[ Page 4877 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Cancellation of Cariboo Pulp expansion. Mr. Fraser — 4877

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

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

Allegations of partiality of Labour department to IWA

Mr. Dent I — 4878

Court workers wage dispute. Mr. McClelland — 4878

Tendering of comic book printing. Mr. Wallace — 4879

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

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

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 17 1). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 4880

Mr. Schroeder — 4888

Mr. Morrison — 4889

Mr. Cummings — 4890

Mr. Curtis — 4890

Mr. McClelland — 4892

Mr. Lewis — 4898

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4900

Division on second reading — 4903

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill 168).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

On section 3.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4903

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. King — 4903

Report stage — 4904

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

Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 4904

Amendment to the schedule.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4904

Report stage — 4904

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4904

On section 1 as amended.

Mr., Curtis — 4904

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4905

Mr. Curtis — 4905

Hon. Mr. Lorimer 4905

Amendment to section 1 as amended.

Mr. Curtis — 4906

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 4907

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4907

Report stage — 4907

Statute Law Amendment Act (1974) No. 2(Bill 178). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4907

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4907

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4908

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4908

Mrs. Jordan — 4909

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4909

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4909

Mr. Smith — 4910

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

Mr. Gibson — 4910

Appendix — 4911

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, observing our deliberations today will be a small group of students from Parkland Senior Secondary School on the northern part of Saanich Peninsula, accompanied by Mr. Don Sanford, their teacher. Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to note that among the group is Rosa Maria Guevara, an exchange student from El Salvador. I thought the House would like to welcome them today.

Oral questions.

CANCELLATION OF
CARIBOO PULP EXPANSION

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): This question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Because of the announcement yesterday by Cariboo Pulp and Paper not to expand the pulp mill at Quesnel, will the Minister now request a meeting with this company, and ask them to reconsider their decision not to expand?

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, Cariboo Pulp had never made a decision to expand, that I'm aware of. Any cancellation is a cancellation of something that wasn't ever firm in the first place.

I've met with Mr. Bowle, who is a representative of and partner in Babine Forest Products which the government is involved in indirectly, on numerous occasions regarding both their location in Quesnel and their aspects of their operation. We are in fairly continuous dialogue.

Mr. Fraser: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister now going to ask Mr. Bowle to come to a meeting that he will call about the planned expansion?

Hon. R.A. Williams: I've always been willing to meet with Mr. Bowle, and if he so requests, I'd be glad to meet him.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): A supplemental question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. From his reply do we understand that he feels that the representative of Cariboo Pulp and Paper misled the public, or was not true in what he said when he made a statement yesterday to the press?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don't think that the proper method of approaching it is by that type of question which is hypothetical, actually.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's an attack on a private citizen of this province. Terrible.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not hypothetical. There was a press release made yesterday by a reputable citizen of the Province of British Columbia, and this Minister has repudiated that. Now, either he gets up and backs up what he says or he backs down; one of the two.

Mr. Speaker: I really don't think you can ask somebody to comment on what some other citizen has said in the province. That is really not….

Mr. Smith: He already commented on it.

Mr. Speaker: If you can find a rule where it is said you can do it, for heaven's sake let me know.

B.C. MINERAL REVENUE
ADVERTISEMENTS

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I was asked a question yesterday in regard to this ad in the press about mineral revenue in British Columbia. At that time I didn't give any figures, and I don't know what figures got out. But I hope the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) didn't give the figure of $150,000 to $200,000 as what we're spending on that. Otherwise, he doesn't know my position because I'm not the kind of a person who would spend money like that.

The total figure for that run will be, I'm informed, $16,000. That will cover it all.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'm relieved to get these figures. Could the Minister clarify that this is for the prospector's assistance programme — not for the current programme, but for the prospectors' assistance programme which was the big one?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Mr. Speaker, this was the big ad he had out yesterday: "Mineral Revenue in British Columbia." That's the one that's in the paper today, and I'll repeat what it said:

"The B.C. Government is spending $150,000 to $200,000 on completely biased full-page newspaper advertisements dealing with mineral revenues in legislation."

Gordon Gibson's name is following it.

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

[ Page 4878 ]

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

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the figure of $150,000 is a figure that I was given by somebody who had studied the prospectors' assistance programme ads which were much more extensive.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Minister has clarified the costs of $16,000, is it going to be the policy of his department to continue to advertise all the speeches delivered by Hart Horn at a cost of $16,000?

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: What do you mean? I asked the Minister … this is Hart Horn's speech. Are you going to spend $16,000 on all his speeches?

EXTENT OF DECLINE IN
CLAIM-STAKING

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to ask the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker, whether he would give us factual information today on exactly how much the reduction has been in claim-staking in British Columbia to date this year compared with last year? Is it down more than 60 per cent or less than 60 per cent?

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

Mr. McGeer: No, not to date, Mr. Speaker, besides which, the Ministers are not answering any questions on the order paper now.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. P.F. Young (Minister of Consumer Services): The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey made a false statement inasmuch as he said that none of the Ministers have answered any questions on the order paper. I have answered three, and other Ministers have answered quite a few.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we're getting beyond the purpose of question period into points of order.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, may I tender an abject apology to the Minister, and say how much I'm hoping that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and other Ministers in the cabinet will follow her example?

ALLEGATIONS OF PARTIALITY
OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT TO IWA

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): In light of the current dispute taking place over the interpretation of a letter of intent signed by the FIR and the IWA, which is leading to some difficulties in labour-management relations in my constituency, I would like the Hon. Minister of Labour to indicate whether he has heard of allegations that the Labour department has aided and abetted or supported the IWA in this dispute and, if he's heard of these allegations, what he's done about them.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, that question arose, I think, last week — a similar question by the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson). At that time I indicated that I had no request or no overture from any of the industry in this regard.

I must say that this matter did arise some time ago last year. That specific charge that the Department of Labour had in fact supported the IWA in their desire to organize the contractors in the forest industry was leveled in the media. It has arisen since that time, To put the matter to rest once and for all, I do have an exchange of correspondence between my office and the interior independent loggers' association, which corrects any charges, withdraws the allegations that were made by that management association, apologizes profusely for that kind of allegation and acknowledges that there's no basis in fact whatsoever for that charge.

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

COURT WORKERS WAGE DISPUTE

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) but I notice he hasn't been in the House for about a week. I hope that his health isn't too bad and that the $100 million overrun isn't affecting him too much. I'll ask my question of the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker.

Since the takeover of the courts by the provincial government, I understand that a number of people were being paid at the same wage scale as they were when they worked for the municipal government. But in recent weeks, for some reason, the government seems to have found that they don't want to pay the

[ Page 4879 ]

same scale as the municipal governments were paying.

Now the employees in the courts are getting dunning letters from the provincial government asking them to repay some of the wages that they have been paid in the last several months. Some of those letters are asking for repayment of as much as $600 from those employees in the municipal court system — or what used to be the municipal court system. I understand that the Surrey court system is really in an appalling condition. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could confirm this, and whether or not he could tell us whether some steps will be taken to ensure that those people don't suffer because of the takeover of the courts by the provincial government.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I'm sure he's projecting most of the premise the question is based on. I'll take it as notice on behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order, is it not possible that the Minister could justify that remark he's made, because I understood that all the provincial employees were under his jurisdiction, not the Attorney-General's.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Well, the Member made a number of speeches, most of which I disagreed with, during the passage of the bill setting up the Justice Development Commission. I suggest you look at the bill, Mr. Member.

TENDERING OF COMIC BOOK PRINTING

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question regarding the very colourful safety bike comic book. Was the publication of that comic book put out to tender, competitive bid? It carries no notification that it was done by a union shop, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not sure whether it was put out to tender or not. It was handled by a public relations firm, not Dunsky. There are three separate public relations firms….

Interjections.

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

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister tell. us what the usual practice is in relation to the government's policy to employ union labour? In this case, was this a contravention of the usual policy?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, I don't know. I'll have to take that as notice. Whether or not it's union labour — it could be union shop without union labour.

E&N WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications as well. Many of my constituents are concerned at the moment because the E & N is again going to be making representations to the Canadian Transport Commission to withdraw its passenger service on the E & N. My constituents would like to know:

(a) Whether or not the government has taken a position on this, and (b) Whether or not they will be making any representations on behalf of the government to the transport commission.

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

Mr. Speaker: Does the Hon. Minister just happen to have the answer to that? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I have the answer to most reasonable questions that are questions, Mr. Speaker. To answer the Member, the government is opposed to any attempts by the E & N to close down its passenger or any other service and, yes, the department is preparing a presentation to the Board of Transport Commissioners opposing the E & N closing these services.

DRIVERS DROPPED FROM ICBC ROLLS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question asked earlier in the week to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Has he yet had an opportunity to compare the Motor Vehicle Branch and the ICBC comparison of vehicle registrations, drivers licences and insurance policy records to determine whether a substantial number of people have been dropped from the rolls by mistakes in the ICBC computer?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No one has been dropped from the rolls. We can find them. We have a record of every transaction that's taken place.

An. Hon. Member: Where is it?

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

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I was misquoted a little earlier on by the Minister of Mines, and I'd like to take the earliest opportunity, not taking the time

[ Page 4880 ]

in the question period, to correct it. The Minister of Mines stated that I said that the current advertising programme was costing $150,000. If he had taken the trouble to cheek Hansard yesterday, he would have said:

"…and in view of the fact that the prospectors' assistance programme advertising was estimated to cost something like $150,000…." That was what I was talking about, Mr. Minister. I wasn't talking about the current programme.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): In relation to the statement made by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) in question period, would she clarify if the fact she answered questions on the order paper justifies the extra cost of her picture in her political…?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this Member has on a number of occasions abused the question of raising a point of order by using it as a device to make a statement. I wish the Hon. Member would cease doing this, because it really isn't fair to the Chair that I recognize a Member that is using that type of device. It's not fair to the rules of order. No more points of order?

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on Bill 171.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT
(continued)

Mr. D.M Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I just want to spend a few moments with a few windup remarks on a very important bill. Last evening I covered some of the points, but I do want to take this time to emphasize to the House that this is the most important bill ever introduced into this Legislature.

I say it is the most important bill, Mr. Speaker, because it affects the future of the forest industry in this province, the industry that is responsible for generating approximately 50 cents out of every dollar in our economy.

I was to further emphasize that, in view of this fact, the economy of this province hangs in the balance here today. I fear if this bill is passed and all the in-depth implications of the bill which the Minister has in mind come to pass, the economy of this province will sink to an all-time low.

I want to say that this bill is the greatest use of political cosmetics that this government has come up with to date — and they've had some dandies. But this is really political cosmetics. It's the complete use of shading the truth and the real intent of the bill not only from the eyes of the public but from the eyes of the industry.

Our Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would do well with Max Factor or Cover Girl or Elizabeth Arden because he's really used cosmetics here to cover up the true intent of the bill. He has, as is usual in the use of cosmetics, accentuated the good features in the bill, which we agree with — the wood chip price — but has completely hidden the bad aspects and the true intent of the bill.

He outlined to us the aspect of the bill which would increase wood chip prices to the independent sawmill industry but he cleverly hid and tried to overshadow the powers given to the British Columbia Forest Products Board.

The Minister was very specific this morning in a radio broadcast to emphasize and reassure the public that no takeover of the industry was intended. In the opening remarks yesterday, he said he is so concerned about the little fellows in the industry that he wants to protect them. My word to the independents in this province is that if the Minister starts protecting them the way he protects them, he'll protect them to death. In this bill he sets out to protect an industry that really doesn't want protection.

I'd like to refer to some of the comments made recently by some of the independents in the industry. I'd like to quote from a recent article in The Vancouver Sun. One independent operator, John Kerr of Lignum Limited who runs a sawmill at Williams Lake put the matter this way:

"I am not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth. I think there will be a substantial increase in chip prices. We believe we have a valid argument for increased prices but we would have preferred to negotiate higher prices with the pulp mills without the government stepping in."

That is a comment from one of the independents that this Minister wishes to protect.

What does the President of MacMillan Bloedel (Mr. Timmis) say, the man who is with the Premier on his trip to China? Cleverly timed, that trip. He says:

"We have already indicated that we would prefer to negotiate both log and chip prices on the open market without government intervention. The price charged by our outside suppliers has more than doubled in the past year but our selling price for pulp and newsprint has increased at a much lower rate. Moreover, lumber price decreases are having a very serious negative impact on our revenues.

"There is no point, however, in further comment until the government announces its new chip prices."

What does Ian Mahood, president of the Truck

[ Page 4881 ]

Loggers Association say? He says:

"We absolutely deplore the alarming powers to destroy existing contracts."

He realizes what's in the bill. We've heard that in this Legislature before that this government takes the power, What about Herb Doman, the president of the Duncan-based Doman Industries Limited? What does he say about the bill?

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): He said he's going to build a new mill.

Mr. Phillips: He's going to replace an existing industry; that's what he's going to do. He's not going to create any new jobs. He's going to replace an existing industry, mainly not because of this bill but because of federal government income tax changes that allow him to write off his equipment in two years. That's why he's building a new mill.

He says:

"They would have the power to borrow money and issue any amount of bonds guaranteed by the government. The Minister would have the power to buy up companies he wanted and to shut down the ones he doesn't want and put those that are not competitive out of business. I really don't know what the full implications will be."

There are hundreds of other independent operators in this province who realize that they must have more money for their chips but who are frightened about the full implications of this bill. Power without restraint.

Why was the timing of the introduction of this bill so important? The Minister has known for some time what his intentions were with the lumber industry of British Columbia. He threw up a smokescreen via one of his backbenchers on February 16, 1974, just to see how it would settle — just a sort of a warning.

"MLA Bob Skelly at an annual meeting of the B.C. Professional Foresters said on Friday that if enterprise wants to continue to the forest industry in British Columbia, it better be prepared to take second place to his government."

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

Mr. Phillips: That was the message given.

"The independent sector of the forest industry is going to take second place to a government-owned-and-operated forest industry."

That was the message from the chairman of the forestry committee. Maybe that's why the forestry committee was disbanded.

I quote again from the article:

"Skelly, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries said the provincial government is determined to see public enterprise succeed in the forest products field in British Columbia. 'This means,' he said, 'the government will use the most sophisticated technology available and will hire the best available staff, whether they come from Canada or abroad.'

" 'I also believe that the government is under no obligation to provide our resources on an equality-of-access basis to public and private industry,' he told a noon meeting at the Capri Motor Hotel.

"Publicly-owned firms should have access on a priority basis. If railcars are required by Can-Cel, the province should provide them. If chips or timber are required by Kootenay Forest Products, then the government should allot them."

This is what we are talking about when we say there is a conflict of interest when the government enters into one segment of our economy against the segment that has been operated successfully by the private sector.

"The government has advantages that the private sector doesn't have. If new technology or marketing information becomes available through the efforts of government-sponsored research, that technology and that information should be made available exclusively — exclusively to the publicly-owned industries." There's another advantage, Mr. Speaker — an unfair advantage — that the government will have in their own Crown corporations: "Skelly said that if private enterprise wishes to continue in the forest industry, it must do so as a competitor." This was just a cloud that was sort of floated up to see how it would settle on the industry. The real settling effect is here in the fallout when Bill 171 was introduced.

The Minister purposely waited until a crisis situation developed in this province with regard to the price of chips — waited purposely — and then he brought his bill in later. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if bringing the bill in late had something to do with the whole timing.

Did the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources want to wait until the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) were out of the province before bringing in this very controversial bill, or was it that the Attorney-General wanted to be off in China before this completely socialist-stateism bill was brought in? I don't think the Attorney-General wanted to have any part of this bill; I think that's why he went off to China. That's why the Premier's away, and that's why the Premier was away for a long time during the debate on some of the controversies we had last year.

[ Page 4882 ]

He can't….

Interjection.

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

The Premier's away when these controversies rage over this important industry in this province. He's not here to protect the Minister. Maybe he doesn't agree with the Minister, but it really doesn't matter, because the Minister has so much power that whether the Attorney-General or the Premier agrees, he goes ahead anyway.

They know — I'm sure the Premier knows and I'm sure the Attorney-General knows, Mr. Speaker — that it is that Minister who will kill their chances of being re-elected in this province again, because that Minister has a heart full of hate. That same Minister walks around with a chip on his shoulder most of the time — and it's not a wood chip.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister was in trouble last spring over the Can-Cel trading deal. There's supposed to be an enquiry going on; I don't know when we'll ever get the information. That Minister, Mr. Speaker, seems to be preoccupied with making a profit in his own little domain, on his own little privately-run companies, under the guise of public ownership.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, when you have complete control you can buy your chips at the price you want to pay for them, get your stumpage at the price you want to pay for them, get boxcars when you want them, have all the other advantages — he's going to show that his privately-run little corporations make money.

But the Minister says that there is no takeover intended. I say, Mr. Speaker, to that Minister that he's shielding us from the truth. What he plans on doing, Mr. Speaker, is making utilities out of the forest industry in British Columbia. He's determined, Mr. Speaker, to get that big giant, MacMillan Bloedel, and when he's finished with the controls and the regulations which he can bring in under this bill, he will have MacMillan Bloedel exactly where he wants them, along with all the other forest industries in British Columbia.

The British Columbia Forest Products Board will control, will regulate, will buy and sell, will tell who can export and under what price, and the forest industry will become a utility similar to the other utilities established under the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

I think there was an excellent editorial in the Colonist on Sunday. They put it fairly and squarely where it's at, Mr. Speaker, and I'd just like to read the last two paragraphs of this editorial because this really outlines the true intent of this bill. It says:

"But obviously the board is intended not only to advise the government, for it would be authorized, subject to cabinet approval, to raise money by notes, bonds, debentures and other securities and could acquire shares, debentures or securities of a company and thereupon appoint such person as it considers advisable to be the representative of the board at any meeting of the company or at any meeting of the directors of the company or any class of members or creditors of the company."

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the true intent of his bill is not to take over and control and regulate the forest industry, why are these powers outlined in his bill?

An. Hon. Member: Right on.

Mr. Phillips: The editorial goes on:

"And if this gives a strong hint of the board moving into the forest industry itself as a Crown corporation, more significant still, perhaps, is a simple little section — 19 — of the bill: 'The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations….' The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, of course, is the formal way of saying the government.

"The purpose of keeping the small mills in business and perhaps of helping a whole lumber business through a slump is commendable, but the creation of vague and almost limitless powers naturally leaves the industry beset with uncertainty, and perhaps in peril of takeover."

This Minister, Mr. Speaker, has great big eyes in the back of his head, but very little forward vision, because he fails to realize that planning in the forest industry must be not in terms of a year or two years, but planning in the forest industry must be in terms of 10, 20 and 30 years.

We have an industry, as I said last night, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest forest industries of any jurisdiction in the world. It's a complex industry, and now we have a Minister who was in charge of that industry travelling around the world advising other jurisdictions on how to get more production and a better utilization our of their forest industries. Yet this Minister would tell you, or lead the public to believe, that our forest industry was in chaos in British Columbia. He took over one of the best-run departments of any forest industry anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker — the best-run department of forestry anywhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke briefly yesterday about waste on the forest floor. I suggested to the Minister two years ago that he do something to curb the waste of aspen in the northern part of this

[ Page 4883 ]

province where literally hundreds of thousands of board-feet are being burned up and wasted every year in land clearing, where it goes to rot. And that Minister, Mr. Speaker, has not made one single, solitary move in the direction of curtailing this waste.

There is a plant in Slave Lake, Alberta, which is using this local native tree, but this Minister has done nothing. I pointed out to him two years ago — and to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) — a project in the north that was going to utilize that local tree, the one that's being wasted today, and not one move in two years — not one single, solitary, positive move.

Mr. Speaker, how will there ever be a pulp mill in the Peace River area to utilize the vast stands of timber there that today are not being utilized with this bill and the threat of takeover hanging over the heads of anyone, or any would-be investor in this province? No; it will be like the "Can-Cel-lation" in Quesnel, only that isn't even in the planning stage yet, and it'll never get off the ground — it'll never come to the planning stage with the threat of Bill 171 hanging over their head.

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

Mr. Phillips: Let's take a look, Mr. Speaker, at the political cover-up in this bill.

Our leader yesterday afternoon, in speaking, termed it very aptly when he said it was a "political lie". But this bill is really a sinister bill because the Act gives the B.C. Forest Products Board the power to do almost anything it wishes to do in the industry. That power, Mr. Speaker — that power contained in this bill — is without recourse to the Legislature.

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

But, oh — take heart. We're going to have a report once a year; we're going to have a report a year later. Maybe it'll be like the statement of public accounts — it'll not only be a year later, but it'll be eight months after the year — the report like we're going to have from ICBC after injections of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to make the report look good.

This new board, under the terms of the bill, will be able to have complete government financing. The government will back their bonds, back their loans with taxpayers' money. Under this bill the B.C. Forest Products Board has the power to borrow money, the power to issue bonds, the power to issue debentures, the power to issue other types of securities, the power to mortgage, hypothecate or pledge real property. These are pretty strong powers. This board is backed by the taxpayers of British Columbia and we in the Legislature will have no access to their workings.

If the bill was not designed as a takeover, why is there power in the bill to acquire shares and debentures in any company? If this is not the intent, maybe the Minister, in closing debate, will outline….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: It's all right for you to make light of the situation; it is all right for you to make light of the discussion. But I would like you, in closing debate, to outline to the Legislature why all of these powers are in the bill, why you didn't mention these powers when you were introducing the bill — explain to the Legislature why the powers are in the bill if you are not going to use them.

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

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

He will have the power, Mr. Speaker, to appoint to this board of directors of the B.C. Forest Products Board his own stooges who will take his orders and do what he says without recourse to the cabinet or without recourse to the Legislature. And what the Minister can't do directly, he will do indirectly.

He decries big business, and yesterday during introduction of second reading he made this abundantly clear — that he is against big business. Yet when it came to appointing the directors, or getting into bed with big business in Can-Cel — directors live in the United States, the directors of Can-Cel are directors of multinational corporations. He decries it on the one hand, and does it on the other.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Gets special contracts on Ocean Falls.

Mr. Phillips: How are we supposed to think about this Minister when he has a sort of a double-barreled effect? One time he shoots out of one barrel, and the other time he shoots out of another.

Mr. Bennett: Most of the time he misfires!

Mr. Phillips: Yes, most of the time he misfires, and I'm afraid he's misfiring on this one.

He used this crisis in the wood chip business as a method of bringing in this very controversial bill.

This party has consistently complained to that Minister about the price of wood chips in British Columbia. We advised him and told him last spring that there should be negotiation, that there were going to be problems for the small sawmill operator. But what did he do? He brought in a new formula

[ Page 4884 ]

that compounded the problems for the small operator. He didn't relieve the situation; he compounded it. He created this crisis and he must take full responsibility for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to keep hammering the same old points in this Legislature, but as long as this type of legislation is placed before us we are obligated, because all of the legislation seems to have the same points of view — takeover, powers, limitless powers.

I'm afraid the people of this province may be put to sleep and not realize exactly what is going on. That is the great danger. Maybe that is what the Minister has been planning on. Maybe that's why this bill was brought in at this time.

The same old points of takeover, central state control, power over all aspects of the economy, control over production, control over distribution, control over pricing — I know it sounds like the same old story. Indeed, it is the same old story that we've heard from this government for the last 2 1/2 years.

This bill is a double-barrelled bill, somewhat like a gun I used to have. It was a 22 over-and-under 410 shotgun. The top barrel was 22 calibre, and that's the first shot this Minister has. It's aimed directly at increasing the wood prices, and it's making, to some extent, the small lumber, the small mill operator happy. But I warn them about the bottom barrel because that's a shotgun, and the shot will spread and these same small operators, who may be protected from the first shot, will get splattered and hurt with the second shot. That is exactly what will happen.

We have seen in the last 2 1/2 years control over land, control over the marketing of agricultural products, control over mining, control over insurance, control over housing, control over rental accommodation, and now the big fuss — the final blow comes — control over the forest industry.

This should be a lesson to other industries in this province. I ask them now; never come to this government for help because if they come to this government for help, this government will let the crisis deteriorate to such a point that they can justify stepping in and taking over under the guise of saving it. This seems to be the series of events which follows most of the legislation. So I warn other segments of the economy: don't come to this government for help.

This Minister could have offered to negotiate, help the small lumber operators negotiate with the pulp mills to get a better price. This government could have led the way through their large control of Can-Cel to increase the price of wood chips. We didn't need this bill to do what the Minister wants to do — increase the price of wood chips.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that our forest industry will not only not grow, but will decline, and it will be then that the people of this province will suffer in unemployment.

One of the biggest problems that is causing a great deal of concern among the small mill operators in this province in the length of time that it takes today to get a cutting permit. I don't know whether this bill is going to solve that problem, but that is one of the problems being experienced by these small operators who are suffering financial problems today.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The morale of the Forest Service of British Columbia is at an all-time low. Where it used to take approximately three months to get a cutting permit, it now takes two years. Why, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: "Oh," the Minister says. The truth hurts, doesn't it? Two years to get a cutting permit. Two years where it used to take three months.

Can you imagine some logger, Mr. Speaker, trying to get a cutting permit, trying to plan his operation, going through the bureaucracy that now exists in this man's department, in this Minister's department? Overlapping of jurisdictions — one department that doesn't want to cut trees, another that does — one that wants to preserve the ecology. What we have got is a bureaucratic jungle. How can these small independents, struggling with a new stumpage rate, new formula, trying to get cuts, trying to preserve themselves, and then wading into this bureaucratic jungle that this Minister has created…?

The cost of logging under this Minister's jurisdiction is up approximately 25 per cent. That's one of the problems; that's one of the reasons why the small operators are suffering economically in the province today. That's one of the reasons. Two years to get a cutting permit, and their costs go up 25 per cent.

No, Mr. Speaker, the morale in that bureaucratic jungle that has been created by this Minister is at an all-time low because of that Minister's bungling. And the Minister knows it. The Minister knows now that it takes two years to get a cutting permit; the Minister knows that it only used to take about three months.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll take your comments under advisement. But if you feel that the economic liability of the small operator is not part and parcel of the principle of this bill, well, I will certainly stand corrected.

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

[ Page 4885 ]

you, Mr. Speaker, as I said before you took the chair: this crisis that exists today has been created by this Minister.

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

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

No. 3, all of the rigmarole and red tape that these operators have to go through has increased their cost of operation by some 25 per cent, at a time when wood prices are down.

That is what has compounded the problem. That Minister could have cleared up this problem without bringing in this bill. This bill is nothing but an overkill on the part of that Minister, the true intent of which is to take over and control the entire forest industry. That is the intent of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Now let's examine some of the facts.

The Minister went to great lengths yesterday afternoon to talk to us about the Pearse report as being the basis for Bill 171. He stated in the Legislature when he was introducing the bill that this was recommended. So this is how he was able to go ahead and this was the basis for Bill 171.

Let's take a look at some of the facts about the Pearse report; let's take a look at the composition of the task force that compiled the Pearse report.

One man on it was a civil servant, the Chief Forester, E.L. Young, who is under the direct control of that Minister. And you expect an unbiased report? I'm not trying to discredit this civil servant, but the man is human and he's under the wing and under the control and under the direction of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Who was the second man on the board? A man employed by Can-Cel. What is Can-Cel? Can-Cel is a public company owned 79 per cent by the provincial government under the control of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Mr. Pearse is very knowledgeable and very educated, but he was not given sufficient time to complete his report under definite stringent time limits. He is a very knowledgeable man who didn't have time to check into the complete aspects of the forest industry in British Columbia. He is a man maybe not as well-versed in the business end of the forest industry as he could have been but, nevertheless, a very capable man. But with him on this task force are two people under the direct control of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Would you call that an independent study, Mr. Speaker? No way would I call it an independent study.

A task force, Mr. Chairman, was given an impossible deadline for the first report which dealt with only one particular tenure and the royalty rate for it. The task force did not have time to consider them in the context of the entire framework of forest management in the province, in spite of repeated recommendations by the industry and, in particular, by the independent sector of the industry.

Now, would it be possible for this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to reach his conclusions and then tell this task force to go out and bring in the study to prove him right? Why, if we wanted an independent study, didn't we have independent people to complete the study?

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

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

Mr. Phillips: I'm questioning the report that the Minister based his whole bill on. Why didn't we have an independent study? Why, didn't we have a study where those who were having input to the report could be cross-examined and be made responsible for their submission to the task force?

The very language of the second report would indicate that it also was rushed for lack of time, A great deal of it was extracted from government reports already written, particularly the section on page 127 on the timber authority.

The value of a man like Professor Pearse was not fully realized because of the time limits given.

We have heard in the past that we're going to have open government. We've heard in the past that the committees are going to do work and bring in recommendations. What happened to the forestry committee? Why would this Minister not give the forestry committee the terms of reference so they could have done an in-depth study into the reports that he wanted brought in? I have to ask again: was it because the Minister wanted certain conclusions reached in this report so that he could justify his bill?

No, the Minister took a great deal of time to give credibility. I was wondering why he was spending so much on the Pearse report as an independent report on which he would be given the authority for the terms of reference to introduce this very controversial bill. This task force did not even operate under the Public Inquiries Act. What was so secret? Why the rush?

Why didn't the Minister have his $5 million think tank at the University of Victoria do the report? The taxpayers are paying $5 million….

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, The taxpayers of this province are paying $5 million to have a task force advise the government on economic development and economic planning.

I want to tell you, there is no segment of our economy as important as that segment which we are

[ Page 4886 ]

discussing here today. Yet with a $5 million task force at the University of Victoria, under Dr. Mason Gaffney, the Minister didn't even utilize it. Why? Is it because we know that Dr. Gaffney and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources think alike and the report would have not had credibility? Did he want to utilize another area, another professor to give his report credibility?

This Minister has got what he wants from this task force and is letting it die before we have full time to consider it. That's why he rushed in with this legislation. He is letting it die before we have time to consider and recommend on the entire terms of reference. This is typical of what to expect from this Minister.

The great fear of every clear thinking and fair-minded British Columbian is that the investigative sections of Bill 171 can be misused to the advantage of this Minister. Clear, open reports are necessary for decision-making in market policy and in forest policy.

I certainly have a great deal of respect for Professor Pearse, but a lot of the terms of reference in the report were never even mentioned in the report because there was. not time. For instance, terms of reference were,

" — that the full potential contribution of the public forests to the economic and social welfare of British Columbians is realized, recognizing the diverse commercial wood products, recreation and wildlife benefits, domestic stock grazing and environmental values of forest resources."

What happened to that segment of the report?

" — that the payments made for Crown timber reflect the full value of the resources made available for harvesting, after fair and reasonable allowance for harvesting costs, forestry and development costs and profits; and that the marketing arrangements for timber products permit their full value to be realized."

That is a very wide, broad-ranging term of reference, and there is no way that this task force could complete an in-depth study of the forest industry in British Columbia in the time allotted. So I say again: is it possible that the Minister told them what he wanted in the report and then went out and said: "Bring in a report that will prove that I'm right, because this is what I want to do"?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister tabled a report from the B.C. Research Council. It outlined what pulp mills should pay for wood chip prices. Let's take a look at that report, because the Minister is going to base his price that he and the cabinet are going to set on this report.

All right, the report was started sometime in early summer. The report was shrouded in secrecy. The industry really didn't know that the report was being prepared. There was no input from the pulp mills involved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a letter was written in August to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources offering on behalf of eight pulp mills in British Columbia to completely open their books to the B.C. Research Council so that they could really do an in-depth study of the cost of producing pulp in this province. What happened to that letter, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Phillips: What happened to the offer? What happened to the letter? No reply from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Another letter on October 1 was sent to the Minister, again offering to open the books of the complete pulp mill industry in British Columbia to that Minister, so that the B.C. Research Council could go in and do an in-depth study using facts and figures as they existed. But no answer from the Minister. He chose to ignore the offer made by the pulp companies in British Columbia to open their books so that a proper and thorough research could be carried out so that the report that would be tabled in this House would be factual.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you: why did the Minister not accept the offer to open the books of these pulp companies? They are the ones that are using the wood chips. The books would have been there — the costs, the cash flow, the investment, the debts — so that a study could have been done. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: where did this price of $60 a cunit originate from, without him knowing the full facts? Why did that Minister turn his back on the industry? Why did he not accept their offer? I have to conclude that that Minister doesn't really want to know the facts. He and the cabinet are going to set the price. No reply. How could the B.C. Research Council compile a report without knowing the facts?

Well, the Minister said that in this report the researchers found that mills felt it was necessary that they earn 25 per cent on their equity, taken after interest and before taxes, in order that further investment not be discouraged. To realize this, the mills would have to earn between 13 and 20 per cent on their total investment.

Now let's look at some facts and figures from Price Waterhouse & Co. I'm not going to go back over all the years, but just briefly and for the record, Mr. Speaker, I want to outline that the return on investment in 1967 from eight pulp mills in the province, based on a Price Waterhouse report, was minus 1.8 per cent. In 1968 it was minus 0.4 per

[ Page 4887 ]

cent; in 1969, 1.9 per cent; in 1970, 3.2 per cent; in 1971, 2.2 per cent; in 1972, .8 per cent; in 1973, 4.3 per cent; and in 1974, 11.6 per cent.

So you must realize that in 1974, as I stated before this afternoon, lumber prices were never higher in the history of British Columbia, and the world demand was never greater. They received a return on investment of 11.6 percent.

Now I'm not attempting to protect the big pulp companies, I'm just outlining some facts and figures. The report prepared by the B.C. Research Council states — and that's return on investment, 11.6 per cent — that they must have a return on their investment of between 13 and 20 per cent. Now that return on investment of 11.6 per cent is when they were paying last year's prices for chips. What would happen, Mr. Speaker, if the chip price goes to $60 per cunit, f.o.b. the pulp mill? It's projecting, and I didn't project these figures, but it's projected.

Well, B.C. Research Council wrote the report and Price Waterhouse wrote the other report that the return on investment would be 7.5 per cent. All right, let's look at the return on equity. The report says that the return on equity should be 25 per cent after taxes. The return on equity…and I won't go back over the years again because they flow in the same ratio as the return on investment. In 1974 it was 18 per cent. That was paying the price they paid for chips last year.

Now if they pay $60 a cunit for chips, the projected return on equity would be 9.8 per cent, Well, the report from the B.C. Research Council itself says that they should receive 25 per cent.

But oh, no, who's going to set the price? It's not going to be from an in-depth study, where somebody goes in and looks at the books of the pulp mill companies, as was offered. No, no. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the cabinet are going to set the price — based on what?

You know, I have to look at the credibility of the B.C. Research Council report, in view of the circumstances I have outlines in the House this afternoon. Yet these two reports are what the Minister is basing his whole philosophy and the whole future of the forest industry in British Columbia on.

It doesn't appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that we're on very sound ground. The report was not an impartial report. What we need, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make major changes and move in entirely different directions in the forest industry in British Columbia, is an in-depth, impartial study, because it affects the livelihood of all of British Columbia. It affects the economy of British Columbia. It's not just some small part of our economy.

As I said at the outset, it is the industry that generates 50 cents out of every dollar, and this Minister is choosing the direction that he wants this industry to go, without really having impartial, in-depth studies. That's why we're concerned, Mr. Speaker. That is why every person in the industry is concerned.

Here is a man who thinks he must have some gift from above, I'm sure that he must in his own mind think this, because he's going to take this industry in a completely new direction. He's going to control it through his B.C. Forest Products Marketing Board. He alone will have the control, with unlimited power, basing it on the assumption and on the recommendations of what I consider to be not impartial reports.

Can you wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we say this bill is a sinister bill? Do you wonder why we keep asking why these powers are necessary in this bill? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It's because we are concerned, and I want to tell you that this government is not listening. As I said last night, this government is not listening to the people of British Columbia. They are working on their pet theories and they really do not have their ear to the ground.

You know, it concerns me just how much lower we can go. There's an old saying that it is pretty hard to fall off the floor. Well, I think that that's where this Minister is trying to direct the economy of British Columbia — right on the floor.

There has been a lot of talk about the decline in the number of small sawmills in this province. Our Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) last night expounded at some length about the decline. "Were you over there proud of the decline of the small lumber operators in British Columbia in the last 20 years from 22,000 to some 600-odd?" But let me point out again for the benefit of this Legislature what happened, and let's take a look at the real issue.

The decline is the small lumber industry and the small lumber operators in this province was a result of recommendations from the Sloan Report on forestry where, in essence, it said: "We are having too much waste and not enough utilization in our forest industry."

Then what happened? Pulp mills and small operators, small lumber mills, got together to work together in the north and central part of our province for close utilization. This meant that a small sawmill would be a more complex operation. If further meant that sawmills must be on the railroads so that they could move their chips and move their other products between the pulp mill and the small operator. This is why there was a decline in the wasteful use of our lumber. The small sawmill that used to operate in the woods was a wasteful unit. This is why they declined.

But let's look at the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker. Now there are approximately 20 times as many people employed in our forest industry as there were in 1952 — 20 times as many people employed in our forest industry now as there were in 1952. So the Minister can stand up and make a big thing about the

[ Page 4888 ]

decline of the small sawmill operator. As I said before, he's got big eyes in the back of his head, but I sometimes doubt his vision for the future.

It is all right for him to condemn and pick out the one segment of this society that he thinks people will buy for political reasons, but let's look at the true facts. There are 20 times as many people employed in the forest industry today as there were 20 years ago.

How much more utilization are we getting out of our forest industry than we did 20 years ago? No one can estimate it. I'm not going to go into the number of board-feet and the multiplier effect, but the Minister has a report, called the Reed report, which outlined to him how the lumber industry and the growth of pulp mills in Prince George related to the economy of that sector.

Maybe that Minister doesn't want growth. Maybe he doesn't want investment capital. Maybe he wants to control his own little kingdom. But for him to stand on the floor of this Legislature, and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to stand on the floor of this Legislature, and make a big thing about the decline of the small sawmill operations when he knew and understood the economics behind it, knew that we were getting better utilization out of our natural resource than ever before…. No, Mr. Speaker, we need some more study before this bill passes second reading.

We need some appeal procedures, because in this bill there are no appeal procedures. In no way can a small operator appeal a decision of the Minister if this bill becomes law. No longer can anybody appeal the price that that Minister will regulate. No longer will anybody be able to appeal any segment of the control that he intends to take over in that industry.

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

An. Hon. Member: Dictatorship.

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

We have an instance just recently where Rim Forest Products was damaged to the tune of $500,000 by a procedural error in that Minister's department. That's why Rim Forest Products are closing down. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: what right of appeal did they have? No, he's in control. "Close them down and we'll take them over, or start up somewhere else; only we'll be in it the next time." That's why Rim Forest Products are closing down: a clerical error on stumpage 1n his department. No appeal procedure, no appeal procedure. Surely to goodness we are moving just a little bit too fast and in the wrong direction with this bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time this government stopped for a moment and realized what they are doing to the economy of this province.

Surely to goodness they can see the effects of some of their legislation, the effect it is having?

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) over there claps his hands when unemployment is increasing in British Columbia greater and faster than in any province in Canada. The Minister of Labour claps his hands. Shame on that Minister!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by asking the Minister to use some common sense. Have a proper in-depth study done. Have a royal commission before you move ahead in this direction, because not only will you live to regret it, but all of the citizens of British Columbia will live to regret it, But you won't be there, Mr. Minister, so you won't care.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): I want to speak just briefly on a subject that is brought up in the bill, a subject which we have had to refer to before during second reading of other bills in this House, and one which we are almost ashamed to talk about here again today.

The subject is the matter of the disregard for contracts. Again we have to draw this to the government's attention. We had to do it under the PNE Act, if you remember, under this same Minister. We have had to talk about it under the marketing board Act where it occurred again, a completely callous, blatant disregard of contracts. We talked about it under the Energy Act, and now here again under the Timber Products Stabilization Act — a complete disregard for contracts.

Whether this be a certified contract or an implied contract, we have a moral responsibility for recognition of a contract of the administration of the province to the people of the province.

Here is an example of an industry which has been kept floating because of investment confidence. Here is an industry that we are debating today, debating the business of chip prices for the interior; whereas not too many years ago chips were not even being utilized in the interior. There were dozens of little sawmills, yes, but there was no utilization of chips. There was no close utilization. The reason for it was that there wasn't a pulp plant within earshot of the place so that you could utilize the chips.

Here we have a company — a private company to be sure — investing $125 million to ensure that there could be a use for the chip products from the interior. They brought the pulp industry to the interior. Without it, we wouldn't even be debating the bill we have today as there wouldn't have been an industry in the interior to bring an investment of $125 million into.

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

[ Page 4889 ]

an opportunity to realize their return on that investment or the investment itself, or had an opportunity through tax advantage to write it off, bill is brought in that completely shuts them out of the opportunity to realize this. That is a breach of contract.

Here in the interior we have an industry that exists today because there was enough confidence in investment to construct that particular plant. Now we have a bill that sets up the enabling procedure where the Minister by regulation can regulate the price of chips which that plant must pay without due respect — I hope it's with respect — but without due respect to the operating expenses of that particular plant. The Minister is able to say, "In our opinion, that plant is able to pay more without due regard for the contract."

We could say, "Yes, now they are able to pay more, but in the future who knows whether or not they will be able to pay more?"

With the installation of this new lack of confidence in the province one thing is certain: that company or any other company will not be investing or expanding its facilities to be sure that they can be a viable operation. The disregard for contract that we have had to talk about so many times in this House has eroded that confidence.

If we take this step now of providing higher chip prices by regulation, it will only necessitate another Band-Aid job a little later on if and when the price of paper drops. This suggested price of $60 per cunit is possible only because of the high value of end product. When that end product drops in price, we will have to come along and do another regulatory Band-Aid job.

To say the indicators are that the market for pulp and paper are firm and that the prices have been increasing — which we heard the Minister say; he gave us the track record over the past years — is fine. But to say that market will be stable enough to support the cunit price of $60 is futile because the price of lumber just a year ago appeared to be on an upward trend and appeared to be stable with great demands for building both here and south of the border. Great demands on sale; possibilities of foreign trade. Indeed, that Minister said in this House, "The lumber industry in this province is better than it has ever been before."

But just a year later, here we face sawmills which are saying to us that no longer can they continue operations, and we have to take some kind of action. The most obvious action, although perhaps not the best-thought-out action, is the action which this Minister has taken to simply guarantee them a greater price per cunit for their product.

I think that it is better to have a formula that ties the chip price to the end-product price, particularly without the 80 per cent penalty which this Minister brought in by regulation.

This disregard that I talked about earlier for contract is a strange thing. It appears in this bill near the beginning, and it simply says:

"Notwithstanding any other Act or regulation, or any agreement or arrangement made before or after this Act comes into force, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council….

and so on and so forth. This bill starts out by stating clearly the disregard for contracts, but, Mr. Speaker, a little later on page 7 in section 13 of the bill, the Minister clearly decries this lack of disregard for contract and wants to inject some longevity into contracts. He says:

"… the Crown in right of the province, notwithstanding that the person whose signature is so reproduced may not have held office at the date of the notes, bonds, debentures, or other securities or at the date of the delivery thereof, and notwithstanding that the person who holds any such office at the time when any such signature is affixed is not the person who holds that office at the date of the notes, bonds, debentures, or other securities or at the date of the delivery thereof."

He wants longevity to the contracts which he makes but he does not want to give any continuity of contract to contracts made before the date that he took office.

Mr. Speaker, we have to decry that kind of practice; we have to decry that kind of attitude. When we see the conflict that appears within a very few pages of each other, this bill clearly cannot be supported again in the area of the disregard for contracts.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this little chip bill — this little simple chip bill which has been more than two years in the making. It has been jelling slowly, waiting for the appropriate time in the British Columbia economy, waiting for some need to show itself, waiting for some point where the Minister could divide and conquer the woods industry. But be not mistaken; the woods industry is not divided.

The sawmills know and they know full well that they're being set up now for future problems. Perhaps they feel better the devil they know now than the devil down the road a little way. Perhaps they're hoping for a miracle. Or perhaps they're hoping, better still, for the defeat of this government.

The independent operators know that they have lost their independence of action. They know that once this bill passes, no longer will they be independent operators. They know that their independence has gone.

They had hoped, I'm sure, for a temporary measure to ease them over this current problem. They

[ Page 4890 ]

knew this government had ample power to do exactly that on a temporary basis. But this is not a temporary bill. This is not a simple solution to a pressing immediate problem. This simple little chip bill has nine pages of powers to give this Minister the power to control the forest industry. And that is his goal, without question — the goal of control of the forest industry.

We have seen in some other bills the power that this government has, and they passed it in the other segments of the economy. Everyone in this province has known that sooner or later the other shoe would fall.

An. Hon. Member: Clang!

Mr. Morrison: Clang, that's correct. This bill brings it down. You're absolutely right. Now we have it; now we have the other shoe.

We know it matters not what is said in this House concerning Bill 171, for we know — and I'm sure the public knows — that this government is determined to pass this legislation. And we know that in due course it will pass.

But let no one forget how this little bill was presented to this House. When we look back to this day, when we have the advantage of history, when we may look back through the eyes of history to the results of this legislation, when we see that the Minister wants the power to cancel all existing contracts…. But we also know that he wants his contract to live on long after he's gone. And incidentally, that can't be too soon for the majority of the people in British Columbia.

This bill, this contract is one of the most dangerous contracts that we're ever going to see in this province. When the public understands completely what has happened to their rights since this government came to power, when they see their tax dollars used to destroy the system by which they were attracted to this province originally, I'm sure that the public will express their wishes, and they will express them clearly at the ballot box.

Therefore, why not give us that opportunity soon? Why not give the public the opportunity to say what they think about this bill, and give them the opportunity to say so, too.

This bill will give the Minister a Crown corporation in direct competition to the operators, if he wishes. If he wishes. Those private operators will be required to give access to their confidential and competitive information — if he wishes. But the Crown corporation can be excluded from this part of the legislation — if he wishes.

The industry is not divided, but it is apprehensive. It is apprehensive of the powers which will end up in one man's hands — this Minister's hands.

I'm sure that the public understood the implications of Bill 74, when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) was given the power to spend from general revenue, and to purchase shares in any company. I'm sure that the public will understand this bill when they see the powers that Minister has — even wider powers — and powers which require the Minister of Finance, under sections 13, 14 and 15, to supply the money necessary for his various schemes.

The Minister said just a few minutes ago: "We're happy." Happy for what? Happy that the B.C. economy is in a decline? Happy that unemployment is rising? Or is he happy now that he has the opportunity to take complete control of the forest industry?

The responsibility is his: is he right? I don't think so, and I'm sure the public doesn't think so.

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate.

This rump group here, that's speaking for monopolies — H.R. MacMillan, Crown Zellerbach — tell us about your poll of the independent sawmills. How's it going, fellows? Have they told you: "Shut up; sit down; keep quiet. We need this bill to survive"?

What do you really think as businessmen? I was always more scared of the big competitor up the street, not the government, because the big competitor wanted every cent I had — he wanted me out of business. H.R. MacMillan would drive every small, independent sawmill operator out of business. And you people pretend you speak for free enterprise. You're the worst type; your party has sold out to monopoly.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the previous speaker who always has pearls of wisdom for us.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

Unlike the last speaker, I am not happy to take my place in this debate, because I'm sorry that we have this bill to debate in this Legislature in British Columbia in 1974.

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

Others more familiar with the forest industry and its complexities have observed — but I am satisfied — that it is, really, two bills, or perhaps a quarter of a

[ Page 4891 ]

bill and one and three-quarters of a bill. The smaller portion dealing with an immediate problem related to wood chips, and the other altering, or at least giving this Minister, during his term in office, an opportunity and full power to alter the entire forest industry structure as it has grown and prospered in British Columbia.

It will be in committee, I think — in third reading — that we will be able to deal with the very large percentage of the bill, which the Minister chose to overlook when he introduced second reading. He spent most of his time, as others have commented, on the wood chip section, which is really one section out of 21 in the some nine pages which comprise Bill 171. I think that is perhaps more significant than any comments which can be made by any Member of this House — that behind the smoke screen of wood whips, we have this total-control document.

Mr. Speaker, it's a negative bill. It is motivated by negativism, and it's destined, in our view, to do irreparable harm to an industry, to confidence in that industry, to expansion of that industry on any significant scale, and, ultimately, to hoped-for increased employment in all sectors of that industry. We have to ask why the Minister touched so lightly on really what this bill is all about and sent most of his time on chips. Again, the point must be made that, in general, this Act gives the B.C. Forest Products Board the power to do almost anything in the forest industry that the government or the Minister directs, without reference to this duly-elected Legislature. Let no one forget that vital point — without reference to this Legislature.

I've read many of the newspaper comments which have been published since this bill was introduced just a few days ago. I'm not going to quote the entire article in any case, Mr. Speaker. Jim Lyon in The Vancouver Sun says:

"The B.C. government's proposed Timber Products Stabilization Act, advertised as a measure aimed primarily at assisting the small independent sawmiller by increasing the prices he is to receive for his wood chips, was being viewed with alarm by forest industry executives. Many industry people, as they wrestled with the fine print of Bill 171's nine pages, saw in its provisions the potential for ultimate government control of all aspects of forest products marketing."

And later in the article:

"The consensus is that the NDP government has done nothing by the introduction of this bill to remove the investment uncertainty which has plagued the forest industry in the province since it" — that is, the government — "took power 2 1/2 years ago."

We won't forget this week in the history of British Columbia in terms of legislation which will exercise such tremendous control over one industry. But, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised because the intent of Bill 171 was telegraphed to the people of British Columbia very early this year when the MLA for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) spoke what is now about to become law. It was a speech which caused concern at that time. There were denials; there were suggestions that perhaps it was not interpreted quite the way in which it was intended, and so on. Nevertheless, the Minister did not deny it, and now we know why.

The Hon. Member, who is not in his seat at the present time — the Member for Alberni — is chairman of the legislative committee which deals with forestry. We now know that he was flying the kite; he was trying out the concept which is about to become law in British Columbia until it can be removed from the statute books by a new government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, an article in The Vancouver Sun relating to Australia screamed at me in terms of the comparison between the situation there, in a nation, admittedly, and here in British Columbia.

Again, with your permission — I'm not going to read all of the article. A number of Members may have seen it, but it is titled: "Aussie Confidence Blown". It's The Vancouver Sun, November 18:

"It has all happened so fast that no one down there is yet giving any satisfactory explanations. Just the other day, it seems, the Australian economy was doing fine — everything looked very good. No more. Suddenly the Australian economy is in bad shape and getting rapidly worse. Unemployment has more than doubled in 10 months — 140,000 workers, or almost 3 per cent of the work force now being jobless."

That percentage would be hailed with delight in British Columbia, but for Australia it is abnormally high. Later in the article:

"In the past two quarters the trade balance of exports and imports has swung sharply against Australia, after having been favourable for a decade. An alarming loss of confidence is discernable in the private sector of industry." —

An alarming loss of confidence is discernable. —

"Blame for this state of affairs is laid by the Australian community at the door of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's Labour government. Since coming to power two years ago, after 23 years in opposition, this government, according to its critics, has shown little understanding of economics realities. It chose to ignore inflation's dangers.

"Until a few months ago the Whitlam administration was taking steps such as yielding to the unions, approving large wage hikes

[ Page 4892 ]

throughout industry and boosting government spending, which added to the inflationary process. Economic nationalism was applied with such severity that the inflow of foreign capital investment was practically halted.

"An authoritative Sydney economic commentator, Brian Frith, wrote last week: 'If it is possible to solve the problems of an economy it has brought to the brink of collapse, the Labour government will have to show a lot more strength of purpose and a lot more economic understanding than it has so far.'"

The end of a lengthy article dealing with the problems in Australia which bear a marked similarity to what is developing in British Columbia.

We have a Minister of the Crown who now is finally in a position to exercise tremendous control and gross interference with this province's No. 1 industry. That's what he wants, and through this legislation, because of the government majority, that is what he is going to get.

I have to conclude with the observation that it does seem very strange that in spite of the heckling which has gone on back and forth across the chamber over the last couple of weeks, we have a mission in China at the present time — the Premier, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the government Whip (Mr. Barnes) and others. It seems very contradictory — contradictory in the extreme, as a matter of fact — that if the Chinese visit is really aimed at discussing and examining the possibility of expanded timber markets, that the Minister of Economic Development for this province (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who usually indulges in cross-talk and heckling from other than his own seat, is sitting here rather than in China, and that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is also here rather than in China. Where are they? They're not in China; they are here.

If we are to expand our forest markets, surely one or both of them should have been included in that group. Instead, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for this province, in this NDP government, is in this House undertaking what only can be described as a hatchet job on the British Columbia forest industry. And we won't forget it.

Interjection.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I thank you for that compliment.

I rise to express my opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker. But in one way I find it a little different to understand what all the fuss is about. Certainly, I don't think anyone in British Columbia should have been surprised that we are sitting here discussing this particular bill today. In fact, everybody in British Columbia probably should have been expecting exactly this bill if they had been watching this government, and particularly watching and listening to this Minister over the years.

This Bill 171 is the final proof that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is the major architect for major government policy and for the government's programme of state socialism.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill 171, is the final proof that that Minister, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is really the grey eminence behind the crown of King David.

We've all watched as this Minister has forced his influence to spread into every part of government in British Columbia as he plants his henchmen in every major government department, and as he has manipulated policy to reflect his own socialistic and slightly twisted, at times, views.

We've all watched in this province as that Minister brought in people like Dr. Mason Gaffney, and elevated the so-called think tank and the Environment and Land Use Secretariat into the two most powerful and influential bodies in the government structure of British Columbia today.

No, we shouldn't have been too surprised about this bill. While the Premier, who might be called the monkey in this little scenario, is off at play in China, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who can be referred to as the organ grinder, is laying the final planks in his road to socialism, British Columbia-style.

Nevertheless, while this Bill 171 comes as no surprise, it certainly should alarm all the people of British Columbia — even though they're not surprised. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are getting the message finally. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned that the people are finally getting alarmed over the route this government is taking and that this government isn't listening. I'd like to suggest that the majority isn't silent; the government is dead — that's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, like all true socialists, and like all true socialist bills, the true intent of this bill is bidden or obscured, at least, by a diversionary tactic. Of course, in this bill that diversionary tactic is just a simple section which refers to chip prices, and really has very little to do with the total intent of the bill.

In fact the Minister, during the opening debate on this bill, really only dealt with that one diversionary section dealing with chip prices, while he had an obligation to really tell the people of British Columbia exactly what he was up to. The bill is a smoke screen because the regulation of chip prices, as has been mentioned by other Members, could have been achieved by negotiation with the people involved. The Minister never even tried that route. He

[ Page 4893 ]

never even tried.

The title of this bill is the "Timber Products Stabilization Act." It should be called the "Williams for king" bill. Mr. Speaker, I can only feel pity for a Minister of the Crown who would allow the economy of this great province to be driven into the ground simply to satisfy his ideological urges. That's what we're seeing in this bill.

It's strange that every bill which has felt the influence of that Minister — as the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has pointed out already — always seems to have some provisions in it which allows for the wholesale cancellation of contracts. Here we see it again. The Minister certainly hasn't mended his ways concerning any kind of sanctity of legal agreement, probably because he doesn't understand the word "sanctity." He mends the contracts.

While the Minister dealt only, really, with wood chip prices, the bill is full of areas for which the people of British Columbia should be most concerned. Even in the establishment of the British Columbia Forest Products Board … simply another catch-basin for political appointees — hacks, friends of government. The same old story that we see in practically every bill that comes before this House.

In section 4(l) we have a section which allows Members of the Legislative Assembly to get on the gravy train and, I guess, to provide the court jesters for King Bob on the board.

Another section of the bill, section 19 is a simply incredible section in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations about anything, anytime, without any reference to the Act, apparently, without any reference to any kind of accountability on the part of that Minister. The cabinet may make regulations. That's the kind of power that Minister likes; that's the kind of power that Minister is going to have, come hell or high water; that's the kind of power that Minister will abuse once this bill is passed.

When he opened debate on this bill, the Minister didn't talk about the alarming discretionary power that will be vested in King Williams. Nowhere in this bill are there any sections which ensure that someone will be able to appeal those dictatorial regulations and rulings made by that Minister. Nowhere in this bill is there provision for appeal either against the decisions of the Minister, or the decisions of the board, or any of the officials of the board. Mr. Speaker, those kind of powers are frightening for the prospects of the future of this province.

Here is a bill that gives to a board arbitrary powers on matters which will have enormous, long-term and far-reaching significance to the economy of British Columbia. No appeal.

More particularly this board can make decisions that will effect, in a most immediate way, the economic survival of individual businesses and, indeed, individual men and women — many of them in your riding, Mr. Speaker — who have spent their lives establishing a business that they may be looking to as a hedge for their retirement, or perhaps to look after their families when they're gone.

Here in Bill 171 the Minister stands in this House and says that he wants to help the independent sawmills. What nonsense! The Minister gave the Legislature some figures that show there has been a reduction in the number of sawmills operating over the years. Probably that is due, in a large measure, because many of those small mills of old wasted just as much wood as they cut. Sawdust and chips were burned or left on the ground and the cost to produce 1,000 foot-board measure of lumber made many logging chances uneconomic.

Further, with the limited production facilities of many of the old-time sawmills, much of the wood was left in the bush because they couldn't economically convert the smaller logs into lumber. These were the bush mills that cut most of the lumber in the province at that time. It's far less costly to move the logs to central converting plants, rather than a number of small sawmills throughout the woods. Modern technology in recent years, most recent years, has advanced that trend.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to bring you up to date on a little bit of the history of things that happened in this industry in British Columbia. But you will recall, I'm sure, that to increase the utilization of these forests, the former government encouraged the construction of pulp mills, and incidentally, gave this province a much needed boost in its economy in so doing.

In the interior, many of these pulp mills have no facilities to consume whole logs, and they depend on their neighbours for their chip supply. The cost of a barking and chipping facility is about $1.5 million, a pretty considerable sum of money. Because it's so expensive, it wouldn't make very much sense to install this kind of machinery at every small mill which operates in the bush. Also, to ship the chips, the people had to locate on the railroad in order to facilitate that shipping. Thus the trend to centralization was started.

At first only the medium and the larger logs were put through the centralized sawmills. The former government, to improve the utilization of our forest industry worked out a plan that made it economic to bring that small wood to the sawmills. If you don't remember, Mr. Speaker, that was called close utilization. The loggers and the sawmills were given an incentive to turn that wood, formerly wasted, into lumber, pulp and paper. The waste was turned into jobs and income for the people of British Columbia. And what's wrong with that? Are you against that?

[ Page 4894 ]

Mr. Speaker, this close utilization programme worked effectively until the present Minister changed the way that stumpage charges were levied. The Minister took away the incentive which made that close-utilization programme work. He took away, as does this government in so many instances, and he didn't replace it with anything.

Instead of the Minister talking about the declining number of sawmills, he should be talking about the increased number of jobs that were provided when the former government's programme to encourage pulp mills in the interior was realized. More jobs, more income, for the people of British Columbia. That Minister should be talking about the jobs and wealth that were created by the former government's close-utilization programme, though he doesn't mention that.

To get back to the appeal procedures that are needed in this bill, Mr. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Member, before I leave the chair I would like to make one point — I didn't want to interrupt your speech. I'm quoting from comments made by Speaker Murray, January 31, 1969, as contained in the Journals page 25, of that year:

"Hon. Members, during the course of the debate, some Hon. Members, perhaps through inadvertence, have referred to other Members by their proper names. It is my duty to remind the House that from long-established usage, both in England and in Canada, a Member while speaking may not refer to any other Member in this manner, but only by his constituency or portfolio. Authority will be found in May, 17th edition, page 455 and Beauchesne, 4th edition, page 127."

The Hon. Member for Langley referred to the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) by his proper name….

Mr. McClelland: I never referred to the Member for Esquimalt at all, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I believe it was the previous Member in that case. But he did refer to the Hon. Premier by one of his proper names rather than by his title.

An. Hon. Member: King Williams, was that it?

Mr. McClelland: Oh, was that who I was talking about, Mr. Speaker, when I said King David? Oh, all right.

Deputy Speaker: When the personal name for the Hon. Member for Esquimalt was used…. And I believe one of the government Members also referred to an opposition Member by his proper name. I just draw this to the attention of the House.

Mr. McClelland: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): You are in Hansard for today. (Laughter.)

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, once again I must mention that there is a vital need within this bill, Bill 17 1, for some kinds of appeal procedures.

I'd like to pose the question of what might happen if the Minister, who has this total discretion under this bill, sets log prices that are so low that they could have the effect of bankrupting a logging company. Mr. Speaker, that could happen.

Well, maybe this Minister wouldn't do that, but we certainly have no assurance that that couldn't happen or wouldn't happen under the terms of this bill, because the Minister has total discretion and no appeal procedure is built in.

We see the situation that because the Minister today thinks the pulp economy is so profitable that he should raise the price of chips, and thereby take the profit from one group of people and give it to another. Politics and socialism setting the prices.

The same kind of situation confronted us in ICBC — politics and socialism setting rates in a major Crown corporation.

Now we see politics and hard-core socialism about to start setting the prices of products, and that's an appalling concept. Politics and hard-core socialism using distorted figures to arrive at the conclusion that the Minister wants to arrive at, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) pointed out so clearly. Politics and hard-core socialism using short, shallow, investigative inquiries that are rigged to get the right answer.

An. Hon. Member: Right on!

Mr. McClelland: What is the scenario to the makeup of the board? Well, we've heard already from the Member for South Peace River, and I don't have to repeat that for the Members of this Legislative Assembly, but they've got a token academic and a couple of people who are under the heel of the Minister. That's about the size of it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So the inquiry comes up. This year an inquiry came up — the B.C. Research Council, was it? — which showed that the price should be $60 per unit. Next year, what happens?

[ Page 4895 ]

An. Hon. Member: They refuse to look at the books.

Mr. McClelland: That's right. Refused offers to look at the books of the major pulp companies. The Minister ignored their letters. Nobody paid any attention to them. But they came out this year with a price of $60 per unit. Next year? What happens next year?

If the pulp mill prices decline, and if Can-Cel, the Minister's company, isn't making a profit, I wonder if we'll see a new study by some tame bears put in by the Minister to determine that chips are suddenly worth $10 a unit.

Politics in pricing. The second time in a major operation and a major part of this economy that we've seen this kind of politics in pricing. Because of this politics in pricing, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the value of the products that we sell in competition with the foreign markets will be a disaster. And what happens if a mistake is made — a mistake made on the kind of improper facts the Minister's been getting?

What happens if that mistake really precipitates the bankruptcy of a business operating in this province? Where's the right of appeal of that business? There's no right of appeal either from the board or from the Minister.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Not under Bill 171, Mr. Speaker. Not under the kind of hard-core socialism that we see in this bill. Not under the anti-business, emotional make-up of this Minister. There must be appeal procedures put into this bill.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned Rim Forest Products. That's a perfect example of the reason why there should be an appeal procedures built in. Rim Forest Products couldn't provide us with a clearer picture of what has happened, what will happen and what could happen under the total discretionary powers of the Minister and the board. For those of you who don't know about Rim, it was a company located in Hazelton which went bankrupt and had to close down because of a clerical error. The company had a stumpage assessment of 35 per cent of the total value of their lumber produced, higher than any other company in the province. In 1973 Can-Cel had stumpage of 6 per cent of their sales — compared to 35 per cent. Yet Can-Cel had stumpage of 6 per cent of their sales.

In Rim's case an error of valuation was made by the Forest Service — an error. The department used the lumber sales value in no way applicable to Rim.

The overcharge was at least $0.5 million. There was a $500,000 overcharge and no appeal. No appeal. If there was any justice, and if this Minister had any genuine desire to help independent sawmills, he'd give that $0.5 million back to Rim Forest Products and let them get back to work and put those employees back to work as well.

Do you know what happened to Rim Forest Products? I had the good fortune to be up in Terrace at the same time that our illustrious Premier was in Terrace, with his smiling fact plastered all over the newspapers, asking people to come and talk with him. As a matter of fact the Premier even told them that they were having a public inquiry into the affairs of Rim Forest Products, and that he'd like people to come and talk to them about that as well.

He said, "Come on and see us; we want to hear about you. We'd like anyone who has any kind of an interest in Rim Forest Products to come to this public meeting."

What happened, Mr. Speaker, when that public meeting was held? The doors were locked, barred and chained, and you couldn't get in unless you flashed your NDP card first. Do you realize that? Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? And the local constituency paid for the ad.

Mr. Speaker, the bank manager, who held a substantial piece of paper on Rim Forest Products, was told: "Well, we don't really think you have an interest in this; you shouldn't be at this meeting." That was the bank manager who held the note of Rim Forest Products.

The secretary of the loggers' association was told: "I'm sorry, you don't have any interest in this." The directors of the company were told: "I'm sorry, you don't have any interest in this association."

A fellow came all the way up from Terrace, on the basis of the Premier's comments on the radio, to go to this meeting. He had some bills the company owed him for some trucks that he had sold. He was told that he couldn't come in. Who told him that? It was the president of the local NDP association, who locked and barred the doors of that public meeting and didn't allow anyone who had a serious interest in the affairs of that company to come in. Whether they were employees, shareholders, creditors, or whoever they were, they were barred because they had the wrong kind of card.

Mr. Speaker, that's the exact kind of thing that the opposition has been warning the people of British Columbia about. We've been saying that unless you have an NDP card, unless you're like the Minister of Northern Affairs' executive assistant, and are a good party worker, you don't have any place in the affairs of British Columbia. That's the sad scene, Mr. Speaker, and one that must be eradicated as quickly as possible.

Anyway, what happened to Rim? Can-Cel refused

[ Page 4896 ]

to pay the rate of stumpage charged by the Forest Service on the pulp logs that Can-Cel was contracted to buy. Can-Cel refused. Under that contract Can-Cel was to buy Rim's pulp logs at the cost of logging plus the stumpage. But the Minister's company refused to pay the stumpage and left $80,000 unpaid under this contract.

Mr. Phillips: That's how they made a profit.

Mr. McClelland: That's how they made a profit — stealing from the little guy, while the company makes the profit. They wouldn't pay an account payable. That's what it was, Mr. Speaker — an account payable.

What happened next? Can-Cel moved in like a vulture to take over Rim Forest Products. Break and take: that's the policy of this government — break and take. Where was the Minister? Where was the MLA, who sat back on the sidelines and watched all this happening? He watched while a company in his own area, affecting the constituents in his own area, went under, ruined by the practice of this government.

There has to be some kind of an appeal procedure built into this bill to protect an individual's business from the socialists, or from clerical errors by the bureaucracy. Without any kind of appeal procedure those errors can go unchecked, and that's not fair. Bill 171 has no appeal procedure. Without it this province is going to be scattered with Rim Forest Products — businesses set up and then taken over because of the power-hungry appetite of a government bent on controlling everything in this province by boards, commissions, secretariats, or a bureaucracy of one sort of another, particularly the kind of board that is set up which ensures a conflict of interest among its Members, Mr. Speaker, people with a bias and a blatant conflict of interest making the kind of life-and-death decisions that will affect the very economy of this province for years and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 171 hides the true meaning. But a study of the history of things that have happened in the socialist development of this country will show where the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources wants to lead this province. His leadership holds out a frightening prospect for the future of British Columbia.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources isn't original, but then socialists seldom are. They're neither original nor practical. But then history is full of power-mad people who don't have any regard for the consequences of their actions.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Mr. McClelland: He's not original. All you have to do is to look back into the development of socialism in this province, starting with the Calgary programme in 1932. The No. 1 priority of that programme was the system of socialization of the production, distribution and exchange of all goods and services.

Then we move on to the Regina Manifesto in 1933 — socialization of all transportation, communications, electric power and all other industries and services essential to social planning, and their operation under the general direction of the planning commission, which was something else. I don't know whether that's Williams or Orwell, but it's one of the two.

It also said that that management by the planning commission would be freed from the day-to-day political interference. Does that sound like what happened at ICBC, or what will happen under this vicious bill? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. Again, the manifesto of that year as well insists that the resources be brought under control of public ownership. The election manifesto of 1944, Mr. Speaker. Once again — that was passed in Montreal — public ownership of resource industry. Bill 171 ….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member would indicate where this deals with that subject. I can't see it in the bill.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I would commend you to go out and read….

Mr. Speaker: What section are you referring to?

Mr. McClelland: I'm not allowed to read the section-by-section….

Mr. Speaker: I have to determine whether a person is speaking beside the principle of the bill or speaking to the principle of the bill. I would like your assistance in telling me which section you say deals with that principle so that I would know.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I have no obligation to tell you which section….

Mr. Speaker: I have the obligation to the House…. . .

Mr. McClelland: The whole bill deals with what this socialist government wants to do to the people of B.C. The whole bill — every section.

Mr. Speaker: My question to the Hon. Member is whether he would indicate how it does speak to the principle of the bill in what he's saying.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill is a socialist bill. It provides for the takeover

[ Page 4897 ]

of the forest industry. It allows the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to have total, unbridled powers in the development of the forest economy, which is socialistic in nature. The whole bill is permeated with that kind of tripe. That's why we're talking about the socialist manifestos.

Mr. Speaker, I'm building a case that will show that this bill is a takeover bill, nothing more and nothing less, and that's my right under debate of the principle of the bill; and I thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'm still not sure what section you're referring to.

Mr. McClelland: Well, read the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you'll be kind enough to tell me.

Mr. McClelland: Section 1, Mr. Speaker — section 2 really doesn't apply — section 3, section 4, section 5, section 6, section 7, section 8, section 9, section 10, section 11, section 12, section 13, section 14, section 15, section 16, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21, the explanatory note and the title. Now does that satisfy you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, it doesn't, because you haven't indicated at all how it has anything to do with….

Mr. McClelland: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the whole bill has to do with what I'm talking about. Now let me get on with it and I'll finish as briefly as possible.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my time has been suspended while you interrupted me.

Mr. Speaker: I have a heard a great deal of discussion that is not related to the general principle of the bill. I'm trying to draw the attention of the Member to the fact that you must speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. McClelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has my time been suspended while you interrupted me with your points — about four minutes? I don't intend that my time is taken up by your speeches.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the Hon. Member has an obligation to speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. McClelland: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill has to do with socialism and the take-over of the forest industry in British Columbia.

It makes it very clear that the Minister has the kind of power which this opposition has been warning the people of British Columbia about for so many years.

I'm only saying that this bill is not really original. It takes its origin from the manifestos of the past, delivered by the various socialist conventions throughout the years.

We move on from the Winnipeg manifesto into the new party declaration in 1961 when the NDP was established. "Once again we'll establish and expand public ownership" — which is quite a part of this bill, in allowing the Minister and the board to go into public ownership and marketing of forest products, and if you can't see that in the bill, Mr. Speaker, read it again — "and the operation of major enterprises."

I wonder if the people of British Columbia are listening when we talk about that. Then we go into the Waffle Manifesto, which shows most clearly that the NDP will work for the nationalization of Canadian resource industries. It gets even more specific than that later on under the terms of the manifesto and says: "The NDP must commit itself to the immediate nationalization of resource industries and financial institutions and to the public ownership of major corporations." Are the people of British Columbia listening, Mr. Speaker?

The resources, the manufacturing, the transportation, the financial corporations. The real thrust says: "The corporations which obstruct nationalization by economic sabotage or other undemocratic means will be expropriated." Over and over and over again we see the thrust of this government which has been developed over all of these years. While it isn't original, it's certainly frightening, Mr. Speaker.

Then we move right into the Williams manifesto of 1971, in which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources said:

"First of all, we should establish an equity position by every right in every mine in British Columbia. The acquisition of privately-owned corporations in the resources field prior to major resource tax changes would be a mistake, because the market price of those companies would be grossly inflated because of the wide range of tax dollars."

I don't know whether that's Williams or Gaffney, but it doesn't matter, because the thoughts are interchangeable. Mr. Gaffney — or Professor Gaffney or Dr. Gaffney — said: "It's much more sensible to nationalize by taxation rather than takeover." Break and take, it's as simple as that — break and take. That's the principle of this bill, and it will establish that principle for all time so long as this government is in power.

The Williams manifesto of 1971 says clearly: "that the NDP place major industries such as pulp, paper,

[ Page 4898 ]

lumber, mining, manufacturing, transportation, communications and finance under public ownership." It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: "Under the NDP government, MacMillan Bloedel and other leading forest companies would have priority in being nationalized." That's the Williams manifesto. I wonder if Dennis Timmis heard about that one? The Williams manifesto — the paper that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources delivered to the NDP convention in 1971….

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of the Minister's dream. The machinery has now been delivered in the form of this bill. The process of manufacturing a socialist Utopia, Williams style, can now be begun in earnest because of this bill, Bill 17 1. The King Williams bill is here, Mr. Speaker.

The economy of British Columbia is dying; long live the king.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, would you defer for a second on a point of order?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): The point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker: there is an established tradition in this House that when a debate takes place on the principle of the bill, it becomes wide-ranging. As long as the speaker who is on his feet relates his remarks to the principle of the bill, it has been a tradition that this House will allow the Member to proceed. I think it little behooves the Speaker of this House to run interference, on behalf of the cabinet Minister….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Smith: …whose legislation is under attack, by the manoeuvre that you pulled on the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty to see that the Member speak to the question before the House. I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that I asked him to indicate to what section he referred. It was on the subject of his discussion. He did not indicate that. To merely recite 18 sections and say "they all indicated that" is really not an answer to my question.

He was entitled to speak for his whole time. He continued to speak in the same vein and he did not use all his time. I want to point out that, so far as I'm concerned, he still hasn't indicated to the House or to me the particular section he refers to that dealt with the principle he was espousing.

My job is to determine whether or not a Member is speaking to the principle of the bill, and I like to get all the assistance from the House I can. So I think that I quite fairly asked him to indicate to what section he was directing his remarks. He did not do that, in my opinion.

Now the matter simply rests there.

Mr. Smith: You, yourself, know that in times past people have been ruled out of order and asked to change their line of debate when they referred specifically to sections in second reading of a bill; but the debate in second reading is on principle of the bill, not upon the sections themselves.

Mr. Speaker: I agree entirely with the Member that it's on the principle of the bill, but that does not allow us to import everything into the debate. We must somehow relate it to the particular subject of the bill.

What I'm trying to indicate to the Hon. Member — using an abstract case as an example — is that if the subject happens to be about how one disposes of stray dogs in the community, then, of course, you don't debate the principle of how you deal with stray cats.

This was the problem. I was trying to find out from the Member how he related the remarks to any of the sections of the bill. I haven't yet heard from him where it dealt with the subject that he was discussing.

I've read the sections — I read them and I've listened to the Hon. Member — but he didn't assist me. He said, for example, that section 5 related to the principle of the bill. When you read that section, it has to do with the appointments of directors.

If you look at something else — section 7 — it deals with " … the objects of the board are…the power to improve the performance of markets for forest products, and to encourage the utilization of timber in the province."

Now that does not, as I see it, with great respect, deal with the subject of nationalization.

Now if we're dealing with a subject of nationalization, then I say by all means debate it. But if we are not dealing with that subject, then surely it's going beyond the principles of the bill.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, just because you don't understand the bill is not my fault, and we can't help that.

Mr. Speaker: That's the assistance I asked from this Member, but you didn't give it to me.

Mr. Lewis: Seeing that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) had such latitude in discussing the bill, I hope that I'll have the same chance to respond.

Interjections.

[ Page 4899 ]

Mr. Lewis: I'd just like to say that I'm indeed honoured to stand in support of Bill 171. The speeches by the Members at the far end of the House — the Socreds — just amaze me. They're so far to the right that the Conservatives look like Communists. (Laughter.)

As a matter of fact, the Conservatives weren't far enough to the right, and one of their Members crossed the floor so he could get in with a group that was away over to the right. It's the first time I've ever seen anything crawl onto a sinking ship.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I've heard the Member stand up and speak about the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources as being dangerous. I ask the House to take a look at the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Does he look dangerous?

To me he looks like a trustworthy Minister, one who's got a kind heart, one who has the respect of the forest industry in this province. The Minister has such respect from the forest industry that Doman's have just announced that they are prepared to build a $7 million mill on Vancouver Island — just today while this debate is going on.

It is my view that Doman's feel that they are going to be protected under this bill; they are going to have a chance to survive among the — I shouldn't say cutthroats — but among the very large corporates which have been able to use their power in the past to overwhelm the smaller producers.

You know, they speak about this bill being strong and powerful — that it's a takeover bill. Well, these Members supported the Milk Marketing Board bill. Did I hear any hollering about taking over the farmers? Not one bit. But when it comes to the large forest companies, they sing a different song. When it comes to discussing landlord and tenant legislation, they are on the landlords'. side. When it comes to talking about minerals, and returning something to the people of the province, they are on the mining companies' side.

At least the Liberals and Conservatives will just come out and it is against their philosophy. They don't go around crying and screaming until everybody in the province is starting to worry that maybe the Socreds have lost their sense. And I think by now they are certainly convinced of it.

I worked for 10 years in the logging industry. I worked for large corporations. I worked for small logging companies. I'll tell you that during that 10 years I had better treatment from small, independent logging companies than I ever received from large corporate giants.

I can remember one time when I was on a job towing cable up the hill by hand, 5/16 cable. We started out with about six men pulling this cable up, and I'll tell you it was a real sweatshop. We just got started and another boss came along and said: "Five of you guys come with me." Well, I was pulling for all I was worth and finally the boss at the head of the line said: "How many of you guys down there are pulling?" I said: "Just me." He said, "Well, then, spread out." (Laughter.)

I live in a riding and represent a riding that's totally made up of independent sawmills. Just out of my riding is a pulp mill. It's a Crown resource that's being harvested, yet the pulp mill is in a position to be a monopoly, to write a contract without the proper escalating values in it. The independent sawmills have suffered, and there is no way they have had any recourse.

I'll tell you right now that the independent logging companies and independent sawmills are mighty proud of this Minister we have today. They talk about Can-Cel and they say: "Oh, it's takeover." They talk about the very good purchase that the Minister made, and say that this is terrible; it should never have happened. Well, it seems to me that those Members have a very, very, very short memory.

Back in 1961, July 31, at a time when the NDP and CCF were having their formation convention, the then Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) called the House into session, a special session. You know what that session was for? They introduced Bill 5, the Power Development Act. It gave them the power to expropriate the B.C. Electric.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lewis: You know, we've been in power two years, and they spread their doom and gloom and say we are going to take everything over. We haven't expropriated one thing. They expropriated the B.C. Electric.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I have already drawn to the attention of the Member preceding you that this question has not been explained to me, in the bill, as to how it relates to the matters of general principle which we are supposed to be debating.

I quote from May, page 529 of the 16th edition, so that all members may be aware of the problem that faces the Speaker on this question of debate and the stages of a bill:

"In second reading it should not be extended to a criticism of the administration, or of relating to the same or cognate subjects, or provisions of other bills."

The general rule is that it should speak to the particular matters confined in the bill.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you are, in effect, I suppose, answering the other speaker who went into the general history of everything, including the

[ Page 4900 ]

administration. But the real purpose of debate on this is to deal with the subject of the bill itself, and confine one's remarks to that bill.

Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for you. As a matter of fact, I admire you. But you haven't been successful in the past in keeping the opposition inside the terms. I feel they have been an advantage to the government and I feel that I should have an answer to explain that we are not a government that would expropriate anything. We are nice people; we are not like them.

When they took over the B.C. Electric, those free-enterprising businessmen, you know that they don't even have the right in that bill for an independent appraisal? There is no right of appeal — the same thing they've been screaming and crying about.

This Minister and this government is here to see that the people in this province, the small people, the independent operators, have a chance to survive. If the corporate structure had been allowed to increase, we would not have had a free enterprise society in B.C., we would have had a dictatorship.

This government has shown real leadership. We haven't gone into any giveaway deals like the Wenner-Gren deal. You've seen old Wenner-Gren there — one-tenth of the province — that was what they were willing to give away.

Then they talk about who is going to be on this board. Well, I'll just give you one of the directors who was on Wenner-Gren — Einar Gunderson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lewis: Do you know that at that time he was vice-president of the B.C. Railroad? He was also a director on the British Columbia Toll and Highway Authority. He was a director of the Canadian Imperial Bank, Blackball Ferries and Dieks & McBride.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: But he was a different man — they weren't worried about him. It's just amazing how they could worry about us when we are so much nicer, friendlier and more trustworthy.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to stay within the terms of this bill if I can. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: The trouble is that this is what happens in this kind of debate — if one ranges far, the other wants to follow him.

Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me and let me get even, then we'll call it even from then on and move on. (Laughter.)

An. Hon. Member: Must you pick on him too?

Mr. Lewis: You've heard about the MacMillan boys and the concessions they were given. They were in a position where they could sell our natural resources, our gas, into the American market for one-third less than what B.C. people had to pay for it here. That's a real free enterprise government. It's just amazing — there are all kinds of other ones: there's Bulkley River; Bulkley Valley Forest Products, large tracts of land; the coal giveaways.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people in British Columbia don't have to worry about this Minister. He's here to protect them. He's not here to see that those types of giveaways ever take place in this province again. .

I support the bill 100 per cent. I'll go out in my riding and support it; I'll support it anywhere else in the province.

Mr. Smith: Goodbye, goodbye!

Mr. Lewis: The Socreds…they've got Dead Ed and all the rest of them down there (laughter)…they are saying goodbye. And the real free enterpriser who may come in somewhere is little Scotty Wallace — he's the only one who has really got any principles. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I must say that it really isn't proper to attribute to any other Member a lack of principle in the House. I wonder if the Hon. Member would withdraw that?

Mr. Lewis: I'm sorry. I withdraw the name.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to end second reading, especially after hearing from the Member for Shuswap, a genuine representative of the people of British Columbia. He lays it on the line and says that that crew over there for 20 years wanted to protect a monopoly pattern in the forest industry of British Columbia. That's what the official opposition stood for throughout their 20 years.

They talk about the need for better chip prices but they are going to vote against the bill. They talk about the need for better chip prices for the independent sawmillers, but they're going to vote against the bill What's their history in terms of independent sawmillers in this province during their tenure as a government? We reviewed it — the whole question of the decline of independent sawmills in this province — and it's worth repeating.

[ Page 4901 ]

In 1955, under Robert Sommers, 2,489 sawmills; in 1956, 2,435 sawmills; in 1972 — the end of Social Credit — 603 sawmills. Under their jurisdiction the independent sawmillers declined by some 1,800-odd mills over 17 years. The average decrease of sawmills in the province under Social Credit was 111 a year; that's one mill every 3 1/4 days that went under during the Social Credit tenure. In the last 17 years under Social Credit one sawmill every 3 1/4 days. Under the NDP in 1973 the numbers had increased by 207. Under the NDP in 1973 one new sawmill went into operation every 1.8 days — every couple of days.

You talk about distorted figures. We presented three volumes from the research council to this House yesterday — work over the past year by top-notch people in the research council — independently done by the research council with independent information.

You talk about token academics. Dr. Pearse is the outstanding forest economist of British Columbia. What nonsense! And don't talk about tokenism; Dr. Pearse ran for the Liberal Party a few years ago.

The work of the B.C. Research Council was reviewed again this fall by the research council, and we weren't satisfied that enough had been done. We turned it over to the Department of Commerce at the University of British Columbia — hardly a left-wing group.

The senior people in the Department of Commerce at the University of British Columbia concluded that the BCRC work was conservative, that in fact the reports were loaded in favour of the pulp mills and that $60 per unit was, in fact, conservative — that they could pay more, that they, in fact, could pay more and still have a 20 per cent rate of return.

Interjections.

Hon. R.A. Williams: It was conservative. The figures are there for anybody to see. Pulp prices have doubled in less than two years. Two years ago or less the price was $170 a ton; it's now trading at $340 a ton. Chip prices went from $10 to $20. The raw material for the pulp went from $10 to $20 and the pulp giants went from $170 to $340. That's the name of the game, when you're the oligopoly boss in a regional situation, as the pulp mills are in this province.

Interjection.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Improper facts, he says over there in the opposition. You write off the research council; you write off the work of the research council over the last year; you write off the work of Dr. Pearse; you write off the work of the school of commerce, and there's additional work continuing to go on on this subject. We're satisfied that all kinds of information should be brought to bear before a decision is finally made on the question of chip prices.

But the only story that the official opposition wants to hear is that the big boys are right. That's the only story they want to hear. You talk about the tame bear; the tame bears are all over there, and they're all mouthing the monopoly line. They're all mouthing the monopoly line.

They talk about Rim Resources, the terrible problem of Rim Resources, a company that was funded generously with federal aid because they were hiring Indians — hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal money because they were hiring Indians — welfare to the company. It was a company that didn't have enough capital to operate adequately, and they say so. But you ignore that.

Well, what about the people in the regions? How do they feel about it? Would they prefer to see a local operator operating in that area? I think so. Ask the Indians. They would like to participate in the development of that mill. It's just the sort of thing we've established at Burns Lake, where the Indians, status and non-status, could have equity and be part of the industrial development of their region. That's the kind of possibility many of the people in Hazelton are hoping for, not stop-go management based down in Vancouver, with even the local manager not even living in the town.

You even get it from the right-wing groups of the northwest. Here's a letter I just got a while ago from the Northwest Loggers' Association. How do they feel about Rim? I wonder what they'd like to see in the future for Rim Resources. The letter of November 6 addressed to me says:

"The Northwest Loggers' Association are interested to know whether you might consider a proposal for the independent loggers to become involved in the Rim Forest Products operation in Hazelton, as many of our members in Hazelton have more experience in the industry of that area than anyone else that has made a proposal.

"The thing we do not wish to do is hold up in any way the opening of Rim as early as possible for the good of the area. Our proposal is to hire the present manager, Jack Dellett, as I doubt you could find a better man for the job."

They further propose 24 per cent of the company for the village of Hazelton — kind of a socialist idea.

"Hazelton might own 24 per cent of the company in their town boundary, which would include the workers in the mill and anyone else in the area that wanted to be part of it."

Under the proposal 24 per cent would go to the northwest loggers, who would pay back a government loan by collecting 50 cents a cunit, or whatever amount was needed to cover the loan.

[ Page 4902 ]

But where would the majority go under the proposal? There would be 52 per cent to Can-Cel, Canadian Cellulose, which the northwest loggers say is in the best position to market the products on the world market.

They don't want to go into more details at this time; they want to hear from me. They trust we will give this our consideration.

Who's it signed by? "Yours truly, Cyril M. Shelford, secretary-manager." That's the former Minister of Agriculture. You just can't keep a good idea down. After a period of time, even Cyril sees the benefit of public ownership in the forest sector. Amazing — just amazing!

Interjections.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Yes, good old Cyril, standing on principle again. It's just great to see. It's just great to see.

Interjections.

Hon. R.A. Williams: They talk about the kind of legislation that's brought in. You know, they talk about this being venal legislation, tremendous powers, on and on, in the old recycle of the old speeches that you gave with the mining bill, which was a 5 per cent tax on the mines. Five per cent is the same as a housewife has to pay when she buys clothes — 5 per cent on the mining companies of the province.

Interjection.

Hon. R.A. Williams: You said the same thing about the Land Commission bill. It was the beginning of the end. It was the great socialist takeover again. Now this bill is the great socialist takeover. Surely to God we're going to hear that one of our bills is redundant, because you claim we've taken everything over.

But when you boys had the power, when you boys were writing the bills — great lumps of bills — what kind of words did you put in them? What kind of words did you put in them? Let's look at your labour relations bill; let's look at the kind of words you put in there.

Section 84, 1960 — right in the middle of the reign of old…. Right in the middle: "Every regulation, order, decision or determination, or any other act or thing made, given or done by or on behalf of the Minister……

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It relates exactly the way the debate has related so far. The debate so far has been attacking the government on their side, and now you're not prepared, apparently, to have a defence of the attack that you made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Surely, if you open the door one side, the door is swinging. (Laughter.)

Hon. R.A. Williams: The only point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, was that even in 1960 they'd plugged in the wartime labour relations and regulations Act. They took wartime powers even in 1960. But we're just….

Interjections.

Hon. R.A. Williams: What was the excuse for wartime power? That was in relation to the workers, not the companies. You could use wartime powers against the workers, but not the companies of British Columbia. It's pretty clear the kind of regulations, the kinds of statutes, that that government — that former government — was willing to write when they were in the driver's seat.

This bill means that the independents of this province will continue to grow and flourish as they have under the NDP government.

As the Member or Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) said, in the back pages of the press this morning there was noted the expansion of the Doman sawmill at Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island — $7 million or $8 million plus land costs and other development costs. That's on the back page. A mill that never got off the drawing board, a mill that was never geared to going into production, is the one that hit the front page.

This reminds me of the kind of stuff we used to read in The Province when Frank McMahon said that if the NDP was elected, 10,000 jobs would go, 50,000…. That kind of phony roar back is par for the course.

But it's clear: this legislation will mean that we will begin to see a free market on the lower coast of British Columbia. A free market in logs on the lower coast of British Columbia will mean that the integrateds will, at long last, have to shape up. They will have to compete with the small sawmills that, I believe, are the most efficient in the province. I do not believe that MacMillan Bloedel is the most efficient operator in the province by a long shot.

I do not believe that bigness is best. I do believe that small mills, like Doman, are doing a far superior job and I do believe that an independent, log-trading, genuine free-market on the lower coast will transform the industry on the lower coast to the benefit of all the people of the province with far better utilization. I do believe that the independents in the interior of

[ Page 4903 ]

the province will flourish with better chip prices aside from the control of the pulp oligopoly that controls prices totally today in the interior of British Columbia.

Negotiate the opposition says — negotiate. The owner of a small sawmill is to negotiate the price with the $200 million owner of the big pulpmill. Now that is really negotiation between equals, isn't it? A regional monopoly; transportation advantages that the pulp mills have; and they say, "negotiate." The only real negotiation there has been between the pulp sector and the independent sawmill sector has been recently when it's become abundantly clear the government was going to move and see to it that the independents were treated fairly. Only then have we seen real movement in terms of negotiation from the pulp giants of the province.

If you are against monopoly, Mr. Speaker, you vote for this bill; if you want to see the independents flourish, you vote for this bill; if you want to see open markets in logs on the coast of British Columbia, you vote for this bill; if you want the monopolies to flourish, then you vote against this bill. It's like the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) said, Mr. Speaker: "Whose side are you on, boys?" Whose side are you on? Is it the mining companies? Is it the pulp oligopoly? We know whose side you are on, and let's put it on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 13

Bill 171, Timber Products Stabilization Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 168.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 168; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 1.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this legislation is not law, but I wonder if the Minister is aware of whether or not a collective agreement, or a form of collective agreement, has been prepared either by the board or by either of the parties. Is there a document in existence which can be signed today?

Hon. Mr. King: Section 3 actually deals with Armor elevator, which is separate from the other four companies in that they had voluntarily negotiated their own collective agreement. This section allows that freely-bargained contract to stand without imposing the conditions that were imposed through the Ontario arbitration and through the industrial inquiry commission in British Columbia on Armor. It extends simply to the four companies which have not reached agreement.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name to section 4.

Amendments approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper to section 5.

[ Page 4904 ]

Amendments approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Section 6 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 168, Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 166, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 166; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, regarding subsection (3):

"The Minister may establish such branches or divisions of the department as he considers advisable."

I just want to make the point, as we did in second reading that, while this bill is intended to simplify and streamline the functions of the Department of Health to meet modern demands on health services, subsection (3) still gives the Minister the very free power to set up all kinds of subsections of his department.

I would just want our party to sound this note of caution: administration isn't the be-all and the end-all of this department or any other department. In the health-services field, I would hope the Minister would handle this privilege under subsection (3) with the greatest care and attention and, under a new top level of administration, go on to establish all too easily and often at the behest of people who don't really know exactly what is required, various branches and divisions of his department.

I have every faith in this Minister that he won't do that. But one of the real fears I have in this bill is that in section 2(3) some future Minister of Health who is a bureaucrat from the word go will utilize this authority in an ill-considered way.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I wish to move an amendment appearing in the name of the Minister of Health to the schedule on section 120.

Amendment approved.

Schedule as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 166, Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 170, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 170; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: We had announced that the Minister of Transport and Communications would be piloting this through. Until he returns to the House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) will be ready to answer questions.

On section 1.

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I move the amendment on that section in the name of the Minister of Finance.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): I wonder if the Minister who is piloting this bill would indicate, inasmuch as section 1 is really virtually all of the bill, if the Assessment Authority of British

[ Page 4905 ]

Columbia is fully operational at this point and able to complete the assessment rolls which will be required for 1975. Is there any degree of understaffing? There have been reports that this is the case.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: There will be no problem, as I understand it, to get the roll out. On the question of understaffing, I think that's a valid point. I think there has been understaffing for a great number of years. I think that's still the case, although there have been changes in the last few months of getting new people as we were instructed in the committee.

Mr. Curtis: It's fortunate that the Minister is handling this one at the moment. I wonder if he would indicate, since we are dealing with section 1, what the input of the Department of Municipal Affairs was in the preparation of this section which speaks to the heart of the question of assessments for the next year at least.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: The Department of Municipal Affairs had a limited input into the bill. It was a Department of Finance bill.

Mr. Curtis: Perhaps the Minister would care to expand on that when he is next on his feet. Did you see it when it was in draft or was it referred to you before the action was actually taken and the bill went for printing?

It's my understanding that it was the intent to divide the province into a number of assessment areas as provided for in the main Assessment Act which is being amended here. Has that division been completed? Is the province now set out in specific assessment areas? And if so, how many are there?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: The commission is still working on that division. The B.C. assessment commission is working at that aspect of it. I don't believe that a final decision of the exact boundaries has been reached by the commission. As I understand it, they're working on 10 different areas of the province. They will carry on looking at the 100 per cent roll to determine what would be the result on a 100 per cent roll in the interim period.

As far as whether I had any input into this bill, I was around and did have a few minor discussions.

Mr. Curtis: One of the points raised on both sides of the House at the time of debate in second reading was the need for a clearer understanding by the general public, and hence some sort of public relations or public information campaign — public information, to be fair — to explain the assessment procedure. I wonder if this is contemplated via the Department of Finance under whose name this bill appears or by your department in connection with the 1975 assessments.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: It is intended that there will be a full explanation of the assessments for the next period to go to everyone. It will be well advertised and people will understand what is in progress at this particular time. That is a recommendation, I think, by the committee, and it will be carried out by the Department of Finance.

Mr. Curtis: Is it considered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that all sections in the Municipal Act which deal with the assessment function, particularly Part 9 of Division 1 of the Municipal Act, are not contradictory to the intent of the bill? There is reference there to the assessment process and various mechanisms which are brought into play.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: It is my opinion that they're not contradictory. In due course I would expect that a number of those sections would be deleted from the Municipal Act. Eventually, the whole assessment procedure will be in one Act of the province and not in four or five Acts.

Mr. Curtis: Subsection (7) of section 1 which is before us at the moment says, as you can see, Mr. Chairman:

"Notwithstanding subsection (6), the commissioner may, for the purpose of correcting disparities in assessment that may exist within a class of land and improvements, reduce the assessment of any land and improvements."

It is suggested that this is poorly-defined and that it indeed may be bad tax law.

In his comments closing second reading, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), according to Hansard, said:

What happens to courts of revision under new legislation? That was another Member's question. They continue to function pursuant to section 33 of the Assessment Act. The appeal process is unchanged and, as a general rule, the commissioner would not investigate a possible disparity until after the courts of revision are finished in the spring.

The Minister of Finance's remarks at that time made no reference at all to boards of appeal. We are very unclear here as to precisely when, according to this subsection, the commissioner would get involved in the correction of disparities.

The Minister of Finance indicated that it won't happen before the court of revision but he left unanswered the question of boards of appeal. So would it happen before that or would it be the final stage of appeal for an individual who believes that there is a hardship or a disparity or an injustice in a particular assessment?

[ Page 4906 ]

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, I can't answer that question as to what the policy will be in reference to the statements made by the Minister of Finance whose jurisdiction this bill will come under.

I might say that there is really nothing new in section 7. The commissioner has always had the power to amend or change assessments if there is a case where there has been a disparity or some odd situation has occurred in the case of property within a class. The commissioner has always had the power to change this. So there is really nothing new.

I think it changes at any time before or after the appeal periods. The Minister, as I understand, from what you have read out, says that it will be after the appeal period in which this would take place. So I can't answer that part of it.

Mr. Curtis: However, the Minister of Finance is quoted in Hansard as saying it would occur after courts of revision. I think the committee should understand that he was silent on the next step.

We do want to see some means whereby individuals can have access to someone as long as it is an impartial review. But there are now three appeals and there is no provision at any point in this subsection with respect to the costs which face the individual appellant.

He will go to court of revision and this may not be in a place convenient to his permanent residence. He would then go to board of appeal or to the assessment commissioner, whichever would come first. He certainly is going to be put to a great deal of time and effort and expense in going through not one, not two, but possibly, if he really wishes to pursue it, three individual appeals. I just wonder if the Minister would comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, I think the taxpayer, as you say, has about three or four separate rights of appeal. In expense, you are talking about time rather than dollars. I don't think there will be much expense in the case of dollars. I agree that there is expense in the case of time, but I don't know what the answer for that is, really. It's unfortunate that appeals do take time but I think we have to live with that part. I don't think anything can really be done about that.

Mr. Curtis: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is money involved here in terms of expense which may apply to an appellant who has to travel some distance. In my own riding, with the assessment office in Ganges, there are ferries to be taken from one island to another. In many cases this occupies a whole day. If the individual concerned is employed, then it is a day off the job.

The other factor which I think should be discussed in the context of this subsection, since it deals with yet another mechanism for appeal, is the volume of appeals which can be expected. When I spoke in second reading debate, I indicated that the Saanich volume had increased significantly. There are two examples which may be of interest to the Minister.

In the North Okanagan assessment district: 1972 — 139 appeals; 1973 — 322 appeals; 1974 — 562.

In the Gulf Islands assessment area, an even more staggering increase: 1971 — 17; 1972 — 23; 1973 — 91; and 1974 — 672 individual appeals which went through the court of revision process. Admittedly, a number of them fell off after the court of revision action; not all would go to the board of appeals.

But I'm still not satisfied — directing myself specifically to this subsection of this section — that the means are provided whereby the commissioner will be in a position, within that taxation year at least, to handle the volume of appeals. I think the Minister must be aware of this and must recognize that that danger exists. There is going to be a line up for the court of revision. There is going to be a line up either for appeal to the commissioner or the board of appeal, whichever comes first, and then the third step.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, I agree with the Member that there will be a number of appeals. I'm quite sure the commissioner realizes there is going to be a number of appeals. There is no doubt, by the time of the new year, the commissioner will be tooled up to look after them.

Now, as far as the costs of moving from one of the Gulf Islands to Victoria for an appeal, I would suggest that most of the appeals undoubtedly can be handled by mail. A number of things will become very obvious and a number of appeals, I would suggest, will be granted by mail.

There may be the other case where he wants to present an argument in person. That would entail money. But I would suggest that the majority of appeals can be done from the home and it won't be necessary to go to Victoria to appeal or to any other distant centre.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I filed with the Clerk earlier today an amendment which obviously is not yet on the order paper. But I would move an amendment to section 1 by adding subsection (12) as follows:

"(a) For the purpose of proceedings before a court of revision, each individual taxpayer may, by application, seek the services of a taxpayers' ombudsman for the purpose of providing the appellant advice with respect to his appeal, and such ombudsman shall be appointed forthwith by the assessment commissioner.

"(b) Upon the appointment of the ombudsman referred to above, the commissioner shall confirm in writing to the

[ Page 4907 ]

appellant taxpayer the name of the person so appointed, and such person shall be available to attend before the court of revision upon the request and at such time and place as the appellant taxpayer may direct."

I so move.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Mr. Chairman….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! We'd like an opportunity to examine the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I've examined it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I'd like to do it but I haven't got the money.

What I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that it's out of order on the basis that it requires the Crown to spend funds for the remuneration of the ombudsman.

Mr. Chairman: The point of order is well-taken and I would rule the amendment out of order.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I move that the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 170, Assessment Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 178. The Provincial Secretary will be taking this one.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
(1974) No. 2

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

Mr. Chabot: In section 1, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. I'd like to ask the Minister handling this bill for what purpose the retroactive aspects are included in the legislation? Is ICBC attempting to recover funds from the TFBC? What kind of notice was given by the TFBC that they were going out of this fund, and are they still operational or are they out of the business at this time?

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, the Member knows, as he likes to say, full well, the history of the problem around ICBC, in effect, being the only game in town that's left for people who are victims of hit-and-run and uninsured drivers. When I say the only game left in town, that is subject to some legal consideration insofar as the recovery chances appear to be somewhat remote.

However, we want to keep that option open, and the retroactivity that the Member refers to is only sufficient and due to the requirements to look after those unfortunate victims who have been injured by hit-and-run or uninsured drivers or operators of motor vehicles.

Mr. Chabot: After what date, Mr. Minister, does this become effective? When did the fund cease to be functional? I understand that you were given one year's notice that the fund would no longer be in effect and I was wondering what the date was.

Hon. Mr. Hall: We had two dates, and thereby lies, I think, some action. We had one notice on the December 10, or thereabouts, 1973, but we have another piece of correspondence from one of the officials of the old fund indicating that they're prepared to continue some kinds of payments past that date. So there is a grey area of legal work there. But essentially, in my view, this bill is to pick up a welch on the part of the private companies who didn't fulfill obligations for which they got premiums.

Mr. Chabot: (Mike not on) …the government were given one year's notice and that they wouldn't honour any claims beyond November 10, 1973. Now you say that they're going to consider a claim on December 10, 1973. Is this because of the additional funds that have not been refunded to the various insurance companies? Are they willing to honour some of the claims up to and including the dollars they have, which are probably surplus to the fund?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Let me make it abundantly clear; we're told there's no money around. The date has got two…or if you like, an ambiguous meaning, depending on which side you talk to. The date that's used is accompanied by a statement like this: "that we will entertain no claims after this date." There's also interpretation,…. "that we will entertain no further payments after this date." At the same time as that has happened, it seems that there was also a provision in

[ Page 4908 ]

the old fund that some notice that a passage of time has to take place for a claim to materialize. There's also a legal squabble about that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: If we keep talking about this section long enough, the Hon. Provincial Secretary will really hear what it's all about.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the committee should know that there are some 127 individuals who, through no fault of their own, were injured, some of them very seriously, by people without insurance coverage. Under whatever rules, the rules established by this government or by the former insurers who operated the fund, these 127 people find themselves unable to recover in respect of their injuries.

I think this is a worthwhile move for the government to have made, but I don't know why the government is so hesitant. If, as the Provincial Secretary says, this is to cure a welch on the part of the private insurers — which by the way, I don't agree with — if anybody is welching, it's the ICBC, but what concerns me is that subsection (1) just authorizes ICBC to discharge and perform any duties.

I don't know why, if we're coming down to resolving these few outstanding claims, that the Act is not mandatory, that the corporation shall discharge and perform any duty under the Traffic Victim Indemnity Fund.

If there truly is an issue between government, through ICBC, and the private insurers who operated the fund before, then let them resolve that difficulty because the government created the problem when it got into the industry, when it got into the insurance business. It wasn't the injured people who created the problem; it was the government. So it should be up to the government to resolve any differences there may be between ICBC and the private insurers, and these people who have been injured as a result of activities of hit-and-run drivers should be compensated.

If the private insurers, through their fund, are taking the position that under the technicalities, the legalities of the circumstances, they are not obliged to pay, then ICBC should step in and pay. Then in the powers given in the balance of the section, go ahead and pursue the private insurers to get the thing resolved one way or the other.

Either ICBC is right or the insurers are right, but it shouldn't be up to the injured people to have to carry on that sort of a contest and have that issue decided, because as a matter of fact, if they were to take on that kind of a contest, it wouldn't do them any good because they still can't recover from ICBC if the fund was found out to be responsible.

I would be pleased to propose a simple amendment to take out the words "is authorized to" and insert the word "shall". But I know that as soon as I do this, this will result in a question of order. I just urge the Provincial Secretary to take a moment, perhaps pass over subsection (1) of this bill and put in the amendment himself. Let's get on and get this thing done, get these 125, 127-odd people settled in their problems and let the government go ahead and fight it out with the insurance companies.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I'm rather surprised that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound …

Mr. Phillips: It doesn't take much to surprise you.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: You haven't done it yet. I expect very little — from you, that is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon Member proceed?

Hon. Mr. Hartley:…a man with his professional background, taking the position that he has, knowing that many of the claims that are involved in the way that they are, are the responsibility of the 186 insurance companies that were doing business here for many years.

If you understand the fund, you would know that there never was such a thing as a fund itself. It was not a bank account. What they did was operate on over draughts, then at the end of the year, or at a given period of time, they will send a levy on all companies operating in the province. So there hasn't been a fund and….

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Put the levy on ICBC then.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Okay. Under the ICBC setup, there's no need for that type of fund because everyone's covered.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Would the Hon Minister confine his remarks to the amendment, please?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Very well.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Correction to the Hon. Minister; there is no amendment before us, speak to the section.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, I read it, and I was surprised by your comments, Mr. Member. I'm merely replying to the ill-founded, ill-grounded

[ Page 4909 ]

comments that the Member across the way made — that certainly it's because of the inadequacies of what had gone on in the years ahead that ICBC came to be. Certainly, they will take their full responsibility from day one for the years and months ahead. There are many victims who are still trying to collect from the private corporations, and they're having a great deal of trouble. You should be standing up and deploring the fact that those great international insurance corporations are so stingy when it comes to paying claims.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Well now that we've heard the milk of humanity flow through the words of the Minister of Public Works, I'm sure that the Minister will agree there is a case here which should be taken into consideration under this section.

I also would like to know what the status of this type of case will be in the future in relation to the programme you are entering into now by taking over the Traffic Victim Indemnity Fund.

This is the case of a young man who was riding a bicycle in Vancouver, and was hit by a federal government truck. It's been proven that the federal government truck was in fact in default of its rearview mirror and rearview vision. If the Minister is aware, the federal government do not insure their trucks in the Province of British Columbia, This young man who was in the hospital for several months with neurological problems resulting from the accident, and is still suffering some disability, applied to the fund and was caught in the salami of the sandwich created by this government when they announced they were going to develop an automobile insurance corporation. But there was an air of uncertainty, and this disrupted the normal business of the insurance companies and it also disrupted the rights of many individuals in this province.

This case has been processed through ICBC and they turned it down on the basis that they couldn't interfere with the affairs of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, and that they had no authority to move in this case. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether or not this young man may have an opportunity to benefit from this amendment. Also, I'd like to know: what is going to be the status of people in the future in this province?

The second question is what will be the position or the status of people in the future in this province, when they're a pedestrian or a cyclist, and they are hit by a federal government motor vehicle and injured?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Member for North Okanagan, the answer is the young gentleman you were referring to certainly has a right to get in touch with ICBC following the passage of this amendment.

What happens in the future, I really can't give you an honest legal opinion because I'm not qualified so to do. I would imagine that he was covered, but frankly that would have to be the subject of correspondence between us rather than me attempt to answer a technical question like that at this point in time.

Referring t o the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I wish his colleague, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), had left his file with him. I found his speech was more persuasive than that of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

All I'm saying to you is this is surely a step forward in this way; that before this bill was introduced there was nothing going on. Now this government is saying: "we are prepared to make sure that a Crown agency is instructed and authorized to put people in an equitable position so that they can get some recourse." We are doing that even though no premium dollars have accrued to this corporation to pay any of these claims, and for you to stand up and say that this is an ICBC responsibility to me is just nonsense.

These claims occurred before ICBC was born, and it seems to me that, surely to goodness, the actions of this government — and influenced to a certain extent by the speeches of your colleague — should receive your support, not your criticism.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Of course it would receive my support, but it's just as you point out: why don't you do something instead of just authorizing ICBC to do something, which means that ICBC may do nothing at all? If we're going to solve the problem …

Hon. Mr. Hall: Why did we bring in the bill?

Mr. L.A. Williams: …but the issue is for 127 individuals. That's the reason this legislation is here — to give them some assistance which they don't currently have.

All right, if you're going to give them the assistance, why don't you go 100 per cent of the way and say it is the responsibility of ICBC to do it?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Will you come back next week and make the same statement?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Do it. You've already given to the corporation the right of recovery from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, so let ICBC pursue it on behalf of these 127 individuals — if in fact, there is any proper claim that is found by those individuals. Don't give us a lot of nonsense about you're going to do something and them only give

[ Page 4910 ]

authority to a corporation which has been best known for failing to do a lot of things — except when it makes blunders.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to hear the remarks the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in debate on this particular amendment. It would seem to me that when ICBC became a fact by a statute passed in this House, and by the same token legislated the private insurers in the Province of British Columbia out of business in this province, then they took on certain obligations, either implicit or otherwise, with respect to people who were caught in the middle.

If, as suggested by the Hon. Provincial Secretary, the insurance corporation may at their discretion take a case into consideration that otherwise would have come under the jurisdiction of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund… I suggest that it's not a case of if you do, or if you do not; I think it's an obligation now on the part of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to look after these people who were involved, because of no fault of their own.

If, as has been suggested by the Member for West Vancouver Howe–Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), you have a legal ground to go back against the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, or the corporations — the insurance companies that originally set that fund up — then use the powers of your office, through your Crown corporation, to go back after this fund. But don't keep the people in suspended animation who have, for no fault of their own, become involved in accidents, and wonder if they're ever going to receive anything in the way of restitution from anybody for this.

It certainly has been a concept and a precept of insurance law for a long, long time that when this type of a transition took place, which was not nearly as restrictive or as severe as taking all the insurance companies out of business in the Province of British Columbia, obligations which existed before or beyond, or before that event took place, must be met. You legislated the private insurers out of the auto insurance field in the Province of British Columbia. It's up to the government now, I think, to spell out in definitive terms that they will look after these people.

I would like to suggest the same amendment as suggested by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, but I'm told by the Hon. Clerks in the House that it would probably be unacceptable and ruled out of order. If that's the case, all we would be doing is voting on an amendment which would have no effect.

I suggest seriously to the Provincial Secretary that he consider this whole matter, and if you are prepared to do something for someone, then spell it out in clear terms for all of those people who may be involved at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I notice the clock and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick files answer to question 237. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Nicolson files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents the Provincial Land Commission Report for the year ending March 31, 1974.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to make a statement re a former committee debate, if I may.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), during the debate on the Public School Interim Arbitration Procedure Act, made the point that one section of that Act had been changed. At that time I replied it was not, it was the same as in the former Act. I wish to say that I was incorrect and the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano was correct. Since then we've discussed the rationale for the change, and any other Member who wishes to have it explained, I'll do so. I would like that on the record.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Again, by leave, I would like to express my appreciation to the Minister for her courteous statement and say that at least this point can be taken up by the legislative committee now looking into this matter.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 4911 ]

APPENDIX

173 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Housing the following questions:

1. Has the Provincial Government established tenant councils with respect to any public housing projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) in what public housing projects do tenant councils exist, (b) what is the total budget with respect to each tenant council established, and (c) what is the remuneration to each individual member of a tenant council, if any?

The Hon. Lorne Nicolson replied as follows:

"1 and 2. No."

192 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Housing the following question:

What, if any, was the total number of applications rejected under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act for the period April 1, 1974, to October 31, 1974?

The Hon. Lorne Nicolson replied as follows:

"For the period of April 1, 1974, to October 31, 1974, 405 applications have been rejected under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act."

237 Mr. Richter asked the Hon. the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. To what persons, and in what amounts, have grants under the Prospectors Assistance Act been made?

2. What is the total cost to date of the programme under the Act?

3. Have any persons been charged with any offences under the Act and, if so, how many?

The Hon. L. T. Nimsick replied as follows:

"1. Grants have been made under the Prospectors Assistance Act to 73 prospectors in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $4,000.

"2. The total cost of the programme has been $138,156.38 to date.

"3. No persons have been charged with any offences under the Act."