[ Page 2545 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

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

Mr. King — 2546

Mr. Gibson — 2549

Mr. Wallace — 2549

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 74.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2550

Point of privilege

Mr. Mussallem — 2552

Mr. Lea — 2553

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 74.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2553

Point of order.

Mr. King — 2553

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2554

On vote 74.

Mr. Lea — 2555

Mr. Skelly — 2556

Mr. Shelford — 2558

Mr. Lloyd — 2559

Mr. King — 2567

Ms. Brown — 2573

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question earlier in the week, I said I'd be making a statement on PWA before the weekend. I had planned to make it on the last sitting day this week, and as we're accommodating the NDP convention tomorrow by having a recess of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make the statement this evening.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the Province of Alberta acquired a majority of the shares in Pacific Western Airlines, the Canadian Transport Commission initiated an inquiry, as it's empowered to do under federal legislation, into the question of whether the change in control of the airline would unduly restrict competition or be otherwise prejudicial to the public interest.

On May 23, 1975, British Columbia intervened in that inquiry and made known certain concerns it had about the takeover of the airline by the Province of Alberta. These concerns were set out in the British Columbia intervention and included the following:

That Pacific Western Airlines continue to operate in the best interests of all the people of this geographic region of Canada; that this section by the Government of Alberta must not adversely affect service provided by Pacific Western Airlines in British Columbia, as well as the many ground and support activities of the company and others located in this province; that the administrative headquarters and major maintenance activities now in British Columbia must remain in this province so that levels of employment are maintained; and that the development, marketing and promotion of new routes and services, including air cargo and charter, must be on a balanced basis as between Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Alberta, Mr. Speaker, contended that the Canadian Transport Commission had no jurisdiction to make the inquiry which it had undertaken. The commission referred the question of its jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Canada, and in February of 1976 that court held that the Canadian Transport Commission had jurisdiction to inquire into the acquisition of the majority of Pacific Western Airline shares by the Province of Alberta. The Province of Alberta has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Meanwhile, the Canadian Transport Commission has postponed its inquiry pending the ultimate determination of its jurisdiction to hold the inquiry by the Supreme Court of Canada. That decision by the court will not be made before the fall of this year.

Some months ago, the Government of Alberta, in conjunction with Pacific Western Airlines, announced that the executive head office of Pacific Western Airlines would be moved from Vancouver to Calgary and that the primary maintenance base of the airline would be transferred from Vancouver to Edmonton. In March of this year, shortly after this announcement was made, British Columbia filed an application with the Canadian Transport Commission requesting that the commission make whatever order or regulation was necessary to prevent the movement of any Pacific Western Airlines operation from British Columbia to Alberta until the commission had an opportunity to conclude its inquiry into the question of the acquisition of control of the airline by Alberta, and to rule in respect of the concerns of British Columbia which I have just referred to.

Early in May, Pacific Western Airlines revealed detailed plans for the transfer of key elements of its executive offices from Vancouver to Calgary, and indicated its intention to complete this move by September 1, 1976. It has become apparent, Mr. Speaker, that our application to the Canadian Transport Commission for an order restraining such a move until the whole issue has been determined has fallen on deaf ears. We are concerned that the commission may decline to rule on our application before September of this year, in effect allowing the move to proceed by default.

In light of this concern, the Attorney-General has instructed counsel to proceed, as quickly as possible, with a court action to compel the Canadian Transport Commission to rule on our application for an order restraining this move. Further, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) has written to his counterpart in Alberta — and I might point out, Mr. Speaker, this is another letter in a continuing series of meetings and discussings — the Minister of Transport has written to his counterpart in Alberta, Dr. Horner, asking that the Government of Alberta reconsider its position and, as a demonstration of its faith in the legal and regulatory process established to consider cases such as this, postpone from September 1, 1976, any and all movement of PWA operations from British Columbia until determination of these issues are made by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file in the House later this evening the letter of the Minister of Transport to Dr. Horner, and I might just read one further clause in that letter, in which the Minister of Transport says:

"We can see no significant inconvenience, either to PWA or to the travelling public it serves, in maintaining the status quo until these legal questions are disposed of. We regard it as unfair and highly prejudicial to our position

[ Page 2546 ]

that PWA should take advantage of delays in the courts and the regulatory process to effect a move which might ultimately be found contrary to the public interest by the CTC."

I also file, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the intervention of British Columbia. Some of it I have already quoted. There are 11 sections to the intervention, but I'd like to just quote clause 10:

"In the event that the above conditions are not fulfilled by the airline, the government of the province of British Columbia requests the assurance of the Air Transport Committee that it will give favourable consideration to subsequent applications by British Columbia-based carriers who wish to develop an air service or services in competition with, or supplemental to, Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. services, where such is deemed necessary by the province of British Columbia in the public interest."

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to thank the Premier for his statement regarding a matter which I think is of concern to all British Columbians regarding extraprovincial companies which have a major portion of their undertaking in the province of British Columbia and, as a consequence, arbitrary management or corporate decisions that are taken outside the domain of British Columbia have the effect of dislocating substantial services in the province of British Columbia, substantial employment opportunity and so on, which is certainly the case in Pacific Western's application to transfer their base from the province of British Columbia to Alberta.

I appreciate the fact that litigation has been underway to determine whether or not the Canadian Transport Commission has jurisdiction to rule over the province of Alberta's transfer of the main support staff, the main terminal and the main managerial operation of that company, which has become a company controlled by a Crown corporation in British Columbia out of our province and to Alberta. I want to say that the Premier, in making his statement, failed to deal with the really precise position that British Columbia had taken. I'm not sure whether or not the argument is before the Supreme Court — B.C.'s intervention....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, I'm aware of that, but it's British Columbia's intervention. I'm not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not British Columbia's intervention — which I understand has been mounted by the Attorney-General's department — relates solely to the question of a province's jurisdiction to take over majority ownership of an airline, or whether it relates to the British Columbia interest in preserving a substantial portion of the control of that airline which has been established with its air routes located in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems rather jumpy this evening. I listened intently to his remarks and I trust that the documents he files in the House will clarify some of the questions I have — at least I hope that to be the case. I want to say, though, that his initial comments regarding the gratuitous and rather condescending agreement which the government has extended to the official opposition regarding our convention is really irrelevant in this case. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that that gratuitous and condescending agreement came much too late to be of any real benefit to the official opposition in the province.

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: I only hope that the government's late intervention in this important matter of the transfer of the Pacific Western Airlines head office from the province of British Columbia to Alberta is not similarly late, not similarly a response to popular opinion, but is something that is borne out of a genuine concern for the interests of our province.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the matter had to be raised a number of times in this House by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and members of our own caucus before the province of British Columbia even deemed it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to file an intervention with the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to even the community of interest in this important question as to what should be the head office of this intra- or extra-provincial company.

Mr. Speaker, no intervention was filed and indeed no interest was indicated until this matter was raised a number of times by the official opposition....

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what I have been trying to tell that edgy group over there. They seem to be really exercised tonight. I am not sure whether the concern is something artificial that was taken over the supper hour, Mr. Speaker, or whether it is a really genuine concern with the fact that they seem to have lost control of this Legislature. I'm not sure which it is.

[ Page 2547 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, could I suggest to you that the privilege of replying to a statement on the floor of the House does not include a full-scale debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you emphatically, and provided I have my interests protected to make a statement without a rabble of interjections, without being howled down by the heavy-handed government in this province, then I will confine my remarks to the issue, but when I am interrupted, as the Premier was not, Mr. Speaker, I would expect that you would be prepared to protect my interests and my right to expression in this Legislature in the same way that you protected the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Leader of the Opposition. You puzzle me a little bit. Who would you like me to protect you from — your own members or the members on the government side of the House? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Interjections from both sides of the House have occurred since the House went back into session this evening. I perceived interjections from all sides of the House when the hon. Premier was speaking. I also hear interjections now. It seems that the interjections grow in volume but not in content, so I would suggest that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: When the hon. Leader of the Opposition or any other member is on his feet making a statement, I would suggest that, in courtesy to the members who have been given leave to make that statement, you listen to their statement and allow them to make it without interjection.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order on the matter that you just raised of people interjecting when a speaker has the floor of the House, I think we should take a look at the cause. I would like to try and help you with your duties, Mr. Speaker, with a suggestion of how this came to be so maybe we can deal with it.

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

MR. LEA: My point of order is that there is a great deal of interjection. I know you are trying to control it and I would like to be of help. The way I see it is that the Premier was good enough to get up in this House and give this Legislature some information which before we had never had. Then when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) asked questions about it, there was heckling from the government benches — obviously because they believed that it's ignorance to know....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor. I listened to the point of order from the hon. member for Prince Rupert. It was a little difficult to ascertain the point of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

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

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: ...I subscribe to Mr. Speaker's contents that as we go along this evening there is more volume to the interruptions than there is substance — and that's manifesting itself now, Mr. Speaker.

I simply make the point, Mr. Speaker, in response to the Premier's statement that I think it is a matter of equal concern to all political parties in this Legislature. I think it's really a non-partisan concern of the province of British Columbia that our interests as a province be protected when it comes to corporate decisions that are made outside the boundaries of the province of British Columbia, whether it be, Mr. Speaker, in the neighbouring province, whether it be in some corporate boardroom in the state of New York or whether it be in some other state south of the border. I hope that when this government asserts their concern on behalf of the people of British Columbia it will apply equally, not only to our sister province of Alberta but to New York and Oregon and all of the Pacific Northwest, particularly, in terms of the resources of this province that are being exploited generally by that part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue, I do want to take exception before I take my seat to the nature of interventions by the Chair, and I do this very respectfully. I do not think it's up to the Chair in this

[ Page 2548 ]

Legislature to comment in a partisan way on the conduct of either side of the House. I believe it's up to the Chair to keep order.

I am growing ever more concerned about the inclination of the Chair to either justify the position taken by a minister or the government, and to castigate people on the basis of their position in this House. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect and with all deference, I want to suggest that that is not the role of the Speaker in this Legislature; that is not the role of the Speaker of any House in the British parliamentary system, not at all.

They are not to be dictated to by an arrogant Premier. They must never be dictated to by an arrogant Premier, Mr. Speaker. I think it is up to the Chair to protect the rights of each and every member of this House, whether he be seated on the government side or the opposition side. It must be over and above any partisan affiliation with political parties.

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

MR. KING: It must protect and defend the rights of each and every member, when they are recognized, to make a statement and to preserve order while that statement is being made without an editorial on the quality or the nature of the interventions that are posed. I regret that inclination.

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

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should have asked for a point of order to explain his point. He was on his feet on a reply to a statement in the House, and now he has changed the tenor of his explanation. I believe he should ask leave for a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will return to the matter of the statement concerning PWA which was made by the hon. Premier.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking liberty with your good graces or the good graces of this House. But I would point out to the House Leader of the government that on two occasions before the adjournment the government sought leave to make a statement, sought leave and was granted the opportunity to proceed without leave ever being granted.

I wind up my comments, Mr. Speaker, by continuing to say that in my view it is the role and the obligation, the duty, of the Speaker to protect the rights of each and every member to make his statement in good faith in this House without being drowned out by heckling, and certainly without editorial comment which lends and introduces a partisan nature to the quality of across-the-floor repartee in this House. I want to state that the opposition is becoming genuinely concerned about that tendency.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'd like to suggest to all of the members of this House that there is a duty to perform in the Chair, and perhaps it would be good if I was to at this time refer you to Beauchesne, fourth edition, 1958, to refresh all of our memories as to what really is a ministerial statement and the accepted right of reply by members of other parties in the House.

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

"When a minister makes a statement on government policy or ministerial administration, either under routine proceedings between two orders of the day or shortly before the adjournment of the House, it is now firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled to ask explanations and make a few remarks, but no debate is then allowed under standing order.

"General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation, or too distant a reference to previous debates, are out of order, though a member has been permitted by the Speaker to make, at a subsequent sitting, an explanation regarding alleged misrepresentation in debate or in question to the minister. An explanation or reflection made upon a member in a capacity other than that of a member of parliament has been ruled out of order. The indulgence of a personal explanation should be granted with caution, for unless discreetly used, it is apt to lead to irregular debates."

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

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

[ Page 2549 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, what you did just now was, I hope, to introduce a precedent-setting thing of explaining to the House the reasons for the various decisions you make. Many, many times in this House, and particularly from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)...he has asked of you many times to cite specifically, as you did in this particular case.

I would hope the statement you have made tonight is a precedent and that we can have, when required and when appropriate, explanations such as you've given for the good order of the House,

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, if I might ask hon. members to cast their minds back 20 minutes or so, we had what is, in my view, a most important statement by the government. I congratulate them on this move to protect the interests of British Columbia. I think it's a move that has not only been endorsed but to some extent initiated by all quarters of this House.

I wouldn't want to prejudge it, but I think it might serve as a constitutional landmark in this country, because it's a case where we have seen a piece of interprovincial economic aggression. As governments increasingly move into the private sector, ground rules simply must be established as to how governments are going to interact across provincial boundaries.

The decision by the supreme court on the ownership of Pacific Western Airlines is not likely to be made, as the Premier said, before fall, and PWA has announced that the head office is to be moved by the end of August. All that is to be involved in the first move is some 40 executives, but that's the core of the executive group of PWA. Inevitably there will follow, after those senior executives, all of the support services that will be required, and inevitably thereafter there will follow some maintenance employees.

The institution of new employment under PWA will inevitably all fall into the orbit of Alberta if this decision is not challenged now. Mr. Speaker, I fear that even if the supreme court eventually rules against the ownership of PWA by Alberta, we will see the omelet so thoroughly scrambled and the head office so thoroughly ensconced in Calgary that it will be too late to do anything about it. So this is a terribly important move.

The Premier suggested two actions — first of all, action in the supreme court to compel the CTC and the Air Transport Committee to rule on this case. This action — I have no means of knowing — may or may not be successful. The CTC, in my view, has taken a rather narrow view of their jurisdiction. If it happens that the supreme court agrees with them and they do refuse to rule at this point, then it seems to me we must have a backup position. One backup position is the request to Alberta in correspondence that the Premier has revealed tonight, asking them to hold off until after the supreme court has ruled. I think that is an eminently responsible request and I hope it is one that would be responded to in some public way by the Alberta government quickly.

If that fails, Mr. Speaker, then it seems to me that British Columbia must be prepared to pursue another route, and that is asking the supreme court not to compel the CTC to rule, but rather on their own initiative to rule that the status quo must be preserved until such time as they render judgment.

I hope that action as commenced will succeed. If it does not, I think we need some kind of backup position. Time is of the essence in this case. The supreme court, I understand, normally recesses for the summer. I think it's essential that we get a decision before that summer recess and I have every confidence that the Attorney-General will ensure that that is the case.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the House when the Premier made his statement, but when I entered the House I recognized the usual postprandial atmosphere which occurs after a 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. recess.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. GIBSON: Is that like precambrian?

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

MR. WALLACE: So often, Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) for explaining some of the events that go on in this House when I'm not here. I seriously wish to support any legitimate and reasonable efforts which the Premier is making to maintain the headquarters of an important industry in this province and to sustain the associated employment in this province. While I quite readily recognize that I'm not familiar with the details of the Premier's statement, because of the fact that it is dedicated towards maintaining the headquarters of PWA in this province, I support his efforts.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 58.

[ Page 2550 ]

Leave not granted.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the matter of asking for a division when unanimous leave has been granted has been dealt with, I believe, earlier this session and again tonight.

I would remind you that when you ask unanimous leave, it's just that. The Speaker listens, and if he hears even one "no," that is sufficient to turn down the request for unanimous leave and it is not granted. It would therefore be out of order for me to put it to a division.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply.

Interjections.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, because of the overall provincial economic picture, we have been forced into a programme of budgetary restraint. All departments within the government have been asked to hold the line, and the Forest Service can be no exception. It has been and still is a tough time for our timber-resource industries. Only now are there slight signs of improvement. Housing starts are up in both our country and the United States and there are other indications of improved economic conditions, but we are still not out of the woods. As far as the B.C. Forest Service is concerned, we intend imposing practical restraints but not in such intensity as to have a strangling effect. In this department we estimate our expenditures for the year of $98.6 million. This compares with an actual expenditure in the last fiscal year of $80.7 million. At the same time it is estimated that the direct revenue from all sources will total about $72.8 million, which is some $26 million less than we will need to run the department.

Budgets for all but one sector of the department have been maintained at levels similar to last year. The exception is the reforestation division, whose actual expenditures last year totalled $16.3 million. This year that figure has been increased to $22.8 million — an increase of 40 per cent. We regard our reforestation programme as essential and, for obvious reasons, as an investment in the future.

One important factor we must remember is that it is all very well to have millions upon millions of seedlings growing in our nurseries. In that regard, our Forest Service nurseries have done very well. As a matter of fact, in some ways they have done too well. Much improved practices and procedures have resulted in seedling production far in advance of our original target. The problem is that insufficient areas have been properly prepared to receive the infant trees. They call this site preparation. Throughout British Columbia it is estimated that there are some 1.9 million acres of land in need of such preparation before trees can be planted. More than $2 million has been earmarked this year for such site preparation work, mostly in the Prince George and Prince Rupert forest districts.

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

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I don't like to interrupt the minister, but just a point of clarification. I noticed that the minister is paid, I believe, under Mines as opposed to Forests. So I wonder what that means to the debate on the estimates. I wonder if we could have some clarification from either the minister or the House Leader.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, what we would like to do is debate the estimates of the Minister of Forests' office and then go into the estimates for the Minister of Mines' salary and office; then proceed with the Forest Service votes and then the Mines department votes.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have a Whip system in this House that governs the procedure normally. No such request was made to the official opposition in terms of dealing with the minister's vote. As far as I can determine so far, with all deference to the hon. minister, the official opposition could gain everything that the minister is reporting tonight by reading last year's annual report of the Department of Forests. If the minister wishes to make his report, then that should have been brought to the attention of the Whips and agreement reached. No such overture was made by the government.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 2551 ]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Whip system, let me please, for the record and for the sake of those in the House who are not clear by now, say that the Whip system, earlier in the day, had an agreement to discuss and debate Bill 58....

MR. KING: That's absolutely false.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is not false!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Absolutely false!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You be honest!

MR. KING: Absolutely false!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Consult with your Whip.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We have recognized the hon. Provincial Secretary, she is standing on a point of order, and therefore we will hear her point of order. If there are others who wish to stand on a point of order, they will be recognized in their turn.

MR. KING: Tell the truth to this House!

Interjections.

MR.CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's too bad that the NDP want to make a great fuss in the House tonight. They seem to be very concerned that half of their strength has gone to the convention already and they are left without any.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the reference to the Committee of Supply this evening, to the Minister of Forests' vote, is a matter that, because the Whip system did break down this morning and the agreement was broken today, was not known by the opposite side. However, it is a legitimate order of business and we have called the vote on the Minister of Forests' office. I know that all the members of the House have been prepared for some time, since the budget was brought down, to debate these estimates, and in lieu of not having leave granted for the second reading of Bill 58, that is the order of business for this evening.

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to speak to the same point of order that the hon. House Leader was speaking on in terms of whether or not there was an agreement. I don't think there's any doubt that the government Whip will agree with what I have to say now.

I was approached this morning by the government Whip (Mr. Mussallem) and asked if it would be all right with us if we were to pass Bill 58 through all phases to its conclusion, including the third reading today. I said, "absolutely not." We did not talk about second reading whatsoever, and I believe that the government Whip will back me up on that statement. So there was no agreement. The government Whip may have assumed that we would agree to second reading — may have assumed — but we did not. I only said that I would not agree to third reading.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm waiting to hear.

MR. LEA: The point of order is that it seems to me we are now going to a new system which is different from the traditional way in which the estimates have been handled. We have previously

[ Page 2552 ]

dealt with the ministers in the portfolio that they are paid under first, then going on, if it's a double portfolio, to that second portfolio. We have no objection that we go to Mines, so that we can discuss in great depth....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Members, perhaps we could shed a little light on this entire procedure. The matters of points of orders must be real points of order in order for the Chair to recognize them. The Chair has a little bit of difficulty in that many points of order which May calls fraudulent points of order are being raised in this House. The Chair must listen to the point to be sure that there is one; however, we cannot allow endless points of order which are not real points of order. That's point No. 1.

Secondly, it is the prerogative of the government to call these votes in whichever order they wish to call them, and the Chair has no control over this. Vote 74 was called.

Third point. The Chair has no knowledge of any agreements made between Whips, and, indeed, has no interest in any agreements made between Whips. Thus the points of order raised about the Whip system are indeed out of order in Committee of Supply, and therefore we must now proceed to vote 74.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman....

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: the opposition has no wish to compromise the expeditious procedure of the House, but it is clearly out of order to proceed without leave on this kind of debate which is not within the ambit of the jurisdiction under this vote.

Interjection.

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

I want to indicate that we are prepared to grant that leave. But I would appreciate some foreknowledge, some forewarning, of this kind of eventuality. No problem. But without leave it's clearly out of order, and that's a legitimate point of order, Mr. Chairman.

For the sake of preserving some organization in this House, we must proceed by parliamentary rules; we must proceed under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, and surely this House has been out of order and out of the government's control long enough this week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's out of order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I will say it one more time so that the hon. Leader of the Opposition also understands: it is the prerogative of the government to call the votes in whichever order they wish, and from time to time they call votes out of sequence. Also, they can call whichever minister of what they would wish to have, not by leave....

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

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Therefore the Committee of Supply has priority over every other business. Vote 74 has been called, and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests has been recognized. I made it, didn't I?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This morning the hon. deputy Whip, when I went to his office and spoke to him, the first thing I said when he asked me what was the order of business, I said Bill 58 — at which he nodded his head. I said: "Furthermore, we would like to have it go through three readings today." He said: "No, I will not accept. It will not go into third reading today." I talked with him for over 15, 20 minutes, and I left with the full knowledge that we would go into Bill 58.

[ Page 2553 ]

I do not wish to cause the hon. member any embarrassment, but those are the absolute facts, and that's the way they stand; I make it clear to this House. That's all I have to say about that.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Both Whips have made their statement, and that will conclude the matter. It is not of interest to this committee.

Interjections.

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

MR. LEA: I would just like to say in response to what has been said in this House by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that now I know exactly where I stand with that member. That's it.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Something I never suspected.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: A few moments ago we had quite a dissertation from the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) about people making statements in the House and having the courtesy of being listened to, and immediately we get into another harangue which really has accomplished nothing. I suggest perhaps we can get on with the business of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I was making comments about the Forest Service last year and their plans for next year, and I was talking about the reforestation programme. Last year, Mr. Chairman....

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

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

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Mines, Forests and Resources and whatever other portfolios he happens to hold, wishes to talk about votes under the Forests department, he is not entitled to do so under vote 74 which deals with the minister's office but does not provide for his salary.

Now if he wishes to combine.... And he doesn't understand the legislative procedure very well yet because he's a green minister, but if he wishes to combine a far-ranging debate of all of the matters under the Forests department as well as mining, then the government simply has to ask leave of the House to combine the minister's vote under the two departments.

Otherwise, he is restricted, I submit, Mr. Chairman, to the matters contained under vote 74, which strictly obtain to the minister's office, which is the salaries of his secretaries, his travel expense, the furniture and travel allowance under that vote. I would ask him to come to order unless the government wishes to ask for leave, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The vote under vote 74 will pertain to the administrative responsibilities of the minister' s office of the Minister of Forests.

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

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

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

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. No, it does not.... Mr. Chairman, I challenge that ruling by the Chairman. Never in the history of the Legislature has the administrative responsibility....

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

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

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

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to report that in Committee of Supply when vote 74 was called, a dispute arose as to what matters are to be discussed under vote 74. The Chairman made a ruling and that ruling has been challenged.

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

[ Page 2554 ]

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

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): My point of order is quite simple. The matter went by so quickly in committee that I am afraid I don't know exactly what the ruling was that was challenged, and in order that one might vote intelligently I wonder if we could be advised of the subject matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. In order to clarify the matter for everyone, would the hon. Chairman of committee come back and report exactly what your ruling was challenged on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I repeat for Mr. Speaker? In Committee of Supply, vote 74 was called, which is the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). A dispute arose as to what matters are debatable under this vote. The Chair ruled that the matters pertaining to the administrative responsibility of the minister were debatable under vote 74. This ruling was challenged.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. It is a matter for the Speaker of the House to now place the question before the members of the House. You have heard the comments of the Chairman of committee. You have heard his ruling. His ruling was challenged on the administrative responsibility of the minister being discussed under vote 74.

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

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 9

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that when a challenge to the Chair is called, the Speaker has no knowledge of the issue before the House. Now that Mr. Speaker is apprised of the issue involved in this case, I would be most interested in receiving a ruling from the Chair for future proceedings before this House as to whether or not a debate concerning the full jurisdictional aegis of a minister's responsibility is allowed in a vote other than that vote which comprises the minister's salary. Mr. Speaker, this breaks precedent in this House and is the first case, to my knowledge, where such a precedent without leave of the House has been undertaken. I would certainly appreciate Mr. Speaker's consideration of the proposition contained in the challenge to the Chairman's ruling in this case.

I would point out that under vote 74 the minister's salary is not contained. The issue is whether or not the full scope of his ministerial responsibility is open for debate and discussion under a vote of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take that matter under advisement and report to the House on it, because there is a matter of parliamentary precedent involved here. I would certainly appreciate your counsel on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members and hon. Leader of the Opposition, speaking to the point of order that you have raised, I will take the matter under advisement, but I would like to say to you this: it is true that the Speaker of the House has no knowledge of the procedure that takes place in committee except when it is reported to the Speaker. In the report to the Speaker, the Chairman advised me that his ruling had been challenged on the basis of discussions which would include the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). My position is very clear at that particular time — that is, to take the decision on the matter by vote. The vote was taken and it would appear to me that that is the decision of the House. But I will take it under advisement and see if I can find a further reference on the matter which would be of help and assistance to all of the hon. members of the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, just a final brief point of order. I would point out that the description of vote 74 is "minister's office," not "ministerial

[ Page 2555 ]

responsibilities" or "duties of the minister." The proper, clear, concise description is "minister's office." I suggest that that is pertinent to your consideration.

MR. LEA: I would like some clarification from the Chair on the same point of order. Looking at the two departments that come under the Minister of Mines and Forests, we take a look at vote 74, the vote that has been called. The only listing under this vote, making $14,000, is: travel expense — $7,500; office expense — $3,500; office furniture and equipment — $3,000. We look at vote 130, which covers the salary of the minister.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that he is being paid a salary as a cabinet minister to administer both departments and is being paid under vote 130 to administer those two departments. It would seem in order, if we were going to discuss the wide-ranging duties of the administration of that minister, that we begin with his salary vote, which is vote 130.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your comments, Hon. Member. I think it is really in line with the same suggestion that was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have said I will take the matter under advisement and I will so do.

MR. LEA: What do we do now?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, would you refer to standing order 54 which says that "a motion being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be put again...but must stand as a judgment of the House"?

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS
(continued)

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

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

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No? Okay, then I would like to talk about vote 74, which only includes travel expenses, office expense, office furniture and equipment. I would like, first of all, to talk about the office furniture and equipment, a vote of $3,000, which seems to me to be a great deal of money for this office. I would like to talk about the kind of various office equipment that the minister could be thinking of...

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

MR. LEA: ...getting for his office for this kind of money, and I would also like to talk about the office expense of $3,500 and ask the minister: does he feel that is an adequate amount of money? Is it up from last year or down from last year, because we know the cost of paper has gone up.

You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that I'm sticking strictly within the vote, as the rules call for in the House. I can only speak about travel expense, office expense, office furniture and equipment. You'd agree with me that that is the case, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've made my ruling.

MR. LEA: It seems we're going to have quite a wide-ranging debate on travel expense, $7,500; office expense, $3,500; office furniture and equipment. I hate to be facetious, but this is all we are allowed to talk about under the rules of this House in these estimates.

It's a little ridiculous because the minister is getting up talking about the wide-ranging jurisdiction of administration that he has as the Minister of Forests, the Department of Forests, and he's not allowed to do that under the vote. He has to do that under his salary vote, or under each one of the votes as they come up. I believe I could go on, Mr. Chairman, talking about this vote 74 and the three items under it, but it would be ridiculous, and it would be ridiculous of the minister to get up and talk about these three things when we haven't talked about the broad-ranging discussion that can take place under the jurisdiction of that minister.

The House Leader has made a mistake in calling this vote and will not go back and say, "I have honestly made a mistake and we should be on vote 130," so we can have the kind of discussion that the minister, I know, wants to have, because he began his discussion assuming he could talk about, in this vote, the wide-ranging administration that he is responsible for. I think, with all respect for the rules of this House.... And we would quite gladly allow government to call vote 130 so we can discuss what the minister would like to discuss, and I'm sure backbenchers in the government party would like to discuss.

I mean, we can go on talking about whether he's going to get an electric typewriter, whether he's going to travel to Dawson Creek and back and how much it's going to cost, and the office expense of $3,500 — whatever that's about — but, you know, if we're going to be talking about what the minister is

[ Page 2556 ]

responsible for under his salary, which is the tradition of this House and, as I understand it, every other House, then we have to call vote 130 and talk about the minister's salary.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests, Mines, Petroleum Resources, et cetera, is going to answer the question on his office furniture and his travel to Dawson Creek and suchlike, but also I think we're able, under this vote, to talk about the minister's qualifications.

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

MR. KING: What qualifications?

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

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: We can talk about the minister's qualifications for ordering electric typewriters and furniture and secretaries and that type of thing...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Out of order!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: ...because he's certainly more qualified at doing that than he is at administering the forests of this province, which is the major industry in British Columbia. Mining is No. 2....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No. 3.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that the only qualifications he has are very similar to those of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who said he had none at all. That was the only time he was being perfectly frank to the public of this province, because he felt at the time that they should be lied to, bribed and conned.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like to challenge and ask for a withdrawal of the statement from the hon. member for Alberni suggesting that I suggested one lies. He is quite incorrect; he knows he's incorrect. I ask him to withdraw.

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

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

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw that without qualification whatsoever. He said that he had learned after the 1974 election that he couldn't be perfectly candid with the public. Now I don't know what his interpretation of that is, but how that qualifies him for office as a successful Social Credit politician....

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

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

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order, team!

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it appears under this vote that all we can deal with is the qualifications of the Minister of Forests to administer a very small office, a very small vote. But, hopefully, we can deal

[ Page 2557 ]

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

I'm just looking over a transcript of the minister's appearance on "Capital Comment" — which is a programme that runs occasionally here in Victoria. They asked him what his qualifications were to administer the forests of the province of British Columbia. He said: "I've been raised in the bush..."(Laughter.) I can't believe it!

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to ask him about the house plants in his office. (Laughter.) When he walked into the office, did he water the plants? Did he set an annual allowable cut? (Laughter.)

What kind of qualifications are those? He's spent more time in the bush than most people have. Well, it's no wonder! This minister has spent more years cracking rocks than most people in the province have, except those behind bars. I'm just wondering, comparing the qualifications of this minister with those of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), they appear to be pretty shabby qualifications to administer the major industry and the major resource base of the province of British Columbia. If that's the only qualification he has, then certainly we need a new Minister of Forests, because he hasn't come up with anything really substantial in the way of putting the forest industry of this province back on the tracks after substantial depression in the United States.

MR. KING: Rotate!

MR. SKELLY: One of the other questions asked of the minister at that same "Capital Comment" programme was about the quota which had been lost by forest industries large and small in the province of British Columbia — lost to single-use management — mainly single-use management for parks, recreation areas and this type of thing. I'd like to just quote a section from "Capital Comment" where the minister was replying to Mark Hume. He said:

"I've become very aware over the last few months that many companies, small companies and large companies, are gradually having their quotas reduced because of alienation of their timber areas to single-use parks. And every time you take some of their quota away, you're forcing them to cut back on the amount of wood that they can manufacture and harvest, and when you do that, you eliminate jobs for people."

Now when our Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources — Forestry and Fisheries at that time — held hearings in Victoria and throughout the province, the representatives of the major forest companies that appeared before those hearings said that the amount of timber in the province that was lost to single-use management was negligible. And that's quoting Grant N. Scott, the chief forester of MacMillan Bloedel — that the amount lost to single-use management to forest and recreation areas was negligible.

I'm asking the Minister of Forests in terms of the total volume, the total annual allowable cut available in the province, in terms of the total annual allowable to quota holders and forest companies in the province as a percentage of the annual allowable cut available, how much has been lost to single-use management for parks and recreation. I hope he can answer that question in view of the fact that the chief forester for MacMillan Bloedel said the amount was negligible.

I'd also like to ask the Minister of Forests, as he is the minister responsible for the forest industry in which the province has become involved over the past four years — and I'm citing Canadian Cellulose, B.C. Cellulose, the Ocean Falls Corp., Babine Forest Products — has he been negotiating with any companies to take over either management of Canadian Cellulose, management of any subsidiaries of Canadian Cellulose, and I refer specifically to Twin Rivers Timber, or any other forest company? Would the minister like to call a recess while he leaves the building? Oh, okay.

Has the minister discussed with MacMillan Bloedel or any other forest company operating in the province management contracts to operate either B.C. Cellulose, Canadian Cellulose, Twin Rivers Timber or any subsidiary of these companies, or a sale of shares or an exchange of shares with these companies? If so, what are the terms? What negotiations have taken place? What terms have been arrived at? What type of agreement is he seeking with these companies? Which companies is he dealing with?

One of the things that happens each year with both government and opposition caucuses — and I think the Council of Forest Industries should be

[ Page 2558 ]

congratulated with the communications that they maintain with both the government and the opposition caucuses — is that the executive board of the Council of Forest Industries meets with everyone involved in government and opposition to maintain a continuing line of communication with both sides of the House. I think that that's a laudable process.

At the last meeting that was held between the former NDP government and the Council of Forest Industries executive board, we were congratulated by the Council of Forest Industries during a very difficult period in the forest economy of this province for maintaining a very flexible attitude toward management of the forest resource in British Columbia. In fact, one of the executive board members of the Council of Forest Industries said at that time that he wished his American counterparts in government — the people they deal with in government in the United States — had adopted an attitude equally flexible, in order to maintain the economic viability of the forest industry south of the border, an attitude equally flexible to that adopted north of the border by the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I'm wondering just what the present Minister of Forests — in spite of his lack of qualifications in handling that industry — is doing to maintain the economic viability of the forest industry in the province of British Columbia in the face of a severe downturn in the United States economy, especially the demand for lumber and a soft market for pulp and paper. What is he doing to preserve the economic viability of the forest industry in the province of British Columbia?

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I've sat here all day listening to, I would say, basically very little. I would appeal to the opposition to agree to move on to Bill 58 and pass it this evening....

MS. BROWN: Order!

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

MR. SKELLY: Point of order. Are we not dealing with the vote for the minister's office rather than Bill 58? If the government wishes to call Bill 58, I'm certain that they would do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 74.

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

MR. SHELFORD: What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we can talk for 5 hours, 10 hours, 20 hours or 40 hours and we won't achieve one thing — I nearly said it — unless we're willing to get on and put people back to work. I must say, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the discussion for the last few minutes on the Minister of Forests, that....

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: I'm talking about the Minister of Forests. You had three and a half hours; give me 20 minutes. I think it's very unfortunate that the opposition is willing to leave the forest industry in the north country in hostage for another weekend.

Certainly the government tried hard enough this afternoon to try and get discussion on a bill that would get people back to work. We hear so much about unemployment in this province and on what has our minister done in the forest industry. I would like to say: what minister anywhere can do anything in the forest industry when we have the northern half of this province shut down for weeks on end?

We talk about unemployment. We talk about many things. We delay the actions of this House, and I would say that most of us behave like a bunch of kids while the teacher is out. I think it's time that we got on to discuss seriously the problems of the forest industry in this province.

I am sorry that the opposition would not agree to move away from this particular vote onto Bill 58, which would at least do something about getting people back to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 74, please.

MR. SHELFORD: That's right. I asked leave to move from vote 74 to Bill 58, to which I gather there was no agreement. But there are so many problems facing this industry, and I spoke on them on many occasions in this House.

The Pearse report, hopefully, will answer some of he management problems in the industry, but let's not stick our heads in the sand and say okay, the Pearse report is going to solve our various problems. Let's make it very clear that it's not going to. The Pearse commission may resolve some management problems but it will not answer the real problem in the industry, which is high costs, and I think it is about time we started facing up.

What is the real problem? We kick around the bush. We hide our heads in the sand. By appearances of tonight and all of today, we are not really willing to face up to the real issues facing the people of this province. Well, it's very clear to all of us. I am not blaming any one side. I think we are all at fault. When you take a look and see that pulp can be produced in the U.S. $36 cheaper than it can in Canada and pulp can be produced for $45 to $50 less in the developing countries which have our technology and our help, we should start looking at what's wrong in the whole

[ Page 2559 ]

thing.

Now in only the last few days, lumber has gone down approximately $20 a thousand. Plywood has gone down more than $20 a thousand. Yet the cost to the industry on June 15 will go up $10 a thousand. That is what the increased costs of last year's settlement will cost the industry, which is pretty substantial. Most wages in the forest industry — in fact, I think I could say all wages in the industry — whether you be a mechanic or a basic IWA rate, are at least $2 an hour greater than in the U.S.

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

MR. SHELFORD: I have a son who just went on a course down to the States and he is a mechanic. The highest paid American mechanic on this particular course — and there are 300 of them at the course — was $6 an hour, and he was a foreman. The lowest paid Canadian was $8 an hour. And when you see this difference of pay between one country and another, which is our competitor...and, believe me, they are.

I don't think we realize the fact that unless the U.S. gets over two million house starts a year, they really don't need us at all. They really don't need us. They can take care of the supply from their own country. The U.S. right at the moment, I believe, is around 1.8 million, and there is no chance that they'll get up to the peak of, say, 1973 when they got up to over 2.5 million.

Now I want to make it clear that the IWA rate is certainly in my particular area and all over the province not basically high compared to other industries. When you are referring to the pass-it-on type industries which are government, the service industries.... When you see someone in Safeway or the chain stores getting paid more than an IWA worker who is slugging it out in the mud, I often wonder why they are there.

But we still have to face the facts of life. The only two real competitive industries in this province are forestry and mining. They can't pass it on, because they are competing with people in other nations. So surely the people who work in these basic industries shouldn't be paid less. I would say that the government has a terrific job ahead of it to try and iron out these problems so they get a fair wage for those people who are in the basic industries and who are making the wealth of this country. Those who are in the pass-it-on industries, where they can pass it on in taxes if it's government, certainly shouldn't be paid more. Otherwise you drain all of the best workers out into the service industries and the productive industries are left non-productive, certainly not as productive as they should be.

Now it's unfortunate that the Prices and Incomes Commission.... I know it's not directly related to the forest industry, but it is in a way because it affects every single worker in the industry — on whether people would go to work or not. It's one of the problems that we are faced with at this moment with a shutdown in the northern part of this province where the forest industry is next to disaster.

Now the Prices and Incomes Commission, I would say, is the only thing between greed and a prosperous economy, and without controls of some sort we won't have a forest industry at all. I think we should face that very clearly. Without some sort of control the forest industry will disappear from British Columbia. Let's not stand up and say how things are going so well when really they're not. We know exactly the problems we are facing and so far we haven't done anything about them.

Unfortunately, the Prices and Incomes Commission have taken a wishy-washy policy of holding some at 8.9 per cent and allowing others up to 14 and 15 per cent, and, of course, prices to go wild in some areas.

MR. LEA: Did you vote on Bill 16?

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

I think we have to quietly sit down and not go around like we have this afternoon really doing nothing for the people. I would say if the people of the province paid us nothing for today, they paid us too much. I would hope that all members will quietly get on and discuss the problems in the forest industry.

We have a problem: our costs are too high and we can't compete with those in foreign countries. "How do we get these costs down?" and "how do we get this industry rolling again?" are questions that every single one of you should be asking, because unless we can get these costs down, welfare will fall by the wayside, our highways will go to potholes, and everything else will fall apart.

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

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I rise to speak on this Forests estimate, and I certainly have to agree with the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). I think there is a real crisis facing the forest industry in the north at the present time, and while we are debating the estimates of the Forests department I find it rather hard to assimilate the remarks of the past several weeks and the supposed crisis the opposition has brought forward.

A few days ago we had a very lengthy dissertation on the unemployment crisis that was facing B.C. I don't know if they realize just how drastic the crisis is getting that is facing the interior of the province.

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

[ Page 2560 ]

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

"On behalf of the northern sector of the Council of Forest Industries, and particularly those on the BCR, I'd like to thank the Premier for the excellent hearing given myself and others of the group.

"The northern interior lumber section would like to re-emphasize the gravity of the conditions along the railway at present. The cost of maintaining operations with no rail service is damaging to all firms on the BCR and, in some cases, has become intolerable, forcing closure. Layoffs now stand at 1,400 in the north and central interior, and are beginning to affect the communities further to the north. The northern industries can ill-afford the closures, because experience has shown that the personnel, once lost, often leave the area and are very hard to replace.

"While the current situation is serious and warrants immediate resumption of the BCR operations, the wholesale closure of the entire forest industry served by the BCR is near at hand. When the pulp and paper mills in our area can no longer operate, there will be few forest operations of any kind about to continue.

"The consequences are obvious, potentially affecting nearly 10,000 forest industry workers — the backbone of the north. Your government must not allow this point to be reached."

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

MR.LLOYD:

"We are not competent, nor is it our role to recommend a solution to the remaining undisputed issues between the BCR management and the United Transportation Union. However, we urge the government to impress upon these two parties that the resumption of the service is now imperative. The efforts to resolve this issue should continue.

"If the BCR and the UTU cannot voluntarily agree to take these steps, then we reluctantly recommend that the government compel them to do so."

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the railway, the employers, have been asked to gear up. We were hoping to have this bill discussed. It was thought that this bill was softened down to Bill 58; it's certainly a bill no harder on anyone than the Hospital Continuation Act....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing vote 74 and the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is trying to force into debate a debate on Bill 58.

MR. LLOYD: What's the point of order there?

MS. BROWN: That is a point of order!

MR. LEA: That is the point of order, and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I'll remind him. We are on vote 74, which includes the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. The Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think every concerned member of this Legislature is aware that the forest industry in British Columbia is vitally affected by the fact that the B.C. Railway has not operated but intermittently the last two years, and the shutdown has affected not only members of the railway, but the forest industry....

MR. LEA: On a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You're out of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on a point of order. I'll listen to you in just a minute.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it has affected the jobs of hundreds of members in the forest industry....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are on a point of order....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, for any member of this House to prevent any other member from speaking out for those jobs in the forest industry is disregarding a responsibility to the people of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I will tell the people of this province that those members would not allow this side to speak out, for the jobs of the

[ Page 2561 ]

people of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, their delaying tactics....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. members...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the hon. members that on a point of order we must state....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I remind hon. members that in stating a point of order, we must state succinctly what the point of order is, and it is not a time for debate. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was standing on a point of order. Is it still existing?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I've already stated my point of order: the Premier got up and did not have a point of order. I'd like a ruling on my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you — well taken. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) was on his feet.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please. On a point of order, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am fully in sympathy with the interests of the Premier in discussing under these estimates the employment situation on the BCR, but I would bring to his attention what is called the rule of anticipation that we have in this House. This is a rule that I happen to disagree with because it often, in cases such as these, stops debate which is vital in this chamber. If we could have the Premier's undertaking that he will move to remove this rule from our rule book, I think we might get leave of the House at this time to carry on with this line of debate, which could be quite useful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are now in Committee of Supply and perhaps could take this moment of lull just to remind the hon. members of what the scope of debate is, under the standing orders.

The whole management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of the estimates of that department, which reads as follows: "general administration," et cetera. Therefore the scope of debate under vote 74 is clearly outlined for us in Beauchesne, fourth edition. I would suggest to the hon. members that we refrain from anticipating debate on any other question, be it a bill or otherwise. So we will return now to debate on vote 74.

MR. GIBSON: The point I was making was the hope that by leave we might be able to enter into that debate under these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking leave?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, on the question of the BCR strike.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. May I ask the member for North Vancouver-Capilano if that is a motion? Are you asking for leave? — because it's not suitable. In Committee of Supply they would have to report progress and then have the debate in the House.

MR. GIBSON: What I was suggesting, Mr. Chairman, really, was that the House agree to suspend the rule of anticipation for the currency of this particular debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you ask leave? Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

[ Page 2562 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the question again because it is not certain. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. GIBSON: The government doesn't want to debate it; I don't understand.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I'm not sure whether it is, but you pointed out something we could discuss under this vote, and I didn't get it clearly. Would you run through again what we could discuss? I didn't understand it clearly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the reminder of the whole House, the whole management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of the estimates of that department.

MR. LEA: Oh, fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Burrard on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it states very clearly on vote 74, if I may be permitted to read it for you, that the issues to be discussed are travel expense, office expense, office furniture and equipment. We cannot discuss the minister's salary because the minister is paid under vote 130, not under vote 74.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We cannot, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), through you, Mr. Chairperson, discuss Bill 58, because that is not covered by vote 74. It was out of order for the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) to refer to a debate affecting the women of this province as a waste of time under vote 74. If it's necessary, Mr. Chairperson, I am willing to stand up and interpret this vote for you over and over again until you get it absolutely clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ohhh!

MS. BROWN: It states: travelling expense, office expense, office furniture and equipment. By leave of the House....

I am willing to allow leave of the House to debate the growing up of the Premier of this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't care about the people!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Millionaire socialist!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. And now, just so that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is perfectly clear as to what shall be debated under vote 74, vote 74 is the Department of Forests. The standing orders provide that the whole management of the Department of Forests may be discussed in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution. We are now on the first resolution of the Department of Forests, and we will therefore be discussing the whole management of the Department of Forests in a general way, as well as the administrative responsibilities of the minister. Now if you have it perfectly clear, we will move on to vote 74.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Why are you standing?

[ Page 2563 ]

MR. LEA: Thank you for that ruling. It's a ruling that we've needed for some time this evening and I would like to thank you for it. Now we know exactly where we stand and what we can debate.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Write a memo. Write a memo.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What? So you can steal it?

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, if the opposition would stop filibustering for a few minutes, as they filibustered all afternoon long....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: I would like to speak to the vote if they could stop filibustering in the opposition as they filibustered all afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. You could help the situation by confining your remarks to vote 74.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a banana.

MR. LLOYD: Speaking on the Forests minister's estimates, reforestation, the timber tenure and the manpower are all very critical parts of the forest industry. I think the manpower situation is the one we really have to be critically concerned with because they're really suffering in certain areas of the north. I think it's very important, Mr. Chairman, that we move very constructively to help alleviate the problems with the forest industry in the manpower situation that's developing. While conventions are very important, I think the people of the north are really getting very impatient to see when we can get proper rail service restored so that the mills along the BCR can once again begin operations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read one more wire into the record, and I feel it's very topical to the minister's debate. This wire is from the mayor of the city of Mackenzie. Mackenzie, as you know, has two industries that keep the entire city going: two large sawmill complexes. They are completely dependent on the services of the BCR, and they are completely dependent on the forest industry for their livelihood. I would like to read this into the record.

"Howard Lloyd, MLA, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

"Your efforts to effect a solution to the ongoing B.C. Rail labour/management dispute are commendable. Regretfully the actions of the parties to the dispute since the introduction of Bill 22 have left industry in this community in an even more perilous condition. Effective Thursday, May 20, layoffs have begun in at least one processing plant as well as the logging startup which is delayed pending the BCR settlement.

"One must question the ability of the industry in a depressed world market to survive financially under such trying circumstances. I urge you to impress upon all the parties involved that their actions are placing the economy of this and the other northern communities in very serious jeopardy."

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we do keep a proper balance in the north and that we do keep a manpower situation which is feasible. I'd also like to read a letter into the record from the central interior loggers group of the north. Certainly they're very viable part of the logging industry in the north. Again it's to Howard Lloyd, MLA for Fort George:

"The members of the Central Interior Loggers Association protest the Alice-in-Wonderland attitude of the BCR management and the workers. The interior forest industry has suffered financial hardship over the past two years from a combination of the shrinking export market and the labour problems slowing or closing down the railway.

"The present BCR stoppage is causing a chain reaction that will soon cause massive unemployment for all those in the forest industry. Sawmills dependent on the BCR route are cutting back production, laying off workers, or closing down. Two pulpmills in the Prince George area are facing closure due to present railway shutdown. This will have a chain reaction in the closure of sawmills, which in turn will result in the postponement of the logging season.

"The logging industry has not yet recovered from the effects of the past two years and many loggers and truckers are in dire financial straits, to say nothing of the position of their employees. Many are going to be forced out of business, because unless a solution is found to eradicate the perennial labour problems of the BCR, which is a major lifeline of the central interior, unless this problem is solved, the interior will not only cease to grow but will lose its attraction to business and to the people.

"The Central Interior Loggers Association recommends that your government consider the recognition of:

(1) a joint council of unions be formed to

[ Page 2564 ]

negotiate contracts;

(2) a simple majority as being required to accept a general contract...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I thought that possibly the hon. member for Fort George was going to go on to something else, and only briefly refer to problems with labour-management problems with the BCR. But he is not; he is going into it quite extensively, and back in and back out....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's no point of order!

MR. LEA: Although I don't dispute...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against the BCR?

MR. LEA: ...the fact that the matter being discussed by the hon. member is of importance to this province and to this Legislature, there is a time and a place, and the rules of the House should apply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member. I would remind the member again that vote 74 has the departmental responsibilities and the general Department of Forests, if you will confine your remarks.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can't really put a semblance on just how the opposition feels that the operation of a rail line doesn't have anything to do with the forest industry, Mr. Chairman. I think it's very vital that the railway operates properly.

For example, I will give you the times they have been without rail service to move any of their products.

MR. SKELLY: What's the date of the wire?

MR. LLOYD: They can't get the logs in; they can't get the timber out. They had a shutdown from January 21 to January 27 — seven days. Then they had another shutdown from March 2 to March 29 — 27 days when they couldn't move the logs or move their products.

The current dispute, from which they are still suffering a lack of service, started on May 18, another 24 days. So far this year the strike has lasted some 58 days.

Don't tell me that this hasn't got anything to do with the forest industry because it just shows how ignorant that group is over there! It just shows how much lack of responsibility that entire group has over there, Mr. Chairman. Don't tell me that hasn't got anything to do with the health of the forest industry!

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a Communist?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: You haven't got a clue! You haven't got a clue of the importance of....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. Member, would you please be seated while the Chairman is standing?

I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to relate his remarks to vote 74, which is the departmental responsibilities of the Department of Forests. I ask you one more time.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order for the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the time of night when everyone gets to read things into the record. There is something I'd like to read into the record...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: ...about the hon. member for Dawson Creek....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Please be seated. Hon. Member, please be seated. I would remind the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard that the Chair recognized that member in good faith, believing that she had a legitimate point of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Now I will cite a section of May which talks about the kind of a point of order which you fraudulently raised.

[ Page 2565 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I refer to May 16th edition, at pages 469 and 470.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suggest that you have one, Hon. Member. At page 469, May said this:

"A member who abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, that is to say, who without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. It would seem therefore that a member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be required, under the standing orders, to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

"He is, however, guilty of a contempt of the House and may be named."

On page 470 I read further, and this gives you a precedent:

"On July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a growing practice of interruptions of debate by members who, when the honourable member who was speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way they can get their word in is by raising a point of order. He stated in his opinion such interruptions constitute fraudulent points of order and should be stopped immediately."

That's page 470, the 16th edition of May.

Hon. Members, it is my humble opinion, having observed the procedures of this House, that it is an increasing practice in this House for hon. members who wish to abuse their right to speak to stand to their feet, citing a point of order, when indeed they have no point of order. I must remind you that this is contempt of the House and members abusing the rules in this way may be named. The member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, please. Does the first member for Vancouver-Burrard have a point of order?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

MS. BROWN: I have no idea....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only reason you have to be on your feet is if you have a point of order.

MS. BROWN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order. State it, please.

MS. BROWN: May I point out to you that the citation which you read referred to "he" and I am a she?

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MS. BROWN: It does not apply to me. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken.

MS. BROWN: Until you change the words of that book; it does not apply to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The member for Fort George.

MR. LLOYD: As I was mentioning very distinctly, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LLOYD: Some more filibustering?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I had raised a point of order that you were about to take action on and did not get the opportunity to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has it slipped my mind? Please refresh my memory.

MR. LEA: I raised on a point of order the fact that the member for Fort George was again treading on very thin ice in terms....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I will remind him again. We're on vote 74, the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mr.

[ Page 2566 ]

Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LLOYD: Would you remind the opposition to stop filibustering and we'll get back to the minister's estimates?

Again, while the opposition feels that the rail service has nothing to do with the forest industry, it is something I find very hard to conceive, Mr. Chairman. As we all know, that's a very critical part of the entire forest industry, moving the supplies in and moving the products out. God knows the chip piles we've piled up throughout the interior and the amount of dollars that have been wasted in burned chips. Some of these chips that we're piling up are going to live to haunt the Forest Service there — how they're going to eliminate them and treat them properly. With the heat build-up in these piles, we're going to have forest fires springing up all over the interior. For anyone to say that the rail service doesn't affect the forest industry, Mr. Chairman, is completely ridiculous — just completely ridiculous and irresponsible!

MR. SKELLY: Nobody said that.

MR. LLOYD: As I mentioned earlier, the strike has lasted 58 days on this last one. Altogether we've had something like 150 days from the start of the year and 58 days lost; we're up close to a 38 per cent loss of service to all the forest companies along the line. I find that very deplorable that we can't get on with the business of the people and get the forest industry back on its feet again.

Mr. Chairman, just to show how very serious the concern is about the health of the forest industry, I have a clipping from the Prince George Citizen which I'd like to quote into the record: "As the forest firms press the BCR case, the stalemate between the B.C. Railway and the United Transportation Union has resulted in the shutdown of the line...."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the member for Fort George will not go along with the order from the Chair. I raise it again that....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That point is well taken and I ask the hon. member again to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibility and the Department of Forests in general. The remarks that you are now making, if they are not immediately relevant, then I must ask you to refrain from those remarks or show that they are relevant. Please proceed.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the ruling. I hope we keep that balance across the House just as clear cut. We listened to a filibuster all afternoon that had nothing to do with the situation in the province whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Vote 74 please.

MR. LLOYD: But again, to get back to the concerns of the forest industry, I think it's very critical, Mr. Chairman, that we have something done about getting this service restored. As the article continues about the forest industry, it mentions the forest companies: "Renewed efforts by the forest industries will be made again in Dawson Creek this weekend at the North Central Municipal Association." All the mayors and aldermen are gathering up there. To quote the article:

"The association represents all the communities between Williams Lake and Fort Nelson. The pulp, paper and lumber industries want to impress on the municipal officials the seriousness of the situation due to the lack of rail transportation. The BCR closed down its freight operation as an answer to the union's work-to-rule campaign, which is ruled a strike by the B.C. Labour Relations Board. The forest industry in the interior is suffering, and eight mills have closed down...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert is on his feet on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Your point of order, please.

MR. LEA: Well, it's the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, that I've raised a number of times. You know, I don't like to do it because I know the hon.member for Fort George is new, but I think he should still follow the directive from the Chair. You have so directed him a number of times and he's still not doing it.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): He's sincere and he's concerned. You should be concerned.

Interjections.

[ Page 2567 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please! I must remind the House that when the House is in an unruly manner — or at least is operating in an unruly manner, such as it has this evening — I have had to call for order from many members and on numerous occasions.

Therefore the member who is presently on his feet, I've had to remind him at least three or four times — I've lost count — to keep his remarks to vote 74. Sir, unless you now relate your remarks to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests, I must ask you to change your subject material.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Mr. Chairman, I must say that transportation is a very, very important part of the forest industry. Whether it's the highway transportation, rail transportation or other, transportation is a very vital part as you will realize, I'm sure.

What we're doing to our roads up in that part of the country this spring would make you cry, because they haven't been able to shut the roads down. They've had to allow the forest companies — in order for them to survive, to keep the forest industry going — to haul full loads over the highways of our province, and they're pounding those highways to pieces, Mr. Chairman. It's just an additional burden that the province is going to have to bear, and where does the province get its revenue from but from the forest industry?

I think it's something that all the members should start to remember and relate to. Unless we keep these prime industries healthy, unless we keep them in a proper economic balance, we're certainly going to be in a great deal of trouble in the very near future. A lot of other programmes are going to have to be cut back. But the prime concern at this time is the manpower situation, keeping a crew active in such areas as Fort Nelson, as Takla Lake, where there's no other access and where transportation is a major problem. Any delay or tie-up in a transportation link is very expensive and very critical to those people engaged in the forest industry, Mr. Chairman.

We are probably going to lose another great segment of the work force in the Prince George area very shortly if transportation isn't restored for them to get their logs out of the Takla Lake area where, as you probably realize, there is no other form of transportation besides the railway. So transportation is a very critical part of the forest industry and I think it's time this House spent some time on it and helped to get the show back on the road there.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer a few remarks under the Ministry of Forests' estimates, and I want to say that I listened with a good deal of interest and a good deal of empathy, I think, to the remarks that were made by the member for Skeena and the member for Fort George.

As a former Minister of Labour in the province of British Columbia, I certainly am keenly aware of the many problems that do beset the forest industry, quite aside from the wise management of the resource which is directly the minister's responsibility, with respect to not only the wise exploitation of the resource but the reforestation programmes, the wise perpetual use of our resource, which is basic to British Columbia's industry.

But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it's only natural that since I was one of the people charged with trying to find some fair balance of return in the forest industry, both to management and to the people employed as workers in that industry, I just want to offer some response to the remarks of the member for Skeena and the member for Fort George.

It's quite true that transportation is a significant factor in the forest industry, and perhaps that is one reason why the forest industry in British Columbia is able to afford a generally higher wage to the employees of the industry than their counterparts in the Pacific northwest south of the 49th parallel. Because we in British Columbia do have some natural advantages over our competitors south of the border in terms of competing for available markets.

One of those advantages that I want to draw to the attention, Mr. Chairman, of the House, and particularly the member for Fort George and the member for Skeena, is the fact that in British Columbia we generally have our resource more closely available to the market than is the circumstance south of the border — partly because, of course, we're a newer province and the frontiers have been pushed further back on the south side of the 49th. They've been at it much longer and therefore their haul is much longer, and, generally speaking, the size of the material being handled is smaller also.

But I think the most significant factor, Mr. Chairman, is the advantage that British Columbia holds in terms of water transportation, which is the cheapest form of transportation in the forest industry. We do have access to barging up and down the coast of British Columbia, indeed down to our market south of the 49th where the bulk of British Columbia's wood chips, where the bulk of their log supply and most of their lumber is marketed. It is an advantage.

Now this is a fact and I don't know why the government members are getting exercised over this factor. Mr. Chairman, this was a factor that was noted....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all wet!

[ Page 2568 ]

MR. KING: The member says I'm all wet. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the member has a one-sided view of the industry. He seems to represent simply the management side of the forest industry and has absolutely no regard for fair distribution of returns. He seems to have....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, we're not discussing the railroad, Mr. Chairman. We're discussing the forest industry under the estimates. I would suggest to the neophyte Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that if the government wishes to discuss the railroad, they should not be dealing with the estimates of different ministers. They should have called public bills and orders, Mr. Chairman. They apparently place no priority on that issue. They called the estimates of the minister and that's what we're dealing with.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: But we have a lot of new ministers over there. We have a lot of new members, and among the rest of the cabinet, Mr. Chairman, we have a very strange collection of political travellers who don't seem to know where they they belong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Liberals, Conservatives, Socreds — what a coalition it is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind the member that....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Leather-tongue!

MR. KING: They keep interrupting me. Mr. Chairman, the government seems intent on railroading everybody, and as much as I empathize with the railway problems — being a railroader for 30 years myself — I never appreciated railroading in the parliaments of Canada, and the opposition is not about to stand for that kind of approach.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are on the estimates of the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Mines and assorted other areas of responsibility, and I got up in a very temperate fashion, a very good-humoured fashion, to respond to some of the one-sided comments made by....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of character.

MR. KING: Oh, shame! That's a cutting remark! I'm cut to the quick!

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond in a very calm fashion to some of the realities of the forest industry, and quite frankly, all partisanship aside, I'm confident that all members of the House, regardless of what political stripe they represent, are concerned and interested in developing a secure industrial base for this province based on wise utilization, based on proper respect for environmental concerns, based on proper respect for human concerns.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's that parrot again, the little parrot, the minister of shovels. He keeps wanting to talk about railways. I'm not in charge of the House. I wish I were. I might have asked leave to call the railway issue, but unfortunately the government didn't place high enough priority on that. They go for estimates.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a farce you are! No wonder you are being replaced as leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 74, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) wears the mantle of an idiot. He wears the mantle of an idiot, and I hope you don't rule me out of order on that, Mr. Chairman. I didn't say he was an idiot. I said he wore the mantle of one and he wears it extremely well. He wears it extremely well.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the forestry is concerned, it is true that the province of British Columbia does have some natural advantages in terms of transportation. So there is a justifiable reason why the wages and salaries of the British Columbia workers are higher than those south of the border. But aside from that proposition I find it curious that a government that is elected to represent the totality of our citizens of this province should come down on the side of either management or labour in terms of making some judgment in this House on what is an acceptable level of compensation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the members from the north think that the wages of the workers are too high, fair enough. Fair enough but I suggest that if they're going to go down that road, then there should be some fair questions, some fair evaluation in this province and in this Legislature about the equality of compensation to all phases of our life, to all phases of

[ Page 2569 ]

our society, whether it be forestry workers, whether it be politicians, whether it be hotliners, whether it be athletes.

The day that this coalition right-wing government, Mr. Chairman, wants to indulge in that kind of evaluation of the advertising industry, for instance, which contributes not one iota, not one vestige of anything to the gross national product of this province, of this nation, the day they want to question the real estate brokers or the used-car dealers who produce nothing, and indeed the millionaire investors, then I say, fair enough, let's start placing some value on the relative functions of our society — fair enough.

But what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a one-sided dissertation from those representatives of industry who are only interested in seeing the basic resources of this province, whether it be mineral, whether it be wood products, fibre, or indeed any other product in this great and beautiful province of ours....

They put forward the position that the only legitimate and valid claim that the citizens and the workers of this province have is the employment that accrues from the exploitation of those resources. Mr. Chairman, that is the fundamental, the underlying difference that exists between the New Democratic Party and that coalition right-wing movement on the other side of the House. We believe that the people of British Columbia have an interest — indeed, they are the owners of the resource, be it the forest products, be it minerals, be it petroleum.

We believe that we are more than a banana republic where the peasants only obtain some paltry employment at wages dictated by right-wing extremists like that, Mr. Chairman, decrying the facts that British Columbians lead Canada, and indeed lead North America in the wage markets in some areas. I think that's something that we as a government, and we as a province, should be proud of, not something we're decrying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 74, please.

MR. KING: Yes, I'm talking about the economics of the forest industry, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about the ability of the forest industry to afford to the workers of this province a decent rate of compensation, a rate of compensation that transcends that in other jurisdictions. I don't know what jurisdictions the member is referring to. Was it south of the Mason-Dixon line or north of the Fort George line? Perhaps there is some analogy, I don't know.

Interjections.

MR. KING: But, Mr. Chairman, we believe that these resources ought to provide the greatest and highest rate of benefit to the economy of this province. And I want to say that wages are not something that are lost. They are not something that are taken out of the economic cycle of this province's interests. Wages are a factor that prime the economic pump in the small communities of the province. Wages are the factor that will allow workers in the community to afford some of the....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Listen, Mr. Chairman, to the intemperance — very exercised. Come down here and do a couple of handstands.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The members should rest silent and allow other members of this House to express their point of view. Perhaps it's the newness. I simply want to make the point that when any member of this House stands to put forward the unanimous interest that we all have, not only as legislators but as citizens of the province of British Columbia.... We're trying to stabilize not only the forest industry, the total economy of British Columbia....

There's my friend Jimmy going again. "Jobs," he used to cry at one time, jobs.

I think we should put forward, Mr. Chairman, a reasonable and a balanced perspective. I think we should put forward a rather impartial position as government, rather than representing solely the interests of either industry or labour. As a consequence I want to say, very frankly, that, yes, there is a responsibility on the labour side in this province, not only related to the forest industry, but related to other industries. I think perhaps, despite the fact that I have been a trade unionist all my life and a working man, and despite the fact that our party....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you've deserted the working man.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The man is intemperate, Mr. Chairman. Please ignore him and don't kick him out of the House. I wouldn't want you to lose your temper and rule that man out of order and kick him out of the House, because I feel sorry for him. He needs your sympathy. He needs my understanding and he needs the understanding and sympathy of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 74.

MR. KING: He has that from me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

[ Page 2570 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to say quite frankly that yes, there are flaws, many flaws, in our society and our economy.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, there are those sectors....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member insists on opening his mouth rather than keeping it closed and letting people think he's a fool. He keeps insisting on opening it and proving it. I wish he'd remain silent while I conclude my remarks.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're talking like you're 10 years old.

MR. KING: Gee whiz!

Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to put forward is some kind of a rational viewpoint in this rather hectic evening. I'm trying to appeal to the government not to take a blatantly one-sided approach, be it on the part of corporate management or be it on the part of labour. We have an obligation as legislators representing all of British Columbia to try to come up with some answers to the problems that are there.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, we're talking on the economics of the forest industry, Mr. Chairman. The members are not willing to listen.

What I am suggesting is that there is greed on the part of the corporations who are willing to take the largest profits that the traffic will bear. There are similar condemnations to be accorded and directed toward some trade unions, in certain cases, that make demands beyond what the industries are capable of paying.

That is somewhat of a commentary on our system — where we seem to feel that remuneration, financial reward, is the only fair motivation in our society. I decry that. I think that we should all have some dedication to the good of our province, to the good of our society. I think we should all have some love for the kind of job we are doing and be prepared to work hard at it regardless of the compensation.

But what strikes me as amusing, Mr. Chairman, is that they on that side are the greatest proponents of the free-market system of financial reward as being the end-all and be-all of our society and our values. But it seems to obtain, in the view of some of the government members, for only management's side.

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that many of the trade unions have become just an offshoot of capitalism. They have been trained very well by the corporate management of this province and this nation, and they are starting to outfox management at their own game by using their economic clout for extracting the last pound that the traffic will bear.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's blackmail.

MR. KING: "That's blackmail," he said. He never heard about chain stores in this province combining to buy out the small comer grocery store so as to put in their supermarket and squeeze them out. That's good business, but for the trade union movement to use the same ploy is blackmail. That's the measure of the man's fair value, Mr. Chairman; that's the measure of it.

I say to you that this kind of inflammatory discussion is not going to solve the problem anyway; it's not going to solve the problem. You can come in with overreactions.... Mr. Chairman, the government can bring in arbitrary high-handed solutions to say that this must not happen any more. But unless it's equitable and fair — unless it's seen to be that — it will not work. It has been tried before by previous right-wing administrations. There has to be some consensus.

MR. LLOYD: It took you three years to upset it.

MR. KING: Well, we made some progress, too.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Look, I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has made some good moves too — under your administration — some good moves. I think he's made errors — and I am going to talk about those errors — but he has made some good moves too. Thank goodness he is more rational than some of the back bench; thank goodness, for British Columbia's sake.

But I want to say to you that this kind of emotional overreaction is not going to help to solve problems. We can try and identify those problems, whether they be in industrial relations, whether they be in transportation....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is extremely exercised tonight. He seems to be highly emotional. He's making a great deal of noise, but I can't seem to make any sense out of his contribution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is perhaps typical of many members here tonight.

MR. KING: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: I don't

[ Page 2571 ]

want to take up the time of the committee too much longer — certainly not past 11 p.m. I want to say this: it's fine for the House to try to identify problems, and that should be our objective. Now we may disagree on identifying problems; we certainly will disagree on some of the causes. But surely the intelligent thing to try to do is to come up with some cures. I want to suggest to you what a number of those cures might be. I hope to do it in all humility, in all sincerity and free from any really inflammatory reaction, because I get very sensitive about those things. It bothers me a great deal; I might not sleep tonight. I just might not sleep tonight if I go home that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're on vote 74, Bill.

MR. KING: Don't get personal. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, some of the things that we have tried to do in the forest industry particularly — this relates to the problem of transportation in general way — was to come up with a system of industrial relations that would, for the first time in the history of the province of British Columbia, recognize some of the hard economics involved in the industry.

I have long hailed, as a practical trade unionist, as an arbitrator in labour matters, sitting not only on labour's side of the table, but sometimes on management's.... That may surprise the member for Fort George, but yes, I have sat on both sides. One of the things that used to impress me....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster on both sides!

MR. KING: Ah, that's so childish!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster on both sides.

MR. KING: I don't think so. I think there are people in the province who respect what I had to offer and who were fairly intelligent people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's why they threw you out of office.

MR. KING: The thing that used to strike me is the thing that stands before me now, that many people who got elected to public office, and placed in positions of responsibility, very often had no background and no training and no expertise for the position they were elected to perform. That manifests itself very eloquently tonight by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Mr. Chairman. I used to find that trade unionists were often elected at local public meetings sometimes simply because no one else took an interest.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier never turns his back on that member, and perhaps he'll be more secure in his position.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 74.

MR. KING: The intemperate member is trying to confuse my presentation. I'm talking to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) who is a rational man, probably one of the few.

What I'm saying is this: for goodness' sake, instead of the old horse-trading proposition in bargaining — which is the criterion, whether you're on labour's side or management's side, that is based on asking, by the trade union movement, for the moon, based on the proposition that then you will reach some median level, and conversely, management offering the floor because they feel eventually they will be obliged to raise it to the median level — I'm suggesting, and I had started to develop under the Department of Labour, in consultation with the then Minister of Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams), a system where bargaining was initiated on a bit more of a sophisticated level, where there was some ongoing economic analysis of the industry which took account of world markets in that particular industry. It also took account of productivity, took account of the need for plant expansion, took account of the cost-of-living factors in the region and in the province, took account, in other words, in short, of all of the economic factors both with which the industry is confronted as well as their work force.

This provided, as an independent, impartial third party, a data base, an impartial data base by which the workers could look at the performance of the industry in which they were engaged and determine whether or not their productivity, the profit margin of the company, its security on world markets, justified a demand of 2 per cent, a demand of 8 per cent, or a demand of 26 per cent. Conversely it presented, from an independent third party to the industry, a reasonable data base, a reasonable performance graph, of precisely how well the industry had done, so that neither side were any longer kidding each other.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a new approach. It's done in some of the Scandinavian countries; it's done in West Germany; it's done in some of the other European countries; and it's just

[ Page 2572 ]

one of the things, in my view, that has to start to develop before bargaining will become more realistic in this province. And bargaining in the forest industry does affect the economy of this province. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is quite right, although he tried to get into it too specifically: bargaining in the transportation industry affects the security of the forest industry, unquestionably.

But what are we going to do about it — start punishing one side? Are we, as a government, going to say that we, your elected representatives, believe that management is right and we believe labour is the culprit? That has been the tendency in the remarks that have been made here tonight.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Oh, no way.

MR. KING: Well, I hope that's right. That's the impression that's coming through, and I think that it's unfortunate because I believe the government is sincere, too, in trying to find a solution. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm quite sincere in trying to help them, because this is a dilemma that faces not only British Columbia; it's a dilemma that certainly crosses party lines in terms of the very basic and fundamental effect it has on all people in our province.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Did you notice how one party voted all day today?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the minister would listen....

Interjections.

MR. KING: No, I would never let him out, my friend. I'd keep him behind the tulip bulbs for the rest of his days if I had the control.

Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in putting forward some proposition, and I hope the members on the other side will try and listen without putting forward silly retorts.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the members will allow me to carry on, this is precisely what we had started to develop within the research branch of the Department of Labour.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Look at the ignorant partisanship, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

MR. KING: Ignorant partisanship is all we get rather than any desire for cooperation.

Interjections.

MR. KING: It's unfortunate.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to proceed with my theme, which the government is not interested in listening to...they apparently seem to feel the only remedy is in rather vindictive and reactionary remedies, rather than some reasonable response. They seem to think the only possible way of conducting the people's business is on the basis of partisan charges, rather than any cooperative spirit in this Legislature to try and solve problems.

I want to say to you....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the forest industry.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I'm not going to shout, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Members, I have just allowed the House to run its full sway for the last two minutes just to see what happens when a House is bent on being in disorder and in disarray. This is the end result of what happened in the early hours of this committee. I must say I'm not proud to be its Chairman.

We now have 10 minutes left. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor. Let's have orderly conduct for these last few minutes.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the Chair for the difficulty you have had

[ Page 2573 ]

this evening. It has been a difficult evening. I want to say that it is a bad day for British Columbia when we see members in this House, their faces contorted with rage, making spectacles of themselves. I don't think debate should ever become that intense that members debate in a hateful way.

The proposition I was putting forward, Mr. Chairman, was that it is possible to come up with some fair, balanced appraisal of the economics of the forest industry and other industries — basic industries, particularly — in the province. I had started to work on and indeed had gone quite a way in developing the capability of the research branch of the Department of Labour to do this kind of monitoring, so that statistics were available to trade unions on the one hand and to management on the other to have a hard look at the economic performance and, as a result, to go into bargaining, tailoring their demands to the economic reality of what was possible within that industry. Now surely this is common sense, and surely there is that kind of independent third-party appraisal that is necessary. I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's the role and responsibility of government to give that kind of leadership.

That was just one of the things. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I seem to have had so much heckling and interference tonight that I'm prevented from dealing with a number of other areas. I honestly and frankly believe that we as a government, when we were in office, and the new coalition government have a responsibility to undertake. It relates to the education of the people who are involved in the bargaining process. I want to draw your attention to the fact that people who are elected, both on the union side and on the management side, frequently find themselves in a position holding tremendous economic power, often with no preparation or training for that responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: I'll conclude, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that under those circumstances surely the government has an obligation to expend some public funds to ensure that the people holding that kind of economic and social power have the expertise to exercise it responsibly, which is a demand that we as a public make upon them all. For that reason I hope they will continue with the Labour College of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your acknowledging me. I just want to say in speaking on vote 74 how really sorry I was to hear the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), who is not presently in his seat, get up and speak on this vote and say that this afternoon the debate which we had in this House on the rights of married women to community of property was a waste of time.

I just want to say that in speaking on vote 74, Mr. Chairman, which has to do with the Department of Forestry and certainly with the expenses involved with the Department of Forestry, I am certainly going to see to it that the women in those two ridings know that their member stood in this House, in speaking on the vote, and insisted that the debate we had this afternoon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 74, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on vote 74...because those two members were speaking on vote 74, if I may remind you.... Those two members were speaking on vote 74 when they alluded to the fact that the debate we had this afternoon on the rights of married women in their constituencies — many of whom work for them and voted for them — was a waste of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not on vote 74, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: No, Mr. Chairman, it is during their debate, during their discussion. You know, while I am speaking on vote 74, I really want to say that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) takes his publicity too seriously...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on vote 74.

MS. BROWN:...the fact that he has been referred to as the power behind the throne.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN:...and the chief architect...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN:...and the silver-tongued, the leather-lunged....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, what are they doing to my estimates? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Burrard continues — please, on vote 74.

MS. BROWN: I really am speaking on 74. Mr. Chairman, we are debating the minister's estimates

[ Page 2574 ]

and I am particularly interested in vote 74 where it refers to office expenses and shows a figure of $3,500, where really this is another instance of the department of mining exploiting the women of this country. Who is working for that $3,500, and what does that $3,500 involve?

Maybe when the minister gets up to answer this I question he will make a comment or two about the statements made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and by the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) who stood in their places in discussing his vote, vote 74.... I refer to the very serious debate which we had this afternoon on the rights of women...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: ...in their riding, and they said it was nothing and that it was a waste of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. I have directed you now three times to refrain from that line of debating.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have written down a few notes about some of the comments made tonight, but the time is drawing late. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.