[ Page 2433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Forest Act (Bill 14) Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2433

Mr. Lea –– 2436

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2443

Division on second reading –– 2449

Ministry of Forests Act (Bill 12) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2449

Mr. King –– 2450

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2451

Second reading –– 2451

Range Act (Bill 13) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2451

Mrs. Wallace –– 2452

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2453

Second reading –– 2453

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 34) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2453

Mr. Barber –– 2453

Second reading –– 2453

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

FOREST ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: I was speaking in connection with the concentration that has developed in the B.C. forest industry and of my concern as to the detrimental effects this concentration can have on our industry, and also my concern that this new legislation will not only do nothing to correct this situation but rather will encourage and expand that concentration.

It was rather interesting to note in a February, 1977, copy - I know the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will be interested in this - of the Houston Today Lakes District News. There was a very interesting column - in fact the whole page was devoted to the forest industry under the heading: "Forest Industry Giants Crowd Out Independents."

This article went on to say that already in the province the 10 largest companies, all integrated pulp and sawmilling operations, control 60 per cent of the timber harvesting rights, 90 per cent of the pulp capacity and 35 per cent of the sawmill capacity. This increasing influence has put the independent sawmills at a distinct disadvantage.

The article goes on to indicate the type of concentration that is actually occurring in regard to these 10 large companies that have gained such a great percentage of control of our B.C. forests. The article indicates that the pulp and paper industry of North America appears to be oligopolic - that is the control of a market by relatively few producers who are able to influence supply and price by acting in concert. The most direct evidence is in a series of indictments in 1976 by the U.S. federal grand jury against major American paper and cardboard manufacturers. The charges allege a conspiracy to fix prices and restrict competition in the market of cardboard boxes and paper bags. Those charged include Champion International Corporation which, Mr. Speaker, is Weldwood's parent - Weldwood, of course, being one of the majors in British Columbia. Also involved is the Mead Corporation, which is Noranda's partner in the control of Northwood Pulp.

The U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating price fixing in the paper industry, including possible artificial paper shortages back to 1973. Such restrictive practices are possible as nearly all the paper manufacturers are vertically integrated, meaning they control the whole process from timber rights to the finished product. This may be through one company, such as MacMillan Bloedel or, more commonly here in the north, through partnerships that give Canadian timber holders direct access to foreign paper and board manufacturers.

Thus, Northwood and B.C. Forest Products are linked with Mead. Weldwood has both its U.S. parent, Champion International, and a joint venture in Quesnel with a Japanese paper maker, Diashoa Marubeni. Canfor's two Prince George pulp mills are shared with the British paper multinational Reed, and a German company - whose name I won't attempt to pronounce, Mr. Speaker.

So this concentration certainly is in existence and it does extend far beyond the borders of British Columbia. I think that this is a point that the minister, in introducing this Act, should have recognized. In my opinion, it is a point that he should have included very definitely in the legislation - some measure to ensure that this concentration will not continue in British Columbia.

In effect, Mr. Speaker, while we are giving lip-service to controlling our own forest industry, we are, in effect, turning it over to those major corporations. I think that, for the interest of the House, I would like to read briefly from the May issue of B.C. Business, which recently had a very interesting article by Mark Wilson. It goes back to a period in time when Dr. Pearse was holding his hearings and Peter Bentley, the president of Canadian Forest Products Limited, suggested to the Pearse royal commission that the forest resource in British Columbia should be turned over to the private sector. He made an argument at that time to the Pearse commission that it should, in fact, be turned over without any pretence at doing anything else -simply turn it over to private industry. He said the industry could not afford to buy the land at anything other than nominal prices; but, in any event, that was the direction he wanted the Pearse commission to take.

This was a rather out-of-step sort of recommendation, because that was certainly not the trend of all the other recommendations that

[ Page 2434 ]

were made. Nor was it the trend that was recommended by Pearse, who said in chapter 5 of his report:

"In my judgment, however, the most important benefits of public ownership of forest resources are twofold. First, it enables the Grown to protect and enhance the values of forest land that do not provide financial gains to private owners. Environmental values such as public recreation, fisheries, wildlife, water regulation, aesthetics, and so on Second, public ownership provides the government with powerful means of shaping the pattern and pace of economic development in the province."

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, that therein lies the difference be tween the government having a real clout in what happens with our forest industry and it being left in the hands of private corporations. I have said in the House before, in relation to other items, that the directions of private enterprise and the directions of government are not necessarily the same. The priorities are not necessarily the same.

Governments have a much broader responsibility than do corporations. Corporations primarily are interested in their own welfare. Govern ments must be interested in a much broader concept. To leave the future direction of our forests at the mercy of the corporations is not the direction that is in the long-term, best interests of this province or of the preservation of our forest industry here in British Columbia.

In B.C. Business he talks about the long term. lie says:

"The benefits of changes envisioned could only be measured over the long term, as the beneficiaries of careful husbandry are trees which may take 80 years to mature."

"It takes some nerve to hold to longrange objectives when governments run on four-year mandates. The former NDP government, which summoned the Pearse commission into being, did appear to have the fortitude and foresight to make changes whose impact would extend into the next century. The present government, which cannot even come up with a count of how many civil servants it employs, has done little to inventory our forest resource properly. The lack of data was detailed in the Pearse report and improved information is a prerequisite to any proper understanding of how our living assets can best be safeguarded.

"The need for better forest management, which means greater investment in the woods.... Without more precise data on what reserves there are and on replenishment rates, the benefits of change will remain uncertain and there will be a temptation to do little."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this particular piece of legislation which we are discussing tonight has not based itself on that in-depth research which Dr. Pearse recommended and which this writer in B.C. Business is maintaining as a necessity before we embark on any programme that is going to be as far-reaching in its effects as a programme will when we are dealing with something that takes as long as 80 years to reproduce itself.

My concern about this bill is in relation to its corporate control. I suggest to you that certainly that is the intent of this bill. There has been much said that there will be opportunities for independents, for native Indians, for small individual people to become involved. It's true that there is a Section 1n this Act which deals with that type of thing. But if there is no removing .... And the Act is very adamant on that. It says the forester shall replace to the large corporations the amount of area that they presently have. There

Because our forest is already controlled so much by varying corporations at this point in time, the tree-farm licences certainly have encompassed a major portion of our reserves and of the 50 per cent or less that is not covered by tree-farm licences but has been covered in other manners in other forms. Those are to be replaced. The quota holder is to be protected and there will be nothing left over. There will be no timber to satisfy the requirements of the other sections in this Act. As long as those sections are there and there is no timber to make them workable or feasible or possible, then certainly, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be stillborn.

The sections dealing with the proposed woodlot licences are good sections, but they are meaningless if in fact they cannot be instituted. I submit they cannot be instituted because there will be no timber to provide any workable, meaningful purpose to this section dealing with the woodlot licence.

I'm concerned because there were some very meaningful and well-thought-out briefs presented to this minister, before the Act was drafted, from the native Indian bands asking for some very specific things. It is unfair to include in the Act a section that appears to incorporate at least some of the things that they have asked for - not all of them, but it has appeared to incorporate some of those

[ Page 2435 ]

things. That is merely tokenism if there is no way that can happen.

Certainly I have particular knowledge of one particular band in my own constituency which has no adjacent woodland. They have no quota. None of these people that I'm referring to has any prior claim that will entitle them to get any consideration under this section. It is tokenism of the worst kind to raise, by putting this kind of Section into the Act, false hopes or to lull into submission, if you will, groups which have a very definite interest and would very much like to have a part of the forest.

Now this relates not only to the native Indian bands, but it relates to small individual operators. I think that this was outlined in the Pearse report very carefully and very thoroughly when they talked about small-scale forestry. It went on to indicate that very small operators, who were formerly an important part of the industry, have almost disappeared except as contractors to larger firms. This is in contrast to the direction that the timber industry has been taking in other countries, because they have been making provision for those small operators. But instead, here in British Columbia our whole system has wiped out those small operators. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this section, division 7, the woodlot licences, while its intent appears to be to provide something of that nature for individual operators, the intent is no good if there is not timber available for those people. I submit that under the terms of the sections of this bill, there will be no timber available.

I want to talk briefly about replacement and the method by which those replacements are going to be carried out. This bill has been heralded as a major change. In effect, it appears to change the timber licence from 21 years to 25 years - a matter of four years duration . which is not of any significance really, when you are talking about a 50- to 80-year growth cycle. The thing that concerns me about this is that we are going to turn over to the present holders for 25 years the timber they are presently using, then in 10 years offer them a replacement. The local forest representative is going to offer this replacement. What happens then? The forest company can accept that replacement or it can reject it. If it accepts, it of course will carry on with the reforestation policies and the various things that are written into its licence. If it doesn't accept, it has 15 years left in which it can simply run that reserve straight into the ground. It can take of everything that is there because its term is finished.

I suggest that this is a very big stick being placed in the hands of those licence holders, which will allow them to embark on something akin to blackmail, because they can simply say - off the record - to the forester responsible: "Look, I want some relief on this, this or this. I want certain terms on my replacement, and if I don't get it, I'm not going to accept it. We will have no alternative but to let them continue for 15 years, taking off all the forest and leaving us nothing but stumps - no reforestation, nothing. And that is a very big stick to put into the hands of those companies to whom we are turning over our resource. There is little or nothing in this bill that talks about government involvement in reforestation or that talks about government involvement in ensuring that our yields will be maintained and continued, and that concerns me very gravely.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

I think that we have tossed around very lightly the idea of sustained yield. I notice that when the minister was speaking in my own constituency in March of this year, he was quoted in the paper as saying that we have sustained yield and that the talk of running out of trees in the next 15 years is garbage. He said: "Under the sustained yield system we do not cut more trees than we grow." There are other opinions that indicate that we have been cutting more trees than we are growing and that, in fact, our cut has far exceeded the replacement of the forest.

I notice that the new Forest Act talks about annual allowable cut. It defines it as the rate of timber harvesting specified for any area. This obviously does not reflect the idea of sustained growth. We have so many things to consider in sustained growth: we have disease; we have climate; we have inaccessibility. If you take trees off wellbearing, easily accessible land, tree for tree, and replace it with something that is not as accessible and not as good, you are not sustaining your annual cut. You do not have sustained annual yield under that concept. This Act does not define a concept that will ensure that we have a continuous supply of timber here in British Columbia. In fact, it goes even further than this, because it does say that some changes can be made as incentives, if required, to allow a greater degree of harvest than may have been specified earlier - not relative to whether or not we are actually sustaining our yield but relative, rather, to the needs of the company.

[ Page 2436 ]

That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that companies and governments do have different objectives and do have different purposes. That is why 1 say it is completely erroneous to expect that a company which is granted the right to harvest and maintain our forests will harvest and maintain that forest in the way which is in the best social and economic interest of the entire province.

For example, I think it has been mentioned here before that large industry is a mechanized form of operation with less manpower involved. And if we continue to go in that direction, we are certainly going to go in a direction that will not do anything to assist the unemployment problem in British Columbia. We must get into other things than just harvesting the trees. We must get into secondary industry and tertiary industry. Those are the kinds of things where government planning can do much to aid in solving the employment problem and much to aid in the total use of the resource.

I am concerned that the Act does not move in that area of total use. The terms that the minister throws around, the evergreen and "use it or lose it, " are fine terms but without meaning. There is nothing in the Act that really backs up those terms or will ensure that the true meaning of those terms is carried out when that legislation is in effect.

I'm concerned about the regulations. Without knowing what those regulations are, there is no way of knowing, what direction we are really going with this Act. Those regulations can be made to fit any situation. I have some concerns about the possibility of our involving ourselves in many different schemes throughout this province as a result of the decision-making in the various areas. Now I agree with the concept of spreading out the responsibility and giving local autonomy, but I think when we have the kind of clauses that are written into this bill, that replacement clause allows the company that holds the licence to have a real clout at that 10-year renewal period. Those kind of clauses can subject various foresters to terrific pressures. One company can play against the other and we can have some very unusual, to say the least, arrangement resulting from this bill and from this particular clause.

There is just another subject that I wanted to speak about. In the past we have always had the ability, even though we had turned over our forest land in the form of a tree-farm licence or other licence, to take back that land if we needed land for whatever public purpose we might need it for. For example, there was a brief presented by the interior lumber manufacturers and one of the things they talked about was the acreage. They were complaining about the acreage that had been taken out of the forest reserves for various parks and conservancies and so on - a total of some 672,000 acres. Then there were some proposals for another 912,000.

Well, Mr. Speaker, assuming we knew what we were doing when we took those parks and reserves out, and assuming that there might come a time when we would need more or decide that we wanted more, then under this bill, anything over 5 per cent - one-twentieth - is going to have to be bought back because the bill provides that one-twentieth is the maximum that can be returned to the province for use of roads or whatever.

So if we should happen to need - heaven forbid - another Hydro, project or if we should decide that we wanted a preserve somewhere and it exceeds the one-twentieth, we're going to be in the position of having to buy back our own land. I would think that this is something that we should look at very closely in this bill. That is really alienating our resource when we simply find ourselves in the position of having so completely given it away that we have to turn around and buy it back. That, to me, amounts to nothing short of having given our resource to the private sector.

That, in effect, is what this bill is doing. It is doing what the president of the Canadian forest industry proposed to Dr. Pearse. It's doing it in a very subtle way. It's turning the major resource of this province - and in fact the major resource of Canada, because we have 25 per cent of the Canadian forests here in British Columbia - over to private enterprise. We are giving that heritage away and we might just as well have done it openly and publicly by selling it to them for a nominal sum, as was suggested by the Canadian forest industry's president. It would have been much more honest and forthright to do it that way than to simply do it in this rather hidden way, in the hidden terminology of a 292-clause bill, the meaning of which, I still submit, a great many people have not grasped. I suggest that we will not really know what it means until we see the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I an opposing this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, while the member for Cowichan-Malahat was speaking, the minister twittered a couple of times and giggled at a couple of remarks she made, as if he has some secret that he knows that the Truck Loggers Association doesn't know, as if he has some

[ Page 2437 ]

secret that all of the people out there who are British Columbians interested in the future of British Columbia don't know. Maybe he has, but how would we know from 10 minutes when he introduced the bill and five minutes when he was speaking against the amendment to hoist the bill for six months? How would we know?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The shadow knows.

MR. LEA: "The shadow knows, " the Attorney-General says. Do you know why he says that? Because the Attorney-General is embarrassed. Because if you were still aver here, Mr. Attorney-General, you'd be voting against this piece of legislation. That's what you'd be doing, and you know it, and that is why you are red-faced, isn't it?

What about the Premier? There he goes again. He hasn't spoken in the most important piece of legislation that's gone through the House in years and years, and he's running away again. Will he speak? He'll run away. He can go to a dance and dance with Ginger Rogers, Mr. Speaker, but it takes a little more guts to stand up in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if you address the Chair we could....

MR. LEA: I am, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you are now, but I was trying to bring you to order because you had failed to do so. Perhaps if you address the Chair the debate could proceed in a more orderly fashion.

MR. LEA: I lost my head for a minute when the Premier ran out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LEA: This is an announcement dated June 13 put out by the Truck Loggers Association. It's addressed to all MLAs, and I think that probably some of the back bench got them. It says:

" Attached is the view of this association, released June 9,1978. Like most observers, we agreed with the government's statement of purpose of the Art" they are referring to the new Forest Act "but on reading the fine print recoil and find it bad legislation that must be amended."

It goes on in the second paragraph to say the only major group now supporting Bill 14 is the Council of Forest Industries which speaks for the foreign-owned companies. That is because Bill 14 protects their control of timber and the log market, and weakens the role of the domestic entrepreneurs. They refer to a release of June 9. 1 would like to read this into the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think it pretty well sums up the feeling of people who have been involved in forest work all of their lives individually and as an association. It says: "TIA release, June 9,1978.

"Dave O'Connor, president of the Truck Loggers Association, said today; 'We have now studied the fine print of the new Forest Act and must oppose it. British Columbians must wake up. Their resource is going to be misapplied and misused for generations by foreign-controlled monopoly under new legislation that protects and enshrines it, immune from public scrutiny of allocation procedures.'

"Said Mr. O'Connor: 'This Act kills private enterprise opportunity for our young people and creates a feudal system where domestic entrepreneurs can only function as servants of a monopoly controlled outside Canada. The TLA represents citizen operators in lumber, plywood, shingle and secondary manufacture, as well as timber owners and loggers. Their survival is to be severely damaged even greater than in the past. We have advised the Premier and Forests minister of our position, and that new Act can be made workable by two amendments and three deletions.' "

I'd like to just briefly glance at another paper. This paper concludes:

"When Premier Bennett says closure of Vancouver Plywood is unacceptable, surely he means the day is past when government policy will support and protect the timber monopoly held by eight international pulp companies, with few exceptions like MacMillan Bloedel, operating grossly outdated manufacturing facilities. But whatever the Premier says or thinks has been frustrated by this new Act. He should know three or four simple amendments would make this Act the finest forest legislation in North America and the greatest social document of the 107-year history of the legislative process in British Columbia. Has he the courage to overrule his Minister of Forests and withdraw this Act for rewrite?"

Mr. Speaker, that's a good question. Does the present Premier have the courage to tell his Minister of Forests to take this Act and amend it, take some time, let people look at the Act, analyse it, assess it and come to some conclusions in a free-thinking way? Well,

[ Page 2438 ]

1 think, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously no. The Premier lacks the courage to tell his Minister of Forests to do just that.

Who is against the Act? Native Indians in the province are against the Act, women's groups are against the Act, environmentalists are against the Act and Canadian businessmen involved in the forest industry in this province are against the Act, with the exception of one, MacMillan Bloedel.

Now let's examine that just in the pragmatic vote-getting the political parties have to go through. Oh, and by the way, the employees of the major companies, through their unions, are also against the Act. So let's examine the voting there. We've got the independent loggers, the Truck Loggers Association, Indian people, women, union people all against the Act. It makes up most of the voters in the province. Who do we have for the Act? We have the boards of directors and senior management of eight forest companies. How many votes is that? Not very many. So you have to ask yourself why.

Why would the Forests minister and why would the Premier and why would the government bring in an Act that would alienate so many people? And there's only one answer. There are two ways to get votes: you can get votes by doing the sort of things that people in the society want as a government and you get their favour as you should, or you can get their votes in some other way, with the old buck - lots of money for the political campaign, lots of money for advertising, lots of money for buses to tote them to the polls. Lots of money. This Act is an Act designed to do one thing: curry favour with the major forest companies for a few bucks, quite a few bucks at election time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I think the only person in cabinet and the only person in the Social Credit caucus who believes that this Act would be good for small businessmen is the Forests minister. He believes it. Anybody who believes are, iron ore, lead, zinc and copper are renewable resources can believe that this Act is good for independent B.C. entrepreneurs in the forest industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mining the forests!

MR. LEA: Iron ore is renewable. Why would not he believe that this Act is good for the people of British Columbia? Because, Mr. Speaker, he is at the mercy of his bureaucrats. You cannot take a person who was in the lower hierarchy of the civil service and take him from a grade 4 mining inspector, put him in as a minister and expect that minister to stand up to the bureaucracy that he might have to work under after the next election. That's what you can't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we have at a previous time in this House in committee discussed the estimates of the Minister of Forests and we're currently on second reading of Bill 14, which is the principle of the bill. You're discussing whether or not this particular minister should be the Minister of Forests, and this is not the appropriate time to discuss it.

MR. LEA: I'm not discussing that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you were discussing whether or not this hon. member should, in fact, be the minister, and that's not appropriate.

MR. LEA: It sure isn't, because nobody thinks he should be. Nobody.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that remark is also not appropriate at this time. We're discussing second reading of the bill and that's the principle of the bill, so please confine your remarks to the appropriate section.

MR. LEA: Okay. The principle of the bill is that at the present time the major forest companies, through TFLs, control 30 per cent of the forest acreage. After this bill goes through, they will control 100 per cent of the forest acreage in this province over a period of a little time. Mr. Speaker, in anybody's language that's a complete sellout of British Columbia. When you take that and mix it with a further 400,000 acres of coal licences being sold out in the province, and you take two of our biggest resources and you say, "Here is a government that's giving them away to foreign based companies to use at their pleasure over the years, " you have to ask yourself why.

You see people in the back bench like the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , who has fought against this kind of legislation all his life. He actually voted in this House against the Minister of Forests who went to jail for the Social Credit. He voted against his own government, fought for legislation that would be fair to independent B.C. businessman all his life. To see him stand up and say that regulations can actually be drawn UP that are counter to the intent of the bill, you have to wonder what's going on in the Social Credit.

When you see the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , who got a whiff of this bill and, as I

[ Page 2439 ]

understand it, sold out his own independent business as quickly as he could rid of it, because he knew it was doomsday.... He knew it was doomsday for him to see this legislation coming so he picked up a few bucks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LLOYD: On a point of order, I ask the member to withdraw any motive of ill intentions or anything else. I don't like that remark at all. Nothing was sold out. People are entitled to buy and sell businesses any day of the week they want, I thought.

MR. LEA: I mean no offence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would ask you to withdraw any offensive remark.

MR. LEA: No offence; I withdraw. I think he's a smart man. He saw the writing on the wall. He saw a Forest Act come in that was going to ruin him and his colleagues and he got rid of it. As quickly as he could he dropped it. He said: "Let's get rid of that, because the Minister of Forests is going to bring in an Act that's going to kill us all, and I don't want to have anything to do with that." Right? You did it right in your own caucus. And then he has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to stand up in this House and support the of bill that he wasn't going to live with as a forest person in this province. He stands up and supports it.

What about the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ? Where is he? He has been involved in the forest industry all his life. He knows this bill is going to kill it. Why does he want to support it? You have to ask yourself that.

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) , who stands up and reads a prepared text from the research staff - is he going to support it on behalf of his constituents?

The member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) - there are little independent loggers all throughout his riding. Is he going to support it?

And what about the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) ? All of them are going to support a piece of legislation that I believe they are against. Why?

And the Premier - they're going to support a Premier and a government where the Premier doesn't even have the nerve to take his place in this debate and talk on behalf of the Forests minister, because he doesn't want himself on record. Let the minister sweat it out and let the jerks in the back bench take the heat, because there hasn't been one cabinet minister standing on his feet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Not one cabinet minister has taken his place to defend that minister and this legislation. Can you hear me?

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Before I recognize a point of order, I'm going to ask that the member for Prince Rupert withdraw those unparliamentary words.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.)

MR. LEA: Which ones, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You uttered several unparliamentary words and I would ask you to withdraw them.

MR. LEA: I said that the back bench had been acting like a bunch of jerks, and I take it back. They haven't been acting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask you to withdraw the remark. I would ask the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) to take his seat until the member for Prince Rupert gives me an unqualified withdrawal. Would the member for Prince Rupert please withdraw?

MR. LEA: An unqualified withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KERSTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relative to his statement about jerks in the back bench. They may have had those jerks in the back bench in the NDP administration, but that doesn't hold true in this administration. The withdrawal is not unqualified and he is a jerk, and I won't withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I must ask you to withdraw the remark, hon. member, based on the ruling that I made in this House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think I'd get proof this soon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, if you would address the Chair and base your remarks on the second reading of Bill 14, we could....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, when we were govern.-ment, every once in a while we'd bring in a piece of legislation that someone in our back

[ Page 2440 ]

bench felt that they, on a matter of principle, could not live with. They stood up in this House and voted against their government's legislation on a matter of principle. Don't you think it's strange, Mr. Speaker, that in over two and a half years no one in that back bench has found one little ittybitty thing that this government's done that they may be a little bit opposed to? Not one little thing?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: "No!" he says. Good government? They are a bad, bad back bench. A bunch of sheep, Mr. Speaker, that do not dare take their place because there is one cabinet opening left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. LEA: I'd like to tell the Premier who I think he should put in the cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I must ask you to withdraw the word "sheep."

MR. LEA: Is "sheep" not allowed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, if you'd like me to review the whole phrase....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: I withdraw the word "sheep".

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And "as it applies to the government back bench or any members of this House."

MR. LEA: Right, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that as it applies to the government backbench.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And any other members of the House.

MR. LEA: And any other members of the House. I'll write that out 1,000 times.

Mr. Speaker, don't you think it's a little bit strange that not one member of the Social Credit government has taken his or her place to defend this legislation, to speak about it, to say how British Columbia needs this legislation? For the most part they'd just like it to go through the House as quietly as possible so those eight major companies in the province.... Seven of them are owned by foreign owners taking out the products from here, and what profit they have they invest somewhere else.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if members of the back bench know what's happening in this province. Do you know that there is wealth being taken out of the forests of this province and invested in Alabama, Brazil, and Southeast Asia to compete with our own forest industries? Did you know that? And you like that? Mr. Speaker, they like that because if they hang on long enough one of them may just go into cabinet. That's what it's all about.

You can't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that a person who has lived in rural British Columbia near the logging business all of his or her life would come in and back this legislation. They could not back this legislation with any feeling of principle. No one could do that, Mr. Speaker. We see the Social Credit back bench, and they're nuzzling up to that Liberal cabinet. That Liberal cabinet, with two or three Socreds thrown in to make it look good, are up there making all the rules. You know, Mr. Speaker, when you talk to some of those backbenchers privately - don't worry, I'm not going to mention any names - they say: "Well, what can you do with a bunch of Liberal academics?" That's what they call you guys, you know - Liberal academics. Yes, that's right.

But, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! You are addressing the Speaker. Perhaps while you have my attention I might try and get yours and see if I can try and get you to address this bill on which we are in second reading - Bill 14. Recently its been difficult to find the speaker in order on those comments.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been trying to get to the principle of the bill and, for the life of me, I cannot find any principle in the bill. How can there be principle in a bill that sells out our heritage, our childrens heritage, and our childrens childrens heritage? How can there be principle to a bill that takes people from British Columbia who've gone out and carved a little bit of money out of the forest? How can you take a bill like that and say there's any principle involved? How can you take a government that brings in that kind of bill and find any principle involved? It's impossible. For money, money, money - this bill is in this House for campaign funds. That's why its here. How can it be for any other reason when everybody else, except the major forest companies, is

[ Page 2441 ]

opposed to it? Is it what's good for MacMillan Bloedel? Is it what's good for Crown Zellerbach? Is it what's good for British Columbia Forest Products? If it's good for them, is it necessarily good for us, Mr. Speaker? Is that the way it is? Is it the only way we British Columbians can survive, to get down on our hands and knees and beg foreign companies to invest in this province? Is that the way we survive, by being sycophantic colonials? Is that how we're going to survive? I don't want to survive that way. I don't believe the people want to survive that way.

I believe that government will get down on its knees to anybody who will come in and pull them out of an economic bag they have climbed into by overtaxing people. That's what they have done. They have overtaxed and they have taken every free dime that every British Columbian has to live on or to invest. Now they have to get down on their hands and knees to foreign investors to come in and try to save their bacon. That's what it's all about.

How long can a province survive when you have people selling out our coal reserves for nothing and selling out forests for nothing except political power?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There he is, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development, the small businessman who brings in $20 million and not one dime.... Oh, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It was $20 million in the throne speech, but in the budget it was knocked down to $10 million. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? There's not one dime for small business.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if the members of the cabinet could restrain themselves, we could proceed with this bill. I would remark for the third or fourth time to the member for Prince Rupert which bill we are actually on. We've reviewed the fact that we are not on the estimates of the Minister of Forests; neither are we doing the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development. There may be another opportunity in this chamber to discuss that, but at this time we are on this bill. Please try to stick to the principle of Bill 14.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: I believe that the people in this province want to have an even shake. They want to have a chance to invest in their province for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of their children and for the benefit of their grandchildren and future generations, and for the benefit of all Canadians. Through this legislation and other legislation, this government is not only taking away from us but from the future. That's what they are doing.

We could be charitable and say they don't know what they are doing, but there is too much consistency. It would be one thing if they only gave the coal away, but they are giving the forests away now, and the minerals. They are giving it all away. That's what happens when you lose your principles in the first place. It doesn't start with a big bang; it starts slowly. A Conservative member leaves for the Socreds. Liberal members sit independently, knowing they are going to the Socreds but building up the drama. They sat on this side of the House for years, criticizing the kind of thing we are seeing today and which they are going to vote for.

What would the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) have said four years ago while sitting on a Conservative bench about a government that is going to give away all the resources of this province in perpetuity? Or as some other Socred backbencher would say: "If not in perpetuity, forever."

Mr. Speaker, we have asked to have this bill held over for six months so that the people of this province can take a look at it, read it, understand it, speak for themselves and come to their own conclusion. That government is cowardly. It's a cowardly government that's afraid to face the people in any way. They have acted cowardly from the time they took office.

They came in to government and immediately they brought in a revenge budget on this province for people having dared vote NDP. It was a cowardly act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want Mason Gaffney back?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again we seem to be straying from the principle of the bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to deal with this bill without relating it to the other actions that this government has taken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It may be very difficult. However, hon. member, all members are charged with facing that difficulty and addressing

[ Page 2442 ]

themselves to this bill and any other bill before the House. We have now transgressed onto the first budget speech of the current government and other proceedings from the past. I would ask you once again to try and come to order and stay within order on this bill.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, knowing you are a fair Speaker, I know you are telling me what the rules are, and I agree with you. At the same time, the rules in this case make it very nice for the government because they don't want to hear about what they have done in the past. They'd like to live in the future all the time. Not the future even because the future looks pretty dim: no jobs in the forestry; giving our coal away. The future does not look good under this government because there is no philosophical base to that group. Who are they who are bringing in this legislation? Where are they from? What party have they got their roots in? What philosophical base can they fall back on to draw some strength from when they are in a little trouble? They have no philosophic base, and that is why we see a piece of legislation that has no philosophic base. You can't bring in legislation with a sound philosophic base unless a group in government has some philosophic base.

I think this legislation is going to point out to the people in this province that they have a government in power that would make the last Social Credit government look like one of the best governments that this province has ever had.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The member for Skeena says: "Yes, that's right." That government is going to make the last one look good - very good. That's why you are not in the cabinet, Mr. Member. It's because you would look too good, and the Liberals made a deal to keep you out.

This legislation takes 70 per cent of our forest land and turns it over forever and ever to foreign control. The land that is under forest control by forest companies is land that is going to be alienated from the people of this province and from the people of this country for the next 25 years for sure and maybe longer. Do we want that, Mr. Speaker? Do you want that? Do you want British Columbia land to be alienated under foreign control? I do not think so. I do not believe any Liberal, any Conservative, any Socred or any NDPer wants that to happen. Only the right wing radical parts of all parties could bring in legislation that would sell us out in perpetuity. They are the only ones who could think of it, never mind having the guts to do it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Where is the Premier, the leader of government, during this debate? He's back in his office sucking this thumb again, afraid to face the music, afraid to speak out and afraid to come in here and get his lumps. He's always hiding. He's been hiding since he took office and he's going to continue to hide through this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the principle, please.

MR. LEA: That is the principle - that the leader of government doesn't have the nerve to come in this House and speak on behalf of legislation that he and his government brought in. That is a matter of no principle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the principle of the bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, how can you talk about a bill without talking about the government that brought it in and the minister that brought it in? He's a minister who spent 10 minutes at the opening of debate, made another silly five-minute remark, and then has the nerve to sit back in his seat and giggle at remarks made by the people in the opposition who are trying to do an honest-to-God job of criticizing a bill in this House. He titters as if he's got a secret.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like everyone to take a look at that minister -everybody, the gallery, the opposition, the back bench, the cabinet. Take a look at him. Wouldn't you feel a little nervous if you did not know that the forests in this province were in the hands of a sensitive, intelligent, good-thinking person? Wouldn't you feel a little threatened?

Wouldn't you feel a little threatened by a minister who grew up in mining but couldn't handle the portfolio and was transferred out of it and given Forests? Wouldn't you be a little concerned about minister who thinks that iron ore is renewable? Wouldn't you be a little concerned about a minister who thinks copper is renewable? Wouldn't you be a little concerned when that minister now brings in an Act dealing with renewable resources? He may be thinking it could be mined.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it is during debate on estimates that the admini-

[ Page 2443 ]

stration is discussed. However, when we're on stages of a bill - and as far as I know, we are on second reading of Bill 14 - the debate on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to criticism of the administration.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the only stage this bill should be on is the stage out of town. That's the only stage it should be on because this bill is going to ruin the chances for a free, economic, independent British Columbia for years and years and years to come. It's a bit much to come in and discuss a bill of this magnitude and see the minister giggling at honest criticism from the opposition. It's a little bit much to see him sitting over there giggling-

Mr. Speaker, I can't wait to get to committee, because when we get to committee he's going to have to stand up. You know, it's better to be considered a fool than to open your mouth and prove it, and we're going to see what happens during committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the antics of the last speaker of the opposition is the type of thing which I was speaking about yesterday when I said they have not read the legislation, they don't understand it and they don't want to debate it. He did not mention the legislation. He did not refer to it, and that is what has been happening throughout second reading debate on this legislation.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, has 13 major parts; it has 24 major divisions and 179 sections. The opposition have had this bill before them now for six weeks and the only thing that they have found themselves able to talk about is that old bogeyman - tree-farm licences. They hate tree-farm licences in spite of the fact that tree-farm licences have provided us in British Columbia, in large part, with the best level of forest management that we have.

It is very sad indeed, Mr. Speaker, that legislation which has been so long in the making, which has had so much input through task force reports, through royal commission reports, through the invitation of the Forest Policy Advisory Committee to all groups in British Columbia and personal invitations to the members of this Legislature to discuss it and to have input into it.... Yet this group opposite has not, and has refused to address the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was invited a short time ago to appear on Channel 10 television in Vancouver, and I was advised then that the Forest critic in the opposition was also invited. Indeed the Forests critic did appear - by the name of Bob Williams. The critic of this ministry in the House did not feel himself competent to come and discuss this legislation. He proved that again by the silly attitudes he has taken and the things that he thought were the principles of the bill - that is to cut the tree-farm licences in half, to remove the very substance of the support of the companies which employ so many, many people in this province and disrupt communities which depend on these companies and the cut, and to somehow magically create additional cut to give away to other people.

Mr. Speaker, the forest industry in British Columbia is a fact. It is here as a result of history and it is a fact that we do have large companies in the province of British Columbia, large companies which Employ many, many thousands of British Columbians. For the large part, these companies are good corporate citizens. The small companies for the large part are good corporate citizens, and the independent logging sector of the industry are good corporate citizens. But all of the large companies are not good citizens and all of the the small companies are not. There are good corporate citizens in both the large and small sectors. However, this opposition has chosen to single out the terrible, big, bad multinational companies. They tell us that these companies are not reinvesting their profit in British Columbia. They say they are taking it and investing it elsewhere. They have a great deal in the past, Mr. Speaker; they have invested in B.C. That is just why many of the companies in British Columbia....

Their favourite object of hate seems to be MacMillan Bloedel, but MacMillan Bloedel has taken a great deal of its earned profit in British Columbia and reinvested it in British Columbia. They now complain because MacMillan Bloedel invests it elsewhere, yet at the same time they are saying to MacMillan Bloedel: "You are big enough; don't invest your money here." Now you can't really have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, chastise them for spending their profit elsewhere for investment and yet, at the same time, criticize them for not investing it here because if they do invest it here they will get bigger and they will become even larger. So which way do you want it, my friends?

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pearse said in his royal commission report that further concentration of the forest industry should be monitored and controlled by government. He said it should not be government policy to prohibit all

[ Page 2444 ]

transfers - transfers of licences and corporate shares - but merely to exercise needed surveillance over the transactions to ensure that, when they occur, full account is taken of the effects. I would point out to this House that the Forest Act will permit the government, for the first time, to exercise such control and surveillance of transfers -not only of cutting licences but also of shares of corporations in the forest industry. Government in the past never had this authority, never had this right. In the new Forest Act - which is before us now, Bill 14 - if a company's beneficial ownership changes, then the government has the right, if it does not agree that such a change is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia, to cancel the licences of that company. This provides us for the first time with the type of control which that opposition has been screaming for. It's right in the bill before them, but they never read it.

Mr. Speaker, regarding foreign ownership, Dr. Pearse in his royal commission report stated that the present level of foreign participation in the industry is not especially critical. They have read many selected passages from Dr. Pearse; however, they only chose those which were extracted by Bob William . I haven't seen anybody in that opposition with a copy of the Pearse report, only the little summary of it prepared by Bob Williams. But Dr. Pearse did not say that foreign ownership was a problem; he said it was not especially critical now. He saw no need for special measures aimed at foreign ownership in the forest industry. If the members would read the whole report instead of selected extracts from it, they would realize that. I would also point out that the province is consulted by the Foreign Investment Review Agency on any purchases by foreign companies of forest companies in British Columbia. We will also use the tools provided in this legislation - if they would only have read it - the tools provided for surveillance and control of transfers of corporate shares and cutting licences.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was speaking about perpetuity of timber licences, as did most of the other members. The great giveaway, they say - the giveaway forever of our forest licences in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as perpetual licence in this bill No tenure is perpetual. Perpetuity is abolished, and decades ahead of the schedule proposed in the royal commission report by Dr. Pearse. This government has acted quickly and boldly to end perpetual tree-farm licences in this province.

There is security of tenure provided in the legislation, but it is provided only so long as good management is practised. It depends upon good performance.

Competition is another aspect which the opposition party say is lacking in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the forest policy advisory committee, when it was receiving input from the general public, received briefs from, I believe, 176 different groups. These groups consisted of people who are involved in concern about environmental matters. They were the various associations involved in forestry: the truck loggers, independent loggers in the interior, the Cariboo lumber manufacturers, the Council of Forest Industries, the IWA and other forest unions, regional districts; practically every sector of the public had input into FPAC, and there was not one group, including the labour unions, who advocated unlimited competition for forest harvesting rights in British Columbia.

If any of those members opposite would have come to the forest policy advisory committee meetings and hearings privately, they could have discussed their points of view. But no, they chose not to. They chose instead to wait until this good resource legislation was presented in the House and to take cheap political shots. This legislation is important to this province and deserves meaningful debate. But, unfortunately, their debate is centred upon two subjects: perpetual tree-farm licences and competition. Both of these topics are covered very adequately in the legislation, and the legislation says those things which that group opposite says it should say.

Speaking of competition for forest rights, the former Minister of Forests did not believe in competition. If so, he would not have found it necessary to offer to change legislation to assure Plateau Mills that they would receive a timber allocation if they went ahead with their planned expansion.

There is a fallacy that unrestricted competition would miraculously result in an equitable distribution of timber rights in this province. But, in fact, unrestricted competition would assure that timber rights were effectively concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer large companies. Unrestricted competition would result in the destruction of investor confidence in British Columbia. It would result in the disruption of employment and communities. It would result in disincentives to good fores t-management practices. It would result in a disincentive to proper, integrated use of the forest lands. And, of course, it would result in accelerated concentration of timber harvesting rights into the

[ Page 2445 ]

hands of a few large companies.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) stated that the bill embodies a conversion from public to private ownership of land. That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, this bill strengthens the control of government over the forest land resource to a far greater degree than the present Act has, and to a far greater degree than the Pearse royal commission report recommended.

Tree-farm licences, forest licences are renegotiated at regular intervals. The government has much greater flexibility to adapt these licences to changing environmental, economic and social demands in the province. If the members had read the legislation, they would realize that. Performance will be very strictly monitored, and the bill contains detailed provision for withdrawals of timber harvesting rights - much wider, much broader and much sooner than the royal commissioner recommended.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was talking a short time ago about the fact that if a company did not wish to carry on for the full 25-year tree-farm licence programme, and refused to accept the terms offered by the government for a replace ment licence, could just go ahead, not carry out good forest management, and not fulfill its obligations for the next 15 years.... That is why I was giggling, Mister Member, because it came back to me again that that member has not read the legislation. The legislation is very clear, very concise, in the fact that poor management can result in the immediate cancellation, immediate suspension of any cutting tenure, whether it be tree-farm licence, forest licence, woodlot licence, timber sale licence or timber harvesting licence. Any of these tenures can, with this legislation, be cancelled at any time, with one year's notice, for mismanagement, and they can be suspended without notice for mismanagement. Once under suspension, they can be cancelled.

Again, those are things which are spelled out very clearly in the Act, are recommend by that member. If she had only read the Act instead of some unknown forestry critics and misinterpretations of the legislation....

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) asked what opportunities there are for newcomers within this legislation. Well, the bill embodies numerous opportunities for new entrants. One that has always existed, and which will be supervised and monitored by the government, is the purchase of existing operations, existing licences and existing plants. As long as such purchases and acquisitions are in the best interests of the people of British Columbia, they will be allowed.

Bidding or applying for unallocated timber is still a possibility. Unallocated or recovered timber can be recovered by the province for non-use. This type of timber, if it is not allocated or is to be reallocated, can be obtained through competitive tendering - probably through a bid proposal system, the type of system initiated by that government.

There are many opportunities, and expanded opportunities, provided for the contracting sector in British Columbia: the standard 50 per cent contractor clause on the coast; the opportunities for timber sale licences under the small-business, set-aside programme, both on the coast and in the interior; the woodlot programme - and, once again, I had to chuckle when the member for Cowichan-Malahat suggested that there would be no wood available for woodlot licences, when, in fact, through the recovery of unallocated cut, through freeing of the special sale area and through new previously unallocated cut, there will be substantial opportunity for establishing the woodlot licensing programme. That member had someone write comments for her, and I was very embarrassed for her when she read them out, because the things she said were absolutely untrue.

The point, however, is just this: there is a finite allowable cut in British Columbia, and it does not make much sense to me, or should it to the members opposite, to take this cut away from someone who has been induced into investing in it in British Columbia. If they're using it well and managing it properly, it makes no sense at all to take the cut away from those who have been induced into investing to order to induce someone else into investing in the same wood. You can only manufacture a log once. And, if we were to remove it from those who are using it properly and give it to someone else, it would shatter any opportunity of anyone, be they Canadians or foreigners, from investing in this resource.

The fact is, there is ample opportunity for new entrants and new participants in the forest industry, but certainly not at the expense of a chaotic disruption of employment and a chaotic disruption of dependent communities.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , when he was speaking this afternoon, in effect accused me of committing near treason. Now that is a very sad level of debate for this House to stoop to. That member has not studied the very progressive nature of this legislation. He accused me of near treason.

MR. KING: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2446 ]

the member for Mackenzie's mention of treason was not a direct charge against the minister. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, you directed the member for Mackenzie to withdraw the remark, which he did. I think it's most improper and ungracious for the minister to deal with a remark that has been withdrawn in this House, particularly when his own conduct in the corridor left much to be desired.

MR. SPEAKER: The remark concerning treason was withdrawn at my request, so it is no longer on the record. Please proceed.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, it may no longer be on the record, but it was spoken and words spoken are not easily withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: A withdrawal is a withdrawal, hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mackenzie, when he was speaking in the debate, brought up two subjects. One was secrecy of information. The way the legislation was drafted, it did restrict information on the cut of Crown timber, and that was completely inadvertent. Our objective in the secrecy section, if you wish to call it that, was to prevent the dissemination of confidential corporate information, information sensitive to business undertakings; but there was no intent to restrict public access to information regarding the use of the Crown asset.

The member also made a point of another very small section of the bill when he mentioned that forestry officers have the right to enter private property. There are many requirements in the administration of the forest resource where it is necessary for forest officers to enter private property. A very simple example would be for the control of forest fires. We must have that opportunity and the right to enter private property from time to time for the enforcement and protection of our forests.

Another reason for entering private property is that much private property is combined with Crown land to form tree-farm licences. In order to assure ourselves that the private property portion of the tree-farm licence is properly administered, we must enter that private land. They ask us to supervise the harvesting on tree-farm licences and yet would deny us the right to enter the land which makes up those tree-farm licences. This, of course, is common in many statutes.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) said nothing to substance, I'm afraid. He'made a comment about the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) being very knowledgeable about forestry matters and the fact that he was raised in the forest industry. He rode on the back of that member's comments. I invited that member, as I invited the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the forestry critic in the official opposition (Mr. King) , to come to my office if they wished. I told them I would invite in members of my staff and the forest policy advisory committee if they had any difficulty interpreting the legislation. The Liberal leader did, the Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens) did not, I think, through his overbooking of his time. I don't knock him for that. He said he would come back later. I guess he never found time to. That probably is the reason he never said anything about this legislation.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) made some very good comments about the availability of timber, and the fact that he thinks a lot of timber that is carried in the inventory is no longer economically accessible, This may be so in some cases. I would remind that member that when logging and forestry first began in B.C., the only timber that was economically accessible was that which could be felled right into the water. As time went on, we began to use oxen and steam locomotives to venture a little bit further from the watercourses. We then entered the era of truck logging which we're in now and we're hauling timber on land for hundreds of miles in some cases. Technology moves ahead. Who knows what we'll be doing 20 years from now? I don't think we can even imagine that, judging from the pace of the advance of forest technology over the last decade or two.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said he is not a forestry expert and then very ably demonstrated that fact. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano dwelt at length on means of redistribution of timber in the lower coastal area. He implied that proposals in the Pearse report regarding TFLs would somehow miraculously accomplish this. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no recommendation in the Pearse report that would allow this to happen as he described.

The Pearse report did recommend that the present 21-year tree-farm licences be renewed, either for a 21-year period or for a 15-year evergreen period, and that no reduction of cut take place for at least five years and then only to a maximum of 10 per cent each year for each five-year period.

on perpetual tree-farm licences, the Pearse royal commission report automatically renewed these tree-farm licences, totally intact for another 21-year period, and thereafter recommended them for renewal under a five-year

[ Page 2447 ]

evergreen programme. Only after 26 years for perpetual licences could it be any reduction of their cutting right and then only 10 per cent in a five-year period.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan looked surprised when I said that. If he had read the Pearse report rather than Bob Williams' summary of it, he would have known that fact. Pearse recommended a 10 per cent rule which effectively limited any single or succeeding reduction in cut to 10 per cent in any five year period, even if the undercutting were far greater than that.

Our legislation goes well beyond these recommendations. It does the following: all tree-farm. licences are treated equally. There are no special privileges for so-called perpetual licences. They are simply ended once and for all. Reductions for non-use are made to apply to any TFL as soon as the present cut control period is completed, and this could be as early as next year. Any unused cut or allocation in the tree-farm licences can be totally removed and made available to other sectors in the industry at the end of the current cut-control period, the natural length of which is five years. These licences will be coming up now for the next five years.

There is no 10 per cent limit on reductions for undercut. If a company is undercut by 40 per cent - and none are - then we can reduce it by 40 per cent within five years and as early as next year. We went much, much further and stepped much more boldly than even Dr. Pearse had recommended. If those members opposite had but read the legislation, they would not look so ridiculous now. For they have not seen what is in the legislation. They say that it depends on the regulations. These things I speak of, Mr. Speaker, are all very, very clearly spelled out in this legislation. The bill in all cases provides for a vastly greater scope for re-allocation than Dr. Pearse recommended. That member should know this and he should acknowledge it.

A myth is being fabricated in this House by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . The myth is that all treefarm. licences should be automatically and casually reduced to 80 per cent of the requirements of the owners. Two or three of the opposition members, I think, have knowledge of the fact that the Pearse report did not say this at all. No such recommendation was ever made by Dr. Pearse.

However, I believe that the members who have bought this argument have been manipulated by one or two individuals, whose names they know, who have some particular self-interest motives at stake. If the members opposite were sincere about their debate of this bill, they would have taken the time to read it and understand it and perhaps get unbiased interpretations of the legislation. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano would have us believe that it is in the public interest to go beyond the bill and vastly beyond what Dr. Pearse said and use legislation to redistribute cutting rights, to take from some citizens who are performing their obligations and to give the cut to others.

This government believes it would be unfair and unwise for this House to arbitrarily meddle with the Crown's binding contractual commitments that drastically. -The member's proposal would seriously undermine the good reputation this province has built over many decades. It would destroy the credibility we need to attract and hold the capital required for job creation in this industry. If the member's proposal for confiscation were implemented, all enterprises large or small would be the losers. British Columbia is not a banana republic and this government will not allow it to be turned into one.

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano spoke in the House and he said, "The new Forest Act is a sellout, " in his debate in the Legislature. Well, let me tell you about sellouts to foreign companies, foreign countries. Gibson Logging Company in 1948 sold 51 per cent of its large timber holdings to the Tahsis company. In 1952 they sold the balance to the same company. That company is controlled by the East Asiatic Company, which is controlled by the Danish royal family.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, covering the factual statement made by the minister in the absence of the member whom he is launching an attack on, it should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is not here to answer any incorrect information or charges posed by the minister.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: It is incumbent upon every member of this House not to make sneak attacks on members when they're not present in the chamber. This hon. minister had an opportunity today and last week to make those remarks during debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you've gone beyond the scope of a point of order.

MR. LAUK: I just wish to point out, Mr.

[ Page 2448 ]

Speaker, that I do hope the Speaker will be lenient to the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) when he returns to the House to correct the statements of the hon. minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is incumbent upon all members to attend the services of the House - if I may refer to them in that fashion - and therefore, if a member is inadvertently absent, he will have, of course, access to the Blues; and I think that's one of the plus factors of Hansard that we have.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I've listened very carefully to the Minister of Forests' remarks and I've heard nothing reflecting upon any member of this House. He has discussed the activities of a certain logging company, as I understand, by the name of Gibson Logging Company Limited, or something along that line. And so far as I know, that company is not a member of this Legislature. So no member is under attack, present or otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may I please remind the hon. members that we are not to interrupt speeches in progress, unless we have a real point of order?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing some history of sellouts in British Columbia. Gibson Brothers Logging sold their timber holdings to the Tahsis Company in 1948. In 1952 the Tahsis Company was owned by the East Asiatic Company, which is controlled by the Danish royal family. After that sellout, Mr. Speaker, I think we know what happened to the millions of dollars which were received for that company. I believe they're invested in Hawaii at this time. That member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has a double standard. It's okay for his family to become wealthy by trading in Grown assets, Crown resources, but it's terrible when the same thing happens through acquisitions by other companies.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think that we have before us a demonstration of why Sir Erskine May says: "It is better to avoid personal allusions." Please continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, again, it was a Liberal government which initiated the forest management licence programme, which today is our tree-farm licence programme. Now I'll read to you from a report of the Forest Service for the year ended 1947. It says:

"The 1947 session of the Legislature marked the passage of an amendment to the Forest Act, providing for the creation of forest management licence areas with the object of facilitating the practice of sustained yield management of the forest resource by the forest industries. This outstanding piece of legislation further implemented the recommendations by the recent royal commission on forestry and ranks with the formation of the Forest Service 35 years previously in importance as a progressive step in the development and perpetuation of our forest resource."

The Liberal government in 1947 initiated the forest management licensing programme.

That member for North Vancouver-Capilano objected because we have not made provision for public hearings. Mr. Speaker, tree-farm licences 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 1, 5, 9, 3 and 8 were all granted during a period of the Liberal government in this province, and there were no public hearings on any of them. There were 45 objections on forest management licence No. I and one objection by the truck loggers. The truck loggers objected to most of these, as did the west coast small operators. The same group is today objecting to tree-farm licences, and they are the group that have made their living - and some of then very good livings - in contracting for the holders of tree-farm licences.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) had a few other comments. He said: "All allocated timber on tree-farm licences should be reallocated if there is great abuse." The Forest Act does just that. He said: "The log market should become more realistic." We provide in the legislation that stumpage will be determined through regulation; and I have said many times in recent weeks that the stumpage system on the coast will become an in-value stumpage appraisal system, similar to what we have in the interior.

The log market will therefore not determine stumpage prices, and the log market can then become a realistic market because there will be no reason to manipulate it. It has been manipulated in the past.

He mentioned the problems of small cedar operators doing cedar salvage work. Under previous legislation, the licensee was responsible for all the post-harvesting cleanup on timber licences, forest licences and whatever. Under the new legislation, we can relieve the licensee of that responsibility and allow it to be assumed by a salvage operator, if he wishes to assume it, and salvage the unused wood which is left. In the

[ Page 2449 ]

past, salvage operators were their own worst enemies because some of them were quite irresponsible and created a tremendous fire hazard in doing their salvage work. Not all of them; many of them are good. But because some of them did, licensees became very reluctant to allow them on the site because they were responsible for harvesting. We are taking care of that, Mr. Member.

The member also mentioned the problems with the determination of allowable cut. Some of the members mentioned the problems with sustained yield. They say that the provisions in the Forest Act regarding sustained yield are somehow at odds with the Pearse report. We are providing in the legislation almost exactly what Dr. Pearse recommended. If those members had read the Pearse report instead of the brief synopsis prepared by Bob Williams, they would know that.

What Dr. Pearse really says about sustained yield is on page 235:

"The main deficiencies of the present allowable cut policy are its preoccupation with timber in terms of its physical volume and its single-minded concern for consistency in harvest rates. Enough has already been said about the practicality of the present system in the face of a preponderance of old-growth timber and constantly changing economic, technological and silvicultural conditions, as well as about its ultimate purpose. It is no longer adequate to fix the goal of yield regulation as a more or less constant flow of timber volume over long periods.

"Present circumstances call for a more flexible approach to yield regulation, with greater emphasis on protecting and enhancing the productivity of forest land and on the economic, social and environmental implications of harvesting.

"Forest management policy for the future should be directed toward two related objectives: protection and enhancement of the capacity of forests to produce their potential range of industrial and environmental values; and within the framework, the regulation of harvesting to produce the maximum long-term economic and social benefits from the timber resource."

This is exactly how we have spelled out how annual allowable cut and sustained yield should be calculated in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the points which I have touched on are a couple of points which were feebly raised by the opposition. I'm afraid that I'm very disappointed at the rather low quality of debate on this legislation. A great deal of effort has been put into it not only by myself but through a group of devoted professionals, through a royal commissioner and through the citizens of British Columbia who contributed greatly to the Forest Policy Advisory Committee.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I appreciate the tremendous job of my staff and the Forest Policy Advisory Committee and Dr. Pearse in making it possible to come forth with legislation which will assure that forestry retains its rightful place in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved on the following division:

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

Bill 14, Forest Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The three bills which my ministry has introduced this year form a package for the management of our forest and range resources in British Columbia. Bill 12, the Ministry of Forests Act, establishes the Ministry of Forests. It provides for the continuation of the Forest Service and it provides a statement of the functions and purpose of the ministry in section 5.

[ Page 2450 ]

I would point out that some of the things which the members of the opposition claimed were missing from the legislation, the Forest Act, are embodied in the ministry Act, such as the provision of integrated or multi-use concepts. The Act states that the production of timber and forage, the realization of fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values must be co-ordinated and integrated in consultation and co-operation with other ministries and agencies of the Grown and with the private sector.

The ministry Act will encourage the maximum productivity of our range and forest resources. It will manage, conserve and protect these resources to enable the management, conservation and protection of these resources for the long-term economic and social benefits of the people of British Columbia. It requires the Forest Service to plan the use of these resources under a multi-use concept with the protection of these other resource values.

It will encourage a vigorous world competitive forest industry and it will assert the government's authority in such management rights. Mr. Speaker, the ministry Act provides for a 10-year resource analysis. For the first time it is mandatory, required by statute, that the government address the state of the resource at intervals of no more than 10 years - both the range resource and the forest resource.

The ministry Act also provides for five-year plans for resource management programmes and these must be updated each year. Each time we will drop a year and add a new year with an updated resource management programme. The bill makes the government accountable for the management of the resources, accountable through statutes of this province, through Bill 12, to the people of British Columbia to assure them that these resources will be managed for the best interests of all of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, 1 move that the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill deals basically with the administration of the forestry ministry and to that extent is not nearly as crucial as the one we have just dealt with, Bill 14. But I do want to draw the attention of the House to the provisions which the minister has just noted in this Act which he suggests provide the basis for a proper multi-use approach to the resources of the province.

It is quite true that one particular section does give a direction to the Forests ministry to plan the use of the range and resources of the Crown so that production of timber, forage, the harvesting of timber and the grazing of livestock is considered in a comprehensive way. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I think that is where this minister falls short.

He constantly accuses the opposition of having not read the bill or having misinterpreted the bill or misrepresenting the bill. Quite frankly, I don't think I have ever heard such an insulting minister in my time in this Legislature as this particular minister. I don't know whether it is through his neophyte position in politics or whether it is out of a personal arrogance or whether it is a deliberate intent to insult members of the House. Apparently the minister concludes that unless the opposition, independent loggers, the IWA, environmental groups and many other interested parties all come to precisely identical conclusions as the minister, they are either ill-informed, ignorant or have failed to read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a maddening attitude from one who has very limited experience in the forest area himself. Certainly, from the performance I have witnessed in this Legislature, he is no intellectual giant, either in terms of legislative experience or resource use. So it is a bit maddening to hear that kind of reaction from a minister rather than a detailed presentation in terms of his intent and his understanding of what the bill means.

At least the minister closed debate on the previous bill with somewhat of a dissertation. Perhaps, had he introduced the bill with as much attention and as much detail, it would have assisted debate greatly. Again, with respect to this particular statute, he made a few cursory remarks and read precisely from sections of the bill, which indicates to me that he can read the bill but he has very little understanding beyond the precise language contained in the bill. I suppose he's been programmed by those civil servants whom he holds in such high regard. That's the extent of his contribution to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the minister that although there is an admonition contained in this bill to the Ministry of Forests to have regard for fish and wildlife, for grazing and outdoor recreation uses, the fact of the matter is that there is no provision for joint status between those other government agencies representing those interests. In effect, the Ministry of Forests

[ Page 2451 ]

is the top dog in terms of control over the forest resource. While the intent may be stressed here and the intent may be emphasized to have due regard for those considerations, there certainly is no joint role ensured by legislation for those other agencies that I can see in this particular statute or anywhere else. To that extent, I think it's retrogressive.

We did have a full role for the Environment and Land Use secretariat where there was somewhat of an equal footing for all of the agencies concerned about land use in this province, where competing interests could be reconciled with a more balanced view and with a more balanced understanding of all of the considerations. It looks to me that under this particular statute, while lip service is paid to those things, there is no equal status for those other agencies of government whatsoever.

The provision of this particular bill for a resource analysis every 10 years is commendable and, I think, worthwhile. I congratulate the minister on that. I think the provision for the five-year resource programme, again, is worthwhile and I congratulate the minister for that. The only weakness in those particular areas that I see, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the handling of it at the end of the line, where a programme is placed before the cabinet for comprehensive improvements to the management of the forest industry.

Again, that's a very subtle thing. Unless we have a Minister of Forests who is strong, who is able to influence his cabinet colleagues in terms of giving the financial commitment to whatever that resource use programme may be, then it is of little value whatsoever. One of the very major problems in terms of a crisis, to some extent, that does exist in our forestry in British Columbia is the lack of the proper commitment of funds to regeneration, to adequate research in silviculture and so on. Therein lies one of the major problems for the immediate future: the commitment of that kind of financial allocation to make sure that we not only keep pace but we catch up with some of the backlog as well.

This is more of an administration document that anything else. I don't intend to spend too much time on it. I think the general direction that the minister is taking in terms of the decentralization of the forestry branch may well be a positive thing, provided the professional people within the department retain a proper role in terms of regulation, in terms of planning for the proper management of the resource, rather than being a bunch of paper shufflers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do want to take exception to the minister's propensity, it seems that he is developing, to react with very insulting language to criticism from members and to categorize any opposition, any disagreement, any difference of opinion, as either born out of self-interest - "born out of hate, " was one of the phrases he used -born out of the desire to misrepresent or born out of the ignorance of not having read the statute. That is a particularly arrogant attitude for a minister to take. I would warn the minister that if he ever intends to obtain any kind of co-operation, either in this Legislature or in this province, he would be well advised to rethink not only the legislation he presents, but his own personal attitude.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the opposition made a few remarks, one to the effect that the legislation provides no commitment of funds. The member well knows that funds are allocated through the budget, rather than through particular pieces of legislation.

I don't know what more can be said regarding recognition of input from other ministries than what is said in section 5 (c) , which does say that we must assure that these other resource values are co-ordinated and integrated in consultation and co-operation with other ministries. That is the way it is spelled out in legislation and that is the way it will be.

I move second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Ministry of Forests Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

RANGE ACT

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Range Act is the third bill of the package of resource management bills which I have brought before the House. I do not know to what depth the forestry critic wishes me to go. This bill is not a long bill; it's a bill which parallels the Forest Act insofar as range management is concerned. The intent is to provide, encourage and promote a multiple-use management of rangelands in British Columbia, and to realize the full potential of forest production.

[ Page 2452 ]

Provision is made in the legislation for granting rights through grazing licences which can have a 10-year term and which are replaceable prior to expiry. Hay-cutting licences are of the same duration. Hay-cutting permits of lesser duration will be used when possible future alienations of hay-growing areas are imminent and for the shorter term when a co-ordinated plan is not in place and where there is a possibility of withdrawal of such range from production for other higher uses.

The legislation provides, as does the Forest Act, incentives for co-operative, multi-use management. It provides security of tenure for the ranching community so that they can do forward planning for the management of their productive ranches.

The legislation provides for withdrawals and cancellations of range rights for nonperformance or for abuse. And for the first time, legislation provides for a formal appeal procedure against discretionary decisions of officials of the ministry. The Forest Act also provides such appeal procedures.

The legislation provides the compensation for withdrawal of rights which have been granted if the rights are withdrawn through the licence period. This provision will force all government agencies to plan ahead and to be accountable.

All grazing responsibility through this legislation will fall to one government ministry for consistency of application. Existing grazing leases as presently administered and the land grants of the Ministry of the Environment, when they expire, will be converted to grazing licences and will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

The legislation provides for the decentralization of the range management decisions so that they can be made at the field level in consultation with range users. This bill will help to assure good, co-operative range management for the long-term benefit of the ranching community and for the best management of the range resource with benefit to all of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to the Forest Act, and when used in conjunction with the ministry Act, it will assure proper management of the range resource. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very, very brief with this particular statute. I just want to point out that in my view the extension of the lease arrangements for grazing purposes is generally a good one. I believe that this will provide the opportunity for those people holding grazing leases to do a better job of managing the resource or husbanding the resource, as it were, because there will be some longer-term commitment to it.

I think that direction is generally a good one. The only caution that I would voice to the minister, which I haven't seen emphasized very well in. the bill, is the need to make sure again that there is a proper multi-use approach to the grazing provision, along with consideration for the fish and wildlife interest in certain areas. There has been conflict there in the past in certain parts of the province with grazing licences and the interests Fish and Wildlife may have, either for a graze for wildlife or for streams that may be spawning channels for the fishery. That is a concern if we are to have the proper overview of the priority use of land.

I think, provided the proper regard is paid to that overall concept, that the bill will be fine.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to commend the minister on the extension to the 10-year tenure. I think that is something that certainly is going to be in the best interests of the farming and ranching community and something that is good to have included, in no uncertain terms, in the bill.

I have some concerns about having one ministry solely responsible for the administration of this Act. I guess that perhaps is a natural bias where I find the Minister of Forests being responsible for something that is basically an agricultural bill, because it does relate very specifically to the agricultural industry. Where we must have multi-use of any given resource, perhaps it would be wise if we had some consultation with those other interests. I can see where it would be very difficult for a forest manager or forestry personnel to keep a perspective that was completely unbiased because, after all, they are trained and basically interested in the forestry aspect. So I have some concerns about that.

My major concern relates not so much to what is in the Act, but rather an omission in the Act. This Act is repealing the old Grazing Act. I would like to read clause 8 in the old Grazing Act, which says:

"In the granting of grazing permits, priority shall be given to the requirements of resident stock owners whose improved ranch, leasehold or property situate within the limit of a grazing district is dependent upon the use of Crown range." Mr. Speaker, the new Act is strangely silent

[ Page 2453 ]

on that priority. Instead, it says that the regional manager shall consider - it goes on to list the various things such as the holdings of the applicant and so on. But it doesn't say how he shall consider them. It is strangely silent on this business of priority. I suggest that it is leaving the door open to absentee landlords.

It is taking away the protection that has been built into the old Act for many, many years. It ensured that the rancher who lived in the community year-round, who contributed to that community through purchasing his various commodities and supplies at that local area, who put up hay for the winter use, who spent his entire time in that community, had some prior rights to that Crown land. Mr. Speaker, that is strangely missing from this Act. I'm very concerned about that particular fact.

I would hope that the minister will consider even introducing an amendment in committee stage that would correct that oversight. After the last, shall I say, attack that the minister made upon me, perhaps he can tell me I haven't read the Act, that I don't understand it. But I hope if he does that, if he takes that road, Mr. Speaker, that he gives me some firm backup to explain where that Act does say the things that I'm saying it does not say.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) both found fault with the fact that co-ordination with other resource users is not provided for. But we just had second reading on the ministry Act which does spell out the responsibilities and functions of the Forest Service. Adequate provision is made there for all the use between these other resource users and range users.

Now it is very logical that the Forest Service administer the range resource. In most parts of the province, range land and forest land are one and the same. Most of our range land is to one degree or another forested. The use of clear-cut areas for grazing generally takes place during the forest harvesting cycle. We do have specialists in range management, agrologists and so on in our ministry. We have every bit of expertise needed for the proper management of the range resource.

The member's concern about not spelling out the need for commensurability of range allocations with private holdings is addressed in section 11 where it states:

"When proposals respecting applications for grazing licences are being considered, the manager shall consider the relationship between the grazing rights requested and the capability of the land owned by the licensee."

And, Mr. Speaker, I think this very adequately covers it. Further details, of course, can be spelled out in the regulations, which will become an important part of the administration of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Range Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole house for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it is getting a little long in the tooth of the day, but I would like to call Bill 34, which I think is perhaps best handled in committee in any event, if it's satisfactory with everyone.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding this is second reading of Bill 34. I'm sure that there are a number of remarks which members of the House will , ant to make with respect to a number of the points which are covered in it. It is, in my view, quite clearly and correctly a committee bill. With those remarks, I therefore move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: As critic for the official opposition, I'm happy to agree with the minister that it's best handled in committee. We propose not to debate it in principle at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I now move second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2454 ]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.