[ Page 2305 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

School taxes. Mr. Barber — 2305

Location of Premier's staff. Mr. Lea — 2305

GAIN benefits. Mr. Gibson — 2306

School taxes. Mr. Stephens — 2306

ICBC and Royal Insurance Ltd. Mr. Cocke — 2307

Log dump in Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace — 2307

Mobile Home'Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 26) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2308

Mr. Barber — 2308

Second reading — 2309

Forest Act (Bill 14) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2311

Mr. King 2312

Mr. Barrett — 2325

Mr. Levi — 2331

Mr. Lockstead — 2337

Wrongful Dismissal Act (Bill M 218) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 2340

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1978

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The gentleman leading us in prayers today is from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, the Rev. Charles Barker of Sidney Pentecostal Church. In view of his close association with one constituency, would the House like to welcome him?

MR. CALDER: I would like the hon. members to join me in welcoming two arrivals from Tokyo: Mrs. Koshibe, my mother-in-law — this is her first visit to Canada — and, of course, my wife Tamaki.

MR. SHELFORD: I would like the members to welcome Mayor Fred Shortreid, Andy Beerda, Barry Holmberg and Ron Purnell, all of Smithers.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a former member of the B.C. Lions team in absentia. He was here, but he had to leave. Mr. Duke Washington from Seattle was up for the 25th anniversary celebrations in Vancouver over the past few days, and I would just like the House to make him welcome in absentia.

Oral questions.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The school board of Greater Victoria, which the Minister of Education has praised for closing schools to cut costs, has published in the form of an advertisement an official statement that indicates that its total budget increased only 1.5 per cent this year, but which also indicates that taxation for school purposes has increased in the same school district by 15.45 per cent. Does the minister deny the statement of School District 61 that the reason is that a larger share of education costs has been assigned to local taxpayers by the Ministry of Education?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: On a supplementary question. Now that School District 61 has also been accused by this government of sneaky and deceptive practices, specifically by the minister just now who denied the statement they made, will the minister also deny a statement further made by the board that the minister's action is directly responsible for adding no less than $3.7 million to the property taxes of greater Victoria ratepayers this year? If the minister says that, will he in fact demand a public retraction from School District 61 claiming that they have lied and misrepresented the case?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and no, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?

LOCATION OF PREMIER'S STAFF

MR. LEA: I wonder if the Premier could tell me whether any of the following people have ever had their office base in Kelowna: Messrs. Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett. All presently have their office space in the Premier's office here in Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this the same question that I remember being asked yesterday?

MR. LEA: No, its not.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From time to time my office space is in Kelowna, and from time to time it's being used by all members of my office relating to their duties.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, I'm not asking whether those people have ever been in Kelowna doing work; I'm asking whether their base has ever been in Kelowna as opposed to Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this new question is part of the question I took as notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary question to a question on notice?

MR. LEA: No, he answered the first question.

I would like to ask the Premier whether any of the same people — Messrs. Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett — have ever had their home base in Vancouver as opposed to Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again that's part of a question I took as notice yesterday.

MR. LAUK: Aren't you talking to your staff? Can't you find out?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was in Vancouver.

[ Page 2306 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A further question to a question taken on notice?

MR. LEA: No, it's a separate question. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he is telling me that he has no idea whether his close personal staff is based in Victoria or Vancouver or Kelowna.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling the member exactly what I told him yesterday — that during the early time of employment of many of my staff there were certain conditions of employment, that particularly those who were required to move were given certain conditions. I took the question as notice.

MR. LEA: Further to the Premieres answer. In those early days, were any of those people — Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett — based anywhere other than Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the question that the member for Prince Rupert asked yesterday and has tried to ask in various ways today, and I will bring the information. It just so happens that this morning I was in Vancouver, giving a $750,000 cheque to the Pearson Hospital for a therapeutic swimming pool, and haven't had a chance to dig out any information of this nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, was that a personal cheque or the taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, its an unusual question, but it having been admitted, we're now going to have to admit the answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it was a cheque on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia.

GAIN BENEFITS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took an answer as notice from the Minister of Mines. I've studied it and I still don't understand it, so I'm going to study it again and ask a question today of the Minister of Human Resources.

Early in August, 1977, the minister was referring to section 8 of the GAIN Act, which provides for GAIN benefits to be indexed automatically as the cost of living rises. He was quoted as saying then: "We are working towards implementing section 8, but we're still working to get rid of inequities." Is the minister not aware that for every day the cost of living benefits are not added to GAIN benefits, those very inequities are getting worse? When does he propose to move on this?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When we're ready, Mr. Speaker. When all the information is available.

MR. GIBSON: That's not an acceptable answer. What information is he still awaiting in order to implement this promise made by his government two years ago? What information is required?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the details of that, Mr. Speaker. But certainly whatever information is required, it's that information needed to arrive at a reasonable and logical working arrangement.

MR. GIBSON: That means nothing — absolutely nothing.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I would like to know whether in preparation of the new assessment method for property it was the intention of his government to shift the school tax burden onto the urban areas where the highest land values exist.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there was no intention other than the recommendations from the Assessment Authority to move to accurate assessment figures, raising some that had been too low, lowering more which had been too high, as based on the McMath report. That was the basis for the Assessment Authority's recommendations for this legislation. This had been subject to discussion in this Legislature prior to this government, but it was withdrawn by other governments out of fear, I guess.

MR. STEPHENS: I would like to ask this of the Premier: since it was not his government's intention to shift the tax burden onto the urban areas, is he aware that that is precisely what has happened?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Assessment Authority under the mandate they had, and looking at the McMath report, have attempted to do just one thing: provide a fair basis of assessment on real value for all properties, and move towards equalization of assessment so that nobody would be overassessed or underassessed, as they were before. It was to bring a measure of

[ Page 2307 ]

equality that did not exist to all taxpayers in this province no matter where they reside. It is not this government's intention to play one property owner against the other or one area of the province against the other. The Assessment Authority had a single mandate and that was to bring equality, and equality is what we stand for.

MR. STEPHENS: I have a further supplementary. I will accept the Premier's statement that his intentions were honourable and good and that his government's intentions were the same. But does he in fact know what has happened, that his intentions have not been met and that the school tax burden has in fact been shifted to the urban landowners?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question is supposition. What was offered to the various municipalities was, I believe, three different ways in which, over a period of time, they could work towards this equalization. In assessing the peculiarities or needs of their own region or municipality or area they could choose any one of the formulas to lessen any impact on any category. As such, we have, I believe, various of these formulas being adopted in various areas. On completion of the timeframe, I believe all areas will have equality of assessment. That is what they attempted to do. Some local option was given and various councils had the option of which formula they would use in moving towards equality.

ICBC AND ROYAL INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Minister of Education. This is another chapter in the love affair between ICBC and Royal Insurance. Will the minister explain why the owner of an ICBC-insured car which is rear-ended and suffering no damage has to make a claim if the offending driver, and only the offending driver, is covered by Royal Insurance? Is it because ICBC on agreement will be paying half the Royal claim?

HON. MR. McGEER: As I have explained to the House before, all cars in British Columbia are ICBC-insured cars. That's a condition of getting the decal. If it's a two-car collision or a one-car collision, ICBC is involved. Therefore it is appropriate that the assessment of the damage be done by an ICBC adjuster.

MR. COCKE: I was rear-ended the other day in a rather old....

HON. MR. MCGEER: You should watch your behind, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: There was no damage to my car, Mr. Speaker, but I have ICBC coverage all the way, and the person who hit me had too. Poor little Honda wrecked the front end. I didn't have to make a claim, however, but a Royal insured does, because ICBC splits the claim with Royal Insurance. You call it knock for knock, but it's not. I would like the minister to get up and explain this knock-for-knock theory. All insured cars in the province are covered for property damage under ICBC but this knock for knock is a one-way street, Mr. Speaker. It's a sweetheart deal.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a very lengthy statement, but we will accept it as a question.

HON. MR. McGEER: If there's a knock-knock, ICBC answers in the insurance field! (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the knock-for-knock theory is one that applies to a deal with your own insurance company system, which was a possibility for British Columbia whereby the private insurers would be able to participate in compulsory insurance. Now I had a number of discussions with the private insurers and they were not interested in that scheme. That's why ICBC is handling all the compulsory insurance in British Columbia. Again, it's to ICBC's advantage, since if it were your fault — and I'm sure in this case it wasn't your fault — then ICBC would be obliged to pay on your behalf as the insured on a liability basis.

On the other hand, if it was entirely the other person's fault, then of course you are not liable but they are. If their collision is with the Royal Insurance Company, we have to establish that at ICBC by doing the adjusting.

MR. COCKE: I took a long time to tell the minister that if we're both Royal insureds and one isn't damaged, the one doesn't have to make a claim. There's a lot more work and expense that we're going to. I'm just asking the minister when we are going to stop subsidizing Royal Insurance at the expense of all the insured in the province.

LOG DUMP IN COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker, and it follows on a question I asked him on May 29 regarding the Cowichan Bay. Can the minister confirm that the cease-and-desist order, which he indicated was issued, was in fact issued on

[ Page 2308 ]

May 29 by telegram?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the instructions were offered by way of letter.

MRS. WALLACE: Can you give me the date?

MR. SPEAKER: The bell ends the question period.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 26.

MOBILE HOME AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the Mobile Home Act, which Bill 26 before us today amends, was in fact debated in second reading exactly one year ago today, June 14, 1977, at the evening sitting. I think members on both sides of the House will understand, sir, that with new legislation such as that, with the experience in the private sector on the part of manufacturers, dealers in mobile homes and, most importantly, the consumers, a number of minor problems or deficiencies in the main legislation were found to be apparent and capable of correcting one year later.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals largely with technical matters brought to light from our review of the first bill last year, and out of our experience in the operation of the Mobile Home registry to date. The mobile home industry, including manufacturers, dealers and lenders, was consulted by the ministry and some of the proposed amendments deal specifically with recommendations made by them for improving the legislation.

Without intruding into committee stage debate, sir, the main provisions of the amending Act deal with the following matters.

First, the existing transitional provisions which deal with the registration of documents previously registered under other Acts, and their priorities under those Acts, are to be amended for greater clarity.

Secondly, a system of interim registrations will be established to ensure that persons dealing in mobile homes will be able to register their transactions more quickly and with more confidence in the effectiveness of those registration. This we expect will ease or alleviate existing cash-flow problem in the mobile home industry and will simplify consumer transactions.

Third, the concept of filing a financing statement will be introduced so that those intending to extend the credit on the security of a mobile home may, by Telex, reserve time at the registry — its head office in Victoria — within which to register their security.

The definition of mobile home parks is to be amended in order to extend the benefits of the provincial homeowner grant to a greater number of mobile home owners, approximately 14,000 persons. Mobiles on rented land previously excluded from eligibility for home purchase assistance are now eligible.

Fifthly, Mr. Speaker, the provisions dealing with the exemption of mobile homes is to be altered to provide more flexibility in conferring exempt status on mobile homes which become affixed to land in circumstances where they are considered to be part of the realty.

Finally, the time period for the registration of foreign security instruments will be shortened so the priority of registered British Columbia securities will not be upset by the subsequent registration of foreign securities. Again, this should be of benefit in the consumer transactions in mobile homes.

There are other amendments, Mr. Speaker, all of them quite literally, I believe, of a housekeeping nature or consequential upon the amendments that I have just outlined. The registration system, sir, which was established by the Mobile Home Act last year is unique to British Columbia and the first of its kind in Canada. Those who are required to use the registration system must be able to do so with confidence and in the knowledge that their registration will effectively protect their interests. I'm confident that the proposed amendments in this bill will achieve the objective and, therefore, with respect to Bill 26, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition. First of all I want to say that the official opposition intends to support this bill. Thank you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, these lengthy debates are ridiculous. They achieve nothing. They confuse the gallery. They give the press gallery — which is not present, of course — no story. The deputy minister has 18 volumes of notes.

I call the question on second reading.

[ Page 2309 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, second reading, of Bill 14, the Forest Act.

FOREST ACT

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the House to the fact that six and a half pages of amendments have been introduced to the Forest Act at the commencement of the sitting today and, in the absence of any opportunity to study these amendments and understand whether or not the principle of the bill is altered, it is impossible to debate the bill in an intelligent way. I think it would be most irresponsible to proceed with the debate on such a fundamentally important bill without an opportunity to study these voluminous amendments that have just been introduced this day.

I ask the government to consider changing the order of business today to allow for reasonable time to study the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, does the minister have an opinion?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes. The amendments as tabled today appear quite long, but in fact they are amendments to add consistency and clarity to some of the wording of the bill. However, there are a couple of amendments that I will explain to you right now, and they are quite simple and straightforward, really.

Amendments to sections 14, 15, 33, 38, 39 and 44 simply require that advance notice be published when existing tenures are rolled into new forms of tenure. This will provide people with an opportunity to respond to the ministry concerning rollovers. Those are a number of amendments with the same single purpose.

Amendments to section 53 will eliminate a potential inequity among the holders of timber licences concerning deletions from licences inside and outside tree farm....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Without going into debate on the content of the amendments, the House just needs an assurance that perhaps the amendments do not affect the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the amendments do no affect the principle of the bill at all. They are slight modifications of the way and the speed with which certain things can be done.

MR. SPEAKER: With a further opinion, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, with respect to appropriate parliamentary authorities, I would draw your attention to page 361 of May, 18th edition, which speaks to change of terms of notice of motion. These amendments, I understand, do constitute a notice of motion, having been laid on the table today and first appearing before our eyes today on our desks. May states: "A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted if the amended motion does not exceed the scope of the original notice. If a motion is proposed which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the House or by a new notice."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that some of the amendments here, which total amendments to 38 full sections in this bill, are amendments which importantly respect the principle of this bill. section 53 is one of the important sections of the bill in terms of deletions and reductions. It's absolutely central to the principle of the management of treefarm licences. And I should say to you that section 53 is completely rewritten by these amendments. section 55, again, is a critical part of this bill, having to do with reduction of annual allowable cut — one of the fundamentals of the forest industry in this province. One of the sections of that is completely rewritten.

Now, Mr. Speaker, beyond that, having had only about five minutes to study these six pages of proposed amendments, it is very difficult to say how much more extensively the principle might be affected. But I say to you, sir, it is wrong to expect this House to debate a bill which is changed at the last moment by the introduction of amendments by the minister, and we should have at least a day to look at these amendments. Go on to some other business today and come back to this tomorrow, because it's not right to ask members to proceed in that way.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to submit that it is not good enough to gain the assurance from the minister that the bill has not been changed in principle. That may well be his opinion, but the interpretation and the understanding of the amendments are subject to

[ Page 2310 ]

differences of opinion and differences of interpretation. That is the whole reason why time is required to study these and formulate our opinion as an opposition as to just how they precisely alter the bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, normally when a bill is introduced the opposition should be prepared to debate that bill forthwith. Certainly that was always the case when I sat in the opposition. But I'm sure, should the opposition be once more unprepared, that they have the option of adjourning the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to all of the opinions and some of the, members have touched on some very important factors. One of the factors is this: that amendments that are introduced which affect a bill cannot be determined by the Chair in second reading, as to whether or not they are in order. After all, those amendments will be considered in committee of the whole, which is the stage following second reading. I would suggest that the House, in calling for second reading debate, is running the risk of having amendments perhaps found out of order. However, that risk is not taken by the Chair, not even suggested nor even constrained by the Chair. That risk is taken by the Hon. minister carrying the bill in the House.

Furthermore, we cannot delay the debate on second reading by virtue of the fact that amendments have been introduced.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I may draw your attention again to that citation in May, I want to underline it: "a modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper." That's what we're talking about here.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a bill, not a notice of motion.

MR. GIBSON: No, but it's a notice of calling the bill. A modification is permitted if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice. Now I'm arguing that these amendments do exceed the scope of the original notice or bill and that when we have notice that the bill is to be debated, that is in essence what the order paper sets forward.

Therefore the government simply can't make such substantial changes by laying them on the table at the last moment. The government would be perfectly in order had it withheld these proposed changes until after debate on second reading. But it did not do that; it chose to lay the notice on the table now. So I say we must have the appropriate notice for that, which is two days.

MR. SPEAKER: The further observation is also well received. However, the determination as to whether or not these amendments are in order, out of order or beyond the scope of the bill is going to be determined at a future stage. It's going to be determined in committee of the full House. The debate at the present moment is going to be on the principle of the bill itself. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has to assume the risk of the bill proceeding at this time.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not asking you to rule whether or not the amendments are in order. That's impossible at this stage and they've received insufficient notice. My point is that were a bill being introduced today de novo it would require two days' notice, and I suggest that since the bill is so substantially changed by the amendments that have been laid on the table today, the changed bill, of which notice has been given, itself requires two days' notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think all hon. members are aware that just because a notice of amendment or an amendment itself is placed upon the table doesn't necessarily mean that amendment will be called for, or that it will eventually affect the intent of the bill. Therefore the Chair can see no reason not to proceed with second reading at this time.

MR. KING: On a point of order. The Minister of Education — I don't know whether He's acting, as House Leader or not — did agree to adjournment of the debate; it seemed to me. My only further statement would be that if the House would be prepared to grant leave for me to retain my position in the debate on a subsequent date, I would certainly be prepared to move the adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education spoke only as a member of the House, to my knowledge.

HON. MR. MAIR: I thought I was the House Leader. Your assumption as to what position the Minister of Education took is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. He was speaking on his own behalf and not on behalf of the government. I am the House Leader for the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the clarification.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I will briefly explain

[ Page 2311 ]

what the amendments mean. As I said earlier....

MR. SPEAKER: We are now on the principle of the bill. The amendments must be discussed in committee.

HON MR. WATERLAND: The 1978 Forest Act replaces a very old and somewhat creaky, and, in many aspects, obsolete 1912 Forest Act. The new Forest Act brings the statutory basis for managing our major resource into the present era. The new Forest Act has been prepared on certain basic general foundations. One is that there should be a general policy of sustained yield in forest harvesting in British Columbia. Secondly, there should be a policy of maintaining within reason a diversified mix of companies within the industry in terms of size, structure and ownership pattern. This does not imply that big is necessarily bad, nor that small is necessarily good, but that there should be ample room in the industry for all sizes if they are all efficient and if they all manage the resource well.

The government is and should continue to be the custodian of the resource, but there should be a continuation of the historic concept of sharing management responsibilities between government and the private sector. All forest resource talents should be used to assure the best management of a public resource and the obvious economic benefits that flow from the resource. Much of the tenure system that has evolved in the province is good, and in many cases is uniquely suited to meet the demands and needs of British Columbia. The need therefore is not for a wholesale revision, but for simplification, improvement and the removal of obvious inequities in the existing system. In this regard I would like to quote from commissioner Dr. Peter H. Pearse's report of the royal commission on forest resources. Concerning tree-farm licences Dr. Pearse said:

"From the point of view of resource management, tree-farm licences have met, if not exceeded, expectations, and they have been an effective instrument for bringing under management many otherwise unregulated Crown-granted lands and old temporary tenures, as well as extensive tracts of Crown forest.

"The proprietary interest that licencees have developed in these lands, incentives the system has provided, and the priority given them by the Forest Service have produced the highest standard of forest management in this province, a standard that in many cases is high by international comparisons as well. With few exceptions both the Forest Service and the licensees are proud of the rapid improvement of resource management under these tenures."

Concerning timber sale harvesting licences, Dr. Pearse said:

"As current timber sale harvesting licences expire, they should be replaced with a modified tenure in the form of forest licences. These licences should not be designed to provide a particular plant with all its expected timber needs, but should be based instead on manageable units of Crown forest land which are capable of yielding enough timber to supply a significant portion of a typical mill's requirements."

Concerning pulpwood harvesting agreements, Dr. Pearse said:

"Pulpwood agreements should be the preferred form of right for new manufacturing ventures requiring raw material that can be provided in the form of residues from around wood milling enterprises."

Mr. Speaker, neither the royal commissioner nor this government proposes drastic revisions of the existing system. Some self-interest groups have clamoured for wholesale redistribution of timber rights. Again, neither this government nor the royal commission recommended this, nor is there any valid reason to do so. The objective is to achieve good management through tenure security and not to impede good management through chaotic disruption of employment, communities or investment security, or by any further delay in concluding a process that has been underway for six years.

Some people are asking for more time to study this legislation. Let me remind this Legislature that we are in the sixth year of this process now. Major aspects of the process began under the former NDP administration. There has been enough time and enough opportunities for all interests to make their views known. The process has been exhaustive, objective and thorough. All interests will never be satisfied, but I believe the best possible balance has been struck. The concepts of environmental protection, multiple use and consideration of balanced and rational public concerns are recognized throughout the Forest Act as valid operational procedures within the basic priority of better forest management.

I would like to quote the remarks of the Hon. William R. Ross, Minister of Lands, made in this Legislature in 1912, when debate began on the second reading of the 1912 Forest Act.

"Sir, a certain solemnity of its own surrounds the introduction of this forest

[ Page 2312 ]

bill. An epic is condemned, a new epic inaugurated. A turning point in the development of this great, young province has been reached. We raise ourselves today above transitory interests of this week, this year. We glance down the vista of the years to come, and, turning from that vision of the future, we call the world to witness that we legislate today not only for ourselves and the needs of this day and this generation, but also and no less for our children's children and for all prosperity, that we may hand down to them their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, the principle of the 1978 Forest Act is the attainment of better forest management through good licensing systems, fairness and incentives.

I have received many letters regarding this Act. Nearly all make the observation that the Act is clearly written in simple and understandable language. That being the case, there is no need for me to delay debate, because the Act speaks for itself. Obviously a few bugs are going to appear in this Act as it is used over the next several years. Of course, the Act can be amended to rectify these if necessary.

Let us debate the substance of the 1978 Forest Act, and not fall to political posturing.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed and perplexed that the minister would handle this very important bill in the particular way that it has been handled today.

On the eve of the sitting today, we had very substantial amendments released to the House, which I do not intend to discuss. Nevertheless, we are conducting a debate in second reading on principle on a bill we know has been substantially changed by the amendments introduced today. To some extent at least, these amendments make today's debate superfluous and redundant. I think that is an act of gross irresponsibility an behalf of the Minister of Forests. To treat a bill of such major and fundamental significance to the future of this province in this rather cavalier way is absolutely unforgivable.

Then we have a five-minute dissertation by the minister on a bill that is going to affect forest land use in this province for the next 25 years at least and for an unspecified and unlimited period of time in the future, from the point of view of many, because of the perpetual nature of many of the allocations of timber that are made in this bill. It's just an absolutely unbelievable approach to a statute as fundamentally important as this one. Quite frankly, it's the most irresponsible performance I have ever witnessed in this Legislature on something as basic and important as this particular statute.

We're not just talking about the forest industry per se. We're not just talking about the IWA, who are the workers in the forest industry. We are talking about every individual citizen of this province, whose destiny and future and security and lifestyle is affected by the contents of this statute. It's a cliché to say that in excess of 50 per cent of the total revenue of this province is extracted from the forest industry, but it's true. To have this kind of approach to the introduction to the public understanding and to some realistic, intelligent dialogue on this particular bill is just unbelievable and just unacceptable. I can't believe that this has been the direction and the approach taken by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that, if the minister has confidence in the statute, if he really has any confidence that this statute — which, admittedly, is overdue — really holds some solid material in terms of changing the direction in a positive way for the management of our timber resource, he would have wanted great public understanding; I would have thought that he would have been proud enough to stand up and go into some detail about precisely what he hoped to achieve by this statute, rather than dealing in the very cursory way in which he has dealt with it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to treat the bill in the form that the statute has been resting on the order paper of this Legislature for the last two or three weeks, and that means ignoring altogether any change that may be implied in the amendments that have been presented. And I want to tell you that on the basis of my investigation, my study of the statute, and certainly wide consultation with professional people in the field, foresters, enterprises large and small, the working people who are involved in the forest industry, and a variety of other organizations such as the Sierra Club and local citizens' groups, I feel safe in saying that the Act, in fact, is a monument to a weak and inept minister which will haunt this particular government for the next 25 years.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just inter-

[ Page 2313 ]

rupt you, please. The authorities provide that in second reading on a bill, the debate on this stage of the bill should be confined to the bill itself and should not be extended to a criticism of administration — opportunity for that is provided during estimates. Perhaps the hon. member would like to confine his remarks to the bill itself, rather than referring to the administration.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the administration of the bill; I'm talking about the particular way in which this bill has been handled and introduced, and I think that's a valid matter for discussion. However, I am moving on to my assessment of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's a first-class bill.

MR. KING: Whether or not it's a first-class bill, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government themselves apparently had very little confidence in the statute, when it's been handled in the particular way that it has.

The minister has brought the mining mentality to the management of the forest resources in this province, in my view. Instead of wise husbandry, through a sustained-yield concept and even-flow objective, the Act stimulates increased cutting of timber without adequate regard for current inventory and regeneration needs. In my view, in short, the timber resource is treated more like a non-renewable ore than a replaceable crop which must be harvested and which must be replaced for future generations.

I'm seriously concerned that the sustained yield concept is abandoned in this particular statute. Absent from the Act is the requirement for large, integrated firms to compete for timber supply in this province. Rather, through the increased tenure which is virtually perpetual monopoly, control of Crown resources by the eight major forest companies is further entrenched and solidified. While it's true to say that large capital investment requires some security of tenure, such a need in my view does not imply the right to monopolization of the resource. I noted in the minister's opening remarks that he quoted the Pearse report and dealt with the positive advantages of the tree-farm licences over the years; but he neglected to talk about the shortcomings, which were also discussed in the Pearse royal commission report. And I think its significant that Dr. Peter Pearse advocated that none of the major companies in this province — or, indeed, no quota holder — should have secure tenure on 100 per cent of his milling needs. He, in fact, advocated that they should not hold in quota or by licence more than 80 per cent of their particular timber needs on an annual-cut basis. Pearse advocated, as a means of stimulating efficiency in the forest industry and as means of introducing some competitiveness for the resource, that all companies should have to compete in an open bidding system for at least 20 per cent of their needs. There is nowhere in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that such a concept is embodied or enshrined.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'd like to go back a little bit with respect to the history of forest management in this province and just review some of the findings and some of the attitudes that were held when the Sloan commission sat in 1955 to review the health of the forest industry in his province.

Mr. Speaker, a generation and a half ago perpetual timber supply was given to selected companies on the theory security of supply would cause them to invest in stable, secure, job-creating manufacture and ensure continued ability to sell products in world markets. At that particular time, opponents of the plan giving evidence to Chief Justice Sloan in 1955 said the theory would not work. Significantly, H.R. MacMillan was an articulate opponent at that particular time. I want to refer to some of the quotes of H.R. MacMillan as contained in the Sloan royal commission report: "A few companies would acquire control of the resource and form a monopoly. It will be managed by professional bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse viewpoint who, never having had rain in their lunch bucket, would abuse the forest." H.R. MacMillan said that this monopoly would become a "stagnating, depressing blanket on the economy, and the participants, unable to compete in the world market, would resort to sharing the residual segment of it obtained from buyers who could not fill requirements elsewhere." That is, B.C. would become a producer of last resort." Public interest, he suggested, "would be victimized "because vigorous, innovative citizen business needed to provide the efficiency of competition would be denied logs and thereby prevented from penetration of the market."

Politicians in this generation should re-study the royal commission report and examine the situation existing on the coast today. Bearing in mind the concerns and the predictions raised by H.R. MacMillan in 1955, one should look at the concentration of power

[ Page 2314 ]

in the forest industry on the coast, particularly today.

There are eight multinational companies, Mr. Speaker, all but one foreign controlled or dominated, who control all tree-farm licences, almost all private forest lands, all temporary tenures and half the public sustained yield units. With that, they control 80 per cent of the log supply and a surplus to their own needs in terms of their milling and manufacturing plants one and a half times greater than all the supply allowed the domestic citizen entrepreneur. That's the kind of concentration and the kind of monopoly that has developed basically as a result of the direction, the tree-farm licences, the quota that was allowed in the past under the old Social Credit government. That is precisely what both Sloan and Dr. Peter Pearse latterly urged the government to move away from. They urged the government to move away by giving the industry a good old shot of old-fashioned, good, competitive free enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I find it just absolutely shocking that this government, who represented themselves as free enterprisers in the last election, should discard the concept and not only allow the continued monopolization of the forest, but entrench it by statute so that the forests of British Columbia will be tied up in the tight monopoly grasp of eight major companies without the opportunity for the small entrepreneur to enter the market or to enter the industry for the next 25 to 35 years at least. In terms of how the new conceptual, evergreen clause will be handled, Mr. Speaker, it could be virtual perpetuity in terms of the licence replacement for all the different kind of quota allocations under the new statute. I don't think the minister understands it himself. I honestly do not believe that the minister, who has a background in the mining industry, understands the difference in the management concepts of a renewable crop, such as our forest industry, as opposed to the extraction of raw ore from the ground which cannot be replaced. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps he's been taken in by the bureaucrats and by the self-interest groups in the forest industry who seek to protect their own security at the expense of the public interest.

I wonder about some of the backbenchers who have been involved in the forest industry on a small basis. I wonder about the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), who is a hard-working individual, who is an entrepreneur in the real sense of being willing and able to get out and do some good hard work, and by the sweat of his brow carve out a little niche for himself in this province. There's no opportunity whatsoever under this bill. The resource is all tied up; the allocation is all made. It's a shocking situation.

Very unfortunately, Bob Williams is not here when we need him. I certainly wish he was when I look at this statute and weep. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many hundreds of small operators in this province who wish Bob William was here also. Many of them are saying it publicly, at long last.

MR. KAHL: Name one.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to examine the MacMillan Bloedel situation. Within a decade of Mr. MacMillan's retirement, and despite his well-stated warning to his own company in 1955, its efficiency skidded downward faster and hit the bottom sooner than other members of the coastal monopoly. That is MacMillan Bloedel. Diagnosis of MacMillan Bloedel's situation documents the reason why Bill 14 should be amended by deleting sections 27 (10), 49 (2) and 147 and certainly amending and restating section 33 (2) to require that a timber supply available to any company should not exceed the needs of the log-using capacity of the manufacturing plant owned by that company.

This means the redistribution of timber right now. It doesn't mean wiping out the security and the life of existing corporations and plants. It simply means freeing up some of the timber for competition in an open way so that there is an opportunity for the market to establish the real value of logs, so that there is a situation where there is free and true competition in the forest industry in the province of British Columbia at long last. It means no more perpetual licences. It means reasonable tenure to a limited amount of the needs of each company, of each licence holder. I think the government has been remiss. I think they have been really remiss and they should be ashamed. In terms of protecting the public interest, their duty is to protect the public interest by following their recommended courses of the Pearse report. They have just completely neglected to do so, and abandoned the meat and substance of his recommendations altogether.

What happens in the kind of monopoly situation that we have seen with the coast industry, particularly over the past 25 years? It's not only that large companies form a monopoly, squeeze out competition, destroy any ability to establish the true value of the log through an open bidding system. It's not only that, Mr. Speaker. There's a tendency to increase

[ Page 2315 ]

foreign control of our resource. Many of these companies are foreign-dominated corporations. Dr. Peter Pearse stated his concern over that drift and that tendency toward monopoly foreign domination of our basic forest resource.

MacMillan Bloedel in the 15 years since 1962 has made very major capital investments in Alabama, in Europe, in Brazil and in the Far East. With the exception of refining its pulp and paper operations in British Columbia, nothing has been done to upgrade its B.C. log manufacturing operations. It has taken its earnings, deferred income tax and depreciation allowances to create new ventures outside of British Columbia, leaving behind a technologically obsolete, mismanaged and inefficient lumber, plywood, shingle and other log-using operations. This is the history of MacMillan Bloedel. It is public knowledge. I am not stating something that is not public knowledge, both in the industry and hopefully in political circles.

This demonstrates that perpetual tenure and oversupply of resource does not induce efficiency. It does not induce further capital investments in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it allows for sloppy inefficiency and the creaming off and the investment of profits that should be directed into British Columbia's economy to other more lucrative and low labour cost areas of the world. That is why we have the mentality of INCO, prepared to close down its operation in Sudbury, Ontario, while investing heavily in Venezuela. It's fine to lay off 4,000 Canadian workers but socially unacceptable in Venezuela. What kind of a government is it that allows industry to play those kinds of games? What kind of response and responsibility is that to the public interest which the minister is charged with protecting?

These are the facts of the case. The history of MacMillan Bloedel in this province is very instructive. I don't think there is any particular reason to pick on MacMillan Bloedel. I'm not suggesting they are any worse a corporate citizen than many others in the industry. What I am attempting to demonstrate is that large is not necessarily more efficient than small. In fact it's very doubtful if it's ever as efficient in the forest industry. The small specialized mills to be efficient because they are not granted monopoly tenure on timber supply. They have to be innovative and they have to scratch for a more efficient plant. That's the direction the minister should have sought to create a reasonable balance so that the public interest was properly served.

It's interesting to have a look at the profile of MacMillan Bloedel's operation in the province of British Columbia. While a published report of the company apologized for millions and millions lost in shipping, for instance, in ventures in Europe and elsewhere, these are pin pricks compared to deterioration of the B.C. log-using in building materials operations.

In the company's own data from 1973-76, an era which had one of the strongest market demands in a decade, the B.C. operation in logging, lumber, plywood — everything except pulp and paper — dropped from net earnings before tax of $85.5 million to just over $4 million three years ago. The reasons are inflation in domestic costs of labour, fuel supplies and services, combined with 15 years of technological neglect directly attributable, I suggest, to security provided by tree-farm licences which made the company incapable of selling at a profit in export markets.

In the same period, and almost without exception, those without assured supplies of timber, and therefore forced to pay market price for logs and forced to invest in modern technology, earned a profit and made positive contribution to the social and economic benefits of British Columbians.

The comparison of financial performances between MacMillan Bloedel before tax operating profit and loss with independent specialist companies in terms of log cunits is an interesting comparison. MacMillan Bloedel earned $6.95 on lumber, while the independents earned $7.10. The same disparity existed in the plywood and shingle sectors as well.

When we look at a profile of their financial performance over the years since 1962, and when we look at the figures on their profit sheets, it reveals a startling story of inefficiency. It reveals that MacMillan Bloedel is using as well as misusing timber given by government at no cost and at low stumpage. They have been using this to survive virtual bankruptcy which they would have suffered had the company been mismanaged in the way it has without such a long-term virtual monopoly supply of timber.

Logging profits from the timber that government has given away are being dissipated by MacMillan and millions of dollars of annual loss because of a sick and obsolete manufacturing operation in MacMillan Bloedel. The minister knows that. All one has to do is peruse their own financial records.

The thousands and thousands of MacMillan Bloedel employees in Vancouver, Port Alberni, Chemainus and elsewhere in B.C. have no job security. The red ink will destroy their jobs.

[ Page 2316 ]

Foreign workers in lands where MacMillan Bloedel tuck the money generated from B.C.'s economy and tree-farm system are the ones who will have the job security. It's similar to the INCO catastrophe in eastern Canada. It's the same kind of situation, without control or without intervention in this statute from the minister.

MacMillan Bloedel controls 2.8 million acres of B.C. forests. That's 80 per cent public land allocated by government under enormously favourable circumstances, and the balance is former E&N land owned and operated as treegrowing land under special land tax concessions. In some reasonable perspective the company controls about 33 per cent of coastal log production. As it flounders along, everything it does damages someone else in B.C.'s forest industry economy.

It's interesting to note some of the statements that the chief executive officer of MacMillan Bloedel made when he was in New York to borrow money on Wall Street. I don't want to be unfair to Mr. Knudsen by taking his comments out of context, so I am quite prepared to file a copy of his speech with the House. He said: "We harvest and process three million cunits annually in British Columbia." Now MacMillan Bloedel annual allowable-cut capacity as reported by the royal commission shows this information, Mr. Speaker: tree-farm licences — 268 million cunits; tree-farm and special licences and other private land outside the TFLs — about 90 million cunits; public sustained-yield units — nine million cunits; for a total of 367 million cunits.

"In the long term, based upon 2.8 million producing acres growing 1.5 cunits per acre per year, MacMillan Bloedel has upwards of 420 million cunits annual allowable cut."

This is from their own records; this information is available to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

"Lot usage in their wood product plants in 1976 show lumber — 170 million cubic feet; plywood — 25; shingles — 5; a total of 200 million cubic feet; the indicated surplus before usage in pulp and paper — 167 million cubic feet. Pulp and paper is, or should be, a user of chips and logs of character and type not suited to sawmill and plywood operations. There is enormous surplus of chips and pulp-logs available in the coastal forest industry, which MacMillan Bloedel could purchase at less than cost of their own production."

So it's revealed, Mr. Speaker, that MacMillan Bloedel is, first, provided a supply allocation from government which is far in excess of their need, far in excess of their plant capacity. Secondly, perusal of their own records reveals that they're harvesting only 81 per cent of that which is allocated, leaving uncut 67 million cunits desperately needed by log-short independent mills without an allocation — in fact, denied an allocation because of this government.

And the minister has the gall, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that in this statute there is an allocation for the small entrepreneur, that there is a role for competition in the forest industry. Nonsense, because there is an overallocation to a majority of the large companies that can't utilize it, first of all, and because this government lacks the fortitude, apparently, to reallocate that timber so that it is available for competition on the market. That's what the people of the province expected, you know. And I don't know why it would take so much courage to go that route. We're not recommending anything radical that would undermine or jeopardize the employment security associated with MacMillan Bloedel, Can-Cel, Grown Zellerbach or any of the rest of them; we're just suggesting that we have no obligation to give them this kind of monopoly, this kind of perpetual tenure on our resources. If they're true free-enterprisers, why not require them to get into the market? Why not pull up their socks a little bit in terms of efficiency and compete with some of the smaller operators who have displayed far more innovation, far more courage than any of the large, integrated firms in this province over the past 20 years?

Under the new statute there will be no more scope for operations like Herb Doman's. Herb Doman made it in the system on material that was thrown away by everyone else, and I hold no particular brief for Herb Doman, except to say he was an enterprising individual. He was enterprising and he was competent and efficient, and he made it on material that would have been wasted, if not burned, by many of the major companies in this province. Under the new statute there will be no scope and opportunity for anyone such as Herb Doman to make it again. It's all tied up by the people who refer to themselves as free enterprisers. What a charade! What complete nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that MacMillan Bloedel is not alone in this kind of record of performance. All we've got to do is force them to be a bit more lean, force them to compete so that they can't sit back, secure in the knowledge that they've got an overabundance of timber and don't have to be too efficient, while controlling the log market. There are others besides MacMillan Bloe-

[ Page 2317 ]

del; criticism applies to some extent and with equal justification to all the integrated companies in the province of British Columbia. Whether unwittingly or not, government is condoning both a monopoly of the public resource in the control of a few multinational companies as well as ineffective, if not improper, use of resource.

I'm not going to go on quoting Mr. Knudsen in some of %his comments. In a way, perhaps it's a bit unfair to do so; but it is quite instructive to read the speech and the presentation that Calvert Knudsen made to the money market people on Wall Street, when MacMillan Bloedel was seeking a $50 million loan just a short time ago.

In any analysis of the MacMillan Bloedel record, though, their data shows that the company is extracting the lowest value from public resources of any B.C. company. Some of the reasons for MacMillan Bloedel's difficulty are: man-day productivity in sawmills at about 1,222 board feet compared with upward to 4,500 in nonintegrated, specialist mills — the reason is not sloppy labour, but obsolete, outdated factories; in plywood, 1,063-3/8 per man-day for MacMillan Bloedel, which is about one-quarter of the level of comparable mills in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Moreover, MacMillan Bloedel's cost of the head office of forestry in building material group is at $18.6 million, has risen 69 per cent in the three years 1973 to 1976, during which operating profits for their enterprise in B.C. — lumber, plywood, shingles and logging after deducting a $22.5 million loss on logs transferred to pulp and paper group — were down 97 per cent. This demonstrates the enormous advantage MacMillan Bloedel has in quality resource supply, and favourable treatment by government is dissipated by deplorably outdated technology and gross operating inefficiencies.

It's a tale of woe. And the pith and substance of this particular bill is really the fact that the minister apparently lacked the will or the understanding to bite the bullet and to deal with the real core issue in terms of the management of B.C.'s resource; and that means a reallocation, a freeing of the resource for real competition on the market. How do we know what the real value of a log is in British Columbia? The stumpage in large measure is based on the Vancouver log market performance, which I understand is very artificial. The stumpage is an inaccurate assessment to make at the best of times. Why is the minister afraid to allow competition on the open market to establish the true price and the true value of the resource that belongs to our citizens in this province? Everyone on that side pays lip service to free enterprise and competition. Why is it that you run away from that concept when it comes to large, foreign corporations and say that, if they are to be productive and maintain employment stability in this province, they need a monopoly and they don't have to compete? What kind of double standard is that, Mr. Speaker?

The minister has no answer to that. And I really don't expect any, I guess, because there's simply no question that that is the result of the statute, and no matter how he fools around with small peripheral and technical amendments, the die is cast in terms of the destiny of the forest industry in this province for years and years to come, for generations to come. And it's just a bitter shame.

The minister is correct when he says that a tremendous amount of work has been done. It was started under the New Democratic Party government with the appointment of Dr. Pearse, and I certainly commend the Pearse royal commission report to every citizen of the province of British Columbia. It's an excellent assessment of the health of the forest industry in this province. It zeroes in in an open and honest way on many of the problems of the industry, and it's just a shame that this kind of debate and this kind of statutory initiative that is taking place today should be undertaken without much more public dialogue than we have had so far.

I suspect that a great many individual citizens are reluctant to talk about forestry because of all of the technical jargon involved — the jargon that relates to the regeneration process, genetic research, methods of replanting, spacing and fertilization, and the whole system of harvesting. The foresters have their own discipline and they use the jargon of the trade, which is often intimidating to the average, lay citizen. But I want to say to the people of British Columbia that not only in forestry, but in other areas and disciplines as well, unless we are prepared to take on these issues and try to understand them as citizens and not be intimidated by the professional jargon, we are committing our future and the destiny of this province to bureaucrats who do not understand the public interest.

I suggest that it is a pretty gloomy picture down the road if that is the extent of the responsibility which all of us as citizens are prepared to take in terms of understanding the need for more sound management, the need for breaking up monopoly control and perpetual control of our resources in British Columbia

[ Page 2318 ]

and Canada.

If we're going to forge some new directions and make some changes, then we had better start getting angry. We had better start getting angry that weak ministers who don't understand the industry and don't understand the needs and the concepts allow themselves to be ruled by bureaucrats, and allow the public interest to be offended. It's no longer good enough to allow the public policy of this nation and this province to be guided on that particular basis.

I'm going to leave MacMillan-Bloedel alone for a while. I want to reiterate I haven't intended to be unfair to MacMillan-Bloedel. I have nothing against them; I would just like to see them compete in a healthy way. As is usual in this province, it falls to live democratic socialists to defend true competitive free enterprise. What many of the people on that side of the House don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between true competitive free enterprise and monopoly enterprise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are discussing the principle of this bill.

MR. KING: We certainly are, and I just regret so much that that principle is not contained in this statute. That is one of the key points to be made in discussing this particular bill. I get a kick out of it, you know. Everybody pays lip service to free enterprise. It's like motherhood. "Let the other guy compete in the system and give me my little monopoly" — that's the name of the game. We have a government here which is prepared to deliver that kind of control and that kind of monopoly to the major players in the industry. That does not serve the public interest, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you that I received a tremendous number of submissions with respect to this particular legislation. I have received a submission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association expressing their concern about this bill on a whole variety of grounds. I'm not going to deal in a broad way with this bill because my colleagues will be dealing with more specific areas of concern as we go along in this debate.

Perhaps I should identify for the House before I do proceed some of the general criticisms we have of the bill and extend them beyond the area that I have been discussing, which is basically the lack of competition and the monopoly control of the resource. Perhaps I should just identify what some of my colleagues will be zeroing in on as this debate proceeds in very lengthy fashion, which I anticipate it shall.

We're concerned about how this statute is essentially converting public forests into private property. Let us just say that under the provisions of this particular statute, if the public requires back land that is in the timber sector for park use, wilderness use or anything else, they are obliged to purchase back what is already Crown land from the leaseholder. I ask you whose interest that serves. I ask you if you can find that concept applicable to any other leaseholder in the province of British Columbia. I don't think you would get it from your landlord. After all, the Crown is the landlord with respect to our resources, yet we're obliged to purchase back Crown land that we give out in leasehold for tile exploitation of timber. It's a shocking concept and one that is not acceptable to our caucus.

We intend to show that this statute abandons the concept of sustained yield. Sustained yield is something that is accepted on an even-flow basis so that proper rotation and replantation of our forest resource on a rotation basis maintains an even-flow annual cut potential for future generations. That concept is abandoned in this bill, perhaps because the minister is from a mining area and believes in mining the forest rather than managing it. I don't know.

That's the substance, in effect, of the bill. We intend to show — and I have been showing, I think — that public bidding for timber is not allowed and is not possible under this statute. We intend to show that the licensing of sawmills is going to nail down monopoly powers for the majors even tighter.

We intend to show that the new Act is limiting any new provincial park proposals.

We intend to show how it abandons the idea of integrated resource management, freezes out the fish and wildlife branch, freezes out the Agriculture ministry, freezes out Parks, and we believe in the multiple use concept and approach to land management. Forestry seems to be the single purpose use in this particular statute, and that's dangerous.

We intend to show — and I believe I have to some extent — how newcomers will be frozen out of the industry, and certainly we intend to show that the Forest Service is not going to be as effective in terms of public management of the forest with the kind of tenure and control the majors will hold under this new statute.

So my criticism is not confined to one area and, as I indicated, Mr. Speaker, my collea-

[ Page 2319 ]

gues will be referring to many of these other areas in more precise fashion later on.

I'll go back to some of the submissions I have received — and I think the government has received most of them also — from various groups who are expressing interest and concern in the new statute. The West Coast Environmental Law Association express concern and I believe they ask for a delay in the bill so that there can be better public dialogue and public discussion of it, and they certainly recommend a whole variety of amendments to the statute.

The Smithers Forestry Advisory Committee have made a submission, they have come together as a private group of citizens and have attempted to analyze the bill and understand it, and to accept their responsibility for the management of our resources. They express concern that there are provisions in this statute that could easily permit an accelerated over-cutting of the province's timber resource by introducing demand factors and calculation of timber supply. They express concern about using the promise of future increased growth from intensive silviculture to up the annual cut instead of stabilizing a declining harvest at present levels. They express concern that the absence of public accountability by industry for their performance on Crown lands is increased, and that the only provision for public hearing in the Act is for new tree-farm licences and pulpwood agreements, a somewhat cynical move because there are unlikely to be any such new licences because the timber is all already committed.

I think they are completely valid concerns, Mr. Speaker, that should be respected by the minister and by the government, and there should be more time allowed and the public should be encouraged to participate in the debate.

Another point I should make before I go on, Mr. Speaker. It's a real shame, you know, and a bit of an insult chat this government, who has paid lip service to public dialogue on this particular bill, is ramming the legislation through today — just two or three weeks after its introduction — and the minister 'himself last fall stated that three months would be given for discussion of this bill between the time it was introduced in the House and the time it would be called for second reading.

To compound the problem still further, I understand that citizens in this city and in this province who have taken an interest and have written to the government to obtain a copy of the statute have been told that there are no more copies available. Mr. Speaker, that is grossly irresponsible. Why the minister didn't instruct the Queen's Printer to go to another printing of this particular statute is beyond me. Perhaps his motivation was to keep it as quiet as possible. I don't know, but I think it is just grossly irresponsible that people who are interested in obtaining this statute, studying it, discussing it with their neighbours and small operators in their area are prevented from doing so because there are no more copies available from the Queen's Printer. It's absolutely shocking.

I've had a representation from the Sierra Club. They list eight points that they are concerned about. They conclude with this paragraph, Mr. Speaker: "The above eight points no doubt do not cover all major deficiencies. However, it is our belief that the existing Bill 14 clearly does not represent the needed legislative reform in British Columbia forest management." They would like more time to study the provisions and create some dialogue and some instructions to the government, and if the government is responsive to the people, why should that not be accepted? Why should that not be welcomed?

I have, Mr. Speaker, a submission from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They have made a submission and issued a press release wherein they discuss the Forest Act, the Range Act, and the Ministry of Forests Act. They state: "I am concerned that the Forest Act does not contain adequate provisions to increase access to timber supplies by small-scale logging operations. This makes it extremely difficult for our Indian bands to start up the small, labour-intensive operations needed to improve the poor living conditions on many of our reserves." What is wrong with that objective by the native Indians? The government pays lip service to people being productive in this society and contributing to the economy of British Columbia rather than being a drain on society through the payment of social assistance costs and so on. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Hr. Vander Zalm) says: "Give them a shovel." All the Indian bands in British Columbia are saying is: "Give us an axe and a saw and we'll be productive. Give us a piece of the action." But there's no opportunity under this statute. That timber is all reserved for the major foreign corporations that have a virtual monopoly in this province. The government speaks out of both sides of its mouth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Why not? It has two faces.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Independent Logging Association has something to say about

[ Page 2320 ]

the bill. I think I should read the preface and just a bit of the presentation that this association has made:

"The British Columbia Independent Logging Association represents nearly 1,000 independent logging contractors and log haulers from all parts of British Columbia, excepting Vancouver Island. These firms range from owner-operator truckers, skidder operators, fellerbuncher operators, et cetera, to large, established stump-to-dump loggers.

"During the exhaustive review of the forest industry which has taken place during the recent past, this association has made numerous representations to the several bodies which have undertaken this review including the task force on Crown timber disposal, the Royal Commission on Forest Resources and the forest policy advisory committee. In many instances, these representations to these agencies have been well received and noted.

"The proposed new Forest Act, Bill 14, tabled in the Legislature on May 12, 1978, has failed to take these same representations into account in a way which substantially affects the forest industry. For this reason, we feel now that for the future integrity of this industry it is imperative that we present the attached proposals for amendment to the Forest Act, and it is further imperative that the government include these proposals in its final legislation. To expedite this procedure, we are being deliberately concise and direct."

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they are concise and direct. Contained in their dissertation before they list their recommendations for amendment is this paragraph:

"In this proposed legislation, the public is ignored. Crown revenue is gravely diluted and the independent operator is ultimately disenfranchised. It is the vehicle for the control of all public timber to be inexorably concentrated in the hands of the largely international corporations which today hold the bulk of existing timber rights in the province. These timber rights are held without com-petition. The future rights to all Crown timber will be held without competition in perpetuity, which will make existing licenses look momentary. The historical development of tenure in British Columbia guarantees this as inevitable."

And they conclude with this statement:

"This sinister concentration of corporate power and control is of serious concern to us, not just as members of the forest industry community, but as British Columbians and Canadians."

AN HON. MEMBER: Sinister?

MR. KING: Sinister, Mr. Speaker. That's the categorization by significant industries in the forest industry community of British Columbia.

Perhaps it's significant that the only positive thing that anyone has had to say for this new statute is from the good old Council of Forest Industries. And who are they? In substance, they are the very major integrated firms that so many of the people have categorized as being the people who enjoy the monopoly control under this particular statute. COFI thinks the Act is not bad. They've come out with a fairly positive statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. KING: Their quota is secure. Their monopoly is secured under this particular Act.

MR. BARRETT: They can afford to believe in free enterprise.

MR. KING: They like free enterprise too, so long as it's not too free. It's okay for the other guys to compete out there on the market, but the big ones don't deign to do that kind of mundane thing. After all, they invested millions and millions of dollar in plants 25 years ago. They want capitalization of that investment to take place so they have to protect their interest.

I feel for COFI but I think I don't really have to extend too many sympathies or hands of friendship to them, because they seem to be doing quite well under the existing structure, Mr. Speaker — very well indeed. I don't know whether the minister knows it or not, but I'm sure COFI must be laughing all the way to the bank in terms of this statute.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other things I want to say. I'm not going to go on too much longer. There are a couple of things in the Pearse report that I didn't refer to, if I can find them here, and point out how they've been completely overlooked and neglected by the new statute that the minister has introduced. I think one of the most significant things that Dr. Pearse pointed out in chapter 4 of his report was that on the coast MacMillan Bloedel controls 32 per cent of the

[ Page 2321 ]

cut; BCFP, 11.5 per cent; Rayonier, 10.4 per cent. Thus these three companies have over half the coastal timber supply.

He went on to outline Crown Zellerbach, Weldwood, Tahsis, Eurocan and so on, and it's quite an indictment of this concentration of monopoly power over our forest resource. It's unhealthy for the industry, " concluded Dr. Pearse. I just want to read some of his other comments and point out that it's so unfortunate that an excellent report like this which identifies many of the problems is embraced by the government. They say it's a great report, they pay lip service to the support of it, but when it comes to the fortitude and the courage to deliver on the meat of the Pearse report, they back off. They carried with them into this new statute the veneer of delivering on the Pearse report, but in fact and substance they just came up with the catch phrases and left the substance out.

Dr. Pearse talked about foreign ownership. He found that foreign companies control 30 to 40 per cent of the cutting rights of the resource in British Columbia. He talked about priorities for tenure policy and he had this to say:

"In my judgment, however, the most important benefits of public ownership of forest resources are twofold. First, it enables the Grown to protect and enhance the values of forest lands that do not provide financial gains to private owners, and environmental values, public recreation, fisheries, wildlife, aesthetics."

Where is that idea and that concept carried into this new statute? There is no basis in this statute for the joint — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) would say "conjoint" — interest of those agencies in setting policy and public land-use priorities. Dr. Pearse noted:

"Secondly, public ownership provides the government with powerful means of shaping the pattern and pace of economic development. I recommend Po change in the general policy of retaining Crown title to alienated forest land."

Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed some concern that when we have to buy back Crown land that may be required for other public uses we are getting perilously close to the giving over of that Crown land to sole private use and private ownership of the major companies. Peter Pearse observed that there should be a healthy, competitive climate for the disposition of Crown timber.

"There can be little doubt that forest policies of the past have accelerated the consolidation of the industry into larger integrated enterprises. My concern is the erosion of opportunities for others to play a constructive role in the industry, and the growth of regional monopolies, as large corporations assimilate smaller fines with their resource rights. I have taken the position in this report that in the absence of clear evidence that larger, more integrated corporations are substantially more efficient, forest policy should not be based in their favour."

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that informed people, people who want to see competition and a reasonable return on the resource, people who want to see access to timber for a variety of sizes of operations, specialty mills and so on, as well as security for the large integrated firms, agree in term of a general approach and general direction. There is no question from the analyses of the bill that have been made by my own advisers — some of them professional foresters, some of them legal people — from the appraisal and assessment made by private entrepreneurs — some of the large ones, some of the small ones — that this statute does not carry into fruition the general concepts and initiatives advocated by Dr. Pearse. Rather this statute further entrenches and consolidates monopoly control of the resource in the hands of those same few companies to the detriment of competition and to the detriment of a fair and increased return on the resource to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot support this bill. My voice is getting hoarse and I would certainly appreciate a little more quiet out of the government members.

I certainly would appreciate a delay of a couple of months before this statute is dealt with. I appreciate that there is a real need and a real concern with industry large and small to know what the ground rules are going to be so that they can continue with their planning and so on. I'm sensitive to that need, but I want to suggest that since this very important bill has been in the making for five or six years with exhaustive study, since the representation and concern from the community and from sectors of industry have been so intense — and I suggest they are growing in intensity every day — there is no need to ram the bill through at this time.

I suggest that three or four months is not going to unduly jeopardize the industry of this province. I suggest that three or four months, though, would allow for a great deal more dialogue, a great deal more understanding, a great deal more involvement of the public, which I think is so tremendously

[ Page 2322 ]

important. Surely it is in the best interests of the forest industry of this province to work with the public rather than in conflict with the public. Surely that should be a reasonable objective. Surely it is incumbent upon the minister and his staff to work in harmony with the people who are interested in fish and wildlife, recreation, parks- and so on, rather than against them in a conflict arena.

I suggest that the suspension of this bill, the holding over of this bill, the tabling of it, say until September of this year, is not going to unduly affect or jeopardize the interests of the industry in this province. But it certainly will provide more lead time for greater understanding of the implications of the bill. It will provide more time for public discussion, public understanding and public input. Surely that is a desired objective of the government. I am going to commend as strongly as I possibly can to the minister and to the government that they think very seriously about this kind of approach to the statute.

I want to suggest, in conclusion, that when we see introduced at the start of this day six and a half pages of amendments to this bill, it's unfair. This is a very complex, very voluminous statute. It's very difficult for people involved in the industry to understand the statute and its technical implications, much less me as a politician, much less the public citizens of this province.

The minister has a staff of technical people to explain it to him. Despite their good counsel, he has revealed on a number of occasions that he still doesn't get the picture.

So I think he should have some sensitivity and some understanding for the needs of the average citizen in this province. It's going to take some time to reconcile these proposed amendments with the direction of the provisions of the statute. It's going to take some time and some analysis before the politicians can debate it in this House. If the minister insists on ramming it through, he is ramming through a bill sight unseen, with no opportunity for the public to understand the direction, the thrust and the implications of the bill with the new amendments included. I say that is irresponsible. I say that this bill on the forest industry is much too fundamental to the needs of everyone to have that kind of cavalier handling by the Minister of Forests.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to oppose the bill if the minister proceeds.

MR. BARRETT: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have made a quick review of the amendments and the bill itself. I would like your ruling, before the debate proceeds, on whether or not, as it appears in my opinion that such is the case, this debate now offends standing order 75, perhaps standing order 79, definitely, in my opinion, standing order 87 and positively standing order 94 (3) . Would you like to make a note of those, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I would take a list of the number of standing orders alleged to be offended and could perhaps review them. Whether or not the amendments themselves are in order is going to be determined at the time of Committee of Supply.

MR. BARRETT: It is not the amendments being in order, but the nature of them. For instance, standing order 87 can be dealt with now, Mr. Speaker. I think that would be more appropriate. Perhaps 75 would need longer deliberation. Certainly standing order 94 (3) should be dealt with right now. I have some questions about 83 but I'd leave that to you. If a member wishes to add 83, I'd take the member's advice.

MR. SPEAKER: I have also noted 83. Hon. members, I will take all five of the cited standing orders into review and come back to the House without prejudice to the debate whatsoever.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate for me, in terms of the comments I have, if I could have a ruling on those standing orders, especially 87 and 75, now because the debate may be ruled out of order unless we do indeed find that the practice conforms to those two particular standing orders at this very moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pending a considered and advised report to the House, I think that perhaps we should continue with second reading. Perhaps even before this sitting is over I can have a decision.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your very wise counsel, but I think it would be more appropriate if we had a five-minute recess just to check out those two particular standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think the practice of the House has always provided that Mr. Speaker can reserve a decision, provided, of course, that Mr. Speaker does not prejudice the debate by his decision or by his delay. Therefore we reserve decision.

[ Page 2323 ]

MR. BARRETT: The point I'm trying to make is that it may be totally inappropriate to continue the business of the House at this point unless we at least have a clarification of 87, 75 and 94 (3), which wouldn't take more than five minutes, in my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER. Hon. members, I think that perhaps the best-advised procedure would be for the Speaker to reserve decision. Therefore I will reserve decision and bring back to you an advised decision in due course.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I'm asking for a ruling now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm telling you that it is going to be a reserved decision.

MR. BARRETT: Well, then, how about a recess until we get the reservation?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the reserved decision will come in without prejudice, and that's the way we will proceed.

Next speaker, please.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, what is the practice of this House in asking for an interpretation of standing orders at the time that I am asking for them? I didn't ask for reservation. I'm asking for a ruling now before we proceed with this debate. We may be out of order, and the Chair should instruct us in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. member is entirely in order is asking for a decision now, but the Speaker has already declared that the decision is going to be reserved. That is the prerogative of the Chair. It is a practice of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you may have a prerogative. I understand that. But if you are making a ruling that you won't give a ruling immediately on those standing orders, then I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a ruling. It's just an upholding of the practices of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I don't want to get into an argument because you've got more power than I have. But I would like to point out to you that if you are not going to give a ruling on my request to have the interpretation of these standing orders immediately, but are relying on practice, then there has to be a ruling why you are relying on practice. If you are going to make such a ruling, I'd like to know what that ruling is.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling, hon. member. A reserved decision is not only in order, but it is perhaps the majority of the time the practice of the House. There are occasions when Mr. Speaker is prepared to give a decision at the drop of a hat, but I think that the House deserves a considered opinion. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, decision will be reserved.

MR. BARRETT: In the opinion of this member....

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed. Next speaker. We are on second reading of Bill 14.

MR. BARRETT: I have asked for a ruling on standing orders. You've given an opinion, and I'm entitled to give an opinion in return unless you give a ruling. I'm not going to have my rights....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member standing on a further point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, on a point of order. I've asked for ruling on standing orders 75, 79, 87 and 94 on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I have that information, thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, and I want a ruling now.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling will be reserved, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling that you are reserving it?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the fact.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a ruling, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: If that's not a ruling, then I want an answer to my point of order. I don't want opinions; I want an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Next speaker, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor on a point of order. Either I get a ruling or I don't give up my point of order. I don't

[ Page 2324 ]

wish to engage in arguments.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member cite the standing order under which he has that prerogative?

MR. BARRETT: Will you cite what you are making your opinion on, then?

MR. SPEAKER: I have the practice of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have the practice of the House in my opinion that I get an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please cite the standing order under which he has the prerogative to maintain the floor of the House on a point of order endlessly?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will you cite the...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor on a point of order and I'm asking for a ruling, not a delay. I'm being absolutely within my rights in asking for that ruling. If you express an opinion that you wish to delay, that is at the request of the House. I'm the member asking for an immediate decision, and I don't go along with the request for the delay. That's my right to say so.

MR. SPEAKER: And the Speaker has the right to reserve a decision.

MR. BARRETT: To rule.

MR. SPEAKER: To reserve a decision.

MR. BARRETT: It has to be a ruling; otherwise how can we run the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears that the hon. Leader of the Opposition...

MR. BARRETT: I want a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: ...is impeding the business of the House.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not impeding the business of the House. We have rules, and I want a ruling on the rule.

MR. SPEAKER: In speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the upholding of the practice of the House which provides that the Speaker, at his discretion, may reserve a decision is not a ruling and therefore is not subject to appeal. However, the Chair must rule that debate on second reading will continue while the decision is being reserved, and that is a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I challenge your ruling.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to second reading, the hon. Leader of the Opposition stood on his feet and cited at least four, perhaps five, standing orders which he believes to have been offended. However, he has offered to the Chair no observations from those standing orders.

In the short time which was available to me during the division bell I have had time to just briefly glance at the standing orders and there is no apparent offence. Therefore would the hon. Leader of the Opposition please assist the Speaker in his reserved decision?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In relation to standing order 75, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that no bill may be introduced either in blank or imperfect shape. The imperfect shape is the six and a half pages of amendments that indeed may put the original bill in imperfect shape.

No. 79 says that no bill shall be read the second time until it has been printed and

[ Page 2325 ]

distributed. That one I had some question about. I wanted your ruling on the fact that it was printed and distributed without the six and a half pages of amendments — that one's still foggy in my mind. I don't know, that may not apply.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to standing order 87: "It shall be the duty of the Law Clerk of the House to revise all bills after their first reading, and to certify thereon that the same are correct; and in every subsequent stage of such bills...." Now since we're in second reading, I have not seen the certification of the Law Clerk. Perhaps such certification could be made available to me, again in light of the arguments I gave on standing order 75.

Standing order 94 (3), one that I'm very familiar with and have done extensive research on, says: "To revise, print and put marginal notes on all bills" and be generally responsible for the correctness of bills in their various stages...." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate you taking that under advisement. My concern is that this whole debate not be wiped out because of some careless clerical error, and that is the whole point of my questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take those remarks into consideration.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to participate in this debate, which may, indeed, be out of order; but I will participate in any event.

I'd like to start off my participation in this debate by asking the minister: why did you bring in the amendment so late? What's your hurry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is this question period?

MR. BARRETT: You brought it in after question period, is that it? Someone who has a less understanding mind than I have would be inclined to believe that the minister is trying to rush something through past the people of British Columbia without a proper amount of debate. If that allegation were to be made, certainly the minister would give substance to that allegation by coming into this House and providing significant changes to the bill to only two or three people, as I understand it. I never got a copy of this. I had to borrow this — and sign for it — from the House Leader. I had to sign for this from the House Leader because these amendments are precious. And I understand the Liberal leader got a copy. I don't know if the Conservative leader got a copy. But as Leader of the Official Opposition, there's no notice to me of significant changes in this bill and six and a half pages of legalese. I would venture to guess that the minister could not sit in his place and rattle off under his breath the sections that are even being amended. I challenge the minister to get three out of five correct.

You see, he doesn't know himself what is being amended.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is he in second reading?

MR. BARRETT: I am in second reading. Sit calm; take it easy; you'll get your turn to get excited.

During the comments by the minister, dealing with an industry that affects 50 cents of every dollar in this province, he spoke for about 15 minutes and sat down. If there is anything that is absolutely scandalous, it is the fact that after all the work that has gone into this bill by the Pearse royal commission, by preceding governments and by preceding ministers, all he can give is less than 15 minutes as an introduction on second reading of this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is not a fact that the minister was chosen for this job because of his inability to communicate, but after hearing what he had to say and what was not available in terms of what he had to say, it was obvious he was chosen for this job because he doesn't understand.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame.

MR. BARRETT: Shame? It certainly is a shame, and I want to applaud the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for categorizing exactly what has gone on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was out of the House when I read from page 485 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May. It talks about the scope of debate on second reading. Debate on the stages of the bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of the administration.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you're drawing that to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I've noticed the Leader of the Opposition remain standing when Mr. Speaker is addressing the House. Throughout the points of order he raised a few

[ Page 2326 ]

moments ago, and throughout the time Mr. Speaker spoke, he remained on his feet, and I would refer Mr. Speaker to the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May, at the bottom of page 441.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is a worthy observation, and perhaps all members should take it to heart that whenever the Chair is speaking, it is wise for members to take their seats. I notice in other Houses that the Speaker stands, which commands that all members take their seats. I think we would not like to resort to that here.

MR. GIBSON: On that point of order on the propriety of debate, Mr. Speaker, I would mention that the same edition of May says that on second reading debate is not strictly limited to the contents of the bill, but other methods of attaining its proposed object may be considered. I would assume that would include another minister — I don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: That assumption does damage to page 485, so it's likely that the assumption is wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, all of this has done damage to my time. I hope that the appropriate rulings and points of order have been noted.

I want to deal with the excitement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is partly responsible for the increased burden of taxation on the people and the homeowners of this province precisely because taxation collection under this proposed bill from the forest industry will be dramatically reduced. The homeowners of British Columbia will be forced to carry a share of taxes that truly belongs on the backs of the international corporations who have a monopoly control of the industry in this province.

My dear friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is nervous. I expect to hear him speak in this debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Blah, blah, blah, blah — that is your only style. The only style you have is personal attack. You don't know any other way but personal attack. You have a history of it in this House. You are a disgrace.

MR. SKELLY: Panicky Hugh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, just very angry.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing please try and restrain himself?

(Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hysteria of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is involved in vindictive personal attack across this floor. I understand the minister. The minister is attempting to smokebomb the issue that taxes will increase in the name of the Crown and will be loaded onto the taxpayer under your department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on Bill 14.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to upset the cabinet. After all, just by having the division we forced them all out of their little snoozy little nests or wherever they were.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 is the Forest Act.

MR. BARRETT: This debate is on a very important issue affecting 50 cents of every dollar of revenue in this province and only two ministers are in the House. Let that go in the record, the Minister of Forests — who has now fled — and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Oh, there he is, getting advice. Lord knows, he needs it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Your style is 1950s grotesque.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I have been grievously wounded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What bombast! Why don't you get rid of that leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Please proceed, and please keep your remarks relevant to the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will you please defend me from those hysterical attacks from that minister, who is having a fit?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At least I fit my clothes.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, lo and behold, let it not be for me to observe comments on personal attacks, folks. Sanctimonious comments by that minister aside, that minister used to be a

[ Page 2327 ]

Liberal, and a Conservative, and now a Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, Bill 14, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'll deal with that minister's hysteria later. Could you bring the House to order, Mr. Speaker. I can't possibly debate when there is a distraction down there.

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty interesting that the minister, who has brought in all these amendments in this important debate, won't even sit in his place and listen to some of the comments. I'd like to refer the minister to an evaluation made by the royal commission of Mr. Pearse, and the fact that Mr. Pearse made the observation that foreign companies control 30 to 40 per cent of the cutting rights of our forests in this province. In the last few years, Mr. Pearse says, the provincial government has acquired in its own right significant corporate assets previously owned by foreign interests.

When Pearse spoke about the provincial government acquiring some interest in our own assets, it was the New Democratic Party government who struck out against the international corporation control of our forests and took the opportunity of purchasing, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, a significant area of forest for management and control by the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I hold no suspicion against the people of this province, and I have no doubt in their skills and ability in dealing with their own affairs and their own resources. I am proud of the fact that under Canadian Cellulose the people of British Columbia, for the first time in the history of this province, had a direct share in the control and ownership of our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, we are not some Latin American banana republic that needs to be viewed on a paternalistic basis that only the outsiders know how to deal with our resources. We are not some backward nation that must get down and genuflect to the international corporations and thank them for their capital investment and their technological skills in developing our forests. We have large universities and educational institutions that are actually geared towards providing the technical and professional experience in dealing with the primary resource of this province, the forests.

At a time when British Columbia was finally beginning to grow out of its adolescence in terms of being subjugated to international corporations and their domination of our forest industry, an unfortunate event took place with the election of perhaps the most reactionary government in the history of British Columbia. Under this reactionary government, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a bill today that will, in effect, increase dramatically the foreign ownership and control of our primary resource, the forest industry, without competition and in perpetuity in a way that insults the hard work and the dedication and the commitment of the average citizen of this province.

If there was ever a need for a time for televised recording of the debates, it's this debate now, Mr. Speaker. As the minister pointed out, this is the first change in our forest bill of any significance since 1912. It is the most significant bill that I have seen brought forward in this House in my time here. It is going to affect every citizen of this province for at least the next 100,200 or perhaps 500 years. The major thrust of this legislation — and let's get it clear so that everybody understands it — is to hand over once and for all 90 per cent of the control of the primary resource of this province, the forests, into the hands of the international monopolies, at the same time that other actions of this government are presently underway to sell off the limited interest that the people of British Columbia have in their own forest.

Peter Pearse said: "Foreign companies control 30 to 40 per cent of the cutting rights." Can you imagine any Latin American country that would stand by, in terms of the new awareness in the Third World, and allow its own major resource not just to have a 30 to 40 per cent control by foreign interest, but actually allow a debate to take place to increase that control by multinational corporations?

Mr. Pearse said:

"In my judgment the most important benefits of public ownership of forest resources are twofold. First, it enables the Crown to protect and enhance the values of forest lands that do not provide financial gains to private owners, and environmental values, public recreation, fisheries, wildlife and aesthetics.

"Secondly, public ownership provides the government with powerful means of shaping the pattern and pace of economic development. I recommend no change in the general policy of retaining Crown land to unalienated forest land."

This is a primary recommendation of Mr. Pearse that says, that cries out, that asks, all people of this province to understand that whether you are a socialist, a free-

[ Page 2328 ]

enterpriser, whether you're a Liberal, a Conservative or a Socred — whoever you are, wherever you are — the most precious asset you have, through your government, is the ownership and control of those forest lands. That has been our tradition under every form of government since 1899 in this province, and on this very day that should go down as "Black Wednesday" in British Columbia, we are going to launch legislation that says to the people of British Columbia: "You may no longer be masters in your own house." This is an absolute abdication of confidence, trust and, in effect, commitment, not only to the present generation in this province but to every succeeding generation in this province who may strive as Canadians and as British Columbians to find some place in the sun for themselves in terms of economic development.

Mr. Speaker, there has been increasing evidence throughout the whole province of British Columbia that more and more people are becoming alarmed at the efforts made by this government and the rush being made by this government to slam this legislation through, to quietly get it through the dog days of June and hope that everyone forgets it. I find it interesting that the very people who supported Social Credit most on the myth of free enterprise and free opportunity — those small businessmen, those small truck loggers, those small operators throughout this province who said they don't want any socialism — now find that instead of democratic socialism and a fair chance and a fair access to that resource that we provided as a government, this government is going to hand 90 per cent of the forests over to the big companies and the big monopolies. What about those little chambers of commerce and those little groups out there that had hoped for the best?

Here is a letter, Mr. Speaker, just sent to the minister, and no wonder he wants to rush through this legislation. This is from the Truck Loggers Association, which embodies the spirit of pioneering and commitment in this province that led to the development of the competitive forest industry that we allowed in public, private and in joint venturing.

"Hon. Mr. Waterland:

"I attach hereto a copy of a report by the Council of Forest Industries, in which it is implied you are trying to find the politically acceptable way to neutralize contractors."

That's what is going on behind the scenes, according to an accusation by the Truck Loggers Association.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Minister, if you have nothing sensible to say and you have a sick stomach, head for the corridor.

Mr. Speaker, the implication of the report — this is a very serious charge and I'm making it here in this House as I read this letter to the minister — is that if COFI members throw a few crumbs to the contractors, the new Forest Act will not opposed by this association and others.

Mr. Minister, I am directed to remind you it is the efficient specialist who provides benefit under section 27 (5) (a) to (e) inclusive.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to hear myself over the shouting.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Nobody is listening anyway.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you hope for; that's what you really hope for. You sincerely hope that nobody in this province will listen to what the truck loggers are saying, to what the independent people are saying, to the concerned citizens of this province. A serious charge has been made in writing by the Truck Loggers Association.

Then they go on to say that monopoly control of public resources will exist, and 25 years has proven it.

"Moreover, most particularly after your comments at the Premier's breakfast that we just want some timber to get into manufacturing, we have to ask why not. More particularly, the comment indicates you do not understand the Truck Loggers Association represents citizens involved in lumber, plywood, shingle, secondary manufacturing, timber owners and specialist loggers everywhere, and even one operator committed to enter pulp. This association was founded by timber owners more than 33 years ago to defend its members from the pressures of foreign monopolies, taking over public resources and the lack of wisdom of the government in protecting and enlarging those takeovers." In that regard, Mr. Speaker, the Truck Loggers Association of British Columbia says to the minister: "The new Forest Act is worse than the old and we will redouble our efforts to oppose it."

Mr. Minister, if you don't like hearing from the New Democratic Party, if you don't like hearing from the Liberal Party, and if you don't like hearing from the Conservative Party, how do you feel about the truck loggers telling you that you are giving away the forests in a monopoly controlled situation?

Mr. Speaker, I have here a confidential memo

[ Page 2329 ]

and it is written here signed by Mr. Moonen.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you've got it, it's not confidential. Where did you find it?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly didn't steal it like telegram that showed up in the last election campaign.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I see, you're back in history again.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're a poor loser, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not a poor loser. I'm a great fighter for the people of British Columbia, something this government hasn't learned. You tell me where you got your campaign funds from. You tell me that this legislation isn't a payoff of campaign funds; you tell me that. You tell me that Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser never gave you a penny during the election campaign. Even my friend from Surrey is smiling at that one. He knows who paid for their election and now he knows who is getting paid back today in this legislation. Mark that smile down.

I sat in this House with that member's venerable father, and that member's father warned what would happen when control took a central form in the forest industry.

Here is the memo, Mr. Speaker.

"Gentlemen:

"Report No. 21.

"There are two issues surrounding the Forest Act which appear to bother the opposition parties more than any others. Both relate to the 'old bogey-man'."

I'm glad he put that in quotes. I wouldn't like him to refer to some unlamented former member from Kamloops in that regard.

"The first, expressed by Gordon Gibson, relates to the TF holdings, and the second, which along with the first bothers the NDP, is that of contractor relationships. Gibson's specific objections revolve around his view that there should be public hearings on all existing TFLs as they are changed over to their new form prior to 1985."

It goes on to say here that he feels that conditions should be totally renegotiated during the rollover period and that the Forest Service should do the inventory rather than the TFL holder. Well, why not? Under this bill it's the person who holds the forests that's going to send the government a letter telling them: "Everything's okay. We've just done the inventory. Don't come up here and look." What kind of administration is that? They don't do that on welfare. He could release half of his secret service in the welfare; we might get a proper inventory in forests. You've got the wrong focus, Mr. Minister. It isn't the people on welfare who are going to swipe the trees, it's someone else. They don't even get toothpicks.

I refer back to that member in this memo, Mr. Speaker. "Upon renegotiation a TF holder should perhaps be granted only 80 per cent of the fibre necessary for existing manufacturing facilities." Good on you, Mr. Member. Get that for the Vancouver Sun. Barrett said: "Good on for old Gibson!" That ought to kill his career. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on and say that this member is quoted in the secret report as having other opinions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: It goes on to say: "Eighty per cent of the fibre would encourage an open market situation for the remaining of requirements." You stand accused, sir, of suggesting that free enterprise competition may have a — place in the forests of British Columbia. He is sure in his own mind that in existing TFLs there is enormous undercutting, and that this unused quota should be taken from the licensee. Why not?

MR. LAUK: He's so excited he's applauding himself.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's got the unanimous support of all his members.

Victoria report No. 21, page 2: "In addition to the above point the NDP is adhering to the little guy syndrome." Oh, did you hear that? We are accused by the monopolies in the forest industry of fighting for the little guy, and I plead guilty. Somebody's got to fight for the little guy around here, and we know it isn't that outfit over there.

"In addition to the above point the NDP is adhering to the little guy syndrome, and is looking for some way in which small contractors can move into the industry as manufacturers." Get that straight for the debate on free enterprise throughout the province of British Columbia. The large corporations are not hypocrites, they're not two-faced, but they're sure as heck schizophrenic. Out in public they are saying: "Yes, we believe in free enterprise. We want the pioneering spirit for the little guys." But in their secret reports they say: "Some nuts actually believe in the little guys having a chance. It's a syndrome." What hypocrisy! That government is

[ Page 2330 ]

in the hands of the majors in the forest industry and there's no question about it.

Here's one on the minister. "The subject of contracting is also bothering the minister. He tends to feel that his major political problem revolves around the contractors, particularly in the interior." No wonder! He represents the interior, and those contractors are not going to vote for him again. He has got a problem. He believes there are too many instances where contractors have been "shafted" and "have had the rug pulled out from under them." And there were other similar phrases used by that minister. Well, isn't that interesting? He's pleading the case of his political problem and he's describing through jargon, clichés and euphemisms his local concern, but someone forgot to tell him that he's the minister and he can stop them from being shafted and he can stop them from having the rug pulled out from them.

"Waterland is basically and philosophically opposed to the standard contract form called for by the BCILA brief, but would like to see industry, contractors and licensees work out some form of guidelines and principles by which negotiations between the parties can be amicably settled."

Do you know how these arguments can be amicably settled, Mr. Speaker? We found out when we were government, when the little contractor was getting hosed on the price of chips. They came to us and they said: "Help us. We're drowning. We're getting lousy prices on chips." We went out and we gave them a fair price on chips. They thanked us behind closed doors, but they were so scared they went out publicly and said: "We're against socialism. But thank God, they saved our business."

Now they've got this minister who is reported in this confidential memo as being worried about how he handled this problem politically. I know I've got to the member from Salmon Arm. He understands exactly what's going on. I know that he's going to get up and fight for the little free enterpriser.

MR. LEA: They did it in caucus, but that's private.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in this area he is fully supported by his northern back-bench colleagues, some of whom do favour the standard contract form.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you've been written about anyway. At least somebody knows you're here.

There obviously is some role for the backbenchers. What it is, the Lord only knows. But according to this confidential memo, some of then are a little bit upset. How upset? Let's hear about the fight for the little guy from you backbenchers. I can hardly wait.

MR. LAUK: Don't hold your breath.

MR. BARRETT: Listen to this, Mr. Speaker: "Perhaps industry would be well advised to at least undertake discussions with the contractor groups to see whether or not the guidelines and principles could be worked out."

MR. KING: The minister is a mediator between the big companies and the small contractors.

MR. BARRETT: Not only is the minister offering to be a mediator between the large corporations and the small companies, but just to show you how charitable they are in being able to control this government, they say with some condescension: "Perhaps industry would be well advised to at least talk to the fellows."

MR. KING: What about a messenger boy for a minister?

MR. BARRETT: I mean, before we take you in the back alley and thump you over the head and take everything you've got, wouldn't it be nice to say hello?

Page 4. Listen to this one, Mr. Speaker. I know this can't be true because you're going to take under advisement all my objections under standing orders. It says here: "At the present time, it appears likely that June 15 is the earliest debate on the Forest Act, although the ministry Act and the Range Act could come up sooner." Is there a rule in this House that forbids us from breaking the timetable of COFI?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're ahead a day.

MR. BARRETT: We're ahead of the timetable. That's better than COFI even expected under a government under which they've got obvious complete control of the minister. "The Forests minister will be a guest on Jack Webster's open line programme on Tuesday, June 13, 1978, 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m." Listen to this, gang. "The minister will be accepting calls on 685-9181."

MR. KING: Which pocket were you in, the left or the right?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page 2331 ]

MR. BARRETT: "The minister will be accepting calls on 685-9181 or 669-3232" — and, just so the big companies won't be out of pocket — "Dial collect for long distance."

AN HON. MEMBER: What a deal!

MR. BARRETT: "Yours sincerely, Fred Moonen."

Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us today is a minister who is not to blame for this Act, a minister who cannot be condemned for this legislation — some of it makes sense. What we have in front of us is a bill that has been designed to give the appearance — the veneer, if I might use that word — of some significant changes. But in actual fact, in sum total it is a guaranteed giveaway of control of the major resource in the hands of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if it were just the little Liberal Party that was going to complain, if it were just the little Conservative Party that was going to complain, or if it were just the socialists that were going to complain, then, of course, all right-thinking people in British Columbia would know that Social Credit knows best, that Social Credit knows how to tell you how to live, how to tie up in a car, what kind of dope to use. If you use alcohol it's okay; if you use another kind of dope you go to jail. They give you the core curricula. They tell you every order of your life, and now the most significant thing of all. They're going to tell you that you're not good enough to own your own resources and control your own resources. And who is upset? The free enterprise people out there who believe that there's a place for them in bidding competitive access to their own resource — the small businessman, those communities out there who have depended upon some pioneering and initiative.

Mr. Speaker, we are accused in big industry's confidential memo of fighting for the little guy. I confess that's absolutely true, and I want every citizen in this province to know that. If we are fighting for the little guy, there is obviously a reason, and the reason obviously is that this government is for the big guy all the way down the line.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to deal with one section in respect to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that; this isn't third reading.

MR. LEVI: I'm just going to deal with one section and that deals with the issue of corporate concentration within the forest industry — and its effect on the bill. After I finish speaking, I am sure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) will immediately leap to his feet and give us a dissertation on why corporate concentration is very good.

Some two weeks ago, when I had a chance to talk to some small businessmen in the industry, I asked them two questions. The first one was: if a large group of people got together and came up with $100 million that they wanted to invest in the forest industry, how could they get into the forest industry under this legislation? And one of them said: "Well, the only way they're going to get in is by buying somebody else out." I said: "But surely if somebody comes to this province with $100 million, he's going to have an opportunity to get into the competitive business in the forest industry." And he said: "No, you simply have to buy somebody out."

And then I said: "Now the second question is: how does a small person get into the business? You might get some young enterprising people together, they have some money and they might go into the sawmill business. How do they get in?" Well, I got the same answer: "They're not going to get in."

One of the major concerns that has existed in this province for well over 30 years — the member for Revelstoke–Slocan (Mr. King) referred to it in his remarks about the problems of corporate concentration — is the domination by a few large corporations and the control that they have over the industry. Now you may know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been going on in Canada a study of corporate concentration, which was formerly known as the Price commission. It has just recently published a series of studies.

One of the groups that submitted a brief was MacMillan Bloedel. Macmillan Bloedel made some comments in respect to corporate concentration on page 51 of their brief, and they said the following:

"The Canadian forest products industry faces a difficult future. The larger United States competitors, on the average, are more profitable, and Scandinavian corporations are receiving subsidies from their governments. The competitive necessity of a large size in international corporations is recognized by the promotion of mergers in a number of countries for example, Japan, France and Britain. Canadian companies are faced with many difficulties in maintaining adequate size to compete with their large and growing international competitors. The acquisition of capital is becoming increasingly diffi-

[ Page 2332 ]

cult, but this is a problem outside the scope of the brief.

"The large percentage of forest land owned by the provincial governments in Canada combined with current uncertainty about timber tenures granted by those governments gives rise to concern about the long-run availability of timber."

That's what we heard for several years. Right up to this year the major concern of the major companies whenever they met with the various MLAs and caucuses was: "We've got to have some assurance of tenure." One of the things that's happened as a result of the tabling of the bill is that there is a great conspiracy of silence. It's amazing that none of the major companies are talking about anything now. The presumption is, as we've heard from the memoranda from COFI, that there are certain things that are going to happen. They know the schedule better than us and the bill will pass and everybody will have what they had before, only they will do better.

Now in their brief — I'm just continuing in the brief that MacMillan Bloedel submitted to the corporate concentration committee — they also made a number of observations. They said: "The forest products industry is international in scope and very competitive" — okay, nobody disagrees with that — "so much so that MacMillan Bloedel has got some off-shore investments."

The second statement they make is: "Large size in corporations is essential in obtaining the large-scale efficiencies necessary to compete in the industry's international markets." Now we've heard that before, that large size means efficiency; that's what we keep hearing all the time. As a matter of fact, Canadian Forest Products, in their press release of November 25, 1976, took the same position in commenting on the Pearse report. They said:

"Implementation of the recommendations contained in this report would severely erode security of tenure on tree-farm licences and public sustained yield units. Who will be able to afford major capital investments when his raw material base is exposed to 20 per cent reduction every 10 years? The report justifies the erosion of tenure security currently enjoyed by the industry."

There is further concern about what's going to happen to tenure and the relation to a large firm like Canfor, which is the second largest private company in Canada, indicating that, again, the major capital investments can only be provided by a very large company.

Dr. Pearse, in the terms of reference for the commission, was instructed to look into the problem of corporate concentration. It was something that he had to do. He says in his report:

"In the course of my public hearings, many spokesmen for the forest industry and financial community expressed alarm over the forest industry's poor financial performance in recent years and the serious implications of this for the future health and vigour of the industry. A good deal of evidence was presented on this question, and the commission has examined other information as well. The general implications warrant some comment here."

He goes on to give an outline of some of these problems, and he then says: "It must also be acknowledged that investment planning in the industry itself has not been faultless." He's basically talking here about the large corporations. Last year, the president of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association in a speech stated: "Strategic planning of the industry has been singularly inept." This is not inconsistent with the findings of the independent study of general investment behaviour done by Dr. Helliwell of UBC in the study that he did on public policies and private investment.

I think that what Dr. Pearse set out to do was to demystify to some extent the efficiencies that are supposed to be implicit in large corporations. He has pointed out, along with the president of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, that they're not all that good at what they're doing, that they have some very serious problems. We certainly know, in looking at MacMillan Bloedel over the years, that they have had some serious problems.

I can remember in this House when we used to have a member who was referred to as the member for MacMillan Bloedel. He subsequently left the House and went on to MacMillan Bloedel and had a short, sharp, unsuccessful tenure as the chairman of MacMillan Bloedel. During his tenure, they were caught in certainly the largest loss in their operation in the whole history of that corporation.

Dr. Pearse is obviously very interested in the whole problem related to corporate concentration. He discusses at some length, both in the main body of the report and in the appendix, the structure and dimensions of the British Columbia forest industry. Again, I think we should just say what it was he was after:

"The commission was instructed by its terms of reference to consider the structure of the forest industry, having regard to its pattern of integration, concentra-

[ Page 2333 ]

tion, ownership and control, and the structure of markets for forest products. Accordingly, the commission undertook a rather substantial investigation of the industry, bringing together and analysing all the relevant data available in published sources. Forest Service documentation and submissions were presented at the public hearings. A good deal of information and explanation was obtained through direct communication with the industrial associations and companies."

Then he goes on in some great detail to list the concentration by a few companies in terms of the operations in the forest industry in British Columbia. Some of these figures have been used before but I'm going to use them because I think it will buttress the argument. He talks about sawmilling, where there are 18 companies that have over 50 per cent of the sawmilling. The next 39 have 24 per cent and the next 183 have 25 per cent. He exhibits some concern, some real concern about what is taking place in terms of the concentration that is going on. This, of course, leads back to the argument that we raised consistently, and we would expect that the minister will make some reference to it. What is going to happen to the small people, the small operators in this province? Exactly what can they expect?

Let's bear something in mind. In 1955 we had some 2,400 sawmill operations and by 1974 we were down to 787 sawmill operations. Surely this kind of legislation has to have some severe impact on the possibility of further development in the sawmill industry for small people. There are many people in the industry. The majors are on record as saying that the only way you can be efficient is that you have to talk about the large people who can do this. After all, they're the people who can come up with the capital formation, and then that's the way the industry goes.

MacMillan Bloedel made a further submission in 1976 to the royal commission on forest resources. In their brief they talked about concentration of the industry. They said that during the course of the public hearings, some concern was expressed about timber resources becoming concentrated in the hands of major corporations. This is what they said: "There is no danger of a monopoly situation in the hands of the major integrated corporations. The growth of the smaller forest industry companies is not being stifled. Many smaller or middle-size companies were participants at the public hearings. An examination of their briefs and the evidence discloses one outstanding feature, and that is the solid pattern of growth of these companies." Then they outline briefly some of the companies on the coast and in the interior. Then they talk about what these people are doing.

They go on to say: "Considering the number of integrated companies in the province or even looking at the numbers on the coast or the interior separately, there is no concentration which amounts to monopolistic situations." Depending on which point of view you look at it, that becomes an entirely different matter. They are the ones who Raised the issue of monopolistic concentration, and that, presumably, becomes a matter for the Combines Investigation Act.

The royal commission on corporate concentration, which I referred to earlier — not the Pearse commission but the royal commission on corporate concentration — did a series of studies that covered a number of large operations. One of the studies that they did was study No. 15: "The Existence and Exercise of Corporate Power." It's a case study of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. We've had a lot of reference to MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. this afternoon in the House. I'm using MacMillan Bloedel because it's the company we have the most public information on. Many of the things said about MacMillan Bloedel apply also to other large corporations like Canadian Forest Products, Noranda and Crown Zellerbach, but MacMillan Bloedel is the one we have the most information on.

At the very end of the study, there is a chapter on summary and conclusions. They say: "As stated at the outset, the purpose of this research insofar as possible from the study of one corporation to assist the royal commission on corporate concentration in the fulfilment of the first two of its charges...." These charges were to inquire into and report on and make recommendations concerning the nature and role of major concentrations of corporate power in Canada, and the economic and social implications for the public interest of such concentrations. "In this chapter we recapitulate our findings with respect to MacMillan Bloedel's possession and exercise of corporate power. Further, we attempt to identify the existence or lack thereof of economic and social justification for the holding of that power." Finally: "Although it's not the principal concern of this study, we will make comments bearing on this commission's third charge, which is to inquire into and report upon and make recommendations concerning whether safeguards exist or may be required to protect the public interest in the presence of such concentration."

Under the heading "The Existence and Exer-

[ Page 2334 ]

cise of Corporate Power, " they state:

"We are of the opinion that an individual institution cannot hold power without deigning to exercise it. Maintenance of power mandates is exercised or it will dissipate. The existence and exercise of market power are inseparable and well developed in American anti-trust laws. When defending its dominant market position, the aluminum Company of America argued that while it had power conferred upon it by its market shares, the firm had not exercised the power."

They take that principle and they apply it to the MacMillan Bloedel situation. "In terms of the industrial organization economist's definition, MacMillan Bloedel clearly possesses power in the number of markets in which it participates."

In chapter 3:

"MacMillan Bloedel's position in a sample of the more important of these markets was systematically analysed. It is the largest consumer of timber in the coastal region of British Columbia, accounting for over 30 per cent of the scale cut in 1974. It's a large producer of lumber because it doesn't dominate any market which it ships. It is the third-largest producer of plywood in Canada and ships primarily to the domestic market, which can be characterized as having an oligopolistic structure. It evidently holds a significant proportion of the American market for sulphate pulp, although the precise computation of market share is impossible, for want of information on the firm's shipments to market. It's a major producer of newsprint and holds nearly 30 per cent of the western United States market and 60 per cent of the western Canadian market. Relative to other domestic producers, it is a minor manufacturer of fine paper."

What they are doing is laying out the diversions of the kind of monopoly power that this company has. In terms of the bill the minister has brought in, it simply ensures that this kind of power will take place, because basically what they have is this access to the resource. Of course, without that resource they would not be able to do what it is that they are best at doing, which is developing an incredible monopoly and, as a result, exercising incredible influence within this whole forest industry. They have said in their argument in another brief that there is not an absolute monopoly. There are other things, and they cite the development of small companies.

Now what is the example, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of monopoly that exists and the kind of powers that they exercise? Look at the board of directors of MacMillan Bloedel. This is the one; this is the major in the field in British Columbia. The information that I refer to came out of a prospectus which they filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It's for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1976, and I believe it was filed in June. They list a number of directors.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about the continual enshrining of monopoly power in this Act, which enables a company like MacMillan Bloedel to operate. When you look at some of the directors you get some idea where a lot of this power comes from. Mr. Hobbs is the executive vice-president of Cominco and is now president of Cominco. J.N. Hyland is the president of Granduc Mines and chairman of the board of directors of Pacific Press. Mr. Keswick is an Englishman who is with the board of Matson and Company, Ltd., and prior to that was senior managing-director of Jardine, Matheson and Company. That's a company that MacMillan Bloedel deals with in the Far East in terms of selling their products.

You've got C. Calvin Knudsen, who is the president and chief executive officer, who came from Weyerhaeuser, and you have Mr. J.M. Meyer, also from England, the chairman of the board and managing director of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. Lumber Merchants. You have Mr. William Moodie of Quebec, who is the president of Canadian Pacific Investments Ltd., which is one of the extra-curricular activities of CPR. Mr. Phillips is of Westcoast Transmission; Mr. Richardson of the B.C. Telephone Company; Mr. Southam, president of Gorko Investments, which is a private investment company; Mr. Taylor of the Canada Trust Company. And there is a representative from the Canadian Imperial Bank.

That's the concentration of power on the board, and that enables the company like MacMillan Bloedel to maintain itself and to continue itself in terms of its monopoly position and because of its incorporate connections and the cross-fertilization of all of these organizations. They have bankers, they have people who need their supplies through Southam Press. They have a range of options and they all get together and meet and talk about the continuing development of the company and the maintenance of their situation, which it is being contended by a number of people as being one that is monopolistic.

That's what this bill does. It ensures an income and a development for these people, but does nothing at all for little people in order to maintain themselves in the business or for

[ Page 2335 ]

other people who want to come into it. That's a very serious question. It's not something that the minister has obviously addressed himself to. Yet the commissioner spent a great deal of time inquiring into this.

You know, there is a phrase in the bill — the evergreen clause, I think it is referred to. Frankly, the only evergreen that I think that refers to is the evergreen colour of money. It has nothing to do with the business of performance and the maintenance of their rights of tenure. It really deals with the business of ensuring that the money will always flow to the people who are in the field now and nobody else can get in. That's one of the very sad parts of this kind of legislation.

Now what we don't know when we talk about the legislation, because we never know that, is the regulations. For instance, we have a bill which has been brought in and then we have a minister who at 11:55 comes dashing in with six and a half pages of amendments and tells us that we have nothing to worry about because these amendments do not really affect the principle of the bill. Well, based on his presentation of the bill before the House, it is a most important piece of legislation which affects the economy of this province and will do for another hundred years. He spends 10 minutes outlining the bill for us, and then he assures us that the amendments are okay.

I was interested in some of the comments, Mr. Speaker, that Colin Beale made in his newsletter on June 7, 1978. He's talking about some of the reactions to the bill. He quotes a senior forest manager in the United States, a man responsible for sizeable operations in British Columbia. He reminds us that regulations can turn things around 180 per cent. "We've talked with three top industry figures in the United States, men with major interests in B.C. All are cautiously positive about the new Act, but they all three say: 'Let's have another check in a month or so.' Meanwhile the consulting forester says...."

I found reforestation under "Miscellaneous." Now the minister was not present at a tour that I was on a few weeks ago, but in some of the information that they gave us on that tour, one of the things that did come out was the whole question of the protection of the resource and the development of the resource. What we heard from these foresters — they made an argument to us — is that if you have an unemployment problem in British Columbia and you look at the whole question of doing something about reforestation, then that will help to partly solve the unemployment problem. But as the individual points out on page 3 of Beale's Letter:

"I found reforestation under 'Miscellaneous' at the back of the Act. Maybe this is all that's needed, but I think it deserves more attention.

"I don't see anything in the Act about lumber grades. This is important. On the coast, the lumber cedar log is one thing; a rotten old pulp cedar log is something else."

From another coast major, the manager says his reaction to the Act is: "A sensible 25 year term of TFLs will help initiate large capital programmes necessary in many coastal areas. "

Now we know on this side, when we were the government, that there was a strike of capital in terms of the forest industry and they weren't prepared to do any investment. We know that, because afterwards, when the new government: came in, a number of companies made the announcement that they were prepared to put in large sums of money under five-year programmes for retooling and remachining all of their operations. There was a question raised there: is that the responsible way to go, in terms of dealing in the forest industry, that companies would, for political reasons or otherwise, just let their plant deteriorate and then wait for an opportunity? We heard from the Crown Zellerbach president when he said: "We're going to put a $120-million investment in the forest industry." On close examination, it turned out to be that he had to put some machinery in that he was told to put in 10 years before and didn't.

Now the question to which I'm getting around is: what are the issues in terms of performance? What will there be done in this bill to ensure that companies will have to perform, that they will have to produce the kind of programmes and planning that have to go to this minister's office? Can we get some assurance that they will keep their plant up to date, that they will do all of the inventory that they're required to do? Is there anything to do with performance in here? Or is it simply, as I suspect, just a perpetuation of the situation that the majors have? We know very clearly that there is no entry available for anybody to get in who wants to come in and is brand new.

As I see it, you'll have no more of the operations that were envisioned by the former Premier of this province in the 1960s and 1970s of large companies coming in and putting together an organization and trying to obtain some cutting rights. That's all taken up now. As the individual told me when I met with some of the smaller people: "Well, the only way to

[ Page 2336 ]

get into this business is to buy somebody out. "

You're going to have to explain a little more when you sum up; you're going to have to spend a lot more than 10 minutes just telling us your views on the bill. If we're not going to get that out of the minister in the summing up, we're going to have to get it word by word and line by line in terms of the Act. I can see that you're a little tired now, but by the time this bill comes to the end, that minister is going to be so tired they're going to have to bring a bed in here. He's going to have to answer a lot of questions. I have some concerns about this minister that he might not be up to it, that he has not really briefed himself on the bill. That's going to be a problem, because this is the bill, as I said earlier, that is going to set the stage for the whole of the economy of this province, as he visualizes it, to 1985 when they change over to a new programme in terms of tenure. Then it could be for 30 or 40 years.

So this little, quiet minister over there has a very, very onerous task. He's got broad shoulders, but I have a suspicion, Mr. Speaker, that the minister who is presenting this bill was selected because he is a quiet, reserved kind of individual. This thing will go through very quietly and it all will be a very quiet affair. But the minister knows that it won't be a quiet affair; it's going to be a very noisy affair if we're going to have to get information out of this individual so that he's going to tell us exactly what it is that he has in mind in terms of the forest industry.

What is remarkable about this minister is that in the two and a half years that he's been minister, he has yet to make one major policy statement. We know he was relying on the Pearse commission to come and bail him out, but he has not made one major policy statement in respect to the forest industry. He has not looked into the future; he's made no observations. I would have thought that today he would have taken advantage, after two and a half years, to put it all together and say it. And 10 minutes, just 10 little minutes — that's all he gave to us in this House, which is very, very disappointing.

I want just now to return briefly to the issue of concentration again because it's a theme that keeps coming up in terms of the whole question of monopoly. The corporate concentration commission made a number of observations in their report. They talked about competition and oligopoly. They said in one part:

"On the whole, there are numerous constraints placed on its operation in Canada. We continue to rely primarily on the market mechanism, also called the price system or price mechanism, to allocate resources, adjust production and consumption, distribute income and bring about economic growth."

This afternoon my colleague from Revelstoke–Slocan has been in the same position as I've been in the House many times, when I've been dealing with issues under corporate and consumer affairs, of having to point out to the people over there that they are the ones that carry the banner for free enterprise. Yet we're the ones who are always pointing out the things that they are not speaking about. Let me just read this again because this is the definition of the free market system.

"On the whole, although numerous constraints are placed on its operation in Canada, we continue to rely primarily on the market mechanism, also called the price system or price mechanism, to allocate resources, adjust production and consumption, distribute income and bring about economic growth."

That's the formula. Those are all the ingredients for the free enterprise system. It all has to do with competition.

Your bill is supposed to demonstrate to the people of this province that you are maintaining that principle.

That bill isn't maintaining that principle at all. It has nothing to do with free enterprise, but simply with a private arrangement based on the perpetuation of a monopoly. Let me say something because I raised it earlier. One of the questions that the commission looked at was the issue of barriers to entry. I've already raised that twice in my statement. How does somebody get into the marketplace? How is somebody within the context of this bill going to get into the forest industry? They went to a lot of trouble to look at how you do it, and the minister might be interested in this. Let me just quote from the statement that they made at the beginning of the statement on barriers to entry.

"Before describing the four main types of market structures, a short description of the concept of barriers to entry is necessary.

"Barriers to entry are those factors that impede or prevent the entry of new firms into an industry. They can be classified in four groups.

"1) economies of scale and transport costs. If the minimum efficient scale of a firm is large, relative to demand in the industry and if the cost penalties for

[ Page 2337 ]

below the MES operations are substantial, a new firm will have to enter the market on such a large scale that the combined output could be sold at a substantially reduced price, perhaps below price."

They have a second one that might interest the minister: "government-imposed or legislative restrictions such as patent protection, legal monopolies and cartels, restrictions on foreign investment and tariffs." They've looked at the problem of barriers to entry. Has the minister looked at that problem? We continue to ask him. In his bill there are barriers to entry in terms of the free enterprise system in this province in the forest industry, which that deals with. Is he prepared to answer that question? Can he point out to us how any enterprising group of people can get into the forest industry after this bill passes? How are they going to get their cutting rights? What guarantees can they get? Or is it as people suggest, that you can't get in? If they can't get in, I think that what we will have to do on this side is watch very closely over the first year of the operation of this bill and make some reference to the people in the Combines Investigation Act, because it seem to me that what you do here is the result of government imposed or legislated restrictions such as patent protection, legal monopolies and cartels and restrictions on foreign investment and tariffs. You are doing some of those things and enshrining them in here in terms of the way you allocate the whole question of tenure.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister is capable of answering some of these questions. It becomes difficult when we have not had an opportunity to deal with the minister on a toe-to-toe basis in terms of debate. He's not well known for being terribly outgoing about the things that he wants to talk about. But he's really going to have an opportunity in this debate. Certainly in the committee stage he's going to have his name in Hansard so much they're going to have to bring out a second index to the index, because he's going to have to answer a lot of questions. What I've been attempting to do is to bring to attention the minister's point of view of the issues, and the whole question of corporate concentration.

You know, one of the interesting statements that was made by Mr. Knudsen, who is the chairman of MacMillan Bloedel.... Now there's an individual who likes to have things to say about the industry. He's very up front about what he says. He was making a speech in November at the University of Toronto. One of the points that he made to the audience was that one of the severe problems that the industry has, and his company has, is the high taxation that it pays. You know, Mr. Speaker, if you go through the report that the MacMillan Bloedel people tabled at the Securities Commission, they state that one of the liabilities they have, and they have to put down their whole financial picture, is that they have deferred taxes of $111 million.

Yet, when it was in Toronto last November, he said that one of the problems is high taxation. But, Mr. Speaker, they don't pay all their taxes. Do you know what $111 million of deferred taxes is? That's $111 million at 10 per cent, but it's a free interest loan. That's what they'd have to pay if they went to the bank. This way, they don't pay it. Yet to add a little insult to injury to the average taxpayer, he complains that one of the problems the industry has is taxation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'll be interested to hear from the minister, particularly on the issue of whether this bill — and I think it does, but I want to hear his views — raises barriers to entry for other people who want to come into the industry, who are enterprising and are prepared to make an investment in this province. He's going to have to answer that kind of question. He's going to have to answer the question of why it is that he's taken the trouble to accommodate the monopolies in this province. It's already been said why it is, because these are the kinds of political promises that are made and that you have to eventually deliver.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that MacMillan Bloedel had to deal with in their brief was admit that they'd paid a lot of offshore payments illegally. Some of those payments related to bribes and others related to political donations. They made no reference to Canada. They only talked about the offshore. So we know the extent to which companies are prepared to go. I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, to what extent the companies have gone to get the minister to produce this kind of bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this bill. As they say, I think that I shall never see a law as lovely as a tree, or something like that. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, my riding is primarily, as you know, a forested riding. Literally thousands and thousands of square miles of forests, three big pulp mills, a number of sawmills and, while we have some fishing and a little bit of agriculture in the riding, it's primarily a forested riding. The people living in that area depend upon the forest industry.

[ Page 2338 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are a number of things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that concern me greatly. While we'll have the opportunity to express those individual concerns as we go through the bill section by section, I think there are some very dangerous principles inherent in this bill.

The first dangerous principle, in my view, is that the bill commits our public forests for generations to come. Cutting rights that are now short term will be extended on a continually renewable basis in perpetuity. Or, as one former member of this House said in a similar debate, "in perpetuity, forever, or perhaps even longer."

Too few companies at present have these rights, and we have to be concerned about that. I'm concerned that the opportunity for participating in the industry will be extremely limited by new entries as well. I'm extremely' concerned about that aspect of the bill.

I hate to admit this, but I think the first time I ever voted in a provincial election was about 1952 on a preferential ballot type of system. I've always voted CCF or NDP, but on that preferential ballot in that year I voted as my second choice for a Social Credit candidate. I didn't realize you only had to mark one space; I wouldn't have if I had only known. But the fact is that I voted Social Credit as a second choice on that preferential ballot, not realizing that you only had to mark one square, because at that time the Premier, W.A.C. Bennett said he would do away with this long-term forest management licence. He said he would do away with giving away the timber resources of this province to a few companies and freezing out the small logger.

We all know what happened after he was elected, of course, and it hurts me to think that my second choice helped that Premier be elected in 1952, consequently giving away more timber, involving huge, horrendous scandals, freezing out.... I might tell you that my family has been in the logging business most of our lives, and I still have one or two left in the business. But we were squeezed out by the former Social Credit government of this province when they gave away the timber rights, and when they made it impossible for the small logger and small sawmill operator to operate in this province.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you sell your quota?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we didn't have.... That's part of the problem. They're hollering about selling your quota. We didn't have any quota, no. MacMillan Bloedel, which surrounded us in the area, got literally thousands and thousands of square acres. What did we get? What did the 29 small operators in the area I was located in at the time get? We got absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, that is one of the reasons I ran for public office: to correct situations like this. I know that it isn't possible for a single member to do too much, but I want to tell you that with the democratic socialists we were making a move. It was this government that started the royal commission; it was the NDP government that struck the Pearse royal commission on forestry. I am very concerned as well that the minister did not see fit to implement the Pearse royal commission report in the way it should have been — only sections of it that suited the minister and the forest giants in the industry.

There's another dangerous principle to this bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill means that there is virtually no future for small operators in this province, as I discussed. But there will also be no opportunity for newcomers in the industry. I think that if that government really believes in free enterprise, there should be competition for the timber resource. I believe there should be opportunity for somebody new to get into the business.

These small operators, these small independents, they work hard and have long hours. They purchase equipment and they employ people — a few, sometimes not many, but they employ people, they provide job opportunities. I believe these people should have the opportunity to get into the business and go broke. If they're not efficient, they will go broke. But I think that opportunity should exist for those people.

There has been a great deal written and said by a number of organizations about this bill. I might refer to one or two articles. There was a meeting in Victoria yesterday, Mr. Speaker, over at one of the local hotels by a group of people who are extremely concerned about this Act. Yes, here's the article in the Daily Colonist, dated June 14.

This group of people, including the Victoria Labour Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and the Vancouver Women's Resource Centre, said the Act discriminates against small, independent loggers in favour of the large conglomerates. No question about that. This group of people represent over 100,000 people in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the large

[ Page 2339 ]

companies wanting to protect their interest. That's what their high-paid executives get paid for — to protect the interests of the company. But we have a larger interest here in this Legislature and that is to protect the interests of the people. This bill is not doing that. No question about that, this bill is not protecting the best interests of the people.

Earlier this afternoon the leader of our party, Dave Barrett, referred to a confidential letter that was sent out to the forest industry of this province. It made it quite clear what the large conglomerates' view of the small, independent logger in this province is. Their view obviously is: "To heck with the small guy. Could care less." Quite frankly, that's not good enough. I think that government, and that minister particularly, have a duty not only to protect the small, independent loggers of this province, but to make sure that timber becomes available for new entries into the field.

Let me refer to another article by Stephen Hume from the Daily Colonist dated May 16. The Coalition for Responsible Forest Legislation — and this was a fellow by the name of Paul George, a biologist — said in Victoria: "The Forest Act would not ensure a bright economic future for the province as claimed by Forests Minister Tom Waterland. Instead, the Act will go down in history as a coverup for the real problems." He suggests in this article — and I tend to agree with most of this column, at least — that, as it now stands, the Act would do this. "The Act would scrap the sustained yield principle of forest management, ensure an even greater concentration of the forest industry in the hands of a very few large companies and eliminate public accountability by making the forest information secret."

By the way, I will stop right there for a moment, Mr. Speaker. This Act — and I don't know how many people are aware of it — contains a secrecy clause. In other words, any one in the Forest Service who tells the public how much timber is being taken out of any given area, or reveals any information at all, can be fired. It says so right in the Act — section 149 if you're interested. The secrecy clause in that Act is a very dangerous principle. This government has a habit of trying to keep things secret. They're not doing a very good job of it, but they have a habit of trying.

While we're on that, there's another part of this Act that contains a very dangerous principle, and I might as well talk about that for a minute while it comes to mind. That is, for the first time, the Forestry Act will give the power to a large group of people, including foresters and peace officers, to enter property without warrant, violating civil liberties. Again, another bad habit this government has is violating the civil liberties of the people. But they can enter property. I can visualize harassment in certain cases, particularly relating to the log salvage people who are always being harassed by overzealous officers. So there's another very dangerous principle that should be eliminated from this Act. I'm sure the minister is worried and concerned about that and will introduce the appropriate amendment to wipe out that section of the Act.

As I said before, this bill virtually ensures that there will be no bidding and no competition in the industry. That's a dangerous precedent in itself. Mr. Speaker, you know the small independents now have to bid if they have quota. If they have quota, they have to bid for that quota. But I don't think that Crown Zellerbach has to bid against MacMillan and Bloedel for the cutting rights of literally hundreds of square miles in any given TFL. I don't think there's any bidding process whatsoever.

I would suggest as well, while we're on that topic and before w get too far afield, that a certain amount of timber, as recommended by Pearse, should be withdrawn from certain TFLs every year. This timber should be made available to the small independent logger, and they should bid for it.

I would say as well that in areas where the small independent cannot afford to extract that resource — in other words, build the roads and that sort of thing — I see no reason why the government and the Forest Service should not provide the technical know how and the funds and construct those roads. It should be added to the cost of the timber when it's extracted. That's one way that could be handled.

I have just one more quote before I adjourn this debate. This is a quote from the Independent Loggers Association of British Columbia in a brief they released on June 5, 1978. I'll just read one paragraph of the brief. I think it is very significant and puts in a nutshell how many of us feel about this particular Act:

"In this proposed legislation the public is ignored, Crown revenue is gravely diluted, and the independent operator is ultimately disfranchised. It is the vehicle for the control of all public timber to be inexorably concentrated in the hands of the large international corporations, which today hold the bulk of existing timber rights in the province. These timber

[ Page 2340 ]

rights are held without competition. The future rights to all Crown timber will be held without competition, in perpetuity, which will make existing licences look momentary. The historical development of tenure in British Columbia guarantees that this is inevitable. The sinister concentration of corporate power and control is of such serious concern to us, not just as members of the forest industry but as British Columbians Columbians and as Canadians."

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intitled Wrongful Dismissal Act.

Leave granted.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 218, Wrongful Dismissal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House, after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday I undertook to consider several matters arising from a statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby–Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) with leave of the House. One objection to the statement, namely that an improper imputation had been made against the second member for Vancouver–Burrard (Mr. Levi) was disposed of yesterday by an appropriate withdrawal.

A further objection was taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) that the statement made was different in character from that which was indicated upon the request for leave to make the statement. The hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that this might constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege, but as the hon. leader himself did not indicate he had a motion relating thereto, the matter cannot proceed further.

However, I would observe that in obtaining the floor on a point of order or a matter of privilege, the point or matter must be bona fide to avoid any abuse of the rules. Hon. members are likewise fixed with a similar responsibility when describing the essence of a statement for which leave is requested.

I must also reiterate that if the conduct of a member or a charge of a personal character is to be debated, it may only be done upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House — May, 16th edition, page 400. This rule was clearly indicated by the Chair when similar suggestions of possible breach of the Constitution Act were sought to be made in Committee of the Whole — Hansard July 8, 1977, pages 3,513 and 3,524.

As a consequence of my review of this matter, I have concluded that there is no basis for any further procedural ruling from the Chair.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.