[ Page 3043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Insurance coverage for destroyed Plateau sawmill. Mr. Fraser — 3043

Protection of rights of suspended teachers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3044

Programme to place adopted children with natural parents. Mr. Wallace — 3044

Permits for private use of chemical 10-80. Mr. Smith — 3044

Study of European transit techniques. Mr. Curtis — 3045

Meeting with Block Bros. Mrs. Jordan — 3045

Inquiry into abortion procedures. Mr. Wallace — 3045

Sale of municipally-owned land. Mr. Bennett — 3046

Short-fall of rental housing. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3046

Statement

Present situation in Kamloops area flooding emergency.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3047

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates

Amendment to vote 137.

Mr. Phillips — 3047

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3052

Mr. McGeer — 3057

Mr. Bennett — 3059

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3062

Mr. Wallace — 3064

Mr. Phillips — 3066

Mr. Fraser — 3069

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3071

Mr. Smith — 3076

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we have a Minister of Recreation and Conservation who practises what he shoots. I'm sure the Members would like to join with me in congratulating the Hon. Jack Radford for winning five trophies this weekend at the Vancouver Island Trap Shooting Championships.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a large group of students from Kensington Junior Secondary School in North Burnaby.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, during the weekend recess I had an opportunity to be in the north country, in the Town of Terrace, speaking to some northwest loggers up there. They seem to think that we have some problems in this House with respect to the manner in which the decorum is handled and the keeping of law and order in the chamber, occasionally.

MR. SPEAKER: Did you promise to behave? (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Oh, I always behave — you know that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course.

MR. SMITH: They suggested that if it was the right of the Chairman and the Speaker to electronically gag the opposition, perhaps I should have some sort of an equalization available to the Members of the opposition. I suggested to them that perhaps when I had to deal with the Hon. Whip from the government (Mr. Barnes) I certainly needed something to equalize the difference in size. (Laughter.) Anyway, this is a gavel the size and type of which they use in the north. I am sure the Speaker on occasion would wish that he had one of these available.

MR. SPEAKER: Merely to get your attention.

MR. SMITH: I am going to keep it. I think I could probably reach across to the Chairman if that were necessary but I hope that will never be necessary in this chamber, Mr. Speaker,

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Hon. Members, I'd appointed at 2 p.m. today to go further on the question of whether there was a breach of privilege raised by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) respecting remarks made in the House earlier by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

In the meantime the Hon. Member for North Okanagan has been in touch with me in my office in regard to the transcripts. I have requested all transcripts — not merely the first statement that was read to the House, but all of them — so that I can verify them upon listening to them. In view of the delay that this causes, the matter will have to be adjourned to a later time, presumably today.

May I also point out to the Hon. Members that when a verified copy of a transcript is requested by a Member relating to a matter of privilege, the verified copy should not properly be described in the press as a "rough transcript." It is the final copy that will formally be printed in the final form of Hansard. Therefore it has been verified, the corrections having been made and examined as far as the transcript is concerned. Consequently, it is not a rough transcript.

The question therefore is adjourned until the verified transcripts are ready for the Hon. Members to inspect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would request, Mr. Speaker, some guidance from you on when the committee dealing with the question of Blues will meet. I have been waiting for the past week for....

MR. SPEAKER: I have been waiting for all the House Leaders to be in the House so that appointments could be made to discuss the question with them. Until I have all House Leaders here, it would be rather a waste of time to discuss it with three out of four, or two out of four.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True. But, Mr. Speaker, I must again repeat my regret that we seem to be able to read the Blues in the newspapers and yet we are not able as Members of this Legislature to have Blues ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: An interesting problem, isn't it?

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
DESTROYED PLATEAU SAWMILL

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Was the Plateau sawmill at Vanderhoof that was destroyed by fire on the weekend insured

[ Page 3044 ]

and, if so, for how much and with what insurance company?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I have been in discussion with Mr. Martens, one of the directors in Vanderhoof, Mr. Speaker. It is insured, but beyond that I can't provide the Member with any details. I might do so at a later stage.

PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
OF SUSPENDED TEACHERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, what steps she has taken to make sure that any teacher who has been suspended by the BCTF for reasons not connected with his or her teaching ability has his or her civil rights protected and continues to be permitted to continue to teach? This question has been asked previously, but it was delayed until the Minister had had an opportunity to discuss it with the BCTF. I wonder if she would report now.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I told the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) recently — just last week — that I had a meeting planned with the BCTF to discuss this very matter. They were not prepared at that time with the material they needed to present to me in our discussion. They asked for a delay in the meeting, which I agreed to. We will be setting up another meeting very shortly, and I will keep you informed. It will be discussed.

PROGRAMME TO PLACE ADOPTED
CHILDREN WITH NATURAL PARENTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker: is the Minister aware that social workers in Vancouver are presently taking positive steps to bring together adopted children under natural parents?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, I am not aware of that. If you are referring to the statement by Ms. Vidas from the commission, that is something that evidently the commission is dealing with. I am not aware that there is existing in the department such a programme.

MR. WALLACE: I have evidence that this is happening. I just wonder if the Minister could confirm it. And if he does confirm it, would he intend to advise the social workers in Vancouver and elsewhere, if necessary, to discontinue this policy for the very reason that the issue is being brought before the royal commission?

HON. MR. LEVI: I certainly will do that, because the Member may recall that in the House I said, when I raised it last year, that this was an idea, it was not policy and was not likely to become policy. I'll certainly report back to the House on what the results are.

PERMITS FOR PRIVATE
USE OF CHEMICAL 10-80

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the Minister comment and tell us if it is true that the Department of Agriculture is issuing permits in the Creston area for the use of the chemical 10-80 in the control of ground squirrels and rodents?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it isn't true, Mr. Speaker. For some time the policy has been for representatives from the Department of Agriculture in the case of a very serious infestation to actually use this particular poison bait, but not to issue permits for other people to use it. The total amount used in 1973 was 200 pounds of 1 per cent bait. It is very carefully used.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister intend to have officials or members of his department continue using 10-80 as a control for rodents and pests?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In very selective cases, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the light of the Minister's obvious briefing on this subject, may I ask him whether The Creston Valley Advance advertisement, which said that people who wish to make use of this chemical as poison for control purposes could apply to the Department of Agriculture and get it, was either a false report or a mistake in the advertising? Indeed, will it be impossible for people to obtain this other than under the strict supervision of the Department of Agriculture?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the message the advertisement intended to convey was that it's quite impossible to get this material to use it and that anybody having a problem where they thought this should be used had better not go on in the hope that they would eventually get this themselves. The only way to have application of this is to apply to the department, to have it applied by department officials.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So the advertisement was faulty.

[ Page 3045 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: It conveyed the wrong message. It is faulty, yes.

STUDY OF EUROPEAN TRANSIT TECHNIQUES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: in connection with his proposed forthcoming trip to Europe to examine urban transit equipment and techniques, does the Minister intend to invite municipal or regional district representation to accompany him on that trip?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, yes and no. I will notify them of when I'm going.

That's the good news. The bad news is that if they wish to come, they will finance their own way.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I take it then that regional district people from greater Vancouver, greater Victoria would be welcome in your delegation if they chose to attend?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, I'm advising them and I've done it publicly. But I will send them letters to the extent that if they wish to accompany us in this area, they will be welcome.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, finally, to the Minister and on the same subject. Will the Minister communicate with regional districts — greater Victoria and the Capital Regional District in particular — before he makes any purchase commitments while he is in Europe?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

MEETING WITH BLOCK BROS.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): There is a lot I'd like to say on the former question. But I would Re to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Housing.

Some few weeks ago the Hon. Minister took as notice the question from the Member for North Okanagan regarding the date when first the Minister or anyone on his staff, or any other Minister or any staff member of the government of British Columbia had a personal meeting with Mr. Henry Block or his brother, of Block Bros. Realty, and the Minister committed himself to take that question as notice because he wanted to check with his calendar. I'm asking now two weeks later if he is prepared to file the answer to that question.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I haven't got that date but the whole point is that this meeting was not at the request of the Department of

Housing. We get requests from all kinds of people and we attempt to accommodate as many people as we can with meetings, and so really the point of the question is that we met with Mr. Henry Block at his request. We listened to what he had to say and this is just a matter of policy to try and meet with as many people as we possibly can within the limits of our timetables.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary. Is the Minister telling the House then that when he has meetings and is conducting business for his department at taxpayers' expense, he does not keep a calendar of these meetings and that there is no date that he can recall of when he first met with any members of Block Bros. Realty in regard to the current housing policies that he's developing?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the question rhetorical?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking if he keeps a calendar of his activities as every Minister is required to do, when they are involved in activities which are at the taxpayers' expense. Perhaps he'd like to file his whole calendar.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister tell us if he has a time clock in his office?

INQUIRY INTO ABORTION PROCEDURES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health if he has initiated a specific inquiry....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think that the question that was asked by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is a proper question. Whether a Minister keeps a calendar is really, I think, a matter of his internal administration, but I know of no law or statute on the basis of what the Hon. Member indicated or implied.

MR. WALLACE: Has the Minister of Health initiated a specific inquiry to determine if abortions in certain British Columbia hospitals are being carried out where the pregnancy has reached beyond the 20-week stage?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'm almost tempted to say that I didn't take a roll-call of this morning's meeting. Maybe I should do that at each meeting. There were 14 people there, Madam Member.

But I did meet with the Medical Association incidentally this morning, and we discussed that

[ Page 3046 ]

subject and it's a subject that I have Hospital Insurance looking into at the present time. What I was quoted as having said in the paper is exactly what I did say. I'm very disturbed about the whole question.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that there is mention made of abortion committees and since the system at the present time makes the abortion committee merely a procedural situation as a rubber stamp in fact, has the Minister made any approach to the federal government seeking a change in the Criminal Code to restrict the grounds for abortion to more serious physical and mental disease on the part of the mother?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I have had informal discussion with the other health Ministers and as a matter of fact, the last time it was discussed in Ottawa it was unfortunate that it had to be struck from the agenda, as an official item on the agenda. But it's a matter under discussion on a health Ministers' basis at the present time. As a matter of fact we've agreed to talk about it the next time we meet.

SALE OF MUNICIPALLY-OWNED LAND

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). Could the Minister clarify for the House what the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) had in mind when he said on his northern tour, as reported in The Vancouver Sun, May 6, that the government was considering methods of preventing municipalities from making a profit on the sale of municipally-owned housing land?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is asking me to interpret the remarks of another Minister. Why didn't he ask the other Minister?

MR. BENNETT: Well, supplemental then. Because it dealt with policies dealing with the Housing department, and it was referred to as being discussed by the government, I thought the Minister would answer for his own department. Could the Minister advise then if he is considering himself — if it is his intention to limit, put profit controls on municipalities where they have municipally-owned land for housing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Member knows that the question must deal with an existing policy but not future policy, because that's....

MR. BENNETT: Well it was announced as....

MR. SPEAKER: What the Hon. Member should be doing is asking what the policy is in relation to this subject as it is now.

MR. BENNETT: That's what I just asked him.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you didn't. You asked what the future policy was.

MR. BENNETT: Then I'll change it, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Would the Minister please advise what his policy is now in dealing with municipalities on the amount of profit they're allowed to make on municipally-owned land for housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, municipalities are free to make whatever profit their conscience and their economic sensibilities dictate.

SHORT-FALL OF RENTAL HOUSING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the light of his press release of last Friday saying that he hoped that 1, 5 00 new homes would be built under a new programme and 500 in Victoria — about 1,500 in Vancouver,500 in Victoria — may I ask him what is the expected short-fall of rental housing in the year '74 as opposed to the year '73, and what is the expected short-fall over the need of the coming year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Member is asking for a comparison of short-fall of rental housing. I think that a person jus3044t cannot compare rental housing to rental housing.

You have to look at the entire housing picture, and the advent of strata titles and cooperatives is one aspect that has to be taken into account. People are no longer faced with one alternative or two alternatives in either fee simple or rental. There are other alternatives now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Precisely, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister, then, as a supplementary, what studies he's done to take into account these other factors and what his conclusions are — leading to the suggestion that he has in the press release that we're going to be very short of rental accommodation? Surely he's done the very studies he's talked about. Would he please inform us of the results?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the obvious thing one can look at is the vacancy rate, which is extremely low or non-existent. There is a need for rental housing. This is our effect. I wish the federal

[ Page 3047 ]

government would start to recognize some of the inflationary effects which they have caused and the 11 per cent sales tax and inflationary effect that has on the cost of building housing. I wish that they would make as large a commitment as we're prepared to make here in this province toward this problem.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement regarding the emergency situation we debated on Thursday last.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the river heights as of today are: in Mission, 13.91 feet compared to 14.69 feet on Saturday; Prince George, 24.34 feet compared to 26.03 feet on Saturday; Nechako, 15.9 feet compared to 17.5 feet on Saturday; Kamloops, 18.94 feet compared with 19.29 feet on Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that the work has started on the dikes in Kamloops and good progress is being made. Similarly, I'd like to advise the House that in the Chilliwack-Vedder River area arrangements have now been finally concluded regarding the installation of the pumps, and that installation will be completed within two weeks.

As a final note may I tell the House that the emergency air search for those lost in the Powell River area has been successful and the occupants of that small plane have been found safe. Unfortunately I cannot report the same happy circumstances surrounding the search that's going on in the Prince George area for the missing canoeists. Thank you.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 137: Minister's office $105,352.

On the amendment to vote 137.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would certainly yield the floor to the Minister if he would care to answer some of the charges that have been laid against him and his department — if he'd care to give some answers. But the Minister's not going to give any answers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): What charges?

MR. PHILLIPS: What charges? The Minister of Health says: what charges?

There has been evidence laid before this Legislature that there were deals made in the selling of paper from Ocean Falls that were not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. There have been charges made-of questions asked regarding the trading in Col-Cel shares. We've asked the Minister to advise us when he started negotiations. There have been charges laid about Gottesman and company making millions of dollars in profits, reselling the paper from Ocean Falls on the black market. The Minister of Health says: what charges?

You know, it's time that this Minister started answering some questions and, indeed, started telling the House about his policies in the Department of Forestry. Throughout this debate this Minister has been arrogant and callous; he looks upon the opposition as a sort of a fly in the ointment. But maybe, if the Minister would tell the people of British Columbia what is going on.... This matter certainly is not going to be cleared up, the light of day is not going to show forward, until such time as the Minister does answer these allegations.

There has been talk of presenting documents; we have presented documents of scare tactics in the takeover of Plateau Mills. We have presented sufficient evidence to certainly bring the Minister to his feet and defend his position or tell us that what we feel has been going on is not so. I don't know how we can give this Minister his vote unless he changes his attitude.

This Minister prepared a paper quite some time ago which lays out a policy of the complete takeover of the forest industry in British Columbia. I'd like to quote from a policy paper which is attributed to the Minister where he says:

"An NDP government would take over and operate firms unwilling and unable to function adequately under the above conditions, " — the above conditions being mainly: "the acquisition of privately owned corporations in the resource field prior to major resource tax changes would be a mistake because the market price of those companies would be grossly inflated because of a wide range of tax holidays they presently enjoy."

But what I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is what he considers to be the meaning of "unwilling and unable to function adequately." In a forest industry, when does he consider it to be functioning adequately? Who is to make the decision? That Minister has charge of letting the private forest industries utilize the forest resources of this province. He has a say over what royalties and what stumpage and what taxes they shall pay, what portions they shall cut down, how much they must reforest.

He is able to lay down all the rules and regulations,

[ Page 3048 ]

Mr. Chairman. So he can lay down rules and regulations whereby any forest industry may not function adequately. He can force them, in other words, to function inadequately because of some of the rules and regulations which he can lay before him.

But this Minister seems to have taken a holier-than-thou attitude, as if to question his ability is a breach of parliament in itself. But I feel that this Minister is in breach of parliament by not answering to this Legislature as to exactly what is going on in his department. He is the one who is in breach of parliament. The Minister has, from the time he took over his department — which, by the way, is one of the heaviest and largest departments in government — been hiding behind a cloak of secrecy. He doesn't seem to want to let the industry know what their future is or where they are going. And he certainly doesn't want to let this Legislature in on what his intentions are.

Mr. Chairman, of the 73 questions left on the order paper, 25 of them are to this Minister. I doubt very much if this Minister ever intends to answer any of the questions on the order paper. We've clearly stated that there is a great deal of doubt about the trading in Col-Cel shares which went on prior to the takeover.

There were people who had prior knowledge of what was going on in Col-Cel — prior certainly to it becoming public knowledge. We have outlined that there were definitely unusual trading patterns in the trading of Col-Cel shares before the official government announcement.

Then we find some of the directors of this corporation owning personally as high as 7,000 shares, and I refer to Mr. Berkley, one of the directors who lives in the United States.

As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, it was stated policy of this company that no individual should be able to make profit on shares owned in a company in which the provincial government had over 51 per cent. In this case of Col-Cel, the government owned 79 per cent of this company. Directors living outside of the borders of British Columbia, not British Columbians owning....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He was up when I left.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I thought maybe the Premier was back but he doesn't want to come in this Legislature.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): He's heard it all before.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's heard it all before. I will suggest that we would like to hear some answers.

I thought maybe the Premier would stay away; he made a special attempt to be away last week while this Minister's estimates were before the Legislature. But maybe the Premier is going to come in and answer for this Minister.

I'd like to reiterate again that during the takeover of Col-Cel, the price of shares of Col-Cel, was, on the move; they were rising. Early in December of 1972 the common shares of Col-Cel in Toronto traded at 60 cents per share and the preferred shares traded at $1.25. By February 8, 1973, still prior to the official announcement by the provincial government that they were going to take over this corporation, the shares had moved to $2.60 for common shares and $6.50 for preferred shares. That's an increase of $2 in the price of common shares from December, 1972, until February 8, 1973. On March 29, just prior to the suspension of trading, the common share was selling for $3.30 — an increase in just under four months of $2.70 per share.

If the directors, Mr. Berkley, Mr. Gross and Mr. Wallach owned these shares prior to the takeover, you don't have to be too much of a mathematician to figure out the profit they have already made by being partners and shareholders in a British Columbia corporation. The Minister, whose estimates are under study now, is the key figure in whether this company will make money or not. As I said, this Minister has access and makes the rules and regulations that will say whether this company will make a profit or not.

As I stated before, some of the directors seemed to think shortly after Col-Cel became a entity in the forest industry of British Columbia, 79 per cent owned by the province, that this corporation would be a major corporation in the forest industry in British Columbia.

Since that time, a lot of predictions by these directors residing outside B.C., who seem to know more about what's going on in the forest industry in British Columbia than the people who own the resources seem to know, Col-Cel has indeed expanded and taken over Plateau Mills.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly Col-Cel is going to be.... Who took over Col-Cel mills, then? Maybe you would give me that answer, Mr. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Crown.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the Crown took it over. Well, didn't the Crown take over Col-Cel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The information the Hon. Member is requesting is public information.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister knows full well what I'm talking about. In the entire web of Kootenay Forest Products, the takeover of Plateau and all the

[ Page 3049 ]

rest of the takeovers that are planned, the Minister has the say-so. This is what he means when he says if they can't operate adequately....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's an inflammatory speech. I'm shocked to come back and find....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier says he is shocked to come back to his home. I would think he would be shocked to come back to British Columbia after the revelations in the department of forestry last week. I think he would be ashamed to come back to British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sure that he is ashamed to come back to British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia are also shocked at some of the revelations that have taken place in this chamber since our Premier left last week.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You betcha! And there he is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, indeed. But nobody prefers to give any answers. Your Minister, Mr. Premier, seems to put himself above approach. He doesn't have to answer to this Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down! How can he answer when you're standing up?

MR. PHILLIPS: I won't sit down — not until I get some answers or at least the promise of answers. Well, if you had stayed in the Legislature last week, Mr. Premier, you would have known what went on in the precincts of these four walls.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would have thrown up!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says he would have thrown up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person who has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sick at heart but I'm not that sick. Maybe the Premier wants us to get that sick so we will give up before we get the answers.

But I'll tell you, this talk of open government was one of the platforms of the NDP prior to taking office — which seems to be rule of thumb with that particular party. They've got lots of promises and they're going to do great things and they're going to be an open government and they shall trust us. But six months after they're in power — and I say "power" because they're not there to govern; they're in power. That's what they are; they're in power. Unfortunately, they abuse their power.

I wonder if the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has appeared before the group doing the checking into the insider trading on Col-Cel; the investigating team the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has appointed. I'll bet if he has or if he ever does, he'll have a tale of intrigue to tell that will shock all of British Columbia. That's if he ever tells it. I would suggest that he would probably go before this investigating committee with the same "holier-than-thou" attitude he seems to express here in this Legislature.

There have been many reasons given for the takeover of Col-Cel. I recall very vividly last spring in May attending a meeting in Terrace of the truck loggers' association where the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources made a specific point of telling the people in that northwestern community that he had taken over Col-Cel to protect the small investor from a loss. The Minister certainly hasn't denied it, and there were several other people there. My colleague from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was there and heard these words. Not just a passing sentence, not just a passing phrase, but specifically the point was made that Col-Cel was taken over to protect the minority shareholders in what was previously Columbia Cellulose. That was the explicit reason given for taking over this company: the rights of the minority shareholders. I thought to myself at the time that this leaves me free to invest in any corporation in British Columbia, and, if I make a bad investment, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources will come in and buy it out to protect me from a loss in the stock market.

However, since then the Minister has given several other reasons. Now he says that he took over the forest industry to protect the jobs of those people who were employed in those industries prior to takeover.

I wonder if maintaining these jobs is strictly a smokescreen that the Minister has thought up since there have been charges of irregularities in the marketing place, charges of conflicts of interest and forceful takeovers. Is this just a smokescreen, Mr. Chairman, to sort of hide the very fact that there have been so many irregularities in these takeovers?

I have to think, due to the fact that these shareholders are also shareholders in worldwide lumber marketing institutions.... I don't know

[ Page 3050 ]

whether they were shareholders prior to the takeover or if they bought in at a low price, but I wonder if it was to protect their investments, Mr. Chairman. How are we ever going to know if the Minister is not prepared to advise the Legislature of some of the intrigue prior to this takeover?

There were certain shareholders, Mr. Chairman, who were preferred shareholders, who really don't feel their interests were protected. Some of them feel they didn't receive a fair share for their shares.

How much money, we have to ask, is the government going to put into Col-Cel to protect these jobs? The government has assumed liabilities in taking over Col-Cel of over $70 million and they have predicted an outlay in the very near future of some additional $80 million to bring that corporation up to standards of pollution and to get it onto a paying basis.

This means, Mr. Chairman, that within eight years, according to this article — and I'll quote certain portions of this — the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to pour into Can-Cel, or be responsible for, $150 million.

The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that if the government spends an additional $70 million or $80 million on improving the operations of Can-Cel, how much money are the other shareholders going to put into this company? If they are not going to put any money into it, Mr. Chairman, they are going to reap the benefits from the taxpayers' money put into this operation, because if you plough enough money in and are able to make the rules under which this company will buy the raw material, which are the trees from the people, owned by the people, then this 21 per cent of shares owned by private individuals is certainly going to increase greatly in value.

Is this the reason, Mr. Chairman, that the government didn't buy 100 per cent of this corporation? Did the government know who was going to own this additional 21 per cent of shares? Were there deals made with these directors to hold a large portion of the remaining 21 per cent of the shares? Were these shares purchased prior to the price going up? Don't you feel that these questions should be answered in this Legislature, particularly as I have stated before that it is the stated policy — not more than three months ago in this Legislature — that no private individual should capitalize on an increase in the price of shares of a company owned by the Government of British Columbia, owned by the people of British Columbia? And here, less than three months later, we are asking questions about who owns the other 21 per cent of the shares.

Why is it a stated policy in the takeover of Dunhill by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that he will use this Legislature, if necessary, to acquire the additional 20 per cent of shares when that company was being taken over by the government? The Minister of Housing says we shall use force, if necessary . We shall use legislation, if necessary, to acquire the additional 20 per cent of shares held by private individuals. We will bring in legislation, if necessary, to acquire those additional 20 per cent of shares not owned by the directors of Dunhill when the government was taking it over.

But now, Mr. Chairman, in the case of Col-Cel, the government only owns 79 per cent of the shares. Twenty-one per cent are owned by private individuals, and a large number of those shares are owned by the directors appointed from outside British Columbia. We want to know if they owned the shares before. The Minister doesn't seem to be too concerned. He doesn't seem to be concerned at all.

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, what the Minister is trying to hide. Not once has this Minister denied that he intends to take over the entire forest industry. Indeed, as I quoted a short time ago, in a position paper or a White Paper that was allegedly prepared by the Minister, and he can deny this if he doesn't want to take credit for this paper...that the NDP place major industries such as pulp, paper, lumber, mining, manufacturing, transportation, communications and finance under public ownership.

The Minister hasn't denied this. But what bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is that if it is going to be a series of takeovers and acquisitions, what type of trading, what type of manoeuvring is going to go on in the acquisition of the remaining independent forest industries in British Columbia? Are there going to be deals made under the table? Is the government only going to buy out portions of these companies and leave certain directors with large shareholdings to make rip-off profits that are justly due to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

These are the questions that must be answered in this Legislature during this Minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman. The answers to these questions are due to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Normally during a Minister's estimates it is the policy of the Minister to relay to the House and all the Members of the House, both the government and the opposition Members, what the policies of his department are going to be. But this Minister, who carries the heaviest portfolio in the government, who has been the architect of portfolios in many of the other departments, chose to tell us of a trip he took to northwestern British Columbia, not really outlining the policies of his government.

We have continually asked, Mr. Chairman, for papers relating to Col-Cel and papers relating to the dealing in Ocean Falls newsprint. We have asked for studies recently completed on the expansion plans of Ocean Falls. We have asked for sales agreements of the newsprint with Gottesman and Company of New York. No answers, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3051 ]

Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman, has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia over $3,850,000 thus far. I suppose the Minister considers this peanuts, but to the taxpayers of British Columbia this is not peanuts. These are their hard-earned tax dollars.

In The Province, business section, Wednesday, April 3, there was an article headlined "Can-Cel Sees Heavy Outlay." I would like to quote from that article to give you some indication of the amount of tax dollars that this Minister plans to pour into Can-Cel in an attempt to make it a viable operation.

There again, I have to ask how many years it is going to be before the taxpayers are really going to ever reap any of the benefits3044 from this British Columbia corporation. When they do, they will only be reaping 79 per cent of the benefits. Stockholders — maybe some of them in Brussels; maybe a lot of .them in New York, in Phoenix, Arizona and elsewhere — are going to reap the other 21 per cent. I would like to quote from the article:

"Canadian Cellulose Co. Ltd. Will need to spend about $30 million over the next eight years to meet pollution control standards in its two kraft pulp mills at Prince Rupert and Castlegar. This estimate given at present day costs is made by President Ronald M. Gross in the annual report to Canadian Cellulose which was released on Tuesday."

This article is dated April 3, 1974.

The provincial government took control of Can-Cel last June 29 buying out 92 per cent of the holdings of Celanese Corp. of New York in Columbia Cellulose Co. Ltd. There was a legal deal on their several companies and the government eventually wound up with 79 per cent of what is now Can-Cel. But the government is going to have to pour millions and millions more taxpayers' dollars into this corporation before it becomes a viable operation.

The report is out that this Crown corporation made $12 million last year. But when we look at the price they paid for wood chips — had they paid the going market price in the Vancouver area, the corporation would have lost money. The Minister knows that.

We've also asked how much stumpage 1s going to be paid by this corporation. The Minister, as I've said previously, can set all the rules in the game as he goes along. He can make this corporation either make or lose money. He can set the stumpage fees. He can set the transportation fees. He can also make it very difficult for other private forest industries to make money by not having them under the same rules and regulations as his own corporation.

But we would like to know more about the policies and future plans of this Minister. I think that if the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to be faced in the next several years with putting hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into taking over the entire forest industry, then, Mr. Chairman, they should be told about this Minister's plans. Let the taxpayers know if they are going to have to invest; and, if they are going to take over the whole thing, we are talking about billions of dollars. Where is the money going to come from? Or is the Minister planning to put on the squeeze play, making these operations unsuccessful?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is tending to be repetitious. Therefore, I would ask him to think of something new to introduce into the debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what I would like more than anything else in the world is to have the Minister answer some questions in this Legislature — to table some papers. After all, in one sense of the word, being a taxpayer in British Columbia — not only sharing directly but, I guess, indirectly — I am a shareholder in Can-Cel.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Read your annual report.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are millions of people in British Columbia who are also shareholders in an indirect way in Can-Cel. They would like some answers. They might be shareholders in a much larger way if the Minister continues in his present trend of the last 18 months since he took over his portfolio.

I think these would-be shareholders in the forest industry would also like some answers as to where they are going. Maybe we could call this a shareholders' meeting. Maybe we could say that I represent here in this Legislature 79 per cent of the shareholders in Can-Cel.

Mr. Chairman, If I represent 79 per cent of the shareholders in Can-Cel, do you not think I am entitled to some answers from this Minister? You are one of the shareholders, Mr. Chairman. A number of people in the galleries are shareholders in Can-Cel; but they don't have the floor, so I am representing them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure they feel proud.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that if I had my way, the first thing I would do is probably make some changes in some of the directors.

All we want — representing here in this Legislature 79 per cent of the shareholders — is some answers. We want the Minister to unfold some of the intrigue that allegedly went on prior to the takeover. We want to know how a few private individuals may have access to making huge rip-off profits when the taxpayers of British Columbia who, at 79 per cent, are the largest shareholders in this corporation, have not maybe had access to the same information.

[ Page 3052 ]

We would like the Minister to give us reasons why these shares increased in price. We would like the Minister to tell us when he started negotiations, why he feels the shares increased. We would like the Minister to tell us if his main reason for taking over this corporation was to protect the small investors. Was that the same reason he took over Kootenay Forest Products? Was that the same reason he took over Plateau Mills?

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sit down now. Maybe the Minister would like to enlighten us on some of the questions. If not, we are going to have to ask these questions again. We must know the answers. If we are wrong in our allegations, we want to know about it.

We can't settle for the Minister being arrogant and not answering the questions that are placed before him in this Legislature. That isn't good enough. The taxpayers of this province want this whole rotten mess straightened out. They want the answers. We are here, on their behalf, to get the answers.

Mr. Chairman, before this Minister gets his vote we must have the answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding the current items, Mr. Chairman, it seems clear that the opposition doesn't have its facts clear again. The 21 per cent minority shareholders presently in Canadian Cellulose include many employees — many employees that had bought shares at an earlier time at a far higher price than they currently are today.

Had the sale gone through as the private companies wanted to do, the minority shareholders would have been left with absolutely nothing. They would have been left penniless. The stock would have been very nice wallpaper, but that is all it would have been.

This administration saw a kind of fairness through the whole event and felt that the minority owners should continue to be represented in an equity sense within the company. So we saw to it that these minority owners would have this 21 per cent representation. That was both the common and preferred share owners. All of that is history and I think it has been fully documented in the past.

The Hon. Member talked about tax dollars financing programmes at Can-Cel. Once again he is confused. The $19 million in capital expenditures that will be expended this fiscal year in CanadianCellulose will be self-generated dollars as a result of selling pulp and lumber, the products that the company produces.

The Hon. Member doesn't seem to understand that this is self-generating capital that we see at this stage with the markets as they are. So $19 million in new money will be obtained by that corporation through its own activities in the marketplace. All of the people of British Columbia will benefit as a result, not only the minority shareholders, but the majority shareholders — all of us, equally, as shareholders in he company. So tax dollars are not what we're talking about in terms of the capital expenditures hat we presently see at Canadian Cellulose. Maybe we can get that straight.

Last week the Hon. Member had trouble figuring but if it was a Crown corporation or not. Now he understands it is a public organization on the market, on the stock exchange in this country. He's got that and it's taken a week. Now that's a blessing, that's progress, but it's a long, long walk to get to the truth with the people in the official opposition.

Wood chip price. Once again, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The wood chip price hat is being paid by Can-Cel is generally comparable o what others are paying in similar markets. Let's face it — it is not a free market. But the people in the official opposition don't seem to understand the difference between a cartel market, a free market, free enterprise, socialism or what you will, and I can hardly start with a primer book for the Hon. Member.

Wood chip price is primarily related to location and production of the chips. The former government et up an allocation system; I did not. I realize that he system is inadequate. That is why we have a task force headed by Dr. Peter H. Pearse and joined with Ted Young, the chief forester, and Mr. Backman of Can-Cel, outstanding gentlemen. They're reviewing the numerous inequities that were given to us on a platter from the former Minister and the former government.

On the question of stumpage, I assure you, Mr. Member, that standard stumpage is paid by Canadian Cellulose. Any special agreements would have been made by the former Minister, Mr. Williston. I assure you they face a standard stumpage situation like other companies in similar situations. So let's get that straight.

Now, the Plateau Mills. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) brought Plateau Mills into his arena on Friday last. This was a matter which was discussed in the public media for some time last summer, at the time the government acquired some 97 per cent of the Plateau Mills and related companies.

We now have the new leader reading us a letter from one of the U.S. shareholders, as well as the statements from a Smithers accountant and a company he was a part of called Synco. What we have in fact is the Leader of the official opposition playing he role, once again, of the willing messenger boy, who is ready and willing always to believe the worst of a government, as he sees it, composed of people not born to govern, like he was.

On the one hand, he'll use Synco statements that strong-arm tactics were used. He won't use the American director's statements that such was not the

[ Page 3053 ]

case. He won't use the American director's statements that there was no evidence of financial capacity on the part of Synco, the Canadian company that he chooses to champion. But he will use a minority American director statement, albeit a year late, that is confirmed by no one else — that is confirmed by no one else.

This new leader assumes no responsibility for the truthfulness of the statements. There is no double checking. There is no checking with the shareholders in Canada — the Mennonite holders in the Vanderhoof community — and no checking with the other American holder who is now a resident in Canada in the lower mainland.

Why, the Leader of the Opposition's role is a very simple one — it's that of the willing messenger boy. If that's all that the job is about, then no judgment is necessary at all. But that, Mr. Member, isn't what leadership is all about.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Daddy now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's interesting to compare Saturday's Province story, which most of you have read — "Williams Accused of Coercion, " et cetera, et cetera — with the statements that are in it, and even the added information that is obtained just a few hours later in the Saturday evening edition of the Sun. It's an interesting comparison.

Now the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to unveil this latest letter from one representative of the American group. He quotes in effect that I as Minister would have preferred acquiring Plateau Mills a l'Allende. He quotes this one person, suggesting that I suggested they could experience difficulties, et cetera.

What did I say? I'd like to set the record straight at this time and on this floor. I said that for all or most forest companies in British Columbia in the future, the picking would not be as good as it had been under Social Credit. Now that's hardly news. We won an election campaign arguing for a better deal for the public, the people who own the forests in the province.

What I did say as well was that the treatment of Plateau would be equitable, that we would not discriminate against Plateau, no matter what their decision was, which I believe is fair and proper and right. I'm sure that the Mennonite owners in Vanderhoof will confirm that, as will the American in the Fraser Valley.

Since then we've brought in the Interior end use appraisal system and that applies equally to all companies. I was fair to the point of making the point that there would be new stumpage appraisal systems in the Interior and they were made aware of that at that time. It was the new appraisal system that I was referring to.

Reference to Allende? What nonsense. Only in relation to IT&T and the rather sorry history of IT&T in the United States and in South America.... Ironically, Mr. Chairman, the Americans couldn't understand our lack of interest in having IT&T expand in northern British Columbia. I asked them at that time — that is, the American directors — if they were aware of the Republican convention payola that had been fully reported at that time. You remember the payoff and paying the cost of the convention in California with Mr. Nixon and all? I asked them if they had not read about the Dita Beard memos that were current at that time, and I asked them if they had not read of the interference in the democratically elected regime of Mr. Allende in Chile. That was the only reference. I asked them if they even read Time magazine in their own country, because it was fully reported in Time magazine. But it was in reference only to the IT&T expansion in British Columbia and when that was not desirable from this government's point of view.

I'm sure that if the Socreds had been in power we'd have IT&T in nor-them British Columbia. We wouldn't have public shareholders, the people of the province owning this important facility in the Vanderhoof area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Anybody except our own people.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, anybody but our own people. The former Minister of the former government always approved what big business wanted in this province, and this carbon copy is no different than the old one. Let's look at the Sun story in relation to this, but first let's look at the Sun story of last summer. What was the Sun story of last summer? Why, it was a banner headline saying: "Terror Tactics Charged in Government Purchase." That was the big Sun sensational story of last summer. The screaming, sensationalist Sun was doing its thing.

Well, after a year the Sun even is getting more of the picture. They haven't reached the truth yet, but they are de-escalating their headlines a little bit. What did the Sun say, Saturday night last? — "Williams Accused of Arm Twisting." Last summer it was terror tactics; this spring it's arm twisting. This summer maybe we'll get the truth in The Vancouver Sun headline. Just maybe.

I think the basic points should be made again. We told the Plateau owners at that time that we preferred a Canadian buyer, and high time. We said that if they did not have a Canadian buyer satisfactory to them, the government would buy the company at the same price that IT&T had offered. We said that we would be happy and willing to live with the existing

[ Page 3054 ]

ownership as well. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that's a reasonable range of choice in terms of public policy. It was made abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no discrimination against Plateau if they followed any of these three courses of action.

Let's look more closely at the Sun story of last Saturday, where at last the reporters got down to doing just a little bit of digging — not much, not just a matter of scooping up the garbage from the opposition, but a little bit of digging too.

What do we have here? Why, Mr. Goodwin, the American shareholder down there in Utah, explained to the Sun reporter Friday that he had sent the letter to Bennett as a legal manoeuvre in his efforts to obtain a favourable ruling on the deal by the U.S. Internal Revenue Department.

Well, well, well! Isn't it amazing what a little bit of digging will do? Isn't it amazing what a little bit of digging will do?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He helps the big companies beat the tax here. Now he helps them down in the States, for crying out loud!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: "As a legal manoeuvre," says the man from Utah. A legal manoeuvre!

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it's the American tax man.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, isn't it strange that we never heard those kinds of statements at the height of the controversy last summer? Isn't it strange that we never heard those kinds of statements at the height of the controversy last summer when all these people were interviewed by some fairly good, digging reporters of the day? Isn't it strange that there is this kind of new recall from Mr. Goodwin and that it should occur just at the time he is carrying on his fight with the tax collector, Uncle Sam, down there in the U.S. of A.?

Isn't it strange that this man didn't even recall the date of the meeting in the Minister's office here in Victoria? He says in the Sun "Why, it was February or March of last year." He's just not sure which month the meeting took place.

Isn't it strange that top-notch, digging reporters, like Alec Young of The Province, who at least got off of his backside and flew to Idaho and to the States and interviewed some of the people down there at the time, didn't get those kinds of statements last summer? Isn't that strange?

All of sudden, when this man can't even remember the date of the meeting here in Victoria, he comes up with this new information. It is information that is not corroborated by others. In fact, it is refuted by myself, by Mr. Martens of Vanderhoof, the major Mennonite holder in the Vanderhoof area, refuted by the other American now resident in the Abbotsford area of the lower mainland and refuted in the newspapers of last summer by Mr. Ralph O. Brown, the major shareholder, in Provo, Utah.

What did the major shareholder say, even last summer? If the Leader of the Opposition and his research expert, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, chose to do any proper work, they might have at least checked the newspapers of last summer. What did he say?

That is Mr. Ralph O. Brown, in Provo, Utah. He says in The Province of June 30, last summer:

"Brown said Williams told him Plateau was completely free to consider an offer of any Canadian company."

And that is basically the spirit of our understanding with him. That is the major American shareholder. He says further:

"Asked to explain, he said, 'Williams said conditions would not always be as rosy in the future in the forest industry as in the past.'

And I confirmed that earlier.

"Mr. Brown said, 'I think he only means that for corporations in general there would be perhaps higher taxation and higher stumpage rate and charges for raw material.' " 'But,' said Mr. Brown, the major American shareholder, 'I don't think that was even a veiled threat. It was simply a statement of fact of what was going to be.' "

That's the major shareholder. And the Synco deal? Again, what did one of the major U.S. shareholders say about the Synco deal last summer? Here's what he said. And that's in The Province of June 29. He said this:

"The only thing that stopped us from taking the Synco deal is that they didn't have any money."

They didn't have any money.

That's Dr. Claude Brown, the director who lives in Boise, Idaho. They didn't have any money.

Why, they had a $1,000 cheque for a $10 million operation, and the cheque wasn't even certified. And Dr. Brown says: "They didn't have any money; that's why we didn't deal with them."

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that how he would do business?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At that time, Goodwin was also interviewed by the business editor of The Province.

[ Page 3055 ]

None of these news statements were made at the time. You can check for what Mr. Goodwin said at that time. It is all there in the newspapers, if your research executive would just take the trouble to check the files.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You came in and dumped garbage.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Beyond that, who was the negotiator that we appointed, as a government, to handle the acquisition of Plateau Mills? I would like to make it clear who the government's prime negotiator was at the beginning of the acquisition of Plateau Mills. It was an excellent lawyer, Mr. Henry Hutcheon, Q.C., who is an outstanding member of the bar in British Columbia, a man who is now Judge Henry E. Hutcheon of the county court here in British Columbia.

All these charges that have been made by this irresponsible opposition tear away not only at myself, but at some outstanding citizens of the Province of British Columbia who are involved. I regard this as an incredible slur against people like Henry Hutcheon, who is now a judge.

Doesn't the Leader of the Opposition know, Mr. Chairman, that the partners weren't getting along — the Mennonite and Mormon shareholders — and that this was partly attributable to Mr. Goodwin? Doesn't he know that?

Isn't it strange that all the other parties I checked with refute Mr. Goodwin's statement? And isn't it true that Mr. Goodwin has a special axe to grind? He is trying to avoid paying taxes in the United States of America.

Isn't it true that Mr. Goodwin and the others would have liked to have called this acquisition an expropriation for tax reasons in the United States? We refused to do so, just as we refused to do so with the Columbia Cellulose acquisition as well.

Isn't it true, Mr. Chairman, that in fact Mr. Goodwin is politically motivated? Isn't that true?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Isn't it true in fact that Mr. Goodwin has been a Member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia? Isn't it true that even though he is an American citizen and has always resided in the United States, he still joined the Social Credit Party? And doesn't that really explain a great deal in terms of what the Member put before us last week?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Check the donation lists. Your Dad has got them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: He was showing off his card in the Prince George area a few years ago. It seems to me that the new leadership of Social Credit, Mr. Chairman, is spawning the most dangerous elements yet to surface in that party.

I frankly don't think it's surprising, Mr. Chairman, given the non-factual, untrue, distorted material coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Official Opposition. In the past week we have had some excellent examples of distortion at the hands of the new leader.

One, just one small example: why was that ship that the Minister of Transport bought...? Why, he said that we were taken to the cleaners. He said they were the same ships — sister ships — and what about the capacity? Why, the one we bought could handle 170 cars and the one he said was a sister could handle 90. Some sister! Big sister!

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Stepsister. Out-of-step sister! That was the Stena Danica. That was the rush to judgment, the rush to the printing press, again with his ever-handy executive assistant.

Another was the Ashcroft Du Pont deal where he said it was the fault of the government again, that we had lost an industry to British Columbia. In fact, it was poor marketing work on the part of Du Pont, and they have said so in correspondence to the Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

That's just another example of the rush to judgment from the new leader. There is a consistency of failing to check your facts, consistency in terms of jumping to incredible conclusions and becoming.... It's a trademark of the new leader, Mr. Chairman: this jumping to conclusions and inadequate facts.

Remember the earlier so-called list of political hacks that he listed? It included 30-year and 40-year career civil servants. Remember that from the opposition office? That from the opposition office — that's what we got a few months earlier.

Now, now....

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): When did I read such a list?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Given that kind of leadership, is it any wonder that the Socred group carries on in the way that it has?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder you are out of the House.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is it any wonder, given this kind of attitude, that the rest of those Members over there carry on the way they do? Is it any wonder at all?

Here are some of the choice quotes of the last

[ Page 3056 ]

week or so from the lovely people from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Why, from the leader himself, a beautiful statement: "...the pudgy little funny fellow and the cruel, calculating, beady-eyed companion."

Proud of it, eh? Proud of that one, eh? Who's the author? Did Dapper Dan do that one for you too?

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett); Plateau; using terror tactics! He's a year behind The Vancouver Sun. That means it will take him two years to catch up with the truth. It has taken the Sun one year.

Well, what about the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)? "The possibility of receiving kickbacks." That's the kind of great stuff we get from the opposition.

How about the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)? "They are the seven little dwarves," she said. "Is this what they are up to: Litvine, Berkley, Gross, Wallach, Williams, Barrett and a man behind the scenes." That was the choice item from the Member.

But, in addition, they're laughing at either the naivety of the government or — as may be the most unpalatable alternative — the corruption within government." That's the kind of incredible nonsense we're getting from the opposition at the hands of this kind of leadership in the opposition.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): What leadership?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And what about others? "The people of this province call it dishonesty. The Minister should not receive a salary at all." That's from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

Now, given the kind of leadership they've got, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that Socred group carries on the way it does? The facts just don't seem to matter with you people over there; the truth just doesn't seem to matter with you people over there. Is that what the new leadership of Social Credit is breeding? You're leading them to greater and greater depths, Mr. Leader.

When the Socred leader started this non-confidence motion Tuesday last, almost a week ago, he carried on in a kind of mysterious way. He described a so-called international web of intrigue. The Member for South Peace River talked about this web of intrigue just now. It was a story that didn't seem to hang together at all. The names came out, the countries, all those kind of strange names, strange countries, all came tumbling out in the speech last Tuesday. But it didn't really hang together.

The newsprint price question was one thing; and we made it clear how we feel with respect to that. We are obtaining the highest mill net in the nation, despite transportation problems, isolation at OceanFalls, and the like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: But there was all that strange stuff from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), with those strange "names" and references to Belgium — imagine, Belgium — and the like. And it didn't make sense as part of the speech that was being given. It didn't make sense unless you have the kind of mind the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has. And what did he say about this international web of intrigue and these strange names?

He said:

(The Minister) is the super pawn and I have to remind him that he's playing in a league to which he was not born to play.

He's playing in a league.... But I want you to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you were born under the wrong star. You were born under the wrong star to play in that league.

When they're all finished with you, after they've moved you as far as the opposing Queen's row, they'll kick you aside like they do a finger nail that's too long. They'll kick you aside and they'll say to you, "Sorry, fella, you belong to the wrong sect. You belong to the wrong community."

...you have to have a name like Wallach, you have to have a name like Berkowitz, "

not Berkley, he said.

...you have to have a name like Litvine....

You have to have a name like Gross.

And we responded at the time.

Then you carried on, as confused financially as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). You said:

I'm wondering about the $70 million that had to come from nowhere to create B.C. Cellulose. I'm wondering whether the...the money for this didn't come to British Columbia from foreign sources, and I'm wondering whether or not it didn't have to come from Belgium, because one of the boys who was appointed as a director of the company happens to be tied in very tightly with the financial structure over in mutterland.

Mr. Chairman, it is evil material that is being spawned in that group over there. Evil material. The incredible item about $70 million coming out of nowhere. The belief that it came from the mutterland. It's a strange, twisted view of the world of international intrigue. You said, "born under the wrong star," you said, "of the wrong sect," you said; "not having a name like Litvine, Berkowitz, Gross," et cetera, you said. Then, $70 million from the mutterland.

Seventy million dollars, Mr. Member — if we can start the education at this late, late, late stage — is a mortgage we paid nothing for. Do you understand

[ Page 3057 ]

that? We simply guaranteed it. We assumed it and guaranteed it, like when you buy a house and there's a mortgage on it. The mortgage was already there; the money was already there. It didn't come out of nowhere; it was already there in the capital assets of the company. Do you understand that?

Well, that's a beginning. The simplest points in the past have been lost on these Members, Mr. Chairman.

Ah, but not their leader's speech. That wasn't missed by the Member for Chilliwack. It is when you look at what the Member for Chilliwack said and then you reflect back on what the Leader of the Opposition said that the earlier speech all starts making sense. It starts making sense, that is, if you've got the kind. of mind that the Member for Chilliwack has. Obviously, the Member for Chilliwack was taking his leader's speech the next logical step, as he saw it. Not so smooth, mind you, but the next logical step.

In all my time in this Legislature, I've never heard such evil stuff coughed up on the floor of this House.

Let's get it clear. The original speech, the early talk about the international web; it was your speech that encouraged your Member for Chilliwack to carry on with his own sleazy and twisted view of the world. Your speech. And there has still been no condemnation from you regarding that speech. None whatsoever.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that leadership either brings out the best or the worst in people. It is now abundantly clear what the new Social Credit leadership is bringing out of that group. I ask you, Mr. Member, to reflect on what you are spawning within that group because it is the very kind of thing that has destroyed parliaments in other lands.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of giving our party a word or two to say finally in this debate. I've listened with some interest to what the official opposition has laid before the House as charges to the Minister and to the government.

Our party has checked with the principal figure involved in Plateau Mills. I must confirm what the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources has just told us. This man has made no secret of the fact that his accusations against the Government of British Columbia are for the purposes of getting a favourable tax deal in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. McGEER: This man has used the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Willingly.

MR. McGEER: ...and the Leader of the Opposition has left with this House a false impression of arm-twisting. I am persuaded that our conversation with the principal would confirm that he makes no secret of it.

I am not a socialist; I believe that private enterprise should operate the businesses of this country, including the forest industry.

But I must say as well that I am not in favour of our giving forest privileges and cutting rights to foreign countries. I do not approve of the manipulation of Canadian companies for profits to entrepreneurs in the United States. What was involved in this, quite clearly, is that the government of British Columbia was offering the same deal to Plateau Mills that IT&T offered to Plateau Mills, with one difference. The American offer carries with it tax favours and the Canadian offer didn't. That is the sum and substance of it. The Leader of the Opposition realized that, or should have realized that. Whatever faults the NDP may have, the accusation of arm twisting is simply false.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to see three further things done in this matter. One, I would like the letter that was written by Mr. Barney Goodwin to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources tabled in this House. In it, I understand, he asked the Minister to write to him saying that the Minister had twisted his arm.

I would also like to see tabled in this House the letter that Mr. Barney Goodwin wrote to the Leader of the Opposition which he frankly admits was written for tax purposes in the United States.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. McGEER: I think we should have this laid out in the public too.

Thirdly, I would like to make darned sure that the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada see to it that their taxes are collected from these people for the profits that they made out of our Forest Service.

It's quite evident from the desire of Mr. Barney Goodwin to have the Government of British Columbia tell a white lie to him so he can tell it to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States that he made a killing in British Columbia. He didn't do badly or he wouldn't be worried about those taxes. We in Canada should be the ones that are worried about those taxes.

Having said that, I want to come back to an earlier matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition in originally moving the motion of non-confidence in the Minister. I spoke up in favour of what the Leader of the Opposition had said because the Minister had not answered those charges satisfactorily, and our efforts to get at the facts led to a dead end.

The Minister is very careful about admitting to us the selling price of the newsprint which leaves Ocean

[ Page 3058 ]

Falls. He tells us only that he gets top price. He refuses to table with this Legislature the contract which would presumably reveal the truth.

The broker is not a Canadian. It seems as though the broker is making profits from turning over that newsprint far in excess of what our Canadian mill is making. However you want to regard the hold-up prices that we suspect are being charged for our newsprint, whether you want to call it spot sales or a black market, that doesn't matter. It is very clear that in this field the people of British Columbia are taking a shafting. The profits and the taxes on those profits are going to the United States. We are getting neither the wages, nor the return for the capital investment in our mill, nor the taxes to government — that's going to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask this question. If we are selling our newsprint to third world countries, or even to Europe, why in heaven's name is it necessary for us to have an American broker? What justification is there for that? What purpose is there in it? The profits he makes go to assist Americans, the taxes he pays go to an American government, and in a very real and literal sense our timber is serving foreigners — government and salesmen and entrepreneurs. We are working for wages in British Columbia at that mill. We are losing money, as I understand it, on the operation, and all the gravy is going to a New York broker who, incidentally, sits on the boards of our Canadian corporations.

Mr. Chairman, if what I say is wrong I hope the Minister will tell me. If he can prove that I am wrong in making these assertions and drawing these conclusions from the charges that have been laid and the information we have been able to gain so far, then I will support the Minister and vote against this amendment to the motion.

Mr. Chairman, we have two sets of charges by the Leader of the Opposition: one irresponsible, where he's working not to help Canadians but to help an American entrepreneur, but another set of charges where he's working to help Canadians and where the Minister is working to help an American entrepreneur, Mr. Chairman, I find it hard to agree with either one. One is as bad as the other.

Mr. Chairman, I thought what the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had to say about the general content of the Social Credit opposition charges against him were just a little bit on their hypocritical side. I can remember that Member when he was in opposition standing up and laying smear in this Legislature like no Member ever had before.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Or since.

MR. McGEER: Remember the charges he made against Myrnes and all the things he brought up in this Legislature, trying to weave a web of intrigue about people who owned apartments and people who were tenants in those apartments, trying somehow to draw a phony web of intrigue between directors of the D.C. Hydro, respected members of the B.C. bar, like Doug Brown and Nathan Nemetz, the people who are serving British Columbia, as Bill Myrnes did when he was on the B.C. Hydro board of directors? He may not have been your cup of tea but he was doing his duty for the people of British Columbia.

The fact that these people live together in the same apartment building should hardly have been a matter for you to lay a smear on this House as you did years ago. The muck still sticks to you, Mr. Minister, and it ill behoves you to stand up in this House and make those kind of charges against anybody else.

What you should have been doing when you answered the attack of the Leader of the Opposition was getting up and explaining the nature of your contract with the Gottesman people. You should have been laying on the table the contract you signed with them. If you made a mistake, and if they are holding up people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Then what he should have done, Mr. Chairman, is to put that on the table with you and make a clean breast of it. If he's made a mistake, let's know it now. It's better to know the nature of the mistake and make the necessary corrections.

If the Minister wants to go back tomorrow and tell those people the contracts have to be renegotiated because of the fuss we raised in this Legislature, the better for the people of British Columbia. We cannot be in a position in this province where we're black marketing our products, where we're giving the cream to a foreign corporation, when we're allowing people to take profits out of this country and not pay legitimate taxes to the people of Canada or the people of British Columbia.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Is this a Liberal speaking?

MR. McGEER: I would hope that no member of any party — even the Communists — would object to fair taxes being paid by any citizen of this country or any other country who makes profits out of the efforts of the workers of that country.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is what the NDP is permitting to take place today. I tell you that if the Minister does not stand up and answer these charges satisfactorily, if he is unwilling to lay this contract on the table before the people of British Columbia, then the NDP backbenchers should take this Minister into

[ Page 3059 ]

caucus tomorrow and see that he is dismissed.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I think I should have to respond both to the Minister and to the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) because obviously they didn't listen to my speech last Tuesday night.

First of all I'd like to discuss the whole connection of the international directors was to prove the hypocritical attitude of this government in its attitude towards its association with foreign ownership and how this Minister. uses foreign ownership as an excuse to take over companies in this province and yet through a series of interrelated companies is associated with one of the largest companies in the United States, Champion International, not only through their Belgian contacts but also through the fact that Champion International, which owns Weldwood, is a major part of the Babine Forest Products in Burns Lake.

Now, if foreign ownership was bad for Plateau Mills and other ownership was wrong for Kootenay Forest Products, this whole link shows two things: this government is willing to go to bed with foreign companies when they think they can get away with it, but when the Minister is looking for a handy excuse to take over Plateau Mills, foreign ownership becomes very, very important to him. It's the very hypocrisy of this Minister in a double standard. Foreign ownership's wrong when he needs an excuse, but it's all right for Babine Forest Products, it's all right to be part of the Belgian companies with Weldwood, right through to Champion International.

If the Minister had taken the time to see the charge that we turned out, and which was delivered to the press, it related strictly to the connection between the directors and their former connection with Champion and the continuing and new relationship of this Minister, through the government, with Champion International in the north and in Belgium. We were pointing out that this Minister in his preoccupation with taking over the forest industry was doing it with all sorts of excuses that didn't hold up. We pointed out the Minister of Trade (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and even the Premier were in Japan looking for foreign investment to do with a steel mill. Yet he used it as an excuse to take over Plateau Mills. He used it as the government wanting control in Kootenay Forest Products. Here we have him giving new concessions to a company in Burns Lake — Babine Forest Products — and who is there but Champion International? Champion International has a connection with many of the directors that we were questioning that are directors of Can-Cel.

We wondered, and I asked the Minister the other day, what criteria he set up. What were the standards for appointing these directors? Why were these particular directors chosen? Are these directors directing our province and part of our wood industry into the hands of Champion International — 62nd largest American corporation, with annual sales of $1,872 million?

HON. MR. COCKE: Who owns Can-Cel, for heaven's sakes? Who owns Ocean Falls or Plateau?

MR. BENNETT: You're not even listening now, because I'm responding to comments that this Minister made that I had some devious plot, some devious reason, which he implied was wrong, for listing those companies. If the Minister for Little Mountain hadn't been out having coffee as usual when I spoke, he would have heard the same speech, the same reasoning and the same presentation.

If that Minister had got up and answered the very serious question of.... In his preoccupation with taking over companies, was that the policy for the government? We were asking for answers. In our questioning for those answers, we questioned and raised some concerns that have been brought up time and again outside this House, through the news media and through people who are dissatisfied with their negotiations with this government.

When the Leader of the Opposition gets mail, as I get quite a bit of mail, and if the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was considered a champion of the people or raising their concerns, I'm sure he'd get mail which he'd raise in the Legislature.... But when someone who has been part of a controversy, who was a shareholder in a corporation that was taken over by the government writes a letter to the Leader of the Opposition to present his case, I present this letter to the Legislature as part of this person's question. It's not up to me to give answers, it's up to the Minister.

If the Minister had given the answer the other day, all would be well and good, but he chooses to use and twist and try and say that the Leader of the Opposition knows when a letter writer in Blackfoot, Idaho, has some means of trying to get a tax concession in his own country. Now that Minister may have time to be aware of all the tax laws in each individual case in Blackfoot, Idaho, in Washington, D.C., or anywhere else, but I accept letters that are written to me in good faith.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I make the time.

MR. BENNETT: I read the letter and in the contents of the letter and in my further discussion with Mr. Goodwin on the telephone....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): You did check with him, eh?

[ Page 3060 ]

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I talked with Mr. Goodwin on the telephone.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Not at all. Not at all. I questioned him on the contents of the letter and his concern was exactly as he wrote it, and as I read it. If the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development.... I will read this letter again. It says nothing about tax concessions, but it levels from someone who, though not a citizen of our country, participated in an equity position and who was concerned about his treatment by this Minister and wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition, I present this letter to this Legislature.

HON. MR. LAUK: Were you suspicious about that letter?

MR. BENNETT: No, because the very reason that got me to go back into the headlines of last year was the very fact that this letter reactivated this case. In getting this letter I did go back and I went through the newspaper accounts.

HON. MR. LAUK: Is he a member of the Social Credit Party?

MR. BENNETT: It might be easy to identify everyone and judge them on their party membership but believe me, there is no penalty or favour for anyone being a member of our party. It's quite obvious that that Minister and that government know who their members are because they get appointed to special jobs.

There's no way that I monitored the membership of our party. The only criterion that you have to belong is that you are concerned about British Columbia, that you join through the local constituency, not through me, and that you offer to participate. The card gives you the opportunity to serve; it doesn't give you special rights, nor does it guarantee you'll get the job in one of the special commissions that this government appoints its members to. It's an obligation. That card purchasing that membership in our party is an obligation to service and the right to serve. It's not a ticket to special favours, as we've seen in your party with your record of appointments since you became government.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just go down the list.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to further in my remarks answer the very serious charge of discussion of prejudice and bigotry. First of all, I'm speaking for myself as a person, and secondly as a Member of this Legislature and as leader of the Social Credit Party in B.C.

I want to state unequivocally that I'm not in favour of anything or anybody who preaches bigotry, either on ethnic or religious grounds. And if it's not clearly understood, then I'll say it again as I said outside this House: myself and this party....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Four days too late.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. BENNETT: I made a statement outside this House immediately — immediately.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Four days too late.

MR. BENNETT: My statement was immediate; this Minister's non-answers — some he gave today — are four days late. Some of them are a year late, and some we may never get.

I'd like to say that it's been brought to my attention that there's a hidden type of prejudice when people have to continually, during their speech, refer to shareholders because they were Mormons or Mennonites.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. BENNETT: Those people are shareholders like anyone else. Why bring up the fact that they belong to a particular religion? Who did that in this House? Who did that? Those people are people. The very fact that some Ministers of the Crown specifically had to mention the religious persuasion denotes to me a particular type of prejudice. And I dissociate myself from that too.

Each Member that makes these types of charges, or uses these types of phrases, must be responsible for their own words and make their own apology. It's to the credit of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) that when he was misunderstood, he made a correction in this Legislature. I accepted it. I will accept it from anyone.

I state clearly now that this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in trying to associate me with those attitudes, is completely false. It's completely against any statements or any practice that I've made in living my life.

I believe that actions go along with words. And there's no way I'll qualify a shareholder of a company because he's a Mormon as that Minister did.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Have you consulted with your own Member yet?

MR. BENNETT: The Second Member for Victoria

[ Page 3061 ]

asks me.... I've had three discussions with that Member. That Member and I have discussed his remarks. His statement to me as to the content and his further statements directly to the group involved and ultimately to the press on the weekend satisfy me that there was a misunderstanding, and I accept that. And the Second Member for Victoria, who wasn't watching television or seeing the statements or his statement in the House the other day....

Interjection.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Wake up, for crying out loud!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: I feel it's unfortunate that the type of twisting that's going on will cloud what I consider a very serious discussion of the Minister's department, the purpose for which the Minister is taking over companies, the intent of the forest industry in B.C.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) summed it up. He said, fine, that he believes in private enterprise, or free enterprise; so do I. And if the Minister believes in complete socialism of the industry, say so. That's the question we're asking.

If he believes in it to the detriment of operating the industry in, as I believe, a responsible manner right now, and is more concerned with takeover, announce it. Let us know exactly where this Minister stands, where our remorse is in the forest industry, where he's taking us and how they'll be managed in the future. Those were questions, serious questions, questions about the whole intent of his administration and how he administers that department.

Plateau, Kootenay were only examples of the type of action this Minister uses to get his fondest dream: complete control and ownership of the industry — and maybe to the detriment of the public.

The very fact that Plateau was reactivated upon the sending of a letter from someone who dealt with this Minister certainly brings to mind his attitudes and his tactics in taking over Plateau last year, tactics that were questioned by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) last year and by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). This letter reopened such charges.

It's not up to me to pass judgment on people who have been involved with dealings with this Minister, but to present them to the Minister in this Legislature and ask for what we got an answer for four days late, an answer twisted in charges against the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else to divert attention from what we're discussing here: the administration of his department, the responsibility of taking us into...letting us know, taking the public into his confidence as to how he's managing our affairs.

He's not working for a private corporation; he's working for the people of British Columbia, and he should report to the people of British Columbia.

Where there are concerns on letters that are sent, it's his responsibility to answer them. I accept his answer on this letter today. I accept it today. The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked me to table this letter, and I'll be pleased to table it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not table in committee. He should wait until we return....

MR. BENNETT: Fine, well, I'll be pleased to table it. I'd like to just go on.

We asked some more questions over and above the tactics he uses to take over. And over and above the twisting of our questions and our intent, there was the question of the newsprint contract from Ocean Falls. Now today for the first time the Minister says he is getting the highest prices in Canada. Now that wasn't the impression we got....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I said that last week.

MR. BENNETT: That isn't the impression we got when you see in the newspaper that he announces that he's going to renegotiate the contract. When you've got a good contract, why, when the heat starts, are you renegotiating it? If it's renegotiated, why can't we see the old contract, if you don't want to show us the new contract?

I believe both of them should be tabled — and the old one with Crown Zellerbach — because the Minister said that that doesn't bother him. He was willing to give the details of that. He was willing to share the details of the Crown Zellerbach agreement with the Legislature. Why not any agreements with Gottesman? Why not the agreement you made with Mr. Wallach?

I still believe that there's a conflict of interest when you have a director of one government corporation making a deal — a major deal of this magnitude — with the government for the sole marketing at what are reported to be unusual terms with this government.

In the interest of easing the public mind this document should be tabled. We asked for that. Some of the questions of where our newsprint was being sold or taken directly — from news releases from Mr. Vesak, of Ocean Falls.... He's named the countries; they're his words, not mine.

We say that if our newsprint's being sold in that market, that market traditionally pays black market prices. And we questioned, if there was no protection

[ Page 3062 ]

to the people of British Columbia, that their newsprint would be sold to these companies at rip-off prices. Perhaps the Minister could assure us that he would write it into any future agreement that British Columbia's newsprint will not be sold on the world black market and that indeed our newsprint will be marketed in the normal way at the normal prices, reflecting the normal market fluctuations, not any weird third black market to the disadvantaged countries of the world.

These are the types of questions we haven't had answered — questions to do with the attitude of the Minister, the administration of the office, his intent for the forest industry, his preoccupation with takeover, his attacking American companies and Japanese companies on one hand and his new association or continuing association and recently increased association with Champion International and their subsidiary Weldwood. These are the things that we question from that Minister, and these are the very serious things that Minister hasn't answered.

We've heard a lot of flim-flam and stirring up and charges against the motivation as to why we were asking these questions.

But with office and the responsibility of office in the administration goes the responsibility, particularly in government, to keep the people informed. As Leader of the Opposition I'm asking questions that are being asked by citizens of this province — some through the news media, some as late as last year and some currently — as to how our forest industry is being managed, how the Minister is managing his portfolio and, indeed, whether we are being ripped off on a newsprint contract made in an unusual way and marketed in an unusual manner.

There are the questions that should be answered. These are the questions we are waiting to hear answered.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to add a few words in this debate, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the debate basically comes down.... This is pretty well the first full week of it; I think we started it on Tuesday last. It comes down to the question of the Col-Cel deal with the New York sales agents and why the Minister will not release it.

It was a question I asked him over a week ago in the House. At that time he said — and I quote him at that time — since it is the most specific statement he has made on it:

I've indicated on two occasions, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the contract would not be deposited in this House. However, the contract, which was superior to prices on the west coast and consistently has been so, is under renegotiation at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether or not "consistently" means that the price is higher at the present time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an agreement that does, in fact, relate to the market.

That is the most specific statement so far by the Minister on the question of the Ocean Falls sales contract. My colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey has gone into the reasons why we feel this should be tabled in the House. The Minister came back late last week saying it would not be ordinary sales practice of a private company to release such details. I think the only thing he should have added at that point was that Ocean Falls is, of course, not a private company to which such rules would apply but a public company and that the people do have some rights.

We in this House, as the representatives of the people — the shareholders, if you like — have, therefore, some right to know.

He talked about the price being consistently superior to the price on the west coast. He has talked of this as a good deal, yet we have lost something slightly under $1 million on the Ocean Falls deal and we have no knowledge whether a better and different sales agreement might well have saved the people of British Columbia from that loss.

I'm not going to go into the full debate on whether or not a black market — whatever that may mean — does exist in parts of the Far East. I would assume that people who would like to deal with third world countries responsibly would be willing to sell them products on the world market and not adopt a superior attitude which would, of course, be that we don't wish their money and we think it is not good for them to buy the products they would like to buy. I think that is an absurd proposition put forward by the official opposition.

I don't think we should really go into the hypothetical case raised by the Leader of the Opposition without the slightest shred of evidence of any one roll of newsprint being sold anywhere in the third world by Gottesman from Ocean Falls. Had research been done and had they checked with the people who actually do the shipping, the guys who put the stencils on the side, the guys who load the boats, they would have found that, sure, Ocean Falls newsprint goes around the world. But then so does MacMillan Bloedel newsprint and so does the newsprint from any other company in B.C. They would also have discovered from the people, had they checked, that there is no appreciable difference in the shipping pattern of Ocean Falls newsprint with the shipping pattern of any other major British Columbia company. It is a pretty simple thing to check out. They could have done it. What I fail to see is why the Minister himself, who must have more specific

[ Page 3063 ]

information than I could receive from the fellows who do the actual shipping, has not made this information public.

The argument breaks down into a two-fold one. On the one hand, we are being ripped-off because we don't sell on these fantastic black markets — totally unspecified, totally unknown to us — that exist in the Far East. In other words, the suggestion is that the government should get in there and make that sort of money.

On the other hand, the question also comes up — and I think free-enterprisers such as ourselves in the opposition should put this on the floor of the House — that if it is such a great market, why aren't our free-enterprise companies involved in that area? Obviously they are not. It strikes me as being totally fallacious to say that because it may be that in certain parts of the world 1 or 2 or even 10 or 20 of the millions upon millions of rolls of newsprint that are sold in the world get sold at something above the world market, therefore British Columbia's smallest company, I believe, in terms of output should be able to sell its entire production on that very favoured market. I just don't understand the arguments put forward there.

We have had a case based entirely upon "if," "would," "perhaps," "therefore," and this type of hypothetical case put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. It adds up to the fact that he really doesn't know where the newsprint is being sold. He has created a hypothetical case of allegedly lost profits — from $8 million to $20 million. We have no idea of the size of the market; he has no information on the actual sales cost; he has no information on any British Columbia newsprint, whether it be private or from a public corporation, arriving on these markets. All this could have been checked out.

The next thing, of course, is the IT&T case. We have had a director, a former shareholder, complaining bitterly about mistreatment at the hands of the government. Yet he had a ruling, prior to any deal with !T&T, from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States that a share transfer would not result in capital gains being taxed. In other words, he could make the deal with IT&T without tax. Of course, when IT&T was blocked by the government or, I should say, when the government put forward the same offer as IT&T had put forward — then the deal with IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and these two gentlemen fell through because they were no longer selling the corporation for which they had received the ruling. Thereupon, they needed documentary evidence to indicate coercion, to indicate a blocked sale so that they could save 45 per cent of their capital gains which totalled something in the neighbourhood of $300,000.

Naturally, I don't blame them, and I don't doubt if the Minister blames them, for their attempt to get him to indicate that there was some sort of concerned. People who have $300,000 to lose or to gain, depending upon the decision of the IRS, would certainly do their utmost to ensure that they got a favourable ruling. To do that, of course, they wanted to get that letter from the Minister, stating that pressure had been put upon them by the government, they could not complete the deal and it had been a forced sale.

The other shareholders were in different positions. Shielded by the corporate shield, many of them didn't care; they did not have this particular tax problem. But for the two in question, their personal and corporate capital gains would have led to a loss of $300,000. I don't really think we can blame them very much for attempting to get the Minister to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion being used and that it was a forced sale.

Having said that the situation as outlined by that absolute prince of accuracy, the man who did so well on Du Pont that he had two vice-presidents of Du Pont in the province to come and say, no, it was not as he has said; it was a corporate mistake that led to the cancellation and was not action related to Bill 31. Two of their vice-presidents were so upset about the statements that they came around to tell people about it. I understand they flew out from eastern Canada, they were so concerned about the misinformation put forward.

Despite the misinformation on the ferry, despite the misinformation on the contracts with Ocean Falls, we are still left with the question which was asked to the Minister prior to the debate on his estimates: what is the Gottesman contract? What is the relationship between Gottesman and Ocean Falls? Is he enjoying substantial profits from the Crown corporation or is he simply acting as a sales agent?

Why is it that Gottesman was involved and not British Columbia companies who manage to sell their own pulp and paper — most of them at least — by themselves? They have their own sales organizations. Why were they not involved rather than a New York agent? Why was it that we did not try and make British Columbians further involved in this so that, as my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out, profits, taxes and jobs would continue to accrue to British Columbia rather than to an American corporation based in New York?

Those are the questions that were asked prior to the debate, prior to the phony questions that were put forward. I would, once more, ask the Minister to reply to them. I ask him in this sense: I said before, when I spoke in this debate, that the case in terms of Ocean Falls certainly had not proven that there were these losses in the Far East.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't you vote against Ocean Falls? Now you're switching your position. I

[ Page 3064 ]

don't understand you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will explain in due course. Mr. Premier, you have been away for three out of the last four weeks. You may have a little difficulty understanding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have it both ways; you have to make up your mind sometime.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps when the good Premier has had a chance to reclimatize himself to British Columbia. The good doctor from the American south, as he is now.... May I congratulate him, Mr. Chairman? This is the first opportunity the House has had to congratulate him on acquiring a doctorate, I believe, without any work at all. We only trust that he won't now try to muscle in the Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) who has been so far exempt from the influence and interfering of the Premier. Back to the case of Ocean Falls. The company has been taken over by the government; it is publicly owned. The question that comes up is whether or not the deal with Gottesman was a good one, whether or at it could have been made with a British Columbia organization, whether or not there has been a loss of profits, loss of jobs, loss of tax revenues, resulting from the decision of the Minister.

There is really only one way we can find that out and that is by the Minister making public the maximum amount of information that he ran regarding the existing contract which, as he says, is now up for renegotiation and is being renegotiated. What was the agreement? How long did it last for? The Minister was very candid, and I thank him for this, with respect to the Crown Zellerbach sales contract. Why can he not now be as candid with the Gottesman contracts?

We feel that the key to any decision by this House as to whether or not his salary should be reduced, whether this motion should be supported or rejected, is here. Once more I request at least the bare minimum information that an opposition party or all opposition parties and backbenchers should be entitled to when the company is question is not a private corporation but a public corporation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It seems to me sometimes when I sit in this House that I keep saying to myself that I've heard all this before. It only seems to be the sides that have switched around in the House. Whether the smear is going from right to left or left to right really I don't think is the point. I've listened to the debate and must confess that at times I've found it very difficult to follow the accusations and counter-accusations that have gone back and forth.

I think there's little question — no question at all, in fact — that this government is dedicated to widespread takeover of the private forest industry. Much mention has been made over the past weeks and months to the Waffle Manifesto, which I just mention very clearly states in unequivocal terms that the NDP will work for the nationalization of Canadian resource industries, including the petroleum industry, gas well, pipe lines, refineries, coal, uranium, the forest products industry, and the hard metal mineral industries and related smelting. So there's no secret that this government is dedicated to that takeover. That, in their view, is fine.

I don't know how often we've said in this House that this is just the differing philosophy between that side of the House and this side of the House. What worries me a little bit, apart from the fact that I differ with the Minister's philosophy, is the bitterness that is thrown back and forth across this House by both sides — by the Minister and by the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Bennett). I realize that the function of opposition is to probe and investigate and make sure that not only is the government carrying out the business of the people efficiently and with careful regard to the taxpayer's dollar, but also with honesty and integrity and with no deals under the table. There have been a lot of implications made in the course of the debate that something fishy is going on. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I've tried to listen carefully both in the House and on the squawk box in my office, and I have come to certain conclusions.

In talking about bitterness, I just happen to feel that people can have basic philosophical differences without becoming bitter. I think the measure of bitterness which exists in one area was where a person who told me of a meeting which a certain delegation had with the Minister of Lands and Forests. The Minister, I understand, never referred to the private sector of the forest industry; he just referred to "these bastards." It seems to me that if that is a kind of a basic attitude which this Minister has to the people in the private forest industry, it bodes very badly for any really objective, cooperative kind of endeavour between the government and the private sector. Yet just recently the Minister was looking for a private-sector participant in the Ocean Falls enterprise.

A moment ago the Premier was interjecting that he cannot understand some of the inconsistencies in this House, particularly the position taken by some of the Members in the Liberal Party on the Ocean Falls issue. This party did support the Ocean Falls takeover for reasons that were clearly stated at that time. As taxpayers ourselves and as representatives of an

[ Page 3065 ]

opposition party, we do feel that the government has a very clear and serious responsibility to make sure, as far as is possible, taking into consideration the isolation and the turnover of staff and social problems which are an inherent part of the Ocean Falls site.... I'm not minimizing the difficulties. I said at the time that I don't think it would matter very much if Father Christmas was trying to run Ocean Falls plant. There are inherent social problems which arise related to the isolated location and the fact that problems arise in physical and emotional health of people in that setting. It's difficult to run a mill when the turnover of staff is very frequent, and this is another factor that's been mentioned already in northern development which we may touch on later in debate.

So I'm not decrying that for a moment, but I am saying that there are serious doubts in the mind of the private sector in this province, not just because there is this basic philosophical difference between the NDP and the other parties that public ownership is the answer to the problem. There is that difference, but that isn't the only problem. The problem is the manifest attitude by the Minister that he is very bitter in his own personal attitude, and presumably in his goals, towards the private forest industry in this province.

I just feel it is an unhealthy sign for the future of the forest industry in British Columbia in having to deal with a Minister who has made this very clear-cut, bitter commitment that, in effect, to quote the Minister, they're bastards, they're not people of repute that he feels he should deal with. If I'm misquoting the Minister, I'm certainly willing to be corrected. But this kind of attitude and this definition of the Minister's approach to the problem, I think the Premier affirms by being a man interested in human relationships.... I think the Premier would acknowledge that a Minister of the Crown, holding perhaps the most important portfolio in the cabinet, showing this particular attitude towards the private sector, is hardly likely to promote and develop harmonious relationships where the Minister himself has stated that in the Ocean Falls situation it would be good to have a partnership with private enterprise.

Now I say to the Premier, who was talking a minute ago, that you can't have it both ways; I'm saying to this Minister that he can't have it both ways. If he wants to have a happy partnership with the private sector, then I suggest that there has to be a greater willingness on the Minister's part to demonstrate publicly that while we are not in agreement philosophically there is a part which each side can play for the benefit of all of the people of British Columbia and for the most judicious use of our resources.

I'm not just talking about the amount of tax money that the government may or may not extract from the resources. I'm talking about the harmonious development of his whole department or of al! the functions of his department, with particular reference to the forest industry. But this is certainly the kind of heading we see in the press. On March 30, the Sun says: "Partner Sought for Ocean Falls." I quote:

"Lands and Forests Minister Bob Williams in a joint announcement with Ray Jones, chairman of B.C. Cellulose, said Friday the government is inviting proposals from private companies to form a new organization."

I won't read the whole article, but:

"Williams said the proposal is the beginning of major changes at Ocean Falls. He said the government is not committed to public ownership of the planned venture and that a joint undertaking with a private group is probably the best answer."

That may well be, but I leave that point. I happen to think — and I say this with respect — that the Minister could do more publicly to diminish some of the bad influence he has created in terms of the bitterness I mentioned and attempt to work out harmonious operations with the private sector of the economy.

Just to finish, Mr. Chairman, I have simply to repeat what I've said twice already in this debate. I sometimes wonder, when I wake up in the mornings, if I can believe what I know: we're coming back into this House to debate this amendment for, I think, the fourth or fifth day.

But regardless of many of the charges and counter-charges that have been raised in this debate, one fact is quite clear: the government moved in and used taxpayers' money to further its own philosophy that public ownership was the answer to the particular problem in Ocean Falls. Whether we even listened to one word that has been said in this House, the record is in the newspapers, as I quoted last week, that there is a discrepancy between the explanation given by this Minister to deal with Gottesman-Central and the statement made by Mr. Wallach, the president of that organization.

The Minister in this House has assured us that there was flexibility in the contract and that it was not a fixed price for a fixed period of time. I don't have the clipping with me, but Mr. Wallach is on clear record as saying that they bought the complete output for three years. On that basis, I feel, as an opposition Member, that I have every right to expect the Minister who is, in effect, dealing with public money to tell the House the exact details — at least in regard to the financial aspect — of the deal with Gottesman-Central.

I refute the argument the Minister has presented that private companies don't go around waving their agreements in public. I refute it for the simple reason

[ Page 3066 ]

that that is not a fair comparison. Private companies have private investors taking their own risk with their own private funds. In the case of Ocean Falls, this government is taking the money which taxpayers have paid and using that money, albeit, maybe, with the best of intentions. But when government takes over a corporation using taxpayers' money and spending taxpayers' money in the operation of that corporation, I say this is quite a different kettle of fish, or wad of pulp, or whatever — or red herring.

While I cannot be too impressed by a great deal of the issues that have been raised as to whether there is any less than honourable behaviour on the part of the Minister or whether he twisted arms or used terror tactics or anything else, I think that is something we should perhaps certainly consider. But the important issue before us is one which raises a very definite philosophical issue and a very practical issue.

The philosophical issue is that the government believed they could do a better job with Ocean Falls by taking public ownership of the company. The practical issue is that in so doing they utilized taxpayers' money. We now find that this year the company will lose on the order of $850,000. In fairness to the government, maybe nobody could have prevented the operation losing money. I'm not even questioning at the moment whether that's disastrous or not bad considering all the circumstances or what. That's not what I'm questioning. I'm just saying we have a very practical issue. The company is losing money, and one of the ways in which it is probably losing money is that it entered an agreement with an American broker at a price far below the price at which the broker in turn can sell on international markets. Now, if a private company does that....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you go and sell your ice cream, Roy; go and sell some of your Dairy Queen ice cream. Never mind. I'm talking about newsprint; you talk about ice cream.

The question has been raised as to whether the government has fallen short in its responsibility at Ocean Falls by making an agreement with an American broker and selling newsprint to that broker at a price well below what could be obtained.

The point I was trying to make before we had the interruption from Vancouver- Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) is the fact that when a private company makes a bad deal, then certainly the shareholders are entitled to inquire into situations and ask for full disclosure at the annual meeting. But I don't feel these ground rules apply to a public company owned by the government and operated by using taxpayers' money.

Regardless of the validity of some of the accusations, I think one suggestion which is very fair to make is, if the Minister can tell us in general terms that he made the best deal possible, why is he not prepared to reveal the specific figures. It seems to me that if he is in renegotiation, and the disclosure of the figures would prejudice what he's trying to renegotiate, surely at least we should see the past figures. What was the original agreement when the Minister entered into the deal with Gottesman-Central?

But be that as it may, I have tried to listen to the debate as intently as possible. My conclusion is that the Minister is obligated to give the House the basic facts and figures of the agreement with the American broker so we in the opposition can judge and, more importantly, the people of British Columbia who pay their taxes can know whether their money is being well spent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a few words in response to the Minister's reply. I had to note at the time that the Minister was quoting extensively from the Blues. If the official opposition all got together and requested 25 lines apiece, I don't know whether we would have got the extensive amount of Blues the Minister quoted from or not. But I just wonder where he got this information over the weekend and if there is a double standard here, or if....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to address his remarks to the Speaker of the House rather than raising them in committee.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed with his comments?

MR. PHILLIPS: He proceeded in his dialogue to attack the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) who was trying sincerely to get facts and figures and let some light in on the forest industry in British Columbia. If the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources wishes to attack the Leader of the Opposition that way, well, I guess that's his mode of doing business. At least the Leader of the official Opposition hasn't threatened anybody in his office or been called a liar in the House. I don't want to use the same tactics as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in attacking the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member

[ Page 3067 ]

confine his remarks to the amendment, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there you go again, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in replying to my talk, was able to ramble all over the Legislature and all over the past three or four months. I don't recall you ever calling him to order once.

Now, I realize, Mr. Chairman, that Members on that side of the House are scared spitless of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. He's a powerful man. But we must also use parliamentary procedure in here and we must be fair to both sides of the House, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to draw that to your attention.

I would like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources if, the next time he stands in the Legislature, he would advise the House what agreement the publicly-owned company in which British Columbia taxpayers have 79 per cent is actually paying for stumpage. He said they were paying the same stumpage rates as other forest industries in the province. I just wonder if the Minister would advise the House actually what stumpage is being paid.

Then the Minister went on to attack IT&T, which is International Telephone & Telegraph, as being a large company. He has a great disdain for large, multi-national companies.

But I believe the Minister might be talking out of both sides of his mouth because, in the list of the 500 largest industrial corporations in the world, we find out that IT&T in 1972 ranked as the ninth largest international company in the world. But another company, of which Can-Cel through Haseldonckx in Brussels is connected....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Haseldonckx.

MR. PHILLIPS: Haseldonckx. All right. The thought is there even if the pronunciation isn't, Mr. Minister. Through Haseldonckx — it owns 50 per cent of Haseldonckx in Brussels. But Haseldonckx is owned 57 per cent by Les Papeteries de Gastuche.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right. Mr. Chairman, the Minister is waving his arms around. Why did you not get rid of this corporation in Brussels when you were taking...? Why did you retain it? Why was Columbia Cellulose moved into Brussels in the first instance?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Because it's an asset.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it's an asset. But it's an asset that is owned through a series of companies, namely Intermills SA Brussels.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it isn't.

MR. PHILLIPS: And de Gastuche is owned.... The majority shareholder is Champion International.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You're wrong.

MR. PHILLIPS: And how large is Champion International? It's the 62nd largest international company in the, world.

HON. MR. LAUK: Get your facts straight.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going by Fortune magazine, May 1, 1973, which lists the largest companies in the world.

So in a roundabout way the Minister really is in bed with Champion International which is the 62nd largest corporation in the world.

What's happening to the paper market in Brussels? If you're so against large, multi-national corporations, why do you have a director in Can-Cel...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you keep. saying nothing?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, because I get no answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got an answer when we say something?

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is the very fact that the Minister hates to be reminded that he is really in bed with one of the largest international corporations in the world, not only in the pulp and paper business; yet he has a great disdain for them. And he chooses his directors from some of the largest international corporations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that he is tending to be repetitious, and I would ask him to....

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm merely answering the Minister's statement that he is trying to lead us to believe that he has a great disdain for multi-national corporations. But who does he choose to be directors of Can-Cel?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Who owns it?

MR. PHILLIPS: People who are directors of multi-national corporations, who have world-wide

[ Page 3068 ]

connections in the pulp and paper business and in multi-national corporations. So let's get the facts straight. You don't have that great disdain for multi-national corporations because, Mr. Chairman, he's in bed with them. And his directors are in bed with them.

Just one other statement. The Minister stated that all of the directors, were fairly treated when Col-Cel was taken over by the provincial government. Maybe the Minister would like to enlighten the Legislature as to why Mr. E.F. Newlands of Vancouver seems to be unhappy; he was a preferred shareholder in Col-Cel. I'd like the Minister to advise the Legislature why he's unhappy.

I would like to quote from an article in The Province, April 25.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your empty speeches make me unhappy.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Col-Cel's Preferred Deal Draws Protest." I quote from the article.

"Mr. E.F. Newlands of Vancouver complained at the annual meeting of Canadian Cellulose Company Limited on Wednesday that the preferred shareholders of the predecessor, Columbia Cellulose Company Limited, were not fairly treated."

The Minister advised us in the House that all shareholders were fairly treated. Is this another double standard? Maybe just the directors, the present directors of Can-Cel who owned shares, were fairly treated. This complaint was made as the meeting was adjourning.

"Although Can-Cel president Ronald M. Gross listened to Newlands' prepared remarks, he said the shareholder's words should be directed to the provincial government or to Col-Cel, which was owned 92 per cent by Celanese Corporation of New York.

"At the time of reorganization, last June 30, the province got 79 per cent, Col-Cel common shares 7 per cent and Col-Cel preferred shares 14 per cent of Can-Cel. Newlands argued that the two-for-one issue to the preferred shareholders was inequitable because the preferred shares had a par value of $25 each and preference rights for dividends and capital.

"He said the common shares were given an improved position in the province without making any payment whatsoever, and was allocated 79 per cent as consideration for undertaking a low-risk contingent liability of approximately $70 million.

"Newlands said that in 50 years of financial experience he could not recall any instance where under reorganization the preferred shareholders lost a great deal while the common shareholders gained and where an outsider got so much for so little and there was such a lack of full disclosure of material facts."

Now this gentleman was a preferred shareholder and he's unhappy. The man has had 50 years' experience in the financial business, and he says he lost a great deal. Yet the Minister would lead us to believe in this Legislature that all shareholders were treated equitably. He said:

"Since April, 1973, he and other Col-Cel preferred shareholders had protested to Premier Barrett, Resources Minister Bob Williams, and the president of Col-Cel, but received no answers."

Is this fair treatment for all? Or is it just the few preferred shareholders who are now directors who got the preferential treatment?

You know, we would like answers to this. You stand up and make these pious statements in this Legislature. What are the true facts? Do you wonder we have to question you? We'd like the answers. He protested to Premier Barrett.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for this amendment or against it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see, Mr. Chairman. The Premier signs hundreds of letters over there every day. Why didn't he sign a letter to Mr. Newlands, who complained of being financially hurt in the business world in the takeover of this company?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, you know. We seem to always have a double standard, but when we talk about something touchy like this, when we want the answers, when we want the documents tabled, all the Minister can do is get up and attack this little opposition — this 10-man opposition fighting against that 38 government majority...37. You'd think we were a thorn in his side. Maybe we are.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, he can call us all the names he wants; all we want is the answer. If he would devote 25 per cent of the energy that he devotes to trying to attack this little 10-man group who form the official opposition in this Legislature to coming up with the facts and the figures and going and getting the documents, you know, this Legislature would be a much better place for everybody concerned, and the taxpayers of British Columbia would know the facts.

But we have to wonder when he says one thing.... Here we have a shareholder, a preferred shareholder, who has written to the Premier, who has written to the Minister, asking for answers, and his

[ Page 3069 ]

letters weren't answered. Now I wonder what that man would think if he was sitting on the floor of this Legislature and could listen to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources stand up in this Legislature and say, "We protected the shareholders." This kind of protection this man really doesn't need. He doesn't want to be protected to the point of losing money.

Does the Minister feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is the type of protection he is going to offer people? Is losing money for this man on his preferred shares good protection? Is he protecting this man against the sin of owning money, Mr. Chairman? No, but still no answers.

I wonder what kind of letters the Premier is writing. Certainly anything that is controversial or that he doesn't feel he can answer, if it is anybody who has a real, sincere problem, it probably will go unanswered.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask just one further question of the Minister before I resume my seat. Here is another article of May 3, here again from the Vancouver Province, where Mr. Williams says he might have to bail out Eurocan Pulp Mill in nearby Kitimat. The article says:

"The $150 million Eurocan Pulp Mill in nearby Kitimat is next on the provincial government's economic first-aid list, Resources Minister Williams said Thursday night."

Now, is this the type of first aid that is going to be passed around to all of the forest industry in British Columbia? Is that the type of first aid that these forest industries want? Make it difficult for them, get them in an unstable financial position and then move in and bail them out, Mr. Chairman, under the guise of protecting the jobs. Is this the type of hide-and-seek game that this Minister's playing?

I wonder what he will do with the shareholders in Eurocan. Maybe the Minister would care to answer some of these questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I had a few things to say the other day to this Minister, and I was listening intently today, but I didn't get any answers. So we'll try again.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wrote down the list from the Hon. Member for Cariboo and I'd be pleased to follow them up after this motion is dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's got nothing to do with the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Cariboo continue?

MR. FRASER: Well, I have a few things to say here. They're not exactly the same as before. There's been a few new developments since I spoke the other day.

First of all on the answer of the sale agreement, we got no answer there at all other than the fact that you get top price for the pulp. But I for one, and a lot of the other citizens in British Columbia, would like to know what a top price is in dollars per ton. That's what we want to know. We won't settle for anything less, and I don't think the people of British Columbia should settle for anything less than knowing that.

The Minister mentioned when he was up speaking about the Interior appraisal system that was put in last fall. I have a few comments here from operators in the Interior that are operating in third-band wood which is what the Interior appraisal system was directed at. These are quotes from operators that pioneered in third-band wood long before any government people knew anything what was going on and successfully developed third-band wood, which they thought was a weed. It turns out that it makes as good if not better lumber than a lot of other species that they thought were the only ones that could be used.

With the Interior appraisal system — I believe invoked last October by this government — I have the odd comments from the operators here on what they think of its application. It says:

"The NDP send so many bureaucrats around that they're so bloody dense I'm not going to spend my time educating them because it's just too big a job. They're sick and tired of carrying so much of a burden and they would certainly love to get out with a lot of these operations."

I might say, Mr. Chairman, here on the appraisal system that certainly more revenue was required to come out of this so-called inferior wood, but not to the degree that this new appraisal system was put in. We would have had difficulty — the smaller operators in the Interior — if the lumber market hadn't held up to where it was today. I think we have to wait for some time yet to find out whether the Interior appraisal system is an asset or a liability to operators in the Interior.

In effect, this appraisal system now is starting to force these operators to leave wood in the woods because it's uneconomic to get it out at the stumpage price they have to pay. Whether this is good forestry practice time will only tell, but it doesn't look good at the moment.

I want to go back though, Mr. Chairman, and deal with the allocation of timber in the Interior as reference to Plateau Mills, and repeat what I said before — that timber has been taken away from another area where it would normally go and assigned to the Plateau Mills. This timber would have come into Quesnel where a road by this fall would be 20 miles from this timber, but the government has turned around and is in the process now of building a

[ Page 3070 ]

road 50 miles to take this timber in a northeast direction into Vanderhoof instead of westward to Quesnel. There is something wrong when these things sort of happen.

Furthermore, it is my information.... Why this was done we will never know, because even Plateau sawmills don't need this wood. They have lots of wood in the working circles that are north of Vanderhoof. So why reach away down to the southwest of Vanderhoof to redirect this timber in a different direction?

The other thing is I'm sorry to hear about the fire of one of the three sawmills of Plateau the other evening. This mill that burned to the ground — I believe it was Saturday night — was the mill located south of the town of Vanderhoof. The mill that I referred to the other day was the one north of Vanderhoof which doesn't bark or chip or have a legal burner. Here they're operating a government mill contrary to the pollution regulations of this province, and contrary to the forest regulations of this province without a barker and a chipper.

I would like to hear from the Minister how long he intends this illegal situation to continue. The fly ash from the Plateau Mill north of Vanderhoof is going right over the community of Vanderhoof and they're fed up with this operation, particularly due to the fact that this Minister is also the Minister in charge of pollution.

I would refer, Mr. Chairman, to the regulations on the recent timber sales that were put up along the west line of the CNR from Prince George to Prince Rupert, Burns Lake and others. It stipulates right in those regulations, in the call for bids, that these operations must be legal according to the forest regulations and they must have barkers or chippers, or their bids aren't even entertained. There's another one going up in the Cariboo at Clinton. I believe it closes on May 17, and in that advertising for people to bid to install modern sawmills, they cannot bid unless they guarantee the forestry department that they'll have installations and barkers and chippers. I don't argue that one little bit; that's the way it should be. But what I'm saying is that the Government of British Columbia's operators of Plateau should state clearly when they are going to become legal with a burner under the pollution regulations and when they are going to become legal with a barker and chipper.

There's a further reason for this, Mr. Chairman. You well know that where you come from chips are a real problem in the forest industry. Here we have a government operation not barking and chipping but burning the refuse instead of manufacturing chips, which are in short supply for our pulp mills. It is certainly a disgraceful situation.

The other thing I mentioned the other day and I still would like to hear from him is that we still have a critical railcar shortage which is costing a lot of operators a lot of money getting their products to market — I believe I said the other day probably an average of $10 per 1,000 board feet — so they can finally get the product to market. I want to know whether the forestry department are going to entertain this when they're considering costs and so on stumpage appraisal. I don't think it is being entertained and I think it should be. It's not their fault; it's a multitude of reasons why we haven't got railcars.

The other thing I have to say about it is I don't think we're going to have what we need for at least two years, so I think it's about time the Minister made it clear what he intends to do about relieving this high cost for certain operators in the Interior of the province. It certainly doesn't apply where they don't have to depend on railcars, but they certainly have to through a great part of the Interior of the province.

Another thing. I was up country last weekend and this is what is new. I found out that the Government of British Columbia is now in the logging-contracting business, acquiring last week the logging company of K&M Logging Ltd., who are the logging contractors for Plateau sawmills and have been for a long time. I understand that deal has been closed and this raises further participation of this government into different sectors of the economy. Mostly logging is done in the Interior, and I think even at the coast, by logging contractors who are independent business people again. Now for the first time we find this government buying out an independent logging contractor and buying his equipment. This means that they will be in direct management of the logging.

I don't think this is a good thing, because even the large multi-nationals and so on we talk about or the small sawmill operator in most cases leave their logging to an independent logging contractor. They make them bid for the work, and they bid so much a 1,000 stump to dump, and they know their logging costs. I suggest that with the government going and taking over K&M Logging we see a whole new scene ahead.

I question where we are going. Are we going to now start taking over all the independent logging contractors? I think the Minister should make this clear.

This logging contractor, as I said, has logged for some time for Plateau Mills. Now, instead of just having the sawmill operation and the manufacturing end of the business, the government will be into the direct logging business. I wonder where they're going to get all these knowledgeable people to run all these operations when there is already a problem in the industry of getting people who are knowledgeable and capable. I don't think the government will be able to attract any more quantities of people than the independents have been able to.

[ Page 3071 ]

Is this as far as they're going in taking over independent logging outfits because that one was connected with the government sawmill or are they now on the course to take over the majority of the independent logging contractors who certainly account for more than 50 per cent of the logging in this province? I think some of the larger companies have proved this by trying their own logging operations. They have found it was far more economic to put it up to bid and have them bid the stump to dump. Then that operation was the responsibility of the logging contractor and they only had an indirect responsibility in operations. But they certainly had a direct responsibility to see they were paid. It frightens me just how many more government enterprises we're going into.

In closing, the Minister said when I started today that he will answer me later when we come under the estimates. I guess that's fine, but really we want the answers now. While I dwelled to some degree on operations, the major thing we want to know now is about this sale agreement for the pulp and just how much money the people of this province are losing by the sale arrangement that now exists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would remind the Hon. Members that we are dealing with an amendment of asking that the salary of the Minister be reduced by $1. I would ask them to keep the remarks relevant to the reasons why they would support or oppose this amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I understand this matter of the amendment has been in front of the House now for a number of sittings. I think that's very good; I think the opposition should diligently pursue their role as they see it. Certainly the House hours will be used the way the opposition wishes to use them. So if we plan to be in here in June or July or August, for that matter, I want to assure the Members that the staff will be kept on to accommodate them so they can continue with their work.

I want to join in this debate on this amendment. I think it's worthwhile to add my few words to what I understand has been a very deep, intellectual exchange, contributed by the extent and the ability of the Social Credit group. I thought I would add my new-found dignity from a granted degree to this high-level exchange among the Social Credit opposition, the Liberal Party, the Conservatives and the government.

I understand that not only has the debate taken on a division between the parties but even within the parties themselves. It was unfortunate. It was reported between the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I do hope they're able to repair those differences as soon as possible.

I can understand the escape that everybody is trying to make of the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) from his remarks. If he wrote all the ministers of British Columbia about a word that I was alleged to have said in this House, I'm sure he'll write to all the ministers in British Columbia telling them what he said too. I know he's that kind of fair fellow and will follow up on that kind of non-political work that he does.

I want to talk about other things that came out in this particular debate. I want to talk about Ocean Falls.

I think the Liberal Party attempting to criticize Ocean Falls is somewhat in a hypocritical manner. Everyone should understand that the Liberal Party voted against the purchase of Ocean Falls by the B.C. government. Their position was clear-cut: close 'er down, sell 'er out. That's all right; that's fair enough. That was the option that was involved. Either the government moved in or the town was going to close down.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's fine. I can understand the Libs. They would rather put horses on the payroll than people. They found it better to deal with horses because they've got a certain affinity with a certain part of that animal. They can identify their policies with that. Horses on the payroll but not people. Well, that's all right; that's their out.

The Tories. Where are they? Where are the Tories? I tell you what it is: they're working on that programme, that 90-day freeze, designed to sell more underwear. And that's about it. They're not even sticking around for the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Premier.... Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wonder if I could stick to Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you for the silence. I want to talk about this amendment.

A government is elected to govern. You don't like the philosophy of our government. Too bad. We don't like your philosophy. Your philosophy said "Let that town close down." Twenty-six per cent, I per cent or 100 per cent, we'll still do what is right for the people of British Columbia, Mr. Member.

Here's the draft of an ad that was put in on Ocean Falls by Crown Zellerbach of Canada Ltd. — a situation that was allowed to develop by the Social

[ Page 3072 ]

Credit Party and directly led to their defeat in the riding of Mackenzie. They should have been defeated, thrown out.

Look at this ad: "For sale on the British Columbia Coast." It's designed to go in American newspapers. And what does the ad say? It says:

"We won't sell Ocean Falls to just anyone. You've got to be the right kind of people. It will help too if you're Canadian. We know that somewhere there's a research organization, religious group, oceanographic institute, rehabilitation council or even a peace-loving commune that could make admirable use of a former mill and town which used to support 2,000 residents in comfort, particularly when they learn it can be bought at about 20 per cent of the appraised value."

They'll sell a town in the Province of British Columbia, Crown Zellerbach will. Who supported that policy? Right over there — the group that has the nerve to bring in a motion against this Minister.

"We're selling our company town..." Our company town, that's what they say in the ad. "...because it's no longer economic for us to make paper there." Crown Zellerbach said they were going to pack it up because they couldn't make any more money. And they've got the nerve to criticize this Minister for keeping that town alive and they're attacking him because the paper is selling for too high a price. You've got to be pretty twisted in the head to come up with that kind of rationalization and expect people to believe you when you come in this House and behave the way you've done the last five sittings.

"What are we selling?" says Crown Zellerbach. "Practically everything." And why not? "Practically everything; lock, stock, keys to the city, as is and where is..." The only reason it's as is and where is that they can't pick up a town and take it to the United States with them.

"...as is and where is, including over 1,500 acres of land, 2,700 feet of waterfrontage, company townsite with a modern 400-room residential hotel, five apartment buildings, 24 garden apartment units, 70 duplex units, about 170 single-family homes, along with a modern store building, firehall, coin laundry, recreational facilities and water system. Also the mill site with buildings, shops, warehouses, docks and full power facilitates."

That's what they're selling, and who let them sell it? Who wanted them to sell it? The Social Credit Party when they were in government. That's their philosophy.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's not true.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, it's not true, huh? What move did you make to buy it? Not one move. How did you vote when we made the move to buy it? "That's not true, " he says. His own record condemns him and he was the Minister of Labour. He was to protect the working men of this province. But where was he at that time? There he is. Not under a rock, under guard! Under guard.

"Plus access to but not ownership of a hospital, schools, mooring facilities, library, courthouse, post office, bank and telephone system.

"Where is Ocean Falls? The town fronts on a protected deep-sea harbour at the head of Cousins Inlet, some 300 miles northwest of Vancouver.

"Fresh water comes from a beautiful 14-mile-along lake behind the townsite. The area surrounding is a vast, green, unspoiled wilderness, perfect for boating, fishing, hunting, climbing, skiing, hiking, meditating; it is accessible by scheduled air and water transportation but not by roads, which explains why it is unspoiled."

Listen to this part of the ad by Crown Zellbach and remember that the Minister bought the town with the taxpayers' money as the leader of the Conservatives likes to cry about. He spent $1 million. That's what he spent: $1 million. Listen to this part of the ad:

"It's the biggest bargain in town. We're looking for offers in the $10 million range."

They wanted $10 million. The Minister got it for $1 million. They try and tell us that we are bad businessmen.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): That was without the mill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was $10 million without the mill machinery. I want to tell you that any time the Minister can get the price down to 10 per cent of what they are asking in the American market and buy it for Canadian people to ensure Canadian workers jobs, I back that Minister 100 per cent.

"Financing arrangements subject to negotiation, all assets offered for sale at clear title. Why don't you and your comptroller get in touch with us and arrange a visit to Ocean Falls? Bids will be accepted until March 15, 1973."

That's when we bought it — March, 1973.

Any time, any place in the Province of British Columbia if any Member of this Legislature wants to have a public meeting with me on the issue of Ocean Falls and whether or not we should have bought it, and what their party would have done to help it being

[ Page 3073 ]

sold to the United States, I welcome the opportunity to share the platform with them on that subject.

You go over there and tell the people of British Columbia the truth. You tell them that you are opposed to us having ownership of this town. The leader of the Conservative Party knows very well that I said it was a social and economic experiment. Let him go to Ocean Falls and tell them that these people should go on welfare; because that's where they would have had to go without those jobs: on welfare, my friend, because you were not prepared when you were government to lift your little pinky — excuse me, your little bluey (Laughter) — to help those people in Ocean Falls. Don't give me that stuff, Mr. Member; don't give me that stuff.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was the ad. It was all ready to go in, Mr. Member. It was the ad signed by Mr. Vesak. We intercepted this ad and said: "It's not going to be placed. We are buying the town."

MR. McCLELLAND: What paper was that going in?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Member. You remember, as I said in my opening remarks, it was prepared to go in. But we stepped in and said, "stop."

Now, they're chirping after five days that led to a situation when they were in government that Ocean Falls was going to be sold by Crown Zellerbach to anybody that wanted to buy it.

I don't blame the Liberals. They had nothing to do with it, except they didn't agree that we should buy it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): We supported it too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you? Good. The Tories did, too. Good. That's great. Please tell your leader to go back and read his speech — I remember it now, that's right; you are right — his speech when he supported it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Col-Cel you're talking about. Well, Mr. Member, did they vote for Ocean Falls? No.

They were in government. Did they ever make a move, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) ?

I don't ask you to accept our philosophy. We are going to disagree to the bitter end. But do you ever remember a speech in this House by the fiery Member for Mackenzie asking the government to buy Ocean Falls to protect those jobs? Was he in the cabinet?

MR. CHABOT: What about that present fiery Member?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The present fiery Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and the government have announced they are going to build a road in, as I understand it...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What about all that untouched country?

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...to Roscoe Bay, and allow the people that work in the town access to even greater recreational opportunity.

As I remember, the former Member was in the cabinet along with two other equally strong, tough Members fighting for their constituency. I remember that they were made Ministers Without Portfolio; they weren't given a cabinet assignment, the former Premier said, because they wanted to spend more time at home with their children. That's right. That's what he said.

MR. CHABOT: Where's Calder?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh, oh! Mr. Chairman, are they uncomfortable?

I'm not going to make any comment on the remarks from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I don't think that the Member for Vancouver East should be surprised. I'm disappointed that he is a little bit surprised. Any of you who read the foundations of the Social Credit Party, as I did — Major Douglas, Mr. Blackmore — a Member of Parliament and some of the speeches he made! Mr. Gostick, who they are fond of associating themselves with.... The names are legion. Mr. Gaglardi at one time made a radio speech in Kamloops with overtones not nearly as direct as that Member. So what I am saying is that that Member just talked Social Credit roots and history that I'm familiar with. Let it stand as it is. Everybody knows the Social Credit history. Anybody who has read history in this country knows what that Member was saying.

Everybody knows what the Socreds said about other certain documents. So why should I have to repeat it? I don't see the leader of the Social Credit Party standing up and saying: "He doesn't speak for this party, and I have asked him to leave the party."

Did you ask him to leave the party?

MR. BENNETT: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. That's fine. That's all I want to know.

[ Page 3074 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's okay. That's fine. The Minister apologized for his statement. Has that Member apologized for his statement? No, he hasn't apologized.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on my desk is a copy signed by the Member for Chilliwack verifying what he said and asking it to be mailed out. The Member doesn't deny that he agreed that he said that so why should I have to say that I am reading from the Blues? I'm reading from a copy that was on my desk when I arrived in the House, signed by the Member. Don't give me the stuff about the Blues.

I'm reading his own signature approving exactly what he said, trying to explain it away, still trying to justify what he said. But I don't really find it surprising. What is surprising is that that kind of muck hasn't come out of them sooner; they are so full of bile and hate because of the fact they don't have power any more in this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier address himself to the amendment?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking to this motion. The whole attempt has been to discredit this Minister all week — all week. You're a party full of hate because you haven't got power any more. You haven't said one positive thing in a week in this House, not one positive thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier to address himself to the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there has been a week....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Yes. I would ask the Hon. Members of the opposition, if they wish to make a point of order, to stand and make the point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I have asked the Hon. Premier to address his remarks to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: A cheap, political chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have seen a week of speeches that were ill-researched by the Leader of the Opposition to the point where even the Liberals couldn't stomach it any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to withdraw the remark that the Chairman is a cheap, political chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If any Hon. Members wish to make a point of order, they may rise in their place and make the point of order and then the Chairman will rule upon it. I have asked the Hon. Premier to confine his remarks to the amendment before us.

However, there was a particular remark that was directed to one Hon. Member — namely, the Chairman of the House — and I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it. That is that the Chairman is a cheap, political chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on numerous occasions you have brought other Members to order because of offensive statements that were made in this House. I note that you failed to have the Premier withdraw a word suggesting that the official opposition is full of bile and hate and that it is a party full of hate. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that unless you have the Premier withdraw that statement, I have no alternative but to conclude that you are a political chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member for Columbia River is requesting that the Chair ask the Premier to withdraw those words, the Chair will consider it and ask the Premier to withdraw.

However, my direction to the Hon. Member is to withdraw the remarks directed to the Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, what is so offensive that you are asking the Premier to withdraw?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I asked the Hon. Member for Columbia River to withdraw the remark that the Chairman was a "cheap, political chairman." I believe it's an unparliamentary term and I would ask him to withdraw it, not because it's directed at me personally but because it should not be directed to

[ Page 3075 ]

any Member. If he wishes to have me request that the Premier withdraw certain words, then I will give that matter consideration when he makes that request.

MR. CHABOT: I shouldn't have to make that request, Mr. Chairman. I think you should have sufficient integrity to make the request yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed, the Chairman has made a request of an Hon. Member and I would ask that that request be acceded to. That is that certain offensive words under the appropriate standing order....

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will accept that withdrawal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the Hon. Premier.... I believe that the point has been well made by the opposition that his choice of words is not becoming to parliament.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, is it unparliamentary for me to say that in my opinion a political party is full of hate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Premier attacks a party of which the Members are present in the House, then he is attacking those Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will not attack another political party again. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would rule that the Hon. Premier, if his remarks were directed to Members of this House, should withdraw the remarks.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are directed to the Social Credit Party. It is a party full of hate. That is my opinion, and my opinion, tragically, has been confirmed after this last week's activity in the House. Now, that's my opinion.

MR. CHABOT: You weren't even here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank God I wasn't here last week. I would have been terribly embarrassed if I had been.

MRS. JORDAN: Stop swearing in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not swearing when I use God's name.

Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to pass judgment on individuals — I'll leave that to the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) — but I believe in my heart, and it is my firm opinion, that the Social Credit Party is full of hate and has nothing positive to offer the people of British Columbia other than hate against the government.

Their whole week's activities have been characterized by direct attacks on the Minister to the point that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) much to his credit, got up, as I read in the paper, and disassociated himself completely with half of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). I'm glad I didn't have to witness that scene.

Today we saw the Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) get up and state categorically that they had done their research and they had found that the substance or non-substance that part of this non-confidence motion was placed on wasn't even fact. He has to be admired for having the guts to stand up in the House and say that he did his research and found that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong, and read the material into Hansard.

We have yet to have an apology from the official Leader of the Opposition for being in error and attacking the Minister while being in error. Is it too much to ask the Leader of the Opposition to apologize? Is it too much to ask him to disassociate himself with the remarks of that Member?

I say the Social Credit party is full of hate, and their efforts this session — and I must separate them completely from the Liberals and Conservatives — have been nothing less than offensive and cheaply contrived to attack this government simply because its philosophy is different then theirs, rather than on reason.

This Minister is the first Minister of a socialist government to be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. For 100 years in this province, private capital had its say in the forests. This is the first Minister of Lands and Forests who said the forest belongs to the people and the people will have their say.

This Minister has never presided over licences granted because the former Minister of Lands and Forests went to jail over licences that were granted and that were never revoked. For two years the Social Credit Party, as it was represented in this House, covered that case up before the people of this province. The former Attorney-General for 707 days did absolutely nothing about it. Criminal proceedings proceeded against a former Minister of the Crown, and he was convicted. Did the cabinet resign? Not on a fig. Did the Premier of the day resign? Don't kid yourself. Those licences are still in existence — licences that were involved in dealings, in criminal

[ Page 3076 ]

acts. Yet that government of the day didn't lift a finger to resign in terms of the honour and tradition of British parliament.

Then five days of this — five days of this Minister being attacked because he said openly that he will protect the resources for the people of British Columbia against the rapacious, capitalistic system that has ripped the guts out of our forests for years with hardly any regulation.

I am a democratic socialist; I am a monarchist; I'm proud of the British parliamentary system. I'm proud of the fact that we're elected and I don't intend to sit here and silently accept that kind of hateful criticism of a Minister duly elected to serve the Queen, and who's serving the Queen and the people in a first-class manner.

MR. SMITH: If we can now get back to the matter of the motion that's before this House....

HON. MR. COCKE: You'll take us right back, won't you? Right back into....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: At least, Mr. Chairman, I hope to stay closer to the subject matter of the motion than the Premier has done in the diatribe that we just listened to.

HON. MR. COCKE: Didn't like it, eh?

MR. SMITH: If he doesn't care to contribute anything more than that to the debate, I'm quite happy that he wasn't here this last week, because that action is inexcusable. The remarks that he refused to withdraw, which any Hon. Member of this House should have withdrawn, are there for the public to look at and we're quite happy to have it that way. I think those remarks should be on the record so that they can be there for the view of the public in the future months and future years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So are Chilliwack's remarks.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I think they should be there and I'm glad that they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: Getting back to the matter of this vote that is before the House, we've listened to what the Hon. Premier has said in the debate and certainly he didn't contribute anything to it. If he was up to support his Minister, then why didn't he use some logic and fact? What we have continuously asked for in this debate is for a Minister of a Crown, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, to file with this House the agreement between a Crown corporation, Ocean Falls, and Gottesman National Corporation with respect to the sale of newsprint from Ocean Falls. That was one of the things that we've said.

We've indicated to all Members of this House, a number of basic problems with respect to the president, Mr. Wallach, of Gottesman corporation and then Can-Cel, and that there is a possibility of conflict of interest when he sits in one hand as a director of a Crown corporation in the Province of British Columbia. What answers have we received from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? Nothing. We've received no more answer from him that we have in the diatribe that we listened to from the Premier not too many minutes ago. Now we want to !know, Mr. Chairman: why does the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources refuse all comment in this House when asked about the Wallach-Ocean Falls deal — Wallach representing Gottesman corporation? Why? Is it because he's afraid to reveal to the people of the Province of British Columbia the contract that's in force between the corporation and Ocean Falls?

The Minister has said the contract is up for review. If that's the case then does he refute the direct statement from the president of Gottesman, who told me in a telephone conversation that the contract ends in 1976, that the terms of all business transactions are confidential? "I will not talk about contractual relations with Ocean Falls except to say the contract ends in 1976"

That's a direct quote, Mr. Chairman, from the president of this corporation. Perhaps in the business he's in, dealing in the international market with many corporations, there is no requirement upon him to supply this House with the terms of the contract. But there is certainly a requirement upon the Minister of this Crown to provide the terms of that contract for the benefit of all the people who are in this House.

We can't require Mr. Wallach, even though he at one and the same time sits as a director of another corporation with majority ownership in the name of the people of the Province of British Columbia, namely Can-Cel.

What is it about this agreement that shouldn't be open to the public? It is suggested that the. corporation lost $850,000 last year. The people of this province, beside the original deal, have contributed another $4 million of tax revenue to help supposedly stabilize that corporation.

Why did we have to contribute $4 million more capital to the corporation if, in fact, the contract between Ocean Falls and Gottesman is a good contract? Is it really and truly reflecting the world price of pulp and paper today?

Another direct question to the Minister. Why did

[ Page 3077 ]

he use this corporation at all? Why didn't he follow the same method of marketing set up by the major suppliers of newsprint in Canada? Why did he have to go to an international corporation with offices in the United States?It seems queer that he would have to do that, because in almost every other instance companies in Canada marketing newsprint do it on the basis of an agreement between themselves and the corporations they supply. Mainly these corporations are the large newspaper chains.

Almost without exception, written into their agreement or their supply contract, is the fact that if the world market shows an increase in the price of newsprint that will be reflected in the price paid by the purchasing company. It is good for the newspapers to have a guaranteed source of supply and it is equally good for the firms who manufacture newsprint in Canada to have someone they can sell to.

It is these kinds of questions, Mr. Chairman, that we have not received one single solitary answer to. Has the Minister ever inquired of Mr. Wallach if he harbours any preferred interest in making things difficult for Crestbrook? Did President Gross know that Can-Cel would get additional Kootenay timber at the time of the takeover? Was that a known fact? I think the Minister, when he deals with these corporations, particularly when dealing with them on behalf of the Crown, should not only have satisfied himself about the answers to these questions but should make those answers available to this House.

What is the exact, precise relationship that exists now between Gross, Wallach and Scrimshaw? It is suggested that certainly there is a connection between Gross and Wallach, that they have been friends for a number of years. It is known that Scrimshaw was president of Columbia Cellulose, and Columbia Cellulose wanted out. But the amazing part about that whole deal is the fact that the Celanese Corporation was more interested really in the production of pulp and obtaining a supply of pulp than they were in maintaining an operation in the Prince Rupert area of British Columbia or any other part of the province.

I asked before and I'll ask again: is there a contract between the Celanese Corporation and Can-Cel with respect to the supply of pulp? Did, in fact, the Celanese Corporation sell out to the people of British Columbia the one thing they were having great trouble managing, the Columbia Cellulose Corporation? Did they sell that out to the Province of British Columbia and maintain at one and the same time a contract with that corporation to take part or all of their production of pulp?

If that is the case, then we have reason to look with suspicion on the interrelations of these corporations. Why would the same advisers to the Manitoba government, mainly Arthur B. Little — which has resulted in fraud charges — be hired by Scrimshaw to set up the sale proposals for Columbia Cellulose? Why? Do you think that would be the firm you would go to, knowing the history of the problems this firm caused in the Province of Manitoba? I hardly think so.

These are legitimate, valid questions; ones we have asked of the Minister. We've had no answers from the Minister. We have had nothing but abuse and ridicule from the Premier when he stood in his place in this debate. I think we have a legitimate reason to ask these questions and a right to ask the Minister to reply to these. If we are not going to get answers, then indeed it will be a long debate before we get this motion of non-confidence off the floor of this House.

Will the Hon. Premier accept adjournment, Mr. Chairman?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the verified transcript requested by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is now complete but it hasn't yet been retyped after the corrections, putting back into the record certain interruptions and various redundancies. I can't bring it to you at this time: it will be ready by tomorrow at 2. By that time we may have all forgotten what it was about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Will we all get copies?

MR. SPEAKER: No, once it has been verified, it is public property. If any Member requests a copy it can be supplied simply by asking for it because it has complied then with standing order 129 that it has been authorized by Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.