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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

4851 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 178) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4851

Mr. Smith — 4851

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 17 1). Second

reading.

Mr. Smith — 4851

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4856

Mrs. Jordan — 4859

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4864

Mr. Chabot — 4867

Mr. Kelly — 4871

Mr. Phillips — 4873

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker,

public bills and orders — second reading on Bill 178.

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I will be carrying this

bill on behalf of the Attorney-General. As you know, this bill

contains a number of principles; each one is a section. I

think, by agreement of the House, it will be better to move it

into committee so we can get at it properly. May I advise

Members that if they gave any queries specifically about any of

the sections, I should be pleased to respond to either a word

in the corridor, or a note in advance of the debate.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker, Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

agree with the Hon. Provincial Secretary that debate on this

particular bill is best handled in committee stage since every

clause in it deals with something slightly different. We would

be quite prepared to debate it in that stage.

Motion approved.

Bill 178, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. R.A. Williams requests leave to table three reports

prepared by the British Columbia Research Council on the

question of wood chip pricing on the coast and in the interior

of the province.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Second reading of Bill 171, Mr.

Speaker.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to see the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources table a report in the House, since he has

been very reluctant to table reports or answer questions. It's a little unfortunate,

I think, that he didn't table the report this afternoon prior to the adjournment

at 6 o'clock so that the information contained in that report could have at

least been looked at briefly and quickly by those of us who wish to participate

in this debate.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: I understood, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon

when the report was referred to, that it would be tabled.

An Hon. Member: Here it is.

Mr. Smith: Our assumption at that time was that the

report would be tabled before the 6 o'clock adjournment. But

that's of course….

Mr. Speaker: Members are entitled to read the report

while they speak.

Mr. Smith: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: Members are entitled to read the report

while they speak. (Laughter.)

Mr. Smith: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

However, I have a few things that I wish to say about this

particular bill, and perhaps the report won't add that much to,

or detract from what I have to say.

This bill, when you look at it and when we listen to the

comments of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

and the need and reason for tabling this bill in the House,

leads us to form only one conclusion — that the reasons given by

the Minister for such a bill, and the ultimate use of that

bill, are certainly poles apart. In all the time I have, sat in

this Legislature I believe that this bill, the introduction of

it and the words and the comments in second reading delivered

by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources have to

be as close to being deceitful as anything could be.

An Hon. Member: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Hon. Member is pushing

that a little close to the parliamentary….

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I intend to give reasons why

I believe that to be true.

Mr. Speaker: You can give reasons, but it still would

be unparliamentary to suggest that any Member would be

deceitful.

[ Page 4852 ]

Mr. Smith: I didn't say it was intentionally his

position to do that. But I believe that there is nothing….

Mr. Speaker: It could be misleading. Either

accidentally or otherwise it could be misleading, but not

deceitful. Deceit implies something intentional.

Mr. Smith: Certainly the information given to the

press when introducing this bill — the information that has been

delivered on the floor of this House in second reading by the

Minister — leads me to come to only one conclusion — that it was

misleading. Misleading because the need for the bill, as

expressed by the Minister in his words to the press and in his

introduction of this bill for second reading, and the actual

content of the bill are completely different, with the

exception of one clause within that particular bill, in one

section.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there was a deliberate attempt

to flim-flam this particular issue and throw up a smoke screen

which would be bought by the public.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think the Hon. Member is right

-that Speaker Murray ruled out flim-flam as being….

Mr. Smith: What's the definition of flim-flam, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure the Hon. Member recalls well

the decision of Mr. Speaker Murray on that point.

Mr. Smith: No, I don't recall that point.

Mr. Speaker: Using the word "deliberate" ahead of the

word "flim-flam," of course, makes it even worse — doubly

so.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: I think perhaps it would be parliamentary

to say it was a flim-flam, without qualifying it. Would it

not?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think the flim-flam…. There was

a movie called that, I think, sometime…

Mr. Smith: I'm not referring to the movie.

Mr. Speaker: …and the general idea there was the

practising of deceit. I think that's why Speaker Murray must

have felt it was improper parliamentary language.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, and

then again in speaking in second reading on it, the whole

justification used by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources was on one section, and one

section only, of the

entire bill — the

section that deals with the marketing of wood

chips in the Province of British Columbia. But the Minister was

very careful, very careful, in his comments to avoid referring

to the other 20 sections of the bill and the absolute powers

that are granted to the B.C. forest products board under the

sections included in that bill.

Mr. D. M. Phillips (South Peace River): Dictatorial powers.

Mr. Smith: It is, in our opinion, the power to take

over the entire forest industry in the Province of British

Columbia. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is the

ultimate plan. The problem in this province in obtaining a fair

price for chips, resulting n the need of a marketing board, in

the words of the Minister, is subterfuge.

Mr. Minister, in the opinion of the official opposition you

wanted to create….

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, the Hon. Member is creating

new unparliamentary words about every sentence. You can't say

"subterfuge by the Minister," you know that, surely.

Mr. Smith: Subterfuge?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. For you to say that a Minister was

using a subterfuge would also imply the same as a deceit.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if you'd quit helping me with

my remarks, I'd get through them much quicker. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: It might go quicker, but it might go

worse. We must adhere to parliamentary rules.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that I'll try

to do. But it's very difficult when dealing with a bill of this

nature to adhere strictly to the parliamentary rules of this

House.

I suggest that the Minister, in introducing this bill and

prior to the introduction of it, knew exactly what he was

doing. It was his opinion that he wished to create a

confrontation between sawmill operators and the pulp sector of

the industry.

He wanted to create the impression that nothing was

happening to improve chip prices in the Province of British

Columbia, even though in speaking to this bill this afternoon

he admitted that there wasn't a better price paid now for chips

than in the past. He

[ Page 4853 ]

also admitted that the pulp industry, in his opinion, can

and should pay more.

The fact remains there was an attempt to confuse the issue

with respect to the problem involved in the marketing of chips,

and gloss it over as if nothing else in the bill really

mattered.

I would suggest that this bill will do more to destroy

investor confidence in the Province of British Columbia than

anything we have ever seen before this House. You certainly

indicated that the need for the bill was to protect small

operators in the Province of British Columbia. Not so, Mr.

Speaker. I'll get on to that particular matter in a few

minutes.

I don't think that any of us disagree with the fact that as

the market is today the pulp industry can and should pay more

for the chips they receive, regardless of who they receive them

from, Mr. Speaker, and regardless of whether that particular

logger or logging operation is tied to a contract with Can-Cel

or any other Crown operation in the Province of British

Columbia. It's interesting to note that while you suggest the

small operators will be protected by this bill, we have reason

to believe that they could be the first ones to go down the

tube.

Certainly it's apparent, in terms of expansion and

investment in the Province of British Columbia, that one of the

major firms operating presently in the Cariboo area has decided

to withdraw from an intended expansionary programme. Cariboo

Pulp and Paper announced the cancellation of plans for a $140

million bleached kraft pulp expansion at Quesnel based on the

use of sawdust, one of the products that we have to deal with

in the logging industry, and one which in times past was

considered to be of no use.

It's interesting to note that in their release this

afternoon they give reasons why they've decided to withdraw

from the $140 million project they had planned for the Province

of British Columbia. I'd like to quote from their press

release. They note:

"Any pulp expansion must be based on a secure supply of raw materials at economic cost. Also, a

company must be able to predict the trend of the cost of raw

materials over at least 20 years. We had contemplated signing

long-term contracts with individual sawmillers in the Cariboo

region, including mills at 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and

Quesnel. This Act clearly states that the pricing clauses of

such contracts would be null and void.

"We would also have required 21-year agreements with the

B.C. government, but the government made it clear that it is

not prepared to honour its long-term agreements."

This planned expansion was for a mill of 550 tons per day, or 190,000 tons

per year. The added money spent in British Columbia would have been about $25

million per year. Added employment would have been about 200 employees in the

pulp mill and in the sawmills and logging. The purchase of sawdust for pulp

would have significantly increased the revenues to the sawmills from sawdust.

The use of sawdust would also have made a significant improvement to the environment

by reducing the volume of sawdust and hog fuel that is presently being burned

— and I think that there's no question about that. We have not been able to find

a market for that product in any sizable quantity except for the generation

perhaps of steam.

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of this bill no one,

large or small, in the lumber industry in the Province of

British Columbia can plan for the future continuation of their

operations. This bill hangs over their heads. Their days are

numbered just as the days are numbered of most insurance agents

who presently represent ICBC. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister is using the whole forest industry as a pawn in a

chess game designed to replace individual enterprise with state

socialism.

I suggest that the Minister's lust for power in this respect

knows no bounds. It would appear to me that a frustrated city

planner is looking for a means to punish the business world for

imaginary injustices, certainly to the discredit of the office

he holds and the Province of British Columbia in general, with

respect to the No. 1 industry that produces more revenue and

more dollars in total than any other industry in this province — rightly concerned about their future in the Province of

British Columbia.

This Minister, together with the Minister of Finance, tried

to play one segment of the industry against the other; tried to

provoke disagreement between the independent loggers and the

larger operations in the Province of British Columbia; tried to

pit the sawmill industry against the pulp mill operators. The

game plan was to divide and conquer, only it didn't work out

quite to the satisfaction of the Minister. It's a fact, Mr.

Speaker, that in the coastal forest areas dialogue between

sawmills and pulp mills was taking place long before the

introduction of this bill. As a result of that dialogue, chip

prices had moved steadily upward, particularly in the last few

months. I think that it's fair to say that the greatest

improvement has been in the last three weeks.

But what of the interior? There you must ask yourselves

which company exerted the greatest influence on the chip prices

paid. Is it not true that in northwestern British Columbia the

company exerting the greatest influence is Can-Cel? Naturally;

they're the only pulp mill located in that area. And what other

pulp or paper company, mindful of the power of the Minister

over their operations and future, would dare to volunteer an

increased price for chips against the expressed desire and

determination of a Crown corporation, intent upon showing a

profit in

[ Page 4854 ]

its first year of operation, to keep the price of chips

down.

For two full years, Mr. Speaker, Can-Cel literally stole

their chips from the independent operators in the province.

It's a shame. It's a shame. They were prohibited from marketing

their chips anywhere else.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests And Water

Resources): That was Social Credit policy.

Mr. Smith: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. Whenever a

supplier of chips is required to take a price that is 60 per

cent at least below what is determined to be the average market

price for chips at a given time, those chips are literally

being stolen from them.

What a difference the extra income would have made to the

independent operators in those areas, provided, of course, that

the increased price for chips resulted in increased returns for

the independent operator. Therein, I suggest, lies the root

cause of a problem the Minister chose to ignore up until the

time he introduced this bill last Friday, a problem that was

drawn repeatedly to his attention, a problem that received

nothing in the way of aggressive action until the bill was

introduced last Friday. May I elaborate?

It's a matter of fact that dialogue was taking place between

the sawmills and the pulp mills in the northern part of British

Columbia as well as in other areas of the province. It's a

matter of fact that one of the problems involved, as expressed

to the Minister, was a need for some changes in the close

utilization policy introduced by the Minister. The problem

would appear, and was, in the minds of the people involved in

the marketing of chips, that it did not matter if they were

able to negotiate a higher price or not.

As long as the present stumpage appraisal system remained in

effect, 80 per cent of everything paid for the chips

over a base of $10 per unit would go to the government in

increased revenue. That was the whole nub of the problem — that

even though they were successful in negotiating a reasonable

price for the chips they had to sell, the government, under

their stumpage appraisal system introduced a year ago, would

take 80 per cent of that price over $10 per unit. Was

this going to help the industry survive a critical time in the

province when the price of lumber and dimension material had

decreased rapidly?

I say that it was impossible for anyone engaged in the

industry to do anything but try to patch up and improvise a

programme until they got some commitment from the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources that would indicate to them

some relief from that impost that would take most of the money

paid by the pulp mills in increased revenue to the Crown,

Now, when did the Minister suggest that he would declare a

holiday from this particular

section of the stumpage appraisal

programme for a short period of time? It happened last Friday,

at the exact time that the Minister introduced the bill to the

House. Oh, clap and thump the table. It's interesting to know

that the holiday from this increased impost by the Crown would

only extend to June 15, and there was no suggestion that it

would be continued beyond that point. I suggest that the

industry has no confidence in the word of the Minister. They

had no way of knowing whether what he said on Friday would, in

fact, be carried out, or for how long that particular system

would last because, from experience, they have noted that this

government is quite prepared to change the rules of the game,

introduce new rules, cancel contracts, or whatever they

consider expedient at any time, and without any

justification.

Not one industry associated with this problem, either small

or large, advocated a marketing board as the solution to their

problem. What they did ask was that the government amend the

stumpage policy to stop plundering the payments made to them

for chips they were about to sell. On that particular score,

they could get no answer, no answer at all, from the Minister

until last Friday when this bill was introduced to the

House.

I'd like to illustrate one of the problems involved in the

people cutting logs in British Columbia. It's perhaps a little

extreme in that sometimes this particular problem would not

occur, but it does occur, and it has occurred in the past. I'd

like to refer to a stumpage assessment based up on 60,000 board

feet of logs at $8,043, or $134 per 1,000.

Purchase order for those logs to be cut, and the finished

lumber sells at $147 per 1,000. The logger who cut the

logs had to sell the boom for less than $8,048

stumpage after he had paid all the costs of logging. The costs

of logging, $130 per 1,000; cost of sawing,

$70 per 1,000; the stumpage paid to the province in

right of the Crown, $134 per 1,000, for a total of $334 per

1,000; and the end product value of lumber was only $117 per

1,000.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Where do you get your costs

from?

Mr. Smith: Those are factual costs and I'll give them

to you. It certainly illustrates the extreme problem

experienced by the people in the sawmill business in the

Province of British Columbia, and one of the reasons why they

needed an increase in the price that they received for chips,

and needed it immediately, if they were to continue operating

in the woods in the Province of British Columbia.

Bill 171, the Timber Products Stabilization Act, can be

criticized on many counts, but the basic, underlying intent and

philosophy appears to start

[ Page 4855 ]

with the

definitions of forest products and wood chips in

paragraph 2, followed by the object and powers of the British

Columbia Forest Products Board contained in a very brief

paragraph in paragraph 7. The intent is further revealed, I

believe, in paragraph 8(l), where the matters the Minister can

direct the board to enquire into are listed, and in p paragraph

8(3) where the matters the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can

direct the board to enquire into are listed. I would refer,

with particular reference, to the all-inclusive paragraph,

8(3)(b): anything the government-appointed board recommends

that is to the liking of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can

be implemented, as set out in paragraph 19, without reference

to the Legislature, and that is one thing we object most

strenuously to.

Most of the provisions of this bill deal with matter in the

industry other than the marketing of chips. Most of the

provisions of this bill give extreme autocratic powers to the

board appointed by the Minister. In general, this Act gives the

B.C. Forest Products Board the power to do almost anything in

the forest industry that the government directs, without

reference to the Legislature. Once a year, when the annual

report is presented, the Legislature will get just about as

much information as provided to a common shareholder who

happens to own shares in the CPR or some other large

corporation — once a year, a few facts, a year behind time at

that.

Further, I would like to suggest that the B.C. Forest

Products Board has complete government financial backing,

subject only to the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Let's examine for a few minutes

what that really means, that power. It's contained, I believe,

in the bill itself, and I'd like to refer to it in a few

moments. You know, the prospect of the Minister of Finance

having absolute blank-cheque powers over the revenue of the

province and the power to dabble in the stock market alarmed

us, and rightly so. I think the result of our original alarm

certainly is borne out in some of the investments that the

Minister has made on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

At the present time, the Minister of Finance, with his

dabbling in the stock market, shows at least a $10 million

loss in the shares that he has purchased. Now in

section 12(2)

of this bill, added to the other overwhelming fiscal authority,

is the prospect that this Minister, the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources, can now dabble in a very volatile

currency market place, other than markets in Canada — the

foreign markets, as a matter of fact.

Let me quote the powers that the Minister has: the Minister, in

section 12,

with respect to borrowing, can invest money in, "notes, bonds, debentures and

other securities, the issue of which is authorized by subsection (1)," redeemed

at maturity, payable at such rate of interest as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may determine, in the currencies of such country, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat

that:

"…in the currencies of such countries, in such amounts

or prices, in such manner, and at such times…as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine."

What is the ultimate aim of the Minister of Lands and

Forests in this respect? Is it to invest in currencies of other

countries, to dabble in the international market? Perhaps we

are going to invest in the currency of China, or the currency

of Russia, or the currency of almost any other socialist

country.

This prospect not only causes us alarm but it gives us

reason to believe this government would be willing to take this

province on the road to financial ruin simply to advance an

ideological argument. In recent months the world's greatest

financial institutions, including Lloyd's of London and Chase

Manhattan of New York, have been badly burned through

transactions on world currency exchanges.

The volatile price of gold today, the shaky position of the

dollar, the alarming increase in the revenue available and the

dollars available to those countries with a large petrochemical

reserve or oil reserve would give any sensible government cause

to be cautious and use restraint.

But here in

section 12(2) of this bill the entire fiscal

guarantees of this province are laid on the line for yet

another socialist experiment. This guarantee involves not only

the consolidated revenues of British Columbia but it also lays

on the line the most actuarially sound pension fund accounts of

anywhere in the free world, a record that we had reason to be

proud of in the Province of British Columbia.

And the Minister laughs.

The attitude of the Minister is amazing when he is faced

with some of the ramifications of the legislation that he's

introduced. He scoffs, laughs, tries to make light of it, but

it's a matter of fact….

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): The Godfather of

the forest industry!

Mr. Smith: But either the Minister does not know the

ramifications of this bill or he chooses to ignore them, hoping

that no one else will pick them up.

The Minister, through a non-elected board, under the

authority of this Act, has the power to gamble with the

taxpayers' money on the international market and on the

international exchanges. This authority, in my opinion, to

gamble with the resources and the savings of thousands of

people in this province is a manifestation of the Minister's

hang-up with state socialism. And it is certainly unacceptable

to the official opposition.

[ Page 4856 ]

The Minister squandered $5 million on Ocean Falls and has

proved himself unwilling to disclose to the public the full

accounts of that corporation. Oh, it's making money, the

Minister says. Well, if that is true, why don't you file the

returns on the floor of this House?

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: He's certainly dabbled in the

international marketplace with respect to newsprint and the

sale of newsprint from Ocean Falls. The fact is that the sale

of production from Ocean Falls is relatively simple compared to

the day-by-day dangers which face people dabbling in the

foreign exchange.

How could anyone trust a Minister who has a record in this

House of answering no questions, written or oral? How could anyone trust a Minister who has

conducted most of the public business he is responsible for in

secret, behind closed doors, and with no information to the

public?

That a board in such hands could be involved with secret

deals involving the fiscal money markets of the world is a

disaster looking for some place to happen. To involve the

savings and the fiscal resources of this province in Wall

Street borrowing for B.C. Hydro was bad enough. But to have the

Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources walking around in

the money-changing temples of the world is simply

devastating.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I've done very well so far.

Mr. Smith: The Minister says he has done very well so

far.

Mrs. Jordan: How? Give us an example.

Mr. Smith: Where? Can-Cel? At the expense of the

small operators in the woods up there?

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Purchasing chips for under $10 a unit that

are worth three times that amount? Is that a record you are

proud of, Mr. Minister?

It is interesting to note that the $12 million profit made

by the corporation in its first year of operation under the

Minister would have resulted in no profit at all had the

corporation paid the amount of stumpage that they should on the

cut that was there and paid what they should have for the chips

that they took from the small lumber operators in that part of

the country.

I don't think the Minister can use that kind of invective to

justify his situation or to give the people of British Columbia

a justifiable answer as to his reason for introducing this

bill.

With the provisions in this bill, no person in the province

can sleep soundly knowing the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources has the right by statute to fritter away tax

dollars in the currency of other countries, particularly when

we reflect on the record of some of the countries most closely

aligned with the philosophy of this government. This Minister

has his hands in the pocket of every British Columbian.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Oh, is he now? This we would like to see.

And who was he getting the money from to put there? From the

small operators involved in the forest industry in the Province

of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, the Hon. Member's time has

expired.

Mr. Smith: I only have another minute to go.

Mr. Speaker: I'm afraid you will have to ask leave to

speak longer than your 40 minutes. You started at 8:06 and it

is now 8:46.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I'm concluding my remarks; I

have probably 30 seconds more to say to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Mr. Smith: The Minister, by statute, has his hand in

the pocket of every British Columbian, including the heretofore

inaccessible pocket containing the vested funds required to

keep the government's pension funds solvent. It's a sorry day

for British Columbians when the Minister used the excuse that

he did to introduce Bill 171. We will all be sorrier for that

event.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr.

Speaker, I think after all that cry of gloom and doom, the

least we can do is draw back the curtains and let a little

moonlight in. If it was daylight, I would say a little

sunshine.

We certainly shouldn't be surprised that the first time in

the history of this province we have a leader of a political

party by inheritance.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: It has to do with Bill 171.

Interjections.

[ Page 4857 ]

Hon. Mr. Hartley: We have a hand-me-down leader. The reason we have this

hand-me-down leader, Mr. Speaker, is that this party sitting

across there has been so devoid of ideas, imagination and

courage that they have a hand-me-down leader. For the first

time they have inherited a leader.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. I think the Hon. Minister of

Public Works is not really entitled to attribute the lack of

courage to the whole of the opposition nor against any

individual.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member withdraw that?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I'll confine it to the Members in

the front row then. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: I'd appreciate it if the Hon. Member

would withdraw those words.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I withdraw.

We heard the same speech from the speaker who just sat down,

the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) when we brought in

legislation to deal with the B.C. Petroleum Corporation two

years ago. Then on March 9 — where's that clipping? — last year, the Province on the financial page said that the

petroleum industry up in the Peace River, B.C.'s oil spot, is

booming like never before, despite all of the gloom and doom of

the Member for North Peace River.

We heard that speech two years ago. We heard it this year on

Bill 31. Now he's recycling the same old story on forestry. And

even though it's the third time round, it's getting longer and

worse. He had to have overtime to do it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes. We heard that caretaker leader

say this afternoon….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I hope so. I hope so.

We heard the caretaker leader this afternoon, after it had

been pointed out that in 1952 when that caretaker government

that cared very well for the great international corporations

started, there were 2,223 sawmills in this province, after 20

years of social caretaker corporate government.

Mr. Phillips: How many insurance companies in B.C.

today?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Too many, far too many. (Laughter.)

And what did that caretaker leader say when he spoke this

afternoon? That caretaker leader said, "Here, do you want to

bring back those 2,000 mills? Those little mills are not

efficient. Free-enterprise is not efficient. Corporate

enterprise is more efficient." I wrote it down.

That's the corporate-enterprise government that had

giveaways for 20 years. It gave away our forestry products, our

mining products, our natural resources and gave away our people

to foreign corporate control. Poor old dad.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, we'll hear the same old song

about investor confidence. Our Member for North Peace River,

that's his song: investor confidence.

Now, let me give you a little story about investor

confidence. Shortly after this little government was elected

and shortly after the Hon. Robert Williams was chosen as

Minister of Lands and Forests, in a post for which he is very

well-trained and very capable of handling and doing a most

capable job of administering, the Minister of Lands and Forests

found that a deal had been made by the previous government

whereby Weyerhaeuser was going to pick up Columbia Cellulose as

a bankrupt corporation. The deal was all made. All it had to be

was signed and sealed, But with proper understanding and good business management,

that Minister said, "Before any Crown lands, any Crown forests

or Crown resources involved in my department are transferred

from one great corporation to another, I want to know about it.

I want those deals to pass over my desk."

And so, checking this out, what did he find? He had the

people of Weyerhaeuser in and they said, "Yes, we're prepared

to pick up this bankrupt corporation."

"What will Weyerhaeuser pay for it?"

"We will merely guarantee the $68 million worth of Columbia

Cellulose bonds that are many years old — 20 years old, some of

them — at 4.5 and 5.25 per cent interest. All we will do is

guarantee those bonds and we will pay for them out of the

earnings of the corporation."

"But," he said, "how will you make it pay? Last year

they lost $9 million."

"Oh," they said, "we'll shut down the entire northern

operation — that's where the loser is — and we'll keep the

Kootenay operation going. That's the gold mine; that's where

the money is. We'll have no trouble paying it off."

So, in his wisdom, the Minister said, "Well, I guess if a

little international corporation like Weyerhaeuser can

guarantee $68 million, we should be able to."

[ Page 4858 ]

So with that we did. But there was a difference.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Had Weyerhaeuser, the international

corporation that had been befriended for 20 years by the Social

Credit, been allowed to take it over, (1) they would have shut

down the entire northern operation; and (2) there would have

been vast numbers of unemployed and more people on welfare. Of

course, that's the way the Socreds would like to have it. And

they like to keep screaming gloom and doom.

It would happen again if they could, but it won't, not in

this department, not as long as that Minister is handling Lands

and Forests.

Along with that, some 9 million acres of prime forest land

were returned to the people of this province. And those people

opposed that legislation. Those caretakers of the opposition…. And they won't be there long; someone else will move over

if you don't smarten up. They'll be defeated as opposition in

the next election, because how can you get up and defend

corporate enterprise as being more efficient — rubbing out the

little guy — when we as government challenged that corporate

enterprise? Because of our challenge to them, the people of

this province now own three pulp and paper mills, sawmills and

9 million acres of prime forest land. And what happened? What

did it cost? It did not cost this government or the people of

this province one red cent. And in the first six months of last

year — the switchover took place on July 1, 1973 — there was a $12 million net profit and $ 17 million of the $68 million of

bond indebtedness was written off. This year in the first nine

months there are $36 million of net earnings.

This is the sort of thing that you people are going to get

out on the hustings and say that you are opposed to. You're

opposed to people enterprise, This is people enterprise. After

20 years of corporate enterprise, you haven't got the brains to

support a good thing when you see it.

Mr. Phillips: Even your own Minister is laughing at

you. You had better sit down while you're ahead.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: So with this, the people of this

province not only have 9 million acres of prime forest land but

we have a yardstick by which we can judge the proper method by

which better forestry management can be handled. We have a

yardstick whereby we can unit-cost the production of pulp, of

paper, of lumber or any other product that we should choose to

manufacture in this province. This is people enterprise.

Those people wouldn't have said a thing if we'd have let Weyerhaeuser take

over as they have done for the previous 20 years under them and the previous

80 years under the Liberals and under the Conservatives. That is what has gone

on heretofore.

We get a good story from our friends in the media, but the

big daddies that pay for the media may reverse it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I'm not attacking the press. I say

these people work for their living as we do. But so long as the

corporate enterprise that you people back control the papers,

okay, it'll be up to us to come into your ridings and tell the

story of people enterprise.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Well, we've got lots of reason to

be wound up when we see the leader of the Conservative Party,

(Mr. Wallace) the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), the leader of the Social Credit (Mr. Bennett) all

taking the same story, standing up and espousing and defending

corporate enterprise.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Sure, they should all get into the

one party.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Hartley: All get into one party. There's no

difference.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Well, he used to stand over here. I

watched him for long enough.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

would stop orchestrating. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing

more infectious than enthusiasm. I'm glad that the enthusiasm

for people enterprise is so infectious that it's catching up

the leader of the Tory party of this province.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Well, Mr. Speaker, these people

might have some right to defend corporate enterprise if they

had one good example of where the people of this province had

benefited because of corporate enterprise.

[ Page 4859 ]

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: When you look at the mining

industry of this province, you'll find that for 20 years under

Social Credit, and for 80 years under the Liberals and

Conservatives, that those governments didn't sell one ounce of

minerals to the mining industry. Not one ounce.

I'll tell you a little story, and it applies to this bill,

Mr. Speaker, because just as we're trying to get a fair shake

for the people of this province, from Forestry in the spring we

passed Bill 31 to get a fair shake for the people of this

province, not in taxing but in selling the mineral resources of

this province.

If you picked up the Province , our very responsible,

conservative paper, read their financial page, on the November

8 they point to a mine — Lornex, just in back of Merritt — and

what do they say? They say that Lornex Mining and Smelting this

year has $23 million of corporate profits. Last year it was $20

million. This year they're up by $3 million, but they're up by

$3 million after they have paid $10 million for the minerals

that they used. They paid $10 million to buy the minerals from

the people of this province, so in all, a year ago they paid $3

million….

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): What's that got to

do with this bill?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: It relates — this is forest

products; this is mines. If you'd been here a little earlier,

Mr. Member for Columbia River, you'd get the picture.

Mr. Speaker: I wish the Hon. Member would stick to

the principle of the bill which has to with forestry,

please.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was using that

as an example to point out the principle in Bill 71. Just as

the people of the Province of British Columbia are much better

off because of this principle, the principle that is in Bill

171, Bill 31 is now in effect and some $30 million will roll

into the coffers of this province which had never heretofore

been seen, because our mineral products had been given away,

our forest products had been given away or sold for all too

little.

Mr. Lewis: The give-away boys.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: The give-away game, that's

right.

Now, I told you about Weyerhaeuser trying to take over Columbia Cellulose.

When my friend from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) got up, the caretaker-leader,

that leader who inherited the leadership of the Social Credit Party because

there was no competition….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: How's that bull shipper from the

Cariboo? When did you come in?

An Hon. Member: That's got nothing to do with this

bill.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Well, bull shippers have bulls,

they graze on the grass, and grass comes out of this

department.

Mr. Phillips: The Premier throws a lot of chips

around when he goes to the Cariboo.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Member

who is speaking would stick to the bill, It hasn't to do with

Can-Cel. It doesn't have anything to do with grass or chips, or

anything other than wood chips.

Mr. Phillips: Chips, that's right. It doesn't have

anything to do with chips! It's a take-over bill.

Mr. Speaker: It has to do with wood chips, not the

chips that you were referring to.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: The Member for South Peace River

says: "It's a take-over bill." Now what did he do in the years

that he sat in the House in government, in the years between

1952 and 1971? In 1952 we had 2,223 sawmills in this province,

and by the time that government left office there were some 627

sawmills. That's a reduction to less than one-third.

Now, if that had happened under NDP, they would have said

that is the heavy hand of state socialism, but that, Mr.

Speaker, was not state socialism, that was the heavy hand of

corporate capitalism via the Social Credit. That's corporate

capitalism; that's what they do to the little guy. And your

leader this afternoon said: "Small business, little sawmills

are not efficient, but the big international monopolies are

efficient." That's what you people represent — corporate

capitalism — whether it's the insurance industry or the forestry

industry.

An Hon. Member: You've had it now.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Well, I'm sure,

Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was rising to expound that he

had just hired a new conflagaro — after that last dissertation.

It reminded me, Mr. Speaker, if you're a bird fancier, of what

they call an

[ Page 4860 ]

alto water roll.

I suggest that his argument, such as it was, was very

similar to the husband who went home and told his wife that

he'd save her $50 because the gun he bought only cost $125

instead of $175, because while he described the great profits

that were coming into the Treasury, he forgot to mention the

massive amount of capital and profits that are fleeing this

province through lack of activation of that capital in this

province.

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

least he had an excuse.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, but his mother doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, if one examines….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: If you want to make a speech, why don't

you get on your feet?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Obviously the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) is sitting there warming up his engine.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Am I going to

make a speech?

Mr. Speaker: Is the Hon. Member yielding the

floor?

Mrs. Jordan: Is the Hon. Member what?

Mr. McGeer: At least mine would relate to the

bill.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, that would be a change.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you'd speak to the Chair

instead?

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware that

throughout this debate, and particularly throughout this bill,

there's a weaving of the warp and woof of intention that can

only be summed up as a theme of crafty legislation.

This Minister talks about chips and chip prices; he talks

about $60 a BDU at the pulp mill, f.o.b. This sounds very

dazzling when one thinks in terms of the other prices he's

used, and that we're aware of, and he seems to be weaving a

picture for the public where they'll get the impression that

the independent sawmill operator is going to receive an

increase from $16 to $18 a BDU to $60 a BDU.

And while indeed he is bringing in an increase in the chip prices, this crafty

approach just doesn't make clear that the former price was f.o.b. at the sawmill,

and that the price he's talking about, although indeed an increase, is not nearly

as great as he would have the public believe, because it is, in fact, f.o.b.

at the pulp mill. This is one more example of how the Minister is trying to

create an impression which is not fact.

If you examine, while the Minister talks about chips, Mr.

Speaker,

section 7 of this bill, just three simple little lines

and I'll read them because they do sound very, very innocent

and, as I say, very simple. It says:

"Without limiting the generality of

section 6(l), the

objects of the board are and it has the power to improve the

performance of markets for forest products, and to encourage

the utilization of timber, in the Province."

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that gun and those simple

little words are loaded. If you examine it, you will find they

are loaded at the very people the Minister tries to suggest

that this bill is designed to help — the independent operators

in this province.

It's very interesting that while the Minister has talked

about his concern for the independent operator, and he dazzles

around these $60 a BDU — f.o.b. the pulp mill — which you

don't say very loudly, the people who are most concerned about

this legislation at this time, other than the Members of the

opposition who can see through this peek-through legislation,

are in fact the very people that the Minister says he's trying

to help, the independent sawmill operators in this

province.

While they indeed want an increase in the chip prices, and

have asked for assistance in this area, they did not ask to

sell their soul for this help. They know that the battle is on

between the Minister's obsession in relation to the forest

industry in British Columbia and the facts of life, and that

they, not the government and not the big companies, are going

to be the pawns in the NDP takeover game.

It's also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that while this

crafty little bill is being debated in this Legislature, the

Minister of Finance and Premier of this province is not here.

He's on a flying trip to China. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if I was

the leader of that party, and I had a Minister bringing in this

type of legislation, I'd run away to China too.

It's also interesting to note that while the Premier and

Minister of Finance has turned his back on this Legislature and

on this legislation, and refused to be here to be accountable — because it's his coffers that are going to swell at the

expense of the little operators and the little people in this

province — two other men in British Columbia are not here. Two

men who are among the most powerful and who, indeed, should be

among the most concerned in this province are not here; they're

winging with the Premier. I refer

[ Page 4861 ]

to Mr. Jack Monroe, who is the head of the International

Woodworkers of America and who has the responsibility of

defending and protecting the rights of the woodworkers in this

province; and Mr. Dennis Timmis, president of MacMillan

Bloedel.

Both of these gentlemen were little short of enticed to take

a trip to China with the Premier, but no sooner had they set

foot on the plane and taken off than this bill was introduced.

They could come home, Mr. Speaker, and it might be well for

them to come home now, or else to take a slow boat from China

home, because there is unlikely to be anything for them to come

home to when the real intent of this bill is proclaimed, Well, the Minister laughs, and he laughs all through this

debate. I would just remind you, Mr. Speaker, that

psychiatrists have a number of sensitivity lines that they

remember in dealing with their patients. One of them is:

"Beware of the man who laughs all the time, for he hides a

troubled heart."

I suggest that the Minister indeed laughs and laughs and

laughs because he has a troubled heart — troubled not as we

would expect by his conscience for the type of legislation that

he's slinking into this House, but troubled by the fact that

the truth will out before this legislation is passed, and he

will be thwarted in his tsarist desires and his obsession to

take over the forest industry.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: The Minister indeed. You know, Mr.

Speaker, some months ago, in responding to a question put by a

press interviewer, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources said, and I would like to paraphrase what he said:

"Given three years of power" — not responsibility, Mr. Speaker,

but three years of power — "we will create such an economic

omelet of Crown corporations, boards and commissions that it

will never be unscrambled." That is a paraphrase of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who is now

putting himself in the position of being almost a

self-proclaimed godfather to the forest industry. In Bill

171, Mr. Speaker, which we're debating, dealing with the forest

industry, we see in fact the final batch of eggs which will

launch the people of British Columbia into a mess that is a 100

per cent commitment to socialism — a socialist omelet described

some time ago by the very Minister who is now the architect of

this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's very significant to note that the Minister

himself has referred to a three-man quorum as the power in this

bill. A troika: can you imagine it, Mr. Speaker — in British

Columbia a three-man quorum, a troika of Williams, Gaffney and

a flunky? This three-man troika, this quorum of Williams and

Mason Gaffney and an unproclaimed flunky is to be given the

legal authority above the courts, above this Legislature, above the Companies Act, above question, to

control 50 per cent of every dollar earned by every British

Columbian.

One shouldn't truly be surprised because, if you look at the

legislation, you can see that a good deal of it is lifted

almost directly out of the Waffle Manifesto.

The Minister laughs again. I guess his heart is troubling

him. It's a famous manifesto, and it certainly has been this

Minister's blueprint for British Columbia. It was signed by the

Premier of this province, who doesn't now have the conscience

to stand in this House and be here when this bill is brought

in. It was signed by Eileen Dailly, the current Minister of

Education. And with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it was signed

by yourself; but then you were a politician at that time.

Mr. Speaker: You must never bring the Speaker into

the debate.

Mrs. Jordan: You don't have to answer, Mr.

Speaker.

It was signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

currently Mr. James Lorimer, and it was signed by the chief

officer of fair play and justice for this province, the

Attorney-General, who is charged with the responsibility of

defending the rights of the individual within a democratic

society in this province. That is a man by the name of Alex

Macdonald. Where is he tonight when these rights are being

trampled by this legislation? He is not in this Legislature

where he belongs to hopefully adjudicate impartially on the

bill's effect. He too is sojourning and joyriding in communist

China.

It was signed by the Minister of Human Resources, Norman

Levi. Is he here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to account for this

bill, to play a role in this debate, to try and point out the

pros and cons and the benefits to the people of British

Columbia? No way! He's not here, and unaccounted for. Perhaps

he's taken a quick trip to China.

Mr. Speaker, in the Waffle Manifesto it says on page 10: "As

part of its political programme, public ownership will not….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: If the Minister would listen, he might

understand what the independent operators, who you say you're

trying to help, are concerned about, and why they look at your

gift as possibly a few pieces of silver. The document says:

"Public ownership will not in itself bring about an

independent socialist Canada, but it is the crucial

precondition for the building of such a society. It is with

that perspective that we adopt the following principles:

[ Page 4862 ]

"1. As part of its political programme, the NDP must

commit itself to the immediate nationalization of resource

industries and financial institutions, including bank and trust

companies."

Already the Premier of this province has committed himself

to the position that all resources in British Columbia will be

turned over to the federal government, holus-bolus, when they

will commit themselves to nationalizing. Is this the first step

in your battle, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: No it wasn't, Mr. Speaker. If I recall

correctly, the Minister was questioned as to whether this would

include the forest industry, and he said: "All resources." It

goes on to say in the Waffle Manifesto: "This public ownership

will pave the way for nationalization of other sectors." We see

in this bill a board which is an agent of the Crown in the

right of the province for all purposes, and empowered by law to

carry on its powers and duties in its own name, without

specific reference to the Crown in the right of the

province.

Doesn't it fit well, Mr. Speaker? The pattern fits so well.

We see a corporation with the powers and capacity of a company

incorporated under the laws of British Columbia and under the

Companies Act.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sweeping powers.

Mrs. Jordan: Ah, indeed, the Minister says that's

sweeping powers. Not sweeping powers for the companies of

British Columbia, which we would oppose, but this company that

the Minister is setting up is above the Companies Act. It is

not subject to the same rules and regulations; it is not

subject to the same scrutiny; and it is not subject to the same

position where the shareholders can, in fact, ask for a

complete review and investigation of the actions and financial

statements of that company. Oh, it fits in very well with the

Waffle Manifesto, and the Minister himself is quite right. He

pointed this out, and I'd like to thank him for saying what a

powerful company it is. There's no responsibility for it to

define the nature of its business or the reasons for which it

uses the taxpayers' hard earned money.

Let's look at some of the other parts of the Waffle

Manifesto. It says in

part 11:

"The NDP commits itself, as its long-term goal, to the

public ownership of major corporations in the manufacturing,

resource, financial, transportation, and commodity distribution

sectors of the economy."

My, that fits in very well. Indeed, this is a Crown corporation that can borrow

money without limitation, with the exception of the secret approval of that

Minister and his cabinet colleagues. They have the right to deal in the currencies

of foreign countries.

Hon. R.A. Williams: That's absolute nonsense.

Mrs. Jordan: The Minister says that's nonsense.

Presumably then, if the Minister believes what he's saying and

this is not another one of his shifty toe-dances, he doesn't

know what is in his own legislation. If that's the case, not

only should he be condemned for the legislation but he should

be condemned and stand condemned by his own ignorance. This

company has the right to earn revenues by doing business of an

unstated nature and to retain all these moneys received for

such purposes as it considers necessary; not the Legislature,

not the people of British Columbia, but the great "it."

Now,

part V of the Waffle Manifesto, and I won't read all

the other sections because you are familiar with them, having

signed the Waffle Manifesto: "Existing Crown corporations and

public enterprises, must be fundamentally reorganized to permit

democratization." Well, this is even a contradiction to their

own Waffle Manifesto. It's worse, because a board is the exact

opposite to democracy, and that is dictatorship.

The board is authorized to work behind an iron curtain of

secrecy, or a wooden curtain, if you would prefer, of secrecy,

without telling the people what it intends to do and without

being accountable to the Legislature for its policies or its

actions; complete disregard for the Companies Act, which all

other companies have to function under in British Columbia; a

complete disregard for this Legislature, which represents the

views of the people of this province and whose Members are duly

elected; a complete disregard I'm sure, as with ICBC, for the

enquiries and the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) so that the victims of this bill will

have no recourse.

No other Legislature in Canada has ever given such unlimited

powers to any board as this government and this Minister seek

to take in this bill. This is so incredible that it's almost

unbelievable. It's like a nightmare, but the only difference is

that in the morning when the people of British Columbia wake

up, unlike a nightmare, it won't be just a dream; they'll find

themselves in exactly what this Minister designs — an NDP

socialist British Columbia.

In speaking to

section 7, the objectives of the board, as

they're described in that

section of the bill, are not an open

statement of intent. What we have in that

section 1s a taxing

authority which is disguised as a Crown corporation. If this

bill goes through, it's in business. This Crown corporation is

in business to practise legalized plunder. The victims of that

plunder, Mr. Speaker, are again going to be the very

[ Page 4863 ]

people that this Minister pretends that he is protecting,

and they're aware of it.

The Minister has tried to imply that he's met with all these

independent operators in British Columbia when, in fact, this

is not true. Mr. Williams, the now Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, in 1971 gave a speech in which he

said:

"The acquisition of privately-owned corporations in the

resource field prior to major resource tax changes would be a

mistake because the market price of those companies would be

grossly inflated."

That is very much the concern of part of the effect of this

bill. This government has done it before in B.C. Telephone

share acquisitions. They've done it indirectly through ICBC,

where they depressed the market and they depressed the value of

the small corporations, or anyone who is to be their victim,

and then they offer to pay, or if they don't do that, they just

take it over.

This Act gives the independent nowhere to go and this is one

of their very serious concerns because they will, in effect, by

this Act, become contractors to the government with no capital

value in their assets. They won't be able to sell out because

no one, no other Canadian in their right mind, would come into

British Columbia in the uncertain times that are going to be

ahead because of this bill, and invest good hard-earned money

to become a contractor of the government with no guidelines and

no ground rules.

The second reason that they won't be able to sell out, these

independents, should they wish to get out from under the thumb

of the government, is because they must seek the approval of

the Minister before any Canadian buyer can purchase their

company. If there was a buyer who is either out of his tree or

willing to invest some money for tax purposes in the long-term,

it is quite obvious from the Plateau situation and the other

situations in this province that this Minister has involved

himself in by way of takeover, that no one, no Canadian

citizen, would meet the requirements of the Minister. That's

why these small independent operators resent the approach that

this Minister is taking in meeting their needs.

He has now patched this Bill 171 which is to be used to

bring these companies he covets into economic depression so

that he can take them over in his own time and on his own

terms. For more than four months, this Minister has indulged in

artful baiting of the hook, and he has utilized the depression

of the world markets as a reason to fool the people into

believing that Bill 171 is necessary. He has played on the

integrity of the individual sawmill operators in this province.

He and the Premier have toured the province, literally stage

managing a scenario.

Hon. R.A. Williams: A what?

Mrs. Jordan: Suddenly, out of the blue, this Minister

becomes very concerned with meeting with industrial groups.

There are press releases — press releases after press releases

promising immediate action. They've been coming out for months — immediate action to meet the requests of industry; inferences

that the important industry groups wanted log and chip prices

fixed by statute; inferences that the independent sawmill

operators in this province wanted their chip prices adjusted by

statute when, in fact, all they asked the Minister was to use

his good office to caution the pulp mill operators that there

had to be an adjustment. They didn't ask to sell out their

souls, as this Minister is asking in this legislation.

This Minister just had a sudden, new-found concern for small

business in this province while at the same time making very

sly allegations that big business was bent on extinguishing

small business.

The interesting thing in all this, Mr. Speaker, while the

Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

are prancing their way around the province in this scenario, is

that the very people he's trying to deceive are not deceived.

They know the implications of what the Minister is doing.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, you know, this is the problem with

this Minister. He's so tied up in semantics that he doesn't

understand the problem of people, and he likes to debate the

theories and the vocabularies while the sawmill operators in

this province, Mr. Speaker, want to debate their daily

problems. They don't want to sell out to this type of

super-intellectualism. Most of them are very hard-working

individuals.

When we sum this all up, Mr. Speaker, this great act at the

time between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, we have a ridiculous TV drama of

Premier Barrett with his foot on the aircraft that is to wing

him to China, which is long before the bill has been introduced

to the House, and he says as his farewell shot: "Anyone who

opposes this bill is in favour of driving the independent

businessman out of the province." Driving the independent

businessman out of business! Oh, Mr. Speaker, a very cunning,

cunning act — a hard-core socialist revolution by stealth.

You know, when one examines this bill you can see a complete

unmasking of the power-hungry rule of the NDP caucus. The

people in this province know, the small operators, sawmill

operators, the independent operators of this province know, and

the media know. Bill 171 is — oddly enough in the Minister's own

words — the final batch of eggs in the socialist omelet in this

province. It now sets out to

[ Page 4864 ]

launch the people of British Columbia into its latest

socialist mess.

I will close by saying to the independent operators out

there: don't wait for the $60 chip price to come to every

producer across the board. Christmas and Santa Claus, Mr.

Speaker, will not be found in the administration of this

Minister or in this bill.

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

like to add a few words to this debate. I feel that despite the

lack of attention this bill has received by public as well as

Members, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation

we have discussed since this government took office in 1972,

and I am quite sure that they agree with that statement.

I hear, I'm delighted to tell you, Mr. Speaker, agreement

from the backbench. At least so far I am in complete accord

with the government view on this.

It is of interest that while the Premier is in China

listening to the anthem, which is "The East is Red," we

have somebody, the Minister here, accused of coming out of the

blue with this legislation. I would like to think the colour is

much the same, and that the east of the Pacific is also

becoming a little redder as a result of this particular piece

of legislation.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Had I only been invited to go to

China, Mr. Minister, I might have, but, you know, I never get

these invitations.

The bill is essentially a two-part bill. This was outlined

by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams). On the one hand you have the

section dealing with

wood chip prices, referring to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and in the rest of the bill

you have your British Columbia Forest Products Board.

The reason, I think, for these two dissimilar items being

placed together is that the

section 2 deals with an immediate

problem of which Members on all sides of the House have spoken

fairly frequently over the last few months, since the late

spring and early summer, when this problem began and became

acute — namely the problem facing the interior lumber industry.

The problem has spread to the coast. It's come to the point now

where we have approximately 14,000 to 15,000 members of the IWA

and people employed in that industry unemployed. The government

is responding with

section 2, apparently, to the request for

intervention.

This particular aspect,

section 2, the third of a page of this bill which deals

with that one section, as opposed to the total of the bill which is nine pages

long — the bulk of the Minister's speech dealt only with that wood chip problem.

It is a real problem. The case of Rim Forest Products has been mentioned already.

Rim Forest was forced to close. Others have had troubles in the past, over the

last few months.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that Rim Forest was

dealing with Can-Cel, namely the government Crown corporation,

and Can-Cel was known to be about the worst company when it

came to paying for chips in the interior. So you have a

situation where the government mill was doing its best to do

the maximum amount of damage to the independents, and then we

have the Minister coming forward today and saying: "In order to

curb that, we are going to have to put in a bill, Bill 171,

which gives virtually unlimited power to the board and of

course, to the cabinet in terms of the pricing provisions in

section 2."

Why was it, I wonder, that Can-Cel was the worst company

when it came to paying for chips? Why were they paying $ 20.10

per cunit instead of the $60 per cunit talked about by the

Minister in his speech? Why, if there was a company whose head

office was in the province, closely connected to the

government, was that the worst company when it came to paying

for the products of these independent mills?

We had, of course, the Minister's statement that it was

those foreign companies, those American and even sometimes

national Canadian, Toronto-dominated companies, which were bad.

But it so happens that, in terms of the problem that be

discussed and the problem that he gave as the reason for this

total bill, it was Can-Cel, his own company, which was the

worst.

I'm reading now from a newspaper clipping dealing with the

Rim Forest problem. The headline is: "Disasters Overkill, Close

B.C. Mills," by Jim Lyon, Sun business writer. He's

quoting Bob Wood, the vice-president of Rim Forest.

"Rim claimed that Can-Cel was only paying $20.10 a cunit for

pulp logs, while the actual cost of production was $35. About

20 per cent of Rim's cut was of inferior pulp logs. It was

converting 80 per cent of its cut into lumber."

So the real problem you had there was the price being paid

by Can-Cel and, of course, the substantial costs incurred by

way of stumpage to the company. Lack of working capital was

another factor as well. There is no question of that. But the

fact is, when we are dealing with the question of price, to

which the Minister alluded constantly in his speech, and the

need to raise that price, there is no excuse for not going into

why Can-Cel itself did nothing to assist the independents when,

as the Minister claimed, the local company, the B.C.-owned

company, the company with a heart, as he described Can-Cel,

allegedly was in a position to give it a lot of help and

allegedly wanted to give help.

There's no reason except, of course, that by creating a problem, by making

the problem worse, we got in a situation where the excuse for all other sections

in addition to

section 2 became feasible.

[ Page

4865 ]

Now the Minister spoke at some length about the

justification for his move. He mentioned the Pearse report. He

failed to mention the qualifications in that report, the

provisos that Professor Pearse wrote into that report, dated

July 1974. He simply gave what he thought would

support his case, and indeed which did. He also mentioned

another report, which he tabled at the time — obviously he did

not want to have that widely distributed before his speech — a

report of the B.C. Research Council.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've had very little time to look at that

report, but I have gone through a few pages. On page 31 would

like to quote you some of the things that were said there. This

is at the top of page 3, and it says:

"It is estimated that, taking a fairly conservative

evaluation, most mills can afford to pay $60 per bone-dry unit,

f.o.b. the pulp mill, for chips…" —

and this is capitalized and underlined —

"…in the immediate short term."

Now I wonder why we didn't get that underlined

capitalization from the Minister in his speech when he talked

about the possibility of paying $60 per bone-dry

unit?

On the same page, I continue to quote, Mr. Speaker:

"In fact there is some evidence that prices approaching this

have been paid for chips at the coast, although in what

quantities is not know. Chip prices in the interior have gone

as high as $40 per bone-dry unit in special circumstances, but

are generally lower than this."

Then the report of the council goes on to talk about

long-term implications, having made it perfectly clear by the

capitalization that they are talking about the immediate

short-term, they start putting in the qualifications which the

Minister himself saw fit to omit in his discussion.

This is on page 3 again:

"Ability to pay a price as high as $60 per bone-dry unit

could vanish overnight if prices of pulp and paper products

should fall as drastically as other commodities" — for example,

copper — "have since last year.

"Ability to pay could also be eroded by steadily rising

operating costs."

Point (2) the second proviso:

"Many of the interior mills suffered heavy financial losses,

mainly due to low pulp prices in the late 1960s. The

present spell of high prices is providing an opportunity for

these mills to recoup their losses." — albeit at inflated

dollars — "and thus improve the average return on investment

over the long term.

"Increases in chip prices, which would drastically reduce

or eliminate the opportunity to recover past losses, could have adverse effects

on the future investment in this sector of the forest industry."

That problem of backlog of losses over many years of low

prices was not talked about by the Minister in his introduction

of this bill.

Carrying on, Mr. Speaker, on page 3 the report stresses the

need for obtaining data from the industry "on at least a few

operating mills in order to validate the results of this and

earlier studies." Let me repeat the words, "on at least a few

operating mills."

It's clear from that that the council realizes their report

was thin, needed substantiation, needed further studies.

"Such checks" — it went on to say — "are particularly

important if any significant increases in chip prices are

contemplated."

Mr. Speaker, that was on the page dealing with the $60 per

bone-dry unit on which the Minister spoke at some length. I

think those words are important because they indicate the

limitations upon what the Minister put forward in his

justification for the bill. On the question of the 20 per cent

rate of return — on page 6 of the report, under the heading:

revision of Wood Chips and Roundwood Value Estimates, the

report goes on to point out:

"Enquiries in the financial community lead us to believe

that the 20 per cent rate of return used in 1973 should now be

adjusted upward to 25 per cent to reflect both the effects of

inflation on the anticipated value of future earnings and the

higher interest rates that must be paid on borrowing."

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we heard of that generous 20 per

cent, yet the report that the Minister used to justify his

legislation and his introduction of this bill talks of raising

that still further.

The report refers to the difficulties of the mills that have

a mix of newsprint and kraft, and indicates that you cannot

average market prices as easily as they would like. They point

out that the $60 figure might be fine for the kraft product,

but not where you have the mixture of the two products.

I'd like to quote again from the report. Again this is

underlined. It says on page 10:

"In the immediate short term, most pulp mills in the

province could afford to pay at least $60 per bone-dry unit for

wood chips. This estimate is considered conservative since it

is somewhat lower than the price that could be afforded by the

least profitable mill when a 20 per cent before-tax rate of

return is allowed on the total capital investment."

It goes on to say:

"It is interesting to note that coast chip prices have

approached the $60 figure recently and some mills reverting to

whole log chipping to alleviate a shortage of chips must be

incurring cost for chips in this order."

[ Page 4866 ]

Then it goes on to refer to the longer-term implications of

increasing chip prices. The words are these:

" It must be stressed that the $60 per bone-dry unit figure

would appear sustainable in the immediate short term."

Again, "immediate short term" is underlined.

Everywhere through this report the $60 per the bone-dry unit

is qualified by an underlined statement with reference to the

short term.

" If the B.C. Forest Service considered action which would

cause the price of chips to rise substantially above present

levels on a continuing basis the following longer-term

considerations should be taken into account." I'd like just to

read the first of these long-term considerations which the

Minister saw fit to ignore.

"Any mechanism used to increase chip prices would have to be

responsive to changes in market prices for end product as well

as to increases in operating costs.

" The fact that market prices for pulp and paper products

are currently at such high levels is no guarantee that they

will not come down again. The weakening U.S. economy has

already caused some commodities, for example, copper, to fall

drastically below last year's level.

"A comparison with figure 2(

b) with figure 3(

c) of volume 1,

both at 16 per cent return, shows that due to operating cost

increases the break even market prices have risen roughly $25

per ton since 1973."

In other words, prices do not have to fall back to the

levels of one-and-a-half years or two years ago before some

mills would experience financial difficulties.

For example, an interior mill which could have afforded $32

per bone-dry unit for chips, when bleach kraft pulp was at an

excellent price of $210 per ton in mid-1973, could only afford

$25 per bone-dry unit if prices fall to the same level

today.

The final quote from that report is on page 13 where it says

that this is tentative, and that things could change very

quickly. It says: "It is quite possible that the results in

this report could be outdated in a matter of days."

Mr. Speaker, I think I have shown that in the reports which

were so confidently referred to by the Minister there are a

large number of provisos, a large number of statements which

hedge the conclusions he put forward.

I think it's a pity that this report, which according to the Minister was available

getting on for a year ago, was not made public sooner. It's a pity because the

report should have been the basis for a fairly detailed examination of this

legislation. Because it was only put forward for our examination earlier today,

we can only give it the most cursory examination and the most cursory use in

this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk a moment or two about the

other sections of the bill, other than

section 2. It seems to

me that the Minister is taking in this legislation something

which we have complained about before — we've complained

frequently, but it doesn't make it any less true if we complain

about it today — that is this sweeping power we find to make

regulations on just about anything they please.

The control given in this legislature is sweeping.

Section

19 which simply says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

make regulations," gives them a carte blanche to do what

they like.

I'd like to refer to what the objectives of such a piece of

legislation could be. What is the principle of it? What are the

objectives? I do this because when you write legislation of

this nature, which is vague in intent, which is vague in

wording, which simply gives total power to deal with just about

any question respecting the forest industry, when you grant

total power to do just about anything, when you have the

financial provisions of this legislation, such as it is

unlikely there will be legislative scrutiny of the moneys

spent, you have to look behind it and try to find out what it

really is there for.

There's no question that the problem in chip prices, the

problem of the interior mills, the problem .of the lumber

markets in the United States, is just a convenient peg taken

care of in

section 2, and the other sections are the ones which

the Minister really wants to have.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The Minister was responsible for a report to the 1971 NDP

policy convention — a report which was rejected because there

was references to co-participation with private firms. In other

words, the report was rejected by the convention because it was

not radical enough.

I would just like to read you one or two things from that

report. Under the natural resources (4): "The NDP places major

industries such as pulp, paper, lumber, mining manufacturing,

transportation, communications and finance under public

ownership." I believe this type of legislation gives a great

vehicle to implement that particular point which was

recommended by the Minister at that NDP convention in 1971. It

makes it possible for the government to embark upon the type of

control, the type of manipulation which would lead it to reduce

the value of companies in the private sector by manipulation,

just as was proposed in that background paper, in that resource

policy paper.

It's not a long document and I won't read very much of it

-it's not a long document but it clearly states: "that they

want to take over for public

[ Page 4867 ]

ownership, pulp, paper, lumber, mining, manufacturing,

transportation, communications and finance." Pretty well the

whole thing, and among the methods to achieve that, of course,

to make it possible to do so, they're going to have to lower

the value of the companies involved in these industrial areas

so that the public sector can pay for them.

The quote I'd like to give you, Mr. Speaker, is that: "The

acquisition of privately-owned corporations in the resource

fields, prior to major resource tax changes, would be a mistake

because the market price of those companies would be grossly

inflated," et cetera, et cetera. "Any acquisition of

those corporations prior to substantial tax change would be a

mis-allocation of public funds."

Well, Mr. Speaker, not only does the government have the

power to make the tax changes, but now they've got the power to

make all the price changes they need to achieve the same

objective. When that is tied in with the point that I gave you — the policy point that I gave you — which occurs on the

following page, and which lists the major industries of pulp

and paper and lumber first among those which are to be taken

over under public ownership, it is clear we have in this

legislation a vehicle to implement party policy in a way which

I think would be detrimental to the province. I think it most

unfortunate, indeed quite reprehensible, that this has not been

discussed by the Minister in the Legislature today.

What he has stated previously has indicated clearly his

policy objective. He's put that down. He's listed what he wants

to do. In this legislation, tied to the somewhat flimsy excuse

of the present difficulties of the interior lumber market, he

gives himself the vehicle to do just about anything he wants.

Yet in introducing this bill, and in the discussion we've had

from other government Members, we have had no examination, no

clear analysis of why these powers are needed; why it is

essential for the government to be able to have this total

control which exists in Bill 171.

Mr. Speaker, if we in this Legislature, government

backbenchers as well as opposition Members — all those indeed

who are not privy to the cabinet secrets on a day-to-day basis — if we are to discuss intelligently legislation put before us,

we're going to have to know either the fine print of all the

legislation, in other words, so we can discuss detail in the

bill itself, or we're going to have to know what the government

intends to do with the very, very broad legislation that

they've brought in.

We have statements made by the Minister. Statements indicating his position.

Statements indicating his objective. Statements indicating his belief. We have

legislation here which makes it possible, totally possible without any further

legislative examination or checks, for him to implement those policies, those

ideas and those beliefs, and yet we've not had one word from him. We've not

had one word from any other Member of the government except to pooh-pooh the

suggestion that it might be used in this way.

Given no other explanation by the government, we can only do

them the courtesy of suggesting to them, Mr. Speaker, that what

they've said they'll do, they intend to do, and what they've

said they'll do is contained in that policy document of '71 and

certainly has not been contained in any speech tonight, or

previously by the Minister.

I find it sad, Mr. Speaker, that we constantly get

legislation of this nature, capable of just about any

interpretation, and a total reply of the government is "Trust

us." In this case it's "Trust me." That's the only thing they

can offer as a protection to the public. "Well, our hearts are

pure, therefore trust us."

Well, we would like to see legislation which is clear and

specific. We're not getting it, therefore if we're to get

general legislation we would at least like candid statements by

Ministers as to intention. We're not getting that either, and

it's for reasons such as this that it's quite impossible for us

to support this bill, however much we, and other Members of

this House, might wish to help interior lumber producers.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Bill 171, The

Timber Products Stabilization Act, indicates to me very clearly

that Big Brother government moves in again. Big Brother

government moves in again. Another piece of take-over

legislation by that government supposedly to help the comrades

out there in the hinterlands of the province.

What the bill does, of course, what the bill attempts to do,

is create a wedge between the small independent operators and

the large integrated operators. There is very little doubt that

sections in the legislation was introduced for that very

purpose.

The old ploy — the old ploy "divide and conquer,"

that's the approach that's being taken, on the guise that this

government cares about the little independent operator. That it

cares.

It wasn't too long ago, Mr. Speaker, when that government

over there introduced a bill — not Bill 171 but Bill 71 — on the

pretext that they're going to get revenge against the big

corporations that weren't paying their fair share of taxes in

this province. You know who that hurt worst: every small

independent merchant and businessman in this province, and that

could quite conceivably be the ultimate result of this bill

which we are debating right now, Mr. Speaker. It certainly

could be.

Oh, yes, they're going to help the little independents. They

helped them with Bill 71 all right. Are they going to do the

same hatchet-job on them with Bill 171, Mr. Speaker?

I can't understand how the Minister can stand in

[ Page 4868 ]

his place and say that he is out to help the little

independents, when this very piece of legislation we're

discussing takes their independence away from them. It

absolutely gives the Minister carte blanche to take the

independence away from these small independent operators that

he says he's out to help.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I went through a file and I

found 10 commandments that made me think of this legislation,

and these commandments were put together in 1848 by Karl Marx,

and it was the way to turn a free nation into a communist

society.

Mr. Cummings: Are you related to Harpo?

Mr. Chabot: One of these commandments…. It's

clearly related. It can be clearly tied, or allied with this

piece of legislation we have.

Commandment number one is the abolition of property and

land, and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

We've seen commandment number one started upon by that

government over there with Bill 42, and now they move on. They

didn't go through all the commandments.

Now they're down to commandment number seven.

Mr. Steves: Have you got a copy so we'll know what

the others are?

Mr. Chabot: Well, the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) says: "Give us a copy." I'm sure if he goes in his file

he has several copies of this and other sayings from Karl Marx

as well.

But commandment number seven talks about the extension of

factories as instruments of production owned by the state.

Implementing these 10 commandments of Karl Marx appears to

be the direction this government is taking by the introduction

of this piece of legislation. They talk in the election of 1972

in The Democrat about: "An economy for people. As an

immediate step an NDP government will introduce a Resource

Companies Information Act." It says: "We're going to take an

immediate step." Well, they haven't taken that "immediate

step." It's taken them almost two years. It's taken them two

years, Mr. Speaker, to implement the substance of the Resource

Companies Information Act, and this Act is to ensure full

financial disclosure by resource firms. "The Act will provide

the information needed to significantly increase revenues from

our resources."

Well, we see that they haven't implemented that Act, but the

provisions which they outlined in their so-called "new deal"

are clearly embodied in Bill 171, Mr. Speaker.

I'll never forget this is the government that claims it cares about little

people. About the little people. It cares about little people, and the Minister

of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in the spring of 1973

made a statement to the Legislature, in an attack against the private forest

companies of this province. He stated that the forest companies were criminally

irresponsible for the price they were charging for their lumber in British Columbia.

That there should be a new price system in this province, and that these companies

should stop gouging British Columbians.

Now we have the evidence that this government over here,

through its Crown corporations and its investments, its 79 per

cent investment in Can-Cel, had an opportunity to stop this

kind of criminal irresponsibility, as stated by the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Well, what

have they done? They haven't helped the little fellow to buy

his lumber any cheaper through Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest

Products, or through Can-Cel. They have continued the policy of

the other foreign companies. They charge the going rate and say

that they can. Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. You

can't be as inconsistent as that government is with their

statements and their actions. They talk big on behalf of

people, but they do little, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister this afternoon talked about Can-Cel, that

great, responsible, corporate corporation. He talked about

Kootenay Forest Products, that there had been no layoffs. Oh,

it's a great corporate citizen, Mr. Speaker, a great corporate

citizen. You know, this government has an endless supply of

money, which might be a little different situation with the

private companies that might have to borrow in a tight money

situation at exorbitant rates. But it has no qualms, Mr.

Speaker, about overruns.

Everybody in this province knows about the $103 million

overrun in welfare. Is that why they're going to run the Crown

corporations, Kootenay Forest Products and Plateau Mills as

well — with overruns on the credit of the province? I want to

assure you that the small independent operators don't have

access to the buckets of money that this government has. I want

to tell you that they have a responsibility to manage their

companies. They can't practise the waste and extravagance that

we've seen displayed by that government since they've been in

office, Mr. Speaker.

While the Minister is in the process of tabling reports and

studies on chip prices, maybe this is a good time to table the

report, the study, on the trading of shares in Can-Cel prior to

its takeover. When are you going to table that report, Mr.

Minister?

He says it's not his responsibility. Well, it's the

government's responsibility to tell us what took place in the

trading of shares in Can-Cel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

return to the principle of the bill,

[ Page 4869 ]

please?

Mr. Phillips: Royal commission.

Mr. Chabot: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I was talking

about the Can-Cel operation and its corporate responsibilities,

how it treats people.

Mr. Cummings: Let's get a royal commission on

forestry. Yes, that's a good idea. Let's open it up.

An Hon. Member: Where's your Swiss bank account?

An Hon. Member: Why don't you go live in your ice

cream?

Mr. Chabot: He talked about the statement from

Cariboo Pulp and Paper in which they've decided, because of the

actions of this government in the introduction of Bill 171,

that they are going to cease, or not proceed with a $140

million expansion at Quesnel.

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Well, certainly they were in the process

of certain studies, economic studies, no doubt to justify….

They've decided that they weren't going to proceed. If you

don't know what's going on, maybe you've never invited them in

to your office. Maybe you've been hiding too much, Mr.

Minister. Maybe you've been hiding, as you generally are, in

your office behind your reports.

Mr. Phillips: With his board feet.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

address the Chair, and would the Hon. Minister not interrupt

the Speaker?

Mr. Chabot: The Minister in his reply says that the

money will come from somewhere else. What kind of nonsense is

this? Is he suggesting that the money will come from the

government, that the money will come through this new Bill 171

which we're presently debating? Are they going to put an

addition on Cariboo Pulp and Paper? They don't own Cariboo Pulp

and Paper. What kind of nonsense is that Minister talking? Who

in his right mind would invest five cents in the forest

industry of British Columbia today with this bill?

Mr. Lewis: I would.

Mr. Chabot: Well, you're not in your right mind, Mr.

Member for Shuswap, then. You're not in your right mind.

What forest company will invest in expansion of their

existing operation in British Columbia after this bill is

introduced, Mr. Speaker? No one. Investment will come to a

standstill in the forest industry of this province because of

this legislation. And the government says again that it cares

about little people. What about the little people who have

invested their dollars, their life savings, in some of the

larger, stable forest companies in this province and who depend

upon the dividends as a fixed income over and above the old age

pension, Mr. Speaker?

Does this government care about those small investors who

have invested in the large forest companies of this province?

It's quite obvious by this legislation that they don't care,

because they've depreciated the value substantially of those

shares by the introduction of this bill, and they're in the

process of challenging the dividends to these very people who

are on fixed incomes as well, and they say that this is a

government that cares. This is a callous, indifferent

government to the wishes of the people.

The poorest investment anybody could make today in British

Columbia is buying shares of any forest company in this

province. That is the poorest investment, because of the

introduction of this legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: When the expansion doesn't take place,

Mr. Speaker, because of the uncertainty created by the

introduction of this legislation, and because of the many

irresponsible statements made by that Minister and the

irresponsible statements made by the Premier as well, regarding

the forest industry since they've been in office, who will

invest in the forest industry of this province? No one, Mr.

Speaker, no one, because of the lack of confidence in this

government over here, which has created the chaos which

presently exists in the forest industry.

You know what they'll do, Mr. Speaker? If there is no

expansion, no doubt, in the forest industry, they'll say the

private sector isn't capable of fulfilling its responsibility

and that there's a need for the Crown, the B.C.-Forest Products

Board, to get involved with investments in the forest industry.

They'll move in to fill the vacuum, the chaos, created by that

government over there, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): You should have

been leader.

Mr. Chabot: I mentioned to the Member for Skeena (Mr.

Dent) this afternoon. You know, he didn't really tell all the

facts about Rim Forest Products. He talked a little bit about

his support of this legislation and I'll tell you that the

people up in Skeena will remember that Member in the next

[ Page 4870 ]

election. They'll remember him for his lack of action and

for the lack of concern by that Minister for those people in

Hazelton as well.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that Rim Forest Products was put

into receivership by the action of your government? They caused

the problem of Rim Forest Products — that Minister over there

and that government. There are only four Ministers in the House

right now — the rest are either in China or Timbuktu — they're

travelling somewhere around the world. They suggest, Mr.

Speaker, with that 79 per cent investment in Can-Cel, they try

to suggest that they're good corporate citizens when they

bragged…. The Minister has the gall to brag about the profit

of Can-Cel, which was made off the sweat and the backs of the

small operators in the north. That's how they made their profit

-by bleeding the small independent operators in the north, by

ripping off Rim Forest Products with unrealistic payment for

chips, and the Minister says he cares.

It's the actions of that government, Mr. Speaker, that

caused the problems with Rim Forest Products, and the Minister

knows it full well. Off the sweat of the backs of the little

operators in the north, Can-Cel has made a profit — Can-Cel,

that supposedly responsible corporate citizen in the north, off

the back of every little operator in that part of the

country.

An Hon. Member: Shame on you! Hang your heads in

shame, the whole bunch of you.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, when I look at this

legislation, I can't…well, I guess I can expect it from a

government like we have across the way. They are passing

legislation that makes provision for the appointment of

additional friends.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: You don't understand….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: It makes provision for the appointment of

more socialist hacks.

I suggested at the time of the superboard that there was a

possibility that Frank Howard might be appointed to the

superboard. I didn't say emphatically that that's where he

would go, but I said he'd be glad to go on that board or

another well-paying board.

And I've finally found the board where Frank Howard will be

appointed. He's going on this board — on the B.C. Forest

Products Board. They've found a job for Frank Howard at

last.

Mr. Speaker, the more we look at this piece of legislation and other pieces

introduced by this government, it's quite obvious that this is a province that

is run by boards. An ever-increasing number of boards are being appointed, Mr.

Speaker. We've seen two boards during this session that will cost the taxpayer

a bundle, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, you know, with the

appointment of these boards with all their powers it's quite

obvious that this Legislature is losing its significance. You

might as well call this the jawbone society because our powers

of scrutiny and control over the public purse are being denied,

are being taken away from us….

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, being eroded, the Member for Saanich

(Mr. Curtis) said — certainly.

And no longer will there be a need for a Legislature because

this province appears headed for hidden management by boards,

friends of the government managing these boards.

Mr. Phillips: He's the Minister of Economic

Decline.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: The Minister is chit-chatting from out of

his seat. I'm surprised that he's not over in China instead of

the other Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) because he's

the Minister of Economic Development and I'm really

surprised.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

this afternoon put it very effectively when he said: "Economic

development is d — e — d in this province." D — e — d. It's dead,

with a Minister who doesn't care about the export of our forest

products to China because he's not on the trip.

His colleague for Vancouver Centre was given his turn — he's

been getting a little rowdy and restless in the caucus. It was

time to give him a trip to put him back in order.

You've gone to Japan, Mr. Minister. He's gone to Japan; he's

had his trip, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Can I get you some more water?

Mr. Chabot: I don't know when your trip is coming up

but I would think all you have to do is get a little ronky in

the caucus, Mr. Speaker….

An Hon. Member: What? Get a little what? Get

[ Page 4871 ]

a little what? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chabot: …and then they'll give you a trip as

well.

You know, this bill also, Mr. Speaker, effectively destroys

the effectiveness of the B.C. Forest Service. The B.C. Forest

Service has become nothing but a gatherer of papers for the

B.C. Forest Products Board and this destroys the effectiveness

of the B.C. Forest Service, there's no doubt about it.

The government has failed; the government didn't need to

bring in a piece of legislation such as this to ensure a fair

return for chips. That is not what this bill is all about.

That's all the Minister would talk about. He didn't want to

talk about the rest of this bill and its powers — its broad

powers.

He didn't have to go this route.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that guts the private forest

sector of this province; this is a bill that guts this

Legislature; this is a bill that guts contracts as well; this

is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that I'm sorry we're debating because I

don't believe that a bill such as this belongs in a free

democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that obviously from my remarks

you've come to the conclusion that I can't support.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much. I rise to say a few words to support the bill — our new

Bill 171.

As you know, I represent and live in the central part of

this province and represent the people of Omineca, which is

heavily related to the forest industry.

Mr. Chabot: You're a one-timer too. You won't be

back.

Mr. Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I can see the reason — I

certainly see the reason for having to introduce a bill such as

this particular bill — the Timber Products Stabilization Act.

Because, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't too many years ago that I had

an altercation with the former forest branch of the Province of

British Columbia.

I actually took them on single-handed in attempting to stop

a log drive on the Stellako River. Mr. Speaker, you know that

that board's branch was actually breaking the law of the day.

Do you know why? Because they had no Act to act under so that

they could indeed carry out what they intended to do.

They actually had to break the law to try and carry out the log drive on the

Stellako River, and you know, there was so much publicity created through that

particular log drive on the Stellako that indeed there has been no log drive

since. Such public sentiment had been created against the forest branch and

the then government of the Province of British Columbia because of an inefficient

Act that they had to actually go out and break the law.

That was the course of the Social Credit government of the

day. That was in 1966-67 — '67 was the year that we finalized

the last log drive on the Stellako.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That's why Cyril isn't here today.

Mr. Kelly: I live in an area where there are — or

there were — many small sawmills and where there are still a few

private entrepreneurs in the sawmilling industry. But, you

know, they have never been so insecure as they have been in the

last few years because in the last few years, Mr. Member, do

you know what? There is not a decent forest policy in this

province.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing forth this bill….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: Don't shout.

Mr. Kelly: …to protect the sawmillers — the private

people in the sawmilling industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Kelly: I don't talk about MacMillan Bloedel; I

don't talk about the big corporate people — I'm talking about

the small sawmillers, the small companies, the small people

that need some protection — that never had any protection.

An Hon. Member: You don't know your own bill.

Mr. Kelly: You know, even….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Kelly: Even Plateau Sawmills is not a large

company — I think you will recognize that, Hon. Members. And

even they need protection.

But you know, isn't it odd that here's this sawmill right in

the midst of a recession in the forest industry, and yet they

are operating at full blast. So really, if you want to operate

a sawmill, it can be operated if it's operated efficiently and

with the kind of people that are dedicated to that type of

industry instead of to make a dollar to take across the border

or to take to some foreign city — maybe Toronto, or in New

York.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

[ Page 4872 ]

Mr. Kelly: Or even….

Mr. Phillips: What about Tokyo or Peking?

Mr. Kelly: Well, it could be Tokyo, too. But I happen

to know that one of the multi-national corporations that is

heavily in the industry in northern British Columbia is based

in Toronto, and I say that when things get tough — going tough

for them…

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Kelly: …that they indeed don't think about

the workers in the fields or in their sawmills. When things get

a little tough, they close it down.

Interjection.

Mr. Kelly: Well, they're still working, Madam Member,

and that's the main thing.

Now I would like to take issue with the words of the Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). She said that we, were

fooling the people because there were sets of figures that the

public wouldn't understand. Those figures, of course, are the

difference between the price of a unit of chips at the sawmill

and the price of a unit of chips delivered to that

pulpmill.

The chips by a bone-dry unit at Plateau Sawmills about two

weeks ago were worth $17.40 per BDU. The trucking contractor

receives $8.35 per unit for delivery of those chips to the

mill, making them worth just a little over $25 — in fact, $25.75

per unit delivered to the pulp mill. So when you're looking at

the overall price involved, really there is a tremendous

spread. And, after all, the $17.40 is money that is being

received today for chips that certainly wasn't being received a

few years ago.

So there is a great degree of profit to be made in the chip

business if, indeed, there is a decent price for those

chips.

Everybody says that there's nobody wanting to get into the

sawmilling industry. I know of several organizations that are

anxious to get into the sawmilling industry. In north-central

British Columbia there certainly are. I know that there are

quite a few people at the Minister's door applying for timber

to go into the industry. That's quite a change of story from

where everybody is leaving the country, taking their dollars

over the border. Yet we have people in that area clamouring to

get into the industry. But how about the small sawmiller? I am

attempting, and have been attempting for weeks, to get timber

for those small sawmillers, because they want to go into

business.

It's a different story when you tell me that everybody is

running across the border, taking their investment dollars

across the line and leaving us in a terrible plight up here.

That is not true. There are people who do want to invest in British Columbia, and that's

in the sawmilling industry too. As far as the man or the

company leaving the Quesnel area is concerned, those were only

figures. It's all very well to bring a set of figures to this

House and say that somebody had just left because of this bill

being introduced. The fact remains that it's been a very

lucrative business.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): The president of the

company says it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Kelly: It's been almost like a combine. And no

wonder, no wonder the pulp mills didn't want to pay any more

money. They were making money in the hundreds of millions for

these last two years.

I talked to a gentleman tonight that is trucking chips into

a pulp mill. He is anxious, of course, to know how the bill is

going in terms of what his new contract might be for trucking.

But when he's looking at 50 or 75 cents per unit as an increase

on his present rates, he says that he will make money.

Mr. Phillips: That's insurance rates.

Mr. Kelly: No, trucking rates, trucking rates.

Indeed, he will make money. So the spread in the overall

situation is not so great. In fact, there is a good profit

allowable for the companies manufacturing the chips.

We also have several chip mills set up in the Burns Lake

area now. And we have several people — when I say people, that

is heads of companies — who are prepared to invest money in the

chip industry where they can use the hardwoods to try to get

that part of the industry expanded. I'm anxious to see that

industry expand because, of course, there are tremendous

reserves of hardwood in the western part of Omineca riding.

This previous administration, I think, just didn't have the

kind of teeth that were necessary to really run the forest

branch in a fashion that they would need to do a good job.

It's unfortunate, because indeed the industry is the No. 1

industry in the province, and it still will be. I really

believe that conditions will straighten out in the not too

distant future. I think that the things that have happened in

the last few days, especially in the United States and in

Canada, will certainly give relief to our industry. The logging

contractors have gone back to work in my home town, and several

of those are friends of mine. I am communicating with them

[ Page 4873 ]

on a day-to-day basis. There is one thing that is very

important, and that is that a government, no matter who that

government may be, should indeed have legislation and policies

available that when they want to introduce a programme, indeed,

they can do it without running into all the backlash that you

usually get from normally poorly formed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am only too proud to support this

legislation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me a

great deal of pleasure to stand in this Legislature and fight

this takeover legislative measure which the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources has unveiled here this

afternoon.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: I know it doesn't give the Minister of

Economic Development a pleasure, because he's wrongly named in

the first place. It's the department of economic decline in the

Province of British Columbia.

But it's amazing, Mr. Speaker,….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Table your speech.

Mr. Phillips: You know the old song and dance we used

to hear from the socialists that they were going to listen. No

longer do they listen, and they certainly didn't listen to the

industry before bringing in this legislative measure. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources has had his ears closed for

the last two-and-a-half years. And he had his ears closed last

spring when we in the opposition advised him of what was

happening. I know the Minister….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: No, he's not leaving, but he might as

well leave because at times tonight there have only been four

cabinet Ministers in the House — and sometimes only seven

Members. The cabinet benches are empty. The Premier and his

entourage are over in a tour of China. Five other cabinet

Ministers are over on the mainland.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, you have your fun. It may be

funny to you that half of the cabinet or three-quarters of the

cabinet have taken off. Poor planning. The same as this bill,

Mr. Speaker; it is poor planning, very poor planning.

That great Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who is actually

the powerhouse in the cabinet, the man that makes the caucus tremble when he

walks in, the man that makes the ears perk up of all the other cabinet Ministers

when he walks into a cabinet meeting, is having his day in court, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, he's got his opportunity to take that big swipe at what he calls big

business in the Province of British Colombia.

I hope, now that he's been given the sword by this

Legislature to cut up one of the finest forest industries of

any place in the whole world….

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I know all about the sawmills that

are closing down, and we warned you in the spring session of

what was happening in the forest industry, Mr. Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in charge of

Icky-Bicky and Moscow mutual. If all of the other cabinet

Ministers run their departments the way you do, the government

would be in worse shape than it is tonight, if it were

possible. If it were possible.

This Bill 171, gives that Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources the sword that he has been asking for.

This Bill 171 gives the Minister the sword he has been

asking for to cut up the big guys in the forest industry, to

cut to shreds the greatest industry of any province in Canada,

the greatest forest industry of any place in the world, the

forest industry that paid more taxes and returned more revenue

to the people of this province than any forest industry

anywhere, a forest industry that puts millions and millions of

tax dollars into the kitty, millions of tax dollars that that

government has squandered and wasted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he chooses, through this bill, to carve up

the very industry that brought stability and economic

development to this great province of ours. The Premier said,

"No," he said, "No, my friends, we're not going to kill

the goose that laid the golden egg. Oh, no." But that was two

and a half years ago. "Oh, no. We're not going to kill the

goose that laid the golden egg."

But this very bill is going to kill that goose. Then the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with that sword

that he has been given by this bill, is going to carve up that

goose and there will be nothing left but economic chaos and

economic decline in the Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Doom and gloom!

Mr. Phillips: No, I'm not speaking doom and gloom. We

weren't speaking doom and gloom when we advised the Minister in

the spring session of the problems that were around the corner

in the forest industry. We also advised that very same Minister

that he couldn't anticipate another year like 1973 when the

world demand for lumber was the highest that

[ Page 4874 ]

had ever been known in the history of this province or when

the prices for lumber were higher than they have ever been in

the history of this province.

We warned that Minister that there were problems; we warned

that government not to go on a spending spree as they have

done. This is a cyclical industry and it has its ups and downs.

Now this year, Mr. Speaker, the industry is having its downs.

And while the industry is down and there are problems of a

crisis nature, this Minister chooses, while the industry is

weakened, to move in with the final blow and bring it to its

knees, Yes, Mr. Speaker, we warned the Minister what would happen

but he chose to not listen. He chose, as usual, and following

the rest of the cabinet Ministers, not to listen. He allowed

this….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) says no. He doesn't only not

listen but he can't even see the problems that he has created

in his department.

Now no longer do we hear the cry, "Trust us." No longer do

we hear the government cabinet Ministers say, "We are ready to

listen." No, as a matter of fact, they don't listen to anyone.

They have it all written in the Waffle Manifesto, the whole

theory. And as legislation comes into this chamber, like Bill

171, the principle of which is to take over the forest

industry, the tale becomes true, the tale that we have been

telling the people of British Columbia for two and a half

years.

Oh, yes, we were right on. We were right on when we said

that this government planned to take over the forest industry.

We were right on when we told the people of this province that

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Products would ruin the

mining industry of this province. And it is happening

today.

While on one hand the Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) tootles off to Japan to try and invest money, this

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the Minister

of Mines shut the door and slam the door on his fingers. How,

how, in heaven's name, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly do mean it. And you know

full well that I mean it. But you have a closed mind, Mr.

Minister of Mines.

Here we have the great Godfather in the cabinet and in the caucus bringing

in his final bill, the final blow to the forest industry. That Minister with

an iron fist; he rules cabinet with an iron fist. He is really the man in power

in the cabinet; he is the man who makes the other caucus members shudder with

fear. He's the power broker. He's the Godfather. He's the man who rules with

the iron fist.

And as usual, Mr. Speaker, we have another case here of

overkill. Certainly there are problems in the forest industry.

Certainly the small lumber operators and the small lumber mills

have problems. Certainly the price for wood chips needs to be

revised. Certainly it does. But to correct that situation, Mr.

Speaker, we didn't need the overkill that we are seeing in this

bill. This is an overkill.

Surely to goodness, the Minister and the rest of the cabinet

should understand that the people of this province no longer

support their policies. They got in with a slim majority and

they were not given the power to kill the economics of this

province. And the people spoke in the federal election when

they rejected the NDP federal candidates. That was a backlash

against NDP policies in this province.

Hon. R.A. Williams: What about the Socred

candidates?

Mr. Phillips: That was a backlash against NDP

policies in this province. A definite backlash. And we saw the

same thing happen last Saturday when NDP candidates in

municipal elections went down to defeat. Why, Mr. Speaker?

Because the people of this province are not buying the policies

of this government.

Why does the cabinet not listen? Why have they turned a deaf

ear? Why is this government which was going to have an open

mind, that government which said, "We will listen," that

government which said, "Trust us," no longer listening?

I'll tell you, the people of this province no longer trust

them. And yet that Minister, that Godfather over there, the man

with the iron fist rushes onward to kill one of the greatest

forest industries that has ever been in any jurisdiction.

No, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this: the majority of the

voters in this province are not silent. No, the fact is that

the government just doesn't listen any longer to the people of

this province. No, I tell you, they are not silent. They are

not silent when they get into those ballot boxes. Witness the

last two elections — the federal election and the municipal

elections on Saturday. No, the voters in this province are not

silent at all. But it is unfortunate that we have to go to the

very depths of economic despair in this province in the four

years while this socialist government is in power. Why do they

have to ruin the economic base that was one of the finest

economic bases in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world?

What is this bill going to do in its full implementation? It

will present the government with one of the great conflicts of

interest that any business or any government has ever had in

Canada. They will not only be the judge; they will be the jury.

They will be the lawyers; they will make all the rules as they

[ Page 4875 ]

along.

Yet our Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk),

who must have trouble sleeping at night who wants to bring

secondary industry into this province, is trying to invite risk

capital into this province on the one hand, while the Minister