[ 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.

    On 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

On 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

On 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

On 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

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5026

Amendment to section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5027

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 5027

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 5027

Division on section 3 as amended — 5029

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5029

On 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

On 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

On section 4 as amended.

Mr. Chabot — 5031

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5031

Division on section 4 as amended — 5031

On section 5.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5031

Division on section 5 — 5031

On 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

On 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

On 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

On section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5038

Amendment to section 15.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5038

On 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

On 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

On 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 it

[ 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

NAYS — 17

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

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

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

On 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 to the English language, is to remove "timber" from section 7 and from the 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 in 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 to

[ 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

NAYS — 28

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

NAYS — 17

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.

On 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

NAYS — 28

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 in 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

NAYS — 28

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 2.

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

NAYS — 15

[ Page 5026 ]

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.

On 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 amendment to section 3, to add to subsections (3), (4) and (5) as follows:

Subsection (3) to read: "No person shall be appointed a director or general manager under this Act without the forestry committee of this Legislature first having unanimously recommended such an appointment..."

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, the Minister laughs. That would take away some of his power.

Number 4. "Every recommendation made pursuant to this section shall be on the basis of fitness. Without limiting the generality of the word 'fitness', it shall for the purpose of this section require the committee to particularly consider the competence of the proposed appointee, and whether a proposed appointee would, on appointment, be placed in a present or potential conflict of interest."

"Number 5. In considering the issue of fitness, the committee shall, in the case of every proposed appointee, hold public hearings and the conduct of such hearings shall provide that the parties or persons materially affected by this Act shall have the opportunity to make submissions and to question the proposed appointee."

This amendment is merely asking the Minister to let the board and the appointees to the board be open to public scrutiny.

We've talked about the committee system in this Legislature, and the Premier of this province said the committee system is going to work. But the Minister was afraid that the forestry committee might come up with recommendations that didn't suit his own particular line of thinking, that maybe wouldn't accomplish his own end, which is to eventually take over the timber industry and the lumber industry in this province. He was so afraid of having the forest industry do the surveys he wanted done that he appointed his own committee to do a study. And you know, hat study recommends a great deal of caution to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman: Order, Mr. Member. May I ask you if you're speaking to the amendment?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I am.

Mr. Chairman: We haven't yet ruled on that.

Mr. Phillips: Would you like me to take my seat?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, if you would just for a moment.

The amendment, as you propose it, is out of order because it proposes an alternative scheme to one that's proposed in the legislation. According to May, 16th edition, page 555, you are out of order. You can continue on the main question.

Mr. Phillips: I'm certainly disappointed that the amendment is out of order, because it would have put in a measure of safety for the taxpayers of this province. I'm going to ask the Minister if he'll bring in his own amendment to ....

Hon. R.A. Williams: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Phillips: The Minister says no. He doesn't want there to be any safeguards in the appointments to this board. The Minister just wants to carry merrily on, make his appointments to the board, put his puppets on the board, go ahead and spend taxpayers' money with no recourse whatsoever to this Legislature.

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, we're getting sick and tired of seeing this type of legislation pass through this House. I don't know why we need any Legislature at all. We might just as well have a dictatorship, because, I'll tell you, with the power contained in this bill, that Minister could run his department — and mark my words — by the powers contained in this bill without even having any estimates go through this Legislature. That Minister, through the powers contained in this bill, can have sufficient money to control the forest industry and do all things that are necessary in the forest industry without ever submitting an estimate to this Legislature. That is some of the power contained in this bill.

When I say we're heading toward a dictatorship in this particular department, I'm right on. All we're asking is that if this board is going to have these awesome powers, have at least a committee of the Legislature have some say in who is going to be appointed to these boards. Because if you examine in any detail the objects of the board and the board of director's powers, which are contained in other sections, then you get a grasp of and a sense of feeling about why we would like to see the Legislature at least have some say in appointing the board.

Indeed, if this Minister appoints to this board the people who will dance to his tune, with the powers to borrow money that are contained in other sections of bill, all the Minister has to do is requisition from the Minister of Finance. No limits on the amount of

[ Page 5028 ]

money he can borrow, and that Minister doesn't even have to come to this Legislature for money for his estimates. He could put estimates, in this bill, for $1 and his own salary, and he could fulfill all of the votes under his estimates through this particular bill and the powers contained in it by this board.

All he has to do is go to the Minister of Finance — the Minister of Finance over which he has control because he is the power in the cabinet. He's the man they're all afraid of. And they'll be more afraid now, because if he goes to the Minister of Finance and says: "I want so much money for my estimates, " and the Minister of Finance says: "No." Then he'll say: "Well, I'll requisition it through the powers of Bill 171." And it says that the Minister of Finance shall give you that money.

This is why we're so concerned....

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: We're going to change that. You've already changed that. You have an amendment in that will change that, right? But you fumbled in the first instance and you tripped over yourself while you were backing up....

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, may I interrupt you for a moment?

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if you could try to be a bit more specific in your comments relating to section 3. You've been close to being out of order throughout your comments.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I certainly wouldn't want to be out of order, but I would like to leave indelibly printed on this Legislature the fact that this Minister will appoint this whole board.

All I'm trying to do is say that the reason it is so important that this Minister give the House some assurance that the people who are going to be appointed to this board are going to be fit for the job, and not just political has-beens, that they're going to consult with industry, that they're not going to have conflicts of interest....

We've witnessed in this House before where the board...for instance for Can-Cel, six of them were from out of the province, multinational directors of other multinational corporations that definitely have a conflict of interest. They don't have the best interest of the Province of British Columbia at heart. They don't have the best interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia at heart.

That's the sort of thing we're frightened of with this Minister. He sells Ocean Falls paper to whom? To a fellow who has a conflict of interest; buys it at low prices. That's what we're concerned about; we've seen this Minister operate before.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, may I remind you that you're once again skating off the topic.

Mr. Phillips: What I'm talking about is appointment of people to boards.

Mr. Chairman: But we're not discussing Can-Cel or Ocean Falls, or any of the other matters you have raised.

Mr. Phillips: I realize, but it's the same principle, and I'm talking about the principle of this particular section - appointing people to boards.

All I'm saying is that this Minister has too much power, and I've seen him operate before. I've seen what he's done with these directors, appointing people to carry out his own ends. He will say to this board: "Go ahead and do this and prove that I'm right," and the board will do it because they know that if they don't do it.... Further down here it says that the board shall hold...during pleasure...shall hold office during pleasure.

Mr. Chairman: That's a different section.

Mr. Phillips: I realize it's a different section, but it all relates to this Minister's power to appoint the board.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Member, may I just say to you that we did debate this bill in principle in second reading. What we're doing here today is detailed discussion of it, section by section. I would ask you to try to limit your remarks to section (3) specifically.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't interrupt me so much, I'm right-on discussing this.

Mr. Chairman: I'd love not to interrupt you, but you've been out of order, and I have to.

Mr. Phillips: In discussing a section of a bill you sometimes have to relate to other powers of the bill, and to other sections. All I'm saying is that this Minister has the power to appoint this board, but in section (4)...they shall hold that office at pleasure.

So what I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, is that this Minister can say to this board of directors or the general manager: "If you're not doing exactly what I want you to do, if you're not spending that money the way I want you to spend it, if you're not taking the industry over fast enough, I'll cancel your appointment." That's the thing.

I'm greatly concerned because I'm here to fight for

[ Page 5029 ]

the taxpayers of British Columbia. I don't want their money wasted and taken. I don't want other boards going out and spending their dollars. The purpose of the Legislature...the reason we have estimates is so we can vote on how the taxpayers' money's going to be spent. We set up this board that this Minister can appoint, and they're the one who are going to spend the money, they don't have to come back to the Legislature.

That's why I think there should be some criteria here for the Minister to be responsible to this Legislature. We have other departments here, sometimes quite vocal except when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens in this province. We have some departments which are quite vocal. As long as the government isn't involved, stepping on somebody's toes or doing some right, then she's very vocal, that Minister (Hon. Ms. Young). But it's all right for the government to walk over the people of this province like the elephant. If you want to get back to what the Minister said, the elephant is in the chicken coop.

The government can walk highhanded over the rights of individuals in this province and that Minister never says a word. And here is the right of an individual to protect the rights of the Legislature, to protect the taxpayers of this province against dictatorial, unauthorized spending of their tax dollars. And if that Minister was interested and as conscientious as she pretends to be, she'd stand up here in this Legislature and fight for the rights of the taxpayers of this province as well.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 15

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker, would you ask for leave to record the vote?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 4.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman. (See Appendix.)

Amendments approved.

On section 4 as amended.

Mr. Wallace: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, we feel the same degree of reservation that has been expressed at some length by the former speaker. Section 4 and the manner of appointing the directors and the number to be appointed leaves a great deal of concern in our minds.

Under section 4 the board could consist of as few as three members, of whom one will be an officer of the Forest Service, one could be an MLA, and the third one conceivably could be the Minister himself. There might even be two MLAs and a member of the Forest Service. This section enables the board to be so much a political instrument rather than a board composed of a cross-section of individuals who are knowledgeable and politically neutral in trying to carry out the stated objects of the board.

The Minister has amended subsection (7) to the extent that at least an MLA on the board would not receive remuneration other than travelling expenses, other than the expenses involved in carrying out his duties. That is an improvement.

I still personally don't feel that there should be an MLA on the board at all for the same reason this can become simply a political tool, a political puppet who is the voice of the Minister on the board.

Mr. Lewis: That's not nice.

Mr. Wallace: Now, the Members from the back bench are muttering away in the background here that that's not nice. I don't think that the most naive of individuals would have to swallow this section and believe that the function of the board under three directors.... And I presume a quorum is two. In effect, this board could be functioning at the decision and the direction of two individuals, of whom one is a member of the Forest Service. Now, if that isn't the coziest political tool to control the forest industry in this regard, I don't know what it is.

As the Member said who was interjecting, it's almost like the Minister just talking to himself about what the board is going to do. But at least there could be the Minister talking to a member of the Forest Service.

[ Page 5030 ]

And so, for these very clear-cut reasons, we are uneasy about the section as it is written. Furthermore, we've already talked on another bill in this House to do with marketing boards. For example, where any subject is of such great importance to the public generally, on any board controlling the marketing of food products or the marketing of timber — if you'll pardon the use of the word "timber" — there should be public representation.

Since we are all agreed, the Minister included, that this is a complex market in regard to which legislation is being put forward. Since the ramifications and the consequences could be quite considerable, I feel that this board should have a certain make-up which would achieve some of these objects which even the government has paid lip-service to during recent debates, particularly in protecting the consumer and in providing open government whereby members of the public are involved in the decision-making process on just such a board as this.

So, Mr. Chairman, with these thoughts in mind, I would move the amendment, standing in my name on the order paper, to amend section 4(l ), line 1, to delete the words, "3 or more than, " and to add after the words, "Forest Service:"

"at least two shall be representative of the public, at least one shall be representative of industry, and at least one shall be representative of labour." I so move.

Mr. Chairman: The proposed amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 28

Mr. Wallace: I wish to record the division.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 4 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I think the worst part of this section 1s that it specifically provides that a Member of the Legislative Assembly may be a member of this board.

I think that that's very wrong in principle. I appreciate the amendment moved by the Minister removes the possibility that an MLA would be paid an additional salary for being on this board. I appreciate that, but it's still wrong. He should not be on the board at all. It's improper, in my view, for Members of this assembly to be in public executive positions without the checks and balances of cabinet responsibility, and that's exactly what this appointment section would do.

For example, can you imagine, Mr. Minister, how a member of the forestry committee of this Legislature could possibly examine forest legislation properly if he was at the same time a member of this board? I don't see how that could be done.

I would suggest also — and the NDP backbenchers should be sensitive to this — that it's just one more increase in cabinet control over the caucus. It's just one more plum to hand out, one more way of running that sometimes unruly caucus a little more easily.

There's also a danger that, by proper selection, the Minister could appoint one of his backbench friends who would be simply a slavish follower of the party line on all questions to come before that board and not genuinely represent the public interest in any way.

Therefore, I would move that this section should be amended by adding at the end of the first subsection the words: "and none of whom shall be Members of the Legislative Assembly, " and by deleting subsection (7) in its entirety.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

[ Page 5031 ]

NAYS — 28

Mr. Gibson: I would ask the division be recorded.

Mr. Chabot: I'm sorry, I shouldn't reflect on the past vote, but nevertheless, it appears to me that the Minister has the intention now after the defeat of that amendment of appointing someone from the Legislative Assembly. The rumours have been rampant throughout the corridors in this assembly that the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) was looking for a job and there was a possibility he might be a Member of this board. I'm wondering whether the Minister would either confirm or deny that this Member for Esquimalt will form part of this board.

The second very brief question: is it the intention of the Minister to appoint one Frank Howard, defeated NDP candidate in Skeena, to this board?

Hon. R.A. Williams: In respect to appointments under this section, despite the considerable cabinet experience of some of the Members of this assembly, I'm sure the Member for Esquimalt would be superior. But beyond that, there's no intention of really elaborating beyond that point at this time.

Interjections.

Section 4 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 15

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 5.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, section 5 makes it clear that this board is being given an area of responsibility and authority which has never been afforded to any of the boards heretofore created by this government. If the Members will take very careful note, this board has the right but not the obligation to exercise the powers which they are given by this Act or by any of the regulations which may be produced by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It would seem to me unusual that this Legislature would create a board specifically given the responsibility to administer this legislation and carry out the dictates of the cabinet, and yet the board itself at any subsequent time may by majority vote decide not to exercise their responsibility as they are directed by this Act or by a regulation promulgated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I think this is a most extreme and unusual position, and I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to indicate why the board has been given this scope of authority.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 16

[ Page 5032 ]

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, would you see that this division is recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 6.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, reference was made earlier this afternoon to the Petroleum Act. It's interesting that in that Act the Companies Act does apply unless specifically exempted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It seems to be the other way around in this Act; the Companies Act does not apply unless some provision of the Act is applied by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, namely the cabinet.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us why this particular approach is taken in this bill when so much of this bill so closely resembles the Petroleum Act. Maybe the Minister would care to comment on the reason for doing it the other way around compared to the Petroleum Act.

Mr. Phillips: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is strictly another case of the government making the rules and saying: "Do as I say, not as I do." They're exempting themselves here from other legislation, giving this board more power to forget all about other rules and regulations that private industry or other companies, private companies, would have to adhere to. This government with this bill has complete dictatorial powers; it's not responsible to any other legislation. That's what the Minister wants. That's the intent of the bill, and he's getting his way.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has said. However, there is a much more serious aspect of section 6 by reason of this board being given all the power and capacity of a company. Under the new Companies Act, which became law in this province in October, 1973, a company in British Columbia has all the powers of a natural person. Therefore this board is completely unrestricted as to what it may or may not do in its right to enter into contracts or to create obligations. They are now in exactly the same position as any Member of this assembly so far as the conduct of their personal affairs and their business affairs is concerned.

It is also significant that the opening words of section 6(l) are: "Notwithstanding sections 7 and 8 It is therefore necessary to consider section 7, which talks about the objects of the board and the power it has been given. So notwithstanding those words in section 7, they are not to be deemed as in any way limiting the capacity of this board to function as a natural person would.

It is also significant that section 6, giving this capacity to the board, is "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8." Section 8, if you'll notice, is the directions that the Minister may give the board. Notwithstanding that the Minister may give this board directions, to make inquiries and to make recommendations, this does not in any way limit the power and capacity of this board to function as a natural person.

Therefore this board is in a position to ignore the direction of the Minister. Again, as I said in section 5, we are obviously empowering this board, we are instilling it, with a capacity which has never been extended to any board before.

Then if you go on and consider the other subsections of section 8 which might be deemed to limit the capacity and powers of the board, you will find that this board is even in a position, if it so desires, to ignore the directions of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Altogether we are giving to these three, four, five or six individuals who will compose this board authorities, capacities and powers which are far in excess of those which would be necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities, if we are to fall into the trap of believing that the amendment to section 1 which the Minister introduced is indeed in any way limiting the effect of this legislation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), has raised a number of points on this section and on the previous section. Of course, in relation to this section he comments about section 7 and 8 as well.

If we are to continue to have the Minister sit silent when we pose some questions, when we ask him for his views, it strikes me that this legislation is going to take a great deal longer than otherwise would be the case. We can, of course, if it's desired by the government, continue to question and question and question. We can do it 67 times, I believe; that's the understood rule. But it may be a little easier if the Minister would take it upon himself simply to comment upon intelligent and useful contributions from all Members of the House, government or opposition, and if you would add something to the debate and reassure our fears, or comment upon these provisions which we feel are worthy of comment.

If the Minister sits there and does nothing, we can only assume that he hasn't understood the point made. If he hasn't understood it, we might well wish

[ Page 5033 ]

to discuss it again. So I am quite sure that the Minister, with this point in mind, might like to comment upon the remarks on section 6. They are valid points.

Hon. R.A. Williams:...most of the other remarks made earlier this afternoon and throughout the afternoon, indicating that the board would not provide independent advice.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

The reason for this, of course, is that this is the last chance of the Minister to remove this non-word from the bill, this word "timber." My amendment proposes that the word "timber" be struck out and it be called "forest products" — forest products are defined in the bill. Unless we make that change in this section, Mr. Chairman, anyone interpreting this bill could not be blamed if they turned to The Forest Act and they looked up what "timber" means there. "Timber" means, "trees whether standing, felled, or cut, and primary forest products, and includes saw logs, spars, piles, poles, railway ties, shingle bolts, pulpwood and Christmas trees."

Mr. Chairman, the Minister is drawing a rather long bow in retaining this word "timber" here. He is maintaining much more authority and jurisdiction in this bill than would otherwise be the case if we took as the totality of his intentions the amendments that be brought in the other day to restrict his powers. It's very important, Mr. Chairman, that this word change be made, because it indicates a great deal more than a word change; it indicates a Ministerial attitude towards an Act and how it is to be applied and administered.

I therefore move this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 28

An Hon. Member: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, would you advise him that a division took place and ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Smith: With respect to section 7, of course, the point has already been made that the word "timber" still remains in the section, that "timber" refers to something other than forest products, and for that reason it's an unacceptable section. So really, if the Minister is as interested as he says in the recommendations of the Pearse report and their suggestions, which are contained on page 134 of the report — they're summarized in five major points — I think that he should show his good faith in this respect by accepting an amendment which I will move.

It is to delete the whole of section 7 and substitute in its place the recommendations of the Pearse report which limit the objects of the board to, "investigate and make their recommendations respecting the forest products industry in the province." Specifically, the specific objects shall be limited to: "purchasing, sorting, transporting and reselling logs, wood chips and other unmanufactured forest products; co-ordinate and administer provincial controls governing the export of forest products; act as a clearing house for marketing of unmanufactured forest products, and stimulating competition by advertising and other measures that will enhance market information and participation in the markets; assisting the Forest Service in such matters as compilation of market statistics and revision of log grading procedure; advising the Minister on matters relating to marketing and export control, including chip direction policies, chip prices and export charges. Before the board enters into any transaction of business in respect of levying fees or other charges, or enters into adventures in trade for the purpose of earning income or acquiring stock in trade or other assets, the approval of the Legislature must first be obtained."

So moved.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Members, I would have to rule the proposed amendment out of order as it's

[ Page 5034 ]

inconsistent with the context of the section.

Mr. Smith: On what authority, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The authority for that is May, 16th Edition, page 555.

Section 7 approved.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I've just a small, what I'll call a "sunshine amendment," to this section, Mr. Chairman, and I'll just be brief.

Section 8 is amended by adding the following, as subsections 5, 6 and 7:

"(5) any recommendation made pursuant to this section shall be in writing and shall be made public on the day which they are submitted.

"(6) within 45 days of the submission of any recommendation under this section, the party or body to whom it was made shall hold public hearings thereon.

"(7) no recommendation made pursuant to this section shall be acted upon or implemented without subsection 6 preceding having been coupled with."

I so move, Mr. Chairman.

This is just to let a little sunshine into the actions of this board that can forget about The Companies Act, and forget about coming back to the Legislature for money, so let's have a little sunshine on it. I know the Minister will accept this amendment which will let the people of British Columbia know what this board is doing with their money and with their power.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 28

Mr. Phillips: Would you ask leave to record the division?

Mr. Gibson: A question for the Minister, Mr. Chairman. There's an interesting reference here to terms and conditions under which the Lieutenant-Governor may grant his authority for export from the province. I wonder if the Minister would care to explain to the House whether this is forerunner of a much greater reliance in the forest industry on the export-tax technique.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 as amended pass?

Mr. Gibson: The Minister might want to say something about that Mr. Chairman. It's an important question.

Mr. Wallace: There's another question arising from this section which perhaps the Minister would care to answer, and that is the whole question of secrecy regarding information obtained in respect to various companies. While some of the information can be obtained under the protection of the Public Inquiries Act with public hearings, what is to happen in those cases where information is obtained which might be to the detriment of a company by some mechanism other than a full public inquiry? Has the Minister considered the way in which this could be to the disadvantage of companies?

Under the powers of section 8, the Minister can direct the board to make certain inquiries. It's not always through the official vehicle of a full public inquiry. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the point I am raising. Is it a real danger or need the companies be concerned at this kind of information about markets and prices?

Section 8(l)(a), for example relates in great detail to compiling, analyzing, classifying and gathering data related to markets and prices which presumably will be derived from private companies. I gather they are somewhat concerned that this could act to their detriment. What guarantee have they that the information will be kept secret?

Hon. R.A. Williams: There is certainly a range of information that is presently gathered by the Council of Forest Industries with respect to log

[ Page 5035 ]

trading, and that's generally public. Any role in that regard that might be carried out by this agency would be public.

The purpose of the other section is to deal more with information in relation to, for example, the question of chip prices so that there could be some satisfaction that there is a relationship to the problems internally in the industrial organization. Certainly, some of that information would be a confidential nature.

Mr. Gibson: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would explain to the House why the commissioners were carefully given powers under the Public Inquiry Act of section 7, 10 and 11, but left out was the duty under section 9. It, among other things, requires that every report which the commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this Act shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days after the report is made if it is then sitting, and so on. Why was that duty, which is put upon commissioners of public inquiry, left out when they were given the powers of those very same commissioners?

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 as amended pass?

Mr. Gibson: There's no answer from that Minister, Mr. Chairman. It's just a disgrace.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 as amended pass?

Mr. Gibson: Let it be recorded that he's not answering these questions.

Sections 8 and 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

Mr. Phillips: This section 10 just gives this board — I hate to say it again — a blank cheque with no restrictions whatsoever.

I am going to propose an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that we remember the present section 10 as section 10(l) and add the following section 10(2):

"Always provided, however, that the maximum accumulative aggregate sum which may be borrowed, raised or guaranteed in pursuance of this section shall not exceed $200,000."

Hon. R.A. Williams: That would look after kindling.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that will look after the kindling wood. How many millions of dollars does this Minister plan on going to the Minister of Finance for? It will be up in the millions.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Only temporary, until he buys something or guarantees some bonds, issues, debentures or whatever he does. I know the Minister will accept this.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved, On section 11.

Mr. Phillips: I realize the Minister only wants temporary advances. But here again, we're just deleting the necessity of having a Legislature. There are no restrictions on the power of this board whatsoever, no restrictions on this Minister spending the taxpayers' dollars. And we were sent here to protect the taxpayers in this province. By passing this legislation, we have no say whatsoever.

The Minister just goes in and puts a strong arm on the Minister of Finance and says, "Give me some dough." And that Minister is so powerful in that cabinet, everybody shudders when he walks in, even the Minister of Finance.

I am going to propose just a small amendment here to protect the taxpayers of this province as a last-ditch stand for freedom in this province, a last-ditch stand!

Hon. R.A. Williams: Promises, promises.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, the Minister talks lightly of the taxpayers in this province. He's interested in running a complete dictatorship where he doesn't have to refer to this Legislature, where he doesn't have to be responsible to the taxpayers of this province. Give him a complete dictatorship which he's getting in this bill and he's happy.

He knows he is going to get this bill and he's happy. He knows it's going to be put through because of that crushing majority that government has.

I'm going to propose an amendment to section 11 by deleting the word "period" after the word "council" and adding in its place the words "provided, however, that the maximum cumulative amount of such advances shall not exceed the sum of $100,000."

Hon. R.A. Williams: Question.

Mr. Phillips: You're really in a hurry, aren't

[ Page 5036 ]

you, Mr. Minister? I bet he'll go out tonight and celebrate his new dictatorship.

Amendment negatived.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 12 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing to do here is give away all of our financial control authority in this Legislature. I think it's wrong, therefore I move that after the words "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" there be added the words "and Legislature" in order that this Legislature can maintain at least some control from time to time over the comings and goings of this financial operator.

Mr. Chairman: The ruling is that the proposed amendment is out of order because it is contrary to the section which would enable the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council to carry out these functions. In your proposed amendment you are destroying that principle, so the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my strongest possible opposition to the authority given in section 12 to raise money simply at the decision of the cabinet.

It is repetitious to say so, but it must be said: one of the main functions of the elected representatives, government or opposition, is to have some say and some authority in the spending of funds. This bill goes even further and has the audacity to be written in such a way that there need be no statement of the money borrowed or raised until March 31, 1976. So not only are we giving tremendous powers in the direction of borrowing and raising funds without any reference to this Legislature, but from this month of November, 1974, until March, 1976, we have no way of knowing what sums of money are being raised or borrowed or spent for a period of well over a year.

I think this just adds insult to injury in putting this section in the bill and then in a later section making it plain that we will have no power of appraisal or inspection of what has been raised or spent for well over a year. So it is, indeed, a complete contradiction of one of the basic functions of this Legislature, namely for the people of the province to have access to and knowledge of how their money is being spent.

As I recall, I think this is perhaps one of the worst examples of this particular kind of power. I don't recall this being in the Petroleum Act or some of the other similar Acts where there is a lot of power given to the cabinet or the Minister. As I recall, this is the first time that the authority is there to provide for the raising of any sum of money, or the spending of any sum of money, and no opportunity for this Legislature to inquire into it in the spring session of next year. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful on the part of this government to take such an autocratic and irresponsible stand in relation to something as important as spending money.

Therefore I oppose section 12 in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, earlier this year we had an example of what can happen when there are insufficient checks on spending of public funds — when the Department of Human Resources, or the Finance Minister, announced that a clerical error had been responsible for a $103 million overrun in the Department of Human Resources.

I don't know what the tolerance limits are for clerical errors, either in Crown corporations or in government departments, but we had the little matter of a $340 million error on the Columbia River Treaty, which the Minister well knows about. We had huge overruns on contracts for the B.C. Railway, which the present Minister of Finance caused to be investigated with the Minty report.

Despite repeated evidence, in former governments and with this government, of the consequences to the public of failing to provide accountability, we find those people, who had been most critical of previous governments, indulging in precisely the same kind of financial foggery that caused taxpayers' money to be wasted in the past.

I'm particularly critical of this Minister because he was perhaps the most vituperative of any opposition critic when it came to wastage on the Columbia River Treaty. He was perhaps the most vituperative of any opposition Member in history of the kind of intrigue that could go on between corporate privilege and politics. Yet here in this bill he introduces, in a more blatant fashion than ever has been introduced in legislation by previous governments, precisely the same kinds of principles that he was so critical of in the past. Friends of the government on boards — yes; but MLAs — never. Criticism of government wastage by others? Of course, it was dreadful; but done by the socialists — acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: Order, Mr. Member. I've been listening carefully, and I think you are out of order

[ Page 5037 ]

on section 12.

MR. McGEER: I'm no more out of order than the previous speaker or the Minister. Is it out of order to talk about the necessity to protect the taxpayers' money? I hope not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: A careful reading of section 12 will indicate some difference to some of the other previous sections.

Mr. McGeer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I fail to find why I am out of order. After all, isn't it appropriate that the Minister produce in his bill safeguards for the public purse?

Mr. Chairman: That is a question I think you can discuss at second reading. At this point you must be strictly relevant to section 12.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I see nothing in section 12 — it gives these broad powers to waste. No checks of any kind; no supervision of the money. Take it and blow it. That's what we've had from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). That's what we had from the previous government. That's what we've got from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, as a taxpayer, I've a lot of bruises. This government is inflicting them regularly and I want them to stop by introducing appropriate amendments to this section that will give people who have some respect for money an opportunity to look into the kind of spending programmes that the government is instituting.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Chairman, you will have noticed that it has been the practice in this and other Legislatures heretofore for expenditures of the nature that we are going to experience from such a board to be authorized specifically by legislation. Indeed, for such well-known Crown corporations in this province such as British Columbia Hydro and British Columbia Rail, whenever the government wishes to allow those two corporations to borrow, they have to come back to this Legislature and provide specific amendments to the legislation which limits the borrowing authority of those Crown corporations.

Now, we have an interesting aspect of this particular section, and I refer, Mr. Chairman — so that you will know I am not out of order — to subsection (4). While it would appear that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must give some prior approval before this board, as the agent of the Crown, can raise money, it is significant that a simple recital or declaration in a resolution passed by this board is all that is necessary to make the moneys needed, and that recital or declaration is conclusive evidence of the fact.

So what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a board with all of the other powers they have been given, without any limitations on it at all, now in a position at its meetings, these three or four or five or six individuals, to pass a resolution saying that the board requires $150 million for its purposes. That very resolution, by the legislation we are passing, is conclusive evidence of the necessity that the board have the money, and there's to be no examination into that aspect of it at all. Once that occurs, there is no check whatsoever on the limits to which this board can go.

Mr. Chairman, when you consider that at least B.C. Hydro and at least B.C. Rail have to come to the government and the government to this Legislature before they can increase their borrowing limits, all that is required here is no reference to this Legislature and a simple resolution of the board "We need the money."

Clerical errors in the Human Resources department.... There doesn't have to be any clerical error here. Just an error in judgment is all that's required to enable this board to have control over its financial future and its financial demands such as we've never witnessed in this province.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS- 27

NAYS — 16

On section 13.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about government guarantees here. I'd like to propose just a short amendment to limit the amount of money which this board can have guaranteed by the government. It'll certainly give them sufficient

[ Page 5038 ]

operating capital to look after the sale of wood chips and logs. If the Minister will accept this, I'll know that he doesn't really want to take over the whole industry. So I move an addition to section 13, section 13(5): "... always provided, however, that the maximum, cumulative, aggregate sum which may be borrowed, raised or guaranteed in pursuance of this Act shall not exceed $500,000."

Amendment negatived.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I wonder if the Minister would consider answering another question: why is it that this board with all of its powers is being given the opportunity of retaining its income, revenue and other moneys, and being excused from the requirements of the Revenue Act, which would ensure that those moneys were controlled by the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance?

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 15 as amended.

Mr. Wallace: Just a repetitious comment, Mr. Chairman, again, to say that we have to oppose this in the strongest terms for the tremendous authority given to use the funds under the terms of section 15. Under 15(d) — the board may retain the balance and "place it in a reserve for such purposes as it considers necessary or appropriate." And: "The board may, through the Minister of Finance as its agent ... invest moneys not immediately required by the board."

Again, this is just another tremendously flexible and powerful way in which this board may handle the funds that are put in its hands. It seems to me that here again we have little or no say in controlling the way that money is handled. I gather from previous legislation that usually funds find their way into the consolidated revenue fund when they're not being used for the purpose for which they were originally raised or appropriated.

But this subsection 15(d) makes it very plain that here the board, with the approval of cabinet can retain the balance and place it in a reserve. As I stated earlier, the board can also have the Minister of Finance invest moneys not immediately required.

We just object to this kind of financial authority.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I wonder if the Minister could indicate what business it is that the board is going to do which will be given first priority in the expenditure of revenues. I say revenues because I notice that section 15 is limited to revenues, and I must assume that that is something different than borrowings that the other section refers to.

If I could just go back a moment, section 14 deals with "income, revenues and other moneys received by the board," but section 15 (1) is just revenues.

What is the business that we're going to use revenues for?

Hon. R.A. Williams: There might well be revenues, Mr. Chairman, from the sale of logs, for example.

Mr. Gibson: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this section makes it clear once again the actual potential and intent of this bill.

The board, with all the powers of a person, can acquire companies, and subsection (3) of this section makes that quite clear in its language by saying: "The board may, upon acquiring shares, debentures, or other securities of a company......

This is quite clearly contemplated in this section, and I want to make very certain that no one in this House is under any other impression.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, in another respect, this bill adds insult to injury by apparently providing no channel by which this House can expect to deliberate on the money that is spent in the setting up of the board. In section 16 I'm suggesting an amendment:

"Within 15 days of the opening of the fifth session of the 30th parliament, the Minister shall lay before the Legislative assembly a preliminary report providing details of the amounts and conditions of all advances made under the authority of section 11 and of all requisitions made under the authority of section 20." I so move.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

[ Page 5039 ]

NAYS — 26

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Speaker to record the division in the Journals.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, we know the very broad potential powers of this bill and we see here a clause stating simply that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. I don't think that's good enough. I don't think that's a sufficient constraint on the Crown and on the Minister in that regard.

Hon. R.A. Williams: The Interpretation Act is very clear in this regard, and the regulations are clearly limited by the other statutes.

Mr. Gibson: I was going to propose other constraints, Mr. Minister; that the words "consistent with this Act" be added as a matter of form. But also that there be a new subsection (2):

"Notwithstanding the Regulations Act, regulations ordered under this section shall be of interim effect only and shall expire unless and until sustained by the Legislature within 30 days of them sitting, or, if the Legislature be then in adjournment, within 30 days of the resumption of the session."

An Hon. Member: I say he's out of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: One of the Ministers said, "What statute in Canada has that?" As a matter of fact, there are statutes that have that. If the Hon. Minister will refer to his May, he'll find that it is a very common thing in Britain, which is possibly something that we should have in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: It appears that the proposed amendment is in order, Amendment negatived.

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 6

On section 20.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 20 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, section 20 has the word "shall" here.

"Upon the requisition of the Minister, the Minister of Finance shall pay such sums as may be required for the administration of, or for any purposes of........"

et cetera. It indicates to me that he is put in a position of having to respond to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources regardless of what the Minister of Finance might like to do. It would seem to me that this is curious and that there should be some discretion left to the Minister of Finance who, after all, should be in a position to exercise some control over this particular board and, of course, the entire legislation which up to now is totally uncontrolled.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate why it was so necessary to put the word "shall," requiring payment, rather than the word "may.,,

[ Page 5040 ]

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 20 as amended carry?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No. I asked a question of the Minister and I think he wanted to reply. If he doesn't want to reply, I'll put in an amendment and then we can have a debate on the amendment and we can consider it fully.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I'm sure the Member will put forth amendments....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No. If you can give me a good explanation as to why the word "shall" is used, perhaps I won't want to put my amendment forward.

Hon. R.A. Williams: In our discussion with counsel, we concluded this was the best form. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and myself are always of similar minds in these matters.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I'm glad that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources are always seeing eye to eye on thing. But I do feel that there was no real explanation given, except that you consulted legal counsel and the Minister and they said yes. You haven't given the reasoning behind the statement of yes, which was what I was out for.

I will put in an amendment to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall, " just as a last, final hope that there will be some minor control over this sweeping legislation. We will at least have the Minister of Finance in the position of saying no. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, there is no control whatsoever. There is retroactive examination in 1976 but no control whatsoever.

I would like to work in there the possibility that if the Minister of Finance just happens to have a few doubts about what the present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is doing, he can at least say, "Hold on." As I read section 20, if that passes into law, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is in the driver's seat and there's no way that the Minister of Finance could for any time at all hold up payment of any moneys at all.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. It further requests that several divisions that took place be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Shall leave be granted to report the divisions?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

APPENDIX

171 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Title: To amend the title to read "Log and Wood-chips Stabilization Act."

Section 4, subsection (1), line 1: Delete the words "3 or more than".

Line 3: Add after the words "Forest Service" "at least 2 shall be representative of the public, at least I shall be representative of industry, at least I shall be representative of labour."

Section 4, subsection (7), line 2: To amend subsection (7) of section 4 by adding after the word "Act," in the second line thereof the following words: "and only in respect of reasonable travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by him in the discharge of his duties as a director, ".

Section 16: To amend section 16 by adding after subsection (3) the following subsection:

"(4) Within 15 days after the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirtieth Parliament the Minister shall lay before the Legislative Assembly a preliminary report providing details of the amounts and conditions of all advances made under the authority of section 11 and of all requisitions made under the authority of section 20."

[ Page 5041 ]

APPENDIX

Section 19: To amend section 19 by striking out all the words after the word "may" and substituting therefore the following words: ", for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according to their intent, make such regulations and orders as are ancillary thereto and not inconsistent therewith."

171 The Hon. R. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) By deleting the definition of "board" and substituting the following:

" 'board' means the Forest Products Board of British Columbia established under section 3;".

(b) By deleting the definition of "forest products" and substituting the following:

" 'forest products' means logs and wood-chips;".

Section 2 (2), lines 4 and 5: By deleting the words "void and unenforceable to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency." and substituting the words "varied to the extent necessary to be consistent with the terms of the order."

Section 2 (3) line 11: By deleting the words "rail-car or truck load," and substituting the words "rail-car, truck, or barge load, ".

Section 3 (1), line 2: By deleting the words "British Columbia Forest Products Board," and substituting the words "Forest Products Board of British Columbia, ".

Section 4 (6), line 4: By inserting after the word "director" the words "who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly".

Section 4 (7), line 2: By inserting after the word "payments" the words "for reasonable travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses".

Section 8 (3) (b), lines 3 to 7: By deleting all the words after the words "authority for" and substituting the words "export under Part X of the Forest Act."

Section 12 (1), line 8: By inserting after the words "section 10 or 11" the words "and this section".

Section 15 (3), lines 3 and 4: By deleting the words "or at any meeting of the directors of the company, ".

Section 20 (2), line 2: By deleting the words "fiscal year of the Government" and substituting the word "period".

171 Mr. Gibson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7, line 3: Change word "timber" to "forest products".