaffney or Dr. Gaffney — said: "It's

much more sensible to nationalize by taxation rather than

takeover." Break and take, it's as simple as that — break and

take. That's the principle of this bill, and it will establish

that principle for all time so long as this government is in

power.

The Williams manifesto of 1971 says clearly: "that the NDP

place major industries such as pulp, paper,

[ Page 4898 ]

lumber, mining, manufacturing, transportation,

communications and finance under public ownership." It goes on

to say, Mr. Speaker: "Under the NDP government, MacMillan

Bloedel and other leading forest companies would have priority

in being nationalized." That's the Williams manifesto. I wonder

if Dennis Timmis heard about that one? The Williams manifesto —

the paper that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources delivered to the NDP convention in 1971….

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of the Minister's

dream. The machinery has now been delivered in the form of this

bill. The process of manufacturing a socialist Utopia, Williams

style, can now be begun in earnest because of this bill, Bill

17 1. The King Williams bill is here, Mr. Speaker.

The economy of British Columbia is dying; long live the

king.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a

great deal of pleasure to stand….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, would you defer for a

second on a point of order?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): The point of

order is simply this, Mr. Speaker: there is an established

tradition in this House that when a debate takes place on the

principle of the bill, it becomes wide-ranging. As long as the

speaker who is on his feet relates his remarks to the principle

of the bill, it has been a tradition that this House will allow

the Member to proceed. I think it little behooves the Speaker

of this House to run interference, on behalf of the cabinet

Minister….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It's not a point of

order.

Mr. Smith: …whose legislation is under attack, by

the manoeuvre that you pulled on the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty to see that

the Member speak to the question before the House. I wish to

point out to the Hon. Member that I asked him to indicate to

what

section he referred. It was on the subject of his

discussion. He did not indicate that. To merely recite 18

sections and say "they all indicated that" is really not an

answer to my question.

He was entitled to speak for his whole time. He continued to

speak in the same vein and he did not use all his time. I want

to point out that, so far as I'm concerned, he still hasn't

indicated to the House or to me the particular

section he

refers to that dealt with the principle he was espousing.

My job is to determine whether or not a Member is speaking to the principle

of the bill, and I like to get all the assistance from the House I can. So I

think that I quite fairly asked him to indicate to what

section he was directing

his remarks. He did not do that, in my opinion.

Now the matter simply rests there.

Mr. Smith: You, yourself, know that in times past

people have been ruled out of order and asked to change their

line of debate when they referred specifically to sections in

second reading of a bill; but the debate in second reading is

on principle of the bill, not upon the sections themselves.

Mr. Speaker: I agree entirely with the Member that

it's on the principle of the bill, but that does not allow us

to import everything into the debate. We must somehow relate it

to the particular subject of the bill.

What I'm trying to indicate to the Hon. Member — using an

abstract case as an example — is that if the subject happens to

be about how one disposes of stray dogs in the community, then,

of course, you don't debate the principle of how you deal with

stray cats.

This was the problem. I was trying to find out from the

Member how he related the remarks to any of the sections of the

bill. I haven't yet heard from him where it dealt with the

subject that he was discussing.

I've read the sections — I read them and I've listened

to the Hon. Member — but he didn't assist me. He said, for

example, that

section 5 related to the principle of the bill.

When you read that section, it has to do with the appointments

of directors.

If you look at something else —

section 7 — it deals with "

… the objects of the board are…the power to improve the

performance of markets for forest products, and to encourage

the utilization of timber in the province."

Now that does not, as I see it, with great respect, deal

with the subject of nationalization.

Now if we're dealing with a subject of nationalization, then

I say by all means debate it. But if we are not dealing with

that subject, then surely it's going beyond the principles of

the bill.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, just because you don't

understand the bill is not my fault, and we can't help

that.

Mr. Speaker: That's the assistance I asked from this

Member, but you didn't give it to me.

Mr. Lewis: Seeing that the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) had such latitude in discussing the bill, I hope

that I'll have the same chance to respond.

Interjections.

[ Page

4899 ]

Mr. Lewis: I'd just like to say that I'm indeed

honoured to stand in support of Bill 171. The speeches by the

Members at the far end of the House — the Socreds — just amaze

me. They're so far to the right that the Conservatives look

like Communists. (Laughter.)

As a matter of fact, the Conservatives weren't far enough to

the right, and one of their Members crossed the floor so he

could get in with a group that was away over to the right.

It's the first time I've ever seen anything crawl onto a

sinking ship.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I've heard the Member stand

up and speak about the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources as being dangerous. I ask the House to take a look at

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Does he

look dangerous?

To me he looks like a trustworthy Minister, one who's got a

kind heart, one who has the respect of the forest industry in

this province. The Minister has such respect from the forest

industry that Doman's have just announced that they are

prepared to build a $7 million mill on Vancouver Island — just

today while this debate is going on.

It is my view that Doman's feel that they are going to be

protected under this bill; they are going to have a chance to

survive among the — I shouldn't say cutthroats — but among the

very large corporates which have been able to use their power

in the past to overwhelm the smaller producers.

You know, they speak about this bill being strong and

powerful — that it's a takeover bill. Well, these Members

supported the Milk Marketing Board bill. Did I hear any

hollering about taking over the farmers? Not one bit. But when

it comes to the large forest companies, they sing a different

song. When it comes to discussing landlord and tenant

legislation, they are on the landlords'. side. When it comes to

talking about minerals, and returning something to the people

of the province, they are on the mining companies' side.

At least the Liberals and Conservatives will just come out

and it is against their philosophy. They don't go around crying

and screaming until everybody in the province is starting to

worry that maybe the Socreds have lost their sense. And I think

by now they are certainly convinced of it.

I worked for 10 years in the logging industry. I worked for

large corporations. I worked for small logging companies. I'll

tell you that during that 10 years I had better treatment from

small, independent logging companies than I ever received from

large corporate giants.

I can remember one time when I was on a job towing cable up the hill by hand,

5/16 cable. We started out with about six men pulling this cable up, and I'll

tell you it was a real sweatshop. We just got started and another boss came

along and said: "Five of you guys come with me." Well, I was pulling for all

I was worth and finally the boss at the head of the line said: "How many of

you guys down there are pulling?" I said: "Just me." He said, "Well, then, spread

out." (Laughter.)

I live in a riding and represent a riding that's totally

made up of independent sawmills. Just out of my riding is a

pulp mill. It's a Crown resource that's being harvested, yet

the pulp mill is in a position to be a monopoly, to write a

contract without the proper escalating values in it. The

independent sawmills have suffered, and there is no way they

have had any recourse.

I'll tell you right now that the independent logging

companies and independent sawmills are mighty proud of this

Minister we have today. They talk about Can-Cel and they say:

"Oh, it's takeover." They talk about the very good purchase

that the Minister made, and say that this is terrible; it

should never have happened. Well, it seems to me that those

Members have a very, very, very short memory.

Back in 1961, July 31, at a time when the NDP and CCF were

having their formation convention, the then Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) called the House into session, a special session. You

know what that session was for? They introduced Bill 5, the

Power Development Act. It gave them the power to expropriate

the B.C. Electric.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lewis: You know, we've been in power two years,

and they spread their doom and gloom and say we are going to

take everything over. We haven't expropriated one thing. They

expropriated the B.C. Electric.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I have already drawn to the

attention of the Member preceding you that this question has

not been explained to me, in the bill, as to how it relates to

the matters of general principle which we are supposed to be

debating.

I quote from May , page 529 of the 16th edition, so that all

members may be aware of the problem that faces the Speaker on

this question of debate and the stages of a bill:

"In second reading it should not be extended to a criticism

of the administration, or of relating to the same or cognate

subjects, or provisions of other bills."

The general rule is that it should speak to the particular

matters confined in the bill.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you are, in effect, I

suppose, answering the other speaker who went into the general

history of everything, including the

[ Page 4900 ]

administration. But the real purpose of debate on this is to

deal with the subject of the bill itself, and confine one's

remarks to that bill.

Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost

respect for you. As a matter of fact, I admire you. But you

haven't been successful in the past in keeping the opposition

inside the terms. I feel they have been an advantage to the

government and I feel that I should have an answer to explain

that we are not a government that would expropriate anything.

We are nice people; we are not like them.

When they took over the B.C. Electric, those

free-enterprising businessmen, you know that they don't even

have the right in that bill for an independent appraisal? There

is no right of appeal — the same thing they've been screaming

and crying about.

This Minister and this government is here to see that the

people in this province, the small people, the independent

operators, have a chance to survive. If the corporate structure

had been allowed to increase, we would not have had a free

enterprise society in B.C., we would have had a

dictatorship.

This government