[ Page 2763 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

British Columbia Ferry Corporation financial statement and report. Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2763

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry annual report, 1977.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2763

Oral questions

ICBC policy. Mr. King –– 2763

Annual report of Human Rights Commission. Mr. Gibson –– 2764

Responsibility for school tax levy. Mr. Kahl –– 2764

Agricultural aid to developing countries. Mrs. Wallace –– 2764

ICBC advertising of executive positions. Mr. Strongman –– 2765

Advertising lottery tickets. Mr. Rogers –– 2765

Cost of trip to Japan. Mr. Lauk –– 2766

Forest Act (Bill 14) Hon. Mr. Waterland. Committee stage

On section 1.

Mr. King –– 2766

On the amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2766

Mr. King –– 2766

On the amendment to section 7 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2773

Mr. King –– 2774

On section 7 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2774

Division on the amendment 2767

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2767

On the amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2767

Mr. Gibson –– 2767

On section 1.

Mr. Skelly –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2774

On section 10.

Mr. King –– 2775

On the amendment Lo section 10.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2775

Mr. Gibson –– 2775

On section 11 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2776

On the amendment to section 1.

Mr. Skelly –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2768

Mr. Gibson –– 2769

Mr. Skelly –– 2769

Mr. King –– 2769

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2769

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

Mr. King –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

On section 3.

Mr. Skelly –– 2770

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

Mr. Nicolson –– 2771

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2771

Division on section 3 –– 2772

On section 5 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2772

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson –– 2773

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2773

On section 7 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2773

On section 13.

on section 14 as amended.

On section 16.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2779

Mr. Gibson –– 2780

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2781

On section 27.

Mr. King –– 2781

On the amendment to section 27.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2781

Mr. King –– 2781

Mr. Gibson –– 2781

Mr. Nicolson –– 2783

Division on the amendment –– 2783

On section 33 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2783

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2784

On section 38 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2785

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2785

On section 41 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2785

On section 53 as amended.

Mr. King –– 2786

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2786

Mr. Lloyd –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

Mr. Gibson –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

On section 55 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2787

On section 63.

Mr. Gibson –– 2788

On section 19.

On section 25.

On section 88.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2788

On section 107.

On section 131.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2789

On section 147 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2793

Division on section 147 as amended –– 2793

On section 149 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2794

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2794

On section 150.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2794

Division on third reading –– 2795

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Third reading –– 2796

Builders' Lien Act (Bill 42) Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Repairers' Lien Act (Bill 43) Hon. Mr. William .

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Evidence Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 44) Hon. Mr. William .

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Contracts Enforcement Act (Bill 45) . Hon. Mr. William

Introduction and first reading –– 2796

Motion

Sessional allowance for second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2796

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: legislation estimates

On vote 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 2801

Presenting reports.

Special Committee on Privilege first report. Hon. Mr. William –– 2801

Supply Act, No. 2,1978 (Bill 28) . Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2803

Second reading –– 2803

Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2804

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2804

On Schedule A.

Mr. Levi –– 2804

Report and third reading –– 2805

Royal assent to bills –– 2805

Appendix –– 2806

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Miss Shirley Goble from Hamilton, New Zealand. She is accompanied by a constituent of mine, Yvonne Andrews, and I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two baseball players from the city of Vancouver: my son, Greg Lauk, aged 12, and his friend, Christopher Riley. Would the House make them welcome?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it takes a very dedicated and a very special crew of people to operate British Columbia's first lady of steam, the Royal Hudson, and I would like to introduce to the House today one of those dedicated crew members from the Royal Hudson, Mr. Al Broadfoot who is visiting us today. I would like the House to give Al Broadfoot a royal welcome.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this being the final day of school, so to speak, for at least one group and hopefully two groups, we have a full complement of pages today: those who are in attendance on the floor and those who are watching from the vantage point of the gallery. I know all members would want to wish them goodbye and thank them for coming here on their day off.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I believe this would be the appropriate time to file a report. I have the honour to present the financial statement and report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for the fiscal period ended March 31,1978.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should advise the House that the audit of the statements is not complete. It is a draft statement as such, but the auditors advised me they are satisfied that there will be no material change to the statement of accounts when the audit is completed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present the 1977 annual report of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further business before we proceed to question period?

Hon. Mr. Phillips files answer to question 22. (See appendix.)

Oral questions.

ICBC POLICY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education responsible for ICBC: could the minister tell me if it is the policy of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to refuse claims pertaining to damage done on the basis that the offending vehicle operator had no prior knowledge that the accident or the incident was going to take place? Is that the policy of ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: It might have been at one time, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not under the present government.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to hear that. I wonder if the minister could explain why a letter directed on June 22 to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia from Mr. Bob Hall of Salmon Am quotes a letter from the corporation with this passage in it:

"Our investigation indicates that there is no negligence by our insured in regard to his tire blowout, which resulted in your glass breakage. That is to say, this is an uncontrolled situation with no prior knowledge by our insured that his tire would explode."

His claim was declined on this basis. If that is not the policy of ICBC, can the minister now give me assurance that this claim for broken windows in the Hall Grey broadcasting station at Salmon Am will be paid?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to be accused of political interference with ICBC and obviously the member wouldn't want me to give any assurances about the payment of claims; but I would be delighted to look into the matter if the member would give me the courtesy of a copy of the letter. I assure him that I will try to get him a satisfactory answer.

MR. KING: I have a final supplementary. I certainly have no wish to see political interference with claim adjudication. However, I would just once request that the minister assume the full responsibility for ensuring that the corporation which he presides over complies with his stated policy in the admini-

[ Page 2764 ]

stration of that corporation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am not stating my policy. I am merely stating the policy of the corporation, as one humble member of the board of directors.

ANNUAL REPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday I asked the minister about the annual report of the Human Rights Commission. The minister informed me that he had not received the report provided for in section 14 of the Code. Has the minister received that report since then?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have not received the report since then. The matter was referred to the deputy minister immediately following the member's question.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not certain I understand the minister's response.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thought: I made it clear, Mr. Speaker - the report has not been received. The matter was immediately referred to the deputy minister following the member's question.

MR. GIBSON: In view of the fact that the minister received a report from the commissioners in mid-May - which report was made public today - and given that that report is in the same format as the report filed last year - which the minister last year accepted as the annual report - can he say why he doesn't consider the document that was given to his off ice in mid-May to be the annual report for this year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It doesn't comply with the requirements of the Code.

MR. GIBSON: Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If he would read the requirements of the Code, he would recognize why it doesn't comply; at least, I do.

MR. GIBSON: Inasmuch as the report is in the same format, I can only consider that the minister is saying that it doesn't comply with the requirements of the Code because there are no longer commissioners, their terms having expired. The minister says it doesn't comply with the terms of the Code. Would he say exactly how? This is a document that has been sitting in his office since mid-May and the former commissioners finally had to release it today to make it public. Why was it covered up for that period?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a study that perhaps could take place outside of the chamber.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for a legal opinion as to the adequacy of the report.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The report is not being covered up. I have asked for a report which complies with the Code, which contains much more in the way of information and statistics than the one which was presented to me by the Human Rights Commission.

MR. GIBSON: On a final supplementary, considering we've now been without a Human Rights Commission since December, 1977, when will the minister appoint the new members?

MR. SPEAKER: This is regarding future action. The question is not in order.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCHOOL TAX LEVY

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Recently we've had statements from the ex-Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , about whose responsibility it is to levy a mill rate for schools. I have a memo from the Department of Education in 1974, when she was Minister of Education, that says: "Please note that under the provisions of section 199 of the Act, the board is solely responsible for the levying of a rate to raise within the district all moneys required to be raised by taxation for school purposes."

I wonder if the Minister of Education could clarify those two statements, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that one as notice. But I would say that the financing of education is a matter which is subject to great confusion, especially these days.

AGRICULTURAL AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the report he recently filed on agricultural aid to developing countries. This report indicates that there were 46 applications and a total of

[ Page 2765 ]

$347,173 granted. Can the minister tell me how many more applications were received and what, apart from lack of funds, were the reasons for not granting those applications?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a rather detailed question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to the member at this time regarding the number of applications received. I would be pleased o get that information for her. There are many reasons why grants aren't made, though, and that is determined by a committee that deals with the applications. I would be pleased to get the other information for the member.

ICBC ADVERTISING OF EXECUTIVE POSITIONS

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for ICBC. Would it be possible for the minister to clarify for the House a reference in the Vancouver Sun, dated September 19,1975, to the fact that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was advertising in the United States and in English newspapers for two senior executives with salaries in the range of $30,000 to $40,000?

HON. MR. McGEER: It seems to be ICBC day, Mr. Speaker. I would have to take that as notice, though I find it hard to credit the possibility that under the former government ICBC would have been permitted to advertise for Americans. But I will look into it.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I took as notice a question with regard to current advertising in American newspapers with respect to ICBC. I'm afraid I'm unable to add anything more to what was reported on the front pages of the newspapers - that indeed ads were placed with the concurrence and co-operation of the Manpower and Immigration officials, who agreed that the suitable candidate was not appearing from Canada.

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Minister of Education, since he likes ICBC day. I heard a report this morning that the Premier has announced that all ads will be pulled out of the American journals and papers, with respect to the ICBC search for an actuary. In view of the fact that the Premier has so often said that there will be no political interference in ICBC, I would like to ask who is running ICBC, in light of that kind of a statement this morning.

HON. MR. McGEER: As the member well knows, ICBC is a financially self-sufficient corporation run by an independent board of directors (laughter) which is responsive, as well, to the shareholders and their representatives, and perhaps even from time to time to the media, though I would hope not too responsive to some of the suggestions that we've had from that quarter.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would wonder whether or not the Minister of Education will request the Premier's immediate pulling out of this situation with ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, I've got all excited because they're having some difficulty running that company. But I wonder if the Minister of Education would ask the Premier to cease and desist right now his political interference of ICBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll make no such request. I want to assure the member that unlike the current Leader of the Opposition, the Premier does no such thing with respect to ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps a final supplementary.

MR. COCKE: Yes, perhaps a final supplementary.

Does the minister know whether ICBC has issued the order that the Premier required them to issue this morning?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I don't, Mr. Speaker, but I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

ADVERTISING LOTTERY TICKETS

MR. ROGERS: My question is to the Provincial Secretary, in her role as the head of the B.C. lottery branch. I'd like to know how much money is spent on advertising in the flogging of lottery tickets, in both the electronic and the print media. I know the answer is too much, but if you have a ballpark figure I'd really appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a rather detailed question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on that basis, I would prefer to take that question as notice.

[ Page 2766 ]

COST OF TRIP TO JAPAN

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Economic Development, who has kindly filed answers to questions.

He indicates that on a Japanese trip last year he took five people with him, and the total cost of the trip was $29,496.04. My question to the minister is: the trip lasting approximately two weeks, did you have a good time? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The question suggests its own answer. (Laughter.) However, the minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be most happy to answer that question and advise the member for Vancouver Centre that I came back from that trip exhausted (laughter) because we went over there.... I'll quit while I'm behind, Mr. Speaker. That mission went over there to promote the province of British Columbia. And we didn't go over there, Mr. Speaker, to play rugby. We worked, we made many contacts and, as the years roll by, that will prove to be of great economic benefit to the people of British Columbia. When indeed the. economy and the coal industry and the lumber industry ' and all of these things unfold, the people of this province and the opposition, indeed, will agree that that was money very well spent.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, section 1 is the section relating to the interpretation of the terms used in the Act, I believe, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. KING: I'm particularly concerned in this area, Mr. Chairman, that there is no reference to sustained yield, I think, which fact has created and engendered a great deal of public discussion and debate, both in this House and in the public, with respect to whether or not that concept is included as an ingredient of the new Act. The minister has indicated that yes, it is inherent in the new Act, although it is not really spelled out in very precise terms.

Mr. Chairman, if that indeed is the case, then I suggest strongly to the minister that there is nothing to be lost by including a proper definition of sustained yield in the interpretation section of Bill 14. Accordingly I would move an amendment to Section 1 which reads as follows: by inserting between "special timber licence" and "timber" the following: "Sustained yield means a programme of forest management which ensures a continuous yield of timber." I offer this amendment and commend it to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, later in the Act, determination of annual allowable cut is spelled out in considerable detail. And included in that are the various things which must be considered in determining annual allowable cut. The matter of sustained yield is dealt with there. It states - I can't recall the number of the section right now -the rate of growth of timber that can be sustained over a period of time, or something to that affect. And we see no need to attempt to have a simplistic determination of sustained yield in the definition, because sustained yield is not a simple item, not easily defined.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've read the sections pertaining to the allowable cut. And they do not deal in any precise way with the concept of sustained yield. They include a number of considerations - some of which I feel are highly questionable, in terms of appropriate criteria for developing an annual allowable cut. But surely, if sustained yield is to be the central concept of forest management in this province, it should be defined in a general way and contained in the initial section, the interpretation section of the bill. The language which is contained in the amendment is not restrictive and narrow. It certainly is general enough to allow for proper professional development of all of the scientific considerations and the scientific programme that have to be put together to

[ Page 2767 ]

develop a sustained yield concept. There's no threat in terms of the language there. If the minister is in favour of and if he, indeed, approves of and has as a central objective the maintenance and development of a sustained yield concept, I can't for the life of me understand why he would not be willing and anxious to include that definition and that kind of declaratory purpose in the interpretation of the Act.

I think that it's basic, and unless lie's willing to accept that, I have to look with a jaundiced eye upon the very vague references to sustained yield which follow in later sections of the Act. I have to look with a jaundiced eye indeed. Surely if the minister defends and supports the concept, he should be willing to state it as a primary function and there is no better place to do that. Indeed it is essential that if it is to mean something and be salutary, then it should be in the interpretation section so that everyone can understand what the direction is. In terms of being narrow or simplistic, there is nothing in that language which binds it to a narrow programme - nothing whatsoever. It just states the general objective of maintaining a sustained yield from the forest resource. ,

Now if the minister finds that objectionable or unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, I have grave doubts about the direction which he is taking in this entire statute.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 16

NAYS - 23

Amendment negatived.

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

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I have just a couple of questions on these definitions, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, under the section that is called it to control of a corporation, subsection 1 refers to 'by one person" and subsection 2 refers to "by a group of persons." Could the minister confirm that "persons" includes corporations within its meaning?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, it does.

MR. GIBSON: Second, Mr. Chairman, in the definition of forest officer, it says that it "means a person employed in the Ministry of Forests who is designated by name or title to be a forest officer by the minister, the chief forester, or a regional manager." There is a very significant omission here. The deputy minister apparently does not have the power to designate a forest officer, even though the chief forester or regional manager does. It seems to me the deputy should have that power. Therefore I move that in the definition of forest officer, immediately after the word "minister, " the words "deputy minister" be added.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, under the Interpretation Act the term "minister" includes "deputy minister" - so the lawyers advise me. Therefore the amendment is not necessary.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister is not suggesting that the term "minister" includes "deputy minister" for all purposes and all the powers of the minister. For example, is the minister suggesting that a deputy minister could sign a submission to cabinet, let us say? Is he suggesting he could exercise, without reference to the minister, the enormous discretionary powers that are conferred under this bill? That is completely against our traditions and our system where we have political heads of departments who are accountable to the Legislature; that's what ministers are for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can he sit in the House?

MR. GIBSON: Can the deputy sit in the House? Obviously not. There is a distinction between a minister and deputy minister. I'm just asking the minister to remove any uncertainty by putting into the definition section that it

[ Page 2768 ]

includes the deputy minister. It can't do any harm and, I suggest, it might do some good.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is obviously not a lawyer either. A deputy minister works under the instructions of the minister; the minister can instruct him to do or not to do certain things, and if he doesn't, he probably will no longer be the deputy. Section 20 of the Interpretation Act spells this out f or the, member, if he would care to read it. It states that "...words in an Act directing and empowering a minister of the Crown to do something ... include a minister designated to act in the office and the deputy of the minister."

So it's spelled out very clearly in the statutes, and lawyers advise me that this is the way the law reads, the way it works; and I'm riot going to attempt to change the Interpretation Act through the Forest Act.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I think it doesn't appropriately recognize the stature of the deputy. I think that's wrong; I think the minister ought to put this in.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SKELLY: The minister rejected a definition of sustained-yield management in the definition section and, in doing so, he referred to section 7, which he says provides an implicit definition of sustained-yield management. I know that it's not allowed for us to debate an upcoming section. But in fact, section 7 allows the chief forester to abandon or violate the sustained-yield management principle by considering things in addition to it, such as the economic and social objectives of the Grown. For that reason I think we should have a more definite definition in this section of sustained-yield management in annual allowable cut.

I wonder if the minister would accept an amendment to the term "annual allowable cut" in section 1, to add after the word "land" in the definition the words "subject to sustained-yield management principles. I would move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: The reason for this addition to the definition is to restrict the chief forester from establishing an annual allowable cut in any area that would exceed the amount of timber that could be grown on a sustained yield basis in any area, so that it does bind the chief forester to sustained yield management principles, because in section 7 he's only required to consider sustained yield management principles and he's not bound by them. He's also allowed to bypass those principles and give consideration to other objects of the Grown such as short-term economic objectives and this type of thing.

So we would like to see the forests of this province perpetuated forever and this important part of the provincial economy perpetuated, Mr. Chairman. That's why we would like some constraints, based on sustained-yield management principles, on the chief forester when designating an annual allowable cut for any area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment attempts to do exactly the same thing as the amendment that was just defeated.

The rate at which timber can grow on a specific area of land may not always be the best way of managing the forest land base. This legislation, throughout it, provides for the best management tools and techniques available. The very restrictive biological growth rate of timber on a specific area of land is not a good management tool. Any forester will tell you that. Therefore this amendment is not acceptable.

MR. SKELLY: What the minister is saying is strictly not true. I realize he's being advised by a deputy minister and by another forester, but we shouldn't be listening only to foresters when we're talking about what is essentially an ecological system rather than simply trees. Now I realize that there are certain areas of the province where it may be necessary to remove forest cover and not replant it - hydro reservoirs and this type of thing. But in that area, it really should be expected that that land would be removed from forest land and attributed to other purposes. What we're talking about here is kind of leading up to the debate on section 7. In lands that we are going to be using in perpetuity for forest management, we should be basing the allowable cuts on sustained-yield management principles in order to protect the forest economy of the province.

Now I understand that as a management tool in other areas, it may be not acceptable. Hydro reservoirs are only one example. Clearing land for agriculture may be another. But in areas of the province where we're

[ Page 2769 ]

establishing annual allowable cuts, and those areas have been designated for the production of timber forever, we should be basing those annual allowable cuts on sustained-yield management principles.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the member for Alberni a question. I sympathize with the spirit of his amendment, but I would ask him: how would this bear upon areas which have overmature or decadent timber throughout a fairly wide area which in the interests of proper regrowth should be cut down as quickly as possible? Would this amendment, in his view, inhibit that procedure?

MR. SKELLY: We'd have to cover that probably in more detail under section 7. We're not allowed to do that under the interpretation section. I have a number of amendments that I'd like to present along those lines to section 7. But no, I don't think this would affect areas where there is a large amount of - as you call it - overmature timber. I think that you can still cut that overmature at probably accelerated rate, but still base the total annual allowable cut on sustained-yield management principles.

MR. KING: I'd like to hear a bit more response from the minister on this concept.

He's resisted the sustained-yield concept as an inherent part of the bill through placing it as a term with a proper interpretation.

He's now resisting it in the form that my colleague is putting it before the House. The stated objective of a sustained yield is not a restrictive thing. That does not mean that you do not manage the forests in an intelligent way on a professional biological basis to maximize the growth rate. That can vary from area to area, depending upon the geography, on the purpose, as my colleague pointed out. If you want to remove land from forest use to put into something else, no problem. But surely the objective is the important principle here.

This is not restrictive. It simply dedicates a policy toward that stated objective of making sure that our forests are regenerated, that there will be trees and timber to harvest on a continual basis for generations to come. If we can't commit ourselves to that principle and to that policy, at least in a general way, then I think I have to become exceedingly more concerned about the whole thrust of this bill.

It has been argued that it is a major give away of resources, that it does encourage accelerated cutting, and while there may be the case, in terms of some stands of over mature timber, for accelerated cutting, it should be inherent in such a policy that there be an accelerated programme of replanting and regeneration in that particular area as well. That's simply what we're talking about: the dedication to ensuring that those forests are regenerated for all time and for generations to come, not for the quick cut-and-run proposition that may bring short-term economic benefits to this government and our generation, but leave us in serious straits in terms of maintaining a constancy in the supply of timber resource for our children and their children. If the minister can't accept that as a general direction, then I'm afraid this bill is worse than any of us anticipated.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member, in his dissertation, is providing many of the reasons that the rigid, even-flow concept of sustained yield, which is really what they're talking about, is not a good management tool. Now sustained-yield, the allowable cut, is defined in the Act under section 7, which we can discuss at that time. Requirement of reforestation is also provided for in the bill.

This amendment will add nothing to the Act. The whole thrust of the Act is the best management of a forest land base forever for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Many factors have to be considered in addition to rigid, biological growth rates. You mentioned some of them yourself and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano did also. There are many factors which must be considered. Reforestation is required. The determination of allowable cut must include the rate of timber harvesting that can be sustained forever. These things are very adequately covered in the Act and this proposed amendment adds nothing to it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just a final comment. I wish the minister wouldn't tell me what I am saying and what I'm asking for. We did not mention the sustained yield even-flow proposition. The minister is responsible for this bill, and if he would tell us precisely what he means instead of interpreting the remarks of other members of this House, it would certainly be more helpful and perhaps we could proceed more quickly. It's a bit arrogant, you know. I can articulate my concerns and my objectives quite adequately without assistance from the minister, so I would simply ask him to respond to the points we are making.

It is not a narrow even-flow absolute objective we are talking about. It is a general objective of a sustained yield, which means

[ Page 2770 ]

taking into account all of the considerations pertaining to the economic, social, but more particularly, biological, because trees don't grow at a rate that conforms to economic and social considerations. They respond to the biological, and that's a general principle. The minister's resistance indicates to me that we are moving away from that principle.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this section requires a chief forester to develop and maintain an inventory of the provincial forests. I was under the impression that we had at least some kind of inventory at the moment. I wonder if the minister could tell us the current state of the inventory and the improvements that he hopes to make in the near future.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the present inventory of our forests in British Columbia is complete. We estimate to be accurate within plus or minus 15 per cent. This must be maintained and continued, according to this section, and made as accurate as possible throughout history.

MR. KING: Just one point on this section. In developing that inventory, Mr. Chairman, is it anticipated that there will be a more precise mapping and inventory of accessible, merchantable timber? Is it the intent that this inventory will take place primarily by aerial photography, which may not reveal the terrain that could interrupt and interfere with access to the timber for extraction to a market, so that we will have some more precise and intelligent basis upon which to base the annual allowable cut? How is this inventory going to be done? Is there a new programme, a new approach envisioned? Or is it simply adding to existing data, or is it a completely new programme?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, methods of establishing inventory and mapping and so on will include all the possible tools at our disposal: ground work, aerial photography -even satellite photography.

Of course as we move along we will be considering economically harvestable timber, environmental set-asides and protection areas, and so on. We wish to have an inventory of timber which is harvestable both at the present time with existing technology and which could be harvestable as technology changes and develops. A good example is the timber which we are harvesting right now by helicopter logging. It was not economically harvestable a few years ago. This type of thing is not static; it has to be changed as conditions change in harvesting.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: This appears to be the section that we are concerned about in terms of integrated management of forest resources in the province. It appears that it gives total authority to the chief forester to assess the value of land potential in the province for recreation, for forage for livestock and wildlife and this type of thing. I'm wondering just what capability the chief forester has to do this that is superior to the credentials and the capabilities of people working in other branches of government, such as the fish and wildlife branch and the Ministry of Agriculture. What requirements and constraints are on the chief forester to consult these other departments?

Over the past four or five years, in any case, administrative developments have taken place: the establishment of the Environment and Land Use secretariat to provide for a kind of integrated management approach among other forest resources. Is there anything in the regulations that requires the chief forester to consult with these other people? It should be included in the legislation itself; also that there is a draft of the regulations currently being circulated to at least some people in the forest industry. I'm wondering just what constraints will be placed on the chief forester in assessing the land in the province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member said he understands that a draft of the regulations-is being circulated to members in the industry. There is no draft of regulations being circulated to anyone. I have not seen them yet. Even my deputy minister has not been through them completely yet. As soon as the Act ums tabled in the House, members of the ministry and different division heads began initial drafts of regulations, as they pertained to their particular function within the ministry. These are now being brought together by my deputy in order to begin a draft of a consolidation of them. As far as I know, unless they were stolen from the ministry, they have not gone to anybody outside of the Forest Service

[ Page 2771 ]

yet.

With reference to the member's questions on section 3, the Ministry of Forest Act requires consultation and co-operation with the other land-use ministries; this, of course, is what will happen. Our function as Ministry of Forests will be to concentrate on those resource values which we have responsibility for - that is, timber growth and livestock forage.

MR. SKELLY: Wildlife?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There's always an overlapping between livestock and wildlife forage. When you grow forage, you never know who is going to eat it - the wildlife or the livestock.

Consultation and co-operation with the other ministries is required in the Act, and this section here just spells out what we will be doing in a little more detail.

MR. NICOLSON: In examining the previous Forest Act, under that Act the power now granted to the chief forester was formerly held by the Lieutenant-Governor-in--council. Under the old section 9 it said:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may constitute in any portion of the province a forest district and declare by what local name it shall be known, and may from time to time extend, reduce, subdivide or annul any existing forest district or merge in whole or in part in consolidation of two or more forest districts."

Essentially, I would say that -the powers granted under that section, which had to be decided upon by cabinet, are now going to be, to a great measure, decided upon by the chief forester - not the deputy minister, not the minister, but the chief forester.

"The chief forester shall assess the land in the province for its potential for growing trees for providing forest oriented recreation, producing forage for livestock and wildlife, and accommodating other forest use.

Then in the next section, which we will debate, it actually elaborates somewhat upon this.

It seems quite clear that decisions concerning recreational use, wildlife and other resource uses in the forest are going to be made by one person. To say that that person will do it in consultation with others still does not change the fact that the person who will have the final say in the matter is going to be the chief forester, who is a civil servant twice removed from the minister. In the previous situation, at least it was done by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where other ministries could be involved.

It would appear to me that we will see a complete departure from the work which is being done by the local inter-sector committees and the very fine relationship which has grown between regional staff of the Forest Service c the other resource agencies such as the water rights branch, fish and wildlife branch, parks branch and others. So I certainly cannot support this concept and must speak against it.

I think if the minister was aware of the good news that could be told about the work that has been done, largely, I think, since 1972 or 1973, towards developing co-ordinated land-use plans and bringing about compromises where there was a division of powers.... Certainly, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has pointed out, the role has been played by the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat towards helping make each forester, to some measure, a competent biologist, helping make each biologist to some extent conscious of forestry, and making each person in the water rights branch somewhat conscious of the other needs of the other resources, and so on down the way, as well as creating co-operation between the users - the ranchers who depend upon the forest for livestock - and other areas.

It would appear that there is going to be a complete tipping of the scales, and when it comes down to the final crunch it will be the chief forester who makes the decision, having listened to these other things. We are doing away with a division of powers which forces co-operation, and we are leaving the avenue wide open towards authoritarianism. We will see the erosion of the very fine work which has been done and the very fine skills which have developed in the Forest Service and in other agencies of the Crown.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know what the member is reading into section 3, but all section 3 says is that the chief forester "shall assess the land." We do not know which land we can do what things on unless we make an assessment of it. The Forests ministry will be assessing it for its ability to grow timber crops and forage and, in consultation with others, for other uses. All this section says is that we must make an assessment. We cannot plan the management of land unless we assess what we have to manage. That's all this section says.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I can't really

[ Page 2772 ]

take responsibility for the way in which the minister drafts legislation, where he takes a section 3 that could probably be connected with section 4. I'm trying to avoid discussing section 4 until we get to it, but if I do that, if I don't discuss the two of these together, the opportunity will be lost. Really, sections 3 and 4 should be looked at together.

In section 3, the one we are discussing right now, he will assess the land and its potential for the following. Then, having done that, in section 4 he will then classify it as forest land. If he classifies it as forest land it might be the best and highest use. If you look in the Canada Land Inventory it might be classified there as the highest use for wildlife ungulates. But if he classifies it as being the best and highest use of maybe being grasslands and decides that that land is not in production as grasslands and that it should be planted and seeded and that it should not be overburned to propagate grass but it should be planted and seeded into forestry, that decision is the one which will be made because he will, in the next section, be classifying it.

So I say the time to step in here is right now in section 3, where we are starting this whole trend. It isn't my fault if the minister has sort of dismembered sections which should have been written up perhaps as one section with a subsection, so that we could discuss the total principle inherent in this total section where the chief forester is going to be able to assess the land capability and then he is going to be able to classify it.

I would say it is quite obvious, and many groups have expressed concern over this. As I say, in the old Act the decision was made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Why does the minister want to delegate this authority to one civil servant? Theoretically the minister now has no control over it, and since an elected person has no control aver this assessment, that means that the people of this province have no control aver it either.

This is pure and simple technocracy, and I am sure that this minister must go around with one of those little integral-shaped signs with red and white painted onto his grey car.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 15

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing on the order paper. (See appendix.) The amendment is simply to correct a typographical error.

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

Mr. KING: Mr. Speaker, just to comment briefly on this section, I would point out that this section taken in conjunction with section 3 and section 4 makes it very clear that the chief forester has the authority, subject to the regulations promulgated in support of this particular statute to make the assessment of the provincial land, to classify it and then designate and consolidate it as forest land subject to a variety of considerations.

We don't really have any particular argument with the overall objective, but we think that the ministerial authority and the chief forester's authority in regard to all of these considerations should be tempered by a statutory requirement which obliges him to do so in consultation and in co-operation with the other important branches of government which represent Fish and Wildlife, which represent agriculture and which represent recreational uses. It's not an argument for or against forest land, as the minister likes to make it seem. We want the proper balance in considering and assessing the highest use of land in the province of British Columbia. These three sections make it clear that the superior position and the overriding authority now rests with the chief forester to the detriment and to the declining influence of those other sections of government which have a legitimate interest in this area also. That's why we

[ Page 2773 ]

voted against section 3. It's representative of this total approach, which we think is inappropriate.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

MR. GIBSON: In designation of PSYUs and so on, it says "the minister may." I'm wondering under what circumstances he would not designate all of the forest land within the province. Why would tie wish to hold any of it back from a designation of some kind?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If I understand the member correctly, he's asking why all forest and Crown land is not designated as PSYU.

MR. GIBSON: No. This section says the minister "may" designate forest land as different types, rather than the minister "shall" designate forest land. Why is it all automatically designated? Why might any be held back?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: For example, a tree farm licence is not within a public sustained-yield unit. A farm wood-lot licence is really not a part of a public sustained-yield unit. The Prince George special sale area will now cease to exist. It may not be within a public sustained-yield unit. We may continue to call it a special timber supply area or another name. All forest land is not necessarily within PSYUs, but that which has the forest licence type of tenure on it would be, and various other types of licence. But some of them are not.

MR. GIBSON: I understand that all forest land is not within PSYUs, and perhaps I've misread the section. What I was concerned to ascertain is: will all forest land in the province be included within some type of tenure or other, whether it's PSYU, TFL or whatever?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: All forest land will be included in some type of forest management designation, whether it be PSYU, tree-farm licence or whatever.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: 1 move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in subsection (c) and (d) of section 7 (3) . it says:

"In determining an annual allowable cut under subsection (1) (a) , the chief forester shall consider... (c) the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing facilities, and (d) the economic and social objectives of the Crown, as expressed by the minister for the area, for the general region and for the province."

Again, Mr. Chairman, I must conclude that this particular approach to determining allowable cut is not consistent with the objective of a sustained yield.

Now it's nice to look at social needs; it is nice to look at economic needs; and indeed it's essential to look at those things in terms of comprehensive forest management in the province. But to do those things in the absence of the objective of maintaining a perpetual yield of the forest is, in my view, a dangerous departure from the concept of sustained yield. The rate of growth for trees does not respond to economic and social needs or the supply needs of established facilities in the area.

The growth rate of timber is regulated by biological constraints, not by desirable economic and social objectives. Again we see the thrust in this statute toward considerations that move away from the objective of sustained yield.

Mr. Chairman, accordingly I move an amendment to section 7 which deletes sections (c) and (d) of section 7 (3) and renumbers section (e) as section (c) .

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Speaking to (c) - "the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing plants" - I think that we should recognize the fact that the harvesting of timber is really a very important part of the economic and social fabric of British Columbia. Some flexibility is required in year-to-year harvesting rates. I'll give the member an example of the type of thing that we require the flexibility to do.

We can take, for example, an area of the province - perhaps the Kootenays would be a good example - where a sawmill may exist which does not have sufficient timber available to

[ Page 2774 ]

it to carry on as an effective operation. Knowing that that is the case, the operation would have to shut down. Now there may be some amount of timber which, if harvested over a shorter period of time, would allow that operation to continue for a period of time. For example, it may have an inadequate 10-year supply, but it may be an adequate supply if that harvesting were to be carried out in seven years. It may be to the best interests to employment in the area if we were to tell that company: "All right, recognizing -the fact that seven years from now you will have to end your operation, you can harvest at an accelerated rate for seven years to carry on economic operation in that time." This could very well take place, with the government knowing that during this period of time there's a very good likelihood that other activities such as a new coal mine or some other such undertaking may be underway to replace the loss of jobs. So it's just providing some flexibility for short period changes in the allowable cut, accelerated harvesting for a short period of time and then having a reduction later on.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response and I accept that there can be those circumstances. There can also be the circumstance where there is a shortage of timber to an operator and an excess in some adjacent operation and a need for reallocation. Those things do occur. I have no objections to that kind of approach. But that kind of approach in isolation from the objective of sustained yield, which implies attention to the potential growth rate of the timber, is what I object to. I find a departure, an abandonment of that concept consistently throughout each section of this Act and that concerns me. When I see references to production capabilities, references to the economic and social objectives of the Crown, without tempering those objectives with the complementary objective of a sustained yield of the forest, then I say the minister is approaching this thing in a distorted way. I have to oppose that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the only reason that this appears to be a departure is that the member is intentionally taking it out of context to the rest of the section.

Subsection 3 (a) says the rate of timber production that may be sustained on the area is one of the prime considerations. He can remove that in his own mind, but it doesn't take it out of the bill. These are all factors which must be considered.

Amendment negatived.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: I have some questions on this section. Section 7 (l) (b) says: "the chief forester shall determine an allowable annual cut for every tree-farm licence area" - underline these words - "according to the licence."

1 wonder if the minister could describe what "according to the licence!' means. I would have thought that the annual allowable cut would have been determined by the facts on the ground - the timber and so on. What does it mean?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Member, it simply means according to the area contained within the licence. The rate of cut provided in the licence is determined by the area described in the licence.

MR. GIBSON: Well, the minister doesn't really mean the area; he means the trees standing in the area. Is that right? Some areas are much more productive than others. What I'm getting at is that it has nothing to do with the legal terms and conditions of the licence, it has to do with the physical facts of the case. Is that right? The minister is nodding. Okay.

My second question concerns the provision that there shall be taken into account, among other things, "the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing plants." Well, I'm very happy about this, and it's one of the things that I believe should be the case with respect to the annual allowable cut awarded to any particular firm. I suggested in second reading debate that there were companies in the province - namely, the majors on the coast - with about 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut and only about 60 per cent of the conversion requirements. What I want to know is: given that this factor is to be taken into account, to what extent is it to be taken into account? In what way? May we finally look forward to that day when the majors will no longer control substantially more wood supply than they actually convert?

MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to determine how much timber we need in the future, and therefore we must plan our cut to be able to effectively balance the industry with the cut available. If we don't know what timber is available, we won't be able to determine what the industry's needs will be.

But there is no attempt here to reduce the

[ Page 2775 ]

timber that is harvested within a treefarm licence. And this is what the member was talking about in second reading, he is attempting to say that only the manufacturing capability of the owner of the tree-farm licence should be used in determining the allowable cut he should keep. That's not the intention; here we're saying that within that part of the tree farm licence section, as long as he is harvesting and making available to some manufacturing plant, he is, for the purpose of this Act, using his cut. I hope the member doesn't think that this is a way of getting around his objection to the others, because it is not.

MR. GIBSON: This is an area-based concept rather than a licence- or corporate-based concept. Thank you.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer on section 10, the purpose of which is to restrict allocations under any of these forms of licences to 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut for the licencee - which was recommended by Dr. Pearse in the Pearse royal commission report - and I've chosen this section to insert that amendment. Whether or not it's practical in terms of all of these forms of licences is something the minister may care to respond to. The objective is to ensure that all enterprises in the province of British Columbia - whether they be the large integrated firms or the small ones - have the basic preponderance of their supply secured, but also that they be required, through a competitive bidding process, to get out and compete on the market for a certain portion of their supply - the fibre they need - and that is to ensure that, as Dr. Pearse so eloquently pointed out, the need to remain lean in terms of the efficiency and the productivity of their operations is met. I think that this is an admirable concept, and if the minister and his government are truly committed to any vestige whatsoever of free competitive enterprise in this province, then, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure he will accept this amendment. I so move. Perhaps the Chairman will read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is moved by Mr. W.S. King, that Bill 14, the Forest Act, section 10, line 4 be amended by deleting sections (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) , (f) , (g) , (h) and M , and substituting the following:

"section (a) forest licence, section (b) timber sale licence, section (c) timber licence, section (d) tree-farm licence, section (e) pulp-wood agreement, section (f) wood-lot licence; section (g) free-use permit, section (h) licence to cut, section (i) road permit; "

and by adding subsection (2): "Allocations made under this section shall not exceed 80 per cent of the annual allowable cut required by any licencee."

It's duly signed, and I would assume it's in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member bases the need for this amendment on something he said Dr. Pearse said. Dr. Pearse never made any such recommendation that 80 per cent of the cut is what should be allocated to the various manufacturers. In fact a great deal of thought as to this concept was gone into by people in my ministry with the forest policy advisory committee, and with the entire sector of people we consulted in a review of this legislation.

It was generally agreed - in fact unanimously agreed - that this type of thing would be extremely disruptive to established manufacturing plants and the security of jobs within manufacturing plants. It really would do nothing to increase the efficiency of manufacturing plants. The biggest thing there is the competitive marketplace in which they deal.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not acceptable.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not sure that this is necessarily the appropriate section for the amendment, or that the wording is exactly what might be required, or that 80 per cent is exactly the right number. But I do want to say that the direction being moved in by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is, in my view, the right direction. You can argue whether it should be 80 per cent or 100 per cent, but I do very definitely agree that cutting rights should be intimately related to actual utilization, and by utilization I do not mean simply logging. Logging, to me, is not a utilization of a forest; it is the harvesting. Utilization comes in the milling section.

As I said before, on the coast the major companies control about 80 per cent of the log supply and have about 60 per cent of the milling capacity. That, to me, seems to be wrong. There should be a much closer relation-

[ Page 2776 ]

ship between the secure log supply available to any given company and its actual milling requirements.

The minister speaks of job security. I suggest to the minister that if a pulp mill is in existence and if pulp logs are being harvested, the person who harvests them will not eat them. He will sell them to somebody with a pulp mill. The logs will find their way to the pulp mill and there is no question about the jobs being continued.

I draw the minister's attention to the recent new adventure of MacMillan Bloedel in France and Belgium where they wrote off their investment in four pulp mills over there but have now decided to re-enter in an active way, to put more money in and take over the active management. Those mills, I believe, are largely fed by wood supplies not under the control of the company. It is interesting that in that kind of context it seems possible to buy mill feed from other sources and the company gets along perfectly well.

In the southern United States, again that is the case. In the Pacific Northwest, it is not at all uncommon for a company to have the majority of its wood supply on private lands and go out and scramble for the rest, and it works just fine.

I very much support the philosophical thrust of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan in the amendment. Although, as I say, the details may not be exactly right, the direction he is trying to move in would, as far as I am concerned, improve the competitive situation in the British Columbia forest industry.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 11 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 11 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: If I understand it correctly, subsection (4) of section 11 means that the highest bid is not necessarily accepted. I think that's the case at the moment. I wonder if the minister could just tell us briefly how he goes about balancing things. For example, he's got this recent bid in the mid coastal region where he got $7 per cunit for one application of a very high bid, and much lower bids that may give higher social advantages. How does he balance these kinds of questions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the balancing is just as the member says, the best socially or for the betterment of the people of British Columbia generally. Because someone can bid a higher bonus amount in a bid proposal for this type of licence does not mean that it is in the best interests of the province to provide him with the wood. The best utilization of the wood, the person who perhaps provides the best recovery, the best employment base.... The community needs can be a very big part of it. If a community requires an employment base or a continuation of an employment base, that could be a very important factor. All of these things have to be judged. As a matter of policy in the past, it has been my practice at least to get outside expertise, not only outside the government but outside my ministry as well, to help balance these various aspects, which you cannot put an easy dollar figure on.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, in order that the public itself can evaluate the evaluation, so to speak, would the minister tell me if it is provided anywhere in this Act that the details of the applications that are being judged one against another shall be public?

MR. LLOYD: This is one of the sections I referred to in my remarks on second reading, and certainly I can see the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson's) point. The use that could be made of this in our own area is where McBride and Valemount are getting chopped off by Kamloops and Prince George moving ever closer to the community, without the flexibility of deciding the social benefits to the community. I guess it refers back to the previous section as well - adjustment of PSYUs with a little more flexibility. A couple of communities could become extinct if they lose their forest bids, so I think that's a very necessary part of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: I agree with the member for Fort George as to the necessity. What I an concerned about now is whether the details of the application will be made public so that the public will know just what balancing ums done.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, in the past only the dollar figures have been made public, as a fact. This subjects both the government and other people to a lot of criticism. Why did you make such a decision?

[ Page 2777 ]

So our intention is to have a list of all the factors that were included. We're not going to make public confidential corporate information which may be required in the tender, but all the factors that are important to the public in determining who gets what will be made public when our regulations are in place. This is our intention.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. GIBSON: We're now into replacement forest licences, and it is specified in part (d) that they shall include an allowable annual cut equal to the AAG under the forest licence then in force. What happens if for some reason the total cut in the PSYU has had to be reduced in the interim? How can the minister replace each annual allowable cut with the same amount if the overall has been reduced?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It does provide that the cut will be rolled over, in effect, subject to reductions made since the original licence was issued. If reductions are to take place in the future, then reductions will be based .... If a sustained-yield unit has a general reduction in allowable cut for any reason - environmental damage, alienation, and so forth - all licencees in the area would be reduced proportionately. At the end of his licence period when a rollover takes place there may already have been reductions, and that will only be the amount that is rolled over.

MR. GIBSON: That answers that question. Now subsection (e) of section 2 mentions that the replacement forest licence may include such other terms and conditions. If I were a forest licence holder I'd be very worried about that, because it seems to give complete discretion to the minister to impose, if he wished, unreasonable terms and conditions. I think this was one of the concerns that was raised by GUFI, as a matter of fact, in their memorandum which refers, among other things, to section 13 (2) (e):

"Because of the lack of any stated criteria, the terms for replacement of forest licences, TFLs, pulpwood agreements and woodlot licences could very well be unreasonable. So that there is equitable treatment there should be some defined standard of performance which, if adhered to, will permit the licence to be replaced under terms and conditions consistent with those in the original agreement."

That seems to be an equitable sort of principle, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the minister why it's not provided here.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, it is necessary, and will be necessary, especially in the future, to change the terms and conditions of forest management licences. We may, in a new licence, require more intensive forest management than has been required in previous licences - more or earlier reforestation, or various things that the government must have some flexibility to do.

The member, in second reading, Mr. Speaker, was saying that he does not believe in perpetual licences. Well, by doing what he is suggesting here, you are, in effect, providing perpetual licences. We don't have any such thing in this legislation as perpetual licences. Licences are only renewable subject to good performance, and subject to the changing needs and demands of the government because of changing demands of the public. So we have to maintain some flexibility. The standards of performance will be spelled out in the licence, and if changes take place, they'll take place for the better management of the forest land base. The government does require some flexibility, and this section provides that.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I think the minister put a couple of words into my mouth. I'm not in favour of perpetual licences in the sense that he defined them. All I'm saying is that I think companies that have reasonably undertaken the work they undertook to do should have some reasonable security of replacement time, and I don't think it's here in this Act now that the companies may be big enough to look after themselves. I'm just suggesting that they should have better security.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I must take the different viewpoint from my friend the Liberal leader. I think that this form of licence replacement is, in effect, perpetual licensing. I have yet to hear of any tree-farm licence in this province that has been revoked. I would point out that possession is nine points of the law, and I think they have every reasonable security in terms of assurance that the replacement will occur.

I think the terms are too long under the various licensing provisions of this statute, and certainly beyond the ball-park recommendations made by Dr. Peter Pearse in his recommendations. It appears the ministry is commit-

[ Page 2778 ]

ted to that, and I can do nothing other than state my concern and my objections that it appears to tie up our resources with the major licence holders in this province on a perpetual basis. I do not think that is a healthy approach to a good competitive enterprise. I do not think that is a healthy approach in terms of the Crown's interest of the priority use and management of the people's resources in this province.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 14 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just enter once again this short objection? At the rollover period, holders of existing tenures, timber sale and timber sale harvesting licences will not be required under this section nor anywhere under this Act to justify the holdings that are being rolled over in terms of their conversion facilities, and I believe that that is wrong.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a celebrated small-business section which is supposed to do a lot for small business enterprises. I have not as yet seen the draft regulations. I don't think the minister's released them. Failing that, could the minister at least give us an extract from those draft regulations as he may have them now, and tell us what a small business enterprise is for the purpose of this Act?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we are going to be able to have any one definition of small business that suits all sectors of the province. We have to be flexible enough with our definition to be able to provide reasonable access to timber, both for the independent logger and for the person who perhaps has a very small stud mill or shake plant and who does not have a timber allocation.

So we are still wrestling with the definition. Initially our thought was that a small business would be considered any person who has no manufacturing capability, up to a certain size. We're going to have to be, I think, a little more flexible on that, though, and adapt it to the needs of the various areas of the province. I'm afraid I cannot give a more definitive answer at this time, but we certainly welcome input from anybody who would like to assist us in wrestling with this problem.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister what annual allowable cut, provincewide, he thinks might fall under this particular form of tenure - the new timber sale licence - and of that, what percentage we might expect to have set aside for small business enterprises, however defined.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, once again, it's a thing that is going to have to be flexible. There are some areas in the province where timber supply is so tight that perhaps there will be no timber that can be removed from the third-band licences right now without making the people at the manufacturing plants so short that they cannot survive. However, in other areas, we have more flexibility. One area which I hope will provide us access to reasonable volumes is the special sale area near Prince George. We can take parts of that SSA and have it developed as a small-business set-aside area.

In other parts of the province, as w- read in the sections on forest licences, rollover into forest licence of the third-band timber does not require that we roll all of the third-band or timber-sale licence timber into a forest licence. So we can extract some at that point and make it available to loggers to feed a log market within a defined timber supply area.

So no fixed figure can be given. We can mention a figure of 20 per cent. It might be possible for one area to have 20 per cent of the cut set aside; in another area, it might not be possible to have that amount. So we just have to work with areas in the industry as it exists now.

[ Page 2779 ]

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, my question would be the same as the first question from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

On the definition of small businesses, I think the cutting rates that have been given to the quota holders to protect their security of investment are probably very well justified. But again, I think if we're looking for small business enterprises, the security of investment for the logging contractors on their equipment should be recognized. I wouldn't want to see small business be considered as a group of dentists or a group of brokers. I don't think we need any more jobbers in the Art. The loggers would be better off working for the quota holders than working for people who don't know anything about the enterprise at all. So I had hoped that the definition of small businesses would be specific and certainly would relate to the people who have investment in the logging end of it.

MR. GIBSON: I would have thought that dentists were skilled at extracting resources.

The minister mentioned a figure of 20 per cent as an example, just to understand what the base was. He means within a given PSYU or given region of the province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Or a timber supply area - whichever.

MR. GIBSON: It will be important to those interested in these kinds of licences to know when they may be coming up and to know how and to whom they should make representations and at what time. Could the minister give some guidance to small business enterprises as to how they find their way into the Forest Service at the appropriate time to make representations to say: "Really, in this particular replacement licence, you should cut some off and make it small business enterprise."?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not sure I completely understand your question. However, the regional managers will be responsible for these set-aside programmes. Areas for the rights to cut will be advertised through local media, the Gazette and so on, and thus invitations made to apply for cutting rights on the competition.

MR. GIBSON: So the regional manager will then be the point of contact for the small business person.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to follow that up a bit. If the wood isn't being utilized by the present operators and more wood becomes available on a rollover, who gets first crack at that? Would it go to a prospective enlargement of a sawmill, or would it fall into the category for the small business enterprise?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, again, we cannot specifically say who it will be made available to. Our intention is to have a percentage of the wood available to independent small business people - primarily the loggers.

Personally I would like to see as much as possible there in order to develop a real log marketing situation within a timber supply area. Again I can't give any specific answer to that. That question will have to be determined by the facts in each area.

MR. KING: I'd like bit more of an indication from the minister as to where this timber is going to come from. It's my advice from many of the companies throughout the province that the timber is all allocated - it's pretty well sewn up. I appreciate the minister has pointed out the Prince George area, where there might be a carving up of the special use area there, but could the minister give me some example, for instance, in the Kootenays, on the coast and on Vancouver Island as to where this timber is going to come from that's going to be freed up and made available for the small competitive operators? The people are certainly going to want to know that, and I would like to be able to give some general indication.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member mentioned the special sale area. That is one possibility. But I must caution him and others that that's not an answer to all our problems. It's strictly around the Prince George area. You'll notice in the rollover of TSL timber into forest licences that it says that the regional manager may roll over all or what part of that third-band timber that he considers advisable. So there's a possibility of extracting some allocation from third-band timber to be made available for the independent sector.

We do have some areas in the province where there is not a total allocation of the allowable cut, and we intend to hold some of the unallocated timber for the small business set- aside programme. In fact, that will probably be our first venture into this type of a program . Areas where we can come up with a sale, we immediately proclaim as legislation and have it set aside for the small business people. The other will have to wait

[ Page 2780 ]

until rollover or until the current rights within the SSA expire, which is the end of this year. So our first opportunity will be unallocated timber; the others will be on rollovers in the extraction of some of the TSL wood and within the third band and other such areas.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, a very specific question to the minister: unless wood is somehow taken from existing annual allowable cuts on the coast, in the Vancouver forest district, does he foresee any possibility of small business set-aside in the Vancouver forest district?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The member's favourite topic is tree-farm licences - the degree of utilization of those, of harvesting of the allowable cut. As a result of one of the amendments we made to the section on withdrawals - I forget what Section 1t is - at the time of rollover, any undercut in the management plan which is in effect when this Act comes into place can be removed. If the member's right and says some of these tree-farm licences are only using 50 per cent of their cut, we're going to have a great deal of wood available for the set-aside programmes. But unfortunately he's not right. There's no company that is undercut to that extent. I think one company is in the order of 40 per cent undercut. They have already approached us with an offer to give back some of their TFL. However, we're not going to take it back. We're going to take it back on the terms that we wish. We'll define the area which will be taken back. So any undercut in TFLs can be removed and made available for this programme, and that is probably our largest access to wood, depending upon how close the cut is. Now we're not going to take back a cut that is used and has been properly managed and harvested for the industry. But if there is a serious undercut - and we don't have a complete handle on these numbers yet -they will be withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON: I want to get a bit further into these undercut numbers when we get onto the TFL sections, but I am encouraged by the minister's statement that he does intend that the Vancouver forest district will at least look into these areas for a small business to set aside opportunities.

I want him to define a word that he employed a moment ago when he spoke of wood being used.

In the minister's concept of annual allowable cut being "used, " is it merely logged, or to be "used" must it be actually converted in a mill of the licence holder? What is his definition of "used"?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My definition is in keeping with wood that has been cut - annual allowable cut that is being cut, being used. It's either being used by the licensee or it can be placed in a log market and be used by someone else. Like the member says, multinational companies can't eat the wood, and if they're not using it, it's being used by someone else, other than a very small percentage of lower grade wood that does wind up exported from the province.

MR. GIBSON: I would just like to see the smaller people that can't eat the wood have a chance to sell it to the multinationals. No, not the multinationals; I do not mind multinationals. The majors are the people I'm talking about.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

on section 18.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

On section 19.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is just a question of curiosity. What is pulp lease CZ3, and %by is it specified in particular in the bill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That is just to cover all the bases, Mr. Chairman. CZ3 was one held by Grown Zellerbach and it was turned back to the government. We just want to be sure that because of the way this is written, it doesn't reactivate that previously surrendered licence.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

[ Page 2781 ]

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

MR. GIBSON: Subsection 25 (b) says: "A timber licence shall be for a term determined under this division." I have read this division as carefully as I could. By "division" I guess he means other than this section; he means division 4 timber licences. How is that term to be determined?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the timber licences are the rollover of the old temporary tenures. What we wish to do is have the areas of the OTTs or new timber licences harvested in a logical harvesting sequence. They may be in an area which we do not want to go in and harvest now because it would disrupt the normal, logical harvesting sequence. So within a working plan - and it may be a long-term working plan - these OTTs or timber licences will be worked into the normal harvesting programme. That is the term. When they come up in the normal sequence of harvesting, that will be their term. Once they are harvested, of course, they either become a part of a TFL or revert to the Grown if they are outside. We don't want to have illogical harvesting systems or sequences because of these OTTs. This was the type of thing that the former minister was attempting to do when he was chastized by Dr. Pearse for his attempt to have these worked into a logical, normal harvesting sequence.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, subsection 27 (10) says: "This section does not apply to a treefarm licence entered into under section 29 or 33." 1 move that that section be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a minor error, but we will correct that if it passes.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there have been a number of individuals and interest groups lobbying for public hearings on the rollover of tree-farm licences. We cannot do it for several reasons. The most important reason is that it is going to be administratively impossible, really, in the time frame within which these TFLs are rolled over. I would rather that the decisions on rollovers be made on the basis of what is really best for the industry, and not through perhaps heated public debate. We are, however, requiring that advertisements of the fact of rollover be published, and anybody who wishes to raise an objection or have input into the rollovers is more than free to. I don't think anything in the Act precludes us from having public hearings if we feel it necessary.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that the minister prefers to do business in the secrecy of the backroom rather than in the light of public scrutiny shining upon the transactions - and this with respect to public timber, that this government said they were interested in consulting with people on. There is no reason on earth why it's not administratively possible to conduct hearings. This is simply the administrative preference of the minister and it serves notice clearly that they have nothing but low regard for the interest of the public, for their consultation and the benefit of their counsel. I think that's shameful.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I'm glad the Premier is in the House; 1 want him to understand this. This is the subsection that eliminates the possibility of public hearings for our treefarm licences in this province, when they're being rolled over under the new Act. And I ask: if public hearings are a good thing for new tree-farm licences, why aren't they a good thing for the old ones when they're being rolled over? These tree-farm licences have not been reviewed since they were granted, and members of this House will recall the circumstances of the granting of some of these tree-farm licences. They were granted under terms of bribery and corruption, and even those tree-farm licences, as I take it, aren't to be reviewed at any rollover period.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure it was a Liberal government that did it.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I think you have the wrong government in mind, Mr. Minister. 1 have more in mind the period of 1955-56, when there were interesting events in court.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Which licence was granted by Robert Sommers?

MR. GIBSON: I'll have to go back to my notes - I'll be very glad to do that. Yes, it was the one that was granted by Robert Somers, the one for which he went to jail. The minister went to jail, convicted by a court, for

[ Page 2782 ]

having accepted a bribe with respect to the granting of forest management licences.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just say who got it.

MR. GIBSON: Listen to the Premier. The Premier knows his history.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was B.C. Forest Products.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we're in the dying hours of the session. How can members forget that we have to address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: Are these licences, or any licences, not to be reviewed when they're being rolled over under the terms of this new Forest Act? It seems to me just as clear as the light of day that they should be. Look at what is to be required for new forest management licences:

"The minister or his designate shall convene a public hearing in which any person may make a submission respecting application for a TFL, determine the procedures...."

Then, following the public hearing:

"The minister shall evaluate each application, including its potential for creating or maintaining employment opportunities and other social benefits ... providing for the management and utilization of Crown timber, meeting the objectives of the Crown ... environmental quality in management of water...."

There are very sound objectives, matters on which public representations ought to be available, and not simply in respect of new tree-farm licences - of which we know there won't be many, Mr. Chairman, because there is very little additional economic wood left in the province at this time, unless there are remarkable changes in economic circumstances. So there won't be many new TFLs. Why can we not have a chance to review the old TFLs at this point?

We get into this question of undercut or not with respect both to annual allowable cut and the relationship of annual allowable cut to existing conversion facilities owned by the licence holders. These are the two central things which ought to be debated at the time of the rollover of existing forest management licences, tree-farm licences. I know that the minister is concerned that public hearings will just provide some kind of showplace for every fringe group in the province to come in and shoot their mouth off. That might be. Who knows? But I say: What's the matter with that,

1978 every 10 years or so, in the case of these tree-farm licences, which cover enormous areas of our province? Why shouldn't people have a right not just to stand up and give their opinion, but to ask questions of the trustees of these great areas of land - the forest companies that hold them? If you have a trust, then you have a responsibility to be accountable. And I would suggest that the minister is probably underestimating the companies in this regard; I would suggest that the companies would be glad to account for their stewardship of these resources, which have been placed in their hands for these tree-farm licences.

I know many of the executives of the forest companies; I know many foresters. They're responsible people. They understand that they've had placed in their hands a public resource and they want to do the best job they can. It's not all one-sided, you know. The companies have had too little a forum to protest some of the enormous costs that have been placed on them by such things as some manifestations of the guidelines. Public hearings can work both ways. To me, they are something that very definitely should be included in the rollover of every tree-farm licence in this province.

It's not administratively impossible. There are very few licences that are going to expire before 1985. That gives you lots of time to conduct the necessary public hearings that would be required to give the companies their chance to come before some kind of a commissioner in charge of this programme and say: "This is our stewardship on this TFL in the last 25 years. These are our plans for the future. These are our needs."

MS. SANFORD: Re-investment.

MR. GIBSON: "These are our re-investment plans. These are the jobs they're providing." All of these are important questions for the province. Again, this is our fundamental industry, don't forget. This is the forum for these kinds of questions to be discussed - not in the back room, but out in public.

I say to the minister that, truly, he should accept this amendment, which would put this requirement of public hearings on the rollover of existing tree-farm licences. It would be a very good thing. He would remove a major part of the objection to this bill if he would do that. This bill is so discretionary in so many of its terms, often necessarily so, that the only way people can feel safe about that discretion is if there is guaranteed public scrutiny. The elimination of subsection (10) from

[ Page 2783 ]

section 27 would allow and guarantee that scrutiny. I very much commend it to the minister's attention.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I point out to this minister that I know of one company - and I'll name it because it's changed management -Kootenay Forest Products, which when it was owned by the Eddy Match Company - and I can't blame the Eddy Match Company either, because they were so remote and removed from the day-to-day management of that company - was responsible for deliberately destroying the timber which they could not harvest in the Coffee Creek watershed area. That happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In that type of thing there was never a forum for people who wanted to manage the resource and use the resource in a proper manner to bring that out in public. There was a haste to burn over that area and to really destroy the evidence of the wanton destruction of that timber. The area was creamed. This is the very type of thing that could be brought out in a public hearing at a later date. I would hope that such a thing would never happen again, particularly when people were looking, within a few short years, to some kind of a rollover.

I've asked, and I've had confirmation that it happened. It's history. We can't make those trees grow back again. We can't go in and salvage any of that timber. But that type of thing happened, and I think this type of provision would be a signal to all companies that they are going to be held accountable. So it's really up to the minister as to whether or not he believes that this is the right way to go. I would hope that he does believe it is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 15

NAYS - 26

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 33 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: This is the section which relates to what happens to a TFL at rollover, and how the licence is to be replaced with a new licence. It's at this stage that I want to briefly discuss the undercut figures which the minister referred to earlier on.

I have already made a point with respect to the comparison of existing annual allowable cut to existing conversion facilities, and I believe that that should be something that is measured at the rollover point. I appreciate that that is not provided for in this bill, so now I want to talk about undercut.

The minister, in later amendments to this bill - and specifically, if I understand correctly the immediate application of section 55, at rollover - is going to give himself or the ministry the possibility of making deletions at rollover point based on undercut. That being the case, it becomes very important to determine what undercut figures are. I gave some figures that were developed by a reportable forestry consultant for the Truck Loggers Association as to undercuts on the coast TFLs for the period 1972-1976, and the apparent figures were in the neighbourhood of 29 per cent. 1 have since received representations from some of the companies that for various reasons, particularly retroactive adjustments which were not available to the consultant at the time the measurements were taken, some of these figures should be adjusted.

I'd be happy to issue a statement in that regard with respect to Grown Zellerbach. I would today, because I want to be fair to any company that has any protest to make, like to read into the record a Telex that I have received from MacMillan Bloedel:

"We respectfully request you correct the record of your comments on the new Forest

[ Page 2784 ]

Act of June 19. According to Hansard you stated that MacMillan Bloedel had a 26 per cent undercut on its TFL licences during the 1972-1976 period. This comment was reported on the front page of the Vancouver Sun the next day. In fact our undercut during that period was less than 9 per cent, taking into account an adjustment in annual allowable cut from the 1975 strike.

"To put the matter in historical perspective, from the inception of our treefarm licence through the end of 1977 our total cut has been 97 per cent of AAG. The period 1972-76 was the most difficult harvest period in the entire history of the TFLs, since it included two major strike years, 1973 and 1975, a major international economic recession in 1975-76, and the impossible problem of extending our road network fast enough to log the AAC after the imposition of the B.C. logging guidelines in 1973."

That is MacMillan Bloedel's side of the story, and I'm very happy to put it on the record on their behalf. Since I only received the Telex today I've been unable to complete a reconciliation of the figures, but some of it again obviously relates....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I cannot tolerate any longer this excessive noise. I would ask the members to please be quiet, otherwise I will have to go to the unpopular process of naming those people who are making excessive noise.

MR. GIBSON: Some of it obviously relates to retroactive changes in annual allowable cut, some of it relates to strike credits in the order of hundreds of thousands of cunits, and some of it relates to simple disagreements as to figures that in one case come from. the Forest Service files and in the other case from the company. It will be a difficult job to reconcile them.

The basic point I'm making here, aside from putting MacMillan Bloedel's objection on the record, is that there has to be a way - and a public way - prior to the rollover decisions being made as to whether there will be any reduction in the annual allowable cut of TFLs based on undercut. There has to be a way of examining the figures and coming to agreement on them. I say that that way, if it is not to be a public hearing - and the vote of the House just ensured that that was not to be the case - must at least be some way whereby the facts arising therefrom are accessible to the public.

I would like the minister to give a commitment under this expiry section or rollover section that the facts arising from a performance review having to do with annual allowable cuts on each TFL will be made public prior to the issuance of a rollover licence. Will the minister give the House that commitment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the determination of AAC and tree-farm licences in the past has been carried out primarily by the licensee with checks by the Forest Service. Now before any rollovers take place, the AAG will be determined by the Forest Service and this information, I assure you, will be public and has been public in the past. In fact the consultant, working on behalf of the Truck Loggers Association was provided with all the information that we have. Now some of it is perhaps suspect because it was developed by the companies themselves, but we, as the manager, will determine the AACs. A retroactive reduction may be justified at times because environmental protection areas may have made it impossible for licensees to harvest timber, and if the EPAs cause a reduction of cut, I think we should recognize that. We must be as realistic as possible. But yes, indeed, the information on inventory and allowable cut on tree-farm licences, as on on Crown land, will be made available to the public through the Forest Service.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to have the assurance that there will be a new Forest Service inventory on each TFL prior to the rollover, and that that data will be provided to the public. Will there also be provided at that time a detailed history of harvesting performance during the tenure of that TFL as compared to harvesting requirements?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this information is available now, and there is no reason for us not to have it available in the future.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the amendment to section 35 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 2785 ]

Section 35 as amended approved.

Sections 36 and 37 approved.

On section 38.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 38 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Subsection 38 (2) (c) says that the new pulpwood agreement shall specify a maximum annual volume. All of the other rollover licences seem to maintain an annual allowable cut. This appears to be a different approach and it doesn't suggest that what is now will be maintained. Is it indeed different?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, indeed, it is different. CHA agreements only provide a maximum volume of wood for any particular year. It's only an emergency supply. It probably will not be harvested, because there is very little likelihood of it being needed. But, for example, in the event of a prolonged shutdown of the woods, when byproduct material is not available, they can harvest roundwood for pulp.

Section 38 as amended approved.

On section 39.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 41 as amended.

MR. KING: On division 7, the woodlot licences, I certainly want to register the approval of our caucus to this particular approach. I think this is the one area of the bill which departs from the tendency toward monopoly control of the timber resource in this province. It indeed provides an avenue for small independents and for average citizens to become involved in timber harvesting. The only question I have is whether or not the limitation on the size of the woodlot is realistic. The 400-hectare maximum size limitation seems to me to be inordinately small. While it may be appropriate in a given area, it could certainly be most inappropriate in certain areas of the province, depending on the terrain, density of growth and so on. I wonder why the minister did not make that provision a bit more flexible to represent the differences in the province.

I think that in general terms, though, this is a move towards an approach to forest management similar to what some of the Scandinavian countries have undertaken. One of the things that I think has thoroughly frustrated citizens of this province is the fact that there is no opportunity for their involvement, even on a limited scale. We have had over the last few years in this province tremendously high unemployment on an almost chronic basis, while people are obliged to remain idle when they have the ability and the desire to get out and carve a bit of a niche for themselves out of some of the resources of the province. They should be allowed to do so and, indeed, encouraged to do so. This direction seems to give that kind of incentive and that inducement. I certainly commend the minister for including this provision in the statute. As I say, it's a bit of a small thing in comparison to the major monopolistic direction of the statute in general terms; but I give credit where credit is due and I think it's fine. I wish the 400-hectare limitation were a bit more flexible and larger.

Section 41 as amended approved.

On section 42.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Section 43 approved.

On section 44.

[ Page 2786 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 44 as amended approved.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

On section 50.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

On section 53.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 53 as amended.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this particular Section 1s not too clear and there seems to be some ambiguity. I would like the minister to explain it. I'm not sure what the section refers to. Is it a system of roads that can be deducted as full costs from stumpage? I would appreciate it if the minister outlined for me just what this section envisages as appropriate and legitimate deductions from stumpage.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Deletions from tree-farm licences, woodlot licences, et cetera, may be areas that are not timber producing areas such as alpine areas, which, if they are removed will not affect the cut. I think we should remove them and make this area available for other uses. There is a certain control established over land within tree-farm licences and, if it's not productive forest land, there's no need to have it there.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm referring specifically to section 53 (4): "Where the total reductions in the allowable annual cut authorized in a forest licence or timber sale licence made during a deletion period, in consequence of Crown land use It goes on to provide the percentage that may be removed and then a formula for compensation. It's ultimately subject to arbitration. I want to know just what the minister has in mind in total scope of this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, there are two parts to it. One is for rights-of -way. The 5 per cent can be removed for rights-of-way for Hydro lines, highways, whatever. At the present time there is no limit to the amount that can be removed for such purposes, but we are restricting it in order to provide that security that is needed for timber production. Five per cent should really be more than adequate to accommodate rights-of-way that may be required.

The other part is for removals for higher purposes. A higher purpose may be a park; it may be storage for a water reservoir for hydroelectric development. However, by limiting it to 5 per cent without compensation, we're making the government accountable for large reductions.

If, in fact, it is in the best interests of the public to remove more than 5 per cent, so be it. But the government agencies must forward plans sufficiently so that we can recognize this before the licence is established. If it is then necessary, we are actually moving a right, granted to someone, over land. We are withdrawing that. It can very seriously affect the economics of the operation dependent upon that base.

We're trying to make the government accountable and responsible for its decisions as well.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I must state my objection to this particular provision. This is, in effect, granting the right of private ownership to Crown land in the province of British Columbia. The licence to log and to harvest the forest resource is simply that: a licence to harvest. It should not imply ownership right of the land. If it becomes necessary for the Crown to delete certain sections from that licence for a higher purpose in the public interest, to provide all of this accountability to the licence holder, and

[ Page 2787 ]

built-in provisions for compensation, I suggest it is a degree of beneficence that the average citizen in this province does not enjoy from government. I would point out that in the case of a private property owner who has his property expropriated by B.C. Hydro, by the Highways ministry or, indeed, by the Forests ministry, he has no absolute right to compensation beyond going through an arbitration, which is very costly to do in most cases because it implies a court action. Therefore the cost of obtaining any arbitrated settlement destroys the advantage that may be gained by a higher settlement.

Let's just contrast the treatment that that private landowner, who actually has deed and title to his land, receives at the hands of this government. Let's contrast that treatment he receives against the treatment that this particular section of the Forest Act proffers to the major monopoly - largely foreign corporations in this province - who have no deed or title to our land. They simply have a licence to log.

Mr. Chairman, I object very strongly to this kind of generous provision. Indeed, it is almost the granting of ownership of Crown land to private corporations. I think it's a retrograde step. It harkens back to the buccaneer mentality in terms of proper management of Crown resources in this province.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, I would like a little more clarification on that particular section too. I can see when you're responsible for adding to the timber cut, the annual allowable cut in your area, if some public use comes in that they want to impose on it, I think compensation is directly in order. But I would like to have it clarified whether it is the actual timber we're talking about or if we are talking about land. I think my sentiments would also be that it is public land.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we are not compensating anyone for land. What we are doing is saying that if we withdraw the right to harvest above 5 per cent then we are, in effect, withdrawing a thing of value, a grant that has been provided by the government, and it's the government's obligation to pay for that. The same thing applies with the resumptive power of the government through private land. Up to 5 per cent is allowed without compensation, and then compensation can be and is provided above that.

Previously, Mr. Chairman, the government only had the right to withdraw I per cent of any timber base. We are multiplying that times five. It's a giant step forward.

MR. GIBSON: Just as a matter of fact, I wonder if the minister could tell the committee how that value is assessed. What's the basis for assessment of the value of the rights?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, it will be based on the value of the allowable cut for the remaining period of the licence within which it was withdrawn. The value of the cut, I guess, will ultimately be determined by what profit you're withdrawing from the company for that period of time.

Section 53 as amended approved.

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 55 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: This is the major rollover cut change section, Mr. Chairman. We've discussed that there will be no reductions related to lack of conversion, planned or not; we've discussed the undercut reductions and how they will be handled. There is also a provision in this section, as I understand it, for a reduction with respect to reinventory. I wonder if the minister would explain how that will be handled and whether the inventory will be done by outside consultants, for example. Will the inventory be made public, and do these things go two ways? For example, it's suggested that if the re-inventory finds a greater annual allowable cut than had been specified, then part of the licence can be cut off. What if it finds less? What if the inventory has to be adjusted downwards? What happens in that eventuality?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if a new inventory magically finds wood that we were not aware of previously, it's the Crown's wood. It doesn't belong to someone who perhaps wasn't providing us with accurate figures in the past. If the inventory provides for a reduction of cut, that's the way it will have to be, because that cut cannot be replaced from somewhere else. If it's a reduction cut, it will be reduced.

Section 55 as amended approved.

[ Page 2788 ]

Sections 56 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 63.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this section provides that the Crown shall not be liable for the payment of any compensation in certain eventualities. It sounds dangerous to me and I don't understand why it should be in there. If the Crown is proceeding according to law, I do not see how it would become subject to compensation for any damages, and if it's not proceeding according to law, perhaps it should be. Could the minister explain this section a bit further?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this section does, in effect, abrogate certain rights within the special sale area and rights to perpetual tree-farm licences. This section, my learned friends tell me, will protect the Crown from court actions because of these rights which are being taken away from perpetual tree-farm licences, special sale areas, PHA agreements and so on.

Sections 63 and 64 approved.

On section 65.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 65 as amended approved.

Sections 66 and 67 approved.

On section 68.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 68 as amended approved.

Sections 69 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 83.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 83 as amended approved.

On section 84.

MR. GIBSON: The very last phrase of section 84 says : "...for a period not exceeding one year." Is that a renewable term, Mr. Minister? I mean, could you keep that up year after year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, if necessary that could be renewed.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the stumpage appraisal is going to be looked at in both areas, the coast and the interior? The coast has been on a log-market basis. I wonder if they're both going to be looked at. The present system in the interior, I think, deserves a lot of revision as well, and I just want to make sure that it is going to be looked at, since there has been no bidding any more. It's pretty important that the stumpage rate is relevant and up-to-date. We've been working on six and seven and eight months in the past, and I think this has to be revised very shortly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The appraisal system is under study right now, as a matter of fact. There's a lot of work needed yet, but we are concerned with it. The slowness of the reaction of the end value system is one, and we do have plans to change the stumpage system on the coast.

Sections 84 to 87 inclusive approved.

On section 88.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering what happens, for example, with reforestation responsibilities when in the area concerned the stumpage that may be payable is not sufficient to cover the costs of reforestation, as may occur particularly in overmature stands where it's a minimum-stumpage kind of thing and there's just not enough in the stumpage account to pay for the reforestation. What happens in that case?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to ensure that this reforestation is done, we will be providing full offset for reforestation.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate there's a full offset, but what if there's not enough funds in the stumpage account to cover that full offset?

[ Page 2789 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if there's not sufficient stumpage available to pay for it, it will be allowed as a forestry cost. But that doesn't really matter because there's only so much money available. However, it will be a term of the licence that this must be done. As we do with road offsets, it can be carried forward.

Section 88 approved.

On section 89.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 89. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 89 as amended approved.

On section 90.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move both amendments to section 90. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 90 as amended approved.

Sections 91 and 92 approved.

On section 93.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 93. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 93 as amended approved.

On section 94.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 94. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 94 as amended approved.

Sections 95 to 106 inclusive approved.

On section 107.

MR. GIBSON: On section 107, dealing with stumpage credit, I just want to draw to the minister's attention - 1 think this point was made in the Pearse report as well - that really these stumpage credits should be in some way accounted for in the estimates, even if just for an informational item.

Sections 107 to 123 inclusive approved.

On section 124.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 124. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 124 as amended approved.

Sections 125 to 127 inclusive approved.

On section 128.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 128. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 128 as amended approved.

Sections 129 and 130 approved.

On section 131.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I want to say just a few words on this section. Sections 130 to 134 deal with log salvage operations on the coast of British Columbia, a topic with which I'm somewhat familiar, as I've met with representatives of this group of people on numerous occasions. There's not too much to be said under the Act, which merely sets up the regulations which will govern the log salvage operations. However, what I want to discuss is this. The Gulf Log Salvage operation is essentially a monopoly operation now, as you well know. The Gulf Log Salvage Co-operative Association consists of people in the industry, such as: Mr. K. G. Boyd, vice president of MacMillan Bloedel; Mr. J. A. Deighton, log supply manager of Rayonier Limited; Mr. D. A. H. MacAllister, security manager of B.C. Forest Products Limited; Mr. Gate, who seems to be an adjuster; Mr. J. F. Given, log supply manager of L & K Lumber; Mr. M. J. Moelksen, log supply manager; and a Mr. J.D. Reed, insurance broker with J. D. Reed and Company.

But what I'm pointing out here is that the industry itself governs how log supply and the price of these salvaged logs are paid for, and who receives them. This is what I'm pointing out to the minister. The fact is and it would seem to me that Pearse felt there is no need for the Gulf Log Co-op to maintain its monolithic position for salvage to get less than the full value for their logs. This is what we're talking about - full value for their logs.

[ Page 2790 ]

I know that this should be and must be dealt with under regulations that are now in the process of being drawn up by people within your ministry. But we have no idea what those regulations are, and we can't know until after they're published. I thought I would point this out to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd just like to mention to the member that, if he can indeed come and see us about the regulations, and have input into them and let us know what he feels should happen, we would welcome his advice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want the minister to know that I will be taking full advantage of that offer.

Sections 131 to 134 inclusive approved.

On section 135.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 135 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 135 as amended approved.

Sections 136 and 137 approved.

On section 138.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 138, standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 138 as amended approved.

Section 139 approved.

On section 140.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 140 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 140 as amended approved.

On section 141.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 141 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 141 as amended approved.

Section 142 approved.

On section 143.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 143 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 143 as amended approved.

Sections 144 to 146 approved.

On section 147.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 147 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 147 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: I think this section 147 is a nonsensical section and a dangerous section. It's bad, and it should be deleted. I don't see how any Social Crediter could vote for it, because it purports to control and restrict competition in the milling of forests products in this province. It would require the obtaining of a licence, when the minister so directs, before the construction of any mill facility.

MR. MACDONALD: Shame! Socialists.

MR. GIBSON: It is a socialistic move, Mr. Member, there's no doubt about it, and let me tell you what this is likely to lead to. It is going to mean that the people who have excess timber are going to be the only ones who can build mills. The minister is shaking his head, but I want to explain the logic of the position he's got himself into.

He tells the companies with timber that they must use it or lose it. And he buttresses that with very strong reduction and deletion powers in this bill. Then a company with extra wood says: "We don't want to lose it, so we'd better use it, so we'd better build ourselves a mill." They go to the minister and say: "Can we please have a licence to build a mill?" Now with that "use it or lose it" statement in the back of his mind, the minister can't say: "No, you can't have a licence." So the people who

[ Page 2791 ]

do have wood beyond that which is being used in their own conversion facilities will have an inside track on getting the licence for new conversion facilities. Meanwhile let us look at the people who are already wood-deficient -the Herb Domans of this world, who I think have security of supply on only about 10 per cent of their timber. I hope I'm quoting a right statistic, but certainly it's only a small fraction of the need.

Now if a company like this comes along, in an already tight market, what's a minister going to say? Is he going to say: "Where are you going to get your wood?" And if there's no supply of wood in sight, is he going to refuse to issue a mill licence? That's my question. This minister may not do that. I don't know. But the power is there in this bill. That's the trouble. Once you give the power to license conversion facilities, that's like giving the power to license a certain number of canneries in British Columbia, or something like that. To maintain a healthy, competitive industry, the possibility of competition must be there. I guess the minister can stand up and say this mill licence is optional and that the minister doesn't have to require a mill licence. Ail these things are true, but please do not say to us, "my intentions to use this section are as follows, " because, speaking through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister that is there now may not be there in due course -certainly will not be there in due course, however long that is, but may not be there in a year or two, for all I know. With the best of good will and wishes to the minister, he may not be in this portfolio. A new minister may interpret and use this Section 1n a very different way. I suggest that the pressures of any minister of the day will be upon him from those who already have excess wood supply to license mills to look after that wood supply that it may be more effectively secured. And the minister, with his "use it or lose it" philosophy, will not be able to say no. And then, when those who are deficient in wood come along and say they would like a mill licence, the minister's going to have to scratch his head and say: "Well, where can the wood possibly come from? How can I give you a licence?"

So I say, Mr. Chairman, this Section 1s very dangerous. It is wrong, and it seems to me it's against everything that Social Credit people ran on. So I'd like to hear from some of the backbenchers on this one. I can't understand it.

MR. BOYD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a little more clarification on this one as well.

MR. GIBSON: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: The former minister, Ray Williston, had this in mind at several times. There is some great danger to it, as the member for North Capilano suggests, and especially if we're looking at the 20 per cent small business timber. If there isn't the opportunity to put an alternative saw milling in the area, and a group of the mills that have existing licences get together, that 20 per cent of the wood isn't going to be worth very much to anyone. I think that's one of the reasons that I have never really seen that much value in it. If you're directed where you have to sell your logs, then it's not really worth that much. That's really what you do if you apply the licensing on a whole-scale basis.

Again, what would you do on remanufacturing plants? Are you going to say they can't exist, or they can't get established? Undoubtedly, a lot of the existing quota holders would put the remanufacturing plants in if they thought they were going to have competition. So probably, if there are going to be licences, there should be a maximum production that's put on before we make them become licensed -in other words, the smaller operators. You should be able to put some type of conversion in if you can't sell your logs. If you're going to have 25 per cent of the logs for independent businesses, and you're going to require that they harvest that 25 per cent every year - "use it or lose it" - and nobody wants to buy that small wood or some portion of their cut, that logger's going ' to be in a pretty tight bind. He's going to lose his wood.

I have a lot of reservations on this about whether it's brought in, whether it's applied across the province, or just in certain areas where there's an overcut already. There are a lot of different ways it could be applied, but I would have to kind of agree that it's a fairly loose section, as it's worded here, and if a different minister came in or a different interpretation was put on it, it could really limit competition and certainly it would make that 20 per cent volume practically useless, I believe.

MR. KING: I thought the minister was going to get up. He was making squirming gestures and motions over there, and I do not know whether he was embarrassed by the voice from the back bench, or whether lie was aborted in his attempt to rise. I don't know who he was aborted by - maybe the Minister of Health gave him an injection.

[ Page 2792 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's unparliamentary language. I ask you to withdraw.

MR. KING: What's unparliamentary language? That the Minister of Health gave him an injection?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. KING: If that's objectionable, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Please relate to the section.

MR. KING: This Section 1s incredible - the licensing. This particular section seals the monopolistic powers of the existing operators in the province. love outlined our concern about, the increased length of tenure, the virtual control that is given over Grown land to the major forest corporations in this province.

Now the requirement for the licensing of construction or expansion of any milling facility is just an ironclad assurance that no new operator is going to enter the forest industry in British Columbia. It's a complete assurance of that because, as my friend, the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , has pointed out, the licensees that hold the monopoly rights on timber already are going to make darn sure that they expand their facilities where necessary to comply with the minister's use-it-or-lose-it philosophy that he states is contained in this bill. And no new operator of the ilk of Herb Doman, who rustled for his timber, who is really existing on the leftovers of the existing operators, who has had to be efficient and lean in terms of carving out an existence and a livelihood on material which was left over ... there is no role for them at all any more. There will never be another Herb Doman under this provision, because the minister could obviously find no rationale for granting a licence under those circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, it's an amazing thing, you know - the philosophical gymnastics of this particular government. I pointed out that they were elected on a free enterprise ticket, but they don't really believe in free, competitive enterprise. This is a government of monopoly enterprise, a government that by statute guarantees monopolistic power and control over resources in this province. That's consistent, you know, with the mentality of the former Social Credit minister, Phil Gaglardi, who petitioned the city council recently to halt licences to new restaurants and liquor outlets in that community because it was too competitive with his own enterprise. "Free enterprise for everybody else, but a little monopoly empire for me." How inconsistent, and how hypocritical.

When we see that kind of guarantee enshrined in legislation, I have to say this is an extremely cynical government - cynical because they campaigned on a strong, free, competitive enterprise ticket when, in fact, they have no commitment to it whatsoever - and they are guaranteeing monopoly control under this very provision.

I want to commend the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) for speaking out against it. I'm sure that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will speak out against it, and if the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) were here - I don't know where he is but I wish he were here - it would be very interesting to see how he would vote on this particular section.

I'm not going to mention injections any more, Mr. Chairman, because the Chair seem to be concerned about injections. I'm. going to depart from injections and just wish that the members on that side had some serum, some truth serum. If they did have a little shot of truth serum on this particular section, the true, free, competitive enterprisers on that side would have to stand up and uncloak themselves and vote for competitive enterprise, not for monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, this section must not pass.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think I must inject something into debate on this section. First of all, let me say that when I defined "use, " I said cutting is using. When 1 say "use or lose" I am saying you must cut it or lose it.

Now both the member for North Vancouver-Capilano and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan made mention of Doman Industries, a company which is living off the log market.

MR. KING: What about Fraser Mills?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, or Fraser Mills, or many of them. What you are saying is that we should not protect that timber supply if one of these terrible, big, multinational companies has an excess supply to their manufacturing capability and that wood is going into the market - that we should allow them, any time they wish, to withdraw it from the market, even though people like Herb Doman might be relying upon it.

If one of these large companies came to us and said, "We're going to build a mill, " and we said. "Where is the wood going to come from?" and they replied, "Well, from our cut, "

[ Page 2793 ]

I could say, "Well, that cut is presently being used by one of these small companies; you can't withdraw that from the log market." So it does provide protection to people who rely upon the log market.

Also, in the interior, community stability may have to be protected. If within a timber supply area there is a community which needs wood to maintain its one source of employment, a sawmill or a plywood plant, and someone builds another mill 50 miles or 100 miles down the road which the same timber supply area and withdraws that wood, we could very easily jeopardize that community. The government must have some input and control over tailoring the size of the industry to the size of the resource available to the industry.

MR. KING: Don't trust the market, eh, Tom?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the ramifications of this section on licensing.... "Before a person constructs, or expands the capacity of, a timber processing facility in the province, he shall notify the regional manager" of the fact and of the timber supply that he intends will be processed in the facility.

I don't know if the minister knows just how far reaching this thing is. I know several people who have small portable sawmills for their personal use; they depend on their own timber. Here we are, once again, going to prevent people from more or less doing their own thing. We do have small acreages. We have certain amounts of timber. People do go in and saw, or maybe take a few logs over on a boat trailer that they happen to have on their own property and they get them processed. Once again we are getting further away from the pioneer spirit of this province. We are hamstringing people more and more who are just trying to help themselves.

You can't go out and cut down logs to make a log cabin any more. Now you can't saw planks or saw your own lumber to build a barn or to process siding for a home without having to go and apply for a licence. I'm darn sure that under the terms of this there will be some people, whom I won't even name for fear it will be laid in my lap that they were called in this manner, who have small portable sawmills for their personal use.... In fact, what is a sawmill? Is it just a ripsaw that they might get, as in the old days when they just stood one on top and one down below and cut planks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. In reading section 147, it's a timber processing facility. I'm wondering if you are not straying somewhat from that.

MR. NICOLSON: What is a timber processing facility? Does it have to be driven by steam, electricity, water power, donkey power or what? I'm saying that as sure as I stand here, some bureaucrat is going to come up and put an end to some farmer who has a little portable sawmill who cuts a little timber on his own property for his own use or maybe for the use of a neighbour. We are just making life more and more complicated. We have gotten along in this province without this provision for over 100 years and I suspect we can get along for another 100.

MR. LLOYD: I was asking the minister for clarification of how he intended to put this into force across the province on a general basis, or if it would be taken specific to the area, and depending on the timber utilization in that area. Again, will there be some limit on ne production allowed before they do require licences, like the small tie mill or the small farmer operation? Just how generally is it expected to be applied right now?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The provision will apply throughout the province and it's certainly not the intention to prohibit people from establishing sawmills if there's a supply of timber available for it. If these members could know how many hours and hours I spend in my office with people who have a little sawmill somewhere which they've built against the advice of the Forest Service, because there's no timber available.... Now they're going bankrupt. They're employing five, six, 10 or 20 people. , quite frankly, there is no wood available for than and there's nothing I can do about it. All we're doing is saying: "Caution. Make sure you come to see us before you build a mill." If there isn't any available, we may say: "I'm sorry, you have to have a licence." But-, if there's wood available, if there's a log market established, by all means, build a mill. At times, Mr. Chairman, it's a very difficult thing. At least half of my time is spent with operators, both large and small, who either have a mill which they built without a timber supply, or expanded a mill, and now they're coming for a bigger piece of a very finite pie.

Section 147 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

[ Page 2794 ]

NAYS - 17

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

Section 148 approved.

On section 149.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 149 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on section 149 (l) (c) , I understand why prices should be maintained confidential. Why should quantities of wood products manufactured in a facility be kept confidential under the terms of subsection (3) ?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, the total financial position of the company is not only determined by price but also by the quantity that it sells and manufactures. These things all can be very sensitive to a very competitive forest industry.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that, for example, one of the proper public concerns is the efficiency of the conversion of our wood. If somebody is only getting 6 board feet to the cunit instead of 6.8 feet, that is an item of proper public interest. Why can't these kinds of things be revealed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if you got six board feet in a cunit, you certainly would have trouble.

MR. GIBSON: I meant to the cubic foot.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Forest Service will have this information. We'll be fully aware what recoveries are; however, it is sensitive corporate information, both to small companies and large companies. We feel that this type of thing is not necessary for public consumption. Their concern is primarily the use of the Crown resource. Once it is harvested and in the hands of someone, then it's their asset to deal with in their business operation.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask the minister, then: will this kind of information be at least released on some kind of aggregate basis, not so that you can identify particular companies, but so that we can see how our industrial. plant is utilizing this resource?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: By all means, Mr. Chairman. This happens now, and there is no reason to change that.

Section 149 as amended approved.

On section 150.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I thought a few words on this section would be appropriate, as I have received some correspondence related to this section.

What this section really is is a further infringement on our civil liberties, because under subsection 150 (2) this section gives police officers of this province powers that they did not have under the previous Act, in that they can enter premises without search warrants. I think that's a very, very serious change in the Act. I see no reason why this should be in the Act in the first place. I don't see any reason why if a police officer wishes to enter the premises of, say, a log salver, for example, he shouldn't have to obtain at least a search warrant as police officers have to do under other circumstances.

I am not going to call a division on this section, although there really should be a division on this section, but I just want to point out to the House that this new arrangement is in the Act under section 150.

Section 150 approved.

Sections 151 to 153 inclusive approved.

On section 154.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 2795 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 154 as amended approved.

Section 155 approved.

On section 156.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the order paper under my none. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 156 as amended approved.

Sections 157 and 158 approved.

On section 159.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the order paper under my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 159 as amended approved.

On section 160.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 160 standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 160 as amended approved.

Sections 161 to 164 approved.

On section 165.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 165 standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 165 as amended approved.

Sections 166 to 169 inclusive approved.

On section 170.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 170 standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 170 as amended approved.

Sections 171 to 179 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Forest Act, reported complete with amendments.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 14, Forest Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

[ Page 2796 ]

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the next item of business, it is with sadness and regret that I advise you and members of the House of the death this afternoon of Allan Higenbottam, our distinguished legislative counsel. I would hope that you will find it possible, perhaps today, to see that the appropriate message is sent forward from this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: I will undertake to do that at the earliest convenience.

MR. MACDONALD: Kindly make it clear that it is the condolences of the opposition too. He was a very faithful legislative counsel, and has done much for the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could express a unanimous wish.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 40.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Bill 40 read a third time and passed.

BUILDERS' LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Builders' Lien Act.

Bill 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REPAIRERS' LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. William presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Repairers' Lien Act.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Evidence Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CONTRACTS ENFORCEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Contracts Enforcement Act.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act, the Legislative Assembly directs that the allowances for the session of the Legislative Assembly which commenced on the 13th day of January, 1977, be paid to the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard without any deduction by reason of the non-attendance of the member from the 13th day of January, 1977, to the 31st day of January, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that motion when appropriate.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion that the minister just read said the second member. It should be the first member. I don't mind, but my colleague should get the money, not me.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased to make that adjustment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion as written says "second member." Shall leave be granted to make that technical change?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to raise a point of order, which I know interrupts the debate on this, but if you will bear with me, it has reference to the motion which I present.

Mr. Speaker, I have a CP commentary which was brought from the press room, and I would read it because I have had knowledge in the last 25 to 30 minutes that this has been on

[ Page 2797 ]

the airwaves in the province of British Columbia. Because it has reference to this motion, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the House have knowledge of it too:

"Victoria. The NDP is threatening to pro long the session. The agreement to adjourn the session today is being threatened. NDP Whip Dennis Cocke has accused Provincial Secretary; Grace McCarthy of reneging on a promise not to dock the pay of Rosemary Brown while Brown was attending an African conference last year. McCarthy had written to the NDP saying she would sponsor a motion that Brown not be docked. However, Cocke says the minister is backing down from her letter and accuses her of being petty and vindictive. Cocke says Brown stands to lose about $1,700. McCarthy wouldn't comment when asked by reporters about the matter."

Mr. Speaker, I didn't comment because I didn't realize that the charge had been made. , The only reference I had, outside in the hall, was that the NDP said that I had written a letter, and it's true. That was known at the time I had written the letter. But what I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order - and I think it's a valid point - is that before we enter the discussion, I would like the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the charge, which has gone through the airwaves in British Columbia - all through the radio and probably in the press tonight -because it is completely unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is an imputation on the character of an hon. member of this House which should not have been public, should not have ever been said, and I ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw before we debate this motion.

MR. KING: I leave it to my colleague to respond to the substance of the charges, but I wish to draw to the attention of Mr. Speaker that this House cannot hold accountable allegations that are made outside this House. Whether or not press accounts of statements made by various members of this House are indeed accurate is something that this House can't determine. I think this House can only be responsible for statements made in these chambers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter which has been raised should perhaps more properly have been raised as a matter of privilege, inasmuch as it affects an individual member and that member's effective function in the House. It's perhaps not really a point of order. However, the matter is a matter which is raised outside of the House and, of course, cannot be dealt with inside this House, unless the member who originated what appears to be some kind of communication, perhaps a telegram, has a willingness to withdraw. The Chair is powerless to ask the member to withdraw. However, in keeping of the good humour which we've experienced in the last four or five days, perhaps the member may wish to make a statement.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement. I am delighted with the decision of the Provincial Secretary. My understanding was, and had been up until the time that the Provincial Secretary made a decision around this question, that the decision was a negative one. If I've embarrassed her, I certainly apologize for that. I can't withdraw something that at that point, as far as I was concerned, I was very definitely convinced was the case. I'm delighted with her position at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Does this conclude the matter? On the same point of order, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, who has already spoken on this matter.

MR. KING: On the same point of order, in view of the fact that I was the member to whom the Provincial Secretary directed her letter of January 4,1977, 1 will read into the record the last paragraph -of that letter: "I will recommend the necessary resolution for the House's consideration to permit Ms. Brown to be absent from the Legislature to attend the festival from January 13 to 31,1977. Sincerely, Grace M. McCarthy, Minister."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a year and a half ago, and I leave it up to the members of this 'House and members of the media as to what conclusions they draw from the time lag in fulfilling the commitment that was made in this letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, I caution all hon. members that this is not really a point of order; it should have been, perhaps, a matter of privilege. Perhaps that should conclude the matter.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to that time in reference to the motion before the House when I received the letter from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , wherein he had asked, on behalf of a member of his caucus, if the government would grant leave, and I think I should really refer to all past correspondence so that the members of the House will have reference to it all.

[ Page 2798 ]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the letter which the hon. member for Revelstoke Slocan has referred to, and I'd like to read it because I think it has reference to the motion:

"Dear Mr. King,

"Thank you for your letter of December 21,1976, requesting that authority be given by the British Columbia Legislature for Ms. Rosemary Brown MLA to be absent from the House to attend the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture, Lagos, Nigeria from January 13 to 31,1977. 1 will recommend the necessary resolution for the House's consideration to permit Ms. Brown to be absent from the Legislature to attend the festival from January 13 to 31,1977."

And it is signed by myself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at that time I was asked to put a motion before the House, and although I didn't agree with the fact that any member should be absent from the House, my responsibility to the Legislature was that I should put a motion before the House in order to make that payment possible.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that had I known the true circumstances and the true merits of the matter, I would not have written that letter of recommendation - the reason being that I feel very strongly about the service of the House, and the members of the House on election to this House. I feel very strongly that when we are elected to the House, we should be here as much as is at all possible, because that's 'our first responsibility.

I also want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I found out later that the NDP opposition had had direction from the Premier's office prior to writing to me asking about this trip, and they had been ref used. The trip is not on government business. And the Constitution Act does not allow for any other government's business, but only the government's business of this Legislature, this House - this government in British Columbia.

So like all undertakings in my business career, my personal career and my political career - and again, I refer to the statements made outside the House to the media by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) -I present the motion to the House.

I do not agree with it, Mr. Speaker. I don't agree with it on any other basis, but I think that when members are asked to serve by the people of British Columbia and are so honoured by being elected to this House - truly a very small portion of people compared to the numbers of people in British Columbia - our first responsibility is to be here. I certainly feel strongly that I certainly have honoured that personally, and I think that all members of the House feel that that is an important undertaking when they are elected.

On that basis, I have put the motion before the House and in putting the motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, I even intend to vote for the motion. I hope you will understand that is also my obligation to do. In saying that, I am really very disappointed in the members of the opposition who would feel that they can make some political advantage out of the simple question of timing of a motion. This House has not yet adjourned, and we can put this motion at any time. I have that opportunity today and so I do take it. I move the motion.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Provincial Secretary might have served herself and this House better had she not commented on the motion. The minister did not read the letter which was directed to her office on December 21,1976. 1 will quote it for the record:

"The Hon. Grace McCarthy, Provincial Secretary "Parliament Buildings "Victoria, B.C. "Dear Mrs. McCarthy: "Re: Second World Black African Festival of Arts and Culture, Lagos, Nigeria. "Ms. Rosemary Brown has been requested to head a Canadian delegation of 48 people, as an official representative of the government of Canada, which would require her to be absent from the House from January 13 to January 31,1977. Under the circumstances, I would request that authority be given by the British Columbia Legislature for her to be absent from the House and undertake the trip without sacrificing any of her entitlement resulting from her absence from the Legislative Assembly. "

"Yours very truly,

"W. S. King, "Revelstoke-Slocan."

Mr. Speaker, the letter Mrs. McCarthy responded with, dated January 4, acknowledged the letter and gave a firm undertaking: "I will recommend the necessary resolution for this House's consideration to permit Ms. Brown to be absent from the Legislature to attend the festival." That was January 4,1977. Would the Provincial Secretary care to level with the House and tell how many times I have contacted her since?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Three times in the last week.

[ Page 2799 ]

MR. KING: Three times in the last week, in addition to further overtures a year ago in the last session. The Clerk of the House has been in the dilemma of not knowing whether to withhold the salary of this particular member for Burrard, because he was aware of the letter - I provided him with a copy - but he did not know whether the Provincial Secretary intended to deliver that resolution to the House or not.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and I met with the Provincial Secretary as late as yesterday and at that time received nothing but equivocation with respect to her intention to present the motion that she had committed herself to in this letter.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how to deal with these people. Does their word mean something? Is there any honesty in a person's word? Is there any good faith and any charity and any graciousness left?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would have to ask you to withdraw the imputation of any wrongdoing on behalf of any member of the House.

MR. KING: I've made no such imputation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There was an imputation of a question of honesty, hon. member, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw. Please withdraw the imputation of dishonesty.

MR. KING: I made no such imputations, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there was clearly a reference to the question of honesty. If that question was directed at any member, I have no choice but to ask the member to withdraw.

MR. KING: I never called anyone dishonest. I did not imply that anyone is dishonest. I implied that one ought to be able to take at face value a written commitment, if anyone can understand plain English, but I'm not making any allegation of dishonesty.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, that's fine.

MR. KING: I think you misinterpreted my remarks; perhaps I articulated them poorly. I'll check them, since it was not my intention.

This is a bit much, then, to have the Provincial Secretary come in here and say: "Well, those people have the audacity to get a little bit excited about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: A year and a half later.

MR. KING: Yes, a year and a half later, and to have the temerity to mention it outside this chamber.... Shame on them! That's bad faith. It's only $1,700. The member was only representing the Canadian government. The Provincial Secretary makes it sound like this is some precedent that has never happened before. Nonsense! It happened during the time that I sat in opposition with the previous Social Credit government where special dispensation was given, not for any frivolous matter, but for important matters where a member's absence was justified.

If that Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, lacks sufficient respect for the emerging nations and the role that a member of this House could play in representing the nation of Canada at a conference of that nature, then I say that is shocking. I say that's scandalous. I'm surprised that she would come in with this kind of very petty dissertation surrounding a motion that she's been caught out on because she did not live up to the commitment she gave. She did not live up to her word for a year and a half and finally was smoked out, and now tries to justify herself. Shame on her.

It's things like that, it's these chiseling little matters that bring a bad taste to the mouths of members of this House and that bring division, animosity and a spirit of hostility rather than co-operation to this chamber. It's so picayune and so nasty. It wasn't necessary, Mr. Speaker. The matter could have been dealt with with some grace.

MR. LEA: Without Grace!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary: The sun does not rise and set on the province of British Columbia. We are part of the nation of Canada. We are part of the world.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, went to represent Canada. Now if the minister indicates that she's not in favour of this, then she should have made it known to this House on January 5, which was the day after she sent the letter. But the important thing is that we have had, time and time again in this House, citizens of British Columbia presented to this House with great honour, citizens whom we have feted because they are going to represent the province of British

[ Page 2800 ]

Columbia at athletic events and at cultural events, not only in Canada but all over the world. Why is it that some member of the Legislature has to be treated differently than any other member of this province? It's ridiculous for that minister to come in here and to use those petty excuses the last day of this session. When you were looking, all of you, to finish, you come in with this rubbish. It's absolutely disgusting and the action of that minister brings shame on this Rouse.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, for anyone to suggest that I did not fulfill the commitment.... I have. I have today. Anything to the contrary is just simply not true. I did not say in writing the letter that I agreed with it. In fact I said that I would put the motion forward, and that is exactly what has been done, exactly the action that has been taken.

I'd like to refer to the member, for Revelstoke-Slocan's (Mr. King's) statement. No doubt he has gone out to the hall to make his comments to the press and is probably trying to put the whole debate in the realm of whether or not we are in support of emerging countries. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that's a complete red herring that has been put before the House by the opposition -completely a red herring.

It has nothing to do with the kind of congress, convention or meeting. It has no reference at all. I make no reference to any kind of a meeting that any one of these members in our House would attend. I suggest to you that first and foremost, no matter what the state of the world is, if we offer our names for public service we should first sit in this House and attend to the matters of this House. Although we have grave concern with very many matters in this world, that is not the issue before us today in any event, Mr. Speaker, in making decisions as to whether or not the hon. member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) should be attending a congress of Dutch people, which he did at his own expense at one time, or whether or not the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard should be attending a conference in Lagos.

So. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to move the motion and I ask the House now to uphold the motion.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion is before us.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to set the record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this a point of order?

MS. BROWN: Yes, it's a point of order. That's what I said - under standing order 42. I'd like to set the record straight that all of the expenses for the trip which I took to Nigeria on behalf of the Canadian people - not the Canadian government, but the Canadian people - were paid for by the Nigerian government. Not one penny was paid for by the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member, but this is not a point of order. The only way I can accept a point of order under 42 is if a correction is made to a material part of speech which the member made, and to my recollection, the member did not make a speech on this debate.

MS. BROWN: I would like to state that under standing order 18, 1 will not be voting on this and I will withdraw from the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The motion is before you that, pursuant to section 68 of the Constitution Act, the Legislative Assembly directs that the allowances for the session of the Legislative Assembly should commence on January 13,1977, and be paid to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard without any deduction by reason of the non-attendance by the member from the January 13,1977, to January 31,1977.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

Vote 3: Auditor General, $2,034, 507

approved.

Vote 4: building occupancy charges, $195,396 - approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

Vote 2: legislation, Grown corporation

[ Page 2801 ]

reporting committee, $400,000 - approved.

On vote 1: legislation, $3,997, 588.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief on this estimate. I do want to say something about the necessity of providing some retroactivity and some indexation of payment to constituency secretaries....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Retroactive pay - in the pre sent, Mr. Minister - for the constituency secretaries who loyally serve the members of this House, and who act for the front line of contacts of MLAs with their constituencies all around this province, and do it more or less single handed when this House is in session. They are very important people; they have not had the kind of treatment that other parts of the public service have had in the last couple of years. That is something that should be remedied, and soon.

It is my understanding that there is a submission somewhere in the vicinity of Treasury Board, and I hope that the responsive members on all sides of the House will encourage the government in accepting that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double standards!

MR. GIBSON: No double standard, Mr. Minister. I'm asking for justice and payment today for debts that were incurred in the past, and the minister knows that. It's present recognition of past injustice.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one more thing. I'd been planning to say a few things on the new set of standing orders they have in the province of Ontario, but perhaps I might just briefly refer members to them. They are very enlightened and I think we could learn something from them, and also the various reports of the Ontario committee on the Legislature.

I want to also say what I think we all appreciate so much each year. Yesterday the work of the Pages was recognized in this House. 1 would like to pay tribute to the work of the Clerks, to the work of the people of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to the work of all of the people at Hansard who somehow translate our remarks onto paper, and to those invisible people who somehow translate our remarks to the rest of the world from time to time.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not. I'm just saying something that I feel very much every session,

Mr. Minister, all the people around here who make the place work, and it's not just the members sitting in here.

Vote I approved.

Schedule A approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that tile committee rise and report resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I've had a request that the closing ceremonies of the House today be recorded on television. Is it agreed that we turn up the lights to proceed? It will take just a few moments for the lights to reach their proper illumination. Perhaps in that interval I will recognize the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I file an answer to question 25 standing on the order paper, with leave.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Williams of the Special Committee on Privilege presented the committee's first report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your special committee appointed pursuant to resolution passed Friday, June 9,1978, begs leave to report as follows:

"The committee met on the 22nd, 28th and 29th days of June, 1978, and dealt with the business committed to it by the resolution of the House. In the course of the conduct of its business, tile committee heard witnesses, considered documents filed and received submissions with respect to the matters coming before the committee. Your committee, upon consideration of all of the evidence deduced before it, the submissions made to it, and pursuant to the authority vested in it by the order of the House, decided:

"I. That neither the hon. first member for Victoria, the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen, nor the hon. member for Coquitlam have been disqualified from sitting or voting in the Legislative Assembly in consequence of receiving funds from the province of British Columbia resulting from their participation in the

[ Page 2802 ]

UBCM and provincial housing study instituted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

"2. That the hon. member for Shuswap has not been disqualified from sitting or voting in the Legislative Assembly in consequence of the receipt by him of funds from the province of British Columbia resulting from his participation in a fence-building programme made available under the Grazing Act.

"Further, your committee commends to the House for its early consideration:

"I. The matter of a review of the Constitution Act and the need apparent to your committee for its revision and modernization.

" 2. The matter of the practices and procedures associated with the payment of indemnities and expenses to members in respect of the discharge of their duties and responsibilities to the House or any of the committees thereof.

"There is appended to this report the minutes of the several meetings of your committee and the documents produced in evidence, before it. A transcript of all of the proceedings before your committee is being prepared and will be available for tabling in the House on completion thereof."

"All of which is respectfully submitted, Allan Williams, Chairman."

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was seeking to comment on the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but we cannot accept that at this moment.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if there is to be no motion to adopt the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can only act on motions before us.

MR. GIBSON: Is it a decision of this House without being adopted, could I ask?

MR. SPEAKER: Any motion to adopt, hon. member, would require notice. Notice is not before me.

MR. GIBSON: Well, there's that point of order then. Is it a decision of this House without a motion being passed to adopt?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we cannot try to anticipate from the Chair. Therefore I cannot make any ruling or even an observation on that particular point.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make a statement in connection with this report.

MR. SPEAKER: It's unusual. Shall leave be granted? I hear several noes, hon. member.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any noes, but if that's your ruling, I would then rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege? State your point of privilege. I would remind the hon. member that a point of privilege, in order to have any action upon it, must have an accompanying motion. Is the member prepared with a motion?

MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the constitution of this committee. Many things have been said about it that are uncomplimentary. As a member of that committee, the point of privilege 1 an raising would ask permission to make statements that I feel reflect upon all members of that committee, including myself.

It became very apparent to me, during this committee hearing, that it was dealing with a matter of unusual importance. It's a committee that really sat as a trial, as a judge, as a jury and as defence counsel, as well as prosecution. It took on the nature of a trial to determine the right of certain members to remain in this House.

My concern is twofold. First, the government did not recognize the importance of this matter and balance the committee properly with equal representation from each side of the House. Secondly, it is my concern that some of those members who were appointed to the committee did not bother to sit on it. I think that it made the task of those members who were there very, very difficult. The defence was amply presented and there was really nobody to take the other side, so we did the best we could with what we had.

It's my motion then, Mr. Speaker, that in the future, on all matters that deal with the right of a member to sit in this House, the committee should be so constructed as to be balanced evenly between government members and opposition members.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, pertaining to the matter of privilege, I would have to first of all determine whether a prima facie case does exist and, in order to do that it would

[ Page 2803 ]

require some time. Therefore, in the light of what we are anticipating, I would have to say that I will reserve decision and report at the earliest convenience. Let me say it that way.

Hon. members, when shall the report be considered?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just for clarification, hon. members, the question that I was just asking pertains to the formalities of closing the estimates. And my question concerns the report that I was given just before I turned up the lights.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 25, May 1, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31 and June 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 29,1978, be now received and taken as read.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that toward the making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $21,839, 777 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31,1977; (2) $4,280, 350,000 toward defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31,1979, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under Section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1,1978.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 28, intituled Supply Act, No. 2,1978.

Leave granted.,

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Rogers in, the chair.

HON. Mr. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report to the House, recommending the introduction of Bill 28.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution with bill attached, and delivers the bill to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 28, Supply Act, No. 2, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

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

[ Page 2804 ]

During the procedure of this particular ceremony, there is not room for debate.

MR. LEVI: I want to point out something.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a point of order....

MR. LEVI: In Schedule A it says 1976-77. Is that the schedule we're dealing with, or should it be 1977-78? In the bill, on page 2 at the bottom it says: "1976-77."

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. LEVI: Not 1977-78?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. LEVI: That's two years ago we're dealing with.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended, and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. LEVI: Well, now that the ministers all settled down, perhaps he can tell us what we are doing here - proving an overrun or something, for two years ago, under section 4.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is referring to schedule A, which is not really a part of section 4.

MR. LEVI: Oh, well, I'll do it under the schedule.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, it's already been covered in the previous approvals, as I understand it.

MR. LEVI: But it's in the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE:, We approved schedule A and schedule B.

MR. LEVI: No, no, no. With respect, Mr.

Chairman, we're dealing with schedule A, 1976-77.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are dealing with section 4. We have not yet come upon schedule A.

Section 4 approved.

On schedule A.

MR. LEVI: What are we doing here, Mr. Chairman? Have we approved this previously, or not?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These amounts have been approved by a previous resolution. It has been approved by Committee of Supply, and the subject is not debatable.

MR. LEVI: Don't tell me it's not debatable -it's in the bill. Is it debatable?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee, under section 4, has already approved these amounts, hon. member. It's not debatable at this time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like an explanation. It's in the bill. We've come to schedule A. Now you're telling me it's not debatable. When did we deal with it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps, if the members in the cabinet would allow the Chairman to instruct the member, then we could proceed.

These matters have already been voted on and passed in section 1. We are debating the same question for the second time. And, as' all members know, that is not permissible under the rules of this House.

MR. LEVI: Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman, you just told us something that I think at least 53 members didn't know before.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 2805 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Supply Act, No. 2, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Good Samaritan Act

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1978

Ministry of Forests Act

Range Act

Forest Act

Dykes Maintenance Amendment Act, 1978

Municipal Amendment Act, 1978

Heroin Treatment Act

Urban Transit Authority Act

Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1978

Family Relations Act

Science Council of British Columbia Act

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978

Mineral Act Clarification Act

Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978

Coal Amendment Act, 1978

Supply Act, No. 2,1978

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978

Land Titles Act

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act

Execution Amendment Act, 1978

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1978

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978

Commodity Contracts Trading Act

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978

Constitution Amendment Act, 1978

Partnership Amendment Act, 1978

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978

An Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and doth assent to these bills.

His honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I understand His Honour must return to the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an interruption? Hon. members, I am informed that one of the bills was inadvertently left off the list and His Honour will return momentarily.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 2,1978.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 31st parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned at that time. In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

[ Page 2806 ]

APPENDIX

22 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions:

With reference to the Minister's visit to Japan in 1977/78

1. Who accompanied the Minister?

2. What was the total cost of the visit?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

"1. Hon. D. M. Phillips, Hon. T. M. Waterland, R. S. Wood, L. E. Sivertson, J. McKeown, and H. Wakabayashi.

"2. $29,496.04."

25 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry the following questions:

With reference to the 1977 and 1978 State Balls

1. What was the total cost of the Balls?

2. Has or will any part of this amount be paid from General Revenue?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, how much?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. The 1977 State Ball-$6,302 and the 1978 State Ball-$7,970.

"2. Yes, through the appropriate vote.

"3. $6,302 and $7,970."

44 Mr. Shelford asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following question:

How many acres were logged and planted last year in the Forest Districts of Prince George, Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Nelson, Williams Lake, and Vancouver?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"Data for 1977 in Acres

45 Mr. Shelford asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

In regard to CanCel Tree-farm Licence 1–

1. What is the annual allowable cut on Tree-farm Licence 1?

2. What was the total cut in 1976?

3. What was the total number of cunits harvested by independent contractors in 1976, not including road building, maintenance, and other nonharvesting contracts?

4. What were the names and volume harvested by each contractor?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. 720,000 cunits.

"2. 323,799 cunits.

"3. 132,990 cunits.

"4. Names and volume harvested by each contractor were:

[ Page 2807 ]

46 Mr. Shelford asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

In regard to Eurocan Tree-farm Licence 41-

1. What is the annual allowable cut on Tree-farm Licence 41?

2. What was the total cut in 1976?

3. What was the total number of cunits harvested by independent contractors in 1976, not including road and other nonharvesting contracts?

4. What were the names and volume harvested by each contractor?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. 200,000 cunits.

"2. 193,441 cunits.

"3. Contractors carry out various phases of the work and in some cases, two or more contracts are made to cover the same logs; e.g., Felling and Bucking contract, Loading contract, Hauling contract, Yarding contract. Therefore, the volume of wood covered by the contractors amounted to 391,278 cunits.

"4. Names and volume harvested by each contractor were:

[ Page 2808 ]

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

14 The Hon. T. M. Waterland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 14) intituled Forest Act to amend as follows:

By deleting section 5 (6) and substituting the following:

"(6) Crown land in a provincial forest may be disposed of tinder the Land Act

"(a) for an easement or right-of-way, or

"(b) for any other purpose that the chief forester considers is compatible with the uses described in subsection (4) or permitted under the regulations,

but, except for the purposes of a highway, transmission-line, or pipeline right-of-way, no disposition shall be made of the fee-simple interest in the land."

Section 7 (3) (c): By deleting "plants, " and substituting "facilities, ".

Section 11 (3) (d): By adding ", if any, " after "bonus".

Section 14: By adding the following subsection:

"(3) A notice of a surrender shall be published in the prescribed manner."

Section 15:

(a) In subsection (4) (b): By deleting "minister" and substituting "regional manager", and

(b) By adding the following subsection:

"(7) A notice of an offer made under subsection (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner."

By deleting section 18 (d) and substituting the following:

"(d) Crown land is required for a purpose other than timber production and the regional manager considers that the timber on the land should be removed expeditiously, or".

Section 21: By adding the following subsection:

"(6) A notice of an offer made under subsection (3) shall be published in the prescribed manner."

Section 33:

(a) In subsection (5) by deleting "according to subsection (I ) (b) and (c) , " and substituting "on the sooner of the dates referred to in subsection (1) (b) or (c) , ", and

(b) By adding the following subsection:

"(6) A notice of an offer made under subsection (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner."

Section 35:

(a) By adding "subject to sections 36, 38, and 39, " at the beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b) , and

(b) By deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:

"(d) require its holder to purchase, as provided in the pulpwood agreement, wood residue produced by timber processing facilities in the pulpwood area, ".

Section 38: By adding the following subsection:

"(3) A notice of a surrender shall be published in the prescribed manner."

Section 39: By adding the following subsection:

"(5) A notice of an offer made under subsection (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner."

Section 41 (5) , line 2: By deleting "or society" and substituting "band, or society".

[ Page 2809 ]

Section 42:

(a) In paragraph (b) (i): By adding ", if any, " after "private land", and

(b) In paragraph (f) (ii): By deleting "contains" and substituting "contain". Section 44: By adding the following subsection:

"(4) A notice of a surrender shall be pushed in the prescribed manner." Section 49 (2): By adding "54 and" after "52 to".

Section 50:

(a) In subsection (1) (a) (ii): By adding "directly or indirectly" before "controls", and

(b) In subsection (2) (d): By adding "or of private land" after "disposition of an agreement".

Section 53:

(a) By deleting the first 3 lines of paragraph (1) (b) and substituting "delete from a tree-farm licence area, Crown land referred to in sections 28 (b) (i) , 31 (1) or (2) , or 32 (1) , to be used",

(b) By renumbering paragraph (1) (c) as paragraph (d) and adding the following as paragraph (c):

"(c) Delete from a woodlot licence area or the area described in a timber licence Crown land to be used

"(i) for the purposes of highway, pipeline, or power transmission line rights-of-way or of water storage, or

"(ii) for a purpose other than referred to in subparagraph (i) and other than timber production, or, "

(c) By deleting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following: "

(2) Where the total deletions made during a deletion period " (a) from a tree-farm licence area under subsection (1) (b) ,

"(i) for purposes ref erred to in subsection ( 1 ) (b ) (i) , have the effect of reducing the portion of the allowable annual cut then approved for the tree-farm licence that the chief forester determines is attributable to the Crown land referred to in section 2 8 (b) (i) , 31 (1 ) and (2 ) , and 3 2 (1 ) by more than 5% of the portion of the allowable annual cut for the tree-farm licence that the chief forester determines was attributable to that land at the beginning of the deletion period, or

"(ii) for purposes referred to in subsection (I ) (b) (ii) , have the effect of reducing the portion of the allowable annual cut then approved for the tree-farm licence area that the chief forester determines is attributable to the Crown land referred to in section 28 (b) (i) , 31 (1) and (2) . and 32 (1) by more than 5% of the portion of the allowable annual cut for the tree-farm licence that the chief Forester determines was attributable to that land at the beginning of the deletion period, or

"(b) from a woodlot licence area under subsection (1 ) (c) ,

"(i) for purposes referred to in subsection (I ) (c) (i) , have the effect of reducing the allowable annual cut approved for the woodlot licence by more than 5% of the allowable annual cut approved at the beginning of the deletion period, or

"(ii) for purposes under subsection (1 ) (c) (ii) , have the effect of reducing the allowable annual cut approved for the woodlot licence by more than 5 % of the allowable annual cut approved at the beginning of the deletion period,

[ Page 2810 ]

the Crown shall compensate its holder in respect of the amount of the reduction exceeding 5%, for the unexpired portion of its term.

"(3) Where the total deletions made under subsection (1) (c) during a deletion period from the area described in a timber licence

"(a) for purposes referred to in subsection (I) (c) (i) exceed 5 % of the area described in the timber licence at the beginning of the deletion period, or

(b) for purposes under subsection (1) (c) (ii) exceed 5% of the area described in the timber licence at the beginning of the deletion period, the Crown shall compensate its holder in respect of the area exceeding 5%.",

(d) In subsection (4) (a): By deleting "subsection (I) (c) (i) " and substituting "subsection (1) (d) (i) ", and

(e) In subsection (4) (b): By deleting "subsection (1) (c) (H) " and substituting "subsection (1) (d) (H) ".

Section 55:

(a) By deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

"( 1 ) Where the volume of timber harvested under a forest licence, timber sale licence, or timber sale harvesting licence during a 5-year cut control period specified in the licence is less than the minimum volume required to be harvested during that period in the forest licence, in a management and working plan approved under the forest licence, or in the timber sale licence or timber sale harvesting licence, the regional manager, in a notice served on its holder, may reduce, by a volume not greater than the deficiency, the allowable annual cut to be authorized under the forest licence, timber sale licence, timber sale harvesting licence, or a replacement for it, after the date specified in the notice."

(b) In subsection (2) (a) (i): By adding "or a replacement for it" after "tree-f arm licence",

(c) In subsection (2) (b) (i): By adding "or a replacement for it" after "woodlot licence", and

(d) By deleting subsection (5) (a) and substituting the following:

"(a) the allowable annual cut that may be sustained on the tree-farm licence area is higher than the allowable annual cut then authorized for

"(i) the tree-farm licence, or

"(ii) a tree-farm licence entered into under this or the former Act that the tree-farm licence has replaced, and".

Section 65 (1) (b): By deleting "on both ends" and substituting "in the prescribed manner".

Section 68: By deleting "on both ends" and substituting "in the prescribed manner'.

Section 83: By deleting "forest products" and substituting "forest products, ".

By deleting section 89.

By deleting section 90 (3) and (4) and renumbering section 90 as section 89.

By adding the following as section 90:

"Calculation of annual rent

"90 (1) The annual rent payable for a tree-farm licence shall be calculated by adding

[ Page 2811 ]

(a) the total annual rent payable for old temporary tenures or timber licences in the tree-f arm licence area, and

"(b) the portion of the allowable annual cut approved for the tree-farm licence that the chief forester determines is attributable to land

"(i) that is not subject to a private tenure, where the tree-farm licence was entered into under the former Act, or

"(ii) referred to in sections 28 (b) (i) , 31 (1) and (2) , and 32 (1) , where the tree-farm licence is entered into under this Act, as the case may be, multiplied by the annual rent rate in Schedule B for tree-farm licences.

"(2) The annual rent payable for a woodlot licence shall be the portion of the volume authorized to be harvested under the licence that the regional manager determines is attributable to land referred to in section 42 (b) (ii) , multiplied by the annual rent rate specified in Schedule B for woodlot licences."

Section 93 (b) (i): By adding ", to use it, " after "road".

Section 94 (1 ) (c): By adding ", use" after "build".

Section 124: By adding the following subsection:

"(4) Where money appropriated for fire suppression in any year is insufficient, the money required shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without any other appropriation other than this subsection."

Section 128 (2): By deleting "compensation" and substituting "money".

Section 135, line 4: By adding "and wood residue produced from the timber, " after "licence area, ".

By deleting section 138 (3) .

Section 140 (1): By adding "on Crown land" after "structure".

Section 141:

(a) By deleting subsection (1) (d) and substituting the following: " (d) constitutes, in favour of the Crown,

"(i) a lien on timber, lumber, veneer, plywood, pulp, newsprint, special forest products, and wood residue owned by the person who owes the money, and

"(ii) a lien on chattels or an interest in them, other than chattels referred to in subparagraph (i) , owned by the person who owes the money.",

(b) In subsection (4): By deleting "subsection (3) " and substituting "subsection (4) ", and

(c) By renumbering subsections (2) , (3) , and (4) as subsections (3) , (4) , and (5) and by adding the following as subsection (2):

"(2) A lien under subsection (1) (d) (i) has priority over all other claims, and a lien under subsection (1) (d) (ii) has priority over all other claims other than claims secured by liens, charges, and encumbrances registered against the chattels before the money is due and payable."

Section 143:

(a) By deleting subsection (1) (a) and substituting the following: " (a) timber, lumber, veneer, plywood, pulp, newsprint, special forest products, wood residue, and chattels on which the Crown has a lien under section 141 (1) (d) ;", and

(b) In subsection (4) , line 1: By deleting "chattel or timber is seized" and substituting "seizure is made".

[ Page 2812 ]

Section 147:

(a) By adding "of the fact and of the timber supply that he intends will be processed in the facility" at the end of subsection (I ) , and

(b) In subsection (2) , line I : By adding "within 30 days after the regional manager is notified under subsection (I after "served on a person".

Section 149:

(a) In subsection (1) (a): By deleting "amount" and substituting "volume", and

(b) In subsection (3): By adding " (b) or (c) " after "subsection (1) ".

Section 154:

(a) In subsection (2) (b): By adding "90 (2) " and "139 (1) (a) " in numerical order,

(b) In subsection (2) (c): By deleting "90 (3) " and by adding "53 (2) " and "9 0 (1 ) " in numerical order, and

(c) By deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

"(3) In respect of an appeal of a determination under section 84 (2) , the person to whom the appeal is taken or the appeal board, as the case may be, shall, subject to the regulations, consider the factors referred to in section 84 (2) (b) , (c) , and (d)."

By deleting section 156 (8) and (9) and substituting the following:

"(8) The appellant or the Minister may, by application to the Supreme Court made within 21 days after a decision of an appeal board is served on him, appeal the decision of the appeal board on a question of law or jurisdiction."

Section 156 (7): By deleting "unless the decision is reversed, varied, or referred back Under subsection (8) ".

Section 159 (a): By deleting "75 (1) and substituting "75".

Section 160 (1):

(a) In paragraph (a): By adding ", or from submitting a tender or bid, " after "agreement", and

(b) In paragraph (c) (ii): By deleting "arrived at" and substituting "arrived at, ".

Section 165 (b): By deleting "appropriate" and substituting "appropriated".

Section 170: By deleting "section 109" and substituting "section 108".