[ Page 2959 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bin 127).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act (Bill 13 1).

Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2959

Oral questions

Community resource board election procedures. Mr. Bennett — 2959

Proposed Chemainus River dam.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2960

Construction industry strike.

Mr. Wallace — 2960

Cost comparisons on Stena Danica purchase.

Mr. Phillips — 2960

Poor conditions of the Trans-Canada Highway in Kicking Horse

Canyon.

Mr. Chabot — 2962

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

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2962

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

Mr. McClelland — 2962

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

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2963

Mr. Chabot — 2964

Hon. Mr. King — 2965

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2965

Mr. Wallace — 2967

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2968

Mr. Fraser — 2969

Hon. R.A. Williams — 2969

Mr. Gibson — 2970

Mr. Cummings — 2970

Mr. Gardom — 2971

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2971

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2972

Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2974

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2974

On section 3.

Mr. Gardom — 2975

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2975

Mr. Gardom — 2975

On the title.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2975

Mr. Gardom — 2975

Report and third reading — 2976

Presenting petitions.

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

Mr. Bennett — 2976

Royal assent to Bill 131 — 2976

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates.

Amendment to vote 137.

Mr. Fraser — 2976

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2979

Mrs. Jordan — 2984

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a couple of gentlemen from a community which many of you probably don't know exists. That is the Village of Elkford in the far eastern part of the province — Mayor Maartman and the city clerk, Mr. Benson.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I have two special guests in the galleries today. They are here for a series of meetings — the former mayor of Delta, Clarence Taylor and a spokesman for the chamber of commerce, John Friesen.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, at great sacrifice to their studies, a number of students today have journeyed across the waters from Vancouver, and I'd like all Hon. Members to extend a very cordial welcome to the students from Lord Byng High School and their teacher, Mr. Sankey.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, there will be visiting the Legislature today, and in the gallery for a period of time, some students from Smithers in Skeena constituency. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming those students to Victoria.

Introduction of bills.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Companies Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 127 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 19 74.

Bill 129 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY
FLOOD CONTROL ACT

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

Leave granted.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): May I thank the Members of the House that during the question period, with leave of the House…. I'd say this, Mr. Speaker: if any Members or if the leaders want to delegate anybody for the period of time to get any information from me…but I hope to make a full statement on second reading, and certainly will be making an even fuller statement probably in response to your questions in closing second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. the Minister at this stage wants to make a Ministerial statement, or will we proceed to question period? Is that agreed?

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

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

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

Oral questions.

COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARD
ELECTION PROCEDURES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources: could the Minister advise the House of the current status of questions being raised in Vancouver about the illegal election procedures connected with the community resource boards?

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

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. What is the source of funds for the request by the Point Grey-Dunbar-Southlands area request for paid officials at the polling stations?

[ Page 2960 ]

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

MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental. Alderman Darlene Marzari of Vancouver described the whole process of elections to community resource boards as illegitimate because legislation has not been passed by the House. What comment does the Minister have for the Legislature to this change at this time?

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

PROPOSED CHEMAINUS RIVER DAM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications, which comes as a result of the claim by the municipal clerk of North Cowichan that the community asked that the application to the Water Resources Board be turned down. May I ask the Minister whether he made representations on behalf of the North Cowichan Municipal Council to the cabinet committee which overturned the decision of the Controller of Water Rights which denied the application to build a 100-foot, $2 million dam on the Chemainus River?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll repeat it as the Minister apparently didn't hear it. May I ask whether he made representations on behalf of the council to the cabinet committee of four which was looking into the matter of building this particular dam?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): As you may have noticed, I was not on the committee, which was proper, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was not on the committee, which was also proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation whether in the three-month period between January 14, when the committee met, and April 9, when a decision was announced or at least was made, if he was in consultation with that three-man and one-woman committee?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a supplementary, may I ask the acting Premier how it is possible for decisions on resource use to be made by cabinet committees when the Ministers responsible for the line responsibility at the departmental level are not informed by their cabinet colleagues of committees and are not informed of decisions and are not requested to have their views made known?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I think that question is based entirely on your interpretation, which I do not happen to agree with.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Labour tell the House what percentage of construction projects in the province are now at a standstill as a result of the current labour dispute?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don't have it broken down into percentage, but I would say that a very, very substantial part of the construction industry is at a standstill.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister if he has any up-to-date information as of today regarding progress in the negotiations between the unions and the CLRA?

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

MR. WALLACE: In view of the very serious interruption of the provincial economy, is the Minister at this point contemplating any direct government intervention?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have said that we are involved on a day-to-day basis in consultation with the parties. I'm not prepared to announce any further anticipated action at this time.

COST COMPARISONS ON
STENA DANICA PURCHASE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Can the Minister offer an explanation to the House as to why the almost sister ship to the Stena Danica, namely the Stena Britannica has been sold to Greek interests for $10 million while British Columbia must pay $14 million plus federal duty, refitting, et cetera?

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

[ Page 2961 ]

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

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary. This ship was purchased…now known as the Wickersham, from Alaska State Ferries by Greek shipping interests just recently for $10 million.

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

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I asked you….

MR. PHILLIPS: Within the last few months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I asked the Member if he pays any attention to the international money market and what happened to the value of the Krona vis-à-vis the Canadian dollar. If you don't know the answer to that, you have no right to ask the question, my friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: What do you mean I…?

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

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Editorializing.

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

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the purchase price and the waste of taxpayers' money. I would judge that to be under the jurisdiction of that Minister, and if it isn't a proper question to the Minister then I don't know what a proper question is.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Did the government, while dickering for the Stena Danica at $14 million, try to get the Stena Britannica from the Alaska State Ferry System for the $10 million which the Greeks are apparently paying for it, and if not, why not?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this was just purchased recently by Greek shipping interests from Alaska State Ferries. I want to know from the Minister: did he check this out before paying $4 million more, before wasting $4 million of the taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, that Member is simply quoting from a completely erroneous article in a morning paper — point No. 1.

Point (2) unless you can tell me when that ship was purchased, no hazy, phasey "recently", because what has been happening in the shipping market recently…. And unless you can tell me what you mean by "recently"…then I can give details and dates as to when the negotiations took place so far as our ferry was concerned. I can tell you what happened to the money market in that period. I also tell you this: when we went looking for ships, the ship you are referring to was not for sale. It had already been sold. That's how long ago it was.

MR. BENNETT: In your search for ships, did the Minister make an inquiry of the Alaska State Ferry Service, being so close to British Columbia, for a ship?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You realize I didn't make any personal search myself. I asked them to search everywhere and anywhere for ships that were available that met our standards.

I'll have to ask them that specific question: did they ask Alaska…. But to the best of my knowledge that ship was not for sale. Certainly it was never reported to me as being for sale.

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

[ Page 2962 ]

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

MR. BENNETT: Oh, okay.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

POOR CONDITION OF THE
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
IN KICKING HORSE CANYON

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Highways. There are complaints from Albertans as well as British Columbians regarding the condition of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Kicking Horse Canyon — regarding the potholes, the broken asphalt, the lack of protection from falling rocks. I wonder, as this is the main link across this nation, whether the Minister is going to take some remedial action. If so, how much and how soon?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, that's already been raised with me by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). Apparently it was brought to him by one of your constituents….

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

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

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

HON. MR. LEA: Because we don't want to follow an old pattern, what we would like to do is do some research before we take action. Because this is a bad year for frost heaves, I've asked my department to have an assessment done of the entire province in terms of what is happening with potholes, so we can do something. But I want to know….

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

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

STEEL SUPPLIES FOR
B.C. RAIL PLANT AT SQUAMISH

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

To the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: with reference to the operation of the B.C. Rail car plant in Squamish, has the Minister's department satisfied itself that there will be continuing supplies of steel available for the operation of that plant, not only at its outset, but in subsequent years — either in steel supplies available domestically or through the new arrangement with the Japanese?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Yes, any steel supplies through existing contracts of suppliers that have already been arranged through the BCR. There have been some confirmed contracts, and we're confirming for the second line of 100 chip cars. The first 300 cars are confirmed.

Because of the steel supply situation we can't get the long-term, two- and three-year contracts unless you establish some relationship with some supplier. Whatever shortfall there is has been guaranteed to us through Japanese steel suppliers. So the long-term production of the plant has been secured.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the Minister's response that all the assurance we have is for the initial production of 300 cars plus the subsequent production of 100 chip cars and thereafter, it will depend on making other arrangements?

HON. MR. LAUK: No, that is not the nature of my answer. My answer is simply that we have confirmed — and this was before we went to Japan — supplies of steel for the 300 cars of the initial run. The second run being planned by the boxcar factory is 100 chips cars. We are presently confirming steel for those. By the time we reach that stage we are going to be assured a steel supply.

If we don't get that steel for that 100 cars or any subsequent run through that factory from Canadian steel suppliers, we will get it from Japanese steel suppliers. I am convinced that we will have steel from one source or another.

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

HON. MR. LAUK: For continued operation.

USE OF M.V. KLATAWA
ON QUADRA-CORTES RUN

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

[ Page 2963 ]

I have a question for the Minister of Highways. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not he has received a petition from the residents of Quadra and Cortes Islands expressing their displeasure over the change of ferry service on the Easter weekend, in which they ask for an investigation by the Highways Minister into what they consider to be the provision of an inadequate and unsafe vessel, the M.V. Klatawa, called upon to serve that area over the Easter weekend.

It was signed, I understand, by the president of the Quadra Island NDP constituency. Has the Minister received that petition yet, and what action is he going to take into the request for an investigation?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I did receive it and I passed it on to the Minister in charge, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question would be to the Minister responsible, the Minister of Transport and Communications. Will the Motor Vessel Quadra Queen be withdrawn on the May 24 weekend and be replaced by the inadequate services of the M.V. Klatawa? And once more will we have tourists in another part being served before the residents of Quadra Island?

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

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

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

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY
FLOOD CONTROL ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Bill 131, which was distributed in an unusual style a little while ago, would indicate the very true nature of the emergency that the House, the province, the government and the people face in the area of Kamloops today.

As an opening statement, may I say that the reason for the legislation presented this afternoon is the serious danger of the flooding of the Thompson River in Kamloops. The flood threat requires immediate action to construct dikes and repair dikes and other emergency measures along the banks of the river in order to protect the homes and the property of the inhabitants of the area.

This work cannot be done under the existing circumstances and existing legislation because that municipality is in the middle of a labour dispute. The dispute, between the municipality and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, involves a strike and picketing which is impairing the ability of the provincial government to take the necessary emergency measures. We consider that this emergency must be considered separate from the labour dispute. The government has taken that action throughout these past few days in which we have been attempting to get some solution to the problem.

You have been advised from time to time of the presence of both the Ministerial committee and a staff committee dealing with flooding with our entire river system. We have had some success; and I want to pay tribute publicly to those who have cooperated with us in, for instance — as I understand it, late today — coming to a peaceful solution of the Chilliwack and Vedder River area by dispensation and by agreement between individuals to get on with the job and respond to an emergency.

Yesterday a special cabinet committee, which was comprised of the three cabinet Members who are on the standing committee on emergencies of flooding and disasters generally, aided by the Minister of Labour, met with the parties to the dispute in an effort to resolve the matter on a voluntary basis. This followed a series of contacts made last week by myself and phone calls hither and yon to try to get that voluntary acceptance for us to rally round this emergency and make sure that this disaster does not take place.

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

Nevertheless, even after 3:15 yesterday, when the last meeting was adjourned, we continued to make efforts by phone. The Deputy Ministers of a number of departments were busy right until this morning, trying to get some voluntary solution to the problem.

The government made it abundantly clear during the meetings yesterday — and I made it abundantly clear in telegrams last week — that the government was not prepared to sit by and see flooding take place behind the alleged non-interference theory involving a completely separate labour dispute. We made it abundantly clear yesterday that there would have to be a time limit. The time limit, Mr. Speaker, has now passed.

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

[ Page 2964 ]

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

You will see the bill before you sets out the situation: the rising water of the Thompson River and an unresolved dispute that prevents us from adequately controlling the flooding. We deal with an interpretation of words so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what the powers we are seeking will mean.

We take unto ourselves the powers to deal with the emergency. As you know, we have adequate precedent in that, going through a number of statutes, including my own emergency programme. We put a time limit on these powers, and I think that is entirely responsible and entirely in keeping with speeches made on all sides of the House regarding an impasse on a normal dispute or a normal disagreement in the private sector.

I think that it finishes up by pointing out, for those Members who are always conscious of money, where the money to do this work is going to come from.

The background to the government's efforts started in an official way — although unofficial contacts have been made — when I sent a telegram asking for the relaxation of the local union's strike in the specific area to accomplish the work that I have referred to. The telegram read:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED REPORTS OF THE IMMINENT DANGER OF FLOODING IN THE CINNAMON RIDGE AND AIRPORT AREA OF GREATER KAMLOOPS. REPAIR AND REINFORCEMENT WORK IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY ON THE DIKING SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE THIS CRITICAL DANGER.

I REQUEST THE COOPERATION OF YOUR LOCAL UNION IN RELAXING YOUR CURRENT STRIKE AGAINST THE CITY OF KAMLOOPS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK REFERRED TO. THE CONSEQUENCES OF HEAVY FLOODING WOULD IMPOSE GRAVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION TO THE PEOPLE AFFECTED.

I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A COOPERATIVE RESPONSE BY RETURN WIRE.

I was advised that my telegram would be placed before the appropriate committee expediently by the business agent of that local of the Canadian Union of Public Employees the same day. That was May 2. On May 6 I received a telegram which, in essence, denied cooperation to the extent we required.

We then called special meetings yesterday and, as I said earlier, we met with the representatives of the work force and we also met with the city council. They have attempted on both sides to seek some solution. But, frankly, the conditions that wereplaced on such a relaxation were such that this government could not accept them.

They involved, essentially, the government getting involved directly in the labour dispute itself by either compulsory arbitration or reference to boards or taking part in the actual dispute itself. We made it abundantly clear from the very first contact that this government was not prepared to do so.

In the meantime, as this was going on, as you know, as you received a report from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the committees were meeting. The staff was ready. The work is identified. Everything was ready for go. A very successful meeting took place at the Matsqui Armoury in Abbotsford that I think two or three of you might have been at, chaired and advised in great detail by my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

In addition, there was another meeting yesterday by staff people in Kamloops looking at the situation. My information is that the river levels in Kamloops are rising. I'm not sufficiently an expert to know just how bad the rise is and what it implies. But, certainly, we are advised by our staff. The Minister's staff advised the committee yesterday that we've reached the point now when action must be taken. The temporary dikes that were erected and built, or scraped together, with not particularly good material last year just won't withstand the kind of flooding that is anticipated.

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

I feel that it is an emergency. I intend to respond to the Member's questions in as simple and succinct and direct fashion as I can. It is the government's intention, however, upon the passage of second reading, to swiftly and promptly go into committee stage and to get royal assent today.

I therefore move second reading of Bill 131.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I haven't had very much time to examine this piece of legislation. However, the Minister has made certain statements in justification for its presentation at this time.

One statement left me slightly bewildered was the fact that he said this piece of legislation was separate and distinct and had no relationship to the labour dispute now taking place in Kamloops. Well, it's part and parcel. It's spelled out very clearly in this legislation in the second "whereas." It mentions the unresolved labour dispute and that it's necessary to get sufficient personnel to adequately control the flooding and prevent further flooding in the Kamloops area.

I hope the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) will stand in his place and tell us just where that labour dispute presently stands and why he hasn't taken the necessary action to ensure that the labour dispute

[ Page 2965 ]

which is threatening the municipalities in the Kamloops area is not dealt with under the new Labour Code of British Columbia without the necessity of the introduction of a piece of legislation by the Provincial Secretary. There are adequate remedial measures in the Labour Code of British Columbia which could have been utilized without going to this special Act.

I'm glad to see that the government at last, in a public interest situation, will take some form of action. We had legislation on the books until it was thrown out by that government over there that dealt with the public interest. Now we have the Legislature sitting and we see a special bill being introduced by the Provincial Secretary which is, in fact, something primarily dealing with a labour dispute in the Kamloops area.

I hope the Minister will tell us in closing the debate on this piece of legislation what action would the government have taken had the Legislature not been sitting? Would it have been dealt with under the special officer provisions of the Labour Code of British Columbia? How would you have resolved the very pressing public interest situation in the Kamloops area? I think you must have some legislation that will ensure the kind of protection which you're requesting.

We approve of it in this Legislature at this time. I, for one, will be supporting the legislation despite the fact that it appears to be strikebreaking tactics on the part of the government. In fact, it is strikebreaking tactics by that government. But, nevertheless, I've always been one to say that when the public interest is at stake that should always be considered first.

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

Quite frankly, I'm reluctant to render this kind of emergency measure into a political debate. I think that an issue of this kind is of such overriding public importance that one should not attempt to make political points on the basis of existing legislation or on the basis of past practices of dealing with this kind of question.

I would simply point out that there is no provision in the Labour Code to deal with this kind of situation in an expeditious way. The right to strike is granted and maintained to unions under the Labour Code. This emergency measure does not seek to strikebreak or to impair the effectiveness of the strike against the City of Kamloops in any way. It simply seeks, Mr. Speaker, to remove from the area of conflict and dispute an emergency situation on the periphery of that city and on the periphery of that dispute.

The relative issues in dispute, either from the union's point of view or from the city's point of view, are not going to render the province and the city incapable of responding to the dire emergency of flooding which threatens a significant part of the community. That in no way impairs the legality or the effectiveness of the strike on the union's part or the city's position in the labour dispute that exists in that community. I think one has to view it as a separate issue and one of extreme emergency.

Interjection

HON. MR. KING: With the emergency aspect of the dispute only; it in no way restricts picketing or the conduct of the dispute in the city proper where the main effect of the strike is taking place.

I had quite frankly hoped that the union and the city would respond in a mature way to the requests by this government to recognize the emergency and to act like responsible citizens. You cannot legislate people into responsibility. If they refuse to accept that responsibility in this case or any other, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislature of this province is the appropriate agency to make that determination and to show a higher sense of responsibility and to deal expeditiously with it.

That is the situation here. It is an isolated case. I think it should be recognized as that and I think it should be dealt with in that light.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the hair-splitting by the Minister of Labour as to what or what does not constitute strikebreaking was interesting, but I think the real point at the principle stage of this bill is to point out that this is not a problem which has sprung upon the people of Kamloops suddenly. The water levels have been a matter of concern for a considerable amount of time.

In 1972, they were a matter of considerable concern and, during the election campaign, many people, including myself, many politicians in this room, including myself, found ourselves inspecting the dikes and looking at the problems they had at that time.

I think, however, the government should have certainly, instead of bringing in a bill — which we're quite willing to agree to in light of their failure to bring it in earlier — put forward a bill earlier when the indication was that we would have flooding. We should have proceeded with it in a more normal course.

I can understand the government's desire not to bring forward such a bill because, indeed, by bringing forward such a bill, as the Minister of Labour made clear, they have underlined a failing in the Labour Code. I believe I quote him correctly: "The Labour Code has nothing to take care of this." That is true, and that was pointed out, of course, during the discussions on the Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, on the principle of bringing in

[ Page 2966 ]

legislation into the Legislature in a rush essentially — let's face it — to break a strike in terms of protecting the property and lives in the Kamloops area….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's simply no other way it can be described. The Member who indicated that it was not a strikebreaking bill I think should look at the legislation.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have a strikebreaking bill here to prevent the effects of a strike from taking place. The important principle which I think should be understood even by the Member who spoke a moment ago is that this type of thing should exist in legislation. It should exist in a calm, rational period prior to when you strike, where there is no industrial dispute on the horizon. It should be known by the parties concerned when there is indeed an industrial dispute. That means both parties, not just one side. I'm thinking of both parties.

The fear I have is that legislation of this nature brought in at the 11th hour, when perhaps — and I'm hypothesizing here — the people involved in this strike believe that the conditions in the town are such as to create a very favourable climate for the settlement they wish. This type of pulling the rug out from under them at the fifth hour may well lead to bitterness and a quite correct charge that we are changing the rules in the middle of an industrial dispute.

Doing this cannot encourage industrial peace. Mr. Speaker, during debates on the Labour Code and other legislation we in this party and other Members of the opposition pointed out that the right to strike in certain areas is illusory. We were told by the government that the right to strike was there, but we knew full well, every one of us, in our hearts that police, firemen, hospital workers and others in essential services would not be permitted to exercise a right which we were telling them in this Legislature that we were granting them — or, at least, the government was telling them that it was granting them. The fact is that this bill proves the correctness of the opposition's point of view at that time.

Strikes in essential services, where risk to human lives is involved — or, indeed, simply risk to property…. It's simply a property case in the case of Kamloops, not risk to human life. Risks of property and human life will result in government taking action. I foresaw precisely the same type of bill that the government brought in at the time I spoke, when we were discussing in principle that legislation.

The fact is that this government has to face up a little more realistically to the situation which exists not only in the case of the outside workers in Kamloops, but also with respect to others who work in delicate, essential services, the curtailment of which would mean a serious impairment to the effectiveness of our society.

We think of the Vancouver police situation which was referred to by questioning by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), questioning which the Attorney-General apparently did not have a response for at the time.

We simply cannot continue, Mr. Speaker, to allow both management and labour to live in the world of pretence where we know full well that the right to strike will be denied just as this legislation denies the right to strike where essential services and human life and property could be seriously affected.

We in our party will be supporting this bill in principle; we had no objection to bringing it in in this way. But I would like to point out to the Hon. Minister that we would prefer in future, when a potential situation arises over many days, indeed weeks, where the situation is known, as was the Kamloops case, we would like to have the legislation, if possible, introduced in the normal manner.

Secondly, we would prefer to have the maximum warning of any legislation that might come in in an emergency way. As I said, we waived the rules, and any one in the opposition could have objected to this. We're willing to waive the rules to help the government out of its bind at the present time. But we hope that in future we will not be subjected to legislation such as this hitting us with so little notice.

The whole question of the Labour Code, the right to strike for the people in essential services — be they in hospitals, fire halls or police stations — comes up when we discuss this bill. We think it shows pretty clearly the need for some sort of fall-back legislation in emergency situations. We do not like the principle of having separate bills coming in and then have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) tell us somehow or another that a strike-breaking bill is not a strike-breaking bill. We trust that we will have a more honest approach to both sides, both Labour and management, in these delicate areas such as I mentioned: police, hospital and fire.

If we don't have that, we're simply not being fair; we're not being candid with the very people whose lives and livelihood and wages are affected by industrial disputes and, of course, by legislation in this

[ Page 2967 ]

House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to thank the Minister for the full statement which he gave in introducing the bill. He pointed out the measures that had been attempted and the communications which had taken place, and this was useful background information for the opposition.

I personally, speaking to the principle of this bill, am nothing less than shocked at the attitude of both parties concerned in Kamloops. How can we have individuals in our modern society put a labour dispute before life itself? We're not just talking about damage and money in the principle of this bill; we are talking about human lives. People can be drowned — children, women, adults — and it certainly is a staggering realization that people in our society are still prepared to put, albeit important, issues to themselves ahead of not only public interest but human lives.

I think that if I've ever in this House been misunderstood about my attitude to strikes, we've got it right here on the nose today. My attitude to strikes remains unchanged. If I ever looked for vindication of my opinion and the stance of this party — and I'm not proposing to go on to a party debate on this…. But I believe that whether this government is in power or any government were in power, society has taken this attitude to the right to strike which has reached a point where I really do believe that human life and danger to human life is being neglected for the sake of the advantage of one or the other party to a labour dispute.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in taking part in this debate on principle, said this bill was justified because of overriding public interest. I agree. There can't be anything more overriding than the risk to human life itself. But in passing I think it's fair to ask the question: who decides what the definition of overriding is?

We've already entered into discussions, and there have been questions asked in the question period, about the public interest. There is the clear policy of this government, both in the debate on the Labour Code and in subsequent events, of non-intervention in strikes. Yet, and I'm pleased to say this, it's obvious that this government at least does take action when that ultimate point is reached that human life is being endangered by the absolutely rigid attitude of two parties to a dispute.

Frankly, as I say, I can't find a strong enough word. Because I never, ever — despite some cynicism that it's easy to develop — thought I would see the day in British Columbia or in Canada where two parties to a dispute couldn't even call a truce. Why can't they deal with the situation until the danger has passed and then go back on strike? Can't they ever agree to do that?

I never really thought — I know I've spoken in this frame of mind in the House in debates — but I really never felt that the day would come when parties would insist on striking regardless of the danger to life.

The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has more or less said exactly what I feel: that surely it must give the government reason to reconsider the so-called right to strike for employees in public service. He detailed hospital, fire and police in particulars. But it must indeed give the government reason to reconsider whether in fact there is such a right in these particular forms of public service.

I just don't think there is; I don't think there should be. As long as I'm in the political sphere, that's the position I'll be taking. I do ask the question that I think the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) asked: if the House had not been in session…. Perhaps the Minister could tell us in winding up the debate what other alternative means existed in dealing with a situation where it isn't just a question of property damage, bad as that might be, but the fact that people might be killed.

I agree with the other Members who have spoken in the opposition that whichever way you try to use the words there's an element of strike-breaking involved. It might well be, as the Minister of Labour has explained to us — most of the picketing is in the centre of Kamloops, where the union feels that it is being most effective — that the effectiveness of the strike will continue. And I accept the Minister's explanation of that.

Nevertheless, it's quite clear in the legislation before us in Bill 131, Mr. Speaker, that there must be no attempt by the strikers to picket or interfere in any way which would prevent section 3, "engage in picketing or in any way interfere with any operation respecting the control and prevention of flooding…." So that I think it's indulging in semantics to suggest that this bill is not a strike-breaking bill.

But I don't think that's by any means a big aspect of the argument. The fact is that the Minister is asking the House to approve an emergency measure and 1, and this party, will certainly give it the strongest support. But I think it would be negligent of the opposition, at the risk of indulging in a political debate such as the Minister of Labour suggested we should not indulge, it would be wrong of us and we'd be falling short in our obligation as opposition Members in the House if we did not say that the background to this emergency situation, the debates which took place on the Labour Code and in fact the admission by the Minister that he has no alternative but to bring in such a bill, must surely lead to the government's reconsideration of the question of the so-called right — and I question the validity of

[ Page 2968 ]

that word — but the right to strike in public service where withdrawal of that service may well, and would in this case, unquestionably lead to loss of life.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I certainly would like to compliment the previous speaker on some of the remarks he made and the concern expressed, excellently put. I wish I could say the same for all of the comments of the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, but I have good reason not to and I'll get to that a little later.

I was home last week-end, of course, for two days and for two days the office phone and my home phone were ringing with many, many calls from people who were not concerned, who were not worried about the threat of flood — but were simply frantic about it.

We had a situation in 1948 where half of the Brocklehurst area, all of where the airport now stands, the oil refinery and many other sections of the Kamloops district were under water.

But at that time there was less than half of the population we have now. These areas were vacant and the harm wasn't there in the flooding that there would be now that they have been covered with houses without any proper protection in unorganized areas with the full knowledge of the previous government.

In 1972 when I lived there the flood was quite serious and I spent many long hours filling sandbags on the dikes in the Brocklehurst area that the Provincial Secretary has mentioned.

In that time, of course, as we all know, the so-called dike approved by the previous government broke at Oakhills. It broke at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, fortunately, instead of 4 o'clock in the morning. If it had broken at 4 o'clock in the morning there would have been many lives lost.

The only saying thing of the breaking of that dike was it drew attention to its weakness, to its poor construction, and the fact that it was in the daytime and there was no loss of life.

Even at that time of the day it was fortunate because there were many close calls. This is not a slow leaking, slow water-rising situation, it was a complete giveaway of a rotten section of the dike containing tree stumps, wood, anything that could be used to be piled up and covered with dirt. This was the dike approved by the previous government down here in Victoria for that development.

I know that the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was there in that situation also, after the dike broke. If you remember we were very close to a provincial election. He arrived on the scene and strolled down the Oakhills dike along with the local candidate, some of the usual Liberal Party flacks, cameramen, and writers to record the whole thing for posterity and publishing in the local press.

The people up there are not concerned in the main with the labour dispute and like them, I feel the same about the dispute. I take no sides with either party in it. I sympathize with both.

I'm sure the Kamloops city council does not enjoy the situation they find themselves in. I'm sure the members of the union do not enjoy the position they find themselves in, but we have got to a situation, and, Mr. Member, you're absolutely right.

When I was home last week-end, my answer to these people's concern was that I felt quite sure of the emergency committee, with the Provincial Secretary and others of the cabinet, that this situation was being kept very close tabs on. But on returning to Victoria I would certainly press them for some kind of a solution to the problem — any solution, no matter what it was, no matter whose dignity it involved, no matter if someone's pride was a little injured. This protection had to be put in. The people had to be looked after.

Many, many, many of these areas do not have sewerage and we cannot look at a situation of eight weeks with septic tanks and fields flooded. I'm sure the previous speaker is quite aware of this situation, much more aware than I am of the dangers of flooded septic tanks on the community, and there isn't the housing there to accommodate these people in some other area.

My own house, I have no particular concern for. In 1948, which was an extremely high year, the house didn't flood. You had to have a boat to get to it, but at least there was not a dangerous situation there.

Let us look for a minute at money, because money sometimes with some people concerns more than lives. Sometimes they are more concerned in their pride than in lives.

There was approximately $1.5 million paid in reparations for damage in the Oakhills flood situation and this was only damage to the houses that were there at that time. My own opinion was that perhaps all of the houses should have been moved out of the area and it given back to the river and to cattle grazing as it had been used for before. It would have meant an awful lot more money and with the availability, the 'short situation of land in the Kamloops area at the time, it was thought better to build the dike. Needless to say it is a dike and not simply a pile of dirt.

That dike was built at a cost of between $1.3 million and $1.5 million and this is in one small area that doesn't hold more than 300 families at a time. There were other hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the whole North Thompson area, areas outside of the Oakhills situation.

I know that the problem is complicated by a labour dispute and, as I said before, I have sympathy for both sides. But I don't think the pride, I don't think the problem of losing face, I don't think that

[ Page 2969 ]

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

Also, with the amalgamation of the city last spring, most of these dikes were not the consideration of the city workers before. Most of the threatened areas are outside what was the original City of Kamloops. No work has been done on the small dikes, and they are very small dikes that were built in 1972 with the cooperation of the Highways department. It was excellent cooperation at the time but it was a race with time to have the level of the dike maintained at two or three inches above the steadily-rising river.

All sorts of pumps were used. Electric, gasoline, irrigation pumps, conversions, anything to save the situation. What we have now is time to put in a proper remedy where these dikes have been worn down and rained down. Some of them have not the proper material in them. Some of them need rock riprap and protection where the current is in danger of eating them away.

There is an old people's home in North Kamloops where the only way it was saved last time was by sandbags and a couple of large pumps inside to pump the water over.

We cannot have that type of situation this time. For that reason I certainly want to compliment the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), all of whom I was with in a meeting with both sides to the dispute — both the union and the city.

I would assure this House that every effort was made to resolve that dispute peacefully with regard to the dikes only and no interference with the dispute that they have with the city. I do not consider that if garbage isn't picked up that this is an emergency for the area. I don't think it is necessary to pass an Act in this Legislature if it takes an extra couple of weeks to get a building permit because of shortage of staff. But when we are in danger of sudden breakages of dikes, flooding of septic tanks — a real health and life problem as well as a property problem — I certainly support this bill in principle and will certainly be voting for it in final reading.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't want to hold this bill up but I'd like to make a few comments here and certainly not on the labour. I agree with a lot of the remarks that have been made but regarding the formula for revetment of river banks and so on, I really think this is part of the problem here.

What I'd like to point out to this House is that the bells rang in this community in 1972 and what have we done since then to help these people? I feel sorry for Kamloops and as they could have a recurrence to what happened in 1972, it appears to me that we've all skipped over this period of time from 1972 until now, which is almost two years.

I realize this boundary extension has been made and so on, but I can't understand why. I want to tell you that I was the mayor of a community that flooded on the Fraser and I know all about the problems you're trying to fight when the water's there and it's not the time to be looking after these things.

Why, I say, Mr. Speaker, weren't some preventive measures taken in at least the fall of 1973? Now I had a phone call today, and maybe I'm off the bill, but a phone call today showed this concern is now coming on the Fraser River system.

I am advised today by an individual that when he asked for help, he was told there was no fiscal help available to save his land from falling in the river.

Now I really think that this is where we're at. The formula, whether it is with a municipality or an individual — it is my understanding — is 75-25. If the provincial government hasn't got the funds for the 75 per cent, well, we're sure not going to get these things resolved. I really think that this is part of this difficulty in Kamloops. I would like to be told otherwise if it is so, but it is most unfortunate; this work should have been done all last winter when the water was low and not while it is on the rise at this time.

I only hope that there will be some answers given. I can assure you that there is going to be difficulty on the Fraser River if we don't have proper runoff. The weather has the answer to that, but we have a terrific snowpack not only on the Thompson but on the Fraser, and those rivers are up extensively now. If they continue to go, we are going to have a repetition of this in places like Prince George, Quesnel and so on.

I would like to know why something has not happened, particularly in Kamloops, when the bells rang there in 1972. We are standing here with emergency legislation now to try and do something. In my opinion, this isn't the time at all to be doing this work; it should have been done a year ago.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's all very well to hear now the official opposition, the former government, saying: "Why wasn't something done?" The people that can take the full responsibility for the mess in Oakhills, the people that without one film of doubt can take the full responsibility for the Oakhills mess….

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2970 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is interesting to check the files. What this government has done is to build the major dike that was needed in Kamloops — and built it without any argument, built it because it was needed. It was the major facility that was needed, funded by this government whether we were going to get federal aid or not.

This government was stuck again, literally, with a mop-up job after the previous administration. We compensated the homeowners and the home buyers in the Oakhills area, as the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) indicated. We subsequently built the dike as well. It is now apparent after further work that additional work is needed at Brocklehurst at this time. It can be done. But the Cinnamon Hills area — so-called, even though it is more a lake than Cinnamon Hills, to the west of the airport — is an area of continuing dispute between the city council and the landowners.

That is still, as I understand it, unresolved. And it is very clear that there have been arguments between the two, primarily related to getting benefits from rezoning in that particular area, that has complicated the issue over the last year.

Now it is just a bit thick again to hear the official opposition talk about lack of activity by the government, because you just have to check the approving officer's files, the Department of Highways files and the advice that the professional staff of Water Resources, Municipal Affairs and the Highways department were giving the politicians of the day.

Gentlemen, you should see those files, because one after the other the professional staff said: "Do not allow building in Oakhills; you are asking for a disaster." Those reports hit cabinet desks, and what happened? A former cabinet Minister, your research adviser, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, despite all the advice, writes at the bottom of the file: "Okay to proceed — Dan C."

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of every Member in this House for the situation on the ground at Kamloops, and therefore I very much support the principle of the bill. I congratulate the Provincial Secretary on his neutral statement of the facts of the case as we have them at the moment.

I share the concern as well for what must be an incredible labour-relations situation when the two parties can't get together to solve a community problem of this great import to both of them.

One point I would wish to make, not to hold up this debate in any way, is simply to make the point to the government that by this bill the government has recognized that there do exist cases where innocent third-party interests require the shielding of those interests from the effect of a labour-relations dispute.

I would suggest to the government that this happens in every case where there is a clear and present threat to life and property caused by such a dispute. I would urge, while we pass this measure quickly, that at the same time the government should not consider that the end of the problem, but rather should say: "What other cases in British Columbia are likely to fall into this category, and what continuing legislative provision should we make in the Labour Code for shielding of innocent third-party interests in emergency cases of this kind?"

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in 1948, which the present situation is being compared to, I was a student in Kamloops. My dad was an alderman. I support this bill but I would like now to tell the city council and tell the union involved about what happened in 1948. They think that Oakhills, Cinnamon Hills, is it. The dikes were built from the CNR bridge right around to just below Brocklehurst. They didn't build a dike from Brocklehurst because it wasn't populated in those days.

If this is anything like the 1948 flood, you have got another disaster. What happened in 1948 was that water backed up sewer lines. There was talk of typhoid. Now you talk about a health problem! Now typhoid…. Am I correct, Doctor?

Another very unusual thing happened. The North Thompson, which is the river that's in flood, came down and created such a problem that the South Thompson couldn't come in. So areas in Kamloops who thought were absolutely safe had a dam built of water where the exhibition grounds are now — I think there is a $1 million yacht club there. It was all under water. There are people in houses all over North Kamloops and up that south arm that probably haven't even realized that if this is like the 1948 flood, there is trouble.

I think the unions and the city…. I just have to keep on coming back to the fact that the situation, if it is like 1948, is going to be beyond belief. It is going to cause millions and millions of dollars worth of damage. A lot of innocent people have been building on property they thought was well above flood level.

Now there is another thing that's happening in Kamloops. There are areas up the North Thompson which are on floodland that has been diked. This will again create more flooding downstream in areas like the Riverside Park area. All the park area was flooded out completely.

What I am worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill is not strong enough. I am very, very reluctant to take away any man's right to strike. I feel it can only

[ Page 2971 ]

be done in this Legislature. But I feel that this bill, which I am supporting, should serve notice, and I hope that there is sufficient publicity given to the problem in Kamloops so that they realize it is for more dangerous than…. In 24 or 25 years you forget a lot. I think that a lot of those people in authority there didn't know what it was in 1948. I had the pleasure of being almost killed by a Minister called P.A. Gaglardi. This was when he first came to fame.

He saved North Channels but he almost killed half the students because he didn't know how to drive this Caterpillar he was driving around in. He was a man of his era. He got publicity and he became a great person — rather a dangerous person, as W.A.C. Bennett learned.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Kamloops city council and the union involved — realize that there is a great danger to Kamloops.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I'd very much like to welcome to the House 28 students from South Canoe school in Salmon Arm, and their teacher Mr. Gordon Murphy.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very, very sad, sad commentary upon the responsibility and the activities of the participants in this dispute in Kamloops. It's terribly unfortunate, in my view, that legislation such as has been presented to the House this afternoon is necessary in a contemporary democracy.

Under it, Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), prior to making a few additional remarks. I see that he has the power to employ, conscript and summon assistance of people, and requisition and use equipment. Then under section 4 it refers to moneys required for the purpose of the Act to be paid via the flood relief Act provisions which refers to the source of funds in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I fully assume, Mr. Speaker, and certainly knowing this Minister as I do, that he will grant the assurance that reasonable and proper compensation will be afforded to anyone who is affected by the very strong powers granted under this bill because it could be open to question as to whether there is actually a provision for compensation clearly provided within the terms of the legislation. So I would ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary for such assurance that compensation would be provided if the powers that are stated therein are exercised.

I would indeed hope that the very force of this Act coming into being, as I feel it will — it's certainly been indicated that it has the consent of all Members of the House — I would certainly hope that this in itself would declare at least a moratorium in the conflict between the parties in Kamloops, and they would be able to do the job themselves without the intervention of the statute.

The Act has certainly done one thing — or perhaps we could say the act of nature, the flooding, has brought fully home to the people of this province, and I'd say fully home to the individuals within this Legislature, that by virtue of the terrific interdependency and proliferation of society, people can no longer isolate, be islands unto themselves, and wage their own wars for their own ends and to the devil or disregard to the general public in any harm which could possibly ensue unto that third partner. Because there are three partners involved, Mr. Speaker, in a contemporary labour-management dispute such as this. Not two partners but three: there is labour; there is management; and there is the general public who may suffer from the consequences of inaction of the other two.

Under these circumstances where irreparable public damage could ensue, such as would be the case here, surely for us to continue to say as elected representatives that under these circumstances there is a right to strike or a right to lockout, I think is anachronistic nonsense.

I would say that under circumstances such as are prevalent here, there is not a right to strike, and there is not a right to lock out, but only a privilege, and a privilege which should certainly not be abused; and if so abused, it would be at the peril of those who are at fault for pay for any damages resulting from such a dispute.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved, by virtue of the interdependency of society and, as I said, by the proliferation of people, into different times, and I think we have to apply different standards. We have to remember that this labour-management situation is no longer a two-party situation, certainly in the public sector, but is a three-party situation. If damage is occasioned, those responsible for those damages must pay them.

I regret, as I say, to see a bill such as this coming into the Province of British Columbia because I think it's a denegation of the responsibility of and the duties of those persons involved, If they had acted responsibly, this legislation would not have been required.

I do hope it is a signal to them to act responsibly. I do hope if they do that, that which is contemplated in the provisions of this bill will not have to be utilized.

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

I don't believe that this is strikebreaking legislation. I trust that neither the union in Kamloops nor the City of Kamloops will consider the action which we are taking here today as in any way

[ Page 2972 ]

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

What we have here is a classic instance of the preeminence of the public interest. Indeed, it's a classic instance of the basic responsibility of this Legislature in any given circumstance to consider whether the public interest is affected to the extent that the rights of private individuals, be they unions, cities, or individuals, must give way to the pre-eminence of public interest.

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

We must from time to time take action in this House in the public interest regardless of how the consequences may be felt by other individuals in our society.

Dealing specifically with the legislation — I wonder if the Provincial Secretary might respond to this concern I have when he closes this debate. It is dealing with the municipality of Kamloops and the powers that he has to exercise in preventing flooding, or the damage from flooding, which appears to be imminent.

We all recognize that the Thompson River and its tributaries will affect areas other than those within the municipality of Kamloops. I would just like to have the Provincial Secretary indicate whether the authority that he will exercise under this legislation, or under other legislation which we have, will enable him with the people that he uses under this legislation to protect areas outside the municipality of Kamloops because the flooding there can have all the consequences of damage that could occur within the municipal boundaries.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members for their contributions and their expressions of support for the principle of the bill.

Dealing with the matters that were raised in chronological order, from the start of the debate I tried to make it abundantly clear in my opening remarks that the House should, if they took my opinion, avoid mixing up the proposition of involving itself in the settlement of dispute and that which was the essential body of the bill, mainly the protection of the people of Kamloops.

I thought that was fully understood and I think the majority of Members of the House who engaged in debate accepted that. Unfortunately, the first spokesman for the official opposition just didn't do that. In fact, he chose to take the other course to, in my view, deliberately mix the two things up. I feel that didn't do the debate much good to begin with.

That was the trouble under the legislation he used to produce as Minister of Labour. He always mixed those two principles up. So we should feel sorry and carry on to the next speaker who was the Member for Victoria, the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) who called the whole thing hair-splitting; he called it strikebreaking. He said that we should have acted earlier. He again called it a strikebreaking bill and so generally bemoaned and bewailed the fact that it was too little — the usual expression — too little too late, and all the rest of it.

I can only commend him to discuss it with his partner, who sits to his left, who said the bill was not strikebreaking. Just say to that Member that he again, unfortunately, didn't listen to him as attentively as I do when I introduced the principle of the bill in the first instance.

Mr. Speaker, for him to tell us that he gave permission for this bill to go ahead — it was very nice of him to do that — so we could save the area of Kamloops, and to talk about what should be in our labour legislation, and what we should be doing is all very well and good. But I do want to remind him that we wanted cooperation; that's why we asked. We could have gone under standing order 81 if we wanted to.

I don't really like those kinds of remarks which so frequently come from the Member. I also want to remind that Liberal leader of his own party's position on the debate on Bill 33 which dealt with areas such as this.

The Liberal Party's position, reiterated over and over again throughout that debate on Bill 33, that was when items like this come up, there should be special measures individually organized, individually motivated, and that we should indeed get this kind of legislation. I wish some of you would remind him of his party's history, of where they've been in labour legislation in this province.

The Liberal position in all those nights — and I remember them well because I used to sit next to them — was that this Legislature should be called together and there should be a bill for an issue. If you care to search the records you'll find that amendment, Mr. Speaker, as I well remember that you were in that debate in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. Speaker, the two Members who have spoken today — namely, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — asked what would happen if we weren't sitting. I say that a whole wide range of things could happen if we weren't sitting. The first one is that you'd be called together to sit. That has been the position of this party over and over and over again — and the position of the then Liberal Party leader, who is not here today, during those debates on compulsory arbitration.

But I pose this question, Mr. Speaker: what would have happened it we had had the kind of powers that the Member for Columbia River and the Second Member for Victoria wanted? Supposing we had some statute, some emergency measures authority that the

[ Page 2973 ]

Liberals like? We would have had sweeping, swooping, awesome powers the like of which you have never seen; and if I'd have operated them in the corridor outside this morning at 10 o'clock or at 2 o'clock, can you imagine the row there would have been in here by about 2:25 p.m. — that we hadn't come to the Legislature to discuss this?

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, the kind of row, the kind of remarks that were coming from Members over there at the time I announced the contingency plan to deal with the postal strike? Do you remember how they shouted, "strike-breaking" — how they shouted that kind of stuff? Messrs. Members, you really must do better than that in terms of remembering where you have been.

Mr. Speaker, the next speaker was the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who supported the legislation. Like us all he chose the opportunity — and I respect him for it, and I see why he did it — to vindicate his position in terms of Bill 11 and the fact that certain areas shouldn't have the strike privilege.

I can see how he got to that situation; but by a curious twist of politics and thought and logic, this bill also vindicates our position, Mr. Member. We believe there should be the right to strike, and when things go wrong we have to declare public interest and do something about it, so I suppose from Oat point of view we find ourselves on the same side of the question.

But you then referred to the definition of "interest." There we have really the nub of the whole question. I was so careful and so hopeful that we wouldn't mix up the two things: the question of the lawns and the parks and the boulevards in Kamloops not being mowed, the sewage pipes not being attended to, and all the host of duties that municipal people do, and this question of flooding on the outskirts of the city.

He asked who decides interest, who decides public interest. I want to say with all the sincerity I can muster for the Member that's what politics is about; that's what we fight to achieve power about. The buck has to stop somewhere, and that's what government's about. We've got to face up to it. And I don't know of any group of people I'd sooner face up to those decisions with than my colleagues on the Treasury benches, supported by the government Members.

I think it is that kind of attitude, that kind of responsibility, that kind of pressure, that kind of realization that the buck has to stop somewhere, that makes for the responsible government and responsive government that I think you are getting today.

So, unfortunately, the responsibility is ours. We can duck it. We can run from it. But it is ours, nevertheless, and I think we are responding to it.

The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) recognized the public interest, and I think he worries about it. He asked if any changes were envisaged because of this happenstance in the Labour Code. I can't speak for the Minister (Hon. Mr. King), but I would be very surprised, because I think we've dealt with the public interest; we've dealt with the way we want to tackle these problems. I repeat to that Member: what would have happened if we had had those powers and not come before this Legislature to do something — just announced it in the corridor and not come before this Legislature to do something about it?

I want to assure the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that certainly as far as section 2 is concerned, in the compensation that may flow from the operation of section 2, we will naturally fully compensate for the use of equipment and the assistance and the measures that are carried out.

The extent of the disaster, if there is a disaster — and I hope that our actions today are going to prevent that; but we all know there will be some wet ground around in this province over the next little while — it will, of course, be dealt with in the normal way as it was dealt with before: by reference to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and myself and the emergency funds that we have for that kind of work.

I would like to assure the Member, in closing the debate on second reading, that it is still my hope, even though I am just as upset as the Member for Oak Bay was about the fact that this is necessary, that even at this late stage there may be some cooperation. I haven't, obviously, had an opportunity to chat with the Minister of Highways and the Minster of Labour, who I know have been out contacting people even while this debate has been going on, as to whether there has been any.

But let me finally say — and this is really what bothered me a little bit about some of the remarks…. I expected this to come up. But I can't think of an occasion, and I have watched labour and management matters for a long time, when some dispensation hasn't been given in a situation like this. Time after time after time governments of all political stripes have gone to unions, in and out families of labour, at all times over the last years and years and years and asked for dispensation to deal with a problem. Similarly, we have gone to employees and asked for their assistance in dealing with an emergency, the severity of which was well described by the Member for Oak Bay.

I can't think of it being refused. I say that that in itself is partially the answer to the Member's worries about public interest. I still hope that cooperation will be ours by the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 131 now.

[ Page 2974 ]

Oh, there was a question from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). The authority applied only to the City of Kamloops. The area described: we've gone right down the river. We've got all the reports in and, as far as we are concerned, this is the only area of concern. I am advised by the committee members that their resource people tell them that, and that's why we've specifically confined it to this area.

There is no labour dispute anywhere else. I hope that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound doesn't become a prophet and prove me wrong. I know he does but that's where we are at the moment.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 131 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 131 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY
FLOOD CONTROL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 13 1; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. HALL: May it be understood — I'm not sure of the constitutionality of it; I'm sure this is not critical — but could we give the correct designation and call it the City of Kamloops…? I think that could be done by the Law Clerk when he presents the bill finally.

Recitals approved.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: As I said earlier, I certainly support the bill, but one part of it gives me some considerable concern. It is the use of the words "conscript and summon the assistance of any person."

These words "conscript" and "any person" give me some real concern. In an emergency situation, I sense what the Minister is trying to do, but I would just like to ask two questions. One is on the possible involvement of an individual who, unknown to the coercing party, is really in no position to assist or do what might be expected of him. You can't judge people just by looking at them and saying they can fill sandbags. They may have heart disease or epilepsy or anything, and they might not be in a position to give the assistance which is being conscripted.

Also, what kind of labour force, if I can use that phrase, does the Minister have in mind to conscript and summon the assistance of any person. Are there active moves being made, for example, through the Canada Manpower or some other vehicle to provide a list of people who perhaps would even volunteer or otherwise provide service?

Thirdly, can the Minister comment on the degree to which an individual being conscripted is liable to penalty if he refuses to be conscripted?

I'm not trying to split hairs. I realize that the Minister, I'm sure, would attempt only to call upon people and use compulsion where a really serious situation existed. But section 2(1)(a) I think is a very serious degree of power which might lead to great suffering on the part of some individuals quite beyond their own control. I wonder if the Minister could give us some guidance as to how 1(a) will be implemented or is intended to be implemented.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, it's a copy of the language that's used in the fire-fighting measures of the Forest Act. It's exactly the same language. It's our intention to use the same experience in that. We're not likely in the original work that's going to go on to be doing much conscripting. The labour force is ready to move in. Department of Highways people will be doing most of the work. The conscription powers in my view have to be there, similar to those that are in the fire-fighting sections of the Forest Act. They include the experience and the various rules and procedures that have been adopted many, many times for many, many years regarding people who are unprepared to…. There has been a great deal of experience gained already in that. Lastly, the penalties if people refuse to operate are those laid out in the Summary Convictions Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I have the same concern raised by the Member for Oak Bay. As I read the fire protection sections of the Forest Act, they do not contain the word "conscript"; they do contain the words "employ and summon." If it was the attempt of the draftsman of this legislation to equate what we have here with the Forest Act, then he's gone far astray. It specifically provides that in respect of fighting fires and forest service may employ or summon assistance of any male person between the ages of 18 and 60. It exempts certain people who have specific occupations and it exempts persons who are physically unfit. It then goes on to provide that any person who fails to render assistance, having been summoned, is guilty of an offence. There's no question under section 5 of the Summary Convictions Act that if a person fails to abide by this legislation he is guilty to a summary conviction fine of $500.

[ Page 2975 ]

But to insert the word "conscript" gives to the Provincial Secretary far more power than exists under the fire-fighting section. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to delete from section 2(1)(a) the word "conscript."

HON. MR. HALL: I accept that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If I may just say one thing further, Mr. Chairman, I trust that in the light of the temper of this debate any physically fit male or female person in the City of Kamloops will be very happy to accede to any summons for assistance that the Provincial Secretary gives out. It they don't I think they should get the $500 fine.

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record, this is a very important bill and I thought we could do it by leave and give the Law Clerk power to change the words "municipality" to "each city." Apparently the Law Clerk is uncertain of his powers and I would therefore move that in line 12 we strike out "municipality" and replace it by the word "city." I think that should cover it, as the recitals earlier on don't have legislative effect.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): In order to have section 3 consistent with section 2, Mr. Chairman, I would move after the word "tributaries" in the last line thereof to add the words "in the city of Kamloops."

It was the intention under section 2, as illustrated by the Provincial Secretary by his remarks, that these powers would be restricted to the flooding of the Thompson and its tributaries in the city of Kamloops if the prohibition section does not restrict it to the City of Kamloops. I'm just saying for purposes of consistency we should have a similar restriction under section 3 as we find under section 2, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not against the clarification at all. It seems to me that it's duplication rather than clarification. It seems to me that the powers of the Provincial Secretary as laid down by section 2 are conditioned finally by the words "the flooding of the Thompson River and its tributaries in the municipality of Kamloops."

MR. GARDOM: City of Kamloops.

HON. MR. HALL: City of Kamloops.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm talking about 3.

HON. MR. HALL: I was trying to attract the Chairman's attention before you got up because I have an amendment that…. Can I say to you that I want to change the number on the first line of the second page from 3 to 2? It's a misprint, so that would explain the whole thing away, I think.

MR. GARDOM: You wish to change which line?

HON. MR. HALL: Section 3 reads currently: "During the time the Provincial Secretary has power and authority under section 3." It should read "under section 2." Then I think we've got the whole thing wrapped up.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the figure 3 in the first line of section 3 be struck out and the figure 2 replaced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed with the amendment of the Hon. Provincial Secretary would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey withdraw his amendment?

MR. GARDOM: Well I think that he's provided the clarification so my amendment would be unnecessary. If the clarification had been required it would be necessary. So I'm happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. HALL: The title is Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act. I see no argument about that. We've passed the recitals which are the whereas, and as they have no legislative effect I don't particularly want to get involved in….

MR. GARDOM: We've a little trouble with the Chairman ourselves, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendments.

[ Page 2976 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 131, Kamloops Emergency Flood Control Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): By leave, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 131 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: May I advise the House, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to have the Lieutenant-Governor come in to give royal assent to this bill just as soon as I can possibly request His Honour to be here.

MR. SPEAKER: In the meantime, I wonder if leave of the House could be granted for the presentation of a petition by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Leave granted.

Presenting petitions.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the citizens and residents of Texada Island and directed to me to present in the Legislature:

"We the undersigned residents of Texada Island wish to place ourselves on record as strongly protesting the mineral royalties bill, Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The procedure is just to give the names of the petitioners and the actual prayer for relief itself and not all the body of the petition. Is there any prayer for relief?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, that's it. "The petition of the undersigned humbly show" and they go on to place themselves on record as protesting the Mineral Royalties Act because it will strangle the mining industry in their island.

MR. SPEAKER: That's merely argumentative. What I'm asking the Hon. Leader is: do they say at the end after that preamble anything about what they have done?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, he says, "Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your Hon. House will move carefully with consideration of Bill 31 and make a fair study to find out how this royalty bill will affect the residents and the undersigned workers of Texada Island, British Columbia, before its enactment, and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

MR. SPEAKER: And that's the prayer for relief, at last.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: With relief?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is now in the precincts of the building, could we have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER: I would declare a short recess and ask the Hon. Members to remain seated.

The House took recess at 4:00 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

KAMLOOPS EMERGENCY FLOOD CONTROL ACT

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the Chamber.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)

Vote 137: Minister's Office, $105,352.

On the amendment to vote 137.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we are now on the amendment, I believe to reduce the Minister's salary by $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. The Hon. Member will speak on the amendment.

MR. FRASER: We discussed yesterday afternoon about the Minister's competence in the management

[ Page 2977 ]

of certain things, and the sale of Ocean Falls' products where it could cost the citizens of British Columbia a lot of money due to the sale arrangements made. This Minister absolutely refuses to table this document so it can be examined.

At least he said himself yesterday that he was going to keep this document secret like any other large forest company would keep it secret, implying that they were really one and the same.

Mr. Chairman, I can't agree with that because there is a great difference between the public and privately owned forest companies and the Government of the Province of British Columbia being the owners of this. It is owned by all the people of this province. This Minister has no right to take the position that this agreement, or any other business of the public of British Columbia, should be kept secret. But he has up to this point maintained that this is exactly what lie intends to do. This is where we certainly disagree.

It would appear that an iron curtain has been drawn by this Minister, in this particular instance, over the sale agreement which certainly has consequences with and for the people of this province because they are the owners of this and he only represents them and has no rights at all to deny them the fact that they can look into this agreement.

I want to go on from where I left off last night. I want to deal with the government-operated Plateau sawmills located at Vanderhoof, and go into the operation there on the information I have.

First of all, timber has been taken away from other areas and assigned to Plateau sawmills. The Minister shakes his head. But I realize this timber was not allocated, but now is allocated to Plateau sawmills. The fact is that this timber was in the area of Kluskus, a native community 150 miles west of Quesnel. The reason I mention Kluskus is the fact that this is where this timber was unallocated, which has been allocated to Plateau sawmills.

In the normal progression of logging, which is proceeding west from another Indian village of Nazko, it would have been natural for this timber to come out through that way and come in to Quesnel. But this is not going to happen now. I say that because the native population of Kluskus have always done their business — it's in the watershed of that flows to the Fraser River. Now because of the Plateau operations, located at Vanderhoof, there is an access road of 50 miles being built, so this timber can be taken in to the Plateau sawmill operation at Vanderhoof.

I would like to know several things about the road construction, Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that it is in progress and has been since last year sometime. I would like to know what environment studies were made prior to the construction of this pretty substantial forest road. It is being built to the standard that a logging truck and trailer of 100,000 lb. gross can run on it, so it's certainly not a wagon road or a trail. It is a substantial road and it takes a lot of swath through the country. It is my information that the vehicles such as bulldozers are ripping all over the place and the local people are wondering just who is directing this whole operation.

I would ask the question, Mr. Chairman, whether any environment studies were done in any shape or form because I know that this is now required of the private companies.

The other side of this is that there is a fair amount of timber on the right-of-way that has been cleared to make room for road construction. I have been given to understand that this timber is put up for sale, but other bidders can't bid this timber because they know they have to pay for the use of that road and they can't find out what that is. The point I'm making is that we are not getting competition on this Crown timber for this reason. I would like to know what the Minister has to say along that line.

The Plateau sawmill operation has two mills, one located at Engen, west of Vanderhoof, and then another one in Vanderhoof. Okay, two in Vanderhoof. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what this Minister is going to do about the illegal operation of these mills, of Plateau sawmills.

When anybody else, individuals or companies, apply for Crown timber, they must have a barker and chipper operation in their mills. I understand that at least one of these mills in Plateau sawmills has no barker or chipper equipment. It is a definite requirement of the Forestry department that anybody bidding on Crown timber must have that.

Of course, I agree with this stipulation for the simple reason that rather than waste being burnt in a burner, which is the case in the Plateau sawmills…and we have a serious shortage of chips. I think it is disgraceful that a Crown Corporation has let this go on. They certainly wouldn't let it go on in the case of a private operation. They would have had their warning by now that they would cease to get Crown timber if they didn't become legal in their operation.

I am further given to understand that the burner…. By the way, this Minister is the Minister of the environment and pollution control, and one of these burners has had the top burned off it. It is near the town of Vanderhoof and is causing pollution to that area. I am sure the citizens of Vanderhoof would like to know when this illegal and bad operation is going to be cleaned up.

I think it is notable, Mr. Chairman, to make note of the fact that there is a serious shortage of chips. That applies to Can-Cel of Prince Rupert. This Minister has already directed other operators to, whether they like to or not, ship chips to Can-Cel at cost to them, while here we have this real waste going

[ Page 2978 ]

on in a government-operated sawmill, namely Plateau Mills. I really don't think any of these things add up.

I would like to know when the Minister, through this Crown-operated sawmill, is going to start and live and abide by the laws this same Minister applies.

If Crown operations do get preferential treatment — and I suggest they do — there is certainly proof of this in the case of Plateau Mills.

Something else that has come up here before, but I would like to bring it up again, is a conflict of interest. The prior District Forester of the Fort George Forest District was on the board of Plateau. This Minister told us a year ago that he would certainly look into it. While this gentleman is certainly a very competent person — I don't want in any way to make any slurs on him — but I can't see, when he was the District Forester at Prince George in charge of the allocation of timber, how he can be impartial on how timber is allocated in reference to a government-operated sawmill.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I would like to know who made the final decision on the Kluskus timber to go into Plateau instead of where it was originally intended to go. I am sure this gentleman wouldn't do it.

The point I would like to make is: this man has now been promoted — and I am happy to see that. He is now the Assistant Chief Forester for the Province of British Columbia. Is he still a Director of Plateau Mills? Is it the intent of the Minister to keep him on the directorate of Plateau Mills?

There's certainly a conflict of interest there. How can he be fair and not rule in favour of a Crown corporation such as Plateau? It seems human nature to me that he would be biased, and I don't think that should happen. In any case, this man has severe responsibilities and more than he had when he was chief forester in Prince George, now becoming assistant chief forester for the whole province.

I'd like to just say a few words about Tree Farm Licences as related to municipalities. The Minister stated quite clearly that he and the government is in favour of municipalities acquiring Tree Farm Licences. I'm not clear here; I believe Burns Lake has been offered a Tree Farm Licence; Quesnel has been invited to apply for a Tree Farm Licence. I would like to know more about this and I'm sure the citizens in these municipalities would like to know more.

Have these municipalities the expertise to manage Tree Farm Licences? If you're dealing with a municipality within a regional district, where does the regional district fit in? They are also a municipal level of government.

I predict there will be a lot of conflict created at the local level, whether you're dealing with the regional district or the municipality. You're dealing with one and not the other, and that appears to be coming on the horizon in the case of Burns Lake and Quesnel, where the municipality is being dealt with and the regional district is out of it. In fact, the Tree Farm Licence area is certainly far more effective in the area of the regional district than it is in the municipality itself.

What is the Minister's position on this? Does he feel the regional districts should be in on this or just the municipalities? I can see problems coming here. Maybe the benefits, if there are going to be benefits from these Tree Farm Licences going to municipalities, should be going to the entire district where that Tree Farm Licence is rather than just into the core municipality. Indications are that that is going to take place, the way negotiations are going on now.

I know there is a Tree Farm Licence of several years standing at Mission. I haven't looked into it fully, but it's my information that the tax rate in the Town of Mission is not much greater or less than surrounding municipalities. I question whether they will be an asset or not.

Where any municipality in this province decides to go into the Tree Farm Licence and take one of these on, they're going to have to go out and hire professional help and expertise. When they've done this maybe they will certainly accrue some benefits but have to spend it all by hiring management teams and professional experts

I question whether they are of distinct benefit to the municipality when they have the expertise such as the forestry department has. I'm sure the rural people in the areas are quite concerned whether the provincial government is going to be the masters of this area as they've always been or whether it's going to be at the local level. I think they are very concerned about it. I would like to hear some more comment from the Minister on it. Where does he feel regional districts stand in relation to these Tree Farm Licences with municipalities? These municipalities, after all, are members of their respective regional districts.

Sometime ago I raised in the House the problem of rail car shortages in the forest industry of the Interior. That shortage still exists. There are lots of forest products being trucked out of the Cariboo, either north to Prince George or south to Ashcroft where they can get rail cars. They have even been trucked all the way to the coast so the product is put for overseas shipments.

This is costing the industry various rates but we'll use a figure of $10 a thousand. I would like to know, as I asked before, if this extra cost for them to get to market is going to be passed on and considered in their stumpage appraisals. It is no fault of these shippers that they find themselves in this situation. It would appear that this situation is going to last for

[ Page 2979 ]

probably at least two years and maybe longer because of the North American demand for rail cars. I think it's a serious situation. It really is affecting the economy of the whole of the province and the treasury when they can't get their products to market when the market price is good. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.

I will have more to say later, but I would just repeat that we want to see the sale agreement tabled of the Ocean Falls products. The Minister has absolutely refused to do this and I say to him that he is wrong. He is a representative of the public of British Columbia in the position of Minister of Lands and Forests and he has no right to deny this House that very vital information.

On the situation at Plateau Mills, where I say they are operating illegally regarding the pollution laws of our province, I remember this Minister when he was in opposition saying the government of the day gave licences to pollute. He is now in a position to do something about it, and this is what we find going on. It's certainly most unacceptable in this day and age.

I might say, while I am on the situation of burners, that this Minister said the prior administration gave licences to pollute. In 1972 they banned all the beehive burners north of Quesnel by order-in-council. This Minister has just recently granted a permit so they can start polluting again in that area. It was granted by order-in-council to Cariboo Pulp and Paper.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No way. That could have been located in a lot of other places than a centre of population. To put it right back where they had already been banned doesn't make any sense at all. This is what has happened there.

I think all the mills that have dispensed with their burners should now be allowed to install their burners again in view of the fact that one has been licensed. Why favour one over the others? This burner is burning hog fuel and is supposed to have a real modern setup. The company has already said there will be a little smoke and fly ash on Mondays. We've heard those stories in the Cariboo for a long time. Monday goes right through to Saturday. That's why the public is suspicious of this. There would probably have been nothing wrong with it if it had been out further from the centre of population. It should never have been allowed to go in that location. It's in the process now of being constructed.

I say that this Minister's defence yesterday of his policies was hopeless. I only hope that he changes his mind and will put more cards on the table for this Legislature where the public business of this province should be conducted.

I certainly will be voting in favour of the motion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been listening to most of the debate which has taken place over the last couple of days. I missed a part of the opening remarks of the leader of the inquisition but I did read the news reports of what he said and picked up the rest of the remarks stated by the leader of the inquisition by reading the newspaper and the Blues.

In the course of this debate there have been some jocular remarks across the floor of the House. From that side they say, "When that Minister says, 'jump,"' we say 'How high?'" Well, it's pretty jocular, pretty jovial, in the middle of this rather serious debate.

As I listened to the debate, it was obvious that there was an order given from across the way too by the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to his Members. The order he gives his Members is "crawl" and they say, "How low?"

We've had an example these last few days as to how low they are prepared to crawl in pursuing what they call debate in this Legislative Assembly. I've listened as they rolled those non-aryan names off their tongues, positively drooling over the pronunciation of these non-aryan names. It left me with a feeling of disappointment as to what this opposition are bringing to the legislative procedures of this House.

Mr. Chairman, over the years that I've been in this House, people have asked me, "How do you stand it in that House year after year? How do you survive?" I say: "It's very simple. Don't allow yourself to get bitter deep down inside; otherwise it'll poison your system, it'll warp your judgment and it will destroy you."

It's very obvious to me that there are people in this House in the official opposition who are bitter, who have allowed this bitterness to penetrate deeply into their very being. It has warped their judgment. It has poisoned them inside with the result that we get the kind of debate we've been listening to, and this motion now before us.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that what we've seen in operation by the official opposition, occasionally reflected by some of the other parties, is a group of people who have forgotten that, despite the fact they are in opposition, they must carry with themselves into opposition a certain loyalty to the Province of British Columbia and a certain loyalty to the democratic system of government.

Mr. Chairman, I worry because the evidence I get in debates like this, and the fear I get, is that we're faced by people who don't recognize the need for loyalty to the system, and who perhaps unconsciously, I hope unconsciously, are following procedures that can only hurt the system.

Mr. Chairman, there is history — and while people jeer at me once in a while because I happen to quote from history — if you don't learn from history, you'll live to suffer through it again. What we learn from

[ Page 2980 ]

history is that many times in the past there have been groups of people who have been used to power and found that because of circumstances the power was taken away from them….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Minister that you're dealing with the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with a motion of non-confidence in a Minister, and with the remarks that were made relating to this motion of non-confidence in this Minister.

I suggest that, perhaps unconsciously, the sort of procedure we've been listening to here for two days is the sort of action that's taken very often which leads to the destruction of the system that every Member of this House, I feel, should be trying to preserve.

I suggest that very often the official opposition are blinded to the needs of this province, and in their bitterness are hoping, praying, and doing everything possible to try and prevent any of the endeavours of this government from succeeding.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen this pattern develop and grow where they set out and attacked. They don't care what they say; they know it will be printed, they know that some of it will stick. They say, "You're guilty, you're guilty, you're guilty; prove yourself innocent, " time after time.

This motion of non-confidence and the statements that have been made by the Members across the way are a continuation and an enlargement of that procedure we've seen growing in this House.

Can-Cel: when we became the government in this province that Minister came to the cabinet and told us the situation with regard to the future of northern British Columbia. He told us what to expect if things that were allowed to take their course. What would have happened was, had the sale gone through as originally anticipated, to a certain company, the operation in the southern part of the province would have been kept going, the operation in the northern section of the province in Prince Rupert would have been closed down. It would have meant the end of the logging operations in Terrace and it would destroy the whole economic base of the northwest quarter of the Province of British Columbia.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, could any responsible government stand idly by and see the economic base which is necessary to build the northern economy go down the tube?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No way is right. It was a responsible action by a responsible government dedicated to maintaining and building economic strength in the Province of British Columbia.

To find him being harassed and bedevilled and called the things he's been called in this House in this way, shows a completely irresponsible attitude on the part of the so-called official opposition.

That operation had to be maintained as the base on which to build future growth, because if there's anything we've learned from what's been happening in this province, it is that there's a complete lack of balance in this province insofar as economic growth is concerned.

With the lower mainland acting as the magnet that attracts all industry or people — 75 per cent of the people in this province live in the lower mainland — we have to find ways of at least trying to halt that trend. But what happens? Had the economy of the north closed down, where would they have gone? — social welfare or move to the lower mainland. That base had to be preserved, and that's exactly what that Minister did. And to have a motion of non-confidence brought in on that Minister, who saved the economy of northern British Columbia and strengthened the whole economic fabric of this province, is utter rot. As I say, it shows complete irresponsibility.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — and I have been listening to him — I think The Vancouver Sun the other night gave us the real story of what's been happening in this session and the procedures that have been taken the last few days.

Alan Fotheringham, a Vancouver Sun columnist, talks about the estimates now underway and the Minister affected by this amendment. He says: "Bennett, the elder, had more than hinted that he regards son and heir as the answer to the Williams' slur on the family reputation, and Bennett, the younger, clearly has a private ambition to demolish Williams." It's a vendetta. Truth, facts and the Province of British Columbia are being subjugated and pushed aside because he is pursuing a family vendetta. That's what's going on in this House right now — the pursuit of a family vendetta no matter what it does to the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, it is shameful. It's no way for any responsible Leader of the Opposition to bring his father's vendetta into this House and have his own people crawl to pursue that vendetta. He gave the order, "Crawl." They said, "How low?" in the pursuit of that vendetta, that's what we're finding.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I find the Minister's debate hardly worthy of comment, but I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: When the Minister says that I was advised by my leader to crawl, I consider that a point of order.

[ Page 2981 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, all right. I withdraw the statement that he told you to crawl. He set the example and others followed; that's all.

Mr. Chairman, let's pursue this column a little further.

"Obviously some bright young people in downtown Vancouver have been doing some thorough research and someone with a liberal cheque book has turned them loose. These stories on newsprint have been bouncing around the rumour market for some weeks but Bennett — yards and yards of big briefs in front of him — has pinned down the facts."

Two questions: (1) Whose cheque book? Whose "small-l" liberal cheque book? (2) Who provided the briefs? Is the leader of the inquisition prepared to table those briefs in this House? Which companies prepared those briefs? I don't know. I would certainly like to know. Which clique in the Vancouver Club decided that this was the course to follow and provided this help to the Leader of the Opposition? Who paid for them? Who provided them?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting yourself in deeper.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Who made them up?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Or who made them up?

You know, Mr. Chairman, I listened to the talk about the black market. I listened to the talk about the black market. I listened to the talk about pricing. I listened to the demands that a contract be tabled.

Mr. Chairman, there is an historic parliamentary right accorded to every government, and that is the right to refuse to answer questions if the premature release of that information would damage or hurt a programme of that government — an historic parliamentary right.

But, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition presented these briefs and made these accusations, I then ask the questions: whose cheque book, and who provided the briefs?

I think it is fairly obvious that that information came from the private forest industry of the Province of British Columbia. When the Leader of the Opposition, and those who succeeded him and repeated his statements, were making those statements, they weren't worried about the people of British Columbia. They weren't worried about the future of this province. They were fronting for the forest industry of British Columbia — the private forest industry of the Province of British Columbia. They are demanding that this government table information with regard to a market operation that the companies themselves refuse to make public.

Here is this morning's Province:

"The Province was unable to find a 'standard Canadian newsprint price' for offshore sales when it checked with other B.C. producers. Prices vary according to demand and freight costs."

This is what the other producers in this province say. They were unable to provide The Province with standard Canadian prices. Mr. Wallach said:

"We recently sold some newsprint, for instance, in Thailand at a price quoted in Swedish kronor. If we put a price on that it may lead to controversy and unclarity instead of clarity."

As I said earlier, if you know what has been happening to the Swedish krona recently vis-à-vis the Canadian-U.S. dollar, then you can see how the price fluctuates. But, Mr. Chairman, listen to this:

"Officials of the company are reluctant to discuss prices."

Officials of the company are reluctant. Why?

MR. BENNETT: This is public business. Don't you know the difference?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the difference. When you were out of the House I explained why….

MR. BENNETT: I wasn't out of the House. I was listening in my office.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I have trouble with those things in my office and I listen in the House.

"Officials of the company are reluctant to discuss prices. They say that, including the freight, prices could be in the range of $300 per metric ton in the Pacific Rim. The price per short ton in the California market is $213,5000.

"But offshore, there isn't 'a standard Canadian newsprint price.' There can be a 'wide scattering of prices.'"

MR. BENNETT: You haven't done your research.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Look, you had your opportunity and you flogged it very well for the private forest industry of this province. You flogged it very well.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They don't want the information. It's not the opposition that wants the information.

Mr. Chairman, do you know who wants the information?

AN HON. MEMBER: File the documents.

[ Page 2982 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The private forest industry of this province wants the information. That's who wants it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're fronting for the private forest industry and you're asking for information so that they can know exactly what is happening inside the operation. You'll get your report. You'll get your report. Don't you worry.

MR. BENNETT: You're only protecting Mr. Wallach. You are protecting Mr. Wallach.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not protecting anybody. I'll come to your web later, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll come to your web and you'll be snared and wrapped up in a cocoon so tight that you'll never get out. You'll never get out. I'll tell you who you're talking for.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're talking for Champion International.

MR. BENNETT: Tell us what you're talking about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Listen, this is how the press picked up what you said, my friend. From The Vancouver Sun:

"'If the Ocean Falls plant had not become locked into the contract with Gottesman Central International it could sell on the black market for prices that have gone as high as $640 per ton,' Bennett said."

MR. BENNETT: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is how the story is out there, my friend. As far as the people of this province are concerned, you're saying that we could go into the black market. That is what you're saying.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to push this government into operating on the black market. That's the way the people are being told the story.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now you back off. Yes, I would run for cover if I was you too. I'd run for cover if I was you too.

MR. BENNETT: You weren't, listening.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

MR. BENNETT: You weren't even in the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to the Member for Langley, and he tried to push us into the black market too.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we are not getting into the black market. We are not, no matter how much you want us to go into the black market, no matter how long that Member wants to get into the black market. We are not going to get into the black market.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. The Minister has said that I stated that I wanted the B.C. government into the black market. I would ask him to withdraw it. We have Hansard in this House, and at no time did I ever suggest…. In fact, if he had been in the House to listen to my statements…. Part of my concern was that the Minister, dealing with Mr. Wallach, had given the opportunity for B.C. newsprint to be sold in the black market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: It most certainly is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you disagree with the statement you can have your turn on the floor when the Member is finished.

MR. BENNETT: No, I ask him to withdraw it. That Minister stated that I said that.

MRS. JORDAN: Wake up!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order. You can get up when the Minister has finished his statement and correct his statement if you please.

[ Page 2983 ]

MR. BENNETT: Well, if I had to correct every statement of this Minister I would have to make a one-hour speech after he has finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Member for South Okanagan to take his seat.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, the Leader of the Opposition says that there is a web which connects Can-Cel through its directors and into the ownership of subsidiaries, through Champion Incorporated, a large New York forest products firm — a web. Shudder, shudder, shudder — a web.

Mr. Chairman, I wish that when the Vancouver Club clique had been preparing their briefs for him and had incorporated in their briefs the real…. Whoever prepared your briefs, paid for by some liberal pay cheque, according to Mr. Fotheringham — I wish they had filled you in on the web that does exist in the forest industry of Canada. There is the web. These few little people involved….

This is from the Financial Post, January 17, 1970. Here is the web starting with MacMillan-Bloedel, with the arrows showing the relationship and subsidiary ownership of companies the relationship and subsidiary ownership of companies and the variety of companies holding shares in which other forest companies…. It goes right across the world. There is the web.

What's happening? There's a little company out in British Columbia called Can-Cel that we took right out of that web. We're creating a free market. We're not part of this locked-in monopoly control.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the forest industry of this province….

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you know the history of the forest industry of this province? Let me tell you a little story about the forest industry of this province and their attitudes. Mr. Chairman, there was a war a few years ago — about 28 or 29 years ago it finished.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we're discussing your motion of non-confidence in this Minister, the operation of the forest industry, your accusations about a web, and how the forest industry operates in the Province of British Columbia.

I want to give you just a little piece of history — the attitude the private forest industry in this province has taken on occasion — why I sometimes have been critical.

In 1945 a war finished in which one-third of the homes of Britain were destroyed or damaged. For some years after the war there were price controls on lumber in Canada. The British Timber Commission….

MR. BENNETT: How many years?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Till 1948. In 1948 the British Timber Commission came out to Canada and came to British Columbia trying to buy timber to help rebuild those one-third of the homes that had been destroyed or damaged in Britain.

You check The Vancouver Sun, as I say, I think it was 1948, and you'll find an editorial in there which roundly condemned the forest industry of British Columbia because they charged the people of Britain in their plight three times the Canadian ceiling price for the lumber they so desperately needed. That's just a little bit of history. It doesn't hurt to have a little history once in a while. You need to know a little about the business….

MR. BENNETT: What I am concerned about is the operations of the government in the last few years, and a Minister who won't answer questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: However, let's talk about the web. There are the four companies in there that were part of the web.

MR. BENNETT: What's that got to do with?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are the four companies right up there that were part of the web that were taken right out of the web. Now, who are they?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I would have to get a photostat of it. The original of this is in my files at home.

MR. PHILLIPS: You've driven all of your colleagues right out of their seats.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: MacMillan Bloedel Limited Incorporated. United Fruit Company have shares in MacMillan Bloedel — United Fruit Company.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, my goodness — they are a fruit company. Who are they? They are the supporters of the banana republics.

[ Page 2984 ]

MR. BENNETT: All we want is answers to our questions about what this Minister is doing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Celupal, Svenska Cellulose, Canadian Keyes Fibre Co., Minas Basin Pulp and Power, Maritime, Power Corporation of Canada, Bowater, Crown Simpson, Rolland Paper Company, Canada Glazed Paper Ltd., Slater Steel Industries, Canadian Foundation Company, Cartiere Riunite Donzelli & Meridionali, Cartiere Ambrogio Binda….

MR. FRASER: That's enough history.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …East Asiatic Company, Chemical Development of Canada Limited, St. Lawrence, General Aniline & Film Corp.

There's a web there. We could have crawled right out of that web. But if that web was so bad how about the rest of it? And the people you were speaking for my friend are all the rest of the people in that web. All the rest of the people in that web — that's who you're speaking for. You weren't talking for the people of this province.

MR. BENNETT: We certainly do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You are talking for the people who are prepared to see northern British Columbia go down the drain. That's who you were talking for.

You are prepared to use your position as Leader of the Opposition to do anything at all to put through your family vendetta. That's why you're after that Minister.

MR. BENNETT: He destroys himself.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's done more to build this province in two years than the previous government did in 20!

MR. BENNETT: No wonder they kicked you out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You won't last past the next election my friend and you'll be out, back in the hardware business.

Mr. Chairman, I tell you that official opposition have never realized the requirement for loyalty to the parliamentary system. They've never realized that with the official opposition goes some responsibility too. They've tried to drag this Legislature down in the last two months in a manner that I just didn't think was possible, in pursuit of a family vendetta, and in support of the people who prepared those briefs for you — as Fotheringham said, over the liberal pay cheques.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, I'm rejecting this amendment. I'm supporting this Minister; he's the best Minister of Forests this province has ever had.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes to prove that when you step on the reptile's tail he jumps up and tries to strike. There's the same, stirring defence by this Minister, only tragically can it be described as the weakening, mumblings and burnbling of a tired man too long with his dreams, too frustrated by the unfulfilment of his dreams…

MR. CUMMINGS: Try Geritol, Pat. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: …and too tired to see beyond his nose. I really couldn't help but think of the little black kettle calling the pot black as he went on with his melodious strains of self-righteousness. And I'm not excepting, Mr. Chairman, because this Minister….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's vintage.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes indeed — vintage wines, vintage debate.

I've had the privilege of being in this House for a few years now and I suggest that the truest thing he said was that there had been some examples set in this House which shouldn't be down in the history annals, and that Minister is the architect of those examples.

As to his other comments, the best I can say is that they're hardly worth comment. I leave it to the galleries to adjudicate who, in fact, has the personal vendetta, who in fact is out to perhaps destroy the system, the parliamentary system, in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, what becomes clearly evident every time Members of your government speak and you speak, and in the comments you just made, is the complete lack of understanding on the part of not only yourself, but also this government as to what in fact are the responsibilities in government. The lack of understanding what, in fact, is the difference between government expending tax dollars for services to people and administration of government, and what, in fact, is the use by government of expanding tax dollars in dabbling in the stock market, in dabbling in the fulfillment of grandiose dreams of corporate management on the part of Ministers. The fact, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that when private enterprise is involved in the market and the dealings, it is one thing because private enterprise must stand on its own two feet, accountable to the

[ Page 2985 ]

private funds that it raises, and accountable to its shareholders. But government, Mr. Minister, holds the leverage — that is one of the differences.

When government puts itself in a position of competition in the private sector, and with one hand holds the whip and with the other hand retreats behind the corporate structure of secrecy and privacy, that, Mr. Minister, is where some of the conflict comes in. You feel incapable, and you're always expressing this incapability, to understand that industry stands on its own feet and its own money.

This government is involving itself with its web with the taxpayers' money, and it holds the leverage that no corporate structure has in terms of manipulating the conditions under which business will operate, in fact manipulating the market itself.

The whole point of this amendment is the fact that we're debating the estimates of the most powerful man in the Province of British Columbia today, the most powerful man in this government — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

We moved this motion of non-confidence, which we all support in the Social Credit opposition and I would assume the other Members will support….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's fine.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You never can tell, he might just come clean. We're hoping.

MRS. JORDAN: The main thing is that the facts come out and the people themselves have a chance to adjudicate.

The reason were putting this motion forth is because this Minister, whose estimates we're debating, and the Premier of this province are playing, Mr. Chairman, an intolerable game of hide-and-seek with the people of British Columbia and with their money — hide-and-seek, Mr. Minister, involving multi-national corporation, Brussels intrigue, and toying with the reputation of British Columbia all packaged in secrecy. And to boot, Mr. Chairman, the whole economic fabric of British Columbia is in that pot, and this is being done at the expense of the people of British Columbia and to the detriment of the people of British Columbia.

This Minister has cloaked 98 per cent of his dealings, not only in the instance with which we are concerned, but in all his dealings since coming into government in secrecy. If you want a question in a practical vein, if you will check the question paper you will see that of 73 questions left on the order paper, 25 remain unanswered by this Minister.

He has shown a constant disregard and discourteousness to this Legislature, and he chooses to ignore the questions that are asked on the order paper. He chooses to ignore the questions that are asked by the people in the north of this province when he set himself up as the architect of their fate, and he chooses to ignore to answer the questions posed not only by this Legislature and this opposition in terms of the dealing of Can-Cel, but by the editorial writers of this province, and indeed by many of the public.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister has through his actions, as I mentioned, not only put his own reputation on the line as a Minister of this province, but he's put the credibility of his government on the line. In so doing, Mr. Chairman, he has the tail of the people of British Columbia in the wringer, and they want to know who is operating that wringer, who is operating that washer? And how much is his wheeling and dealing going to cost British Columbia in terms of their reputation their integrity and dollars?

The charge is quite clear. This government's socialistic moves into the private sector of business, and in this specific debate the forest industry, are cloaked in deliberate and arrogant secrecy by this Minister and by the Premier of this province — secrecy involving the manner in which they make their takeovers. Yet there are charges upon charges by citizens of this province, elected officials of this province, and people who were involved in the takeovers of strong arming, arm twisting and untruths. Cloaked in secrecy is whether or not in fact their takeovers are economically viable, and cloaked in secrecy is the accountability as to the efficiency of government running private enterprise and government being involved with taxpayers' money in complex enterprise and government being involving what in fact is the master blueprint for the Province of British Columbia.

I find it very interesting to look at the annual report of Canadian Cellulose Company, 1973. What have they put on the front? The whole of the Province of British Columbia. There they are, the seven little dwarfs. Is this what they are up to — Litvine, Berkley, Gross, Wallach, Williams, Barrett, and the man behind the scenes? Is this the blueprint for the future? The takeover? Well, I would hope the Minister is going to walk before he runs, because quite obviously he not only has talked about, and is in the process of taking over the forest industry in the Province of British Columbia, but he even has the audacity to put it on the front of his company, as he calls it, annual report.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has involved himself in secrecy as to what extent the NDP are willing to go to cover up what appears to be a growing list of economic blunders and bungles and questionable contracts. Some mistakes the Minister himself alluded to yesterday in his address to this motion of non-confidence.

[ Page 2986 ]

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you are aware that it is traditional through history and throughout the world that when governments become involved in business, once they make one mistake they tend to cover up, traditionally, with more money and more secrecy. We've seen instances in England, we've seen instances in other countries, and we have an instance so close to home as Churchill Falls in Manitoba, where we saw government involved in business and corporate intrigue. We saw mistake compounded upon mistake, and tax dollars compounded upon tax dollars, to the point where finally the government fell and the cloak of secrecy was removed and the people of Manitoba found that $100 million of their tax money had gone down the tube.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Added to this list, Mr. Chairman, of secrecy and history are some very obvious conflicts of statement and conflicts of interest that exist today with this Minister.

First I would mention the obvious conflict that exists with the NDP in setting itself up in a position of competition with private industry while holding the upper half. I mentioned this before. We have the statements of the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) quite publicly saying that it is his feeling — and he's the kite-flyer for the government and the chairman of the forest industry — that in fact government enterprises should have preferential treatment. Is that imagination, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who has now left the House? Those are statements made by your own Member. It is not a vendetta of the opposition.

There is the position, Mr. Chairman, of conflict that exists between what the Minister and Premier have traditionally said, and what that party has traditionally said about the corporate structure, and about corporate integration, and about the whole subject of profits.

At least the Minister is having the grace to smile, because no one has so degraded, so defamed the word "profit" as the Members of that party and that Minister in particulars.

No Member in this House, in its history, has so viciously and violently attacked the so-called corporate structure in the past as this Minister. No people have so viciously attacked integration as the Members of that government and this Minister.

Yet we have a Minister who fancies himself as the Weston of western Canada, as evidenced by the actions and the evidence that is evolving in this debate.

There is the position of conflict between this Minister and the Premier in what they are telling the people of British Columbia in their very carefully designed, programmed, well-tailored press releases, and the informal patch-up talk that the Minister has when he is in the north. That conflict, Mr. Chairman, lies in what they are telling the public and what in fact is happening in this province and what is taking place behind the scenes in this province.

Mr. Chairman, there are some very obvious conflicts in the Minister's statement in regard to the price of newsprint. I don't intend to go into that; there will be other Members who will. But I would just allude on that point back to the Minister of Transport and Communications' comments when he announced to this House that he hadn't been in to hear the debate, but he'd been following it through the Blues. I'm sure you will be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that since 9 o'clock this morning I have been trying to get copies of the Blues and they are not available to Members. They have been stalled. The office has been busy, they have given out the wrong forms to sign, and yet the Minister of Transport and Communications has been following the whole debate through the Blues. That's a very interesting point.

There are conflicts of statement in what the government and the Minister are telling the people about Ocean Falls — that it was a great buy. But we see an $850,000 figure for 1973 that is surrounded by nothing but questions. He doesn't tell the public that their buy that they got for nothing included a $ I million cash payment and $2 million cash put in already to a company that was sold because it was so decrepit and antiquated and needed so much money in terms of repair — in one year, $3 million of the taxpayers' money, Mr. Chairman, into a gift. What a buy! He doesn't tell the people of British Columbia that it is costing nearly $1 million a year just to run the town of Ocean Falls.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You'd have them all on welfare, wouldn't you?

MRS. JORDAN: You'd have them all on the payroll of the civil service.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Better working than on well are.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this little fellow somehow felt that the parliament buildings were crumbling around everyone's ears and he had to allot millions of dollars to repair the foundation. What did he spend? $350,000 on the foundation and millions of dollars on old trim.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to the Minister's estimates? I would also ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt or speak from their seats.

[ Page 2987 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, there's a conflict in what in fact the Minister said in this House today. The Minister of Transport and Communications said that they are not in the black marketing of newsprint. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that intentionally or unintentionally this Minister has been skinned and he has involved the people of British Columbia in the black marketing of British Columbia produce, in the black marketing of produce from a British Columbia Crown corporation and that is Ocean Falls newsprint.

That Minister can jump up and down and deny it all he wants and the Minister of Transportation can do the same thing, but I will repeat for their edification, Mr. Chairman — yours in case you missed it — what in fact is considered black market newsprint? It's a pity that this Minister — at least I hope it's a pity-wasn't aware of this before he began his international dallying. The newsprint industry, Mr. Chairman — and I'm quoting — considers any newsprint that does not go through the conventional newsprint market as black market. I'll repeat that for your edification, Mr. Chairman. The newsprint industry considers any newsprint that does not go through the conventional newspaper market or newsprint markets as black market newsprint in times of shortage.

Mr. Chairman, it may come as news to this Minister that newsprint in the world today is extremely short. It is better than money in the bank. It is like gold and the price of gold is soaring, Mr. Chairman. In the newsprint world, dump market newsprint is what it's called when newsprint is dumped on the market in times of surplus.

Mr. Chairman, those who operate in the black market have a very short life. If the Minister doesn't believe me yet I'll quote The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1970 version, which contains the following definition: "Black market: illegitimate traffic in officially controlled goods or currencies or in commodities in short supply." Isn't that interesting? Commodities in short supply. Newsprint today is in extremely short supply. And they say: "Black marketeer: one who engages in this" — that's the black market — "place where this traffic is carried on."

There are two meanings, Mr. Chairman, set forth by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1970 regarding the word "illegitimate." Illegitimate, and I'm deleting references to children, et cetera, means "improper and abnormal." Now, Mr. Minister, Ocean Falls newsprint is a commodity in short supply being sold in an abnormal and improper way and that constitutes black marketing of British Columbia produce.

Why doesn't the Minister tell the people of British Columbia about this? Or if the Minister says this is not true, why doesn't he stand up in this House and reveal the contents of the contract that he has signed and that Can-Cel is involved in? Mr. Wallach isn't going to. He's going to defend his position.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Which company are you talking about?

MRS. JORDAN: Ocean Falls.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, Can-Cel is another company.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, The Minister is very quick to make a sharp crack and very, very slow to come forth with the facts and the truth. That's the problem; that's what this whole amendment is about. It's questioning his ability to be Minister. It's questioning his integrity in relation to the dealings that are going on, and asking why he's not telling the people of British Columbia the facts. It's asking why he's not tabling what is requested before this House.

Mr. Minister, whether you know it or not or your colleagues know it or not, through you, Mr. Chairman, you've involved the NDP government and yourself in, if not by specific definition an illegal act, then very much in fact an immoral act. For this you must answer to the people of British Columbia.

Involving British Columbia products and your government in a Crown corporation and thus the people of British Columbia in an immoral act, you've let government-owned products go and line the pockets of profiteers and black marketers on an international scale.

I can't understand why the Minister doesn't seem to appreciate that in not revealing the fact and not revealing the truth, he's jeopardizing his own credibility and the credibility of the government, his own integrity and the integrity of the government. I would feel sure that the Minister wouldn't want to do this intentionally. But what conclusion is there? The Minister doesn't seem to appreciate that it's not only his own integrity and credibility and the Premier's integrity and credibility and his colleagues' integrity and credibility that's at stake, but it's the very integrity and credibility of the Government of British Columbia — the very democratic system that the Minister of Transport and Communications tried to defend and said that the opposition was downgrading.

Mr. Chairman, the actions of this government are calling into public question — not only provincially, but nationally and internationally — that very system and the responsibility of that system and the credibility of that system.

People and financiers around the world, Mr. Chairman, are asking questions about the conduct in this instance and these deals. Others, Mr. Chairman, are laughing at either the naivety of the government or, if as may be the most unpalatable alternative the corruption within the government, then they are

[ Page 2988 ]

laughing at the naivety of the people of British Columbia. The Minister doesn't seem to appreciate nor do his colleagues, that his actions in dealing in the black market, whether inadvertently or advertently, have jeopardized the legitimacy of the sales of Ocean Falls markets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't mind taking some guff, but I'm not taking the word "corruption," Mr. Chairman, from anybody in this House and I request the Member withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask….

HON. MR. HALL: I want the word "corruption" withdrawn without any qualification whatsoever.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Throw her out!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is customary, when a point of order is made, to wait until the Chairman responds and comments on the point of order and I would ask that Hon. Members respect that practice. I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that if in fact she imputed an improper motive, namely corruption, to any Member of this House, that she withdraw that allegation or imputation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my recollection I didn't impute it and I imagine we'll have to wait until we see the Blues tomorrow to see who is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I offered that this would be an unpalatable alternative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just….

MRS. JORDAN: Either the government was naive….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just point out to the Hon. Member that is the feeling of some Members that this motive was in fact imputed. I think that the correct thing to do would be to say that if this was the meaning of the phrases that you had said, that then you would withdraw. I would ask the Hon. Member to do this.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, no. No, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Hon. Member….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I did not call the government corrupt; I had no intention of saying they were corrupt. I did imply that unless they came clean and told the story they were either naive or — the less palatable or most impalatable thought — that they could then be corrupt, Mr. Chairman. The Members will have to take that as it comes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You were doing fine until the last part of your remarks. I think that the suggestion is that if they did not table something, then there is a suggestion that they would then automatically be guilty. Therefore I would just suggest that your remarks up to the point where you say that you did not say that the government was corrupt…we will accept that as a withdrawal of any imputation.

MRS. JORDAN: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, in order to keep peace in the House.

But I would ask the government to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt because of what's at stake in terms of the democratic process, the positions of Ministers and the position of the Premier to prove that that could never be said about this government.

I would remind the Minister, going back to the debate, that the questionable actions he's involved in and the lack of answers that are creating the suspicions surrounding him are jeopardizing future sales for Ocean Falls newsprint. This is going to have a serious long-term effect. People of integrity sell conventionally in this business and…black market or dump. There will be nowhere for Ocean Falls to go unless this whole web, which appears to be woven by the government, is brought out into the light and cleared up.

The Minister should file the agreement and the Minister should answer the questions the public is asking and, quite obviously, some of his own colleagues are asking.

I am quite sure the Minister of Transport and Communications would love to have my notes, all our notes, because he doesn't know what's going on in his own government. He doesn't know for sure what his colleague is indulging in and what is contained in those contracts. He can't get the answers, much the same as the opposition and the public can't get the answers from the Minister. So he goes to the court of last resort and comes to the opposition.

I suggest that this Minister's determined and unbelievable posture of stonewalling this Legislature and not answering questions indicates that the charges must stand. The actions of this Minister and the actions of the Premier and this arrogant cloak of

[ Page 2989 ]

secrecy covers a government that is unbelievably naive — or an alternate suggestion which the Chair refuses to accept.

I would like to bring another point which raises serious questions. In the debate yesterday, the Minister kept interjecting that the reason he wouldn't file any details about Can-Cel was that it was a private company. I would then ask him: is it a private company?

Seventy-nine per cent of Can-Cel's shares are owned by the government, and yet he says it is a private company. He has hidden in this House and he has hidden in the papers in his statements today behind this fact. He said, as I mentioned earlier, that this is a corporate privilege advanced to the private sector. I would again draw to his attention the fact that business within the private sector is very different than when you are the representative of the people, using people's tax money that was designed and taxed in terms of people's services to dally in a corporate structure and dally in the international market.

The Minister talked about the protection of the public. Just for a review, Mr. Chairman, I would remind you that the Companies Act gives the government, through the Securities Commission, the right to appoint an inspector to any investment company or any company operating in British Columbia. They have the right to investigate all the procedures that are going on within that company and all the contracts. You could say the inspector has the right to examine the most intimate and to make bare the most intimate corporate details. It could almost leave a company standing naked on the comer of Georgia and Granville. The penalties set forth for failure to comply are very severe.

When one listens to the Minister's comments in the House and outside the House, the theory one gets from him is that there is ample protection for the public of British Columbia because, as majority shareholders, the government on its own can initiate full disclosure on Can-Cel's business. The Minister, as a director and holder of 79 per cent of the shares, could initiate full disclosure. The theory is there and the implication is there that if the minority shareholders wish a full investigation, they can petition under the Securities Act by getting 20 per cent of the shareholders to request a petition.

It would appear, from what I have just said, that the minority shareholders in Can-Cel do have the right to petition for a complete investigation of Can-Cel's management or the government involvement or the conduct of the business of Can-Cel if they so wished. This right was given to them under the new Securities Act that came into this Legislature.

It was adjudicated by all Members as a good Act in terms of protecting minority shareholders, who are the average Joes on the street. There may be minority shareholders in Can-Cel who work in these buildings, who are driving cabs, who are teachers, who are widows, who are pensioners. We get the impression that their rights are protected under this Act when the Attorney-General said, as he brought it in, "Let the sun shine in! Let the truth be known! Let's protect the minority shareholders." This was a most honourable objective. I'm sure we all agree that this is the right way for business to be conducted. It was agreed on and passed unanimously by the Members of this Legislature.

But how does this Act, which was being designed and touched up by the Attorney-General at the same time the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was designing his little empire in Can-Cel, apply when you read it in terms of Can-Cel and its shareholdings?

I would quote from the Can-Cel annual report which indicates there are a total of 12,191,203 shares outstanding in this company. These are owned as follows: 79 per cent by the government, which equals 9,631,050 shares; and 21 per cent or 2,560,153 shares at large or those available for the minority shareholders. This makes a total of 12,191,203 shares outstanding in the company.

If the minority of shareholders or a large portion of the minority of shareholders wish to petition for inspection of the company and its operations under the new Companies Act, they must have a 20 per cent share representation on that petition. When we look at that and these figures, we see there is a crucial 1.1 per cent of the total number of shares, or 134,103 shares, which are crucial as to whether or not the minority shareholders can petition for an inquiry and let the light in on this company.

Bearing in mind those 134,103 or 1.1 per cent of the crucial shares that hold the balance of power between the right of the minority shareholders and right of the directors in the government, we should look at how they are owned. The Can-Cel notice of the annual meeting, which is dated March 27, 1974, shows that ownership of shares by the directors is as follows: Ronald M. Gross, 5,100 shares; Ira G. Wallach, director, 5,000 shares; E. Bertram Berkley, director, 7,000 shares; Max Litvine, no shares; and the other five directors together hold 2,100 shares. When you add this up, you see that the directors of this company hold a total of 19,200 shares.

If we take the directors' 19,200 shares from the 1.1 per cent, or the total shares of 134,103 shares, which are crucial to this balance of power — the balance of the right to protect the minority shareholders — you find that to block the minority shareholders and to block their position in a request for an investigation under the new Securities Act into any conduct of the company in terms of management, government involvement or anything

[ Page 2990 ]

else they wish to know, you only need 114,903 shares to meet that commitment.

Those shares are floating. We know how many the directors own and we know how many are left. With 114,903 shares owned by the directors we are left with the balance as the few shares to be known before that fine balance can be upset and the inquiry can take place.

Now who owns those shares, Mr. Chairman, and what happens? It is unlikely that the directors, who are appointed by the government and who are responsible to the government and who, in fact, in this instance, are deeply involved within the web of the corporate structure and the sales of the product, are going to disagree with the government.

Therefore, we see them siding with the government. Now who owns, or who might own, any of these 114,903 powerful shares that could block the appointment of this inspector that would be petitioned by these minority shareholders?

I make a few suggestions, Mr. Chairman, as to where these shares could be held. Could they be shares that can block the whole public right, as expressed through the minority shareholders, to look at this company? Could they be held by Ira David Wallach in the name of a nominee, Mr. Chairman?

Or could they be held by the D.F. and R.H. Gottesman Foundation? — or perhaps, if not that foundation, the Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Foundation? Or could they be held by the Gottesman Organization, or Central National Organization? Or, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, these crucial shares or a portion of them could be held by E.B. Berkley — perhaps in beneficial ownership in the name of a nominee.

Or could they be held by the Eddy Jacobson Memorial Foundation? Or could they be held — 114,103 shares that would tip the balance of power between what the government wanted and what the directors wanted and what the public wanted to see — could they be held by individual friends of the NDP?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to the Minister's estimates before us.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I'm relating them to the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, to the amendment, then.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I suggested, one of the very reasons that we have this amendment before this House is that the Minister refuses to answer. The Minister outlines before the House and the public how secure the public right is within this company of Can-Cel. And I pointed out to you, Mr. Chairman, how very insecure the public right is, how this company that was having its agreement and was being designed at the time that the Attorney-General was designing the new Companies Act, in fact, is not going to be able to comply with that Act in terms of the rights of the minority shareholders.

Why did the government, why did the Minister, choose the figure of 79 per cent of the shares? It is a very interesting question, in light of this balance of power and what can happen to the rights of the minority shareholders.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt the facetious and rather foolish remarks of the Hon. Member to my left in the Liberals….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, if as an attorney you don't know the position that the minority shareholders are in in this company, and in light of what's going on in this company, then you have very little cause to call yourself a lawyer and legal adviser. I wouldn't have you, and I am sure a lot of the minority shareholders…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …are glad they haven't got you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I do hope that the House, both sides of it, Social Credit and NDP, will get this straight: I am not a lawyer. I keep getting accused of this crime all the time. I am innocent. I have never handled a case, taken a client on, as lawyers do. I don't know how you do it.

I do hope….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That may be the case; who knows? They have never had the opportunity of turning me down. I never applied. But I just hope that this misunderstanding is cleared up once and for all. I have many failings, but I don't think that being a lawyer is one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the record is now corrected. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: It may come as a shock to him, but there are other Members in his party on the floor of this House who are lawyers, and it was to them….

[ Page 2991 ]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, I can see why you need some lawyers to keep you in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member return to the motion?

MRS. JORDAN: There is another matter of concern in relation to this motion and why we are questioning this Minister's competence. That is the fact that there has been apparently exhibited through the actions of Can-Cel and the web that is being woven in this international intrigue, the fact that it is setting a double-standard reputation in British Columbia.

I speak specifically of some of the underdeveloped countries of the world. British Columbia spent $600,000 last year in aid to underdeveloped countries and those affected by disasters. One of those countries was India. And India appears to be one of the countries where British Columbia's newsprint is ripping off the economy and the people.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, he was a little chicken strutting through the international scene and he got plucked. And we will feel he got plucked until he can stand up in this House and make clear what the contracts are — set aside what the concerns are in terms of the company operations and his dealings. That's all he has to do. It's not difficult. I wonder if he's talked to Mr. Wallach lately.

There is not only the web that is being woven and not denied, but it is the fact that since taking office this Minister has pulled a veil of secrecy around himself, around his office, his dealings, his department's actions and the forest policy.

In northern development there are a lot of things going on, as we know, but nobody knows what's in the report. None of the people have been consulted.

These statements are not vendettas from the opposition. The people of the north are asking. They want to know when the architect of their future is going to unveil, what in fact that future is going to be. And they want a say in that future. They may not even necessarily want the great, grandiose dream of the north that this Minister envisions. But he hides it all behind his twinkle and his smile as he goes about his merry way trampling upon the rights of the citizens of this province.

This Minister has placed himself in a position of unprecedented power in the government itself. That's an internal matter and I don't know how it took place. But we know, in dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), that he has to check with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We know that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is absolutely hamstrung by this Minister.

We've seen evidence: the lifting of the Wildlife Preserve at Roberts Banks. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation didn't even know about it. That's just one example. There's the same situation at the Chemainus dam. That's just another little example.

In my own area of Cosens Bay the Minister told the council: "Nobody's going to know what's going on; I'm going to do the dealing."

And, Mr. Chairman, for a year and a half no one has known what's going on. So in trying to achieve this tremendous power, and dabbling as he is in the private sector, he is putting himself in the position where there is serious suspicion of conflict of interest.

We saw evidence of this, not only in the debate that we are having now, but in the PNE contract which he aborted, as he said in this House, because he was going to have a park for his constituency. We have seen it in the powers he's taken in land acquisitions.

I see it in my own constituency regarding Cosens Bay and in his dealings with Marathon. This Minister is dealing with more corporate structures in this province than the private sector put together.

We keep getting the impression and the public are getting the impression, that this Minister is obsessed by a dream.

Everyone has the right to have dreams. But, Mr. Minister, there's a responsibility which goes with trying to accomplish that dream when you sit in the office of a government Minister and in that chair. That is the responsibility to make public the government's business. That is the responsibility to not envision a new order for British Columbia, disciplined and majestically functional…

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Poor girl, poor girl.

MRS. JORDAN: …designed by the Minister, built by the Minister and no doubt ruled over by the Minister. Of course, as we see by his legislation…judged by the Minister.

The Minister is exhibiting the very dangerous, dangerous symptom of an obsession with a dream at all costs.

We have put together a lack of answers to the questions that are being asked regarding his forestry takeovers — a lack of answers that we're getting in relation to the viability of his complexes; a lack of answers we're getting in relation to what his policy is for the forest industry in British Columbia; a lack of answers we're getting in terms of the charges that have been made against the Minister that there are strong-arm tactics being used; the cold cloak of secrecy that he's involved in in this House and outside, and the contempt with which he treats this House.

[ Page 2992 ]

We have to question very much this Minister's competency to hold this position. Just in my short period of time within this Legislature the instability of the positions that this Minister has taken are very revealing and, in fact, shocking. This Minister, when I was in this House, was on the floor of this House viciously attacking directors of Hydro and public citizens in British Columbia, accusing them of land deals and of being rip-off artists. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it was revealed by the media that this Minister was indulging in real estate transactions in Indian Arm in the Port of Vancouver.

This Minister has been loud in his public damnation outside and inside this House — condemning landlords, condemning owners of apartments and rental accommodations as rip-off artists, insensitive to people. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, this Minister was found to be involved in evicting tenants from his own apartment building and converting it to condominiums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to the administrative responsibilities under this motion.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to point out why we have to move this amendment. It's on the basis of this Minister's incompetence to function as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's still necessary on a non-confidence motion to show non-confidence in his administrative duties only.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I appreciate your point. I'm trying to show, Mr. Chairman, why his own personal conduct within this House and his conflict of statements leaves serious question as to his competency to administer this department. I would quote, in this vein of why we are pursuing so many of these questions, the decision by Judge Anderson of the British Columbia Supreme Court when he says on page 659: "…that Williams was simply not telling the truth."

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the administration of his responsibilities as Minister and in moving this amendment, we ask this Minister to tell the truth, to tell the facts…

MR. CHABOT: Table the documents.

MRS. JORDAN: …to table the documents and to save himself from this type of vote of non-confidence, and to make clear to the people of British Columbia what his plans are, what the government's plans are, and to bring before this House proof that he is not involved in this web that seems to be drawing around him and to which he has made no reasonable statement of defence.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR., CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

ERRATUM

Page 2727, column 2, line'55 should read:

they are now raising, I believe, $25 million through