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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5003 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Work stoppage on BCR. Mr.

Bennett — 5003

Takeover of Cornat Industries.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5003

Cemeteries dispute. Mr. Wallace — 5003

Minister's unanswered questions. Mr. Chabot — 5004

Charges in Mary Margaret Jones death. Mr. McGeer — 5004

Power failure at ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 5005

Cabinet corpulence contest. Mr. Smith — 5005

Computer foul-ups in ICBC. Mr. Gardom — 5005

Tracing of stolen vehicles. Mr. Gibson — 5006

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

Third reading — 5007

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill 168).

Third reading — 5007

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Third reading.

Division on third reading — 5007

Timber products Stabilization Act (Bill 17 I ). Committee stage.

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5007

Amendment to

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Bennett — 5007

Mr. Phillips — 5007

Mr. Chabot — 5008

Mr. Smith — 5009

Mr. Gibson — 5009

Mr. Bennett — 5009

Mrs. Jordan — 5010

Mr. Wallace — 5011

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5012

Mr. Chabot — 5012

Mr. Smith — 5013

Mr. Gibson — 5013

Mr. Phillips — 5013

Mr. Bennett — 5014

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5015

Mr. Phillips — 5016

Mr. Bennett — 5017

Mr. Chabot — 5017

Division on amendment to

section 1 as amended — 5018

Division on

section 1 as amended — 5018

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5018

Mr. Phillips — 5018

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5019

Amendment to

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Bennett — 5020

Mr. Phillips — 5020

Mr. Bennett — 5021

Mr. Fraser — 5021

Mrs. Jordan — 5021

Division on amendment to

section 2 as amended — 5022

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5022

Amendment to

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5023

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5023

Mr. Gibson — 5023

Mr. Wallace — 5023

Division on amendment to

section 2 as amended — 5024

Amendment to

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Bennett — 5024

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 5024

section 2 as amended.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5024

Division on

section 2 as amended — 5025

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5026

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5026

Amendment to

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5027

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 5027

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5027

Division on

section 3 as amended — 5029

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5029

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 5029

Amendment to

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 5030

Division on amendment to

section 4 as amended — 5030

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5030

Amendment to

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5030

Division on amendment to

section 4 as amended — 5030

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Chabot — 5031

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5031

Division on

section 4 as amended — 5031

section 5.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5031

Division on

section 5 — 5031

section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 5032

Mr. Phillips — 5032

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5032

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5032

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5033

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 5033

Division on amendment to

section 7 — 5033

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Smith — 5033

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 5033

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5034

Amendment to

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5034

Division on amendment to

section 8 as amended — 5034

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5034

Mr. Wallace I — 5034

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5034

Mr. Gibson — 5035

Amendment to

section 10.

Mr. Phillips — 5035

Amendment to

section 11.

Mr. Phillips — 5035

Amendment to

section 12.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5036

Amendment to

section 12 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5036

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 5036

section 12 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 5036

Mr. McGeer — 5036

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5037

Division on

section 12 as amended — 5037

Amendment to

section 13.

Mr. Phillips — 5037

section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5038

Amendment to

section 15.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5038

section 15 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 5038

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5038

Hon, R.A. Williams — 5038

Mr. Gibson — 5038

Amendment to

section 16.

Mr. Wallace — 5038

Division on amendment to

section 16 — 5038

section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 5039

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5039

Amendment to

section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 5039

Division on

section 19 — 5039

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5039

section 20 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5039

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5040

Amendment to

section 20 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5040

Appendix — 5040

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the

House this afternoon two active workers in community affairs in the Courtenay

area, Mr. Dave Owens and Mr. Don Hellie. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

Oral questions.

WORK STOPPAGE ON BCR

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the Hon.

Minister of Labour. Because of the serious economic situation involving

widespread unemployment, seriously aggravated further by the shutdown of the

entire B.C. Rail, would the Minister advise the House of the current state of

affairs of the work stoppage on the B.C. Railway?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I received a

telegram this morning, which I assumed was from the Leader of the Opposition. I

want to thank him for giving me advance notice of his question, and also

offering some advice in that telegram, which reads as follows:

SO VERY SORRY THAT YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH B.C. RAIL. TAKE MY

ADVICE AND MODERNIZE. SWITCH TO FLYING SAUCERS. YOU WON'T NEED AUDITORS.

THE STAR GAZER

I can only presume, Mr. Speaker, that came from the Leader of the

Opposition. I want him to know the parties are meeting and negotiations are

underway.

Mr. Bennett: Just to let the Minister know that I didn't send a

telegram. A supplementary: is the Minister prepared to bring a bill before the

Legislature to have the railway resume operation while negotiations

continue?

Hon. Mr. King: I don't know precisely what kind of bill the Member

would suggest. Are you suggesting compulsory arbitration?

Mr. Bennett: I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, if he's prepared to bring a bill

before the Legislature as he did in other work stoppages so that the railway

could resume operation while negotiations continue. I'm asking the question: are

you prepared to do it?

Hon. Mr. King: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are

underway, and where negotiations or collective bargaining are taking place it's

not the position of the government to interfere in an arbitrary way.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to Hon. Members that really the

question is asking for the government's opinion on a matter of policy that's

already an administrative thing imposed under existing statute, and therefore

would be out of order, according to Beauchesne, page 148. Any other questions on

the same subject?

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I wonder

if the House Leader would indicate to whom questions to the Attorney-General

should be directed at this time.

TAKEOVER OF CORNAT INDUSTRIES

Mr. L.A. Williams: To the Hon. Provincial Secretary, then. In one of

today's daily newspapers published in Vancouver there is a story concerning the

takeover of Cornat Industries by Canadian Forest Products, the story coming from

the spokesman for Canadian Forest Products. With it there are certain questions

raised which question the propriety of some of the actions which occurred at

that time. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could indicate or ascertain

whether or not the Attorney-General's Department is making an inquiry to ensure

that the laws of this province were being adhered to.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I'll look into the question, Mr.

Speaker, and advise the Member. If the Member's fears are warranted, I will also

advise the House.

Mr. L.A. Williams: If I may say this to the Provincial Secretary: the

questions are raised in financial newspapers throughout the entire country, and

I think that the adequacy of our laws and whether they were adhered to in this

case is of critical importance.

CEMETERIES DISPUTE

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Although the Minister concerned has

denied responsibility, I wonder if I could ask the Minister for Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young), in view of the serious distress to relatives and the

possible health hazard from the decomposition of cadavers, whether the Minister

has taken any action to resolve this very serious public situation resulting

from the disputed Forest Lawn and Ocean View cemeteries.

Hon. Ms. P.F. Young (Minister of Consumer

[ Page 5004 ]

Services): Mr. Speaker, under the legislation of the

Cemeteries Act I have no authority to become involved in the dispute between the

employees and the employers — which is apparently the crux of the problem at

this moment. This is action I am unable to take. I do not have the

authority.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the

Minister's answer, which I would assume is a strictly technical answer in

relation to legislative responsibility, will the Minister be consulting with

both the Minister of Labour, in regard to the dispute, and the Minister of

Health, in regard to the very obvious public menace to health which could arise

from the continuing increase in the number of cadavers and the decomposition of

the unrefrigerated bodies that have already been in place in certain mortuaries

for several weeks?

Hon. Ms. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with the

Minister of Labour, and it is up to the two parties to ask for resolution or for

assistance from the Department of Labour in that case. As the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not here, I am unable to contact him regarding that

matter.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I find that answer, in the

light of the public hazard, rather evasive. I do feel that this House should be

given some reassurance that at least the Minister of Health or his Deputy are

aware of this public hazard to health and distress to relatives of the deceased.

We should be entitled to some explanation as to how this serious dispute can be

brought to a fairly rapid termination. It goes beyond just a matter of

collective bargaining; it's a matter of community health.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member knows that the Minister to whom

he has addressed the question is not responsible for that aspect of which he

seeks an answer.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I'm sorry, I couldn't get up while you were having a

debate on the solution of the dispute.

You want some assurances from the government regarding the medical aspects,

or the hazardous aspects, of the effects of the dispute. I can assure you that I

have been in touch with the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Elliott. He is aware

of the situation and is keeping me posted.

I can't give you the details at the moment other than that I have been in

touch with him personally.

MINISTER'S UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

In view of the Minister's unwillingness to answer written questions, I was

wondering if he'd answer orally the 27 questions that have been on the order

paper since the later part of January. They've been there a long time — 27

questions and none answered. Is the Minister willing to answer them orally?

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'll be

pleased to bring them forward shortly, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chabot: A supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I think he is taking it as notice.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, I can gladly send him a copy of the numbers

here. Will that be before the end of the session that he...?

Mr. Speaker: Will the Hon. Member please send them across the

floor?

Mr. Chabot: The Minister might have wanted to answer before he was cut

off. Will it be before the end of the session?

Mr. Speaker: Don't you take that as notice?

Mr. Chabot: No, he didn't take it as notice.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I'm not sure when the end of the session is, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Chabot: He said, "shortly." Then I asked him if it was to be

before the end of the session, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Minister like to answer that please? We

might all find out when the end of the session is.

CHARGES IN MARY MARGARET JONES DEATH

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

acting Attorney-General. In view of the recommendation of coroner J.R. Harvey

that charges be reinstituted in the Mary Margaret Jones death case, and the

decision of the Attorney-General's department not to reinstitute those charges,

would the Attorney-General agree to tabling the pathologist's report in this

particular case

[ Page 5005 ]

with the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Hall: I'm going to take advice from my department on the

propriety of tabling the report. I want to assure the House that it's not

because I have any misgivings about tabling it myself; I want to be sure that

that is the correct thing to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I give assurance to the Member that I will, immediately

after the question period is over, ask the Department of the Attorney-General if

they have any objections to my tabling that document. If they have not, it will

be tabled.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask the acting Attorney-General

if he would obtain a statement from the Attorney-General's department as to

exactly why charges are not being proceeded with, in view of the recommendation

of the coroner's jury?

Hon. Mr. Hall: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.

POWER FAILURE AT FERRY TERMINAL

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): A question to the Minister

of Transport and Communications — not related to ICBC, the Minister will be

relieved to learn, but rather on the subject of the B.C. Ferry service.

On November 9, a Saturday of the holiday weekend, a widespread power failure

interfered with a number of British Columbia Ferry sailings due to the fact that

there was no power to operate a number of ramps at various terminals.

This was a significant inconvenience to many travellers, as the Minister

knows. The question has to be asked, I think, in the context of perhaps a more

serious and prolonged power interruption. Are there alternative sources of power

supplies available to the ferry authority at any terminal?

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): In some areas

and for some functions there are alternative sources of power, but not for heavy

use.

Mr. Curtis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On major vessels, if needed

not on most vessels in the fleet, is there not some means whereby the power from

the vessel itself could be transmitted to the ramp area for the movement of the

ramps? That's all the problem that existed, as I understand it. Lights were out,

agreed, but it was impossible to board or depart from vessels.

What about power from the ships?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll check it.

CABINET CORPULENCE CONTEST

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Hon. Provincial Secretary, who I believe is a Minister who has some

responsibility for the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund in the Province

of British Columbia.

Would the Minister provide the House with an up-to-date report on the obvious

contest between certain cabinet Ministers to see who can project the most

impressive corpulent image?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the story whereby a

person was drunk and a person was ugly.

Those who are drunk can get sober; those who are ugly can do nothing about

it.

Those who are fat can get thin; those who are stupid remain stupid all their

lives. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: Do you think it's advisable to have a supplementary?

(Laughter.)

Mr. Smith: Are we to take that answer then to mean that the cabinet is

conducting yet another contest between the Members of the cabinet?

Mr. Speaker: I don't think you'll need to answer that one.

COMPUTER FOUL-UPS IN ICBC

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport, if I could have his attention. People are still being

unjustly charged and prosecuted and brought to trial and unjustly convicted in

British Columbia by virtue of a computer foul-up on the part of the insurance

corporation — primarily dealing with the issuing of drivers' certificates. I'd

ask the Minister whether or not he is prepared to order stay of proceedings in

these cases and grant amnesty to those people who have been convicted.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: First of all, the question was on a wrong premise.

You said: "computer foul-up". It's not a computer foul-up of any kind. Any

problems there may be are related to agents' mistakes. Certainly we're looking

at the whole picture.

Mr. Gardom: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is obviously

uninformed. I have received two specific cases of computer foul-ups. I think

[ Page 5006 ]

would be the best thing, and in the interest of the people of

B.C., that he check and find out if there are computer foul-ups. If there are,

Mr. Minister, in any cases of computer foul-ups are you prepared to grant a stay

of proceedings?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We're looking at the whole picture. I can give you

letter after letter where we've corrected situations due to mistakes not in the

computer but mistakes by agents. We're looking at the whole thing.

Mr. Gardom: This is of no solace to a person who can face a fine of

$250 as well as 10 demerits.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You know that this is no time for

argument. You put your question.

TRACING OF STOLEN VEHICLES

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the

Minister tell the House whether he's received representations from any police

force, either directly or through the Attorney-General's department, with

respect to the difficulty in tracing stolen vehicles in this province?

Mr. Speaker: That's been asked many times, has it not?

Mr. Gibson: That question has never been answered. The specific

question is whether he has had representation from the police force....

Mr. Speaker: That's not the point, as the Hon. Member knows. You can't

keep repeating a question if he has taken it as notice.

Mr. Gibson: It's a question as to whether he's had representation from

police forces; it's very simple.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I doubt that it's supplementary to the previous

question anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gibson: It certainly is. It's the same computer foul-up.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: There's no computer foul-up; I told you that.

Mr. Gibson: Why can't you trace cars then, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We can trace cars.

Mr. Gibson: Not in my constituency.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We have the whole situation in hand, my friend.

An Hon. Member: Oh, boy!

Mr. Chabot: A point of order. During the question period I asked a

question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. You suggested

that I send over a copy of the 27 questions which he has failed to answer since

the beginning of the session at the later part of January. I have fulfilled your

request and sent them over.

The Minister refused on two occasions the written numbers of questions from

the Page. To save the Page further embarrassment I was willing to accept the

questions back. Could you tell me how I could get these question numbers to the

Minister to jog his memory? He has failed to abide by the concept of the

government to be open.

Mr. Speaker: I could ask him to stay after school.

Mr. Chabot: This is the Legislature. I don't think that we're

conducting a school or....

Mr. Speaker: It's really not a point of order, as the Hon. Member

knows.

Mr. Chabot: Could I table it?

Mr. Speaker: You want to table it? I don't see that you can table

something that's already a matter of public record. It's already in the orders

of the day.

Mr. Chabot: With leave of the House, I'm sure I could table these

questions to jog his memory.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think you need to, since it's already tabled, in

effect, by being on the orders of the day.

Mr. Chabot: Would you ask for leave, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I don't think it's proper in the circumstances even to

ask for leave when it's already on the orders of the day every day of the

week.

Mr. Gardom: A point of order. The Hon. Minister of Lands and Forests

is not alone. There are 18 unanswered question to the Minister of Transport

(Hon. Mr. Strachan).

Mr. Speaker: It's really not a point of order, as the Hon. Member

knows. If you consult Beauchesne

[ Page 5007 ]

at page 147 — 148, it tells you precisely where you stand on

the question, as I've often mentioned in the House.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Report on Bill 166.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Bill 166 read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Report on Bill 168, Mr. Speaker.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Bill 168 read a third time and passed.

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

Bill 170 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Cummings

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 17 1.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

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

section 1 as amended.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, we're dealing

with a bill here with the title, "Timber Products Stabilization Act." Yet

nowhere in the

interpretation of the Act is there a definition of the word

"timber."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I would remind the Hon. Member that this particular point has been made by a

number of speakers in the debate the last time the bill was up for

consideration.

Mr. Phillips: I realize that; I just wanted to ....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would just ask him, therefore, to try

to keep his remarks brief or to introduce a new point.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I just wanted to refresh the Member's minds, Mr.

Chairman, that also under

section 7 of the bill, the object of the board is to

encourage the utilization of timber and, under that particular

section to

encourage the utilization of timber, are all of the powers of the timber

products board. Certainly, I think the Minister should give us an

interpretation

of the word "timber."

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

because of the definition

section and because there's usage of words later in

the Act that are not defined, if it wasn't the intent of the government as part

of the general changing in what the bill was to control, the word "timber" has

probably then been left out.

To clarify the bill and to make it more clear, because of the many different

interpretations and

definitions that can be given to the word "timber," I would

like to move that in

section 1, by adding the definition of "timber," timber

means forest products.

This, Mr. Chairman, would then make timber conform to the redefinition of

forest products that was redefined by the many deletions the Minister proposed

in his own amendments which he introduced to this committee.

Mr. Phillips: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) has had several days to think this matter over. He has stated

publicly in the press that he has no intention of controlling the marketing of

anything but wood chips and round logs.

Now if the Minister really means what he has stated publicly over the last

several days, he will accept this amendment. Otherwise, this bill is just as

[ Page 5008 ]

sinister in its present shape with the amendments that the

Minister has brought in ...

Mr. Bennett: More so.

Mr. Phillips: ...even more so — than it was before he brought in the

amendment. The whole crux...in one place he said, "Yes, forest products only

mean logs and wood chips." Yet he still has the power, under this bill and the

objects of the bill, to control all timber.

Now if the Minister really has been truthful with this province and those

involved in this industry in the last several days, he will accept this

amendment, because that will clearly define the objects of the bill. This lumber

industry, Mr. Chairman, has been under the shadow of this Minister's hatchet for

two and a half years, then he knocks them off balance when he brings in this

bill. He comes out, under the guise of a small amendment to the forest products,

and says: "Oh no, we didn't really intend to do it in the first place."

Unless the Minister accepts this amendment, he is going to lose his

credibility again. This amendment, if he doesn't allow a definition of timber

products, the industry is still hanging under the shadow of his hatchet, and

this bill will be an albatross around his neck as long as he's Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources. So I urge the Minister to alleviate that

fear which is still existent.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: What's that?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: You'll accept the amendment then?

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

please?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the Chair.

So I urge the Minister, as I say, to alleviate, get rid of this cloud, that's

hanging over the head of the No. 1 industry in British Columbia. Accept this

amendment so that we will know precisely and beyond all shadow of a doubt that

the Minister really doesn't want to control the entire forest industry in the

Province of British Columbia. By accepting this simple little amendment

which.... This government has said that they will accept good suggestions from

the opposition; well, this is a good one because it defines the word timber in a

bill which is titled —

intituled — the Timber Products Stabilization

Act. Yet somehow, through an error in judgment, maybe an error in drawing up the

bill, the Minister has missed this one point.

Now, the Minister can accept this amendment, and we know that he was being

truthful with the industry in the last several days when he said he wished to

control no other products than logs and wood chips. Mr. Chairman, if the

Minister does not accept this amendment, we will know that his intentions were

as they were in the beginning — to take over and control the entire timber

industry in British Columbia, as set out in

section 7, where it says:

"without limiting the generality of

section 6, the objects of the

board are and it has the power to improve the performance of markets for forest

products and encourage the utilization of timber."

Now to encourage the utilization of the word timber, without having timber

defined, means all forest products. Timber is described, Mr. Chairman, in the

Forest Act as, "all trees standing and the products thereof." So it still means

the entire forest industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I urge the Minister to accept this small amendment; otherwise, we must take

the attitude that he has brought in a few amendments to try and make the

industry think that he's softened the blow. If he accepts this amendment, we'll

know that he was truthful in those statements. If he doesn't, we'll know that

that same sinister plot, that same sinister idea, that same sinister want to

control the entire industry, is still there. So I urge the Minister to accept

the amendment.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, this amendment that is

being introduced is basically one in which we're attempting to assist the

Minister to draft his legislation in a more comprehensive form, in a more

understandable form, so that the doubt and confusion which exists under the

present wording will be removed from the Act. If the Minister is sincere in his

attempt to deal specifically with logs and wood chips, certainly he would accept

this amendment, because it defines timber as forest products and his definition

of forest products is that of logs and wood chips.

What we're trying to do is improve the badly worded bill — and a bad bill as

well, economically, for this province, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering why the

Minister sits there in such silence and is unwilling to get up and say what the

definition of timber is in his mind, and to say why, in reasonable words, why he

is unwilling to clearly define the words forest products, or the word "timber",

as it's called in this bill.

Or is the government so arrogant that it will sit there silent and unwilling

to answer to the people of British Columbia on such a critical issue that

affects

[ Page 5009 ]

the entire economy of this province when we're discussing the most important

industry in British Columbia? We're trying to clarify a matter by this amendment

so that the economy of the forest industry, and the economy as a whole of

British Columbia, will be able to move ahead without the confusion and doubt

that exists by the badly worded bill, which we are trying to amend so that it

will be far more comprehensive in the minds of those people who are involved in

the forest industry in British Columbia.

So why is it necessary in the Act to constantly make these references to

timber unless you're going to have it in the definition

section of the bill? All

we're asking, Mr. Chairman, is for the government not to be so arrogant that

they're unwilling to answer questions put to them by representatives of the

people and come up and give us a clear and reasonable answer why, if they're not

willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the only conclusion

that the public can come to, and the Members of this Legislature, is that if

this amendment is not acceptable to the Minister, then he has an ulterior motive

in mind, and that motive is the takeover of the industry. Never let the people

who are involved in the No. 1 industry today think that you've really deviated

more than just a few inches from your ultimate goal, if you won't accept this

amendment. It's there, it would be for all the world to see, for everybody who

is involved in the business of producing or manufacturing logs in the Province

of British Columbia, or any product from them, and they would know what your

intent is.

You mention timber over and over again in the Act and yet you refuse in the

definition

section of the Act to define it, except to say that it does include

everything, if you take the Forest Act today. The Minister has not, in the

introduction of this amendment or in the debate that has taken place so far, got

on his feet and indicated to the public, or to the Members of this Assembly, why

the amendment is not acceptable. Isn't that your responsibility, Mr.

Minister?

Are you not the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? Is it the

case that you've gotten to the point where you're so arrogant that you feel you

have no need to explain to the public or the industry that represents 50 cents

out of every dollar generated in the Province of British Columbia? Is that your

answer? If it's not, get up and defend your position in this House instead of

sitting there like a bureaucrat, doing nothing, saying nothing, and not even

giving the opposition any indication as to why their amendments are acceptable

or otherwise.

It's a disgrace, Mr. Minister, an absolute disgrace.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): The previous speaker said,

Mr. Chairman, that the Minister was saying nothing and doing nothing. He's right

on the saying nothing part; I wish he was doing nothing sometimes. He's doing

some things which are very bad for the Province of British Columbia, in my

belief.

The Minister's got himself on the horns of quite a dilemma here: he

introduced amendments to this bill which I think, Mr. Chairman, were designed to

give the people of British Columbia the idea that the Minister was restricting

the powers that were to be taken under this bill, but he's left this very, very

serious loophole in this question of the word "timber." Now even with the

powers, restricted as they are, I take the point of view that this bill is

inadmissible and shouldn't be passed, but given the fact that it's passed second

reading, we have to try and figure out precisely what the Minister has in

mind.

We have this very curious

section 7 which notes that the objects of the board

which is to be set up are:

"... and it has the power to improve the performance of markets

for forest products, and to encourage the utilization of timber, in the

province."

Now, I submit to the Minister that that is a loophole you could drive a log

truck through. Unless he removes that word "timber," or else defines it in an

innocuous way, he still has all of the powers that we feared about at first. It

looked first of all as if an arm was going to be cut off. Then the Minister came

along and said: "Oh no, we'll take away some of those powers and just cut off

your fingers." But now the whole arm is back there again unless he gets rid of

this word "timber."

I submit to him that the best way to do it, and not doing too much violence

title. I think that's far the better way.

But he at least has to do it in some way which makes it clear that these

amendments cutting back his potential powers are genuine amendments and not just

window dressing designed to fool the people.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Bennett: I think the Minister is being unduly reticent in not

speaking to the amendment.

The charges that were leveled both inside and outside of this House that the

Minister was making a power grab over the industry will not be alleviated by

those amendments he brought in if he's not willing to accept an amendment that

will further clarify the situation.

There's a crisis of confidence that has developed in

[ Page 5010 ]

this province as to whether any private investment, small, medium or large,

will be welcome, or indeed, can be made with any confidence that the government

will deal with it fairly or reasonably, or, indeed, whether investment can ever

be made in British Columbia safely again while this Minister and this government

are in control.

Now, if the Minister was genuine when he had his backup lights on and

attempted, as he said, to clarify the intent of the bill and make the language

suit the simplistic explanation he gave in introducing the bill, then the

Minister should be prepared to amend further so that clarification extends to

all language and all definition and all product used in the bill.

Right now, the definition of the word "timber" is fuzzy. It's very fuzziness

further complicates this bill. The Minister, if he was attempting to bare the

true intent of the bill when he brought in his amendments, should accept this

further amendment. His non-acceptance and his refusal to speak to this amendment

and to give credibility to the fact that he's on a power trip, he's out for a

power grab, and that the bill is just what it always was: an attempt by this

Minister to take over the forest industry in a way different than he has already

attempted through taking over equity ownership.

I think the very fact that there is a lack of confidence in this province

that's been heightened since this Minister introduced this bill demands an

explanation and demands that this bill be amended and amended and amended until

the true intent becomes clear. If not, the bill should be withdrawn from this

Legislature. At this point the Minister has an obligation to say why he is

opposed to this amendment of clarification.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I was just waiting. Is the Minister

going to answer the question? Well, I hope I can get you on to your feet.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I would like to remind the Member that you may

speak on the amendment. There's no requirement for anybody to speak on the

amendment.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the Member for North Okanagan. Do you want

to speak on the amendment?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. But I'm not as anxious to

speak on the amendment, other than to support it, as I am to hear the Minister

answer the questions that we have to have and that the people in this province

want.

Now, the Minister just indicated that he was tempted to get up and answer

it.

Mr. Chairman: I remind you that you're to speak on the amendment. If

the Minister wishes to speak, he can't get up at the same time.

Mrs. Jordan: And I'll remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you're here to

conduct the business of the House in a fair and equitable manner. The Minister

has every opportunity to stand on his feet at this time and answer the questions

that the opposition has....

Mr. Chairman: Order! You're supposed to be speaking on the amendment

that's on the floor.

Mrs. Jordan: I am, I'm speaking in support of the amendment, Mr.

Chairman. I would ask, through you, if the Minister is prepared to accept this

amendment.

It has been stated before that there are still considerable questions about

the intent in this bill. There's a serious question as to whether or not the

Minister is, in fact, trying to do, through the back door what he got his

fingers burnt trying to do through the front door.

I would suggest the need for clarification of the term "timber." This

amendment suggests that it is a very prominent part of the title of the bill; it

is very much a part of the questionable

section 7, which is the all-powerful

part of this bill. Historically, whenever there is a word in question in the

title of a bill; it is always defined in the

section of the

interpretation. Why

would the Minister deviate from this form at this time?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Questions come up whether the errors in the bill were intentional, or

whether, with all the legislative assistants and executive assistants and

commissions the Minister has, they're still incompetent to draft legislation.

This puts the Minister in a position where people are questioning his

credibility.

I had the opportunity over the weekend to speak to a number of people in the

interior sawmill industry, the very people whom this Minister claims he is out

to protect and save. And, Mr. Chairman, they above all say, "We are the ones who

can be most hurt unless this definition is met."

They want a definition and they want to know what they are having to deal

with in terms of this Act and in terms of this Minister's long-range plans for

the industry. Surely that's not too much to ask. Surely the Minister has no

intentions of being untruthful or misleading the people. I'm sure he hasn't.

Surely he has a strong desire....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

[ Page 5011 ]

Mrs. Jordan: ...to make very clear ...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would....

Mrs. Jordan: ...for the future of British Columbia ...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would....

Mrs. Jordan: ...what he intends to....

Mr. Chairman: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member if she is suggesting

by her remarks that the Minister has been untruthful?

Mrs. Jordan: No, I was saying that I was sure he wouldn't want to be.

But what he must understand, Mr. Chairman, is that by his silence which is

deafening to the people who are concerned with results of his intentions, he is

putting his own actions and the actions of this government under serious

question.

Every editorial, every

article that has come out since this bill was

introduced into the House after the first day has seriously questioned this

Minister's competency and this Minister's intentions. They have questioned even

to the point of today as to whether or not, by backing around the corner and

trying to come in another way through undefined terms, he is still promoting

creeping socialism in this province, and if he still intends to take over this

industry.

Mr. Bennett: Galloping, galloping.

Mrs. Jordan: With the definition of "timber" as it was revealed in a

former debate on this bill, and with the definition of "timber" as it relates in

the forest industries Act, and when you compile that definition with the scope

section 7, many people around this province are asking what, in fact, is

"timber?" Does this mean that the independent person who has a woodlot,

particularly in the outer regions of this province in the non-metropolitan area,

who cuts down birch or fir on their own woodlot and sell it door-to-door as

firewood is going to now be taxed by this Minister? Is that what he has in mind?

Is that the extent to which he'll allow this definition of "timber" to go — and

his own ambition?

Surely, Mr. Chairman, a reasonable question like the definition of one word

in so gigantic

an Act — so important

an Act, as the Minister says — deserves

support. And that's the amendment that we're debating and supporting. A simple

word. Just define the term "timber." That's all the people of British Columbia

are asking. In part, it is what the financial interests in this province are

asking in terms of the fact that you're toying with 50 per cent of the economy,

the basic economy, of this province. That's all we're asking as Members of the

opposition.

Surely, Mr. Minister, that's not unreasonable. Why would you refuse to define

the word "timber?" Could you please tell us?

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just wish to speak

briefly in support of the amendment for very much the same reasons that have

been stated earlier, although there is an additional fact that bothers me as a

layman which I raised earlier in debate. Even though we have the amendment,

which the Minister is presently refusing to consider, we still have the

definition including "logs." It's my impression that if we're going to be very

specific and almost, perhaps, picayune in trying to determine the scope of the

meaning of a single word — and I think we're right to be concerned about how the

Minister might subsequently define and interpret the word "timber" — I think he

could equally interpret and define the word "log" in a much wider way than I

think we're all assuming, or tending to assume, from his public statements.

It seems to me that many of the products which were defined in the first

version of the bill take their origin in logs, They're logs processed in a

certain way to produce a particular product. I wonder if we're not being rather

naive to suggest that all that this bill will be doing, even under its new

definition, is simply to provide a board which will play a

part in influencing

the price of logs — period.

I've listened to this debate very carefully and I gather, and the Minister

can correct me if I am wrong, I gather that the Minister's main purpose is to

play a part, through the vehicle of this new board, in influencing the price of

logs at the coast so that a fairer and better price will prevail than prevails

through the present system of swapping among private companies.

But, on the other hand, we seem to be spending a great deal of time defining

the word "timber", and I think if the Minister deleted the word "timber" or

defined it as a forest product, we are still passing a bill which really still

gives the Minister enormous power through the provisions in

section 3 and

through the provisions of sections 7 and 8, which define the ways and objects of

the board.

So really, much as I appreciate the other speakers from the opposition, I

really don't think there would be any complete assurance that simply by changing

the bill to include "timber" as a forest product, that we would necessarily

circumvent the danger that this bill can be used for massive intervention by the

government in the forest industry.

Therefore I feel that the bill itself has so many other aspects to it which

we cannot accept on our side of the House that I really don't feel there is much

to be gained by pursuing ad nauseam the question of the definition of the word

"timber, "

[ Page 5012 ]

Hon. R.A. Williams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to agree with the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in terms of going on ad nauseam over

definitions, because I think we do get into that never-never land.

It is a little surprising, though, that Her Majesty's Official Opposition

there, all the breast-beating, if you will pardon the phrase, of last week with

respect to modifications in the Act, and now, all of a sudden, they say it is

the same Act. It's the very same bill after all. That those changes meant

nothing. As usual the opposition is having trouble making up its mind about

where it's at. We get a little used to that over here.

Interjections.

Hon. R.A. Williams: The official opposition is again talking about

investment policy. With a history in the forest sector like the history of

Social Credit in British Columbia back to 1956, you're worried about investment

policy in the forest sector? The business of improving markets: are you saying

that it shouldn't be a goal of government or agencies of government? Or the

utilization of timber by definition: are you saying this shouldn't be a goal of

government or boards of government?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister confine his

remarks to the amendment?

Hon. R.A. Williams: It is rather difficult. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), Mr. Chairman, was talking about the power to tax

woodlots under a definition of "timber", so I do have difficulty following the

arguments of the opposition, and if I follow many of them I know it gets us in

conflict with the rules, and I'll try to avoid that most difficult route.

The question of price of logs: that isn't the prime concern of government,

per se, although it certainly is a concern because the government is, by and

large, the major owner of the standing trees in the province. So the question of

price is only one aspect. Access to market and establishing something closer to

real markets on the lower coast particularly is our goal. That will, we think,

enrich the whole process and we think, quite frankly, that people who claim to

be in the right of the spectrum should be interested in moving closer to market

solutions where we have monopoly situations at present. But that kind of

inconsistency is one we're getting used to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I was going to ask the Hon. Minister to

relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Chabot: I'm surprised you didn't ask him a little sooner, before

he sat down.

I'm again amazed that the Minister stands in his place after a series of

questions and a different approach from various Members of this House on the

question of his

interpretation of "timber". The Minister stood up and tried to

give a snow job on other matters rather than the amendment which we are debating

at this time.

All we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, with this simple amendment is clean up

that Minister's Act. That's all we are trying to do, and that Minister had ample

time from the time the issue originally arose on the floor of this House to

consult with other people who are concerned about the forest industry in this

province. He failed to do so. If he hasn't failed to do so, he has certainly

failed to heed the concerns, no doubt, that have been expressed to him.

What is this Minister trying to do? Is this Minister trying to be deceitful

by the ambiguities that appear in this Act? By his clear unwillingness to define

"timber"?

You know, that Minister often reminds me of that story I read not too long

ago when he was in opposition. He used to hit and run. He operates much like an

Australian dingo, Mr. Chairman. That's how he operates.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: He used to attack in this House and run. That's how he

used to operate.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: He's still operating that way.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), I thought that you had completed your remarks. However, I would make

this point of order: that we are debating the amendment. I would ask you not to

discuss the Minister's personal character but rather the amendment.

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Chabot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister did mention in his non-answer the question of

investments. There is a great cloud over British Columbia today, in the economic

community of British Columbia today, by the action of that Minister, by his

unwillingness to clearly define "timber" in this bill.

That cloud, unless it is clarified...unless this amendment is accepted by

that Minister over there who constantly hides in his office, who is unwilling

[ Page 5013 ]

answer on the question of definition, and to answer on the inconsistencies

which appear in this Act because he is unwilling to accept an

interpretation of

"timber".

There is that cloud throughout British Columbia today in the forest industry

which seriously affects the entire economic community, and that Minister is

unwilling to Act and which will enhance and ensure that investment returns to

the forest industry of British Columbia.

So all we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is assist the Minister to clean up

his Act.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman, what we heard from the Minister was a bunch

of rehashing of past events, gobbledygook, his old political speeches from the

years when he was in the opposition in this House, and no answers. An

irresponsible attitude. Irresponsible for a Minister of the Crown to get up and

defend his position for not accepting this amendment with the rhetoric which we

heard just a few minutes earlier.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It's straightforward. It's designed

to clarify the whole intent of the legislation. It removes from the legislation

and from the minds of the people who are involved in the forest industry the

grey area that exists there today — a grey area which has resulted in and has

led to suspicion and distrust of the Minister and his motives.

There can be nothing else as disastrous to the lumber industry and the forest

industry in this province than a lack of confidence. A crisis of confidence

throughout the Province of British Columbia. That's bad enough, but that crisis

of confidence exists also now in the international markets where we wish to try

and market 90 per cent of our wood products.

The Minister will never develop confidence in himself or in his ability to

manage this portfolio if he continues a conspiracy of silence as he has done

this afternoon, for he has never even dealt with the matter that was put before

him this afternoon and before this House in terms of an amendment.

I think the Chairman rightfully drew the Minister's attention to the fact

that he did not debate the amendment. And that is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister in his one defence did not debate the amendment. He did not give

the indication to the Members of this House why it was unacceptable. If he wants

to rehash what happened 20 years ago, let him go out into the corridor and

rehash it. But in here, with this bill before the House, he has an obligation

and a responsibility to indicate clearly and concisely just where he stands on

the amendment — to accept it or tell us why it is not acceptable — in clear,

simple language that the public understands.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is a careful man. He's a

precise man, and he understands the language very well, so I think he must

understand the point that the opposition has been trying to make, Mr.

Chairman.

The point is a simple one, that this one word "timber" makes the Act far more

vicious than it is without it. It is undesirable in either case, but with that

word in there in that

section 7, it is a very bad Act. So he has to understand

in hearing the charges which have been made against him and against his

intention, and in not answering them, he's adding credibility to that

charge.

He's not answering them in the place where he is only free to answer them,

but expected to answer them, where he should stand up and set the mind of the

body politic of British Columbia at rest — if that is his intention. If he

doesn't do that, he can't have any right to be surprised when people think the

worst, and the worst is that it's a backdoor route to the old bill.

Mr. Chairman, it's gets very discouraging. You can just talk so much.

The Minister has had his say, which is to refuse to answer on this point, and

we do have to assume the worst. The Minister has had his say, and the people

will have their say in due course.

Mr. Phillips: Well, to say the very least, I was certainly

disappointed in the Minister's remarks on the amendment, when he didn't really

tell us why he wouldn't accept the amendment, or didn't tell us why he wanted

the word "timber" left in the bill, Mr. Chairman, I think it was the Minister

who got the saying going around British Columbia, "Eat a beaver; save a tree,"

because this saying has just cropped up during this bill. But what the Minister

has done is scare all the beavers into the swamp, and they're still in there and

they're frightened.

Now what he's going to do, of course, is drain the swamp, unless he accepts

this amendment. But the Minister has the opportunity here this afternoon to put

confidence back in British Columbia, to put confidence back in the investment

climate in British Columbia.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, where is this Eden that was promised to the people of

British Columbia by the Premier of this province in the election campaign of

'72? Where is this Eden that was promised? Instead of that, that Minister is

dragging this province into the depths of disparity and further into the

wilderness. Where is this Eden that he promised that was going to lead to new

heights of economic prosperity, not going to kill the goose that laid the golden

egg. Oh, where is this Eden? Where are the promises?

Mr. Chairman, this Minister, after frightening the industry into such a state

of shock that they were

[ Page 5014 ]

really beside themselves, he finally listened to a few of them in the office.

And they didn't pick up this point, the fact that timber was not defined in this

bill, so they are out there and they want to know why. All we're asking is a

simple little question — another definition that would give the true intent of

this bill.

This $140 million expansion in Quesnel could still be saved, possibly by

accepting this amendment. More jobs in the Province of British Columbia could be

saved by accepting this amendment.

Predictions are that the unemployment rate in British Columbia will be higher

this winter than in any other province in Canada. By accepting this minor

amendment, by telling us the true intent of the bill, this afternoon the

Minister has the opportunity to improve the employment situation in British

Columbia this winter. He has the opportunity right now. I challenge the Minister

to stand on his feet and tell us if he won't accept the amendment, why he won't

accept the amendment.

The fears remain. It was a clumsy retreat at the best of it, but the fears

are still there, Mr. Chairman — the fears in the industry.

If this Minister does not accept this amendment, this bill will be a thorn in

the side of this government until it goes down to defeat, because employment in

our No. 1 industry in British Columbia is threatened by this bill. People's jobs

are threatened by this bill.

Mr. Chairman, by simply explaining to the Legislature why he will not accept

this amendment, explaining to the Legislature why he needs all these powers....

You know and I know that he could have accomplished marketing in wood chips and

logs through the Natural Products Marketing Act which was just passed through

this Legislature. Why does he need to set up this marketing board with all the

powers if he just wants to control wood chips and saw logs? Then, as he stated

in the last two or three days....all he has to do is accept this simple

amendment. And this simple amendment will restore some confidence in this

province. The acceptance of this simple amendment will restore enough confidence

in the industry that the curtailment of employment will not continue on the

decline.

Now that Minister has the opportunity here this afternoon, and I beg the

Minister to stand up and explain why he will not accept this amendment. If we

are reading into this bill something that we shouldn't be reading into it, Mr.

Chairman, tell us. Tell us we're wrong, but please, Mr. Minister, either accept

the amendment, or tell us why you can't accept it; and explain why you need it

in there. We're reasonable people here in the opposition parties — very

reasonable people.

Mr. Chabot: We don't hit and run.

Mr. Phillips: No, and we don't break and take. (Laughter.) No, we're

reasonable people, but we'd like the Minister to maintain his credibility for

the sake of the forest industry, for the sake of the province — now you've got

the opportunity — for the sake of the unemployed. It's going to be a long, cold

winter. I ask the Minister: if we're wrong, tell us why we're wrong. Tell us

here this afternoon why you can't accept this amendment.

It has nothing to do with the broad powers of the bill to control the

marketing of either logs or saw chips, as the Minister said. It's not going to

curtail his powers; it's not going to curtail the powers of the board. It's

merely giving the definition that that is all the board is going to do. A simple

little amendment; that's all it's going to do. So, Mr. Chairman, let the

Minister tell us. He owes it to the people; he owes it to this Legislature.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the Minister took great comfort the other

day that he was making a significant gesture by redefining forest products by

making such exclusions, and saying that that should clear up all of the fears of

the people in B.C. — people who had continued to lose confidence daily in the

future of this industry or any industry in this province, industry that's needed

to provide jobs for — the people and create the prosperity that pays for the

very government programmes that this government likes to talk about giving, and

which all governments do.

When there's still a fuzzy area, an unclear area, in the Act, I'm surprised

that the Minister wouldn't seize the opportunity to help further clarify his

intentions — his intentions which are suspect — his intentions which have been

suspect and are still suspect today, because he will not further clarify the

Act.

If, in his amendments that he introduced the other day, and which were passed

in this Legislature, he felt it necessary at that time that the definition

section was so very important to the intent of this Act, he cannot dismiss

lightly a further unclear area of the word "timber" which can be taken to be so

all-encompassing in dealing with the forest industry in this province. If he

doesn't need the fuzziness that this creates to, in all reality, achieve the

original intent of this Act, I think the people of B.C. have a right to know why

this further clarification isn't being accepted.

We have a right to be concerned right now that this Minister, for some

reason, has something to hide: something within the framework of this Act that

he isn't telling this Legislature and the people of B.C. by not accepting this

amendment.

The amendment, as some of the Members have said, seems to be a very simple,

straightforward amendment. It seems to help clarify the very

[ Page 5015 ]

definitions of the Act which give it meaning, which give it direction.

The very fact that the Minister is silent causes further consternation and

doubt and creates doubt in our industry at a time when we cannot take this

further lack of confidence in the province, a time when the very industry we're

dealing with has massive and increasing unemployment.

The fact that some projects have announced that they will not continue

because of this Act, makes it doubly more reason for the Minister to respond and

to feel his responsibility because the economy of this province from the forest

industry is most important, not only in the jobs it creates — and the jobs that

have been lost already — but in the very prosperity of the province itself and

of this government and any government to continue to serve the people of this

province.

It's not an economy, and it's not something to be brushed off lightly...the

responsibility that the Minister has to the people and to this Legislature

cannot be discarded with a few flippant remarks in an old campaign speech.

I think the very fact that this Minister will not accept this amendment makes

it very clear to the people of B.C. and this Legislature that it was window

dressing — the withdrawal the other day of those...and the redefinition.

The Minister is clearly intent upon the takeover of the industry. The

Minister expects this Legislature to take his word with a simple amendment the

other day, when there's much in his Act to be debated, continuing in committee

further along today. Much is in question, and we will not discuss it now. But at

this time with this amendment this Minister can make a significant gesture to

alleviate the fears of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I think if there's been

one fortunate occurrence arising out of this piece of legislation and out of the

amendment that was brought in last Thursday night, it is that the Hon. Leader of

the official opposition is being gradually educated. Let there be no doubt that

the Minister, by his silence, is speaking more eloquently about this legislation

than could ever be imagined on the floor of this chamber.

He said, when he brought the amendment in last Thursday, that his was a

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

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Hear, hear!

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Hon. Member for Shuswap indicates that he

supports that position.

When the Minister brought in the amendment, apparently to make this

legislation deal only with logs and wood chips, it was obvious to anyone reading

the bill that he was not in any sense redirecting what was his essential purpose

— that is to the ultimate control of the forest industry, whatever the

consequences of that might be.

In spite of the fact that his Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) warns us in his public statements that: as goes the economy of the United

States of America, so goes the economy of our forest industry — that's from the

other Member of the government who should have a role to play in this

legislation — this Minister has left no doubt in anyone's mind, and there should

be no doubt in anyone in this House or the Province of British Columbia, whether

they are inside the forest industry or outside the forest industry, that this

government intends to control that industry in all of its aspects — every one.

The acceptance of this amendment that is before the House at the moment does not

in any sense change that situation.

The remark was made a few moments ago that the Minister was on the horns of a

dilemma. Well maybe he is, but he's not on anything like the horns that the

forest industry and the people who depend on the forest industry in this

province find themselves at this moment. If the Minister did anything when he

brought in the amendment last Thursday, it was only to remove one horn. But you

know, it still hurts just as much. This is the consequence of what we have here.

It isn't a question of the Minister's credibility, it's a question of the

Minister's incredibility that we should be debating.

I have concern about even supporting this amendment, except for one reason:

it seems that the official opposition is now prepared to accept a board

controlled by this government to look after logs and wood chips.

Mr. Bennett: Not at all.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well then there's only one way you can resolve that

situation, Mr. Member, and that's to vote against every

section of this

bill.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, I can excuse the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition for being concerned about his own competence. But there is only one

reason for supporting this amendment which has been put forward, and that is

that we have a number of sections....

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Burble, burble — his father was more eloquent when

he sat silent, I'll tell you that. Now we've heard from the heir transparent.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 5016 ]

Mr. Chairman, we have a number of other sections which deal in a very

significant way with the revenue legislation of this province, and before we get

to handing over the keys of the treasury to this Minister, we're entitled to

know specifically whether this legislation is to be limited to logs and wood

chips. But, as I say, I don't believe it is.

There's only one answer to this

section and every other section: to oppose

them right down the line.

The Minister wants to establish a board in keeping with the recommendations

of the Pearse report — the second recommendation, I guess. If he really wants to

limit the effect of this legislation to the marketing of logs and wood chips,

and if the demands that the government proposes to make upon the treasury of

British Columbia is to be limited to those purposes, then we're entitled to know

before we go one step further.

Mr. Phillips: I was amazed at some of the remarks of the previous

speaker, when the same Member was on a panel not long ago when the intent of

this party was made very clear.

However, it's amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, how this Minister can remain

silent when we're discussing something as important as this bill is to the

future of British Columbia. It's amazing to me that this Minister won't stand up

and fight like a man. The only time that Minister will stand up and defend

himself is when he can hide behind parliamentary rules, or hit and run. He's got

the opportunity this afternoon....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member keep his remarks

confined to the amendment, please?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, that Minister won't stand up and defend

his actions in this House this afternoon. He won't stand up and fight for this

bill like he did when he could hide behind parliamentary rules and nobody could

have intelligent discussion with him. No, he isn't man enough to stand on the

floor of this Legislature this afternoon and tell us why he can't accept this

amendment. He isn't man enough.

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

confine his remarks to the amendment. And you're bordering very close to making

offensive remarks about another Member of the House.

Mr. Phillips: If this Minister can't defend his policies, Mr.

Chairman, this is, regretfully, the attitude I have to take.

We have, and you know it, Mr. Chairman, a very simple amendment. Not even to

any of the powers of the board — just a simple amendment to the

interpretation

of the Act, and that Minister will not stand on the floor of this Legislature

and give us any solid reason why he can't accept this amendment. He won't give

us any solid reason why he wants the word "timber" left in the objects of the

board. He won't tell us. It's a simple little amendment which would take some of

the frustrations away from the forest industry.

An Hon. Member: He operates like a dingo.

Mr. Phillips: Now, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to know from that

Minister....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before we proceed, Hon. Members, I would

draw your attention to standing order 40,

part 2: "No Member shall use offensive

words against any Member of this House; nor shall he speak beside, the question

under debate."

There have been words used that are clearly offensive, and I would ask the

Hon. Members to resist the temptation to use dishonorable words in the

House.

Mr. Phillips: I didn't call the Minister a dingo.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We would like to know, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister has the opportunity to

tell us here this afternoon: does he intend, does he plan to bring the forest

industry under his control while he's the Minister? If he doesn't intend to, let

him accept this amendment. It's as cut and dried as that.

If this Minister does not intend to take control of the entire forest

industry in this province, then let him accept this amendment. But as I said,

Mr. Chairman, let the Minister stand and tell us his true intentions; let it be

written in the record. Let the Minister tell us why he can't accept the

amendment. At least, in other amendments we've put forward in this House....

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

this particular request has been made a number of times, both in regard to this

amendment and also in regard to consideration of the reasons why they should or

should not support an amendment.

Would the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Phillips: Is this policy in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, or .

.... ?

[ Page 5017 ]

Mr. Chairman: The point may be made, but the Hon. Member may not

insist or demand that any Member state reasons why they may support or not

support....

Mr. Phillips: How many times can the question be asked?

Mr. Chairman: When the Chair has determined that it is becoming

repetitious, the Chairman will draw this to the Hon. Member's attention.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have at stake not the problems of

one individual in British Columbia today, but we have the problem of the whole

economy — which affects everybody in British Columbia. The entire economic

stability of this province is at stake. By the very fact that that Minister will

not explain to us, like other Ministers have had the courtesy to do.... When we

put in an amendment, the other Ministers have the courtesy to stand on the floor

of this Legislature and say: "No, we cannot accept your amendment for specific

reasons."

That Minister, who controls the largest portfolio in that cabinet, a

portfolio that affects the largest segment of the economy of this province, will

not extend to this Legislature or to the people of British Columbia the courtesy

of explaining why he cannot accept such a simple amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the Minister once more: will he please advise

this Legislature why he cannot accept this simple amendment?

Mr. Bennett: I think we are now getting to a very fundamental part of

the bill. It is that the definition

section is far more important than many

people have realized, and that this Act, in truth, is as ominous as all of us

claimed it to be when it was first introduced to this Legislature.

I would like to say that our concern has never varied. I don't mind the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) taking his few cheap

personal political shots, but I do take issue with him anticipating the position

of our party. We have been opposed to a chip marketing board as a solution from

the beginning, and we are still opposed to a chip marketing board — even with

the amendments introduced by the Minister.

I would question whether he had canvassed the Member from his own party who

so eloquently spoke on some form of chip marketing on a CBC broadcast panel on

which I participated with the Minister last weekend. At that time I made it very

clear that there were other actions this Minister could have taken rather than

nine months of inaction on a very serious problem dealing with the price of

chips and the manner in which they would be dealt with, Mr. Chairman.

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

Opposition to debate the amendment.

Mr. Bennett: Now the very clear-cut concern we expressed about this

bill has now in this first definition

section come home to rest. The Minister,

when he had his back-up lights on the other day, wasn't prepared to back up all

the way. There's no sense backing half-way from an avalanche, Mr. Chairman,

because you'll still get buried, and this industry can still get buried by this

bill and by this Minister.

The term "timber" means a lot and covers a lot of ground, and it's just the

first part of a series of doubts we have about this bill as to whether it can be

amended at all. But I understand that that's what committee is all about. It's

our serious attempt to meet the Minister and treat his words at face value —

believing that he has no sinister intent, no ulterior motives, that he is trying

to clean up a bill and that, when he admits to being "bumbling, bungling

government, " like all of their legislation is, they're really just sloppy,

they're not just devious.

If we'll accept that he would rather be a bungler than devious, then perhaps

he'll help us "unbungle" his bill and accept this redefinition, or definition,

and have the definition of the word "timber" to bring some further clarification

and let some sunshine in and shed some light on this Act, if it doesn't have the

seriousness of devious implications that have been ascribed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister, if he's not going to accept the

amendment, must give this Legislature....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I would point out to the Hon. Member that either stating that a Minister or

legislation is devious is contrary to the rules of the House. I would ask the

Hon. Member to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Bennett: I will withdraw.

I would ask the Minister to rise in his place and deign to speak with the

elected representatives of the people.

A moment ago he said that he was tempted to speak, a temptation he hasn't

yielded to very often in this Legislature when he has the responsibility of

providing answers to the representatives of the people. In this case the very

argument, the very concern we have, demands an answer. I invite the Minister to

provide us with that answer now.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, in Canada today we're going through trying

times, and in British

[ Page 5018 ]

Columbia especially. This country is in the grip of a recession with growing

inflation, and the Minister wants to add fuel to the economic problems we're

facing in this country.

This amendment being introduced now has a tremendous bearing on future

employment in British Columbia, not only in the forest industry but within the

ancillary jobs created by the forest industry.

Unemployment is raging in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia. In

your own constituency, Mr. Chairman, which is extremely dependent upon forestry,

which needs the confidence that this amendment will restore to the forest

industry, there is a projection of 11.2 per cent of your working force being

unemployed this winter. That's not even taking into consideration the

difficulties being experienced by the market situation in the United States.

Certainly, with the failure of this Minister to accept this amendment, future

jobs will not come on stream. Unemployment which British Columbians will face

this winter, more severely than they ever have in the past, will continue on

longer than it should unless the Minister accepts this amendment.

On behalf of the labour force in British Columbia, there is a need for

clarification of the word "timber," and yet the Minister is unwilling on behalf

of the working people of this province to clarify what he means by "timber." The

Minister's not willing as well to accept the amendment as it has been proposed

by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that when this government falls — and

fall it will — that Minister will be the chief architect of the downfall of this

government, because he's unwilling to ensure future investment and future

employment in the forest industry by his lack of willingness to accept this very

simple amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 28

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

An Hon. Member: When you report to the Speaker, Mr. Chairman, would

you advise him that a division did take place and have him record it in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker would you

advise him that a division took place, and have him record it in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

section 2.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper with respect to

section 2. (See appendix.)

On the amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has shown some respect

for existing contracts, which he didn't in the original

section which

establishes wood chip prices, but I do hope that the Minister will consult with

people who are knowledgeable in the industry and not just sit up in cabinet and

say, "This

[ Page 5019 ]

is the price that is going to be established for wood chips per cunit."

Because the figure that the Minister brought into this House is really not a

credible figure, particularly when the industry wrote to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources in August, Mr. Chairman, and offered to the B.C.

Research Council, through the Minister, to open the books of eight pulp mills in

this province....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member addressing himself to

the amendment, or to the

section ...

Mr. Phillips: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman: ...or to the

section as a whole?

Mr. Phillips: I'm talking about this particular section. I'm talking

about the price of wood chips.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are considering amendments to

section

2 at this moment. If you just pause for a moment I'll put the amendments and

then we can consider the

section as a whole.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, all right.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved, On

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River

continue?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The industry did, Mr. Chairman, offer to the Minister full disclosure of

their financial statements to assist the B.C. Research Council with their work

in determining what the price of wood chips in British Columbia should be.

The Minister was approached in the month of August, and he ignored the

letter. Again in the month of October a letter was written to the Minister

offering the facilities of the pulp industry. They again offered to open their

books to show him any facts and figures that he wanted, or to show the B.C.

Research Council any facts and figures. Now Mr. Chairman, if you were going to

determine something, surely to goodness you should take into consideration

existing costs. I don't know what formula the B.C. Research Council used....

Hon. R.A. Williams: It's all in the three volumes.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, it's all in the three volumes. But in that three

volumes, how many facts are from actually operating mills? How many facts were

taken from the financial statements of the operating mills and costs as they

exist today, Mr. Chairman?

An Hon. Member: They're sweethearts.

Mr. Phillips: No, Mr. Chairman. The Minister has said that "before we

go into any industry, we're going to sit down and consult with the industry."

This is not like the petroleum industry. This is a much more unique and

complicated industry. What I want to know is why the Minister didn't accept the

offer made to him by those in the industry who could have given him the costs as

they exist today from their financial statements.

The figures really that he has related to the House don't hold water

according to the Price Waterhouse report on the costs of operations and the

return on investments. The Price Waterhouse report, and I'm not going to go over

all the details again today, but the Price Waterhouse report says that the

return on equity and the return on investment is lower at the present time than

that recommended by the B.C. Research Council. And that's with the price of

chips as they exist today.

How can you justify in many cases tripling the price when Price Waterhouse

says that the return prior to that is not what they recommend it should be?

The B.C. Research Council report just doesn't hold water unless the B.C.

Research Council went to Can-Cel. Maybe Can-Cel can afford it. Is it from

Can-Cel that the price of wood chips from Can-Cel's operation that the price of

wood chips is going to be established? Because if it is....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, they've been paying the low price. I recall the

Minister saying that "we want to have our own forest industry so we will know

all the facts that we will be able to determine what is going on in the forest

industry." So now the Minister owns 79 per cent of Can-Cel. He's going to go

into Can-Cel, he's going to look at Can-Cel's books and he's going to say this

is what the entire industry should be paying. Well, if the entire industry

should be paying $60 per bone-dried unit for wood chips, why didn't they lead

the industry and pay it?

But the situation is, Mr. Chairman, that if you're going to use Can-Cel where

they get special favours in stumpage, where they don't pay their bills such as

they didn't pay their Rim timber products, they're going to get special

concession on the railway, people in the industry, the private operators in the

industry, are going to be forced by that Minister to make

[ Page 5020 ]

special concessions to Can-Cel. It really doesn't give you an unbiased

operation. Because that Minister has control over Can-Cel.

There's nothing in this particular

section that outlines any formula that's

going to be used for the establishment of determining what the price of wood

chips shall be. No, the Minister's going to wake up some morning and he's going

to say "this is what the price of wood chips is going to be."

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Would you tell the Minister? I'd gladly yield the floor

to him if he wishes to make a statement.

So this is what is also worrying the industry — what secret formula, what

mythical advantage has the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources got?

Does he wave a special wand and all of a sudden a light appears and says this is

the price it should be? Or as I say, is he going to use Can-Cel and the books of

Can-Cel for determining what the price should be?

But we must always remember that Can-Cel is a favoured company. They have

unfair advantages, because of that Minister's involvement, that other companies

don't have. So I'd like the Minister to tell us what formula he's going to use

if he's going to consult with the industry. Is he going to go in and look at

actual financial statements and look at books and come down to the real world of

business? Or is he just going to continue to commission favoured studies and

hire the people that he wants to bring about the desired results that he

wants?

Because if he does, it's going to be unfair to the industry. He keeps saying

that all the small operators are in favour of this bill. I'll tell you that 90

per cent of the small operators are against this bill because they're afraid

that they will be affected by other sections in the bill the same as the pulp

companies are going to be affected by this.

So, I'll take my place now and I'd like the Minister to explain exactly what

formula he's going to use to determine, or is he going to use the B.C. Research

Council's recommendations which are recommendations and studies made up without

the benefit of looking at actual operations.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I see in clause (1) of subsection (1) where

the order by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is open ended and there's no

termination on any such order. In fact, with the fragility of the wood chip

market, with the fact that they want to be current and under continuous study, I

don't think that this bill or any other bill or this

section should allow such

an order to be presented without a termination date.

I think there should be a termination date and if it requires continual study

and another order then so be it. But at least we will be guaranteed that no

order is open ended and it's not under continual study where they have taken

this power to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

So I would like to move for

section 2, by adding the following as subsection

(4): "Any order made pursuant to this

section shall expire on the ninetieth day

after its publication."

On the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: One of the purposes of this amendment is so that the

Minister won't bring down a decree as to what the price of wood chips will be

and then go off and forget it. As you know....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, he might take an extended trip to China or Hawaii

or Japan or Sweden — even maybe Switzerland, check his bank account. Well, quit

laughing.

This Minister has stood idly by while this industry has reached crisis

proportions. The only measure he took was to increase new stumpage formula which

added to their problem, when we warned against it. So we're all aware of it. So

all we're asking with this amendment is that when he makes these dictatorial

decrees, sets the price of wood chips which he's going to do, that he be forced

to take a look at it every three months.

Otherwise we could be running into a situation where there's more break and

take, let the industry go further down, then he'll have to come in and say

"well, they couldn't survive under the terms that we laid down so we're going to

have to go in and take them over. We're going to have to go in and run them

ourselves because we can do a better job."

As you know, and we've outlined many times in this House, the lumber industry

is a very volatile industry. Changes can actually come about faster than three

months but we're giving the Minister a three-month limit. All we're really

asking, and I know the Minister by the way he's smiling and the way he's nodding

his head he's going to accept this amendment, all it is is to trigger his memory

so that he will sit down and constantly review the situation.

This Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has been Minister for

two-and-a-half years and he allowed the industry to deteriorate, to the crisis

that it is in today. Then when it deteriorates to that point, he brings in the

final blow by bringing in this bill and really knocks it off base.

So all we're asking is that the Minister at least...we're putting in to law

that he must review the situation every 90 days. Otherwise as I say, he'll do

the same as he's done for the last two years, just allow the industry to go

further downhill and further

[ Page 5021 ]

downhill.

Then, when it's just about to the breaking point, he'll go in and knock it

off balance and then take it over.

More break and take, that's the whole purpose of this bill. He won't consult

with the industry; he won't sit down and talk to them and listen to their

problems. He listened to them a little bit and brought in a little camouflage, a

little smokescreen, defined the term "forest products," but then left in the

real crux of the bill.

The official opposition picked it up. No, Mr. Chairman, we're just putting

this into law.... He'll have to take a look; otherwise he'll bring in these

decrees and they'll stay forever. There are other contracts that have to be

reviewed every so often. For instance, even interest rates are reviewed. As soon

as the national interest rates change, if you have a demand loan, well, the

banker sends you a note and says that your interest rate is either up or

down.

All we're asking this Minister to do, if the lumber industry goes down

further or comes up or things change, is to take a look at it and sit down with

the industry and say: "Well, listen, where should we go from here? Let's sit

down and consult every 90 days." For an industry that's important in British

Columbia that's not much to ask. I know that the Minister will accept the

amendment by the way he's nodding his head.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit surprised, because what

we're trying to guarantee with this amendment is that the deterioration that has

happened to the interior sawmilling industry, the independents, those

independents that the Minister has developed as a smokescreen for bringing in

this bill and the preservation of the independents — that the inaction that has

taken place over the last nine months, the lack of direction by this Minister

and his government, and the fact that no discussion was initiated by them

between the industry, either pulp mill or the independent operators — that this

type of neglect will not continue in the future, even if the Minister manages to

ram through this bill.

We're trying to guarantee that the neglect that has taken place — and while

mills have shut down and unemployment has grown, and the fact that the Cariboo

and the Kootenays and other areas are threatened with 31 per cent unemployment

and higher now in the forest industry — the neglect of a Minister and a cabinet

and the government, will not happen again, even when they get their legislation

through, if they get it through. We're trying to guarantee that these people

will know that their industry will at least deserve some attention and some

action by law, and that the Minister can't, with the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, pass an order and forget them again — if the

industry does indeed continue, if lack of confidence doesn't destroy it yet

further — that they will achieve and receive some attention and some action from

this Minister and this government so the disgrace of the decline of their

industry through no action will not happen again.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I just want to put a few

words in in favour of this amendment to tell you that I agree that it should be

reviewed every 90 days.

Coming from the interior, I know how many things have deteriorated there for

the independent sawmill operator as well as other operators. I certainly think

that this amendment will make it so that it will have to be looked at every 90

days in the Minister's department, and nobody will overlook these things so they

go down.

I'm of the opinion that whatever price is set — the Minister has given us

some remarks about what his advisers think the price should be — because of the

decline in the situation in the interior, it's too late now to get independent

operators to come back out. I'm in favour of this amendment so this won't happen

again.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm rising in support of this amendment, not because I'm

particularly in favour of the legislation; I think it's disastrous. But if we're

going to have to live with it, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to

review his historical attitude in relation to the independents over the last few

months, and the fact that they wish to point out to him that there is a great

need to move rapidly at times in this business.

They tried very hard to meet with this Minister months ago to explain to him

what their problem was.

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

we're considering an amendment to

section 2. Would the Hon. Member confine her

remarks to the amendment?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I felt that these comments related to the

amendment, Mr. Chairman. If you wish to rule it out of order, then I will try

and confine my remarks more specifically to suggest that why we have to have

this 90-day review period is because already the Minister, through this

legislation, has changed the ground rules in relation to chip delivery and made

it f.o.b. at the pulp mill instead of f.o.b. at the sawmill. He may have good

reason for this, although he hasn't expressed it to our satisfaction, nor to the

satisfaction of the industry.

What they are concerned about, in light of the five months preceding this

legislation, is their inability to reach the Minister to explain to him what

their problems were and to have him react in a manner that

[ Page 5022 ]

would help them rather than meet his own somewhat questionable ends, which

may well be the takeover of the forest industry.

What they are concerned about and what they want reviewed and why they feel

there must be frequent reviews of the situation is: who's going to bear the

brunt of the back-up problems that are going to arise? Before it was the pulp

mills; now it's going to be the independent operators. They're concerned about

the shortage of boxcars. They're concerned that if they can't get this type of

transportation, who is going to stockpile, and who is going to pay for the

stockpiling?

If there is a deterioration in the chips, which frequently happens through

stockpiling, who is going to pay for this? As the new formula exists, it's the

independent operators. The Minister, if he has a carte blanche to change

formulas as he feels like or when he feels like or delays as long as he wishes,

then there's no further security for them. This is why we propose this

amendment.

They are concerned that there may be a demand to increase the quality of

chips. While it looks very good to receive, in this instance, a $60 f.o.b. price

at the mill, in fact it's going to be the sawmills that are going to have to

bear the brunt of the increase of costs, not only in storage of excess chips, or

storage of the chips when it backlogs and there isn't transportation, when the

winter season is here, when there's ice and the chips become iced they can't be

unloaded as fast, but also that they're going to have to bear the brunt of

upgrading equipment which has already been upgraded, their machinery, to meet

the standards of today.

They would feel a little bit more secure knowing that there would be a 90-day

review, and knowing that then, enshrined in this ghastly legislation, at least

would be the insistence that the Minister listen to them, and listen to their

problems.

They have the problem of short- and long-term financing, particularly the

smaller independents. One of the most serious problems they're facing under this

Minister's administration is, in fact, that decisions that previously took two

months now take two years. There's the unsettling of the economic climate in

British Columbia, which leaves the small independents even less access to the

capital that they need just for operating, let alone for expansion or upgrading

their facilities.

Surely some of these small but very practical problems and concerns of the

independent operators around the province — and I would say specifically in the

area that I represent — would be reason enough for the Minister to accept the

amendment. I recognize that while there isn't the acceptance of his legislation,

he's going to ramrod it through; we know that. But at least he could make some

effort to give the security needed in the sector that he says that he's offering

it for.

I'm surprised that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) isn't even here to

speak in favour of this amendment, because his area, as he said, is peppered

with small operators, and they're very much concerned about this, and they very

much feel that if they have to live with this socialistic, oppressive,

interfering type of legislation, at least their Member would be speaking on

their behalf and trying to, bring some semblance of common sense to this

Minister's legislation, and to try to bring some semblance of common sense out

of his philosophical ambition as it relates to their lives and their jobs and

their investments.

So surely on this basis alone, Mr. Chairman, along with the other arguments,

the Minister should stand up and accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 28

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, would you advise the Speaker that a

division took place and have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Gibson: This is the

section that would allow the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to fix wood prices, ostensibly for helping the

independent operators.

Something that every Member of this House should know is that this section,

even assuming that chip prices are raised substantially, is only helpful to the

independent operators so long as the government forgoes its habitual taking of

something over 80 per cent of the increase in prices.

The Minister has stated that there would be some kind of a moratorium until

next summer on this, but

[ Page 5023 ]

he has given us no guarantee of any kind thereafter. Therefore, we look at

the independent operators who may be helped up until next summer and then, zap!

— the guillotine falls and 80 per cent of that help is taken away just like

that.

And what happens in that case, Mr. Chairman, under this section? What is

happening, really, is that the government is finding another way to get revenue

not out of the pulp mills but out of the pulp mills and the independents.

They're getting more revenue out of both of them, and they are therefore taxing

capacity to operate and to pay wages. Unless there is some long-term policy set

and not just a moratorium until next summer, nobody is going to know where they

stand and there's going to be no case for investment and creating new jobs in

that industry.

But the worst part about this

section is that it permits the government to

put the squeeze on any pulp mill or any independent operator in this province.

The power to set prices by regions means that the Minister can go to pulp mill A

or B or C and say, "Now, this is going to be your price unless you play ball,

maybe. If you do play ball, maybe you get a different price." I don't know. But

you can be awfully certain, Mr. Chairman, some Minister somewhere down the road

is going to use that kind of power, and maybe not use it correctly. The Hon.

Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) mentioned a case in point

where that happened before in this province. This

section gives the Minister,

or, more correctly, the cabinet, the power to make millionaires or bankrupts out

of not just any pulp mill but out of any independent in this province. It is

just a tremendous amount of power.

I think most people on the floor of this House agree that a higher price

should be paid for interior chips. The reasons were canvassed very thoroughly at

second reading. There's that monopoly buyer's market in the interior. There is

just no question that that has to be fixed up. But to have it fixed up with

total, discretion on the part of the Minister is wrong because that discretion

is not necessary and may be misused.

Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that what is required is a formula — a

formula that will tie it to a free market, which can be done.

On the southern coast of this province there exists a free chip market which

has a number of buyers and a number of sellers and relatively low-cost

transportation between them. It establishes a price for chips which is much

higher than the price in the interior. Strangely, the price which this free

market on the southern coast has established for chips is very similar to the

price that the Minister's own study by the B.C. Research Council found to be an

appropriate price for chips that mills could afford to pay.

Now, this free coastal market price would have to be adjusted to look after

interior factors, particularly the factor of transportation. But there should be

something which takes away the unnecessary discretion by tying it to the free

market, to the genuinely free market on the southern coast.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to

section 2(

l) by

striking out the words after "province, " and substituting the following:

"which prices shall be determined by reference to chip prices in

the lower coast chip market, adjusted as may be necessary for transportation

charges in other areas of the province."

This amendment, as I say, would have the effect of removing the unnecessary

and vexatious discretion which is otherwise granted by this section.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I find the idea an interesting and intriguing one,

Mr. Chairman, but I think there's probably a range of variables beyond what the

Hon. Member has put forth. I still think that there are a range of possibilities

that are still being thoroughly investigated. But as I indicated on the radio

programme with the Hon. Member last weekend, the possibility exists under the

legislation to look in terms of some formula base or something of that nature in

relation to the coast. I think there will be a constant review in relation to

what market information is generally available.

So while I would like to express some sympathy for the Member's position, the

government cannot endorse the amendment as proposed.

Mr. Gibson: I appreciate the Minister's remarks, but my essential

point here is that there should be a formula specified in this legislation so

that the discretion is removed.

I appreciate, as well, that the Minister mentions that there are other

variables. There may well be. But, in that case, would the Minister please bring

a formula forward? In the absence of it, this is my formula and I want to

suggest it to this House.

Mr. Wallace: There's no doubt that in second reading every Member of

the House who spoke took issue with the power that was provided to the cabinet

section 2. In fact, this was reason for my statement earlier this afternoon:

arguing about the definition of timber is one thing, but there's no argument as

to the scope or power which the Minister has in

section 2. As I stated in second

reading, it certainly gives the Minister the power to play favourites. He can

favour one company and penalize another, regardless of the justification for any

such action. It therefore introduces a tremendous amount of potential for

political manipulation.

Any amendment, in my view, which in some relative way ties the Minister down

to following certain procedures in reaching his decision about what the chip

prices should be, is very desirable. The

[ Page 5024 ]

Minister has answered and said that there are many other variables other than

that raised in the amendment. But once again, Mr. Chairman, it would be a

measure, I believe, of good faith....any degree to which the Minister can give

some kind of outline of the formula to be used would be desirable.

The industry has certainly reacted in a way that was not unpredictable. There

were the small sawmillers who were asking for some form of assistance; but now

that they've seen the bill and they see the authority provided in

section 2,

there's very much some second thoughts being put forward as to whether they

wanted this massive amount of intervention by the government on such a grand

scale, and without such limitation of power.

Therefore, although I listened carefully to the Minister's reply and realize

that we're dealing with a very complex market, it would seem to me that the

scope of authority which cabinet has given unto itself in

section 2 could quite

reasonably be limited to a degree which would allay some of the fears of the

opposition and, I think, allay some of the fears of the very people you're

trying to help. They are the independents, so called, and all they are getting

from this bill is the loss of their independence. They're at the mercy of this

board which will be appointed by this government.

I never saw a more ironic piece of legislation in my life, set up to protect

somebody's independence — in this case the small sawmill operator. When you read

the bill, you see that the most clear and glaring consequence of this bill is

that they'll lose their independence.

So I feel that this bill is going to pass in the inevitable way in which

bills pass through this House, in the democratic way, but it would be remiss of

this opposition if we didn't try to modify, at least, some of the dangers we see

in the bill. I think that the amendment would do just that.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 28

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levy

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. Gibson: When you're reporting to the Speaker, could you advise him

that a vote took place and ask that it be recorded?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Bennett: The concern for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, after

the Minister's disregard for wood chip prices up until this time, and the fact

that he's apparently using the excuse of the low price that existed on wood

chips to bring in this bill, makes us consider that any such expertise that may

be brought to the price of wood chips would not meet the situation.

We're concerned that the very concerns they talk about — this power in the

hands of the cabinet — to create the price of wood chips opens up a whole range

of possibilities, most of them unpleasant, and the very people who the Minister

suggests must be helped by this Act and with the

section dealing with wood chips

may not be well served.

I'd like to move, by adding the following as subsection 4:

"Any determination of price made pursuant to this

section should

be made by way of an independent arbitration board of three members acting

according to the provisions of the Arbitration Act of British Columbia, holding

public hearings and coming to a unanimous recommendation as to price, which

unanimous recommendation shall be the price determined. As part of such hearing,

the arbitration board shall cause to be called as witnesses at least two

persons, or parties who are buyers of, and at least two who are sellers of, wood

chips."

Mr. Chairman: I must regretfully rule this amendment out of order in

that it proposes an alternative scheme to that contained in

section 1. Therefore

we'll proceed with the

section as amended.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I just have a few remarks with regard to

section

The Minister, when debating this bill in second reading, made numerous

references to

section 20. In fact, almost his entire speech dealt with the

matter of chip prices and indicated how the purpose of this

section was to

protect the indigenous, independent operator of sawmills in British

Columbia.

When I consider that lo, these many months have passed with pulp companies

such as Can-Cel

[ Page 5025 ]

continuing to pay an inordinately low chip price; when I consider that any

price over $10, about 80 or 85 per cent of it has been taken by the Crown as a

form of stumpage charge; when I consider how inadequately the forest service

appraisals have reflected proper costs in the industry, and therefore have kept

stumpage at an inordinately high price, I can only come to the conclusion that

the continuation of this kind of activity by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

— we keep saying Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; let's say the cabinet as

directed by this Minister in a matter of this kind — that the activities of the

cabinet and the Minister in fixing up chip prices, or establishing formulae to

be used in various regions of the province, will only ensure that the indigenous

independent becomes the indigent independent in the Province of British

Columbia.

The consequences of this proposal that we have in

section 2 is not in any way

to ensure that the sawmill operator will receive a price for his wood chips

which will return cost of production, stumpage, and a lot of the other charges

which are involved in it. There is no clear statement in the legislation, or

indeed in the remarks by the Minister, as to the basis upon which the cabinet

would approach its responsibility to make such a decision in the fixing of

maximum and minimum prices.

This is what's wrong with this section. The Minister, with the entire Forest

Service at his control, with the opportunity to consider the recommendations of

various economists engaged by his department, with all of the information

necessary to go into the proper establishment of a formula, comes forward with

another one of those sections where the government is saying to the people in

the industry it is attempting to help: "Trust us. Trust us to do the right

thing." There are no guidelines, no parameters which in any way will restrict

the cabinet in the exercise of this responsibility. There is nothing to give the

assurances to the sawmilling industry segment that it will receive adequate

aid.

When you consider what the problem is today, Mr. Chairman, we've got to get

the sawmill operators who have closed down their operations back at work. We've

got to get the employees back at work, and to the extent that chip production

can enable this to occur, there must be a clear indication from the government

as to the price that that sawmill operator will receive to encourage him to

reopen his operation. Indeed, those who have been carrying on at a loss in their

operations — and this is the case with most of the indigenous independents —

they've been carrying on these many months in a loss position on the sale of

their chips and, in many cases, on the sale of their lumber. We have to

encourage those people to continue their operations, to meet their regular

obligations, and to keep their mills operating and their employees at work. an

emergency situation which the Minister and the Premier indicated to

representatives of the industry that they would address themselves to in

anticipation of the recommencement of this sitting of the Legislature. Here we

come with a bill which the Minister says is designed to alleviate that

emergency, and there isn't anything there that you can put your finger on to

suggest that the government has any plan, any programme, any formula, which will

have that result.

While there has been much discussion as to the reason for the Minister

bringing in this bill, and all the other sections of it, there can be no

question that this

section 2, which was slipped into this legislation, was

intended to solve this particular problem — the problem of chip price — to

ensure that there would be chip supply and that the sawmills could continue to

function, and the government has given us nothing. Mr. Chairman, that's

incompetence.

If the cabinet is to be given this authority- let's assume this legislation

is passed today, or tomorrow, or Wednesday — and the cabinet has given its

authority, then the Minister has to address himself to the specific problem of

what will the price be; what will the formula be for determining the price; how

will it be applied in the various regions of the province? That answer must be

given immediately, or the sawmill segment is again going to be allowed to wither

away under the present market situation. Now if that is the Minister's

responsibility, and the cabinet's responsibility to be given to them by this

Legislature in the next two or three days, then I expect that the Minister, with

his advisers, must be in a position to tell us during debate in this committee

precisely what it is he proposes to do and how he's going to meet this emergency

situation.

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

[ Page 5026 ]

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Phillips: When reporting to the Speaker would you advise him that

a division took place on this section, and ask leave to have it recorded in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendment in my name on the order

paper, Mr. Chairman (see appendix.).

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips: This

section bothers me a great deal. This

section

allows the Minister to appoint anybody that he wants to the board.

And knowing that Minister and how he appoints people to boards and how he

establishes commissions, and how he runs his department, he always likes to get

people favourable to his way of thinking. So there really isn't that much

independence of thought. It's either defeated candidates, or people who will

listen to the Minister. Where he calls the shot they bring in whatever

recommendations and do whatever he says. It's really not a truly independent

board, because there will be some more political hacks appointed to this

board.

The thing that really bothers me about this particular

section is that these

appointees shall carry out the works of boards which are pretty awesome, pretty

powerful, sweeping, blank cheques....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour likes to make light

of this. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, when you consider the establishment of

a board in the way that it will be established, the Minister will have his own

people on it. But that board has some pretty awesome powers. Because that board

has a blank cheque from this Legislature.

All that Minister has to do is send a requisition to the Minister of Labour,

no specified limits...or to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance

writes out a cheque to the board — the board that he establishes. That board can

go out, borrow more money, invest in companies, acquire real estate, issue

debentures, acquire debts, issue bonds, buy shares in other companies without

ever returning to this Legislature for authority.

Mr. Chairman, you get sick and tired of repeating the old phrase, blank

cheque legislation. But here it is right here in a nut-shell. So what we're

really doing because of the way the Minister can appoint that board is we're

giving that blank cheque to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

There's no limitations in this bill of the powers of this board whatsoever.

No criteria for establishing people on the board whether they're fit to serve on

the board. The Minister will stand up and say this

section was lifted out of the

Petroleum Act. Well it was. Practically word for word out of the Petroleum Act.

And when that Act was going through I remember in this Legislature on a Saturday

morning, Saturday afternoon, arguing against that particular section. But

there's a little difference here between this Timber Products Stabilization Act

to the Petroleum Act. The objects of the Petroleum Act are very well defined in

the legislation as to what they can, and cannot do.

Mr. Chairman, the powers given this board over this industry are more

far-reaching than that in the Petroleum Act establishing the Petroleum

Corporation of British Columbia.

I must say that the forest industry is a much broader more far-ranging

industry than is the petroleum industry even with all of the ramifications. But

this Minister can establish this board at his will, put people on the board that

will be his puppets to do his bidding, to spend any amount of money that the

Minister wishes to requisition from the Minister of Finance without any recourse

whatsoever to this Legislature.

I think that it's time we started putting some responsibility on that

Minister to return and be responsible to this Legislature. And make this

Legislature do its duty for which it is created — and that is to watch over the

taxpayers' dollars. But more and more we see legislation passing through this

House which completely usurps the responsibility of this Legislature. We've

talked about all the wide-ranging ramifications and awesome powers built into

this bill to completely regulate and control the forest industry in British

Columbia. And it's still there because the Minister would not accept a minor

amendment to define "timber." So the bill is still the same as it was, it's

still as sinister as it was, in its original writing.

The Minister can establish this board. The board for all purposes is an agent

of the Crown in the right of the province but the board may on behalf of the

Crown in the right of the province carry out its powers and duties in its own

name without specific reference to the Crown or right of the province.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I wish I could come up with another term other than

"blank cheque legislation." But that's the way it is because the Minister will

rule this board with an iron hand. This

[ Page 5027 ]

board will do his bidding, at his command. The purpose of this board will be

eventually to control timber industry in British Columbia and therefore

effectively take it over.

This is not what the forest industry asked for, and it certainly isn't what

the small operators asked for. I would like to see this board have some

responsibility to this Legislature. With this in mind Mr. Chairman, I would like

to propose an