1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2545 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

PWA head office move. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2545

Mr. King — 2546

Mr. Gibson — 2549

Mr. Wallace — 2549

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 74.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2550

Point of privilege

Mr. Mussallem — 2552

Mr. Lea — 2553

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 74.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2553

Point of order.

Mr. King — 2553

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2554

On vote 74.

Mr. Lea — 2555

Mr. Skelly — 2556

Mr. Shelford — 2558

Mr. Lloyd — 2559

Mr. King — 2567

Ms. Brown — 2573

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to a

question earlier in the week, I said I'd be making a statement on PWA

before the weekend. I had planned to make it on the last sitting day

this week, and as we're accommodating the NDP convention tomorrow by

having a recess of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to

make the statement this evening.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the Province of

Alberta acquired a majority of the shares in Pacific Western Airlines,

the Canadian Transport Commission initiated an inquiry, as it's

empowered to do under federal legislation, into the question of whether

the change in control of the airline would unduly restrict competition

or be otherwise prejudicial to the public interest.

On May 23, 1975, British Columbia intervened in that inquiry and

made known certain concerns it had about the takeover of the airline by

the Province of Alberta. These concerns were set out in the British

Columbia intervention and included the following:

That Pacific Western Airlines continue to operate in the best

interests of all the people of this geographic region of Canada; that

this

section by the Government of Alberta must not adversely affect

service provided by Pacific Western Airlines in British Columbia, as

well as the many ground and support activities of the company and

others located in this province; that the administrative headquarters

and major maintenance activities now in British Columbia must remain in

this province so that levels of employment are maintained; and that the

development, marketing and promotion of new routes and services,

including air cargo and charter, must be on a balanced basis as between

Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Alberta, Mr. Speaker, contended that the Canadian Transport Commission had

no jurisdiction to make the inquiry which it had undertaken. The commission

referred the question of its jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Canada, and

in February of 1976 that court held that the Canadian Transport Commission had

jurisdiction to inquire into the acquisition of the majority of Pacific Western

Airline shares by the Province of Alberta. The Province of Alberta has appealed

that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, the Canadian Transport

Commission has postponed its inquiry pending the ultimate determination of its

jurisdiction to hold the inquiry by the Supreme Court of Canada. That decision

by the court will not be made before the fall of this year.

Some months ago, the Government of Alberta, in conjunction with

Pacific Western Airlines, announced that the executive head office of

Pacific Western Airlines would be moved from Vancouver to Calgary and

that the primary maintenance base of the airline would be transferred

from Vancouver to Edmonton. In March of this year, shortly after this

announcement was made, British Columbia filed an application with the

Canadian Transport Commission requesting that the commission make

whatever order or regulation was necessary to prevent the movement of

any Pacific Western Airlines operation from British Columbia to Alberta

until the commission had an opportunity to conclude its inquiry into

the question of the acquisition of control of the airline by Alberta,

and to rule in respect of the concerns of British Columbia which I have

just referred to.

Early in May, Pacific Western Airlines revealed detailed plans for

the transfer of key elements of its executive offices from Vancouver to

Calgary, and indicated its intention to complete this move by September

1, 1976. It has become apparent, Mr. Speaker, that our application to

the Canadian Transport Commission for an order restraining such a move

until the whole issue has been determined has fallen on deaf ears. We

are concerned that the commission may decline to rule on our

application before September of this year, in effect allowing the move

to proceed by default.

In light of this concern, the Attorney-General has instructed

counsel to proceed, as quickly as possible, with a court action to

compel the Canadian Transport Commission to rule on our application for

an order restraining this move. Further, the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has written to his counterpart in

Alberta — and I might point out, Mr. Speaker, this is another letter in

a continuing series of meetings and discussings — the Minister of

Transport has written to his counterpart in Alberta, Dr. Horner, asking

that the Government of Alberta reconsider its position and, as a

demonstration of its faith in the legal and regulatory process

established to consider cases such as this, postpone from September 1,

1976, any and all movement of PWA operations from British Columbia

until determination of these issues are made by the Supreme Court of

Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file in the House later this evening the

letter of the Minister of Transport to Dr. Horner, and I might just

read one further clause in that letter, in which the Minister of

Transport says:

"We can see no significant inconvenience, either to

PWA or to the travelling public it serves, in maintaining the status

quo until these legal questions are disposed of. We regard it as unfair

and highly prejudicial to our position

[ Page 2546 ]

that PWA should take advantage of delays in the courts and the

regulatory process to effect a move which might ultimately be found contrary

to the public interest by the CTC."

I also file, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the intervention of British

Columbia. Some of it I have already quoted. There are 11 sections to

the intervention, but I'd like to just quote clause 10:

"In the event that the above conditions are not

fulfilled by the airline, the government of the province of British

Columbia requests the assurance of the Air Transport Committee that it

will give favourable consideration to subsequent applications by

British Columbia-based carriers who wish to develop an air service or

services in competition with, or supplemental to, Pacific Western

Airlines Ltd. services, where such is deemed necessary by the province

of British Columbia in the public interest."

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to thank the

Premier for his statement regarding a matter which I think is of

concern to all British Columbians regarding extraprovincial companies

which have a major portion of their undertaking in the province of

British Columbia and, as a consequence, arbitrary management or

corporate decisions that are taken outside the domain of British

Columbia have the effect of dislocating substantial services in the

province of British Columbia, substantial employment opportunity and so

on, which is certainly the case in Pacific Western's application to

transfer their base from the province of British Columbia to Alberta.

I appreciate the fact that litigation has been underway to determine

whether or not the Canadian Transport Commission has jurisdiction to

rule over the province of Alberta's transfer of the main support staff,

the main terminal and the main managerial operation of that company,

which has become a company controlled by a Crown corporation in British

Columbia out of our province and to Alberta. I want to say that the

Premier, in making his statement, failed to deal with the really

precise position that British Columbia had taken. I'm not sure whether

or not the argument is before the Supreme Court — B.C.'s

intervention....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, I'm aware of that, but it's British

Columbia's intervention. I'm not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, as to whether

or not British Columbia's intervention — which I understand has been

mounted by the Attorney-General's department — relates solely to the

question of a province's jurisdiction to take over majority ownership

of an airline, or whether it relates to the British Columbia interest

in preserving a substantial portion of the control of that airline

which has been established with its air routes located in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems rather jumpy this evening. I listened

intently to his remarks and I trust that the documents he files in the

House will clarify some of the questions I have — at least I hope that

to be the case. I want to say, though, that his initial comments

regarding the gratuitous and rather condescending agreement which the

government has extended to the official opposition regarding our

convention is really irrelevant in this case. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that that gratuitous and condescending agreement came much too

late to be of any real benefit to the official opposition in the

province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: I only hope that the government's late intervention

in this important matter of the transfer of the Pacific Western

Airlines head office from the province of British Columbia to Alberta

is not similarly late, not similarly a response to popular opinion, but

is something that is borne out of a genuine concern for the interests

of our province.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the matter had to be raised a number of

times in this House by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and members

of our own caucus before the province of British Columbia even deemed

it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to file an intervention with the Canadian

Transport Commission with respect to even the community of interest in

this important question as to what should be the head office of this

intra- or extra-provincial company.

Mr. Speaker, no intervention was filed and indeed no interest was

indicated until this matter was raised a number of times by the

official opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what I have been trying to

tell that edgy group over there. They seem to be really exercised

tonight. I am not sure whether the concern is something artificial that

was taken over the supper hour, Mr. Speaker, or whether it is a really

genuine concern with the fact that they seem to have lost control of

this Legislature. I'm not sure which it is.

[ Page 2547 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, could I suggest

to you that the privilege of replying to a statement on the floor of

the House does not include a full-scale debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you emphatically, and

provided I have my interests protected to make a statement without a

rabble of interjections, without being howled down by the heavy-handed

government in this province, then I will confine my remarks to the

issue, but when I am interrupted, as the Premier was not, Mr. Speaker,

I would expect that you would be prepared to protect my interests and

my right to expression in this Legislature in the same way that you

protected the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Leader of the Opposition. You

puzzle me a little bit. Who would you like me to protect you from —

your own members or the members on the government side of the House?

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Interjections from both sides of the House have occurred since the House went

back into session this evening. I perceived interjections from all sides of

the House when the hon. Premier was speaking. I also hear interjections now.

It seems that the interjections grow in volume but not in content, so I would

suggest that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: When the hon. Leader of the Opposition or any other member

is on his feet making a statement, I would suggest that, in courtesy to the

members who have been given leave to make that statement, you listen to their

statement and allow them to make it without interjection.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order on the matter that

you just raised of people interjecting when a speaker has the floor of the

House, I think we should take a look at the cause. I would like to try and help

you with your duties, Mr. Speaker, with a suggestion of how this came to be

so maybe we can deal with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. What is your point of order?

MR. LEA: My point of order is that there is a great deal of

interjection. I know you are trying to control it and I would like to

be of help. The way I see it is that the Premier was good enough to get

up in this House and give this Legislature some information which

before we had never had. Then when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

King) asked questions about it, there was heckling from the government

benches — obviously because they believed that it's ignorance to

know....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Leader of the Opposition has

the floor. I listened to the point of order from the hon. member for

Prince Rupert. It was a little difficult to ascertain the point of

order.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks briefly by saying that...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: ...I subscribe to Mr. Speaker's contents that as we

go along this evening there is more volume to the interruptions than

there is substance — and that's manifesting itself now, Mr. Speaker.

I simply make the point, Mr. Speaker, in response to the Premier's statement

that I think it is a matter of equal concern to all political parties in this

Legislature. I think it's really a non-partisan concern of the province

of British Columbia that our interests as a province be protected when it comes

to corporate decisions that are made outside the boundaries of the province of

British Columbia, whether it be, Mr. Speaker, in the neighbouring province, whether

it be in some corporate boardroom in the state of New York or whether it be

in some other state south of the border. I hope that when this government asserts

their concern on behalf of the people of British Columbia it will apply equally,

not only to our sister province of Alberta but to New York and Oregon and all

of the Pacific Northwest, particularly, in terms of the resources of this province

that are being exploited generally by that part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue, I do want to take exception before I take

my seat to the nature of interventions by the Chair, and I do this very

respectfully. I do not think it's up to the Chair in this

[ Page 2548 ]

Legislature to comment in a partisan way on the

conduct of either side of the House. I believe it's up to the Chair to

keep order.

I am growing ever more concerned about the inclination of the Chair

to either justify the position taken by a minister or the government,

and to castigate people on the basis of their position in this House.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect and with all deference, I want to

suggest that that is not the role of the Speaker in this Legislature;

that is not the role of the Speaker of any House in the British

parliamentary system, not at all.

They are not to be dictated to by an arrogant Premier. They must

never be dictated to by an arrogant Premier, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

up to the Chair to protect the rights of each and every member of this

House, whether he be seated on the government side or the opposition

side. It must be over and above any partisan affiliation with political

parties.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. KING: It must protect and defend the rights of each and

every member, when they are recognized, to make a statement and to

preserve order while that statement is being made without an editorial

on the quality or the nature of the interventions that are posed. I

regret that inclination.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition

should have asked for a point of order to explain his point. He was on

his feet on a reply to a statement in the House, and now he has changed

the tenor of his explanation. I believe he should ask leave for a point

of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure, that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition will return to the matter of the statement concerning PWA

which was made by the hon. Premier.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking liberty

with your good graces or the good graces of this House. But I would

point out to the House Leader of the government that on two occasions

before the adjournment the government sought leave to make a statement,

sought leave and was granted the opportunity to proceed without leave

ever being granted.

I wind up my comments, Mr. Speaker, by continuing to say that in my

view it is the role and the obligation, the duty, of the Speaker to

protect the rights of each and every member to make his statement in

good faith in this House without being drowned out by heckling, and

certainly without editorial comment which lends and introduces a

partisan nature to the quality of across-the-floor repartee in this

House. I want to state that the opposition is becoming genuinely

concerned about that tendency.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, before I recognize the next member, which I will do....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'd like to suggest to all of the

members of this House that there is a duty to perform in the Chair, and

perhaps it would be good if I was to at this time refer you to Beauchesne ,

fourth edition, 1958, to refresh all of our memories as to what really

is a ministerial statement and the accepted right of reply by members

of other parties in the House.

I am referring to page 84 of the Parliamentary Rules and Forms :

"When a minister makes a statement on government

policy or ministerial administration, either under routine proceedings

between two orders of the day or shortly before the adjournment of the

House, it is now firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition

or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled to ask explanations and

make a few remarks, but no debate is then allowed under standing order.

"General arguments or observations beyond the fair

bounds of explanation, or too distant a reference to previous debates,

are out of order, though a member has been permitted by the Speaker to

make, at a subsequent sitting, an explanation regarding alleged

misrepresentation in debate or in question to the minister. An

explanation or reflection made upon a member in a capacity other than

that of a member of parliament has been ruled out of order. The

indulgence of a personal explanation should be granted with caution,

for unless discreetly used, it is apt to lead to irregular debates."

This is what I caution the members about in replying or asking leave to make a statement.

The hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard on a point of order.

[ Page 2549 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, what you did

just now was, I hope, to introduce a precedent-setting thing of

explaining to the House the reasons for the various decisions you make.

Many, many times in this House, and particularly from the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)...he has asked of you many times to cite

specifically, as you did in this particular case.

I would hope the statement you have made tonight is a precedent and

that we can have, when required and when appropriate, explanations such

as you've given for the good order of the House,

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, if I

might ask hon. members to cast their minds back 20 minutes or so, we

had what is, in my view, a most important statement by the government.

I congratulate them on this move to protect the interests of British

Columbia. I think it's a move that has not only been endorsed but to

some extent initiated by all quarters of this House.

I wouldn't want to prejudge it, but I think it might serve as a

constitutional landmark in this country, because it's a case where we

have seen a piece of interprovincial economic aggression. As

governments increasingly move into the private sector, ground rules

simply must be established as to how governments are going to interact

across provincial boundaries.

The decision by the supreme court on the ownership of Pacific

Western Airlines is not likely to be made, as the Premier said, before

fall, and PWA has announced that the head office is to be moved by the

end of August. All that is to be involved in the first move is some 40

executives, but that's the core of the executive group of PWA.

Inevitably there will follow, after those senior executives, all of the

support services that will be required, and inevitably thereafter there

will follow some maintenance employees.

The institution of new employment under PWA will inevitably all fall

into the orbit of Alberta if this decision is not challenged now. Mr.

Speaker, I fear that even if the supreme court eventually rules against

the ownership of PWA by Alberta, we will see the omelet so thoroughly

scrambled and the head office so thoroughly ensconced in Calgary that

it will be too late to do anything about it. So this is a terribly

important move.

The Premier suggested two actions — first of all, action in the

supreme court to compel the CTC and the Air Transport Committee to rule

on this case. This action — I have no means of knowing — may or may not

be successful. The CTC, in my view, has taken a rather narrow view of

their jurisdiction. If it happens that the supreme court agrees with

them and they do refuse to rule at this point, then it seems to me we

must have a backup position. One backup position is the request to

Alberta in correspondence that the Premier has revealed tonight, asking

them to hold off until after the supreme court has ruled. I think that

is an eminently responsible request and I hope it is one that would be

responded to in some public way by the Alberta government quickly.

If that fails, Mr. Speaker, then it seems to me that British

Columbia must be prepared to pursue another route, and that is asking

the supreme court not to compel the CTC to rule, but rather on their

own initiative to rule that the status quo must be preserved until such

time as they render judgment.

I hope that action as commenced will succeed. If it does not, I

think we need some kind of backup position. Time is of the essence in

this case. The supreme court, I understand, normally recesses for the

summer. I think it's essential that we get a decision before that

summer recess and I have every confidence that the Attorney-General

will ensure that that is the case.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was

not in the House when the Premier made his statement, but when I

entered the House I recognized the usual postprandial atmosphere which

occurs after a 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. recess.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?

MR. WALLACE: That means after food, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. GIBSON: Is that like precambrian?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: So often, Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to the

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) for explaining some of the events that go

on in this House when I'm not here. I seriously wish to support any

legitimate and reasonable efforts which the Premier is making to

maintain the headquarters of an important industry in this province and

to sustain the associated employment in this province. While I quite

readily recognize that I'm not familiar with the details of the

Premier's statement, because of the fact that it is dedicated towards

maintaining the headquarters of PWA in this province, I support his

efforts.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) Mr. Speaker, by leave, second

reading of Bill 58.

[ Page 2550 ]

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the matter of asking for a division

when unanimous leave has been granted has been dealt with, I believe,

earlier this session and again tonight.

I would remind you that when you ask unanimous leave, it's just

that. The Speaker listens, and if he hears even one "no," that is

sufficient to turn down the request for unanimous leave and it is not

granted. It would therefore be out of order for me to put it to a

division.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply.

Interjections.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

On vote 74: minister's office, $14,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of petroleum products, Forests or whatever it is.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, Chairman, or whatever. (Laughter) .

Mr. Chairman, because of the overall provincial economic picture, we

have been forced into a programme of budgetary restraint. All

departments within the government have been asked to hold the line, and

the Forest Service can be no exception. It has been and still is a

tough time for our timber-resource industries. Only now are there

slight signs of improvement. Housing starts are up in both our country

and the United States and there are other indications of improved

economic conditions, but we are still not out of the woods. As far as

the B.C. Forest Service is concerned, we intend imposing practical

restraints but not in such intensity as to have a strangling effect. In

this department we estimate our expenditures for the year of $98.6

million. This compares with an actual expenditure in the last fiscal

year of $80.7 million. At the same time it is estimated that the direct

revenue from all sources will total about $72.8 million, which is some

$26 million less than we will need to run the department.

Budgets for all but one sector of the department have been maintained at levels

similar to last year. The exception is the reforestation division, whose actual

expenditures last year totalled $16.3 million. This year that figure has been

increased to $22.8 million — an increase of 40 per cent. We regard our reforestation

programme as essential and, for obvious reasons, as an investment in the future.

One important factor we must remember is that it is all very well to

have millions upon millions of seedlings growing in our nurseries. In

that regard, our Forest Service nurseries have done very well. As a

matter of fact, in some ways they have done too well. Much improved

practices and procedures have resulted in seedling production far in

advance of our original target. The problem is that insufficient areas

have been properly prepared to receive the infant trees. They call this

site preparation. Throughout British Columbia it is estimated that

there are some 1.9 million acres of land in need of such preparation

before trees can be planted. More than $2 million has been earmarked

this year for such site preparation work, mostly in the Prince George

and Prince Rupert forest districts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I don't like to interrupt the

minister, but just a point of clarification. I noticed that the

minister is paid, I believe, under Mines as opposed to Forests. So I

wonder what that means to the debate on the estimates. I wonder if we

could have some clarification from either the minister or the House

Leader.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, what we would like to do is

debate the estimates of the Minister of Forests' office and then go

into the estimates for the Minister of Mines' salary and office; then

proceed with the Forest Service votes and then the Mines department

votes.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman. We have a Whip system in this House that governs

the procedure normally. No such request was made to the official

opposition in terms of dealing with the minister's vote. As far as I

can determine so far, with all deference to the hon. minister, the

official opposition could gain everything that the minister is

reporting tonight by reading last year's annual report of the

Department of Forests. If the minister wishes to make his report, then

that should have been brought to the attention of the Whips and

agreement reached. No such overture was made by the government.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 2551 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You wear the mantle of an idiot, my friend!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the concern

expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Whip system,

let me please, for the record and for the sake of those in the House

who are not clear by now, say that the Whip system, earlier in the day,

had an agreement to discuss and debate Bill 58....

MR. KING: That's absolutely false.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is not false!

MR. KING: There is no truth in that whatsoever!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Absolutely false!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, no amount of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: Be honest with this House! Be honest!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You be honest!

MR. KING: Absolutely false!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Not true!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Consult with your Whip.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We have recognized the hon.

Provincial Secretary, she is standing on a point of order, and

therefore we will hear her point of order. If there are others who wish

to stand on a point of order, they will be recognized in their turn.

MR. KING: Tell the truth to this House!

Interjections.

MR.CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's too bad that the NDP want to make a

great fuss in the House tonight. They seem to be very concerned that

half of their strength has gone to the convention already and they are

left without any.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that

the reference to the Committee of Supply this evening, to the Minister

of Forests' vote, is a matter that, because the Whip system did break

down this morning and the agreement was broken today, was not known by

the opposite side. However, it is a legitimate order of business and we

have called the vote on the Minister of Forests' office. I know that

all the members of the House have been prepared for some time, since

the budget was brought down, to debate these estimates, and in lieu of

not having leave granted for the second reading of Bill 58, that is the

order of business for this evening.

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to speak to

the same point of order that the hon. House Leader was speaking on in

terms of whether or not there was an agreement. I don't think there's

any doubt that the government Whip will agree with what I have to say

now.

I was approached this morning by the government Whip (Mr. Mussallem)

and asked if it would be all right with us if we were to pass Bill 58

through all phases to its conclusion, including the third reading

today. I said, "absolutely not." We did not talk about second reading

whatsoever, and I believe that the government Whip will back me up on

that statement. So there was no agreement. The government Whip may have

assumed that we would agree to second reading — may have assumed — but

we did not. I only said that I would not agree to third reading.

On the second point of order, it has been the practice, as I understand it, since....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is this point of order, please?

MR. LEA: The point of order is on the procedure that we're going to follow now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm waiting to hear.

MR. LEA: The point of order is that it seems to me we are now

going to a new system which is different from the traditional way in

which the estimates have been handled. We have previously

[ Page 2552 ]

dealt with the ministers in the portfolio that they

are paid under first, then going on, if it's a double portfolio, to

that second portfolio. We have no objection that we go to Mines, so

that we can discuss in great depth....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Members, perhaps we could

shed a little light on this entire procedure. The matters of points of

orders must be real points of order in order for the Chair to recognize

them. The Chair has a little bit of difficulty in that many points of

order which May calls

fraudulent points of order are being raised in this House. The Chair

must listen to the point to be sure that there is one; however, we

cannot allow endless points of order which are not real points of

order. That's point No. 1.

Secondly, it is the prerogative of the government to call these

votes in whichever order they wish to call them, and the Chair has no

control over this. Vote 74 was called.

Third point. The Chair has no knowledge of any agreements made

between Whips, and, indeed, has no interest in any agreements made

between Whips. Thus the points of order raised about the Whip system

are indeed out of order in Committee of Supply, and therefore we must

now proceed to vote 74.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order? Under what section?

MR. KING: I'm speaking on the point that the minister's salary does not exist under this vote, which was the initial point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: the opposition

has no wish to compromise the expeditious procedure of the House, but

it is clearly out of order to proceed without leave on this kind of

debate which is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction under this

vote.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, precedence with leave, and precedence with foreknowledge — which we did not have, Mr. Chairman.

I want to indicate that we are prepared to grant that leave. But I

would appreciate some foreknowledge, some forewarning, of this kind of

eventuality. No problem. But without leave it's clearly out of order,

and that's a legitimate point of order, Mr. Chairman.

For the sake of preserving some organization in this House, we must

proceed by parliamentary rules; we must proceed under those

circumstances, Mr. Chairman, and surely this House has been out of

order and out of the government's control long enough this week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's out of order.

MR. KING: Let's get it back to order. We are prepared to grant leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I will say it one more time so

that the hon. Leader of the Opposition also understands: it is the

prerogative of the government to call the votes in whichever order they

wish, and from time to time they call votes out of sequence. Also, they

can call whichever minister of what they would wish to have, not by

leave....

MR. KING: You can't without a vote, without leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair is not interested in a debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Therefore the Committee of

Supply has priority over every other business. Vote 74 has been called,

and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of

Forests has been recognized. I made it, didn't I?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point.

MR. MUSSALLEM: When a member's word has been impugned, then a member has the right to stand — that's one of the points of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This morning the hon. deputy Whip, when I went

to his office and spoke to him, the first thing I said when he asked me

what was the order of business, I said Bill 58 — at which he nodded his

head. I said: "Furthermore, we would like to have it go through three

readings today." He said: "No, I will not accept. It will not go into

third reading today." I talked with him for over 15, 20 minutes, and I

left with the full knowledge that we would go into Bill 58.

[ Page 2553 ]

I do not wish to cause the hon. member any embarrassment, but those

are the absolute facts, and that's the way they stand; I make it clear

to this House. That's all I have to say about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Both Whips have made their statement, so that will conclude the matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Both Whips have made their

statement, and that will conclude the matter. It is not of interest to

this committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, I'll listen.

MR. LEA: I would just like to say in response to what has

been said in this House by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that

now I know exactly where I stand with that member. That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's no point of order.

MR. LEA: I didn't say it was a point of order. I just said that I know exactly where I stand now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Something I never suspected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That concludes the matter.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: A few moments ago we had quite a

dissertation from the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) about

people making statements in the House and having the courtesy of being

listened to, and immediately we get into another harangue which really

has accomplished nothing. I suggest perhaps we can get on with the

business of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I was making comments about the Forest Service last

year and their plans for next year, and I was talking about the

reforestation programme. Last year, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order — the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Mines, Forests and

Resources and whatever other portfolios he happens to hold, wishes to

talk about votes under the Forests department, he is not entitled to do

so under vote 74 which deals with the minister's office but does not

provide for his salary.

Now if he wishes to combine.... And he doesn't understand the

legislative procedure very well yet because he's a green minister, but

if he wishes to combine a far-ranging debate of all of the matters

under the Forests department as well as mining, then the government

simply has to ask leave of the House to combine the minister's vote

under the two departments.

Otherwise, he is restricted, I submit, Mr. Chairman, to the matters

contained under vote 74, which strictly obtain to the minister's

office, which is the salaries of his secretaries, his travel expense,

the furniture and travel allowance under that vote. I would ask him to

come to order unless the government wishes to ask for leave, Mr.

Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The vote under vote 74 will

pertain to the administrative responsibilities of the minister' s

office of the Minister of Forests.

MR. KING: The minister's office, yes.

MR. LEA: But not the minister's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The administrative responsibilities of the minister — vote 74.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. No, it does

not.... Mr. Chairman, I challenge that ruling by the Chairman. Never in

the history of the Legislature has the administrative responsibility....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! No debate. The ruling has been challenged. There's no debate.

MR. KING: Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed. This is a new precedent. Absolutely! Absolutely!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to report that in

Committee of Supply when vote 74 was called, a dispute arose as to what

matters are to be discussed under vote 74. The Chairman made a ruling

and that ruling has been challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, before I listen to your point of order. Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who, I

[ Page 2554 ]

believe, wished to get to his feet on a point of order.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): My point of order

is quite simple. The matter went by so quickly in committee that I am

afraid I don't know exactly what the ruling was that was challenged,

and in order that one might vote intelligently I wonder if we could be

advised of the subject matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. In order to clarify the

matter for everyone, would the hon. Chairman of committee come back and

report exactly what your ruling was challenged on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I repeat for Mr. Speaker? In Committee of

Supply, vote 74 was called, which is the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). A

dispute arose as to what matters are debatable under this vote. The

Chair ruled that the matters pertaining to the administrative

responsibility of the minister were debatable under vote 74. This

ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Chairman. I believe that the remarks of the Chairman of committee have been heard by all members of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. It is a matter for the

Speaker of the House to now place the question before the members of

the House. You have heard the comments of the Chairman of committee.

You have heard his ruling. His ruling was challenged on the

administrative responsibility of the minister being discussed under

vote 74.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 32

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Rogers

Weitch

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 9

King

Lea

Nicolson

Levi

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that

when a challenge to the Chair is called, the Speaker has no knowledge

of the issue before the House. Now that Mr. Speaker is apprised of the

issue involved in this case, I would be most interested in receiving a

ruling from the Chair for future proceedings before this House as to

whether or not a debate concerning the full jurisdictional aegis of a

minister's responsibility is allowed in a vote other than that vote

which comprises the minister's salary. Mr. Speaker, this breaks

precedent in this House and is the first case, to my knowledge, where

such a precedent without leave of the House has been undertaken. I

would certainly appreciate Mr. Speaker's consideration of the

proposition contained in the challenge to the Chairman's ruling in this

case.

I would point out that under vote 74 the minister's salary is not

contained. The issue is whether or not the full scope of his

ministerial responsibility is open for debate and discussion under a

vote of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take that matter under advisement

and report to the House on it, because there is a matter of

parliamentary precedent involved here. I would certainly appreciate

your counsel on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members and hon. Leader of the Opposition,

speaking to the point of order that you have raised, I will take the

matter under advisement, but I would like to say to you this: it is

true that the Speaker of the House has no knowledge of the procedure

that takes place in committee except when it is reported to the

Speaker. In the report to the Speaker, the Chairman advised me that his

ruling had been challenged on the basis of discussions which would

include the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland). My position is very clear at that particular time

— that is, to take the decision on the matter by vote. The vote was

taken and it would appear to me that that is the decision of the House.

But I will take it under advisement and see if I can find a further

reference on the matter which would be of help and assistance to all of

the hon. members of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, just a final brief point of order. I

would point out that the description of vote 74 is "minister's office,"

not "ministerial

[ Page

2555 ]

responsibilities" or "duties of the minister." The

proper, clear, concise description is "minister's office." I suggest

that that is pertinent to your consideration.

MR. LEA: I would like some clarification from the Chair on

the same point of order. Looking at the two departments that come under

the Minister of Mines and Forests, we take a look at vote 74, the vote

that has been called. The only listing under this vote, making $14,000,

is: travel expense — $7,500; office expense — $3,500; office furniture

and equipment — $3,000. We look at vote 130, which covers the salary of

the minister.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that he is being paid a salary as

a cabinet minister to administer both departments and is being paid

under vote 130 to administer those two departments. It would seem in

order, if we were going to discuss the wide-ranging duties of the

administration of that minister, that we begin with his salary vote,

which is vote 130.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your comments, Hon. Member. I

think it is really in line with the same suggestion that was made by

the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have said I will take the matter

under advisement and I will so do.

MR. LEA: What do we do now?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, would

you refer to standing order 54 which says that "a motion being once

made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be put

again...but must stand as a judgment of the House"?

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 74: minister's office, $14,000 — continued.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister, I assume, has finished his opening remarks. Are you going to carry on, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No? Okay, then I would like to talk about vote 74, which only

includes travel expenses, office expense, office furniture and equipment. I

would like, first of all, to talk about the office furniture and equipment,

a vote of $3,000, which seems to me to be a great deal of money for this office.

I would like to talk about the kind of various office equipment that the minister

could be thinking of...

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: ...getting for his office for this kind of money,

and I would also like to talk about the office expense of $3,500 and

ask the minister: does he feel that is an adequate amount of money? Is

it up from last year or down from last year, because we know the cost

of paper has gone up.

You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that I'm sticking strictly within the

vote, as the rules call for in the House. I can only speak about travel

expense, office expense, office furniture and equipment. You'd agree

with me that that is the case, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've made my ruling.

MR. LEA: It seems we're going to have quite a wide-ranging

debate on travel expense, $7,500; office expense, $3,500; office

furniture and equipment. I hate to be facetious, but this is all we are

allowed to talk about under the rules of this House in these estimates.

It's a little ridiculous because the minister is getting up talking

about the wide-ranging jurisdiction of administration that he has as

the Minister of Forests, the Department of Forests, and he's not

allowed to do that under the vote. He has to do that under his salary

vote, or under each one of the votes as they come up. I believe I could

go on, Mr. Chairman, talking about this vote 74 and the three items

under it, but it would be ridiculous, and it would be ridiculous of the

minister to get up and talk about these three things when we haven't

talked about the broad-ranging discussion that can take place under the

jurisdiction of that minister.

The House Leader has made a mistake in calling this vote and will

not go back and say, "I have honestly made a mistake and we should be

on vote 130," so we can have the kind of discussion that the minister,

I know, wants to have, because he began his discussion assuming he

could talk about, in this vote, the wide-ranging administration that he

is responsible for. I think, with all respect for the rules of this

House.... And we would quite gladly allow government to call vote 130

so we can discuss what the minister would like to discuss, and I'm sure

backbenchers in the government party would like to discuss.

I mean, we can go on talking about whether he's going to get an

electric typewriter, whether he's going to travel to Dawson Creek and

back and how much it's going to cost, and the office expense of $3,500

— whatever that's about — but, you know, if we're going to be talking

about what the minister is

[ Page 2556 ]

responsible for under his salary, which is the

tradition of this House and, as I understand it, every other House,

then we have to call vote 130 and talk about the minister's salary.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Minister

of Forests, Mines, Petroleum Resources, et cetera, is going to answer

the question on his office furniture and his travel to Dawson Creek and

suchlike, but also I think we're able, under this vote, to talk about

the minister's qualifications.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you can't.

MR. KING: What qualifications?

MR. SKELLY: Are you going to rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: We can talk about the minister's qualifications

for ordering electric typewriters and furniture and secretaries and

that type of thing...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Out of order!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: ...because he's certainly more qualified at doing

that than he is at administering the forests of this province, which is

the major industry in British Columbia. Mining is No. 2....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No. 3.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says he needs a wire.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, if we're in order to deal with the minister's qualifications....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that the only qualifications he has

are very similar to those of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen), who said he had none at all. That was the only time he was

being perfectly frank to the public of this province, because he felt

at the time that they should be lied to, bribed and conned.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Am I out of order, Mr. Chairman, reporting the Minister of Environment?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Environment on a point of order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like to challenge and ask for a

withdrawal of the statement from the hon. member for Alberni suggesting

that I suggested one lies. He is quite incorrect; he knows he's

incorrect. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. LEA: What did you say? You said "bribed and conned."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member for Alberni please withdraw any imputation?

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw that without

qualification whatsoever. He said that he had learned after the 1974

election that he couldn't be perfectly candid with the public. Now I

don't know what his

interpretation of that is, but how that qualifies

him for office as a successful Social Credit politician....

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote 74, eh, Bob!

MR. SKELLY: Okay, now we're getting around to the vote for the Minister of Forests, and it appears that his only qualification....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order, team!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order, second string! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, will you please call that side to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it appears under this vote that all

we can deal with is the qualifications of the Minister of Forests to

administer a very small office, a very small vote. But, hopefully, we

can deal

[ Page

2557 ]

with his qualifications for administering the forest resources and the forest industry of this province.

I'm just looking over a transcript of the minister's appearance on

"Capital Comment" — which is a programme that runs occasionally here in

Victoria. They asked him what his qualifications were to administer the

forests of the province of British Columbia. He said: "I've been raised

in the bush..."(Laughter.) I can't believe it!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: "...and I've spent...."

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Can you believe this? It says: "I've been raised in the bush in this province and..."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SKELLY: "...I've probably spent more time in the bush than most people have." (Laughter.) Fantastic!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to ask him about the house plants in his

office. (Laughter.) When he walked into the office, did he water the

plants? Did he set an annual allowable cut? (Laughter.)

What kind of qualifications are those? He's spent more time in the

bush than most people have. Well, it's no wonder! This minister has

spent more years cracking rocks than most people in the province have,

except those behind bars. I'm just wondering, comparing the

qualifications of this minister with those of the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), they appear to be pretty shabby

qualifications to administer the major industry and the major resource

base of the province of British Columbia. If that's the only

qualification he has, then certainly we need a new Minister of Forests,

because he hasn't come up with anything really substantial in the way

of putting the forest industry of this province back on the tracks

after substantial depression in the United States.

MR. KING: Rotate!

MR. SKELLY: One of the other questions asked of the minister

at that same "Capital Comment" programme was about the quota which had

been lost by forest industries large and small in the province of

British Columbia — lost to single-use management — mainly single-use

management for parks, recreation areas and this type of thing. I'd like

to just quote a

section from "Capital Comment" where the minister was

replying to Mark Hume. He said:

"I've become very aware over the last few months that

many companies, small companies and large companies, are gradually

having their quotas reduced because of alienation of their timber areas

to single-use parks. And every time you take some of their quota away,

you're forcing them to cut back on the amount of wood that they can

manufacture and harvest, and when you do that, you eliminate jobs for

people."

Now when our Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources

— Forestry and Fisheries at that time — held hearings in Victoria and

throughout the province, the representatives of the major forest

companies that appeared before those hearings said that the amount of

timber in the province that was lost to single-use management was

negligible. And that's quoting Grant N. Scott, the chief forester of

MacMillan Bloedel — that the amount lost to single-use management to

forest and recreation areas was negligible.

I'm asking the Minister of Forests in terms of the total volume, the

total annual allowable cut available in the province, in terms of the

total annual allowable to quota holders and forest companies in the

province as a percentage of the annual allowable cut available, how

much has been lost to single-use management for parks and recreation. I

hope he can answer that question in view of the fact that the chief

forester for MacMillan Bloedel said the amount was negligible.

I'd also like to ask the Minister of Forests, as he is the minister

responsible for the forest industry in which the province has become

involved over the past four years — and I'm citing Canadian Cellulose,

B.C. Cellulose, the Ocean Falls Corp., Babine Forest Products — has he

been negotiating with any companies to take over either management of

Canadian Cellulose, management of any subsidiaries of Canadian

Cellulose, and I refer specifically to Twin Rivers Timber, or any other

forest company? Would the minister like to call a recess while he

leaves the building? Oh, okay.

Has the minister discussed with MacMillan Bloedel or any other

forest company operating in the province management contracts to

operate either B.C. Cellulose, Canadian Cellulose, Twin Rivers Timber

or any subsidiary of these companies, or a sale of shares or an

exchange of shares with these companies? If so, what are the terms?

What negotiations have taken place? What terms have been arrived at?

What type of agreement is he seeking with these companies? Which

companies is he dealing with?

One of the things that happens each year with both government and

opposition caucuses — and I think the Council of Forest Industries

should be

[ Page 2558 ]

congratulated with the communications that they

maintain with both the government and the opposition caucuses — is that

the executive board of the Council of Forest Industries meets with

everyone involved in government and opposition to maintain a continuing

line of communication with both sides of the House. I think that that's

a laudable process.

At the last meeting that was held between the former NDP government

and the Council of Forest Industries executive board, we were

congratulated by the Council of Forest Industries during a very

difficult period in the forest economy of this province for maintaining

a very flexible attitude toward management of the forest resource in

British Columbia. In fact, one of the executive board members of the

Council of Forest Industries said at that time that he wished his

American counterparts in government — the people they deal with in

government in the United States — had adopted an attitude equally

flexible, in order to maintain the economic viability of the forest

industry south of the border, an attitude equally flexible to that

adopted north of the border by the former Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources.

I'm wondering just what the present Minister of Forests — in spite

of his lack of qualifications in handling that industry — is doing to

maintain the economic viability of the forest industry in the province

of British Columbia in the face of a severe downturn in the United

States economy, especially the demand for lumber and a soft market for

pulp and paper. What is he doing to preserve the economic viability of

the forest industry in the province of British Columbia?

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I've sat here all day

listening to, I would say, basically very little. I would appeal to the opposition

to agree to move on to Bill 58 and pass it this evening....

MS. BROWN: Order!

MR. SHELFORD: You can call order all you like....

MR. SKELLY: Point of order. Are we not dealing with the vote

for the minister's office rather than Bill 58? If the government wishes

to call Bill 58, I'm certain that they would do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 74.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): He wants another technical wrangle.

MR. SHELFORD: What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we can talk

for 5 hours, 10 hours, 20 hours or 40 hours and we won't achieve one thing

— I nearly said it — unless we're willing to get on and put people back

to work. I must say, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the discussion for the last

few minutes on the Minister of Forests, that....

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: I'm talking about the Minister of Forests. You

had three and a half hours; give me 20 minutes. I think it's very

unfortunate that the opposition is willing to leave the forest industry

in the north country in hostage for another weekend.

Certainly the government tried hard enough this afternoon to try and

get discussion on a bill that would get people back to work. We hear so

much about unemployment in this province and on what has our minister

done in the forest industry. I would like to say: what minister

anywhere can do anything in the forest industry when we have the

northern half of this province shut down for weeks on end?

We talk about unemployment. We talk about many things. We delay the

actions of this House, and I would say that most of us behave like a

bunch of kids while the teacher is out. I think it's time that we got

on to discuss seriously the problems of the forest industry in this

province.

I am sorry that the opposition would not agree to move away from

this particular vote onto Bill 58, which would at least do something

about getting people back to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 74, please.

MR. SHELFORD: That's right. I asked leave to move from vote

74 to Bill 58, to which I gather there was no agreement. But there are

so many problems facing this industry, and I spoke on them on many

occasions in this House.

The Pearse report, hopefully, will answer some of he management

problems in the industry, but let's not stick our heads in the sand and

say okay, the Pearse report is going to solve our various problems.

Let's make it very clear that it's not going to. The Pearse commission

may resolve some management problems but it will not answer the real

problem in the industry, which is high costs, and I think it is about

time we started facing up.

What is the real problem? We kick around the bush. We hide our heads in the

sand. By appearances of tonight and all of today, we are not really willing

to face up to the real issues facing the people of this province. Well, it's

very clear to all of us. I am not blaming any one side. I think we are all at

fault. When you take a look and see that pulp can be produced in the U.S. $36

cheaper than it can in Canada and pulp can be produced for $45 to $50 less in

the developing countries which have our technology and our help, we should start

looking at what's wrong in the whole

[ Page 2559 ]

thing.

Now in only the last few days, lumber has gone down approximately

$20 a thousand. Plywood has gone down more than $20 a thousand. Yet the

cost to the industry on June 15 will go up $10 a thousand. That is

what the increased costs of last year's settlement will cost the

industry, which is pretty substantial. Most wages in the forest

industry — in fact, I think I could say all wages in the industry —

whether you be a mechanic or a basic IWA rate, are at least $2 an hour

greater than in the U.S.

MR. SKELLY: What are the wage rates in Birmingham, Alabama?

MR. SHELFORD: I have a son who just went on a course down to

the States and he is a mechanic. The highest paid American mechanic on

this particular course — and there are 300 of them at the course — was

$6 an hour, and he was a foreman. The lowest paid Canadian was $8 an

hour. And when you see this difference of pay between one country and

another, which is our competitor...and, believe me, they are.

I don't think we realize the fact that unless the U.S. gets over two

million house starts a year, they really don't need us at all. They

really don't need us. They can take care of the supply from their own

country. The U.S. right at the moment, I believe, is around 1.8

million, and there is no chance that they'll get up to the peak of,

say, 1973 when they got up to over 2.5 million.

Now I want to make it clear that the IWA rate is certainly in my

particular area and all over the province not basically high compared

to other industries. When you are referring to the pass-it-on type

industries which are government, the service industries.... When you

see someone in Safeway or the chain stores getting paid more than an

IWA worker who is slugging it out in the mud, I often wonder why they

are there.

But we still have to face the facts of life. The only two real

competitive industries in this province are forestry and mining. They

can't pass it on, because they are competing with people in other

nations. So surely the people who work in these basic industries

shouldn't be paid less. I would say that the government has a terrific

job ahead of it to try and iron out these problems so they get a fair

wage for those people who are in the basic industries and who are

making the wealth of this country. Those who are in the pass-it-on

industries, where they can pass it on in taxes if it's government,

certainly shouldn't be paid more. Otherwise you drain all of the best

workers out into the service industries and the productive industries

are left non-productive, certainly not as productive as they should be.

Now it's unfortunate that the Prices and Incomes Commission.... I

know it's not directly related to the forest industry, but it is in a

way because it affects every single worker in the industry — on whether

people would go to work or not. It's one of the problems that we are

faced with at this moment with a shutdown in the northern part of this

province where the forest industry is next to disaster.

Now the Prices and Incomes Commission, I would say, is the only

thing between greed and a prosperous economy, and without controls of

some sort we won't have a forest industry at all. I think we should

face that very clearly. Without some sort of control the forest

industry will disappear from British Columbia. Let's not stand up and

say how things are going so well when really they're not. We know

exactly the problems we are facing and so far we haven't done anything

about them.

Unfortunately, the Prices and Incomes Commission have taken a

wishy-washy policy of holding some at 8.9 per cent and allowing others

up to 14 and 15 per cent, and, of course, prices to go wild in some

areas.

MR. LEA: Did you vote on Bill 16?

MR. SHELFORD: I hope it will improve something; it certainly should and I'm quite sure it will.

I think we have to quietly sit down and not go around like we have

this afternoon really doing nothing for the people. I would say if the

people of the province paid us nothing for today, they paid us too

much. I would hope that all members will quietly get on and discuss the

problems in the forest industry.

We have a problem: our costs are too high and we can't compete with

those in foreign countries. "How do we get these costs down?" and "how

do we get this industry rolling again?" are questions that every single

one of you should be asking, because unless we can get these costs

down, welfare will fall by the wayside, our highways will go to

potholes, and everything else will fall apart.

It is time, I think, we started seriously coming to grips with the real problems facing this industry.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I rise to speak on this Forests

estimate, and I certainly have to agree with the member for Skeena (Mr.

Shelford). I think there is a real crisis facing the forest industry

in the north at the present time, and while we are debating the

estimates of the Forests department I find it rather hard to assimilate

the remarks of the past several weeks and the supposed crisis the

opposition has brought forward.

A few days ago we had a very lengthy dissertation on the

unemployment crisis that was facing B.C. I don't know if they realize

just how drastic the crisis is getting that is facing the interior of

the province.

Speaking of the forest industry, I'd like to read to

[ Page 2560 ]

the House, Mr. Chairman, into the record, a wire from the Council of Forest Industries:

"On behalf of the northern sector of the Council of

Forest Industries, and particularly those on the BCR, I'd like to thank

the Premier for the excellent hearing given myself and others of the

group.

"The northern interior lumber

section would like to

re-emphasize the gravity of the conditions along the railway at

present. The cost of maintaining operations with no rail service is

damaging to all firms on the BCR and, in some cases, has become

intolerable, forcing closure. Layoffs now stand at 1,400 in the north

and central interior, and are beginning to affect the communities

further to the north. The northern industries can ill-afford the

closures, because experience has shown that the personnel, once lost,

often leave the area and are very hard to replace.

"While the current situation is serious and warrants

immediate resumption of the BCR operations, the wholesale closure of

the entire forest industry served by the BCR is near at hand. When the

pulp and paper mills in our area can no longer operate, there will be

few forest operations of any kind about to continue.

"The consequences are obvious, potentially affecting

nearly 10,000 forest industry workers — the backbone of the north. Your

government must not allow this point to be reached."

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): We'll do it if the opposition will let us get back to work.

MR.LLOYD:

"We are not competent, nor is it our role to recommend

a solution to the remaining undisputed issues between the BCR

management and the United Transportation Union. However, we urge the

government to impress upon these two parties that the resumption of the

service is now imperative. The efforts to resolve this issue should

continue.

"If the BCR and the UTU cannot voluntarily agree to

take these steps, then we reluctantly recommend that the government

compel them to do so."

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the railway, the employers, have

been asked to gear up. We were hoping to have this bill discussed. It

was thought that this bill was softened down to Bill 58; it's certainly

a bill no harder on anyone than the Hospital Continuation Act....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing vote 74 and the hon.

member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is trying to force into debate a

debate on Bill 58.

MR. LLOYD: What's the point of order there?

MS. BROWN: That is a point of order!

MR. LEA: That is the point of order, and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I'll remind him. We are on vote 74, which includes the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. The Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think every concerned

member of this Legislature is aware that the forest industry in British

Columbia is vitally affected by the fact that the B.C. Railway has not

operated but intermittently the last two years, and the shutdown has

affected not only members of the railway, but the forest industry....

MR. LEA: On a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You're out of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on a point of order. I'll listen to you in just a minute.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it has affected the jobs of hundreds of members in the forest industry....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are on a point of order....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, for any member of this House

to prevent any other member from speaking out for those jobs in the

forest industry is disregarding a responsibility to the people of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I will tell the people of

this province that those members would not allow this side to speak

out, for the jobs of the

[ Page 2561 ]

people of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, their delaying tactics....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. members...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the hon. members that on a point of order we must state....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I remind hon. members that

in stating a point of order, we must state succinctly what the point of

order is, and it is not a time for debate. The member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) was standing on a point of order. Is it still existing?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I've already stated my point of order:

the Premier got up and did not have a point of order. I'd like a ruling

on my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you — well taken. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) was on his feet.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please. On a point of order, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am fully in sympathy

with the interests of the Premier in discussing under these estimates

the employment situation on the BCR, but I would bring to his attention

what is called the rule of anticipation that we have in this House.

This is a rule that I happen to disagree with because it often, in

cases such as these, stops debate which is vital in this chamber. If we

could have the Premier's undertaking that he will move to remove this

rule from our rule book, I think we might get leave of the House at

this time to carry on with this line of debate, which could be quite

useful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are now in Committee of

Supply and perhaps could take this moment of lull just to remind the

hon. members of what the scope of debate is, under the standing orders.

The whole management of a department may be discussed in a general

way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of

the estimates of that department, which reads as follows: "general

administration," et cetera. Therefore the scope of debate under vote

74 is clearly outlined for us in Beauchesne , fourth edition. I would

suggest to the hon. members that we refrain from anticipating debate on

any other question, be it a bill or otherwise. So we will return now to

debate on vote 74.

MR. GIBSON: The point I was making was the hope that by leave we might be able to enter into that debate under these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking leave?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, on the question of the BCR strike.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. May I ask the

member for North Vancouver-Capilano if that is a motion? Are you asking

for leave? — because it's not suitable. In Committee of Supply they

would have to report progress and then have the debate in the House.

MR. GIBSON: What I was suggesting, Mr. Chairman, really, was

that the House agree to suspend the rule of anticipation for the

currency of this particular debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you ask leave? Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

[ Page 2562 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the question again because it is not certain. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. GIBSON: The government doesn't want to debate it; I don't understand.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I'm not sure whether it is, but you pointed out

something we could discuss under this vote, and I didn't get it

clearly. Would you run through again what we could discuss? I didn't

understand it clearly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the reminder of the whole House, the whole

management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the

Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of the

estimates of that department.

MR. LEA: Oh, fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Burrard on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it states very clearly on vote 74,

if I may be permitted to read it for you, that the issues to be

discussed are travel expense, office expense, office furniture and

equipment. We cannot discuss the minister's salary because the minister

is paid under vote 130, not under vote 74.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We cannot, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom),

through you, Mr. Chairperson, discuss Bill 58, because that is not

covered by vote 74. It was out of order for the member for Skeena (Mr.

Shelford) to refer to a debate affecting the women of this province as

a waste of time under vote 74. If it's necessary, Mr. Chairperson, I am

willing to stand up and interpret this vote for you over and over again

until you get it absolutely clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ohhh!

MS. BROWN: It states: travelling expense, office expense, office furniture and equipment. By leave of the House....

I am willing to allow leave of the House to debate the growing up of the Premier of this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't care about the people!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Millionaire socialist!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. And now, just so that

the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is perfectly clear as

to what shall be debated under vote 74, vote 74 is the Department of

Forests. The standing orders provide that the whole management of the

Department of Forests may be discussed in a general way when the

Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution. We are now on

the first resolution of the Department of Forests, and we will

therefore be discussing the whole management of the Department of

Forests in a general way, as well as the administrative

responsibilities of the minister. Now if you have it perfectly clear,

we will move on to vote 74.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Why are you standing?

[ Page 2563 ]

MR. LEA: Thank you for that ruling. It's a ruling that we've

needed for some time this evening and I would like to thank you for it.

Now we know exactly where we stand and what we can debate.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Write a memo. Write a memo.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What? So you can steal it?

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, if the opposition would stop filibustering for a few minutes, as they filibustered all afternoon long....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: I would like to speak to the vote if they could stop filibustering in the opposition as they filibustered all afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. You could help the situation by confining your remarks to vote 74.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a banana.

MR. LLOYD: Speaking on the Forests minister's estimates,

reforestation, the timber tenure and the manpower are all very critical

parts of the forest industry. I think the manpower situation is the one

we really have to be critically concerned with because they're really

suffering in certain areas of the north. I think it's very important,

Mr. Chairman, that we move very constructively to help alleviate the

problems with the forest industry in the manpower situation that's

developing. While conventions are very important, I think the people of

the north are really getting very impatient to see when we can get

proper rail service restored so that the mills along the BCR can once

again begin operations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read one more wire into the record,

and I feel it's very topical to the minister's debate. This wire is

from the mayor of the city of Mackenzie. Mackenzie, as you know, has

two industries that keep the entire city going: two large sawmill

complexes. They are completely dependent on the services of the BCR,

and they are completely dependent on the forest industry for their

livelihood. I would like to read this into the record.

"Howard Lloyd, MLA, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

"Your efforts to effect a solution to the ongoing B.C.

Rail labour/management dispute are commendable. Regretfully the actions

of the parties to the dispute since the introduction of Bill 22 have

left industry in this community in an even more perilous condition.

Effective Thursday, May 20, layoffs have begun in at least one

processing plant as well as the logging startup which is delayed

pending the BCR settlement.

"One must question the ability of the industry in a

depressed world market to survive financially under such trying

circumstances. I urge you to impress upon all the parties involved that

their actions are placing the economy of this and the other northern

communities in very serious jeopardy."

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we do keep a proper

balance in the north and that we do keep a manpower situation which is

feasible. I'd also like to read a letter into the record from the

central interior loggers group of the north. Certainly they're very

viable part of the logging industry in the north. Again it's to Howard

Lloyd, MLA for Fort George:

"The members of the Central Interior Loggers

Association protest the Alice-in-Wonderland attitude of the BCR

management and the workers. The interior forest industry has suffered

financial hardship over the past two years from a combination of the

shrinking export market and the labour problems slowing or closing down

the railway.

"The present BCR stoppage is causing a chain reaction

that will soon cause massive unemployment for all those in the forest

industry. Sawmills dependent on the BCR route are cutting back

production, laying off workers, or closing down. Two pulpmills in the

Prince George area are facing closure due to present railway shutdown.

This will have a chain reaction in the closure of sawmills, which in

turn will result in the postponement of the logging season.

"The logging industry has not yet recovered from the

effects of the past two years and many loggers and truckers are in dire

financial straits, to say nothing of the position of their employees.

Many are going to be forced out of business, because unless a solution

is found to eradicate the perennial labour problems of the BCR, which

is a major lifeline of the central interior, unless this problem is

solved, the interior will not only cease to grow but will lose its

attraction to business and to the people.

"The Central Interior Loggers Association recommends that

your government consider the recognition of:

(1) a joint council of unions be

formed to

[ Page 2564 ]

negotiate contracts;

(2) a simple majority as being required

to accept a general contract...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I thought that possibly the hon.

member for Fort George was going to go on to something else, and only

briefly refer to problems with labour-management problems with the BCR.

But he is not; he is going into it quite extensively, and back in and

back out....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's no point of order!

MR. LEA: Although I don't dispute...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against the BCR?

MR. LEA: ...the fact that the matter being discussed by the

hon. member is of importance to this province and to this Legislature,

there is a time and a place, and the rules of the House should apply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member. I would remind the

member again that vote 74 has the departmental responsibilities and the

general Department of Forests, if you will confine your remarks.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can't really

put a semblance on just how the opposition feels that the operation of

a rail line doesn't have anything to do with the forest industry, Mr.

Chairman. I think it's very vital that the railway operates properly.

For example, I will give you the times they have been without rail service to move any of their products.

MR. SKELLY: What's the date of the wire?

MR. LLOYD: They can't get the logs in; they can't get the

timber out. They had a shutdown from January 21 to January 27 — seven

days. Then they had another shutdown from March 2 to March 29 — 27 days

when they couldn't move the logs or move their products.

The current dispute, from which they are still suffering a lack of

service, started on May 18, another 24 days. So far this year the

strike has lasted some 58 days.

Don't tell me that this hasn't got anything to do with the forest

industry because it just shows how ignorant that group is over there!

It just shows how much lack of responsibility that entire group has

over there, Mr. Chairman. Don't tell me that hasn't got anything to do

with the health of the forest industry!

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a Communist?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: You haven't got a clue! You haven't got a clue of the importance of....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. Member, would you please be seated while the Chairman is standing?

I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to relate his remarks

to vote 74, which is the departmental responsibilities of the

Department of Forests. I ask you one more time.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order for the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the time of night when

everyone gets to read things into the record. There is something I'd

like to read into the record...

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

MS. BROWN: ...about the hon. member for Dawson Creek....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Please be seated. Hon. Member,

please be seated. I would remind the hon. first member for

Vancouver-Burrard that the Chair recognized that member in good faith,

believing that she had a legitimate point of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Now I will cite a

section of May which talks about the kind of a point of order which you fraudulently raised.

[ Page 2565 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I refer to May 16th edition, at pages 469 and 470.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suggest that you have one, Hon. Member. At page 469, May said this:

"A member who abuses the rules of the House by

persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, that

is to say, who without actually transgressing any of the rules of

debate, uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the

business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by

misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of

disorderly conduct. It would seem therefore that a member so

obstructing the business of the House cannot be required, under the

standing orders, to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the

sitting."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

"He is, however, guilty of a contempt of the House and may be named."

On page 470 I read further, and this gives you a precedent:

"On July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a

growing practice of interruptions of debate by members who, when the

honourable member who was speaking refuses to give way, think that the

only way they can get their word in is by raising a point of order. He

stated in his opinion such interruptions constitute fraudulent points

of order and should be stopped immediately."

That's page 470, the 16th edition of May .

Hon. Members, it is my humble opinion, having observed the

procedures of this House, that it is an increasing practice in this

House for hon. members who wish to abuse their right to speak to stand

to their feet, citing a point of order, when indeed they have no point

of order. I must remind you that this is contempt of the House and

members abusing the rules in this way may be named. The member for Fort

George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please. Does the first member for Vancouver-Burrard have a point of order?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

MS. BROWN: I have no idea....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only reason you have to be on your feet is if you have a point of order.

MS. BROWN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order. State it, please.

MS. BROWN: May I point out to you that the citation which you read referred to "he" and I am a she?

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MS. BROWN: It does not apply to me. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken.

MS. BROWN: Until you change the words of that book; it does not apply to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The member for Fort George.

MR. LLOYD: As I was mentioning very distinctly, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LLOYD: Some more filibustering?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I had raised a point of order that you were about to take action on and did not get the opportunity to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has it slipped my mind? Please refresh my memory.

MR. LEA: I raised on a point of order the fact that the member for Fort George was again treading on very thin ice in terms....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I will remind him again. We're on vote 74, the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr.

[ Page 2566 ]

Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LLOYD: Would you remind the opposition to stop filibustering and we'll get back to the minister's estimates?

Again, while the opposition feels that the rail service has nothing

to do with the forest industry, it is something I find very hard to

conceive, Mr. Chairman. As we all know, that's a very critical part of

the entire forest industry, moving the supplies in and moving the

products out. God knows the chip piles we've piled up throughout the

interior and the amount of dollars that have been wasted in burned

chips. Some of these chips that we're piling up are going to live to

haunt the Forest Service there — how they're going to eliminate them

and treat them properly. With the heat build-up in these piles, we're

going to have forest fires springing up all over the interior. For

anyone to say that the rail service doesn't affect the forest industry,

Mr. Chairman, is completely ridiculous — just completely ridiculous and

irresponsible!

MR. SKELLY: Nobody said that.

MR. LLOYD: As I mentioned earlier, the strike has lasted 58

days on this last one. Altogether we've had something like 150 days

from the start of the year and 58 days lost; we're up close to a 38 per

cent loss of service to all the forest companies along the line. I find

that very deplorable that we can't get on with the business of the

people and get the forest industry back on its feet again.

Mr. Chairman, just to show how very serious the concern is about the

health of the forest industry, I have a clipping from the Prince George

Citizen which I'd like to quote into the record: "As the forest

firms press the BCR case, the stalemate between the B.C. Railway and

the United Transportation Union has resulted in the shutdown of the

line...."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the member

for Fort George will not go along with the order from the Chair. I

raise it again that....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That point is well taken and I

ask the hon. member again to confine his remarks to the administrative

responsibility and the Department of Forests in general. The remarks

that you are now making, if they are not immediately relevant, then I

must ask you to refrain from those remarks or show that they are

relevant. Please proceed.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the ruling. I hope we

keep that balance across the House just as clear cut. We listened to a

filibuster all afternoon that had nothing to do with the situation in

the province whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Vote 74 please.

MR. LLOYD: But again, to get back to the concerns of the

forest industry, I think it's very critical, Mr. Chairman, that we have

something done about getting this service restored. As the

article

continues about the forest industry, it mentions the forest companies:

"Renewed efforts by the forest industries will be made again in Dawson

Creek this weekend at the North Central Municipal Association." All the

mayors and aldermen are gathering up there. To quote the article:

"The association represents all the communities

between Williams Lake and Fort Nelson. The pulp, paper and lumber

industries want to impress on the municipal officials the seriousness

of the situation due to the lack of rail transportation. The BCR closed

down its freight operation as an answer to the union's work-to-rule

campaign, which is ruled a strike by the B.C. Labour Relations Board.

The forest industry in the interior is suffering, and eight mills have

closed down...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert is on his feet on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Your point of order, please.

MR. LEA: Well, it's the same

point of order, Mr. Chairman, that I've raised a number of times. You

know, I don't like to do it because I know the hon.member for Fort

George is new, but I think he should still follow

the directive from the Chair. You have so directed him a number of

times and he's still not doing it.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): He's sincere and he's concerned. You should be concerned.

Interjections.

[ Page 2567 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please! I must remind the

House that when the House is in an unruly manner — or at least is

operating in an unruly manner, such as it has this evening — I have had

to call for order from many members and on numerous occasions.

Therefore the member who is presently on his feet, I've had to

remind him at least three or four times — I've lost count — to keep his

remarks to vote 74. Sir, unless you now relate your remarks to the

administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests, I must ask

you to change your subject material.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Mr. Chairman, I

must say that transportation is a very, very important part of the

forest industry. Whether it's the highway transportation, rail

transportation or other, transportation is a very vital part as you

will realize, I'm sure.

What we're doing to our roads up in that part of the country this

spring would make you cry, because they haven't been able to shut the

roads down. They've had to allow the forest companies — in order for

them to survive, to keep the forest industry going — to haul full loads

over the highways of our province, and they're pounding those highways

to pieces, Mr. Chairman. It's just an additional burden that the

province is going to have to bear, and where does the province get its

revenue from but from the forest industry?

I think it's something that all the members should start to remember

and relate to. Unless we keep these prime industries healthy, unless we

keep them in a proper economic balance, we're certainly going to be in

a great deal of trouble in the very near future. A lot of other

programmes are going to have to be cut back. But the prime concern at

this time is the manpower situation, keeping a crew active in such

areas as Fort Nelson, as Takla Lake, where there's no other access and

where transportation is a major problem. Any delay or tie-up in a

transportation link is very expensive and very critical to those people

engaged in the forest industry, Mr. Chairman.

We are probably going to lose another great segment of the work

force in the Prince George area very shortly if transportation isn't

restored for them to get their logs out of the Takla Lake area where,

as you probably realize, there is no other form of transportation

besides the railway. So transportation is a very critical part of the

forest industry and I think it's time this House spent some time on it

and helped to get the show back on the road there.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer a few remarks

under the Ministry of Forests' estimates, and I want to say that I

listened with a good deal of interest and a good deal of empathy, I

think, to the remarks that were made by the member for Skeena and the

member for Fort George.

As a former Minister of Labour in the province of British Columbia,

I certainly am keenly aware of the many problems that do beset the

forest industry, quite aside from the wise management of the resource

which is directly the minister's responsibility, with respect to not

only the wise exploitation of the resource but the reforestation

programmes, the wise perpetual use of our resource, which is basic to

British Columbia's industry.

But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it's only natural that since I was one of

the people charged with trying to find some fair balance of return in

the forest industry, both to management and to the people employed as

workers in that industry, I just want to offer some response to the

remarks of the member for Skeena and the member for Fort George.

It's quite true that transportation is a significant factor in the

forest industry, and perhaps that is one reason why the forest industry

in British Columbia is able to afford a generally higher wage to the

employees of the industry than their counterparts in the Pacific

northwest south of the 49th parallel. Because we in British Columbia do

have some natural advantages over our competitors south of the border

in terms of competing for available markets.

One of those advantages that I want to draw to the attention, Mr.

Chairman, of the House, and particularly the member for Fort George and

the member for Skeena, is the fact that in British Columbia we

generally have our resource more closely available to the market than

is the circumstance south of the border — partly because, of course,

we're a newer province and the frontiers have been pushed further back

on the south side of the 49th. They've been at it much longer and

therefore their haul is much longer, and, generally speaking, the size

of the material being handled is smaller also.

But I think the most significant factor, Mr. Chairman, is the

advantage that British Columbia holds in terms of water transportation,

which is the cheapest form of transportation in the forest industry. We

do have access to barging up and down the coast of British Columbia,

indeed down to our market south of the 49th where the bulk of British

Columbia's wood chips, where the bulk of their log supply and most of

their lumber is marketed. It is an advantage.

Now this is a fact and I don't know why the government members are

getting exercised over this factor. Mr. Chairman, this was a factor

that was noted....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all wet!

[ Page 2568 ]

MR. KING: The member says I'm all wet. Well, Mr. Chairman, I

think the member has a one-sided view of the industry. He seems to

represent simply the management side of the forest industry and has

absolutely no regard for fair distribution of returns. He seems to

have....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, we're not discussing the railroad, Mr.

Chairman. We're discussing the forest industry under the estimates. I

would suggest to the neophyte Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) that if the government wishes to discuss the railroad,

they should not be dealing with the estimates of different ministers.

They should have called public bills and orders, Mr. Chairman. They

apparently place no priority on that issue. They called the estimates

of the minister and that's what we're dealing with.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: But we have a lot of new ministers over there. We

have a lot of new members, and among the rest of the cabinet, Mr.

Chairman, we have a very strange collection of political travellers who

don't seem to know where they they belong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Liberals, Conservatives, Socreds — what a coalition it is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind the member that....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Leather-tongue!

MR. KING: They keep interrupting me. Mr. Chairman, the

government seems intent on railroading everybody, and as much as I

empathize with the railway problems — being a railroader for 30 years

myself — I never appreciated railroading in the parliaments of Canada,

and the opposition is not about to stand for that kind of approach.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are on the estimates of the

Minister of Forests, the Minister of Mines and assorted other areas of

responsibility, and I got up in a very temperate fashion, a very

good-humoured fashion, to respond to some of the one-sided comments

made by....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of character.

MR. KING: Oh, shame! That's a cutting remark! I'm cut to the quick!

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond in a very calm fashion to some of

the realities of the forest industry, and quite frankly, all

partisanship aside, I'm confident that all members of the House,

regardless of what political stripe they represent, are concerned and

interested in developing a secure industrial base for this province

based on wise utilization, based on proper respect for environmental

concerns, based on proper respect for human concerns.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's that parrot again, the

little parrot, the minister of shovels. He keeps wanting to talk about

railways. I'm not in charge of the House. I wish I were. I might have

asked leave to call the railway issue, but unfortunately the government

didn't place high enough priority on that. They go for estimates.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a farce you are! No wonder you are being replaced as leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 74, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) wears the mantle of an idiot. He wears the mantle

of an idiot, and I hope you don't rule me out of order on that, Mr.

Chairman. I didn't say he was an idiot. I said he wore the mantle of

one and he wears it extremely well. He wears it extremely well.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the forestry is concerned, it is true that

the province of British Columbia does have some natural advantages in

terms of transportation. So there is a justifiable reason why the wages

and salaries of the British Columbia workers are higher than those

south of the border. But aside from that proposition I find it curious

that a government that is elected to represent the totality of our

citizens of this province should come down on the side of either

management or labour in terms of making some judgment in this House on

what is an acceptable level of compensation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the members from the north think that the

wages of the workers are too high, fair enough. Fair enough but I

suggest that if they're going to go down that road, then there should

be some fair questions, some fair evaluation in this province and in

this Legislature about the equality of compensation to all phases of

our life, to all phases of

[ Page 2569 ]

our society, whether it be forestry workers, whether it be politicians, whether it be hotliners, whether it be athletes.

The day that this coalition right-wing government, Mr. Chairman,

wants to indulge in that kind of evaluation of the advertising

industry, for instance, which contributes not one iota, not one vestige

of anything to the gross national product of this province, of this

nation, the day they want to question the real estate brokers or the

used-car dealers who produce nothing, and indeed the millionaire

investors, then I say, fair enough, let's start placing some value on

the relative functions of our society — fair enough.

But what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a one-sided dissertation

from those representatives of industry who are only interested in

seeing the basic resources of this province, whether it be mineral,

whether it be wood products, fibre, or indeed any other product in this

great and beautiful province of ours....

They put forward the position that the only legitimate and valid

claim that the citizens and the workers of this province have is the

employment that accrues from the exploitation of those resources. Mr.

Chairman, that is the fundamental, the underlying difference that

exists between the New Democratic Party and that coalition right-wing

movement on the other side of the House. We believe that the people of

British Columbia have an interest — indeed, they are the owners of the

resource, be it the forest products, be it minerals, be it petroleum.

We believe that we are more than a banana republic where the

peasants only obtain some paltry employment at wages dictated by

right-wing extremists like that, Mr. Chairman, decrying the facts that

British Columbians lead Canada, and indeed lead North America in the

wage markets in some areas. I think that's something that we as a

government, and we as a province, should be proud of, not something

we're decrying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 74, please.

MR. KING: Yes, I'm talking about the economics of the forest

industry, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about the ability of the forest

industry to afford to the workers of this province a decent rate of

compensation, a rate of compensation that transcends that in other

jurisdictions. I don't know what jurisdictions the member is referring

to. Was it south of the Mason-Dixon line or north of the Fort George

line? Perhaps there is some analogy, I don't know.

Interjections.

MR. KING: But, Mr. Chairman, we believe that these resources

ought to provide the greatest and highest rate of benefit to the

economy of this province. And I want to say that wages are not

something that are lost. They are not something that are taken out of

the economic cycle of this province's interests. Wages are a factor

that prime the economic pump in the small communities of the province.

Wages are the factor that will allow workers in the community to

afford some of the....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Listen, Mr. Chairman, to the intemperance — very exercised. Come down here and do a couple of handstands.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The members should rest silent and allow other

members of this House to express their point of view. Perhaps it's the

newness. I simply want to make the point that when any member of this

House stands to put forward the unanimous interest that we all have,

not only as legislators but as citizens of the province of British

Columbia.... We're trying to stabilize not only the forest industry,

the total economy of British Columbia....

There's my friend Jimmy going again. "Jobs," he used to cry at one time, jobs.

I think we should put forward, Mr. Chairman, a reasonable and a

balanced perspective. I think we should put forward a rather impartial

position as government, rather than representing solely the interests

of either industry or labour. As a consequence I want to say, very

frankly, that, yes, there is a responsibility on the labour side in

this province, not only related to the forest industry, but related to

other industries. I think perhaps, despite the fact that I have been a

trade unionist all my life and a working man, and despite the fact that

our party....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you've deserted the working man.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The man is intemperate, Mr. Chairman. Please ignore

him and don't kick him out of the House. I wouldn't want you to lose

your temper and rule that man out of order and kick him out of the

House, because I feel sorry for him. He needs your sympathy. He needs

my understanding and he needs the understanding and sympathy of the

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 74.

MR. KING: He has that from me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

[ Page 2570 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to say quite frankly that yes, there are flaws, many flaws, in our society and our economy.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, there are those sectors....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member insists on opening his

mouth rather than keeping it closed and letting people think he's a

fool. He keeps insisting on opening it and proving it. I wish he'd

remain silent while I conclude my remarks.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're talking like you're 10 years old.

MR. KING: Gee whiz!

Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to put forward is some kind of a

rational viewpoint in this rather hectic evening. I'm trying to appeal

to the government not to take a blatantly one-sided approach, be it on

the part of corporate management or be it on the part of labour. We

have an obligation as legislators representing all of British Columbia

to try to come up with some answers to the problems that are there.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, we're talking on the economics of the forest industry, Mr. Chairman. The members are not willing to listen.

What I am suggesting is that there is greed on the part of the

corporations who are willing to take the largest profits that the

traffic will bear. There are similar condemnations to be accorded and

directed toward some trade unions, in certain cases, that make demands

beyond what the industries are capable of paying.

That is somewhat of a commentary on our system — where we seem to

feel that remuneration, financial reward, is the only fair motivation

in our society. I decry that. I think that we should all have some

dedication to the good of our province, to the good of our society. I

think we should all have some love for the kind of job we are doing and

be prepared to work hard at it regardless of the compensation.

But what strikes me as amusing, Mr. Chairman, is that they on that

side are the greatest proponents of the free-market system of financial

reward as being the end-all and be-all of our society and our values.

But it seems to obtain, in the view of some of the government members,

for only management's side.

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that many of the trade unions

have become just an offshoot of capitalism. They have been trained very

well by the corporate management of this province and this nation, and

they are starting to outfox management at their own game by using their

economic clout for extracting the last pound that the traffic will bear.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's blackmail.

MR. KING: "That's blackmail," he said. He never heard about

chain stores in this province combining to buy out the small comer

grocery store so as to put in their supermarket and squeeze them out.

That's good business, but for the trade union movement to use the same

ploy is blackmail. That's the measure of the man's fair value, Mr.

Chairman; that's the measure of it.

I say to you that this kind of inflammatory discussion is not going

to solve the problem anyway; it's not going to solve the problem. You

can come in with overreactions.... Mr. Chairman, the government can

bring in arbitrary high-handed solutions to say that this must not

happen any more. But unless it's equitable and fair — unless it's seen

to be that — it will not work. It has been tried before by previous

right-wing administrations. There has to be some consensus.

MR. LLOYD: It took you three years to upset it.

MR. KING: Well, we made some progress, too.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Look, I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) has made some good moves too — under your administration —

some good moves. I think he's made errors — and I am going to talk

about those errors — but he has made some good moves too. Thank

goodness he is more rational than some of the back bench; thank

goodness, for British Columbia's sake.

But I want to say to you that this kind of emotional overreaction is

not going to help to solve problems. We can try and identify those

problems, whether they be in industrial relations, whether they be in

transportation....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member for Fort George (Mr.

Lloyd) is extremely exercised tonight. He seems to be highly emotional.

He's making a great deal of noise, but I can't seem to make any sense

out of his contribution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is perhaps typical of many members here tonight.

MR. KING: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: I don't

[ Page 2571 ]

want to take up the time of the committee too much longer —

certainly not past 11 p.m. I want to say this: it's fine for the House

to try to identify problems, and that should be our objective. Now we

may disagree on identifying problems; we certainly will disagree on

some of the causes. But surely the intelligent thing to try to do is to

come up with some cures. I want to suggest to you what a number of

those cures might be. I hope to do it in all humility, in all sincerity

and free from any really inflammatory reaction, because I get very

sensitive about those things. It bothers me a great deal; I might not

sleep tonight. I just might not sleep tonight if I go home that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're on vote 74, Bill.

MR. KING: Don't get personal. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, some of the things that we have tried

to do in the forest industry particularly — this relates to the problem

of transportation in general way — was to come up with a system of

industrial relations that would, for the first time in the history of

the province of British Columbia, recognize some of the hard economics

involved in the industry.

I have long hailed, as a practical trade unionist, as an arbitrator

in labour matters, sitting not only on labour's side of the table, but

sometimes on management's.... That may surprise the member for Fort

George, but yes, I have sat on both sides. One of the things that used

to impress me....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster on both sides!

MR. KING: Ah, that's so childish!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster on both sides.

MR. KING: I don't think so. I think there are people in the

province who respect what I had to offer and who were fairly

intelligent people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's why they threw you out of office.

MR. KING: The thing that used to strike me is the thing that

stands before me now, that many people who got elected to public

office, and placed in positions of responsibility, very often had no

background and no training and no expertise for the position they were

elected to perform. That manifests itself very eloquently tonight by

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Mr. Chairman. I used to

find that trade unionists were often elected at local public meetings

sometimes simply because no one else took an interest.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier never turns his back on that member, and perhaps he'll be more secure in his position.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 74.

MR. KING: The intemperate member is trying to confuse my

presentation. I'm talking to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) who

is a rational man, probably one of the few.

What I'm saying is this: for goodness' sake, instead of the old

horse-trading proposition in bargaining — which is the criterion,

whether you're on labour's side or management's side, that is based on

asking, by the trade union movement, for the moon, based on the

proposition that then you will reach some median level, and conversely,

management offering the floor because they feel eventually they will be

obliged to raise it to the median level — I'm suggesting, and I had

started to develop under the Department of Labour, in consultation with

the then Minister of Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams), a system where

bargaining was initiated on a bit more of a sophisticated level, where

there was some ongoing economic analysis of the industry which took

account of world markets in that particular industry. It also took

account of productivity, took account of the need for plant expansion,

took account of the cost-of-living factors in the region and in the

province, took account, in other words, in short, of all of the

economic factors both with which the industry is confronted as well as

their work force.

This provided, as an independent, impartial third party, a data

base, an impartial data base by which the workers could look at the

performance of the industry in which they were engaged and determine

whether or not their productivity, the profit margin of the company,

its security on world markets, justified a demand of 2 per cent, a

demand of 8 per cent, or a demand of 26 per cent. Conversely it

presented, from an independent third party to the industry, a

reasonable data base, a reasonable performance graph, of precisely how

well the industry had done, so that neither side were any longer

kidding each other.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a new approach. It's

done in some of the Scandinavian countries; it's done in West Germany;

it's done in some of the other European countries; and it's just

[ Page 2572 ]

one of the things, in my view, that has to start to develop before

bargaining will become more realistic in this province. And bargaining

in the forest industry does affect the economy of this province. The

member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is quite right, although he tried to

get into it too specifically: bargaining in the transportation industry

affects the security of the forest industry, unquestionably.

But what are we going to do about it — start punishing one side? Are

we, as a government, going to say that we, your elected

representatives, believe that management is right and we believe labour

is the culprit? That has been the tendency in the remarks that have

been made here tonight.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Oh, no way.

MR. KING: Well, I hope that's right. That's the impression

that's co