[ Page 2371 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture report: "Rebates and Allowances in the

British Columbia food industry." Mr. Bawtree –– 2371

Commodity Contracts Trading Act (Bill 36) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 2372

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 33) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 2372

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 34) Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading e –– 2372

Forest Act (Bill 14) Second reading.

Mr. Lauk –– 2372

On the amendment.

Mr. Cocke –– 2378

Mrs. Wallace –– 2381

Mr. Skelly –– 2383

Mr. King –– 2386

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2391

Mr. Lea –– 2393

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery this morning are three very important people: my wife, Sheila; my business partner, Mr. Ernie Richmond, and his wife, Judy. I would like this House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today are two constituents and good friends of mine from Ashcroft. I would ask the House to please welcome George and Betty Nameth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning are students from North Saanich Middle School, grade 8, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Russell. Would the House make them welcome?

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make. First of all, I have a very dear friend of mine visiting me here from Los Angeles. His wife was with him, but unfortunately they were taking a walk through Butchart Gardens when she tripped and fell and shattered her kneecaps. Consequently she's in the hospital.

This friend of mine, Bill Haynes, is a top employee of the Hughes aircraft people in the electronics division in Los Angeles. Accompanying him and his wife Jean is his cousin, Jane Barrett, from England. I don't believe she's related to the Leader of the Opposition, but the name is the same. Would the House please make these good people welcome?

I have one other introduction, Mr. Speaker. We have in the gallery Mr. Chris Righton, who is the ambassador of goodwill for the city of Kimberley. As you all know, Kimberley is the Bavarian city of the Rockies. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from my daughter, a former page of this House, who wished me to inform the House that she is graduating tonight and part of her educational experience was serving the members of this House. I want to tell the House that I am thankful for their assistance in helping my daughter finish high school.

My son is in the gallery and I just want to say: be home on time or we'll all be in trouble tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, for the notice of the House, I have been informed that Mr. Cecil Bull, a former member of this House who represented South Okanagan from 1937 to 1941, passed away Thursday at the age of 87. Mr. Bull was an honorary colonel in the B.C. Dragoons. Perhaps, on behalf of all the members, the Speaker can undertake to express appropriate sympathies.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 and ask leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

MR. STEPHENS: It has become apparent that the property tax increases throughout British Columbia and the hardship created thereby have reached crisis proportions. Many British Columbians are facing an inability to meet the tax increases and are faced with a prospect of losing their homes or their businesses. The increasing public concern evidenced by overflow meetings of taxpayers, such as occurred in Surrey last Wednesday night, and by the hundreds of letters received by me, demands that action be taken immediately by the provincial government to alleviate this crisis.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the notice of motion has been placed in my hand. I will be taking the matters raised under advisement, and will return to the House and advise the decision. There are several observations which I could cite at the first blush. No. 1, rather than it being an emergent matter, it could be a matter which has been with us for some time and the opportunities, also, for debating the matter are also at hand. So on two bases already I see some problem for the motion being in order.

I will reserve decision. I will bring an advised decision to the House without prejudice to the member or his position in debate.

MR. STEPHENS: On a point of order, might I just say that in considering this matter sometimes a crisis does not rise all at once, it builds. One has to decide at what point to move on it.

Presenting reports.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a report and make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

MR. BAWTREE: This report is being tabled

[ Page 2372 ]

today by your Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and while it contains recommendations, they are staff recommendations dealing with this report only. The committee will be examining other reports dealing with such things as concentration and integration in the food industry, wholesale and retail sectors of the British Columbia food industry, as well as advertising and promotion in the industry.

After examining all these reports, the committee will be making recommendations on this important subject.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this report, entitled "Rebates and Allowances in the British Columbia Food Industry, " be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills.

COMMODITY CONTRACTS TRADING ACT

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Commodity Contracts Trading Act.

Bill 36 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.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 33 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.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 34 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 14.

FOREST ACT

(continued)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the press, now that they are not here. This bill has been considered not just for the last five years; this bill has been needed and considered in some quarters for the last 20 years. It is one of the most important bills to be introduced in this Legislature in the last 20 years, if not the most important. It is for that reason that one would expect that the Fourth Estate would have at its command some of the best expertise that could analyse the impact of this bill on our economy. I suppose the attitude of the Fourth Estate must be reflected by its board of directors and the people who control the press, because I can see that the gallery files extensive stories on this material, but it has been buried in the publication of the two Vancouver city dailies in the last few days of debate in a shocking and disgraceful manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're trying to get press!

MR. LAUK: Oh, I know this is not going to be printed because the publishers - the Paddy Shermans and the Stuart Keates of this world -are cowards. They can't take criticism of themselves and they won't print criticism of themselves. You know it and I know it.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's worth putting on the record of Hansard. It's no reflection of the importance of this bill that the Minister of Forests stood up for five or six minutes and gave a back-of-the-hand treatment to his own bill and then sat down - a cavalier attitude. That is no mistake on his part and it's no mistake on the part of the big city dailies and the TV networks. They are silent on this bill and they are underemphasizing this bill because it's a bill for big corporations - the very big corporations that control the big city press in the city of Vancouver.

I was looking at the Companies Act and at the Pacific Press board. When you look the importance of this statute and how it affects the forest industry, it's interesting to see who sits on the board of Pacific Press, which runs both newspapers in this province. Every-

[ Page 2373 ]

body knows that.

First of all, there's an individual here by the name of Gerald Hobbs. He's with Cominco. Well, there's not too much to worry about that, one might say, if he's with Cominco. What's that got to do with the forest industry? Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hobbs also sits on the board of directors for MacMillan Bloedel. Then there is J. Norman Hyland. Mr. Speaker, J. Norman Hyland is not only on the board of directors of MacMillan Bloedel, he is the vice-chairman of the board of Pacific Press. And, by the way, he is the president of Granduc Mines, and on the boards of various other corporations - one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. And he's controlling the press, what goes in to the Vancouver Province and to the Vancouver Sun. That's why the people of this province do not know the seriousness of the bill that's before this Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at other personalities - on the board of Southam, for example. Anybody heard of Adam Zimmerman? How much am I bid for Adam Zimmerman? Noranda, Northwood -one of the major multinational corporations involved - and he's on Southam.

Can anyone wonder why the press coverage in the city of Vancouver is in the saddest state it's been in in the history of the Fourth Estate in British Columbia and in Canada? Everyone knows that the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun are national disgraces when it comes to news coverage. It's no longer politicians standing up and arguing that they're only giving one side of the story; they're giving nothing of the story. They're giving nothing of the issues that are facing the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt your speech long enough to say that the principle of Bill 14 is what is under consideration, and although perhaps a passing comment might be made about the press, nonetheless, I don't think we can open a debate on the press under this bill. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I'm just going to point out one reason why I think the hon. minister was so silent on his own bill, and he's hoping the press coverage will be quiet. Ronald Cliff is the president and chairman of the board of Pacific Press. He's also chairman of the board of Inland Natural Gas. He sits on the board of Inland Natural Gas with Mr. Thomas, who is a key executive officer of Grown Zellerbach. They're all sitting together. They're all sitting in the same bathtub, Mr. Speaker. And guess who else is on Inland Natural Gas?

Rod Hungerford, who was one of the first appointments to Crown corporation boards made by this government.

Everybody's so friendly. It's just so wonderful that a handful of businessmen run the government, run the press and run the business of this province. Have we graduated too much from the concept of the company province? This bill, Mr. Speaker, will perpetuate the concept of the company province for British Columbia in perpetuity.

MR. BARRETT: For forever, maybe even longer.

MR. LAUK: And that's what this bill does.

Well, Mr. Speaker, although there were some points that were covered in the hon. Liberal leader's speech that I did not agree with yesterday, it was a tour de force of an MLA's speech. I'm telling you, the coverage given in the Vancouver city Province and the Victoria Colonist was an absolute disgrace. I'm sure the TV networks had no idea what Mr. Gibson said, if you saw the TV coverage. The people of this province are not getting an accurate picture of what's happening to us as a result of Bill 14. That's in the interest of the government, but it's not in the interest of the people of this province.

Now let's deal with a specific area my colleagues have dealt with other areas of this bill. I want to talk about the export provisions. I want to talk about the bill and the Pearse recommendations and see where they do not coincide.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to refer to the summary of the Pearse report.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is that the Pearse report?

MR. LAUK: I have a summary of it here; I have the Pearse report here.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Who wrote the summary?

MR. LAUK: I wrote the summary from my reading of the Pearse report. I think the minister will find it fairly accurate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's not the Williams summary?

MR. LAUK: He doesn't know very much, does he?

AN HON. MEMBER: He believes what he's doing.

MR. LAUK: Yes, he believes what he's doing. It's highly unlikely that I'd be reading a

[ Page 2374 ]

report written by that author, Mr. Speaker.

The point I wish to make, and that I think should be made, is that though this bill goes a long way to destroying competition in the forest industry in this province it even goes farther in destroying the potential for economic development in this province. This minister should not pretend that he is a free enterpriser. He's never made a free enterprise buck in his life; he doesn't know what it means. As a matter of fact, he was one of my employees in the civil service, and I found that he was doing a fair job in his field. But the Peter Principle again has been proven, Mr. Speaker.

He's been made a minister of the Crown and, instead of providing independent guidance in the drafting of this legislation, instead of providing a protection for the commonwealth for all the people of this province, he's been totally consumed by a false sense of responsibility towards the major corporations. He's like the sparrow caught in a badminton game. On the one side, the truck loggers bat him over; on the other side GOFI bats him over; on the other, the independents bat him over. The poor little fellow does not know what he's doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, May, at page 45, says: "Debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration.

Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I think that a criticism of the drafting of the bill, though, is in order, Mr. Speaker. It's a very sloppy bill indeed, and the draftsmanship of this government is also worthy of great comment. I have never seen a government in the past 20 years that introduced so little in the way of legislation and so much in the way of amendments to it. This government has had a year, two years, three years to draft this bill. They lay it on the table and a few days later they come by with amendments that change the whole face and character of the bill.

Does the government know what it is doing? Is the government instilling the kind of confidence we should have in it? It's produced sheets and sheets of amendments to a bill it just tabled.

Mr. Speaker, the people cannot have confidence that the government is resolved behind Bill 14, that it understands what it is doing when it brings in sheaves of amendments like this. It is responding in a knee-jerk fashion to the various forestry factions in this province, and the minister has not the strength to live up to an overall commitment to the commonwealth. What he's doing is responding in a knee-jerk fashion.

What happens if we do pass this bill in second reading, Mr. Speaker? What happens then? It goes to committee. We're dealing with these amendments and, if we deal with these amendments, will there be more amendments? You know, it's like the pair of pants that ended up with so many patches that the original pants didn't exist - it was all patches. That's the kind of thing the minister is doing. Is that instilling confidence? by his opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, people can assume that the minister didn't read the bill in the first place, that he's acting totally on faith.

I want to deal with the industrial development potential, Mr. Speaker, as dealt with in chapter 23 of the Pearse report. Pearse argues for maximum competition in the forest industry to encourage economic development, industrial opportunities and a keen competitiveness for our product abroad. He even enlists the aid of H.R. MacMillan, on page 327, when he quotes H.R. MacMillan before the 1946 royal commission. MacMillan was reported to have said: "Competition should be maintained throughout the coast district among those who can pay the highest price for raw materials. The result of such a policy will be to encourage the best use of all the forest crop, and the greatest return from growing timber."

Ten years later, however, H.R. and his company were applying for tree-farm licences at the 1955 royal commission. However, Pearse says again, on page 328: "1 cannot overemphasize the importance of vigorous markets for intermediate products like logs and chips for the healthy development of the province's forest industry. Thus I have suggested that the development of markets for intermediate products should be an explicit goal of public policy."

Mr. Speaker, it is also clear that manufacturing capacity in the province is not perfectly fitted to the raw material supply. The most serious imbalance is excess pulp material relative to pulping capacity, and Pearse sees this as a problem that is likely to become more serious as timber quality declines. He sees export as the solution for the foreseeable future. In turn, the government should be encouraging new pulping ventures.

He deals with some of the problems of contractor clauses and notes that contractors appear to be extremely efficient survivors in the system. He feels that increased access to timber cutting rights would provide a great opportunity for the growth and development of

[ Page 2375 ]

this independent sector. I will repeat that: Pearse suggested that increased access to timber cutting rights is the major way to provide a great opportunity for the growth and development of this independent sector.

It cannot be overemphasized that this bill is a restrictive bill creating a monopolistic forest industry. It cannot be said too of ten that the bill, however much it provides for a review of the Forest Service, really ties the hands of administrations for generations to come with respect to the forest resource in the province of British Columbia. It is not enough to say that the government will have the opportunity in most cases, at the end of each five-year period, to review these licences, tenures and cutting rights. This government knows and you know, Mr. Speaker, and every schoolboy knows that when you've got a multinational committed to tremendous sum of investment in the forest industry, it will take a minister and a government with much greater courage than this one apparently has to do anything but renew the licensed tenure of the multinational corporations.

It's important to know that it's not just an argument for the little fellow in the field that brings us to our feet in opposition to this bill; it's our argument that it will destroy the opportunity of our major industry to add value to its resource, diversify its productivity and become competitive on the international market. To put it in other words, we are destroying our chances to develop economically in the forest industry. It is encouraging inefficiency, it is encouraging fiefdoms - sort of a feudal, Tory attitude towards the ownership of the resource by multinational corporations - and perpetuating that fiefdom indefinitely.

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and I do not agree with respect to our philosophy of how the economy should run. I believe in a planned economy. I believe in planned production and planned consumption. I believe that it is only in a planned way that we can succeed in this province in eliminating the tragedy of unemployment. It is only in that way that we can avoid the tragedy of empty towns - ghost towns, closed schools, empty playgrounds - of the Granducs closing down, of the Stewarts of British Columbia turning into tumbleweed towns. That is why I disagree with the hon. Liberal leader. But in his critique of the bill he is a free enterpriser, or a so-called private enterpriser, and he concludes that this bill is so restrictive and monopolistic that he can say nothing else than that this government is in the pockets of the major multinational corporations of the province. This is not the wild flailing - as we're accused sometimes of doing - of the democratic socialist party; it's the approach of the liberal-democratic party.

In other words, what we are facing in this province are the forces of progress protecting the commonwealth of the province of British Columbia against the feudal, Tory, multinational right wing. It's always dangerous to simplify in those kinds of terms, but not in relation to this statute.

I know there are many members on the back bench of the government party who do not agree with supporting this great monopoly in the forest industry. I know that the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and other members on that side of the House are gravely worried about this bill. I don't know how they are going to vote until the division is called. None of us may know how they are going to vote. But I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. There are good and true people on that side of the House. They are native British Columbians who believe in the future of this province and have confidence in its people, and who believe this bill is a tremendous step backwards to the robber-baron times of the 19th century.

It's like the Trilateral Commission: it's set up to make the world safe for multinational corporations. Bill 14 is set up to make B.C. safe for multinational corporations.

There is a considerable amount of leeway given to the minister to decide whether wood will be surplus and uneconomic. If the government does not force corporations with surplus wood to build plants that can utilize some of the lower grade and/or develop economic transportation systems, then a considerable volume on the upper coast could become available for export or be placed on the Vancouver log market. I want to refer to the Vancouver market as it is extant and its lack of competition.

Generally speaking, the major corporations on the coast have allowed their plants to sink to deplorably low states of efficiency. That is conceded; I don't think there is any dispute about that. Even using the finest wood, many have had to close. The Vancouver plywood plant is an example. They are now faced with (a) closure or (b) heavily spending to modernize their plants. What is the cause of that? That was a decision of least resistance made by the major multinationals in B.C. It was the least resistance because we have had a succession of governments that have allowed them to get off the hook. We have had a succession of governments that said to the major corporations in the forest industry:

[ Page 2376 ]

"You've got a free hand. You don't need to take care of your resource. You don't need to build efficiently and modernize your plants. You've got your forest licence and your cutting rights, and we're not going to touch you." The easy way out is to export raw material.

Here is where I disagree with the hon. Liberal leader. He argued end-value stumpage, rather than on the logs. Is that what you were saying?

MR. GIBSON: End-value product appraisal, rather than log market.

MR. LAUK: That's right. End-value appraisal, rather than log-market appraisal.

The problem is that the Liberal leader - not to such a great extent as the minister -believes that the major multinationals are going to be a fair and just source of logs for their ' competitors. In other words, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano argues that MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach are going to be fair with their competitors. I think every schoolboy knows that if that happens once in a century, it's a modern miracle.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You did discuss this issue. The end-product appraisal presupposes that most multinational corporations are going to move in that direction. In other words, they are not going to move in that direction; they are going to use logs. in another way, rather than provide them to the competition.

We must have a government-regulated log exchange in this province to provide access to timber for the independent loggers and people competing in the industry. We can't rely on the major multinationals to be fair in the marketplace with their competitors. it's against their grain, and we know it can't happen.

Getting back to the problems we're having with export and economic development that follows from that, the easy way out in the past has been to export raw material. Therefore a strong, positive commitment is required of this government, which is not present in Bill 14, to stop the export of unmanufactured material from the province, not when it's too late but as a total economic plan for the forestry industry. This will have to force the construction of modern conversion plants.

It is estimated that there will be a direct loss of 11,000-plus jobs when the majors update their obsolete wood-product manufacturing plants because of improved efficiency and technology. We had a brief discussion of this from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) yesterday afternoon. It is therefore imperative that we do everything in our power to manufacture and process at home. If multinationals are not prepared to, then their surplus must be withdrawn and made available to domestic firms who will.

I think that no better example of this can be given than the analysis I've recently read of the Pacific Northwest in the United States. I'm reading from an IWA report, Mr. Speaker.

"Our fears of unrestricted log export are based upon the United States northwest's experience. In 1972, round logs exported from the United States made up just over 5 per cent of the total 1972 harvest. This certainly does not represent a major share of the timber cut, but it is interesting to examine this ratio as it has changed over the years.

"The ratio of log exports to a total production has shown a gradual but steady increase over the period 1960 to 1972. We are lacking recent years' figures. In 1960, log exports represented 0.5 per cent of the harvest. The only year in which this'figure dropped significantly from the year prior was in 1971, when the dock strike reduced the trade flow.

"A distinct trend emerges when examining log exports as they relate to the export of all wood products, which include lumber, plywood, pulp and logs. Over the period 1960 to 1972, United States shipments of wood products rose steadily at an average rate of 18 per cent per year. But since log exports have increased at a much faster pace, an increasing share of the wood export is in the form of raw natural resource. In 1969, 0.7 per cent of wood exports were logs. In 1972, a full 42 per cent were in the form of round wood. The same kind of trend can be seen when examining a ratio between log exports. For every cubic foot of lumber exported in 1960, one-third cubic foot of logs were shipped."

That's a third of the total exports.

"By 1972, the situation had completely reversed itself to one in which two and a half cubic feet of logs were exported for every single cubic foot of lumber" - a dramatic reversal. "This trend shows a continuous shift away from the manufactured export towards the raw material export.

"We feel that the same results would be experienced in British Columbia if unres-

[ Page 2377 ]

tricted export were allowed. Most would agree that such a shift is undesirable since (1) it takes less man-hours in B.C. to produce a log than a piece of lumber; (2) the skill requirements of the forest industry would be narrowed if we reduced the relative importance of wood manufacturing; and (3) the economic base now provided by wood. manufacturing would be reduced.

"If the Japanese can buy our logs, will they reduce the amount of lumber that is purchased? It is suggested that they would, at least in relative terms. And it is thus concluded that export restrictions on unprocessed material should be continued unless very careful analysis indicates that they are surplus to British Columbia's needs, or if they can return more total wealth to the province as logs than lumber."

(14r. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the statement is clear. We're not content with the wide degree of discretion that the minister and his department which has results in these exports. It's altogether too easy from time to time to grant permits for exports of both chips and logs at times of surplus. It's so easy that major multinational corporations rely on it, plan for it and take advantage of the lack of planning of the government, as a matter of fact, and become inefficient - in other words, exporting that raw material in a discouragement or a disincentive to the expansion of sawmilling, pulp making and paper-making in this province.

I know the minister, in closing, will probably stand up and say that we did it too. Sure, we allowed the export of chips and we allowed the export of logs from time to time. The point that must be made is that an accurate plan, fully supported by the government and predictable for the private industry, would avoid this unnecessary export of our raw material which discourages the expansion of our industry at home.

By the way, the Pearse commission recommends the timber stabilization board to deal in this matter of exports and the planning for exports. It must be discouraged.

The very serious example in reversal that occurred in the Pacific Northwest is being seriously considered by private industry and government now.

Mr. Speaker, there's a great deal to say about this bill, specifically in terms of economic expansion in the industry. I know we don't have too much time to deal with it in 40 minutes. But I've just dealt with a narrow area of the bill I'm worried about that I can see will lead to a greater inefficiency, keeping us trapped in a primary extractive industry when we should be adding value to the forest industry every year.

We should be forcing - and I mean forcing -people who have the privilege of cutting timber in our forests that belong to the commonwealth to become efficient, to add value to the resource, to do their milling, their paper-making and pulp-making here in the province of British Columbia. The discretion that is left to a minister who has so far left us unimpressed with his independence is too much to ask of this opposition, Mr. Speaker.

I'll go back to my critique of this government's complete lack of confidence in its own bill. After four or five years of study, committees, task forces, consultations and finally they came down from Mount Sinai with Bill 14. The opposition got together with its foresters, the Liberal Party with its foresters, COFI with its foresters, the independent truck loggers with its foresters, and we all sat down and looked over the bill.

This week he comes in with another bill; he comes in with ream after ream, page after page of amendments. It's not just sloppy draftsmanship; it reveals an alarming lack of confidence in Bill 14. It is also alarming, Mr. Speaker, that this government expects the opposition and the various formal organizations that are involved in forestry to respond to these amendments in a couple of days. It is too much to ask.

Again, they have revealed a lack of confidence in the bill. Again, we have the independent truck loggers, originally coming out and saying, "Well, it's not a bad bill, " but when they had a look at it they said: "We're really worried. We're worried about this bill. We didn't see in this bill originally what we thought we saw in it or what we see now." How many other organizations are going to arrive at the same conclusion? What happens if the press does get off its backside and starts to do a real analytical job in representing the importance of this bill to the people of the province?

Shouldn't the government have a response? Shouldn't the government await a response from the various organizations that are still looking at and studying this bill at the present time, not to mention the amendments just introduced? Not only am I opposed to Bill 14, but I would argue the importance of having this bill stand over until such time as the bill can be more accurately and adequately considered by all groups in the province and

[ Page 2378 ]

by the press - through its own resources - so that we can start to have a public dialogue on the seriousness of this bill.

I therefore move that the motion that the bill be read a second time now be amended as follows: by striking out the word "now" and substituting the words "six months hence." This motion is moved by me and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are a couple of minor errors in your motion, but we assume that you will make those corrections as they are appropriate.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I rise to support this motion that I worked out with the Clerk of the House, and I suggest if there are some minor amendments we would be only too happy to make those amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member for an area with probably more interest and more involvement in the lumber business than almost anywhere in the province of British Columbia. You will note that the IWA has 6,000 members in New Westminster. It is the largest local in the IWA across the province, which is indicative, I would think. Further to that, you will notice that the shores of the Fraser on both sides in our general area are almost wall-to-wall lumber industry. So naturally I take great pleasure in having something to do with and having something to say about why the bill should be discussed a great deal more.

Further, I recall - as do many others have who have lived a long life in our province, and for that matter in Canada - that my first job other than delivering for a little store after school was working in a lumber camp in the summertime. As a matter of fact, that was in 1941 - some time ago. Naturally the new kid coming into the camp had to be thrown in the rain barrel just like everybody else. They always picked the biggest person to throw you in the rain barrel. I was kind of happy about this particular situation because the big guy came up to me beforehand and he said: "Hey, I'll split the money they're offering if you don't give too much resistance." So that gave me a little more confidence than I had previously.

We have many, many people who are really experienced in the lumber industry. I skidded logs and tailed the edger and did all those fascinating jobs in that short period that I had something to do with the industry. But I recognize, as does everybody else in this province, that it is by far the most important industry that we have, and will be for some time to come.

Now it can be for a lot longer if we're a little more thoughtful about the way we handle this industry. I'm afraid that the minister and his advisers have been precipitous. They are responding in a knee-jerk way to a need. There's no question about the fact that there is a need for a new forest bill in this province. Nobody's going to question that, nor will I. But to show that their move is precipitous, let me go back to the fact that the government themselves are undecided about their own bill. They introduced a bill a month ago and then when we got into debate on second reading, they introduced seven pages of amendments on their own bill. They wouldn't even hoist it for a few days while the opposition could study the amendments, which you have to put into context. There's no point in just reading a bunch of amendments to a bill unless you can change the bill yourself to accept what those amendments will do.

So, Mr. Speaker, obviously they lack direction, and that is not something that I would suggest is new. They lack direction because the minister is acting, as I said, precipitously. I suggest that there's one more point I would like to make with respect to this bill and where the minister's head is. This most important bill, while it's being discussed in our Legislature, is not being observed by members or representatives of the multinational corporations. I have seen people from the truck loggers; I have seen independents. But to date, I have not seen any of the representatives of the large multinationals. I suggest the only representative of the large multinationals that is observing this debate is the minister himself, and that's a shocking situation.

I would like to know where they are. They must be totally confident inasmuch as their position is being protected by this minister. I know that the truck loggers are not so confident. I know that the independents are not so confident. I know that there are a number of groups within our province calling for a hoist of this bill, precisely what the member for Vancouver Centre presents in his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me list for you the people who are calling for a hoist and a discussion of this bill in our province. The Truck Loggers Association is asking that the bill be tabled and be discussed. They're asking for a minimum of three months. We're asking for six months in our resolution. We think that this is a departure that would serve this province well in the long run.

[ Page 2379 ]

The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and the Victoria Labour Council are calling for a tabling of this bill.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, 180 bands representing 45,000 citizens of the province of British Columbia, is calling for a tabling, calling for an opportunity for some input.

You see, Mr. Speaker, if this bill closely represented opinions in the Pearse royal commission report, I would suggest maybe they did have their input; but, as I read this bill, and as those who are far better equipped to understand the intricacies of this particular industry read this bill, it does not reflect the suggestions that came out of that Pearse royal commission report. People have a right to have some kind of input into a decision that will affect this province for years to come, for generations to come - an effect which will not really be felt by our generation to the extent that it will by the next and certainly to the extent that it will by the following generations. Why is it that so often we human beings decide to opt for now and cut the future out of our thinking? I think it's shocking, and it's particularly shocking when our bread and butter - our total economic direction in this province - is with this industry. It's time that we began to take heed of what people are saying and who is saying it.

And I'll go on: the West Coast Environmental Law Association; Vancouver Women's Research Association; Smithers Forestry Advisory Committee; the Association of National and Provincial Parks, B.C. chapter - all people, Mr. Speaker, who spend hours and hours and hours of their time trying to provide a better province for us to live in. And they are concerned about this Act; they're concerned about Bill 14.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why that minister can't get up during this debate and at least go as far as to suggest adjournment of debate, so he can get back with cabinet colleagues and discuss the whole question of this resolution that you now have before you. Otherwise, what will occur? Predictably, it will be them against us or us against them in the vote, and that's a shame. That minister should be thinking of the future of his children and their children in this province and not doing something precipitous that he was told to do by the multinationals, even those multinationals based in British Columbia, which have no particular loyalty and no particular interest in the future of the people of B.C. - their interest is in their own profit and loss picture.

Mr. Speaker, I'll go on: SPEC also endorses this position; the Federation of B.C. Naturalists does; the Federation of B.C. Mountain Clubs does; the Sierra Club of B.C. does. That's an interesting contradiction; there is a multinational environmental group who are based, as I understand it, in the United States. Good for them. The Telkwa Foundation and the Smithers Conservation Centre endorse this position.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) laughs. He has all sorts of ideas about whom these people represent. But let me tell you this: these people have added their names, have added their associations to a growing list in this province which says that there is no need for this Legislature to be driven to a vote by a minister who is bound up hand and foot by an interest group that is most powerful.

Islands Protection Society from the Queen Charlotte Islands - those of us who have been up there understand their need for some input, for we've seen some of the ravages wrought by the multinationals; the Greater Victoria Environmental Centre; IWA, Local 217 in Vancouver, and group after group after group. If there was time for these groups and others, for the independent loggers and for the truck loggers to have their day in court, why is it that this House, with its obvious lack of knowledge of this meaningful, this consequential situation, should - without the input required - make a decision here on party lines? I'm afraid that's the way it's going to go.

If the minister is not the rep for the multinationals I would ask why it is that he will not let the groups that are obviously most concerned with this bill have their input and have their day in court. I say that the powerful have intimidated that minister. I say that: he shivers every time he hears the telephone ring for fear he's being summonsed back to make another decision in their favour. They don't need help; they are powerful. They don't need to give marching orders, yet all evidence that I've seen to date would indicate to me that they've most definitely given those marching orders.

Yesterday I listened to something that made me feel sad. I listened to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , who stood in this House and said he was not happy with this bill, yet he had been assured - and this, Mr. Speaker, is the cop-out of cop-outs - that it could be straightened out with regulations. Who in the world can buy that argument? I only wish that

[ Page 2380 ]

that member who was once a minister would hearken back to his own participation in lawmaking as a minister. He knows - unless his memory has gone completely - that regulations cannot change the intent of legislation. Regulations can only complement legislation. Legislation cannot contradict, nor change the intent of legislation; nobody in the world can say it can. If it could, what right would the cabinet have to change the intent of legislation by regulation?

I say they have no right; regulations can only complement. I say to the member for Skeena, if he cares to read Hansard and read it well, that if he feels that the minister can do something to mitigate or modify this Act, let him think about it again. I ask that member when he comes back into the House to speak on this debate and on the hoist. At least do that, because that is essential. He says he doesn't like this Act. I say to him he is quite correct in not liking this Act. That member, who spent most of his life involved one way or another in the lumber industry, doesn't like this Act. I don't blame him for not liking this Act, but I say to him: speak on the hoist, at least. He should urge his colleagues to speak on this hoist because it is utterly essential that we do not make a move that we're all going to be sorry for eventually. I'm afraid that's the position we're in at the present time.

Just once more, the member for Skeena must think in terms of his argument yesterday and think in terms of what direction that takes us as far as this Act is concerned. It takes us down the tube, because if we all were to cop out in that way and say: "Oh, well, a blessed government can get us out of this position, " then I say that we have taken a specious argument and it's an excuse for doing something we know deep down in our hearts we should not do. The member for Skeena should not vote for this bill, but if lie must, if he's been ordered to, then I say he must speak for the hoist and he must support the hoist. Regulations cannot contradict legislation, and loll say that over and over again. I hope that that member when he comes back from Jack Webster's programme will think very seriously of the argument he raised yesterday.

We see before us an Act that gives us very little satisfaction in terms of our greatest problem in this province. It tells us that the multinationals will very likely sharpen up their operation, and in so doing will reduce the number of jobs in British Columbia, because we know that every time there is any kind of automation the job market becomes worse and worse. But there is nothing to complement that situation, nothing to modify that problem, because the small operators are being squeezed at the same time. So the multinationals, as they become more efficient and less job-intensive, are not going to be backed up by independent truck loggers or others who are going to be able to provide for those jobs that have been lost.

I'm not advocating an inefficient industry -not at all. I suggest that we all have to work with the minister, that everybody has to work with the government and everybody has to work with this industry to try to get it to be efficient. But at the same time that important industry must supply the jobs that are needed in our province. Exportation of our jobs has become the rule of the day; we are a branch plant economy. The decisions are not made here, nor have they been made here for years. The one thing that I felt when I heard that there was a new Forest Act coming down was that there would be something to change that situation, something to give us the confidence that we would be eventually masters in our own home. Instead of that we see something that will take us further down the road in terms of being mattres chez nous. It will further take us down the road away fran where we belong, away from making our own decisions. More and more decisions will be made in New York. More and more decisions will be made outside this country, and I think that's shocking.

We must complement the needs of our own people. Canadians have for years and years and years been described as conservatives who will not invest in their own economies. One of the things that got me into the whole realm of politics was because I understood that so well, having worked for a large life insurance company for some 20 years and watching the investment of our own dollars. And what was that investment? It was always complementary to the needs of the multinationals, always complementary to the needs of big business, called blue-chip investment. Trust companies, banks and insurance companies are always doing things that in the long run carry us away from being maitres chez nous and carry us away from being masters in our own home.

We're finding a bill in this House complementary to that kind of thinking. Look, I know how persuasive they are. I've worked with them for years. I know how persuasive these operators are. My heavenly days, they can hire the best. They've got the money to hire the best and we make sure they have the money to hire the best by doing exactly what they want us to do.

Mr. Speaker, we must hoist this bill in the interests of every British Columbian, in the

[ Page 2381 ]

interest of every Canadian. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone in this House to vote for hoisting this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I rise to support the motion to hoist, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be self-evident, from the kinds of comments that we have heard around this province since the bill was first introduced, that nobody understands what the bill says. The interpretations range through the whole spectrum. Each group of the industry, each group of individual citizens, is putting a different interpretation on this bill and that, Mr. Speaker, was before we had these six pages of amendments. Even in the case of the original bill as it was introduced there has been a complete range of interpretation of what that bill means. No two people agree on what it really says, and now, on top of that, we have six pages of amendments introduced six minutes before we were supposed to discuss the bill.

The minister says we've been waiting for this for six years. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we've waited for six years we can now wait six months to ensure that we understand what it is we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, just to verify and get some backup to my contention that there has been the range of interpretation put on this bill that I am purporting was put and has been, put on it, I want to quote from Beale's Newsletter, because Colin Beale has been conducting a sort of a survey of people in the industry to come up with what their thoughts were on this new bill. The last two editions of Beale's

Newsletter have been very interesting, Mr. Speaker. In the issue of Ma 25 he had some quotes, and he indicated then "that over the next six to eight weeks we will be collecting and sifting your reactions to the new Forest Act.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that Beale's Newsletter is circulated to the forest industry. This is not a group of uninformed individuals. This is a group of knowledgeable people who are in the industry, who are supposedly the most informed and the most aware of what is happening in the industry. And yet I want to quote to you the kinds of reactions that Beale has collected from these people who have written into him from this group.

In the May 25 issue he quotes a coast logging contractor who says - and I am sure that the minister will appreciate this: "My faith in the Bennett government is renewed a bit. They've recognized the problem. The Act is such as it will pass itself. It's sound, it can't be challenged." Now there was one reaction. But right along with that, a manager from one of the major concerns says something quite different. He says - would you believe it? - I see this as something of a socialist document." My goodness, Mr. Minister, that's from a manager of one of the major companies. He sees it as a socialist document. "Everything we do, it seems, will require prior Forest Service approval. More bureaucracy, more delays, and we could be faced with huge increases on land rentals."

A sawmiller says: "Much will hinge on interpretation. Who is going to administer it?" A chief executive of a coast major says he thinks the new Act "is an excellent piece of resource legislation, well produced, but there are some 229 provisions in the Act and it looks to me as if only 29 of them are applicable. Another thing, I wonder if the government really wants to get into licensing every mill, every change, every extension. This could lead to problem ."

These are key people in the forest industry who are raising those kinds of comments in their perusal of the bill. It goes on, in Beale's Newsletter of June 7. He says this is one of the first letters he received: "I am favourably impressed with the thorough and objective job which has been done. The basic system, which I believe is essentially sound, will be retained, but with much-needed checks and balances which were missing before. The government's intentions are clear and firm and the new Act will go quickly into law." But then he goes on: "The game is up for the majors." He says he's concerned whether or not they will accept the Act. Then, on the next line, a manufacturer at Prince George says that his initial reaction to the Forest Act is that it does nothing for contractors.

Here is another one. It's from someone up the coast, who writes:

"A terrible imbalance of power exists between quota holders and non-quota holders, integrated companies and one converting-plant companies, non-quota holders and sawmill companies when it comes to bidding on timber. By comparison, the contractor is still the only real risk-taker. He invests hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment with a mere 30-days security of tenure. His performance in the past has been the only guide to what are truly efficient standards-of production cost levels. Should he not exist, the Forest Service will soon have no stumpage revenue, as the cost generated by the majors have so much lard in them -just like big government - that such costs will become the accepted norm. There is nothing in the new legislation that will

[ Page 2382 ]

encourage the contractors' continued existence."

Here's one from a manager of a northern pulp mill:

"The Act looks reasonable, but it's a bit like a cake mix. You can have all the ingredients, but if they are not added and mixed correctly, you get something fit for the chickens. We've seen the Act and part of the ingredients, but we haven't seen the regulations. They could make a nightmare out of the Act if they are not added and mixed properly."

An interior pulp mill type says:

"The Act is well presented. It embraces most of the ideas suggested by Dr. Pearse. But I'm somewhat disappointed that it includes chip pricing regulations as well as allocation commitments, which will make it difficult to have a chip supply contract."

A Vancouver Island reader says:

"It's a piece of legislation that shows a responsible approach to use and preserves our forest for the best economic and practical environmental advantage. It reflects the input of hearings rather than self interest. The vehicle appears sound. But will the administrative driver handle it with competence? The variables in the Act are intended for the good, but, depending upon the integrity of government bodies from time to time, they could be twisted for the worst. The intent is good. Will the public make it work or will they remain indifferent?"

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I am speaking for the hoist, Mr. Member.

I think the fact that this cross-section of knowledgeable people have taken the trouble to write to Colin Beale and express their concern and that Colin Beale has taken the time to sort those comments out indicates the kind of confusion out there. It indicates the mixed feelings. It indicates that this Act is far from the kind of legislation that we should be discussing. It has fallen far short of the need. It has made cosmetic changes only -minor changes.

It is my interpretation that it simply enhances the existing scheme of things. It makes it more certain that we will give away our forest resource and that we will continue to let the major corporations involved in forestry in British Columbia retain their stranglehold on our forests. They will be the ones who dictate the future of our forests.

They will be the ones to dictate where the jobs will be, if they will be. They will be the ones who will influence in many ways the rewriting of the so-called replacement contracts. There will be no removal of timber from the existing stranglehold to be made available to small operators. The quota system will be retained; the bid system will be gone. The whole concept is completely opposite to the direction we should be going. That is my interpretation, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister has a different interpretation. As I have read to you, right across the spectrum every sector of the industry is putting a different interpretation on this Act.

Now that we have six pages of amendments, we are going to get a whole realm of new interpretations. It's a continuing problem to try to interpret what this minister is saying and what direction he is trying to go. The Act is probably intentionally worded in a new form of wording for an Act. The attempt is credible; he's trying to make it understandable. But in doing that, he has created just the opposite result, because everybody interprets it in a different way. It's not clear. Certainly, if we have to proceed on the basis of the Act as written, then anything can happen because nobody knows what direction it is going. The regulations are going to be the thing that will be involved in how this Act goes.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that that minister has indicated by his choice of deputy - a representative of the majors, sitting as his deputy - that that is the direction, that is the bias that we must expect. When you have a bill that is not specific, when you have a bill that is going to be interpreted in the main by the type of regulations that are written with no reference to this Legislature, then you have to look at the attitudes and directions of the people involved in writing those regulations. That's an important consideration for this Legislature. That's the thing we have to think about. What are those regulations going to be? What direction are they going to take? Are they going to take us in the direction that would appear to be very likely from the wording of this Act and from the attitude of that minister and his deputy? Is that the direction we're going?

We have to know more about this Act before we can pass judgment on it. We have to know for sure what it means. I submit to you that none of us in this Legislature and none of the people out there in the industry are really certain what this Act means. It's open to every interpretation under the sun and, as long as we have that situation before us, it is impossible to have an intelligent debate or

[ Page 2383 ]

to have an intelligent vote in this Legislature as to what we're going to do with our major industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to hoist will allow time for rewrite, redraft and reconsideration - a consolidation so we know what that minister is proposing, so we know for sure whether or not fie is preparing to give our resource away to the majors. I think that minister owes it to this House and owes it to this province to tell us what his intention is. He didn't tell us when he introduced the bill; the bill doesn't tell us; industry cannot decipher what it means. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in support of the motion to hoist.

MR. SKELLY: I would also like to stand in my place to speak in favour of the motion to hoist. I understand the resolution says for six months, but I would like to recall a promise made by the Minister of Forests that he would allow the people of the province three months in which to debate the bill prior to passage in this Legislature. We have not really had an opportunity to hear whether the minister intends to keep that promise or not.

In opening the address on second reading of the bill, the minister made something like a ten-minute speech that did a cursory analysis - not even an analysis, a cursory coverage -of the bill. He didn't mention whether the bill would be allowed to be held over for second reading or referred to a select standing committee - or, possibly, that committee stage would be suspended and the bill and the proposed amendments to the bill would be allowed to be circulated throughout the province for a number of months prior to consideration during committee stage. We could then come back, possibly in the fall or possibly later this year or maybe even next spring, to examine the arguments made by the opposition - constructive arguments which have been made by the opposition and by one of his own members, one of his own backbenchers who had the courage to speak out on the bill. The rest do not seem to have had that courage.

By calling for this hoist we're also testing the worth of the minister's promises. The minister made a promise that he would allow the bill to be considered by the public and by the opposition and by his own backbenchers for a period of at least three months before final adoption. He also made a promise to the independent loggers of British Columbia that their interests would be protected in the legislation. If the minister doesn't intend to follow through on the promise to give the public three months' consideration of the bill prior to its final passage, what are his promises worth, anyway? What are his promises to the independent loggers worth if he is not willing to keep that promise to the opposition and to the public of British Columbia? If the minister doesn't accept the motion for a hoist on this bill, for at least three months, then his promises, as far as regulations to protect the interests of independent loggers go, are only worth as much as his promise to allow the public three months to consider the bill. That means that his promises aren't worth anything.

Mr. Pearse in his report stated that one of the major impediments to reform in the forest industry of British Columbia was the multiplicity and the variety of tenures and the variety of provisions made within those tenures and contractual arrangements. The bill has moved a little in the direction of reducing, at least, the multiplicity and variety of the tenures and being more specific as to the provisions of the tenure. Well that's a good thing. Unfortunately, he takes some of the best of the Pearse decisions and some of the worst of the recommendations from the major corporations and, as a result, the bill is an extremely dangerous bill from the point of view of the people of this province. A number of organizations representing a number of concerns and a number of interests throughout the province have called upon the minister to delay consideration of the bill until there is full public inquiry into the provisions of the bill and full public input into possible amendments to the bill.

The tenure provisions in Bill 14 were made by Pearse because he felt that they were a major impediment to reform in the forest: industry in British Columbia. He didn't think that they were the be-all and the end-all; he didn't think that the final recommendations of his report should be the tenure provisions which come out of his report. In fact, in reading through the Pearse report and the spirit of that report, it is clear that he proposed a number of tenure provisions which he felt were kind of transitory arrangements that would be a transition phase from the type of forest management we went through between the turn of the century and 1968 and the type of forest management which we should have beyond, as B.C. progresses into second-growth management. So he saw those tenure provisions as kind of a transition arrangement to eliminate some of the impediments to true reform in the forest industry in British Columbia. But he only saw them as requirements in conjunction with a number of other recommendations, which the minister appears to have rejected in the bill. And it's these defects in the bill and the omissions in the bill that are the

[ Page 2384 ]

reason, Mr. Speaker, that we feel that the bill should be hoisted, that the public should have an additional opportunity to take a look at the bill and propose constructive amendments. And certainly the minister, in dealing with a bill of this importance and of this magnitude, should be willing to keep to his promise to give the public at least three months to consider the bill and to propose constructive amendments.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now those other recommendations which Pearse made, and which he made in conjunction with the tenure recommendations, do not appear to have been given adequate emphasis in the bill. Those recommendations had to do with markets, with the competitive allocation of standing timber, with markets having to do with the Vancouver log market - and there are provisions in other statutes, in the Timber Products Stabilization Act passed by the NDP government, to improve the market for logs and other end products. But nothing seems to have been done by this government - and no proposals have been made by this government, and nothing of any substance seems to be incorporated in this Act - that would deal with that problem of freeing the coastal log market and making it more competitive and making the industry more efficient. So the tenure arrangements which Pearse proposed had to be taken in conjunction with those other recommendations which don't seem to have been given adequate emphasis in this bill and which would have made the industry far more efficient. So that's one of the things we're concerned about. That's one of the reasons why we feel that this bill should be given more time for the public to have input; more time for interest groups to have input; more time for other aspects of the industry - other than the major multinational corporations, to which the minister seems to be giving more credence than he's giving to, in fact, people in his own riding who are operators in the industry.

Another thing we're concerned about in this bill is the lack of emphasis on sustained yield. Sustained yield is an extremely important concept, because based on that concept is the provision of future jobs for future generations of people in this province. There does not seem to be adequate emphasis given in this bill to the sustained yield of timber in this province - forever. Without that emphasis we cannot accept the bill in principle and we would hope that the minister would allow full public consideration of the bill, as he promised prior to bringing down the bill in this House. And if his promise of three months' consideration isn't worth anything, what's his promise worth as far as protective regulations for the small people in the industry is concerned? His promise isn't worth anything unless he gives us some support for this motion.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that depends on the sustained yield of timber in this province is the pension plans of those people who are operating in the industry. When the trees are gone, when the forest economy is gone, then the pension plans of people who are working in the industry - whether they're IWA, Pulp Union or in the support sections of the industry - are gone and the potential for jobs is gone. And what's going to happen 10 years down the line in the case of the new licences, 25 years down the line in the case of treefarm licences, without adequate emphasis given to sustained yield? It means that the pension plans of people in the forest industry are threatened and the jobs of people in the forest industry are threatened, and we simply cannot accept a bill that allows that to happen. We would like to see a three-month hoist. We would like to see further emphasis given in the bill to the sustained yield concept; that emphasis simply isn't there at the present time. And, if there is anything that Pearse was concerned about and the previous royal commissioners were concerned about, it was that Emphasis on sustained yield. We would like to see additional emphasis placed in the bill, and I think that can only happen if we allow the bill to be examined in a very detailed way by the public, by the industry and by professionals in the field.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have been concerned about with regard to this bill is the inadequacies with relation to integrated resource management. Progress has been made since the late 1960s under the previous Social Credit government, and also in 1970-71. Additional impetus was given to integrated resource management when the New Democratic Party set up the Environment and Land Use secretariat in 1972-73.

Immediately that the New Democratic Party government took office, the emphasis and the primary focus became integrated resource management. Steps had been taken prior to that with the passage of the Environment and Land Use Act and with the establishment of liaison committees between the Forest Service and the Council of Forest Industries and with the referral system that was set up by the Forest Service almost 10 years ago now. So some preliminary steps were taken.

[ Page 2385 ]

But this Act seems to go back prior to 1968 when the referral system was developed. Pearse covers the referral system and the progress towards integrated management in certain chapters of his report. We feel that this Act constitutes a retrograde step as far as integrated management goes. This Act puts the Forest Service back on top and it eliminates almost any reference to the Environment and Land Use Committee and the Environment and Land Use secretariat. It eliminates almost any reference to the fish and wildlife branch and to other departments of government that do have concerns in the forest resource and in forest land management. These seem to be eliminated.

Without any involvement or emphasis on integrated management of resources, we're going to be in trouble and w're going to be in the same kind of trouble that we were in prior to 1968. If the forest industry or the major multinational corporations in the forest industry see this Act as putting them back on top and eliminating any possible effect that the other line departments concerned about forest management might have - this bill weakens the effect that other forest land managers have on forest management in the province - they're mistaken, because what it will do is solidify opposition to cutting in certain areas. It will increase the conflicts between resource managers; it will increase the conflicts between groups concerned about resource management. We're going to have real problems if this bill passes in its present form.

What we need in this bill is a lot more emphasis on integrated management of the forest resource. That emphasis simply isn't in the present bill and we have to have it there. The only way to get that is to allow the bill to be hoisted at this time, Mr. Speaker, to give the public further opportunity to examine it and to make some constructive and positive proposals for amendments.

Now in the past two or three or four years, there used to be a conflict between environment groups and the forest exploiters and mining groups and this type of thing. With the assistance of the Forest Service and with the Council of Forest Industries going along with it, the forest land-use liaison committee was established. Those groups have now been brought a lot closer together than they were 10 years ago, so that people are no longer taking extreme positions as far as forest land-use management goes. They're now starting to see that one group has an interest in the resource and that that interest is at least as valid as the interests of other groups. This process has been taking place for a period of almost a decade now, and as I see this bill, it puts that progress back almost a decade. It's extremely unfortunate.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister is willing to stand up in the debate today and say that he is willing to accept a six-month hoist on this bill, we can see positive amendments to the bill come out which will be accepted by all sides - by large and small industry, by environment groups, by municipal and local governments. Whatever happened in this bill to the proposal by - I don't have the Pearse commission report before me now -Mr. Pearse that regional districts become involved in the management of the resource within their regional districts by the establishment of local planning committees that would reflect local interest in the management of the forest resource? Whatever happened to that?

What's wrong with this bill, Mr. Speaker, is it puts the major companies and the B.C. Forest Service on the top of the heap and it eliminates any influence that other interest groups might have, even though those interests in the forest resource are just as valid as the interests of the major multinational corporations.

It's a real matter of concern to me, as environment critic for the New Democratic Party, and it's a matter of concern for almost every group in the province that made representations to the minister. The minister seems to be oblivious to that representation. He seems to have ignored it altogether. He seem to be willing only to listen to the loudest voices - the multinational corporations, the eight companies that control the vast majority of the forest resource in the province.

Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing is referring this bill to a select standing committee, and if the minister would stand up in debate and give us some assurance that the bill would be referred to a select standing committee - that committee of forestry and fisheries, or environment and resources - so that committee could take the bill around the province and discuss it with all groups who are concerned about management of the forest resources, then we would probably accept that proposal and even withdraw this amendment. But the minister, in giving his word, in giving his promise that he would allow three months to discuss the bill, has now gone back on that promise. He's made a promise that regulations will come down after the bill is passed in order to protect small operators within the industry. He'll probably go back on that promise as well.

[ Page 2386 ]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that we can't trust the minister, and that is why we have had to make this motion to hoist discussion of the bill. If the minister would stand up in debate today and say he would be willing to accept a reference of this bill to a Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, to allow that committee to travel around the province and to discuss the bill with interested groups and affected groups throughout the province, I'm sure we would withdraw this amendment and go ahead on the minister's promise and assurance. But the minister has said nothing along those lines, and we don't really know what he plans to do.

The only indications of his plans are from a confidential memo from the Council of Forest Industries, which appears to indicate to us that the minister is going to railroad the bill through the House, railroad it through second and third readings, railroad it through final approval, and then we will be stuck with a bill that will affect us for generations to come. I think, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a threat to the jobs of people in the forest industry. It's a threat to pension plans of people operating in the forest industry, and anything that affects the forest industry of this province affects the economy of the whole province. It is going to be a threat to the economy of the whole province, the way the bill is presently written.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1972 and 1973 the government did refer questions of streambank management to the forestry and fisheries committee. That committee traveled around and visited a number of regions of the province. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was on that committee, and the committee produced a unanimous report - as committees of the Legislature must. A number of recommendations in that report paralleled the recommendations of the Pearse commission, and this was back in 1973. Probably the report even foreshadowed the establishment of the Pearse commission, because when we were discussing the report, both in our caucus and publicly, one of the things we discussed was the need for a broader examination of the whole question of integrated management of forest lands in British Columbia.

This legislation, which has come down as the result of studies initiated back in 1972 under an NDP government, seems to take us back almost a decade. It's a retrograde step, Mr. Speaker, which cannot support passage of the legislation in principle at this time. We would hope that the minister would get up in the debate today on the motion to hoist the bill and say that he is willing to hoist the bill, he's willing to refer it to a select standing committee, he's willing to allow the bill to be taken around the province and discussed by groups interested in the forest resource. I would hope that the minister would do that right away.

MR. KING: I'd be happy to defer to the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he would care to utter something intelligent on the bill.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Do you object to the minister uttering something intelligent? I don't think the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should take offence at that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's listen to the member.

MR. KING: We don't like the bill, Mr. Speaker, and we'd rather deal with policies than personalities, and that's what I intend to do.

I think it was instructive to listen to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) yesterday discussing this particular bill, his attitude toward it, and politics in general. The member for Skeena made the point that as far as he was concerned, no government could go too far in offending the large corporations of this province. He said that if any government goes too far in terms of trying to curb the powers of the major corporations in this province, the government will pay the price. In effect, those large corporations will conduct a monetary strike against the government, unemployment will flow and the people will defeat that government at the polls. There would be a capital strike against any government that has the temerity to take on some of these large corporate conglomerations.

That's a statement from the Social Credit backbencher from Skeena, Mr. Speaker. He made the point that he believed a number of times in his career within his own party that consideration had prevented the government from grasping the nettle and doing the correct thing in terms of policy - in terms, particularly, of the proper control of resource development in this province. I think the member for Skeena is an honest man. I think he was speaking from the heart when he made those observations. But what an indictment of the policy that is formulated by this particular government!

In other words, although they are elected democratically to represent the totality of

[ Page 2387 ]

the citizenry of this province, they are willing to bend to the interests and the influence of those large corporations which have vested interests in gaining monopoly control of the resource wealth of this province. That is what is being said loud and clear, and let none of the public make any mistake about to whom this government owes its allegiance and about to whom they are responsible in terms of policy formulation. It's as plain as that.

Not only is that charged by my friend the Liberal leader, who is not an irrational man, who is not an unfair man and certainly not a socialist; not only is it acknowledged by the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who can hardly be accused of being a radical, but now it is at last acknowledged by a member of their own caucus, Mr. Speaker.

I have one reservation about the member for Skeena's logic. He condemned the bill when he spoke in this Legislature yesterday. He pointed out that it would deprive the small operators of a fair shot at free competitive enterprise, but he rationalized that weakness in the bill by saying: "Well, perhaps the regulations will remedy that deficiency." Mr. Speaker, that's a cop-out, because the member for Skeena has been around this Legislature long enough to know that regulations cannot supersede or override the policy of a statute. The regulations only facilitate the initiation and the administration of statutory law. I think the member for Skeena was on very weak ground indeed when he tried to rationalize his support for the bill on that foundation.

I hope that the member for Skeena, whom I do admire and believe to be an honest and honourable man, will find it within his heart, apparently on the eve of his retirement, to stand straight and tall in this Legislature, to forget any partisan allegiance and to speak in honesty on behalf of the people who deserve a chance to participate in the development of their own resources in this province. That's what it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Alberni - my very articulate friend from Alberni, who does a good job for all of the resource interests of this province, not on a narrow environmental base but on a broad intelligent base, recognizing the need for multi-use of the resources of this province - made the point that the minister promised an adequate opportunity of at least three months from the time of introduction of this historic bill to allow the public and all sections of the industry, including the trade unions involved, and lay people in the community to discuss this bill, to understand this bill and to make some representation for amendment so we would ultimately come out with the most comprehensive statute and with the broadest degree of unanimity in terms of support for the approach to forest management in this province as well as the exploitation of it - more importantly, I suppose, that there be some degree of unanimity within this institution itself, this institution of parliament, which is tremendously important.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of dealing with re sources, whether you view it from the large corporate stance or whether you view it from the citizens' stance, surely it is important that there be a degree of stability indicated down the line. Surely industry has a right to know that there are not going to be wild gyrations and wild swings in terms of policy governing resource development in the province of British Columbia.

We as an official opposition are interested in that approach also, but that approach cannot be achieved when we have an intransigent minister who introduces a bill a couple of short weeks ago, and then on the eve of second reading introduces six and half pages of amendments to the statute, which precludes any intelligent debate on second reading. I submit to you that those amendments do substantially change some of the principles of this bill.

MR. KEMPF: How long did you hoist the Land Commission Act?

MR. BARRETT: Plenty. And we heard amendments across the floor of the House in committee.

MR. KING: The member who is always roaring from his seat, who should be representing the interests of small loggers in the north, who never gets on his feet to add anything intelligent to this debate but rather snipes away from his chair - I don't think he's worth acknowledging.

Really, I don't think the Land Commission Act is relevant to this one. It happened some years ago. There were amendments accepted across the floor. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in all of my service in this Legislature, amendments to statutes were accepted by the NDP government, which had never before occurred under the W.A.C. Bennett government. Our government took the point of view that if an idea was a good one, despite where it came from.... They seldom came from the Social Credit opposition; we got more intelligent suggestions from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. We did accept amendments if they were worthwhile. As my friend, the Premier, used to say, we hired

[ Page 2388 ]

some Liberals and Conservatives to help us with the administration of statutes. He even made the point that we would have hired a Social Crediter too, if we could have found one with any brains. I notice the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) never applied.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, they're trying to get me off my track. I know its your birthday today, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not going to allow them to trap me into some dispute with you as to the parameters of debate.

There have been telegrams sent in. One came yesterday from the IWA, which I am going to read into the record.

The following telegram has been sent to the Hon. Tom Waterland, Minister of Forests:

"Amendments to Bill 14 tabled yesterday emphasize need for full debate and public scrutiny of such vital consideration as release of TFL cutting rights in excess of licencees manufacturing requirements. Because TFL excess timber represents only potential for forest industry expansion and for replacing jobs lost through modernization, this matter is urgent. A full and reliable supply of log market for independent manufacturers. The IWA does not believe supply of log market should be entrusted to tree-farm licencees whose interests are not served by adequate supply for competitors. For adequacy of measures designed to ensure higher value utilization of B.C. logs, for adequacy of measures to ensure full discussion of this and other issues, we strongly urge postponement of further action on the bill until next legislative session. Letter following.

"Signed, Jack Munro, president of the IWA."

Mr. Speaker, Jack Munro is the president of the regional council of the IWA, the organization which is more profoundly concerned in this legislation from an Employment view than anyone else. I submit that if that organization has this kind of concern and that they are advocating a delay, then that is sound advice and the minister should heed it.

There have been numerous other groups. I indicated in my opening remarks on second reading of the bill that the Sierra Club, wildlife groups, environmental groups and certainly independent logging groups throughout this province have sought and advocated a delay in passage of this bill through the House so there could be an adequate opportunity for greater public dialogue.

I want to read some of the things concerning policy in the forests that Dr. Pearse had to say about the bill that I do not find Embodied in the bill. I think some of the findings and statements that Dr. Pearse laid down in his royal commission report bear repeating. They bear measurement against what we find in the particular statute that the minister has brought forward. Pearse said:

"There should be a healthy, competitive climate for the disposition of Grown timber. There can be little doubt that forest policies of the past have accelerated the consolidation of the industry into larger integrated enterprises."

And he finally said on page 61 of his report: "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 small firms with their resource rights."

Mr. Speaker, how is it - with such hard hitting statements as that, with such a hard hitting and very educated, academic appraisal of the situation in the forest industry as the one Dr. Pearse came up with, free from any political colouration, free from any pressure of special interests - that the minister can ignore that very statement, and not only allow the continuation of the very dangers that Pearse found in the old policy, but more firmly entrench those rights and those dangerous drifts in the new statute? These are the kinds of things that need more public airing. The average lay person in British Columbia has not had an opportunity to measure the new statute against the recommendations that Dr. Pearse came down with.

I previously made the point - and I think it bears making again - that there is not an adequate supply of the statute printed by the Queen's Printer so that it can be circulated to all of those agencies and all of those people having an interest in reading and studying the statute. I think it's a shame on a matter such as this, where certainly public support for and understanding of forest policy is crucial, and if the necessary attention is going to be paid to it, that adequate supplies of the bill are not prepared, not available, not being disseminated so that people the length and breadth of this province can understand it and participate in a discussion of policy.

I don't know what to say to the minister that would persuade him to stand back and pause, allow for some public dialogue on this bill. I don't know what I can say more than has already been indicated by various of the groups which have sent messages to the minis-

[ Page 2389 ]

ter - the IWA, independent logging groups, environmental groups, fish and wildlife groups. There are one or two areas that I find very conspicuous by their silence. I don't see the Council of Forest Industries very well represented in the galleries; I think it's rather surprising that they have not taken a more upfront position on this statute. I guess they feel they have it all in the bag, and they would rather see it float through this Legislature quietly. But that's not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

We have met as caucus members with the Canadian Institute of Forestry. In fact, we had a delegation before our caucus a few weeks ago composed of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, various representatives of industry, and the IWA, who came jointly before our caucus, as, I understand, they went before the government caucus. One of their chief concerns that was put forward to our group was that there is not enough public understanding of the forests of British Columbia as an important and basic resource. They advocated the expenditure of larger sums of money by government to provide for adequate regeneration of our forest crop. They pleaded for greater understanding and greater public discussion of the science, I suppose you could call it, of proper forest management in the province.

Members of our caucus had an opportunity a short time ago to visit the experimental plantation at Cayuse and Mesachie Lake. Again at that very seminar were members of the Social Credit caucus, members of our caucus and a variety of foresters from the Canadian Institute and from various local industries. We got together for a chat after viewing all of the operations of actual logging, planting and thinning, and so on. The whole thrust of the discussion was the need for greater public understanding of sound management policies within our forest industry resource of the province of British Columbia.

Now if everyone is indicating that need, if everyone is making submissions, as they certainly have been - not only to us, but to the minister - how can he achieve that objective by ramming this bill through the House, Mr. Speaker? If there was ever a time in the history of British Columbia that a public debate was necessary before committing our most fundamental resource for the next 25 years, surely this is the time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) commented on the absence of any great media reporting on the debate that is taking place in this Legislature. I have not been one, in my political life, to criticize the press or the media generally on very many occasions. In fact, I can never remember doing it publicly. But I cannot help but comment on second reading of this particular statute that is so absolutely, fundamentally important to the future of this province in terms of revenue, in terms of employment, in terms of the whole health of the economy and our society.

The minister spoke for 10 minutes introducing this bill. I replied, as the opposition forestry critic, for one hour and a half. Mr. Speaker, I read in the Sun the next day two short sentences attributed to "King, the chief critic for the opposition." Now that doesn't bother me, really; I don't need the exposure of the press down here to further my political career. That's not what I'm talking about. But I say that is abject irresponsibility. Surely those people have the same responsibility that I have to alert the people of British Columbia on what is going on in this insidious Act. It contributes and intensifies the monopoly control of a few majors who apparently have this government in their back pocket. That's the issue here.

I have never been so thoroughly disgusted with the reporting. If I'm being personal about it, so be it. Where are the reporters, both for the press and for the electronic media, who should be in here, trying to understand that debate? And if they don't understand it, for goodness' sake send someone in here who does, because there are important issues involved here. They're going to affect not only our generation but generations to come. I think it's shocking and scandalous that this kind of giveaway is allowed without even adequate and proper reporting in the press, alerting the people throughout the length and breadth of this province. Mr. Speaker, it makes me angry; it really makes me angry. It's a shocking abdication of duty and responsibility.

Let me just conclude by saying that there is no shortage of comment in the paper when any member of this institution stands accused of shirking his responsibility or being derelict with respect to conduct or performance in this House. We see headlines. I think we have the right, and the duty on occasion, to comment upon the reciprocal obligation of the media to do an adequate job as the Fourth Estate for notifying the people of British Columbia about something as important as this. Two lines were written on the debate that took place for a whole day in the Legislature - a whole afternoon and evening.

What about the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , who gave an excellent dissertation on this statute - an absolutely excellent presentation? I say quite frankly, aside from

[ Page 2390 ]

all partisanship, that there is a man who is extremely well qualified to participate in this debate. His father was well known in this province as the Old Bull of the Woods. Outspoken, he made his fortune in wood, but was admired and respected.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's return to the amendment, please, hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is relevant to the amendment. I think that if there were adequate reporting of the debate that has taken place thus far in the House, that the public of British Columbia - not only interest groups who are involved in the industry itself - would be demanding a delay in the passage of this statute. That's the relationship. As I say, when there are debates of the quality put forward by the Liberal leader and many other people on our side, then I believe it is shameful that we see the kind of cork-spiracy of silence that has confronted us in the media generally in terms of coverage on this debate.

My friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had something to say about the boards of directors of The Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. Is that the reason? I don't know. If it is, shame on you for tolerating it. Shame on the average working reporter for tolerating it. I think they have an obligation, as we do as politicians, to speak out and reveal that kind of pressure if it is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that Pearse made some very, very profound statements in terms of his recommendations, and those recommendations pertain precisely to adequate time for the people of the province, for everyone involved, to participate in designing, understanding and supporting a comprehensive approach to forest management policy in this province.

Quite frankly, we had hoped that as an opposition we would be able to embrace the new policy because we had something to do with commissioning Dr. Pearse's report, but there are just too many areas that are either neglected or subverted in terms of Pearse's recommendations for us to consider that kind of report.

One of the difficult things about the bill -and this is why it needs more discussion and more dialogue and more time - is that it carries with it a veneer of compliance with Dr. Pearse's report. But when it comes to the substance of giving force and effect to those recommendations, it is without any provision whatsoever.

It is interesting that the very terms that Dr. Pearse used for the first time, I believe - such as the "evergreen" provision for tenure renewal - are all adopted in the Act. But in terms of the tenure itself, they are quite different terms than what Dr. Pearse recommended - both with respect to the precise time frame and with respect to the amount of timber that was going to be made available to the major licensees. So the bill is difficult to understand. In that respect it carries with it the veneer of progressive, modern, advanced thinking in forest management, but it fails to deliver in substance what it gives the gloss of doing.

This is difficult for people in the industry to understand. It is difficult for legislators to study and understand. My goodness, how about the average lay person out there who is trying to learn something about the forests that bring 50 per cent of his economic wellbeing in the province of British Columbia? How difficult is it for someone like that, who has had no experience whatsoever with analyzing and understanding statutes in this province? It's just not fair and more time is indicated.

My colleague, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Barrett) , read into the record a memorandum by the Council of Forest Industries. I'm not going to bother rehashing that, except to dwell a little bit on the letter that accompanied that document from the Truck Loggers' Association and was directed to the minister. I want to say to the minister that, surely, it is incumbent on him to take this letter to heart. Surely you cannot serve and exist as a competent minister when the kind of feelings expressed in this particular letter bar any dialogue between your office and an important group, the Truck Loggers' Association. I just want to repeat one paragraph for the benefit of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think this letter is already a matter of record, hon. member.

MR. KING: Yes, but I want to deal with the one paragraph that I think is relevant to the need for a delay in passage of this bill:

"Mr. Minister, I am directed to remind you it is the official specialist who provides benefit under sections 27 (5) (a) to (e) inclusive. In short, the private enterprise system with competition does work. Monopoly control of public resource does not, and 25 years have proven it."

Now the point, Mr. Speaker, is that the people involved in the industry have come precisely to the same conclusion that members of the opposition have in condemning this bill.

[ Page 2391 ]

How is it that the minister can ignore that kind of representation and ram this bill through the House when there is obviously such widespread division in terms of any acceptance of the direction he is taking? Mr. Speaker, it's foolhardy - absolutely foolhardy.

I want to reiterate before I sit down the ill-advised direction from the minister's viewpoint and from the industry's viewpoint in terms of forging ahead with what may well be a very cushy and cosy deal for the major integrated firms of this province. I say ill advised because, just as surely as they may feel they have a captive government that will legislate in their favour, the pendulum will swing. It's that kind of fluctuation, in re source management particularly, that should be avoided if at all possible.

Mr. Speaker, there's a concept in industrial relations, and I'm not going to use the precise terms because there are those who might think it vulgar. But the concept is basically this: when the climate, political and economic, favours me, I'm going to cut your throat because next time around the economic and political climate will probably be the opposite and you're going to cut my throat.

That was the basis on which industrial relations were carried on for many years in this province until industry and the trade union movement started to get a little bit wise and recognized that that kind of wild swing, in terms of contract provisions, did not serve anyone's interest very well. They cam to the intelligent understanding that it is better to have a balanced growth that both parties can live with, with more stability and more predictability. So they planned together and they agreed that we are not going to utilize every last lever at our disposal to bludgeon you this time around.

I say that the minister should pay some important attention to that concept, because it is inherent in this bill. COFI is sitting back saying nothing. They've got the whole barrel in this Act, the whole bag. But I think they should be warned and I think the minister should be warned that there is deep division in this province with respect to the kind of stranglehold they are asking and receiving from this government. That division, that difference of opinion, not only embraces the political, but it divides the industry itself. They would be ill advised and foolhardy to continue on this route. The minister would be ill advised and foolhardy to allow it to occur. In the long term you will be serving neither the interests of the majors nor of anyone else in this province.

I say in all seriousness and sincerity that surely, as our system of parliamentary democracy itself implies, when one governs by consensus, it is far better to try to formulate policy with some reasonable, comprehensive consensus. To ram through policy that destroys opportunity for consensus and creates harsh division and polarization is foolhardy and done at one's own peril. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough to the minister and the industry in this province.

I say that if the forest industry is intelligent, if the minister is intelligent and if the government will show some sensitivity to the very compelling concern and interest of a wide section of the public in British Columbia, they will step back for a moment. Have a look at this hoist, and if you don't want it hoisted for six months, amend the motion. We'll hoist it for three months; that's fine. But if you don't display some sensitivity, the price is going to be paid in more ways than just a political way, and it's going to be lived with for a long time in this province.

I don't think the government loses any face, quite frankly, from doing the responsible thing and the sensitive thing. They're big enough to stand back and have a look at it, to measure and show some regard for the concern expressed, and to be magnanimous enough to say: "Okay, we recognize the need for more public dialogue; we recognize that this bill locks us up for the next 25 years, and hence there should be reasonable time for more discussion, more concern and more examination." That's all we're asking, and I certainly commend that approach to the government, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, with leave, may I introduce a guest who has recently arrived in the House?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a friend of mine, a former employer, and a long-time member of this House. I would ask the House to welcome Leo Nimsick and his wife.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this amendment. I will not make many remarks; I'm not going to enter the debate until it's my opportunity to close the debate. I think the opposition is carrying on a certain line of discussion which will require a lot of comment by me when I close the debate.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was complaining that the media ignored his hour and a half speech on this bill yesterday; he also complained that the Liberal leader

[ Page 2392 ]

(Mr. Gibson) was ignored by the media. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the media understand that level of debate for just what it is. They have said nothing yet about this legislation; everything that has been said has been deliberately misinterpreted. The Liberal leader, for whom in the past I had a considerable admiration, I thought was....

MR. KING: On point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister just made the statement that everything that has been said has been deliberately misinterpreted, and I ask him to withdraw that most improper imputation against debate in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. minister to withdraw the word "deliberately."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "deliberately."

The debate so far, Mr. Speaker, has not addressed this legislation. The members opposite, I'm sure, even though they've had this bill for five weeks now, have not read it. Their only interpretation of this legislation is that which was written for them by the former Minister of Forests (Mr. Williams) -and we know that he can never be accused of being political.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments which I brought in the other day consisted of about six pages. The bill is a long bill, and each Section interrelates to other sections, and so it took a fair amount of wording by the lawyers to bring in very simple amendments. The amendments which I brought in are very adequately explained on one 8-by-11 inch sheet of paper, double-spaced, and I provided copies of this to the members opposite. They are very brief amendments, primarily for the purpose of clarification.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have had this legislation for five weeks and have not taken the opportunity to read it and study it. The members opposite said that I promised that this bill would sit on the floor of this House for three months. What I have said in the past, Mr. Speaker, is that I would allow this legislation to sit on as long as possible. I wanted to see it introduced as early in the session as possible and to be debated as late as possible, and that is just what has happened. I could leave this legislation on the floor of this House for five years and they still wouldn't read it, because they don't take the job which they have been given by the people of British Columbia seriously enough to put forth any effort.

There are certain self-interest groups in this province who would like to see a hoisting of the legislation. There are certain women's groups, the Telkwa Foundation, I understand, the Sierra Club, outdoor clubs - all of these people would like to see it hoisted because they hate logging in any event.

These members opposite, Mr. Speaker, each and every one of them, was sent a personal letter by the Forest Policy Advisory Committee last year, inviting them to come before that committee and express their views and their thoughts on the Pearse royal commission report and any other things which they felt should be included in forest legislation. They were each given and sent a personal letter from that committee. Only one member of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, took advantage of that and addressed the Forest Policy Advisory Committee, and that was the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) . You have had ample opportunity, my friends, to have your input, but you would rather take the tack of waiting until it is done, until good legislation is presented to you, and then assuming the unaccountable veto. You can sit back without even understanding the legislation, without having taken the effort to read it and study it, and you can now have your unaccountable veto.

I beg you: read the legislation, debate the legislation, because it is important to the province of British Columbia. You have not yet addressed the legislation. Anything you have said is absolutely wrong and is not incorporated in the legislation in any way.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a good balance, and it assures a good balance in the degree of integration and the size of corporate structure in this province. It provides many opportunities which have not been had in the past for the small-business sector, for the independents. Of course, some people would like to have the whole pie, but no one is going to have the whole pie. This legislation, if read and understood by the members opposite, and if debated realistically, and if debated in the way it is written, is very comprehensive legislation. And, of course, it does require regulation to fulfill the administration of it. These regulations are forthcoming very shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to comment at this time on the various comments which have been made in the so-called debate which the opposition has provided so far. They have some rope which I have handed them and they can continue to hang themselves with it. Quite frankly, they're looking very, very foolish. They're demonstrating to the world that they do not care enough about this legislation to

[ Page 2393 ]

study it and to understand it. I congratulate the media for recognizing the shallow, shabby level of debate that has been coming forth at this time, and I cannot, in any way, support this motion to hoist the bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the bloody arrogance of that minister! You can take the boy away from the bureaucracy, but you can't take the bureaucracy away from the boy. This bill should be hoisted, if for no other reason than to give the Premier the chance to put somebody in as Minister of Forests who understands what he's doing and is not willing to be the lackey of a bureaucracy and the big boys.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That kind of debate is not in order under this bill.

MR. LEA: I'll say it isn't in order! For the minister to stand in his place and assume that he has the knowledge and that the members of chat back bench, the members of that cabinet and the members of the opposition haven't taken the time to read this piece of legislation has to be pure arrogance and stupidity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To the amendment, please.

MR. LEA: The amendment is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be hoisted and put off for six months so that the people of this province have a chance to understand what the government and that minister are going to be doing over the next 25 to 50 years with our forestry - the most important socio-economic element in all of our economy in this province. And the minister has the nerve to take the attitude that he's taken here this morning - commending the press, as he says, for having the knowledge that the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in this House and the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) are absolutely stupid. The arrogance! You have to ask, Mr. Speaker, how a person gets like that. How does a government get like that? I believe that he is the epitome of that government. What are they, that they would bring into this Legislature a piece of legislation that they're not going to allow the people of this province to discuss and debate, a piece of legislation that's going to hand to the major multinational forest companies in this province absolute tenure for for next 25 years?

Why would they do it, Mr. Speaker? Is it a government made up of people from the multinational community? It is not. It is a government made up basically of working people. They don't consider themselves working people but I do, even if they've made a million in this society. When you stack that against the absolute concentrated wealth of the multinationals, they are working people. They are professionals, some of them, but working people. They are small business, a great many of them - working people who claim to be free enterprisers.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are members in that back bench - because I've spoken to them - who are as adamant as we are on this side of the House that this legislation not be passed. I said, "Can't you get to the minister?", and they said: "No, he's absolutely adamant that this bill go through and that it go through now."

What peer group is that government and that minister trying to please? Is it a peer group of their equals, or are they the kind of collective group that takes their cloth cap in hand looking for a pat on the head from people they feel are their betters? That's what we have here. We have peer groups all over this province. We have the independent B.C. businessmen in the logging industry saying: "For God's sake, wait a while. You may be ruining our livelihood, not only for us but for the majority of the people in this province." You have environmental groups saying: "Hold on, wait a minute." These are peer groups of that government and that minister. You have community groups. You have groups that have been put together by the Forest Service itself in an advisory capacity at the local levels saying: "Hold up, wait a while. Don't put it through yet. let us understand it.11

Maybe those groups would come to an understanding that coincides with the minister. But they're not being given that opportunity to study this bill because it is the wish of the major forest industries in this province to push it through, and to push it through now. Cloth-cap-in-hand minister, cloth-cap-in-hand government, willing messengers and willing lackeys for those people they consider to be their betters, are willing to do just that -push it through and push it through now. The only defence the minister has is to stand up and say that his colleagues in this House, regardless of party, have not read the bill.

What we are saying is that we have read it. Some parts of it that we understand we don't like and there are other parts that we- just can't understand. We are like everyone else in this province: we don't understand all the complexities of this bill. We want time. The people of this province want time to take a look at a piece of legislation that some

[ Page 2394 ]

people have termed the biggest sellout in the province's history. And the minister takes his place, and his argument for not giving the people of this province the time is that we are lazy.

MR. KING: Insulting.

MR. LEA: Insulting, insulting, insulting.

Why would lie do that? Who is he trying to please, if tie's not pleasing his back bench, his colleagues in this Legislature? He's not pleasing the environmental groups, who aren't saying: "Don't cut down one tree." They're saying: "Let's do it in a rational way so that we can live together in a planned way for all of us." He's not pleasing them. Women's groups - they only make up about 50 per cent of the voters of the province - he's not pleasing them. He's not pleasing any British Columbia community group except one, and for the most part they are not British Columbians; they are not part of this community. They don't live here; they don't care, in a real community sense, what happens to British Columbia because that is not their mandate. Their mandate is to make profit for their shareholders, and their shareholders are not British Columbians for the major part, nor are they Canadians. The minister and his government are going to try their utmost to please their betters. They are a government of insecurity, a government that doesn't understand that we have our place, and that it's about time Canadians and British Columbians said to the mother country - economically the United States - as the United States said to England 200 years ago: "We are ready to take our own destiny in our own hands for British Columbians and for Canadians." And he gets up, Mr. Speaker, and says that we are being frivolous and we are being silly for representing those Canadians who say: "Let's take our own destiny in our own hands and go in our direction for our own benefit."

Are the United States and England enemies today? No, they are not. They are colleagues in a world community, fighting on the same side in most instances, but free and independent from each other in their own decision-making policies. We have yet to reach that plateau in this country and in this province. All this piece of legislation does is tie us in to another 25 years of colonial status; that's all it does.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) -does he want that? I don't believe so. He doesn't want it. The member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) - does tie want that? The member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) - I know him better, or at least I hope I do.

You know, what happens in actuality is that the people who don't read legislation in this House are usually cabinet ministers. That's who usually doesn't read legislation, because they haven't got time. They are running and administering their own programmes in their own ministries, and they rely on their colleagues, who they feel have their own interests at heart, to bring in legislation. I would say probably the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) hasn't read the bill - not because he doesn't want to, but because he has his own interests in his own ministry and he probably hasn't had the time to read it, like the rest of the people in British Columbia. Oh, maybe he has read it cursorily, but in depth, I doubt it.

The minister misses the point. The reason for this amendment is that we probably have all read the bill, but what we are saying is: we don't understand a lot of it. Give us some time. Give us and the people of this province some time to understand the piece of legislation that's going to sell us, we think, into a colonial state for another 25 to 50 years in British Columbia and in Canada. For God's sake, let's take our cloth hats, throw them on the ground for the last time and stand up to those outside forces that have dominated this province for 100 years and say: "We now want to make our own decisions. And the first thing we're going to do is take this piece of legislation and make sure it's a piece of legislation that will allow us to." Because even if we had to take a little bit - and I do not think we would - of a lower standard of living in this province and in this country for a while to get our independence and to find our own direction, and the means of going in that direction, I think the time has come that most Canadians would say: "Let's do it."

But the problem is that when you take money from them, you owe them. I hear a rumour that we may be facing electoral reform legislation in this House in this session of the Legislature. If we do, I hope that within that piece of legislation is something that says no longer will political parties be able to take campaign contributions from anybody except individuals in this province - so that we do not owe anybody from outside this country. Our politicians owe their future to the people in this province and not their future to outside interests, who may be well meaning, but when it comes right down to it, their own interest comes first and ours comes second. I say, Mr. Speaker, its time for us to put our own interests first and put theirs second. This bill does not do it, in our opinion.

[ Page 2395 ]

We want the people in this province to have the opportunity to read that legislation, to understand that legislation and make up their minds and make their decisions based on understanding. That's all we're asking. The minister says we're all nincompoops - the people of this province who don't agree with him and his government. I say he should be ashamed, not for what he said but for believing in the ignorant myth that we Canadians are not worthy of making decisions for ourselves. That's what he's saying in this piece of legislation, and I don't believe him. I do not think people in this province believe him. Hoist the bill; give us six months; give the people of this province six months to read a piece of legislation and understand it. Who knows? Maybe they would even agree with you. We doubt it. We think they would agree with the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP and most of your own back bench. A free-enterprise back bench and a Liberal multinational cabinet would not go down with this legislation to agreement from this province. The people in this province would agree with a free-enterprise back bench in the Social Credit Party, a Conservative, a Liberal and the NDP.

I don't believe that minister or that government have the intestinal fortitude to put this piece of legislation to the test. That's why the hurry. They have to get it through now, so that they go to their betters, with their cloth caps, and say: "Aren't we good boys? Can we go to your cocktail party and look important now?" That's what it's all about.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, you can take the boy away from the bureaucracy, but not the bureaucracy away from the boy. We see it today.

Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.