1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th 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, NOVEMBER 21, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

4945 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Statute Law Amendment Act

(1974) No. 2 (Bill 178) Second

reading.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4945

Mr. Smith — 4945

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4947

Mrs. Jordan — 4950

Mr. Gardom — 4952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4954

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4957

Mr. Bennett — 4957

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4958

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4958

Mr. Smith — 4959

Mr. Wallace — 4960

Mr. Gibson — 4962

Mr. Phillips — 4962

Mr. Gardom — 4964

Mrs. Jordan — 4965

Mr. Chabot — 4966

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4967

Mr. Bennett — 4967

section 1.

Mr. Bennett — 4967

Mr. Gibson — 4968

Mr. Phillips — 4968

Mrs. Jordan — 4968

Mr. Lewis — 4971

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, at the close, prior to 6

p.m., we had a little difficulty over the question of

amendments by message to a bill which was a message bill. I

just want to say that the confusion really developed because of

the practice of the past of matters that were first introduced

by message going to a Committee of the Whole House at the time

of the first reading.

When it comes to amendments, there really is no need for

leave to be asked or sought, although that practice has, by a

courtesy, been used for many years. Actually the matter simply

moved into the charge of the committee having in charge the

bill by the Minister concerned moving that the message and the

amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee

of the House having in charge the bill. So all of this

contretemps might have been avoided if we had all taken a look

at the original practice.

In any event — I will certainly advise the other Ministers.

I see that the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr.

Richter) agrees with me on that point, for which I thank

him.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Speaker, on that very point, I'm pleased that your Honour has

recalled what the practice of this House is. I think it is

important that we recognize from time to time just what our

usages are, and anything that can be done to remind us of that

matter must be a step in the right direction. I know that your

Honour would wish to ensure that all of the practices of this

House be carried on in accordance with traditions of

parliament, which you will always sustain.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the words. I hope I can

remember that, but I sometimes suffer from amnesia.

(Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders. Committee on Bill 178, Mr. Speaker.

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(1974) NO. 2

(continued)

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

chair.

section 1 (continued) .

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): When we were discussing this previously,

Members of the opposition were urging me to accept a specific

amendment suggested by them. Inherent in their suggestions were

that perhaps this

section would not be implemented. I think we

would not have introduced this legislation had we not had the

fullest intention of implementing it. If we haven't moved by

the next session to implement this legislation certainly….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …the government, and I

personally, would be in a position where I could be roundly

hammered by the opposition. But we would not have introduced it

had we not intended to implement it.

Interjections.

An. Hon. Member: People of little faith!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I repeat what I have already said:

we are accepting responsibility for every just claim. We will

not put the claimants through the courts. We will move

immediately we are given the authority to settle these claims.

As I have already pointed out, until we have this authority —

despite the fact it's not our responsibility but that of the

private companies — we can't move.

I gave these suggestions a lot of thought. I gave them a lot

of thought. I know, and my legal friends across the way know,

that every word has weight in legislation when that legislation

gets before the courts.

I think it was the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who

said: "Don't leave these people suffering while the government

is fighting with the private insurance companies." That's why

we're bringing this legislation in — so that people will not be

left to suffer while we try to get the insurance companies to

accept their responsibility. I know the weight of every word. I

don't want to accept this amendment, because it might

jeopardize our ability to follow through on that

section which

allows us to collect from the responsible insurance

company.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): We listened to a

very, very weak speech by the Minister. It was touching. It got

right to us; it grabbed us right by the heart, but there was no

commitment. No commitment. What is wrong or what is offensive

about the word that would involve or infuse into this

[ Page 4946 ]

particular

section "shall?" What is wrong with a word that

would put a requirement on behalf of the government rather than

an election on their part? What is wrong with that, Mr.

Minister? What's wrong with that?

If you have listened to the debate this afternoon, you will

realize that the people who are involved in this are the ones

who are caught in between. They're caught in between by this

particular

section of the bill, because they don't know whether

they're fish or fowl; they don't know whether you're going to

deal fairly with them or not. If you are as concerned as you

say you are, then you'll write it into the statute before us

tonight. You'll write in into the statute.

For too long we've listened to the NDP and their platitudes

on how they cared about people. Then we saw the type of

legislation you've brought into this House since you've become

government. You know, it's nice to say: "We believe in

protecting the little people; we really care." But until such

time as you're forced to it, you say it out of one side of your

mouth and you turn around and direct your legislation in the

opposite direction. That's why we want a guarantee written into

this. We want a guarantee, Ever since this Minister has been appointed to the office he

now holds we've listened to platitudes; we've listened to

promises; we've listened to the Minister waffle on issues that

were vital to the public of this province.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the

section

before us.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps it would be well if the Chairman

listened to the debate that has taken place. The debate up to

this point on this particular subject has been one of accepting

an amendment from the opposition. Now if they don't want to

accept an amendment, if the Minister is a little embarrassed to

accept an amendment from the opposition, all he has to do is

put in his own amendment. Put it in then. Write it into the

statute that's before us tonight. Let the little people who are

involved and who are caught in a crunch in this situation know

that if they have a legitimate cause, if they have a legitimate

claim, they'll be looked after.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: You just want to get the private

insurance companies off the hook; that's all you're after.

Mr. Smith: I'll tell you this: the private insurance companies in this

particular instance have kept faith far more than the Minister has kept faith

with the people of this province, because they have been prepared to accept

legitimate claims, even though they were forced out of business by the NDP in

this province. They've kept their faith. Now we suggest to the Minister that

he try to keep his.

Now we suggest to the Minister that he try to keep his faith

by inserting two little words which say that you can believe in

the small people in the Province of British Columbia, and are

prepared to examine any claim put before you on a legitimate

basis and see that these small people will not be hurt. That's

all that's been asked.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: I don't intend to ask a question 67 times

this evening, Mr. Minister.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Don't tempt him.

Mr. Smith: Is that a challenge?

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: I didn't even expect to see you in the

House tonight….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: …after that 180-degree turn earlier

this evening.

Mr. Chairman: Order, Please. Would the Hon. Member

please address himself to the

section before us?

Mr. Smith: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister's responsible for the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia, all he has to do is say…but he has to do

more than say; he has to write into this particular section….

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I've already said it.

Mr. Smith: The fact of the matter, Mr. Minister, is

that because of past experience those people who may be

involved in this particular situation do not believe you.

They've seen too many things happen as a result of Ministers

saying one thing and doing another since the NDP came to

office.

If you are really concerned about the 100-odd people who

will be involved in this particular situation, all you have to

do is write two little words into this

section of the bill, or

accept an amendment,

[ Page 4947 ]

or propose it yourself. It's not difficult; it's not copping

out. All it's doing is fulfilling an obligation that you now

have to the people of British Columbia.

Believe me, that obligation became yours the day you

legislated all other insurance companies out of the auto

insurance business in the Province of British Columbia. Even

though they carry on a commitment beyond that point in good

faith, you now have an obligation. And if you are prepared to

do the same thing that the private insurance companies did in

the past, you will devote 3 per cent of the funds that are

presently paid into ICBC into a fund that can pay for these

sort of things.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We do.

Mr. Smith: Then go ahead and recognize the legitimate

claims. After all, they've paid far beyond the time they were

in business in British Columbia, and now you pick up the

tab.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: That's right. Do a fleet-foot, Mr.

Minister, and get lost.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Would the Hon. Member address

himself to the section, please?

Mr. Smith: Thank you. I'm trying, Mr. Chairman.

There is nothing quite as revealing as to the true policy of

this government as this particular section. It's very obvious

now, and it must be obvious to all of the people of British

Columbia, that what the NDP says and what they are prepared to

do are two different things. All you have to do is accept a

very small amendment.

You know, if the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) was on this side of the House tonight, he'd

be up screaming his head off for exactly the same things I'm

asking for, Mr. Chairman.

An. Hon. Member: You'd say that about W.C.B. — the

same argument with W.C.B.

Mr. Smith: You'd be up making a very forceful case for exactly the same

thing that I'm asking for this evening on behalf of people who are caught in

a crunch — not because of their fault, but because of a transition that took

place in the Province of British Columbia, orchestrated by the NDP. Now let's

see the NDP prove to the people of British Columbia that they really do care

for the individuals, for the little people.

In short, Mr. Chairman, it's time the government put their

money where their mouth is, and did something for the….

An. Hon. Member: Our money where their mouth is.

Mr. Smith: Their money? That's incorrect; it's our

money — the taxpayers' money.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): What about

their false advertising?

Mr. Smith: If this corporation, which was a monopoly

in the Province of British Columbia, can spend millions of

dollars on computers which do not work, which they have to

discard, then they can put up a little bit of the money of the

people of the Province of British Columbia, which they have

taken from them in premiums, to guarantee that the people who

are caught in this crunch will not be hurt by the fact that the

government can chose as to whether they accept a claim, or

whether they do not. Write it into this

section of the bill,

and let people know once and for all where you stand.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr.

Chairman, I think the Members of the committee should very

carefully consider what it is that we are doing here this

evening. We are sitting as a committee of the Legislature of

this Province; we are not in a cabinet meeting to decide what

government Ministers may or may not deem as appropriate, but

what the Legislature of British Columbia should pass in the way

of its laws.

The Hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), earlier this afternoon gave a clear and accurate

dissertation on what the situation was that led up to the

debate we are having tonight with regard to the establishment

of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, the consequences of the

enactment of the automobile insurance legislation and the

commencement of the operations of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. I would hope that we could continue this

debate in a manner that would cast more light upon the subject

than heat, as the case has been too often heretofore.

If I have been involved in the heat, then I apologize to the

committee for that.

Mr. Chairman, we have here a case where by reason of

legislation passed by this House — not introduced by this

government but by the previous government, but nonetheless

legislation passed by this House — the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund has been brought into being; and under the laws

of the Motor-Vehicle Act, the Traffic Victims Indemnity

[ Page 4948 ]

Fund has disappeared, as of November 10, 1973.

As a consequence of the legislation in this province, we

have 125, or so, individuals who find themselves at the moment

without a clear right to relief which the legislation passed by

the House was intended to provide for them. These are people

who have sustained injuries in motor vehicle accidents

resulting either from hit-and-run accidents, or from accidents

caused by people who were uninsured. The legislation, going

back from 1957 in this province, has provided that those

individuals who suffer loss as a result of incidents of that

nature should be entitled to compensation.

There are 125-odd individuals, as I say, who find themselves

by reason, perhaps, of the inadequacy of the legislation unable

to obtain prompt redress for their loss. That is what we are

talking about.

I'm not concerned with what the rights of the private

insurers might be in this matter. It may be that the position

they take is a proper one in law. I'm not concerned with what

the position of what ICBC may be — at the moment its position

is unquestionably right in law. It has no responsibility, and

these injured people can make no proper claim on that

corporation at this time.

It may be because of a hiatus in our legislation, it may be

because of inadequacies in the agreements, which over the years

were entered into between the Attorney-General on the part of

the Province of British Columbia and the private insurers, that

these people had been left out. If that is the case, then I

think it is the responsibility of the people of British

Columbia to ensure that those 125 to 130 individuals do not

suffer loss because of the failure of the Legislature or of

Members of the government to deal properly with their

responsibility.

If indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is truly the responsibility of

the private insurers who were members of the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund to contribute the moneys which are required to

compensate these individuals, then, by all means, this

Legislature and this government should support any action

required to ensure that those private insurers properly pay the

amount which is due from them. There's no question about that

at all.

But what we have before us is an amendment to legislation

which would authorize but not direct, to make it permissive but

not mandatory that the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia carry out this responsibility to these

individuals.

Earlier in the past week, the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) posed a question to the Attorney-General as to whether or not he would

give his assurance that, because the responsibility fell within the jurisdiction

of his department, these individuals would be compensated. The Hon. Attorney-General

in response to that question said that he could not give such assurance, and

I think the Members of this House can recognize why he could not.

But, Mr. Chairman, equally the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who has the responsibility

of administering the affairs of ICBC so far as this House is

concerned, cannot give that assurance to this House. He cannot

control the destiny of ICBC. It is a corporation; it must act

in accordance with the decisions of its board of directors. The

Hon. Minister cannot give us the assurance, and, indeed, it is

inappropriate for this House and this committee to demand of

that Minister assurances which he cannot give.

But we as the Legislature of British Columbia are entitled

to tell our Crown corporation what its position should be in

this matter. And that's what we're asking tonight.

Now, are we asking so much? When we passed the automobile

insurance legislation, which is the law in this province today,

and when the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was

incorporated by this Legislature….

An. Hon. Member: Did you vote for it?

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, I didn't vote for it. I don't

know why the Minister raises that question. It is the law. When

we passed that legislation, it became the law of the Province

of British Columbia.

From March 1, 1974, any individual in this province who

suffered injury as the result of a hit-and-run accident or who

suffered injuries as a result of the operation of a motor

vehicle by a person who was uninsured would be compensated,

without question, for the amount of his claim by the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. It was mandatory on the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that they compensate

that individual for that loss.

Now, all we are saying at this particular time from the

opposition side — because it is out of order under the rules of

this House that an amendment from us be debated on the floor of

this House — is that the Minister whose responsibility it is

should place before this committee an amendment which will give

these 125 or 130 individuals the same right which this

Legislature has given to everyone else in this province — that

they shall be compensated for their loss as the result of

injuries sustained in accidents with a hit-and-run driver or

with an operator of a motor vehicle who is uninsured.

It is suggested by the Minister of Transport and

Communications in his remarks earlier today that there is a

question as to whether or not these claims are appropriate or

not. We don't quarrel with that part of the amendment which is

before us, because all that they are giving to the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia is the obligation and the right

[ Page 4949 ]

carry out the responsibilities which heretofore were

undertaken by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

Now I urge all Members, if they haven't taken the time up

until now, to look at the responsibilities of the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund. Those responsibilities are two in

number.

First of all, it is the responsibility of the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund to pay any judgment obtained in the

courts of British Columbia. So all we're saying to ICBC, then,

is: "Please assume the responsibility to pay a judgment which

has been rendered in the courts of this province."

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's all that we're asking the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to do — undertake as

an obligation the payment of a judgment obtained in the courts

of this province by a person struck down by a hit-and-run

driver or by an uninsured motorist.

The second obligation of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund,

which we're asking ICBC to assume, is to pay any settlement

properly arrived at in respect of the injuries of a person who

has been struck down by a hit-and-run driver or an uninsured

motorist.

You might say that in that settlement provision there is a

possibility for great abuse. But, Mr. Chairman, if you look at

the legislation which governs settlements under Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund, no such settlement was a proper charge against

that fund unless the settlement was concluded with the

knowledge and approval of the Attorney-General of this

province. So the other thing we're asking ICBC to do, with

respect to these 125 individuals, is: "Please pay any

settlements of claims they have for personal injuries sustained

in an accident with a hit-and-run driver or an uninsured

motorist if that settlement has been approved by the

Attorney-General or a member of his staff."

Now, are we asking ICBC to do so much? Indeed, all we are

asking ICBC to do is to extend to these 125 to 130 individuals

the same rights that are extended under the laws passed here

which established ICBC and the automobile insurance plan.

In addition, with this bill which is before us, we are

saying to ICBC: "If any amount of money paid by you as a result

of the obligations which we are casting upon you with this

legislation is recoverable from those private insurers who

formerly made up the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, then you

have the full authority to proceed against those companies and

recoup those moneys." If, on the other hand, the legislation of

this province was ineffective for that purpose, then it is the

responsibility of the province to share whatever the loss might

be.

What I would like to say to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) who seems to find this debate so amusing, and to the Hon. Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) who appears to find this debate so amusing, is that all

we are trying to do is to say to these 125 or 130 people, who through no fault

of their own find themselves without relief, that they be given that relief

by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia as a matter of right

in the same way as if they had suffered such injuries after March 1, 1974. We

are saying at the same time to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia:

"You have the full authority of this Legislature to pursue those private insurers

and to recover from them any amount which they were obliged to pay."

We are therefore saying to these unfortunate people: "We

will ensure that you suffer no loss, and we will also remove

from you the burden of chasing the private insurers or ICBC or

anybody else."

There is one very important matter to recall, Mr. Chairman.

It just may be that the private insurers are right. It just may

be that there is no obligation on them to pay any claim of

which they did not have notice on or after November 11,

Now, if that is the case, then the people who fall into that

category are suffering loss which is beyond recovery as a

result of a failure of this Legislature and the Government of

British Columbia to take certain circumstances into account.

We're only asking that that situation be settled in such a way

so that result can never occur.

If indeed it is the fact that the insurance companies are

right and that they have no obligation to pay, if indeed it is

not the responsibility of ICBC to pay this money because it

didn't come into existence until March 1, 1974, then I

suggest that the failure of the government and of this

Legislature to take these circumstances into account is such

that the people of the Province of British Columbia should make

up out of consolidated revenue whatever fund is required to

ensure that these people suffer no loss. No question about

that.

The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), as I expected he would, has indicated by his nod and

comment that he agrees with what I say. But I ask the Minister

also to agree that we as a Legislature should place this

obligation as a mandatory obligation on ICBC.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: It then removes from that Minister

any obligation to go to the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia and say to them: "You've now got the authority; please

do this" — interfere with their business. Since we as a

Legislature may have been responsible for inadequacy in

legislation, then we as a Legislature should speak positively

to the people of British Columbia and to

[ Page 4950 ]

ICBC and say: "This is what we want you to do. You must do

it. There's no decision for you to make; we're taking that

decision off your shoulders."

And I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it the settlement or

payment of these claims comes to a figure of $5 million, as has

been suggested, this should not be a claim against ICBC and its

normal sources of revenue; it should be a claim against the

consolidated revenue fund of this province. It should not

figure in any profit or loss of ICBC.

If they can't recover from the private insurers following

proper proceedings in court, if the TVIF is truly excused from

making this payment, then the consolidated revenue of this

province should make up the fund necessary to pay these moneys.

It has been the fault of this Legislature — not of the Members

who sit here today but of Members who have sat in past

parliaments — which has brought this about.

We should remove this particular problem — the solution of

the difficulties of these 125 or 130 people — from the

shoulders of this government, from the shoulders of this

Legislature, from the shoulders of that Minister, from the

shoulders of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), from

the shoulders of the directors of ICBC, and say to these

people: "We will pay your claims out of judgments that you have

recovered in the courts of this province and of settlements

which you have made which have been approved by the

Attorney-General. We will cast no obligation on anyone if these

moneys cannot be recovered from the insurance companies who

form part of TVIF."

It should not be left to that Minister of Transport and

Communications to walk out of this House and go to the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to interfere with

decisions which it should make. We should remove that burden

from that Minister. There has been too much criticism of him

and of ICBC for matters which are not within their

responsibility. Those matters rest squarely within the

responsibility of this Legislature and it is up to each Member

of this House to assume that burden and to encourage the

government to make this obligation on ICBC mandatory. If any

criticism is to be levied for that Act, then this Legislature

should assume that criticism and all other individuals should

be excused.

The consequence of this, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you, is

that these unfortunate people injured as a result of no fault

of their own will receive their proper compensation. The people

who should properly provide the funded money, be it the private

insurers or the people of British Columbia, will have paid that

fund and will have fulfilled that obligation. There will be no

room for any Member of this opposition, of this Legislature or

any person in this Province of British Columbia to point the

finger at the government, at ICBC or at the Minister for having

carried out that responsibility.

We are in this position because of the laws of, this

province, and it is through the laws of the province that we

should extricate ourselves.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I

appreciate this opportunity to speak. I would like to leave it

to the lawyers who speak in the legalistic terms that they do

so well. But I would like to comment on some, what seem to me,

very obvious points in this whole debate and, in particular, in

relation to the plight of these 125-odd people, and maybe some

more, whom we're talking about.

The first thing that's impressive is that the Minister comes

into the House and, after he listens to the debate for a while,

comes on strong and calm, and almost has everyone reduced to

tears about what he is going to do in processing each of these

particular cases.

And the former speaker has spoken very eloquently on the

improper position the Minister places himself in that

regard.

But one would almost have been inclined to believe the

Minister and to have been able to have confidence in him when

he wound up with his usual, "Trust us." It's not in

legislation, but "trust us". This is just another "trust us"

attitude that we see repeated day after day, legislation after

legislation, as discussion goes on in this House.

The fortunate thing is that most people, once bitten, are

twice shy. This Minister among all the Ministers is probably

the last one who should be standing up in this House and saying

"Don't read what's in the legislation; listen to what I say I'm

going to do. And trust us." One might almost have been inclined

to take him at his word if, in his presentations on three

occasions now in this debate, he hadn't spent so much time

protecting his own hide by sly digs here at this company and

sly digs there, slowly waxing the whole problem in which these

people find themselves and the whole problem of ICBC, around

those much-discredited companies that he likes to talk

about.

After all, Mr. Chairman, it was this Minister and this

government that pulled the table out from under these

people.

Some Hon. Members: Come on!

Mrs. Jordan: They're the ones that left them

sandwiched between big government and big law and big

companies. It's this government that has left them in a

position where they don't know and can't really prove what

their rights are, not only in terms of the law and the cost of

trying to do this through the law, and the remoteness of trying

to act through the courts on such an issue, but the fact that

they themselves in many instances are physically handicapped

and suffering long-term complications

[ Page

4951 ]

from their accidents.

The Minister got up and said: "Those companies — they didn't

even tell me what they were going to do." All I have to say

about that, Mr. Chairman, is that that makes two of them

sitting down at the table and playing games.

It shouldn't really be our concern here as to who's right

and who's wrong. We could argue on all night. The important

thing is that a vacuum has been created by this government and

repercussions have been created by companies because of actions

of this government.

It's people who are caught in that vacuum. But I would say

that this government created the monopoly situation in British

Columbia. It was this government that legislated a sector of

the private enterprise system in which these people were

involved out of this province. If the government chooses that

as its way of operating for the people's benefit, then it must

assume the responsibilities that go with that monopoly. One of

the responsibilities is the legal and insured protection of the

people who are hurt by that legislation.

This, Mr. Minister, is what we're concerned about. Your word

is not good enough on the basis of your performance. The word

of this government is not good enough on the basis of its

performance. Just in this whole issue, it was the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) who convinced the people of

British Columbia that they would have $25 auto insurance, and

they voted for it and they were stung. It was not true. And in

the same way in this

section the people of British Columbia and

the Members of this Legislature know that this Minister is not

performing on the basis of his history since being a Minister,

and his words cannot be accepted as fact.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the

Hon. Member that we're not considering the Minister's conduct

or his Ministry, but rather we're considering this

section

under the Act.

Mrs. Jordan: I am making reference to his comments in

the debate.

I really wish that the Premier of this Province, that great

champion of the little man in British Columbia, were here. I'm

sure, on the basis of a presentation and a speech that he made

in the community our family lives in, in Vernon, less than a

month ago, that he would know what we are talking about on this

side of the House, and he would accept or bring in the two

little words that we need.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell you about this because it pertains to this

section

of the Act. The Premier was in Vernon for the opening of what we call Howard

House. As the Chairman knows, this is a group of people who work for the benefit

of people who have alcoholic problems, who have been in jail and are getting

out, and need help in their rehabilitation. At that presentation some of the

discussion went around the fact that this Howard House he was opening was an

old nurses' residence that had been moved down in pieces to this site. They

discussed the problems of putting that building on the foundation.

Everyone came to the conclusion that no matter how useful

the home, it just didn't quite fit. The Premier got up and said

how appropriate for Howard House that the building just didn't

quite fit, and how it was to serve some very unfortunate people

who in life just didn't quite fit. He was right, Mr.

Chairman.

The point here is that we're talking about approximately 125

people who just don't quite fit. They don't fit into the plans

of this government, and they don't fit into the actions of the

insurance company. Surely if tenants and the people who are

going to live in Howard House don't quite fit, because of

circumstances of nature and human character — and they deserve

the money that has been put into this Howard House, and I

believe they do, and they deserve the consideration that the

Premier gave them on that day, and I hope will in the future,

and they do — then surely these people, who just don't quite

fit into the machinations of this government and private

enterprise and the legislation in this province, deserve equal

consideration.

They're not the victims of nature. They're not the victims

of their own mismanagement or their own weaknesses. They are

victims of man-made problems in terms of mechanical devices,

and they are the victims, as I mentioned, of the machinations

of this government.

Surely, Mr. Minister, before you leave the House you must

recognize their rights, and you must recognize the need for

your commitment to protect their rights every bit as much as we

would protect any other citizen's rights in this province.

Interjection.

An. Hon. Member: Flippant!

Mrs. Jordan: The Minister has just walked out making

a flippant remark, and that's very disappointing, although I

must say that it is certainly not unexpected from this

Minister.

Interjection.

An. Hon. Member: Typical.

Mrs. Jordan: Extremely typical.

I would recall, Mr. Chairman, in his debate, in his concern

for these people and his attacks on the companies….

[ Page 4952 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): A

point of order.

Mrs. Jordan: I'll have two chocolate and one banana,

please.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cummings: Just make her vaguely touch the subject once

every five minutes, please, This is going to drive the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) clear

out of the House if somebody doesn't bear with him.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) continue, please?

Mrs. Jordan: I appreciate the Hon. Member's comment.

I just hope that one day that Member doesn't find that he just

doesn't quite fit.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister was

talking about his concern for these people, and his attacks on

the company, he also between his tears brought out the figure

that it might cost $6 million to meet the commitment the

opposition is asking him to. Really, one must ask, what is $6

million to this government? They're spreading nearly that much

in gold filigree around these buildings.

I'm advised that it is only $1.5 million. That's nothing but

coffee money for the welfare and the woods programmes, and that

overrun.

Surely for these people who don't quite fit we can afford

that amount of money.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: The Hon. Minister for Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) says, "What more do you want? He's giving you

his commitment." I find that extraordinary, because that

Minister of Consumer Services has been one Minister who has

been completely blocked in her Ministerial function by ICBC.

She should be championing the rights of these consumers…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: …who would receive the benefit of

this amendment. So I would urge you, Mr. Minister…and it

now seems confusing who the Minister is we are addressing. It

was the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) who opened the legislation and now

it is the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) who is carrying it.

I would ask you again: let's get out of the confusion, the

red-tape; let's get out of the legality; let's get out of the

commas and the dots and the i's and the t's and get down to

where it is really at, Mr. Chairman. That is these few people

who just don't quite fit. Let's enshrine with two words in this

Act nothing more than what they deserve: fair play and fair

consideration for fair claims.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, where

we're parting company with the Hon. Minister…. In one sense

I'm glad that he is out of the room because I feel that several

Members of the government side are sympathetic and

understanding to the points that are being made by the

opposition. What we wish to absolutely ensure in this debate,

is to the fact that a person who doesn't have the use of his

arms or the use of his legs is not going to have to be put in

the position of bringing an action against the insurance

corporation and/or an action against the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund for just compensation. We say that those people

should be paid as of right, Mr. Chairman, and anything less is

heinous treatment for them.

I would like to pay a little regard to some chronology

here. This is an

article from The Vancouver Sun on

November 10.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: I might have mispronounced a word, Mr.

Minister, but that doesn't help their situation one bit. You've

the power to do that tonight, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King). I'd like to hear you on the point of this rather

serious….

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Gardom: We won the point. We said of this rather

spurious chit-chat across the floor….

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

address the Chair?

Mr. Gardom: November 10, 1973, there's an

article in

The Vancouver Sun :

"The B.C. cabinet has created a fund to cover claims arising

from motor vehicle accident where no insurance policy exists.

The cabinet order released Friday announced that a previously

unproclaimed 25-year-old

section of the Motor-Vehicle Act has

been brought into effect setting up an unsatisfied judgment

fund."

[ Page 4953 ]

So this is November of 1973: at that point there was a

remark from the Hon. Minister complaining about the companies.

He stated in this debate that:

"The companies already have

collected the money they needed to keep the fund going until

March 1, from every vehicle owner who's purchased an insurance

policy this year."

Strachan said:

"Every private auto insurance premium includes an additional

loading to support the TVIF programme."

The

article continues at the end:

"Motor vehicle licence revenues" — speaking under ICBC —

"will be tapped to finance the emergency fund to cover the

claims for death, injuries and car damage resulting from

hit-and-run and other cases not covered by insurance,

Strachan's announcement said."

So, Mr. Chairman, let's understand one thing absolutely

clearly. In November, 1973, the Minister was 100 per cent and

fully aware of the problem that was presenting itself.

Next, a very interesting advertisement. Full-page. The

Vancouver Sun , March 20, 1974:

" 'You tell us,' says Mr. Norman Bortnick. 'The whole

concept behind public auto insurance is the fact that we are

responsible to you the public, and in order to do the best job

for you we have to know what you are thinking, and in order for

us to know what you are thinking, you have to tell us.

'We have very qualified people here to answer your letters,

complaints, suggestions and praises. They are the heart of our

organization because they tell us what you tell them, and

that's when we go into action.' "

And so far the "action" of ICBC on this particular point has

been nil.

Carrying on with this advertisement:

"Changing, modifying, adjusting, responding to the needs of

British Columbians, that's what public insurance is all about.

Public responsibility and responsiveness".

So let us have it. Let us have it.

These people, one of whom is paralyzed totally, another one

partially, they read these kind of advertisements, and what are

they receiving?

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: One Member says: "Zilch"; another says:

"The back of a hand". They've received so far nothing more than

evasion. Here's a letter from Mr. Bortnick in the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, July 2, 1974, to Mr. K.V.

Malthouse of Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. He says:

"Thank you for your letter of June 13, 1974. I have been

unsuccessful in reaching you by telephone, so I thought I should inform you

that I have noted your comments in your letter and will be in touch with you

further on the matter shortly."

July of 1974 — "shortly". We're debating this today in

November 1974. Four months later.

Next, here's a very interesting bit of correspondence from

Robert M. Strachan, dated October 8, 1974, to a solicitor who's

representing a person who's badly injured. He says:

"Further to our letter of September 26, 1974, I have now had

an opportunity to obtain information necessary to reply to your

letter of September 19."

This is just a couple of months back.

"It is most unfortunate that the position adopted by the

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund has created the situation which

you describe. However, I can assure you that discussions are

presently in progress between TVIF, its counsel and the

department of the Attorney-General.

"It is hoped that some resolution of the present

difficulties will soon be achieved, and in the event that there

is some assumption of liabilities by the Attorney-General's

department, then it may well be that the ICBC will act as

agents for the purpose of dealing with claims, such as the one

which is the subject matter of this correspondence."

So there's an attempt or indication by the Hon. Robert M.

Strachan, Minister of Transport and Communications, to fob off

responsibility onto the Attorney-General's Department on

October 8, 1974.

Here happens to be a letter to me from a

person who's claiming. This is dated November 15, 1974:

"I have been corresponding for some considerable length of

time with both TVIF and ICBC, and more recently with the

Attorney-General's office in an effort to make some

progress."

They couldn't make any progress, Mr. Chairman. The ball was

just tossed from one court to the other, meanwhile the people

who are entitled to the recoveries are not getting them. They

are not getting them.

Now, November; 8, 1974, The Province : "Crash funds

liable, not B.C." that's what Strachan said, November 8.

Strachan said: "The private insurance companies, which have

bank-rolled the fund, collected premiums until March 1, 1974."

They obviously didn't collect…well, maybe they did, I don't

know.

This is what he said:

"… collected premiums until March 1, 1974, and part of

those premiums should have gone as usual to the fund. This

means the fund should

[ Page 4954 ]

have money in reserve to pay the claims of all persons injured before the November cutoff date."

Mr. Chairman, I wish you to listen very carefully, and

particularly all government Members, to this next statement —

this is your Minister whom you are supporting in this

thing.

" 'The fund has a clear legal responsibility to pay all claims

arising out of accidents that occurred before November 10,

1973,' said Strachan.

"He suggested that persons caught in the situation should

consult a lawyer to see what action could be taken to recover

claims legally due them. The government is not considering any

direct action against the fund to try to force it to pay the

claims."

That's what he said on November 8 of this year.

Then he comes in the House this afternoon — and you people

heard this debate, heard your Minister stand up on his feet and

say to the people in this House that we can't pay carte blanche…. These are my words, not his, but this is the impression I

received from his remarks, and if anyone else in this House

received a different impression from his remarks I'd like you

to raise your hand. He said that they can't carte blanche pay

everyone that they're asked.

Then I stood up and I made the point: "Mr. Minister," I said, "no one is asking you to do that at all." I

said: "Under your bill as it is phrased, you only have to pay

those which you have an obligation to pay" — meaning a legal

obligation. And as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) most eloquently stated tonight, and made it

crystal clear to everyone in this chamber, "the injured

individual has to prove his claim." But the Minister didn't say

that this afternoon. How many times is he going to shift his

ground?

If anyone in the House denies, that I said what he said this

afternoon, just put your hand up.

An. Hon. Member: Stop the legislation.

Mr. Gardom: Okay, well, that's fine and dandy.

So this is what we're asking and I have appealed to

individual Members of the government side who understand the

point, but they have stubbornness on the part of the Minister,

or something or other. It's preposterous that you cannot bring

in this amendment which we're requesting.

For goodness' sake, don't let it continue on a permissive

basis. You have a Minister here who has switched ground more

than once. Where is he now?

I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman. The Premier of this province would not

be out of this House in this kind of a debate — make no mistake of that fact

— when there are injured people suffering in this province.

What the devil's going on here? We're just trying to do the

fair thing; this never had to be a heated debate!

The amendments were suggested to the government side by

side. They could have brought it in. I asked them this

afternoon would they hoist it. I'll ask them again tonight:

will you please hoist this if you were to caucus on it

tomorrow? Hoist this

section of this bill; take a look at it

tomorrow morning at caucus, and put the word "shall" here. Put

the word "shall"…that these people "shall be paid". Let

them have that kind of a confidence tonight that you've done

the right thing by them. Let right be done. Let right be

done.

Mr. Phillips: What about the left?

Mr. Gardom: Well, Mr. Member, your remarks are

interesting and you're entitled to them, but they're no help to

the injured people.

This isn't a political matter. It's a matter of health; it's

a matter of doing the right thing for people. It's a matter of

doing the correct and the right thing for injured people. Let

them know tomorrow that they can have their judgments and their

legal claims paid by the insurance corporation.

Let the insurance corporation, if it chooses and if it has

the grounds to do it, take proceedings against Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund. Let that be settled by the tribunal in front of

whom it should be properly settled, and those are the courts of

this land. But for goodness' sake, let right be done.

It is no use to this debate, if this Minister's carrying the

conduct of it, if he's not here.

An. Hon. Member: Where is he?

Mr. Gardom: If the Provincial Secretary is prepared

to pull this

section tonight and bring in the amendment, he

will receive the accolade of the people who are injured. He's

not interested whether the opposition supports or doesn't

support it. He's a politician. It's not a political issue; it's

a blood-and-guts issue. You are doing the wrong thing. You are

really doing the wrong thing.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we

would not call a vote on this

section until the Minister does

return, because it would make great sense. I would just like to

refer, while we wait for the Minister to return — then I will

move an adjournment which I'm sure it will be accepted — to

what is really at issue here.

We've had the government time after time, Mr. Chairman, say,

"Well, we might do it. Our hearts are sympathetic. It's

possible that we'll help them out. But don't give them a right;

let it all be discretionary.

[ Page 4955 ]

Let it all be the Minister; let it all be the department.

Let it all be us telling them what we're going to give them.

Let it all be us telling them what we're going to give them.

Let it all be them coming to us on bended knee for what we

think they should receive by right."

That is the real issue that we have tonight. It's not a

question, we feel, for government discretion.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Vote

adjournment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I will move adjournment, you just

hold on.

The question is one of right. I'd like to refer just for a

few moments to a parallel which has been raised before. I think

it's important because essentially what we are dealing with

here is the same as that dealt with on March 5, 1971: it's the

willful pride of a Minister refusing to let right be done. It's

a very similar case.

Back in 1971, we had the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon.

Mr. Barrett) admitting that the case he was bringing up was

one where a widow, one Donna Taylor, did not have a legal

right, but he felt on grounds of natural justice that she had a

right at least to have her case heard. He pointed out at the

time — and it's similar in this respect — to the then

Attorney-General (Mr. Peterson) that had the Premier been in

the House (the Premier of those days being one Bennett) — and

I'll quote from the newspapers of the day:

"He was sure, said Barrett, that Premier Bennett would have

shown in the same circumstances some compassion in the

case."

Now here we have much the same situation. The Premier is

away. We have a headstrong, proud Minister who has taken the

wrong position, we feel, in this instance.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I think it's improper

under the rules of the House to speak personally about a

Minister. We're addressing this

section of the bill; we're not

considering the Minister's estimates or the Minister's….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I accept your

admonition, but we're considering the statements made by the

Minister with reference to the attitude he takes towards

section 1.

I welcome the Minister back to the House.

We're considering his attitude, because that's the crux of the issue here.

We are recommending that rights be given to individuals. We have pointed out

that if we accept the Minister's word, as we do, there will be no cost to the

Crown, because, of course, any legal recovery that can be made from the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund will be made, as the Minister indicated. There can be

no extra cost to the Crown of an amendment putting in the word "shall" in this

instance, if we accept, as I said, his word as to what he intends to do.

Now, given that, we have to consider the attitude of the

Minister and we have to consider the attitude of the

government. We think the attitude is that of a legalistic group

who are relying upon details of the law rather than the intent

of the law, and who are relying upon discretion of the Minister

instead of the right that should be granted to the individuals

concerned.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Who introduced the

legislation?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Who introduced the

legislation?

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Now you had better check, Mr.

Member for Shuswap. You were out of the House for days on end

and you wouldn't vote. That Member there kept raising the

issue, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

But you didn't have the guts to come here and vote on the other

bill so you didn't hear him.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

address the Chair, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, my apologies, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that this was raised in this House by the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

An. Hon. Member: He was hiding in the chicken

house.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Minister introduced an

amendment to this bill that we are discussing at the present

time.

But the problem we face is this: no rights are given to the

individuals concerned, no rights whatsoever, and total

discretionary power is kept in the hands of the Minister

concerned.

I would like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the debate that

I mentioned earlier and that has been mentioned a number of

times earlier, back in March of 1971. At that time, what was

essentially at issue, because there was no legal right

involved, was the headstrong attitude and the unfeeling

attitude of the Minister (Mr. Peterson) when faced with a case

which needed a little compassion and understanding. At that

time and in that instance that was the fact which was worked

upon and put forth time after time by the then Leader of the

Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett). We feel he was right to do so

and we naturally voted with the opposition at that time.

[ Page 4956 ]

An. Hon. Member: You weren't here.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: When I say we, I refer to the

members of the Liberal Party present that evening.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Liberals do, Mr. Member, and I

refer you again….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

address the Chair, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I refer you again to

the reason for this legislation being here. It's here because

of the concern expressed by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). That's why the legislation

is here.

What we ask for is this: we ask that in this instance, the

individuals concerned — many of whom are bedridden, others of

whom are in wheelchairs — be given a right. It we take the

Minister's words at face value, there is no way that to give

them that right could cost the Crown a single dollar. It could

not happen because, on the one hand, if the Minister's

interpretation is right, then the insurance companies involved

in the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund will be forced to pay

out. The government will have a claim against them and they

will be forced to pay out.

But if, on the other hand, the Minister's

interpretation of

the law is wrong — and it's always conceivable (we know that

because of the number of amendments that have been brought in

this session in bills which modify other bills passed so far;

we know that because of the number of corrections that are

incorporated in this omnibus bill that we're discussing

tonight) — as it well might be, then the individuals do not

have to go to the courts to recover. They can recover by way of

right from ICBC.

Everybody in this room knows that we are dealing with

essentially a technicality dealing with the time at which an

application was put in. It's a question of a date upon which a

claim was filed. For people to be denied rights because of a

technicality of that nature is simply appalling in my view.

Mr. Chairman, we could go on, as we probably will, unless

the government sees the reason and virtue of an amendment such

as we have suggested. We could go on for many hours. We may

well go on until early in the morning as was the case on March

5, 1971.

But the problem that we have raised is a very straightforward one. We do not

deny that the Minister's

interpretation of the history may well be correct.

No one in the opposition, at least in this party, is denying that. We are simply

saying that in a situation such as this, dealing with about 125 to 130 injured

individuals who are in the position of having no rights whatsoever because of

a technicality, the government — any government with a certain amount of compassion

and heart — would grant them the right so that they need not continue as they

are at the present time with simply the discretion of the Minister.

Why should they come cap in hand to the Minister when they

have been injured through no fault of their own, where the

situation has arisen through no fault of the Ministers but

because of the introduction of a new scheme of insurance in

B.C., tied in with the decision of the previous insurance

companies to back out of the TVIF? Had there been no new

insurance scheme, we know full well there would have been a

substitute to the TVIF. We know full well that one plan would

have merged in with the other. But it didn't happen that way,

and it's understandable because of the confusion that

surrounded the introduction of a new scheme. There is this

problem, this hiatus here, this period in which we have these

people who did not put in claims by a certain date, who are not

covered by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund or indeed,

apparently, by ICBC.

Now what we suggest to the Minister and Hon. Provincial

Secretary is to do the just and honourable thing. Don't make

these people rely on the largesse of the government or

supplicants to the government. Give them the right to have the

type of compensation to which they would have been entitled to

had the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund continued or had there

been a successive plan introduced.

We could go along at great length upon the parallel of 1971,

but essentially the same point was there. The government was

taking a legalistic approach which refuses to show compassion.

Indeed, in this case, there's a great deal more reason for it

than there was in the case in 1971 where there was obviously,

as admitted by the. former Leader of the Opposition, (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) no legal right involved under the law.

We feel that the same compassionate approach should be

adopted as was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition at

that time. There are not many people.

I would suggest, in the interests of the government sleeping

on the problem, examining the difficulties, considering the

many quotations that are present from 1971 which well might

come back to haunt them if this debate continues, that they

reconsider

section 1. I would therefore move adjournment of

this debate.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 4957 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not come to order I

have to name somebody for all this noise. I called for order

and the Speaker is on his feet. I'm looking at both of you.

Very difficult.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I don't need any more suggestions now.

Let's get on with the business.

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 171, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I want to inform the House that the

Minister is available. If you are ready to start off your

debate on the clauses, he will be here.

The House in committee on Bill 171; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I move the amendment to

section 1

standing in the name of the Minister on the order paper.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Chairman, I wondered if I was less recognized, or did you

recognize the Minister of Transport a moment ago? He made a

motion.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications moved the amendment on behalf of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

An. Hon. Member: Fumble — bumble!

Mr. Bennett: Now that the Minister has returned and

wishes to speak to his amendment.

Mr. Phillips: What utter chaos!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, here we have an amendment

that deals with a principle that we brought out and which we

said was the government attempting to take over the forest

industry. They've taken powers far beyond the true intent of

what the Minister said this Act was all about.

He talked about this being a simple little wood chip bill.

We pointed out quite strongly in second reading that indeed the

powers he'd taken, through the

definitions of this Act, of

forest products, the

definitions he'd taken in the type of

powers and products he can control, were completely at odds and

completely foreign to the simple little chip bill that he

represented to this House. Indeed Mr. Chairman, they are powers

far beyond the necessities of a simple chip bill — far beyond

the powers needed to bring stabilization to the chip

industry.

The fact that the Minister brings in this amendment at this

particular time gives some credence and credibility to the

opposition, who suggested that perhaps the true intent of this

bill was….

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: We pointed out to the Minister in second

reading that the powers they'd taken in the broad definition

were excessive to the intent he had expressed. Again, I would

suggest that it gives credence to the argument that really this

government dragged their feet for nine months to allow the

industry to fall into economic chaos, to allow unemployment to

develop….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition standing order 61,

part 2, which

requires strict relevance to the

section under

consideration.

Mr. Bennett: I'm talking about the definition. That

definition and these arguments relate to the arguments we gave

in second reading of this definition being too broad, and the

fact that the Minister's made an adjustment. I think we should

have the opportunity to restate those arguments that brought

about the back-up from the flip-flop Minister, the back-up that

this Minister has done, the fact that this Minister has been

forced to back off from the true intent. That is that he waited

nine months and let the industry decline and let unemployment

develop in this province to try to

[ Page 4958 ]

create an excuse to bring in a bill that was excessive to

his needs, to grant power excessive to his needs.

The fact that this Minister failed should not go unnoticed

in this committee, in this Legislature and by the people of.

B.C. The fact that the unemployment these people have gone

through for nine months — and it's very real to them, to the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who smirks and laughs….

The fact that people have become unemployed in this industry

because of lack of action, the fact that this Minister and his

government have not acted before to bring some stability to the

forest industry in British Columbia….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again I draw to the

attention of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition standing order

61,

part 2, which requires strict relevance to the matter

before the committee — and that is the amendment to this

section.

Mr. Bennett: The amendment deals with the change of

definition from forest products, the change of definition.

Because of the fact that we advanced this argument in second

reading, I think the Chairman should be aware that we're well

aware of the intent of what that definition

section meant.

That's why we've called for an amendment, and that's why this

Minister has backed up.

I think we have the opportunity of dealing with the

definition and the change the Minister has made, because many

people have suffered in this province through unemployment.

They've suffered while the government sat and did nothing about

stabilizing the forest industry in the interior, and the fact

that the Minister's got his back-up lights on now, the fact

that the Minister has withdrawn from his earlier position and

the fact that he now is not going to take over the whole forest

industry with the broad power that he asked for.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Well, if he wasn't, why would he back up

if he wasn't embarrassed? Why would he back up and change the

definition? Why would he change the definition if in reality

the arguments of the opposition hadn't fallen around him, and a

cry from the people of the province and from the industry, and

the people that would be hurt should he create this lack of

confidence in the industry by taking these powers? Why wouldn't

this Legislature be prepared to discuss a change? A very

dramatic turnabout, a very dramatic change from this Minister,

Mr. Chairman.

We're dealing with

section 1 and the amendment. I think it shouldn't pass unnoticed

that this definition has been changed. This Minister has backed up and this

Minister has had to listen to the opposition. We might pause and remember that

if there hadn't been an attack, and if this Legislature hadn't had the type

of opposition it has, this Minister would be proceeding with this bill in its

original form. Let us remember now that this amendment is brought in grudgingly

by that government. The shame of the unemployment of the last nine months, though,

is still with this Minister.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources): Really, it was the Member for North Peace

(Mr. Smith)…it was a most impressive speech that he gave. I

pondered it overnight and it just made all the difference in

the world. The Leader of the Opposition is certainly making

points this evening. The other thoughtful speeches from the

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and the long speech from

the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) were profound indeed

and certainly made all the difference.

I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a

government that says what it means and means what it says.

(Laughter.)

The purpose of this bill is to see to it that the

independents in the interior survive and do well under this

government. The purpose of this bill is to see to it that the

independents once more flourish on the south coast of British

Columbia, and these changes will see that they do.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I've heard it said

in the past that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is a man without a sense of humour. I didn't really

believe this, and certainly following his performance tonight I

never will believe it again. I think the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources has got to be the greatest humorist

this province has ever produced.

He said a minute ago that we had to understand that this was

a government that says what it means and means what it

says.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to

use the great majority that the people have given us to change

the words so that came true at any time of the day or night. If

you don't believe it, just look what he's done to this

legislation.

He's dropped into the middle of

section 1 to change the

definition of forest products, to limit it to logs and wood

chips, and he's removed piles — there's a trick that I didn't

think even this Minister could do. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Poles, ties, crib timber,

[ Page

4959 ]

shingle bolts, pulpwood, lumber, veneer, plywood, pulp,

paper and newsprint — all those things have come out, and this

bill is no longer going to deal with all those momentous things

that are going to save the indigenous independent operator in

the Province of British Columbia. I'm surprised he didn't have

a definition for "indigenous independent operator" in this

bill.

As a matter of fact, concerning the amendment, which we are

now debating and which I think we can all support, I don't see

why the Minister doesn't withdraw this entire bill if they are

going to make this amendment.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: If the Members will take a care to

read the other sections of the bill, considering this

particular amendment, why do we need to have this forest…what's it going to be called? — oh, yes, Forest Products Board

of British Columbia. This is the other amendment.

The Minister is so precise to change British Columbia Forest

Products Board to Forest Products Board of British Columbia.

Isn't that a momentous change? The industry, I am sure, will be

delighted, and the people of British Columbia will stand in

their places and shout hosanna, that the Minister has made that

change.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, I'm glad to see that the

Minister indicates that he's made this change at the specific

request of the British Columbia Forest Products. At least he's

listening to some segment of the forest industry in British

Columbia.

But, Mr. Chairman, why do we need the rest of this bill if

we are just going to deal with logs and wood chips? Why do we

need to have a board? There is another

section which isn't

being changed; the board is still going to deal with the

improvement of performance of markets for forest products, and

the encouragement and utilization of timber. Why do we need

timber in there if we are only dealing with logs and wood chips

now?

This is just gobbledygook, this amendment. This makes the

whole bill nonsensical. Why do we need to have a board which

has vast borrowing power? Why does it need authority to throw

away the Revenue Act of the Province of British Columbia, if we

are just going to deal with logs and wood chips? The Minister

hasn't explained this.

I'm just surprised that he didn't support this amendment by again reciting

the number of sawmills we had in 1952 and what we've got in 1974 — although it

is not important to recite that now because we are only dealing with logs, and

sawmills don't produce logs. We all know that. But maybe they produce wood chips,

so I suppose they are still of some consequence, except that the mills in 1952,

1953, 1954, 1955, 1956 and up to about 1967 didn't produce any wood chips at

all, just sawdust, so that, really, the numbers which are important for this

bill starting 1967 and 1968.

I think the Minister should really come clean with us and

tell us, as a result of the debate of the last couple of days

and the reaction that there has been in the community

generally, that he's decided he can't proceed with his

manifesto of 1971 at this particular time and that he should

withdraw the entire bill.

Mr. Smith: We're on an amendment to change certain

definitions within the first

section of this bill.

You know, for a Minister who recycles the same speech that

he's made every year in this House for the last seven or eight

years, about the forest industry, and adds a little here and

takes a little there, you're not really doing that well, Mr.

Minister. As a matter of fact, it was interesting to note that

during the supper-hour adjournment one of the Minister's

colleagues, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

converse…Commerce, or whatever….

An. Hon. Member: Economic Development.

Mr. Smith: Industrial development?

Mr. Bennett: No development.

Mr. Smith: No development? Yes, that's about the size

of his contribution to the total programme of development in

the Province of British Columbia — no development.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.

But it was interesting to note that the Minister happened to

be on "Hourglass" this evening. Obviously, the programme must

have been taped a little prior to the time the Minister

introduced his amendments at 6 o'clock, because the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) went to great lengths to

explain the situation as to how closely the cabinet works, that

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources was not

really the kingpin in cabinet, that there was tremendous

continuity and that tremendous discussion took place between

the cabinet Ministers.

Then this same Minister went on to defend, in total, the

original bill that was put before this House, and said what a

tremendous thing it was for the Province of British Columbia.

He was 100 percent in favour of it; he'd back it to the hilt.

Where is he right now? Obviously, he's got so much egg on his

face that he won't appear in this House this evening.

[ Page 4960 ]

It would seem, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that certain

Members of cabinet are not aware of what other Members of

cabinet may be proposing…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: …even an hour or two before that

proposal hit the press and was given to the Members of this

House — the old flip-flop.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to

attempt to aim his remarks at the amendment specifically.

Nothing else is allowed in this debate.

Mr. Smith: I am trying, Mr. Chairman…

Mr. Chairman: You haven't succeeded as yet.

Mr. Smith: …to relate my remarks to the

amendment.

Well, if I could refer to the section, without being out of

order, I'd suggest that the original

interpretation and the

original intent of the Minister, and what we now have before

us, are 180 degrees apart. And thank God that has happened,

because the industry in the Province of British Columbia has

been so concerned about the direction that this Minister was

trying to proceed on, that we would have no industry in British

Columbia in a few months if the original words in this bill

were to be followed verbatim. The Minister well knows that.

While this may be his desire, and this is his wish as expressed

in the original bill, he knows that there would be no industry

left in the Province of British Columbia if he followed that

particular path.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: "You all get your water wings on, "

the Minister says. What a remark from a Minister who knows that

the industry he is responsible for produces 50 cents out of

every dollar generated and spent in the Province of British

Columbia. What a remark from that Minister. No wonder he

redefines the term "forest products" so that now it only means

logs and wood chips.

I think that the point is well taken, then, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that if that is the original intent

of the bill, why didn't it say so? What were the other 19 or 20

sections in the bill required for if your whole intent and

purpose was contained, really, in a definition of forest

products and

section 2, which deals with chips in the Province

of British Columbia?

I suggest that the Minister had intentions far beyond

anything he's saying tonight, and he still does. It's a matter

that he has to back off, but I believe that the industry itself would be foolish to think

that the Minister does not still have his mind on the same goal

that he had when this bill was produced. It's just a matter of

a diversion temporarily to get yourselves over a particularly

crucial problem at this particular time.

I would hope that the industry….

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: It's not deceit.

Certainly there was a need for improvement in the price of

chips, but the Minister realizes as much as everyone else does

that this could have been accomplished; that the main stumbling

block in renegotiation of price of chips in the north happened

to be because of the corporation, which is 79 per cent

controlled by the government, who refused to renegotiate any

prices.

The second main stumbling block was the fact that any price

beyond and above $10 would result in the Crown taking 80 per

cent of that additional revenue. It was not until last Friday —

not until last Friday, Mr. Minister — that an announcement was

made by yourself which would indicate a temporary abatement of

that particular levy against the industry.

Certainly, the industry in the Province of British Columbia

requested a definition of "forest products," if you

really intended what is said in the original draft of this

bill. I suggest to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

that the intent is still here; that it is merely a matter of

drawing back and away from the original intent because of the

fact that it would be a great embarrassment to proceed with the

bill that was originally drafted.

Who drafted it? Who drafted it — the Minister? Do you mean

to say that the people responsible for drafting this

legislation did not follow the Minister's instructions? It's

quite a diversionary tactic to say, "Well, the legal clerks who

are responsible for helping us draught these bills took

excessive measures beyond what I had intended. I really didn't

intend that at all."

I would suggest that the only reason the terms are

originally included in this bill as they are is because the

Minister had full intentions, and knew full well, what it was

he wished to accomplish. Thank goodness — at least for the time

being — the industry can sleep a little better because of the

fact that forest products now mean logs and wood chips. But

they can't become complacent. They can't become complacent and

they can't believe what the Minister says, because it's been

proven not only by this Minister, but other Members of the

cabinet, that what you say and what you do — given the

opportunity — are poles apart.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I welcome the

[ Page 4961 ]

amendment to make a more precise definition of what this

bill means by "forest products." I would assume that part of

the reason, at least, for the amendment is the meeting which

the Minister had with the Council of Forest Industries

yesterday — or whatever day it was the meeting took place. If

this is the case, it would certainly lead to some measure of

reassurance that the Minister is willing to consult with the

industry — a very important industry, as has been mentioned

many times.

That would be my first point: if this amendment is the

outcome of discussions with the industry, then I think this is

a point of reassurance to the people of British Columbia and to

the people in the industry.

On the other hand, and it may be — the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) may be perfectly correct — that it's

also a reaction to the opinions expressed by the opposition. I

suppose if we could get just a little bit objective for one

minute in this House we would probably agree that it was 50-50,

and perhaps both these influences have had their effect.

On the other hand, we will be debating other sections and I

really feel that one of the major obstacles to this bill, as we

see it on this side of the House — namely, the tremendous power

which is delegated to a board of as small as three people with

the objects expressed in

section 8 — that just by changing the

definition of "forest products" does the amendment go far

enough to reassure us about many of the other concerns which we

have in this bill.

Already, we have had the Minister's strong emphasis on the

fact that it is logs and chips that the bill is concerned with.

Even at that point, I understand the independents to whom this

bill is largely dedicated have already expressed apprehension

to other members of the industry in the last 48 hours about

receiving government assistance. In reading this bill, they now

see that in receiving assistance they have lost the very

independence on which they place such value. The degree of

authority of this bill, and the lack of amendments in other

sections, only makes the amendments to

section 1 rather minimal

in regard to our overall appraisal of this bill.

I wonder if the Minister would care to comment also…does

he feel that in this amendment he has restored confidence in

the minds of investors in the forest industry — the people who

put their money into the forest industry; the pension plans

which buy shares in the forest industry?

As was mentioned in this debate earlier on this week, any fear that the industry

was to be taken over through the vehicle of this bill was likely to lead to

a decrease in share values. I wonder if the Minister, in his discussions with

the forest industry, would care to tell us whether, in fact, the amendment is

likely to produce some restoration of confidence in the financial community

in this province — and others who invest in the province.

One of the earlier speakers mentioned that this government

has shown in some of its legislation that it cannot be trusted.

I quoted this afternoon the rent stabilization Act which

promised a rent review as an interim measure which would be

carried on in a new bill. The new bill came along and the rent

review is a farce.

Now we have this Minister telling us that forest products

only involve logs and chips. Certainly I wouldn't profess to be

any expert in the forest industry, but it seems to me that

everything that's made from wood starts with logs. That may be

a very simple layman's appraisal of the wood industry, but it

seems to me that you can't make plywood or boats or shingles,

or all these other fancy things defined in the original bill,

unless you start with a log.

So whether this is just a rather subtle device to enable the

original intent of the bill — the scope of the bill — to be

accomplished while at the same time pouting oil on the troubled

waters of the forest industry, I don't know. I prefer to give

the Minister the benefit of the doubt. But the fact is that

other legislation — not by this Minister, to be fair — but

legislation by other Ministers has not been followed through in

good faith. I think the most despicable example is the whole

area of rent control where we had one bill which promised a

certain principle which, within a few months, was completely

and blatantly contradicted and betrayed.

We have here another change of direction which appears to go

in the direction requested by the industry, requested by the

opposition parties and, I think, the wish of the people of this

province, by and large.

I just mention these points to say that I would like to

believe that it is completely as open and full of the

Minister's intent as he says it is. But on the other hand, I do

feel that you can play with words to the degree that this

amendment, without amendments to some of the other sections

limiting the power of the board and the purposes of the board,

still leaves me in some apprehension that this bill in total

still goes too far. I do hope time will prove me wrong and

that, in fact, all this bill is intended to do is to control

the price of chips in the interior and logs on the coast, which

is what I think I heard the Minister say in the press interview

this evening.

But on the other hand, in the light of other government

actions with other legislation, I don't think that we can be

criticized for being rather apprehensive, and I wonder whether,

in fact, there may be a great deal more to the bill than meets

the eye, even with the change of definition in regard to forest

products.

I do hope the Minister may comment on the degree to which he

expects this change to restore confidence in the investor in

B.C.

[ Page 4962 ]

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

don't know whether to be chagrined or delighted that no Member

of my party was mentioned in the august company cited by the

Minister in his opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, you weren't in the chair this afternoon, but

under the ground rules that were established this afternoon, I

almost wonder if this amendment would have been found in order.

I hasten to say that I hope it is in order. But it has — you

should know, Mr. Chairman — effectively emasculated

three-quarters of this bill. I think that's a very good thing;

were it four-quarters I would think it even better.

But it has ruled out lumber and pulp and newsprint, and a

great many important forest products. Mr. Chairman, this is

clear confirmation that the opposition has been doing its job

in this Legislature, and it's a vindication of the stand we've

taken over the last couple of days.

There are still very wide powers left in this bill, and the

public should not be deceived on that. As the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) just pointed out, logs are the

fundamental of any forest product, and the power to control

logs remains the power to control the forest industry. The

power remains in this bill to have a log marketing board to

control the log market in its entirety, and the power to

squeeze the profits of any company as much as the Minister

wants, and the power to buy them out. It's all in there still,

in spite of this redefinition.

I'd like the Minister to say in this House, Mr. Chairman,

what he said earlier on in an interview tonight that I

participated in. I asked him the question there as to whether

he saw the intervention of this board in the log market as

being one that was coercive or one that was voluntary. In other

words, would this board establish itself as a marketing board

and say: "These are the prices that you must fix," or

would it simply intervene in the market as a buyer and seller

on its own account on a strictly voluntary basis? I don't want

to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I think he said

earlier on that the latter condition was the one he had in

mind. I wish he would repeat that statement in this House.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, that he would do something more than

this amendment about unemployment in the forest industry, which

this amendment doesn't do and which this bill doesn't do.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Chairman, in justifying this amendment, the Minister spoke of

the independents he is looking after, who can have reason to, rest easier because

of this amendment. You may remember in his earlier remarks the Minister spoke

of the chickens and the elephant, and the elephant dancing in the midst of the

chickens saying: "Every man for himself." Mr. Chairman, who's the elephant?

I suggest that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is the elephant

in the forest industry — the rest are chickens. It doesn't matter how big those

chickens are.

He reminds me of another poem. Remember: "The walrus and the

carpenter were walking hand-in-hand," and they went down

to the beach and they came upon some other little creatures —

not chickens, but oysters?

Oysters, come and play with us, the walrus did beseech, A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, along the briny beach….

The independents are the oysters, the Minister is the

walrus, and the oysters end up eaten.

The independents had better watch out, and they'd better

keep watching this Minister.

I ask this Minister to speak again on this amendment and to

make a very clear statement about the voluntary, as opposed to

coercive, nature of the board that he is setting up — whether

on this

section or whether on the

section setting up the

board.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, although we've seen

another snow-job — flip-flop — carried on by the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, tonight he's going to ease

the pain by defining forest products. He's going out and he's

going to tell all the people of British Columbia that he didn't

really wish to control the entire forest industry in British

Columbia.

Hon. R.A. Williams: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: "That's right," the Minister

says. Well, that is entirely true.

It's another snow-job whereby the Minister brings in a

legislative measure whereby he interprets in his explanation of

certain

definitions exactly what they mean.

But let's be realistic: all the Minister has done here is

prove to us that by "forest products," he means "logs

and wood chips." Big deal! It doesn't mean a thing, because the

first two sections of the bill only deal with wood chips.

Let's look at the objects of the board.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Let's look at the objectives of the

board.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

[ Page 4963 ]

Mr. Phillips: The Minister made…. No, let's look

at it later — it has a very important bearing on the intent of

this bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member to discuss this

section only and relate his remarks to

the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: I happen to be discussing the

definitions. My point, Mr. Chairman, is, if you'll bear with me

for just a moment: what are the objects of the entire bill? The

objects of the entire bill are: "Without limiting the

generality of

section 6(

l) the objects of the board" — which

this bill established — "…has the power to improve the

performance of markets for forest products," which we've — big deal! — defined as wood chips and logs, "and to encourage

the utilization of timber in the province." What is the

definition of timber? What is the definition of timber?

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Not even in the forest Act is there any

pure definition of the word "timber."

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: The title doesn't really relate to the

Act — absolutely not.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Good title. Yes, but a title ought to

be what it is. You can change the title, but the object of this

board and the rest of the entire bill and the purpose of the

bill is to encourage the utilization of timber — nice words.

The public will probably buy it, but "to encourage…."

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, let's

look at where it's at: "to encourage the utilization of timber…."

We have a bill which sets up the board with the powers — and

we've gone all through the powers — to sit on boards, able to

take over, able to cancel contracts, able to do the same things

that this bill did before this Minister brought in the

amendments. That's where it's at. There is really no change in

this bill…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: …except a small snow-job at the very beginning.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We're dealing only with

the amendment before us and I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is

why the Minister didn't bring in the definition of timber. This

is the definition section….

Let's look at the Natural Products Marketing Act. We have

another bill brought in which is at cross purposes — definitely

at cross purposes — with two other legislative measures we have

in this Legislature.

It is at cross purposes with the Natural Products Marketing

Act, which really doesn't define timber products; it's at cross

purposes with the forestry Act, because it really doesn't

define timber.

Now, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman — and this has to do

with the definition section….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

We're not dealing with the

section as a whole, Hon. Member,

we're dealing with the amendment alone.

Mr. Phillips: No, we're dealing strictly with

definitions; we're dealing with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order. This particular amendment deals

with certain words in the section, not with the whole

section.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): So I can

understand what's going on here, I wonder if the Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would define "timber" for me,

so I know what he means.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There's no point of

order.

Mr. Phillips: No, absolutely, there's no point of

order.

Now, my point is…

Hon. Mr. Lea: Put a hat on it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: …Mr. Chairman, we have a definition

of forest products which, in my humble opinion…

An. Hon. Member: Humble?

Mr. Phillips: …and certainly I don't carry any

degrees in forestry, but in my humble opinion,

[ Page 4964 ]

we have defined forest products but it doesn't include

timber. Now can you rationalize why forest products would not

include timber when, in

section 7, the objects of the board are

to encourage the utilization of timber, which is not explained

in the definition section?

Now you go ahead and make your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

Make your ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

Where are we at? This is another snow-job, another cosmetic

section — cosmetic politics — and that's exactly where it's at.

Sure, it's okay for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources to come out and say, "Oh, no. We really didn't want

to have any jurisdiction over poles, ties, crib timber, shingle

bolt, pulpwood, lumber, wood chips, veneer, plywood, pulp,

paper and newsprint. Oh, no. We don't want to do that, not at

all." But he's misleading this Legislature and he's misleading

the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I'd ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that the

Minister is misleading the province.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I'll withdraw it. He's trying to

do this.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that

he is either "trying," or is in any way, misleading the

House. It is unparliamentary to make that accusation.

I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, yes, I'll withdraw (laughter), but

I won't give that Minister that much intelligence. I won't give

him that much intelligence. He's using his usual tactics —

tactics that have been used in this Legislature by several

other bills.

Now, when the Minister speaks again on this amendment, I

would like him to explain what timber products are and why

there is no definition in the

interpretation

section of this

bill of timber products, specifically when it is used in the

Act and it's used in other Acts, eo encourage and utilize the

utilization of timber. The whole bill refers to it. That's why

he has these other powers.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I want to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that in

the amendment we are considering the definition of two words,

namely "board" and "forest products," and therefore he

must confine his remarks to these words.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I've made

my point, and we'll discuss this point further under

section

Mr. Gardom: I can't for the life of me understand

some of these sort of semi-saccharin sentiments that have been

expressed on the part of some of the Members tonight to this

which I would call a two-bit act of appeasement on the part of

this Minister of the government. He came in threatening the

whole of the industry and the industry became alarmed — and I

think justly so — but one has to indeed question, Mr. Chairman,

where was the alarm of these "peace-in-our-time" forestry

industry people, when they sat idly by and they noted the

insurance industry in the Province of British Columbia

completely confiscated without compensation; when they saw the

mining industry, with the abuse of the discriminatory taxing

policies of this government, almost put under; and they've also

seen the most restrictive powers and controls against the

farmer anywhere to be found in the free world.

It's a very curious thing to me, Mr. Chairman, where the

concern and the alarm and the public statement of help came

from the forestry industry — the attitude of assistance towards

their neighbour. No, indeed, they sat by and they watched the

insurance industry drown; they've watched the mining industry

sink; and they've watched the farming community being told to

tread water according to the government's wishes or go

completely down the drain.

But some Members have found a degree of succour in the fact

that the Hon. Minister has removed the pack of wolves from the

door and just left one wolf outside. But I can assure the Hon.

Members, and the people in the forestry industry, that with one

wolf at the door, there are others pretty darned close behind.

I'd assure you that to become satisfied tonight with creeping

socialism, as opposed to galloping socialism, is pretty shallow

kind of succour.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there's no question of a

doubt that this Minister and this government are following

almost to the letter the Waffle Manifesto, which is supported

by their Members and which supports this amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Speak to the

amendment.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, indeed, speaking to the amendment,

and I quote the Waffle Manifesto talking about an independent

socialist Canada:

"This includes extensive public control over investment and

nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such

as the key resource industries, finance and credit,

[ Page 4965 ]

and industries strategic to planning our economy."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: This amendment is just another step down

the line of the Waffle Manifesto. Make no mistake of that

fact.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, Mr. Chairman, what have you got in

mind?

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member, at some

point, to relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Gardom: You know I'm related to it, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that the Minister has come in with an exceptionally

sloppy bill. I must say he's come into this House with much

better humour as a Minister of the Crown than he ever had as a

Member of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Once again I would

appeal to the Hon. Member to observe Standing Order 16….

Mr. Gardom: From an opposition Member to a good

government guy. This is his public face today — very

pleasant.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order!

An. Hon. Member: Naughty, naughty, Garde. (Laughter.)

Naughty, naughty.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member remain seated

until I've made my point?

Standing Order 61 is very clear and I'll just read it to

you, Hon. Members:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause consideration."

I would ask the Hon. Member to use his common sense, in this

respect, to try to keep his remarks concerned directly with the

points in the amendment, Would the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Gardom: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The point is, without

question, that this is just one step along the line. The Hon. Minister had the

complete opportunity to bring in a proper kind of a bill.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Chairman, you bring in an amendment

- and I gather from discussions tonight that this session is

coming close to its end — bring in an amendment in the dying

stages of this session with the industry that most completely

affects this province. Is this an indication, Mr. Chairman, of

effective government? Is this an indication of effective

government, or is it just another classic example of backfill,

of piecemeal efforts on the part of the NDP to go ahead and

tamper with an economy and to bring more and more control

against the people in this province? Once again I say, Mr.

Chairman, they're following this Waffle Manifesto right to the

letter.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Well, Mr.

Chairman, speaking to the amendment, I would certainly say that

the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right.

When we read the papers on Friday we found that the Minister

had very carefully couched what he wanted to say in very

comfortable words for the media, and the media bought it.

They're not to be blamed for this; they have to try and be

objective on the basis of what the Minister said.

But this opposition came down in this House with all four

feet (laughter) and pointed out to this Minister — sorry, all

20 feet — all 20 feet, and pointed out to this Minister, and to

the public, and to the media, exactly what the Minister was

trying to do. The Minister found that he had got his fingers

burned, and burned very badly. So he has backed up, but let us

not be deceived, Mr. Chairman.

While the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

talked about elephants and oysters, and things eating things, I

don't know who's gobbling up the oysters, but I'll tell you we

know who's still trying to gobble up the forest industry in

this province: it's this Minister and it's this bill. We have

rolled him back, and in this amendment we've rolled him back on

the title, from "British Columbia Forest Products Board" to

"Forest Products Board of British Columbia." But I would ask

him why he needs to change the title in this amendment?

Why, when he's defining forest product, doesn't he define

the word "timber," because, Mr. Chairman, that's where

the essence of this bill is?

The Minister is known as a fellow who gets what he wants, by

hook or by crook, and this Minister wants the forest industry

of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the

Hon. Member that it would be more appropriate to discuss and to

make her point under the general discussion of the

section

rather than under this amendment. I would ask her to keep her

remarks….

[ Page 4966 ]

Mrs. Jordan: In reference to what, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Well, she's proposing a new definition,

and this is really not relevant to the amendment. It's more

relevant to the

section as a whole, and I would ask her, if

this is the point she wants to make, to wait until we pass the

amendment.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I appreciate the Chairman's

comments. I was not trying to define a new definition. I was

just asking why the definition was omitted. But I'll certainly

accede to your request and discuss the matter under the general

section of

section 1.

I listened very carefully, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister's

reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). It was

unbelievable in terms of its superior attitude and in terms of

what he was asking this House to believe. He didn't dare admit

that in fact the opposition had burned his fingers. He didn't

dare admit that suddenly the people in the industry of this

province were becoming electrified by the whole fact of what he

was trying to do, and he didn't dare admit that the socialists

are afraid of open legislation and open confrontation — that

they would rather chip away and steal this way and slither that

way to meet their ultimate ends, rather than lay it squarely on

the table.

If we listened to what the Minister said tonight, which was

a shilly-shally between poorly drafted legislation and his own

inefficiency, perhaps the fact of the matter is that what this

Minister wants he's going to get. There were no comforts in his

words, if we were to accept them. If, as the Minister sort of

indicated to try and save face, it was an error in the

drafting, and that those people who worked for him didn't

really know what they were doing and didn't follow his orders,

it certainly wouldn't be the first time that the Minister has

tried to pin his errors on someone else. The last time it was a

postal clerk, and the time before that it was a member of his

department who hadn't consulted with the Fish and Wildlife

Branch in lifting a wildfowl reserve.

If we accept the fact that it is indeed, as he said, an

error, then what comfort is there in this? What this Minister

in his own words, if they are to be accepted as the

explanation, is saying is that he suddenly made another instant

decision without any facts, without any major discussion and

without any real consideration. Now this Minister, Mr.

Chairman, is in a position where he is making vital decisions

in this province every single day, decisions which….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine

her remarks to these two points that are in the amendment: namely the definition

of the word "board" and the definition of the words "forest products."

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm relating my

remarks to the Minister's remarks about this amendment, and

that relates directly to the amendment. These are the words

that the Minister said. He was giving us what he wanted us to

believe were his reasons for bringing in these two

amendments.

I'm just saying that if we accept the first reason he

slithered around with, then we must accept the fact that the

Minister is incompetent, and that in his day-to-day work he's

making vital decisions about the future of the trees, the land

and the water in this province. He's making vital decisions

which will affect the jobs of thousands of people in this

province. He's making vital decisions about 50 cents of every

dollar in this province — on an instant basis, on a basis of

incompetence. That hardly inspires confidence as to why he

would change the name of the board.

Or is it just another example of this Minister retrenching,

having burned his fingers, and looking for another avenue

through which he can bring into operation his grand design for

the forest industry in the Province of British Columbia? Either

alternative, based on what the Minister said in this debate in

speaking to this amendment, is hardly palatable to 90 per cent

of the people in British Columbia. These statements are hardly

designed to look after the Minister's new-found friends, the

independent operators of this province. And they are hardly

designed to inspire confidence in the opposition, that while we

have burned the Minister's fingers, and we have rolled him back

and there are amendments to this bill, that he isn't slyly

trying to again, through the back door, achieve his ultimate

objective.

These two amendments certainly don't make the bill really

any more palatable in its long-term design.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): There have been

very significant questions posed, questions of substance, to

the Minister regarding the definition they figure the Minister

is not willing to answer — of the inclusion of the word

"timber" in the definition.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I've pointed out to

other Hon. Members that it would be more appropriate to bring

up this matter under a general discussion of the

section rather

than under the particular amendment.

Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we're going

throughout the Act, if we're going to refer to the matter of

timber throughout the Act, it's quite appropriate, I think,

that it should be included in the definition, which the

amendment we are presently debating….

[ Page 4967 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The amendments are to

two words in the definition section.

Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have the

right to question the advisability — or inadvisability — of

whether this should be included in the definition. And you know

that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: I'm not here to question whether we're

going to restrict our comments to wood chips or to logs. I want

to know why timber isn't included in the definition. Isn't that

a fair comment, Mr. Chairman? Or is the right of questioning

going to be restricted on the advisability of including the

word "timber?"

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In the judgment of the

Chair, what the Hon. Member is proposing…. He is suggesting

the definition of the word "timber" in the definition section.

We are dealing with only two words contained in the definition

section, namely "forest products" and "board."

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, really we are dealing with

a substantial number of words in the definition. If you will

read the

section it says: "forest products includes logs,

piles, poles, ties, crib-timber, shingle-bolts, pulpwood,

lumber, wood-chips, veneer, plywood, pulp, paper, and

newsprint." They might as well put an "et cetera" behind that.

These are the matters I believe we have the right to debate…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member….

Mr. Chabot: …the possibility of whether these

should continue to be included or should be excluded from the

definition. I think that they Minister should stand in his

place and tell us whether he is going to remove the other

references to timber in the Act, or whether he is going to

include in the definition of the Act the word "timber." It's a

very simple question to a very simple Minister, and I think he

should be able to answer such a simple question, Mr.

Chairman.

Hon. R.A. Williams: The matter was gone into

thoroughly with our counsel, and the conclusion was that this

was the best form.

Mr. Bennett: Since that Minister is on his feet he

can give us, then, all the advice he got when they went into it

so thoroughly, and what the definition of "timber" is.

Mr. Phillips: Let's hear it from the Minister. You

don't know what the definition of "timber" is.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: I'll bet you the Minister of Consumer

Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) knows what "timber" is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Sure, it's the big stick that she

wields. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, has it been decided whether

we are talking about "timber" now or later?

Mr. Chairman: The ruling I am making from the chair

is this: if the Hon. Member is proposing a new definition in

the section, which is not included in the amendment, and does

not apply to the amendment, then we should dispose of the

amendment first and then deal with the possible new definition

of "timber." However, if the Hon. Member is considering adding

this to the definition of "forest products," that is a

different matter.

Shall the amendment pass.

Amendment approved.

section 1.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, now that we are

in the definition

section — and the idea of the definition

section is to relate to terminology used later in the Act — why

the word "timber," which is utilized in

section 7 in a

very positive way and a very definite way and indeed carries

with it utilization of powers, isn't defined. Is that

definition left out to further fuzzy up and muddy up the Act?

Under the terms of using the word "timber" later on, the

definition section, in restricting forest products to just

"logs" and "wood-chips" becomes impossible to understand. Why

isn't "timber" defined?

In the dictionary the definition is, "Standing trees

attached to the land." And from these trees come all the forest

products that the Minister is trying to pretend that he's taken

out of the Act with the amendment.

I ask again: would the Minister get up, now that we're in

the definition

section and the fact that timber is used

prominently in the Act, and give us his definition of timber?

Why isn't timber in the

[ Page 4968 ]

definition section? After we've received the definition,

we will add it to another amendment if we allow him enough

time to help clean up his Act.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I think this question of

timber is very important. If the Act were to be brought before

a court of law for

interpretation, in the absence of a

definition in this Act, one of the things that a judge would no

doubt do would be to turn to the Forest Act. And if a judge

turned to a Forest Act, he would find that timber means trees,

whether standing, felled, or cut, and primary forest products,

and includes saw logs, spars, piles, poles, railway ties,

shingle bolts, pulp wood and Christmas trees. Mr. Chairman, a

lot of these things are the things that we've just taken out of

the definition of forest products by the Minister's very

amendment.

So I'm not going to suggest — obviously, with the way I feel

about this bill — that the definition of timber be put into

this definition section. Rather, I'm going to ask the Minister

at this point if he would earnestly consider in

section 7, when

we get to it, taking timber out of that

section and replacing

it with forest products, given this definition.

Mr. Phillips: We've definitely got a conflict of

interest here, Mr. Chairman. Because we have in this bill with

reference to timber in

section 7, which is not defined here, a

conflict of interest with the Forest Act. We also have a

conflict of interest with the Natural Products Marketing

(British Columbia) Act which we've just recently, by the great

crushing majority of the government in this Legislature,

passed. In that, natural product means any product of the

forest. And here we have a legislature measure passed recently

in this Legislature which can control and oversee the marketing

of any product of the forest.

We are passing another Act which doesn't properly have the

definition and where the Minister can oversee and control all

of the timber, which is all standing trees or by products of

the trees in the forest. We have the Forest Act which controls

basically the utilization of our forest products. So, Mr.

Chairman, not by defining the word "timber" in the definition

section of this Act, we definitely run into a conflict of

interest between three Acts that we have on the statutes of

British Columbia.

I would like to know, if this Minister goes ahead with the

awesome powers that he has in this Act and does something in

conflict with what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) might want to do under the Natural Products Marketing

(British Columbia) Act…. Or he might even be in conflict

with himself because he administers the Forest Act.

It seems to me that the Minister is getting himself into a great deal of problems

with the actual law of British Columbia. He will find himself hiring one lawyer

to look after his right hand and another lawyer to protect him on the left hand

because he's got two lawyers protecting himself from two Acts that he controls.

That's why it is very important that the definition of

timber be included. I plead with the Minister here tonight,

since

section 7 is really the nuts and bolts of this whole

bill. The whole rest of the bill other than the first two

sections deals at giving the Minister the power to have the

best utilization of timber.

But there is no definition of the word timber. What is

timber? In the Forest Act, timber means trees, whether

standing, felled or cut, and primary forest products that

include saw logs, spars, piles, poles, railway ties, shingle

bolts, pulpwood and Christmas trees.

An. Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: The whole thrust of this bill is to

better utilize timber products — timber products as defined in

the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act or timber

products as defined in the Forest Act. And before we can

approve the definition

section of this bill, we must have the

Minister spell out in black and white what he means by timber.

The whole thrust of the bill is for him to do whatever he feels

with any and all powers that he has in this bill.

They're all laid out specifically and we've mentioned them

all before in second reading. I don't propose to be repetitive

but I do want the Minister to explain to this Legislature

before we pass

section 1 in his own words as the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources what his definition of the

word timber is. What is his

interpretation? It's his bill; he

relates it to this bill.

I think that this Legislature is certainly entitled to know.

Why did he leave it out? We don't want to build into this any

sinister powers which the Minister might want to take unto

himself. We don't want to build into this Act the fact that the

Minister wants to have any great awesome powers. But if he

doesn't spell out to this Legislature tonight what the meaning

of timber in his own words, we're going to have to ask him

again and again. Let the Minister speak; let him advise this

Legislature.

Mrs. Jordan: Is the Minister going to answer the

question?

Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the Hon. Member

that no Member can insist upon an answer. If the Minister

wishes to comment, he may.

Mrs. Jordan: It's going to be a long evening. I'm

sure this Minister, in spite of his absence in the past and the

concerns about this bill, will want to do his very best to

explain his altruistic motives in this

[ Page 4969 ]

bill. And I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm certainly

confused.

I don't profess to be the brightest person in the world. But

I live in….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Thank you, thank you. But I live in the

lumber area. I am very confused about what the Minister means.

It's interesting that the backbenchers of the NDP would insult

the independent operators, just as they did, because they're

confused.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

please address the Chair and speak to the section?

Interjections.

An. Hon. Member: Old thumper didn't have enough nerve

to come into the House and vote on a bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: The chicken farmer who's so tame when it

comes to knuckling under the government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

please address the Chair?

Mrs. Jordan: And has not just insulted the

independent operators in his area. I've talked to the operators

in his area…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: …and they are confused about this

term "timber."

The loggers are confused. They don't understand what the

Minister means. The truck loggers have said that they don't

understand what the Minister means by the word "timber." The

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) didn't

understand on the television tonight. The Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) several times during this short debate this

evening has said, "What's timber?" Your own colleagues, Mr.

Minister, don't understand what is meant by the word

"timber."

Mr. Smith: They didn't even know the amendments were

coming in.

Mrs. Jordan: No. They didn't even know the amendments were coming in.

But it's very interesting that in the amendment that has

just been rammed through the House, the Minister amended the

definition…

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: …of the term "boards" and "forest

products." But we see this word "timber" scattered through this

Act in very significant places — we see it in the title and we

see it again in

section 7 — not very often, but in very

significant areas. I decided, with all these questions coming

in, and seeing that when I called various members of the

forestry department, they couldn't give me a definition of the

word "timber," I looked it up in a number of

dictionaries and got various

definitions.

An. Hon. Member: They've torn out all the pages.

Mr. Bennett: They don't want anyon