| en [Toon eee eT PT iene Te | oe oe, oer o TT UE (el i - They're giving our forests ee < EEE EEE Tee 2 «+ and your future By MAURICE RUSH ONTROL of British Columbia’s forest industry is rapidly pass- ing into the hands of a few big U.S. monopolies. The extent to ‘which U.S. corporations, through the forest management license scheme, have already aequired ‘vast areas as their private forest preserves, is arousing well-found- ed public alarm. As the provin- cial government has admitted, there is nothing to prevent one giant monopoly from obtaining control of all our forests unless — federal anti-combine legislation can be invoked. In recent weeks all political parties except Social Credit, the taajor daily papers and many in- fluential organizations have tak- en up the demand for review of the forest management license scheme. The Conservatives and particularly the Liberals are de- nouncing the scheme with a vehemence that ignores their re- sponsibility for it. The fact is that the forest man- agement license scheme was inl- tiated by the now repudiated Coalition government. It was the Liberal party headed by Byron Johnson and the Conservative party of Herbert Anscomb which set the policy of giving away our resources to U.S. interests now being carried out on a grander scale by the Social Credit gov- erninent of former Conservative W. A. C. Bennett. It was the Labor-Progressive party, nearly three years ago, which *was the first and at that time the only party to oppose the forest management scheme . and point out its real significance. In an article published by the Pacific Tribune on February 1, 1952, I wrote: } “When the provincial Fores- _. try Act was amended to bring 1n the management license scheme the way was opened for Ameri- can monopolies to take over the largest part of British Colum- bia’s forest lands. : “The forest management lic- ense scheme is a. gigantic hoax. Under the guise of preserving our forests, the government is permitting the biggest steal in our entire history. And most of it is going to U.S. interests.” How does the forest manage- ment license scheme work? Here are the major terms of the lic- ense: ‘ + All Crown lands granted are reserved for the sole use of {le company. These lands are withdrawn from sale, settlement or occupancy. The Crown can- not sell or lease any of these l.nds, nor is anyone to be per- mitted to settle on any part of them. The public can have only limited use of roads built on tnese lands. : + Special tax privileges are given to the company. Crown lands handed over under the license are exempted from the Taxation Act. All improvements made by the company with re- gard to capital spent on opera- tion, cutting of timber, etc., are exempt from taxes. And if the government wishes, it may eX- empt these companies from pay- ing the Forest Protection Tax which is a tax levied to provide government fund to protect foiests from fire and other dan- eres + All land grants are given in perpetuity, that is, forever, and once granted, these lands be- a vids Sco come the personal property of those who hold the license. It can be bequeathed by the owner wiihout restriction. Loopholes ate also ieft under which control of these lands can pass to other owners through mergers and stock manipulations. é + In the event that any part. of the area given away under a license is needed for public parks, experimental stations or gther public uses, the govern- ment can withdraw up to one percent of the land, but only by consent of the owner. + Companies receiving a lic- ese are required to pay ore vent per acre per year. They are, also required to reforest 1000 acres per year or ten percent of the total acreage, whichever is the lesser. Of course, all new trees reaching maturity are the property of the company, to be cut for its own profit. @ . To what extent have our for- ests been handed over to private inonopolies under the’ license scheme? More than 17,990,000 acres of forest land have already been granted or are expected. to be granted soon. These include 17 licenses already granted by the Cvalition and Social Credit gov- ernments, and about 32 more in various stages of being approved by the cabinet. Another 79 ap- plications have ‘been made and . -are under review. Taken _to- gether, these applications cover the major part of our best forest lands, leaving little in the public djomain. — How have U.S. monopolies suc- ceeded in establishing their dom- ination over our principal forest areas? 2 d This has been accomplished in two main ways. First, by out- right granting to U.S. monopolies of huge areas through forest management licenses. The first license was given to the Colum- bia Cellulose Company, a sub- sidiary of Celanese Corporation of America. This license cover- 1 } ed. 668,440 acres in the Prince Rupert district. A This same company, under the name of Celgar, is now negotiat- ing for a huge area around the Arrow Lakes near Castlegar, . hich_if granted in its entirety \ill involve three million acres. The most recent example of Cirect grants to U.S. monopolies was the action of the cabinet on November 23 in granting the Ai- can and Powell River Pulp and Paper Company, both U.S. firms, a forest license which will un- doubtedly cover many hundreds of thousands of acres in the ‘northwest of the province. U.S. monopolies have also es- tablished their domination through a number of mergers snd stock manipulations where- by “Canadian” companies which had been granted licenses gave them up to U.S. firms. These “Canadian” companies saw a way of making quick profits by specu- lating with the forest license. They found ready buyers among the giant U.S. trusts. The most glaring example is that of the Rayonier Corpora- tion’s recent $20 million deal with the Abitibi and Koerner in- terests which gave the U.S. com- pany control of forest lands hold- ing eight billion feet of timber. The history of this deal. shows ~ how the public’s domain is being *obbbed by these monopolies. The Koerner interests controll- ed Alaska Pine Company and B.C. Pulp and Paper with its mills »at Woodfibre and Port Alice. On October 26, 1950 the Koerner in- terests, through B.C. Pulp and Paper, received a management license of 296,850 acres. At that time B.C. Pulp and Paper stocks _ ‘were selling for $90. ane Three months after the license was granted a merger was put through with Abitibi under which 100,000 shares were bought for $20 million, which placed the shares at $200 — a jump in three months of $110 a share. Now Rayonier have bought con- trolling interest from Abitibi by paying $250 a share. Thus shares con the Koerner operations rose from $90 to $250 — an increase of 177 percent — largely as a re- sult of speculation with the for- est management. license. ' Another example is that of Elk Falls Company which was grant- ed a license for 286,000 acres in January 1949. This company was a subsidiary of Canadian West- ern Timber Company. Seven months after the license was granted the giant U.S. Crown- Zellerbach, Corporation, reputed to be the largest in the world, got control of Elk Falls Company license’ by buying control of its parent body, Cana- dian Western Timber Company. It is estimated that through mergers and purchases such as taese more than one million acres of forest lands originally - granted to “Canadian” companies have passed under U.S. control. Add to that the large areas grant- ed outright to U.S. corporations énd licenses now pending for U.S. trusts, such as Celgar and Alcan, and you get a picture of the ex- tent to which our forests have and are being alienated to for- eign control. e - What are the consequences of U.S. control of our forests? This is a question of vital con- cern to every Canadian. It is known that the U.S. is a pulp hungry nation. Pulp is needed as the raw material for the vast- ly expanding plastics, yarns, fabrics and chemical by-products industries in the U.S. The main concern of these U.S. monopolies is to extract this province’s raw pulp to be processed in manufac- turing industries across the line. They have no intention of devel- oping processing industries here, Exports of B.C. pulp have been rising steadily and in 1953 it reached $36 million. The future of the B.C. forest industry under U.S. control is for our trees to be ground to pulp ine various raw and semi-processed form and shipped to the U.S. ‘trusts. to the U.S. If this policy is permitted to continue, B.C. workers will be re- duced to hewers of wood for U.S. We face the prospect of seeing our forests providing raw materials for U.S. industry, giv- ing jobs to hundreds of thousands in the U.S., jobs which should go to Canadians. Development of manufacturing industries based on the multifarious uses of wood will be stunted and Canadians de- prived of the right to work at such jobs in theif own country, will see their birthright sold to cthers. The demand raised by the Labor - Progressive party that there be no further licenses granted by. the government until the coming session of the legis- lature has had a full opportunity to review the forestry situation should be supported by all citi- zens. The people of this province are called upon at the present time to take up the biggest fight in our history to stop the U.S. grab of our forest resources. Shaded portion of this mab. shows the extent of the forest . license applied for by Celgar Development Company. PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 3, 1954 — PAGE 9