[ Page 6885 ]

CONTENTS

Motor Fuel Tax Act (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6885

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 6885

Presenting Reports –– 6885

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Hon. A. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 6886

Holiday Shopping Hours Freedom Of Choice Act (Bill M224). Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6886

Tabling Documents –– 6886

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No –– 1), 1985 (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 6886

Tabling Documents –– 6886

Oral Questions

Hospital bed closures. Mrs. Dailly –– 6886

Mr. Blencoe

LNG project. Mr. Williams –– 6888

Ministerial Statement

Airport security. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6888

Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 36). Committee stage –– 6889

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Howard

Third reading

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 22). Committee stage –– 6890

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 6891

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Committee stage 6906

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Williams

Forest Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 3). Committee stage –– 6911

Mr. Howard

Third reading

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sure all of us in the assembly, as western Canadians — and certainly very much so on the government side — would wish to extend both our congratulations and our thanks to Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed for his valued contribution over the years. Mr. Lougheed always strongly articulated the aspirations of western Canada in a very positive sense. He always said that the realities of change in our country's fiscal structure and economic evolution must reflect Canada as it is and as it should be, and indeed, western Canada as it is and as it should be, which is not to be subject in perpetuity to the majority, if not all, the levers within central Canada. Mr. Lougheed was a very tough dealer, and he was fortunate in having great cards — all that oil and gas the good Lord provided Alberta.

Of most recent significance, certainly from my personal perspective, was his very firm and concise stand concerning free trade one-on-one with the United States — and the sooner the better; it's Canada's salvation. We certainly hope his retirement will not dull his enthusiasm concerning that issue, because time is indeed running out. We wish him very well in his retirement.

MR. HOWARD: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition also want to express, as we express to anyone who spends a good part of their life in the public service of a province or of Canada, especially someone who has been the Premier of a province for such a long period of time.... Mr. Lougheed will leave behind him a legacy and a pair of shoes that will be difficult to fill. We do appreciate the contribution he has made to the political life of western Canada, and of Canada, and wish him every success in his years ahead as well.

MR. VEITCH: In the galleries today are some very interesting people: first, Dr. Jeff Burns, archivist for the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco; the wife of one of our very good government caucus researchers, Dr. Rajani Lippert, a new resident of Victoria currently working on a study of women in the Indian independence movement with the Indian Council of Social Sciences; also Dr. John Nerone, assistant professor of communications at the University of Illinois located at Champaign-Urbana. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like the members of the House today to welcome two people from Prince George: Mr. Jim Imrich, the superintendent of schools, and Mr. Don Dunaway, the secretary-treasurer.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR FUEL TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Fuel Tax Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One of the frequently repeated requests from individuals who made presentations during the public meetings on taxation last fall was for please, all levels of government to simplify tax legislation. I spoke about this in the March budget. Therefore I am pleased to be able to table Bill 63, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, for the members to consider over the coming weeks. It's a consolidation of the following statutes: the Gasoline Tax Act, which was first introduced in 1923; the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, introduced in 1946, which provides for a lower rate of tax on fuels used off public highways; and the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act, introduced in 1959, which provides for a higher rate of tax for on-highway use of diesel fuel.

I can assure the House, as members will note, that Bill 63 simply consolidates the three acts into one statute. It contains no tax policy changes whatsoever, and only very minor administrative provisions to make them consistent, to restructure them, and to enhance individual ease of working with the statute. It is a step in the direction of simplified legislation, and I trust that it will in time have the support of all members.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker. there has been a great deal of work go into the preparation of this bill. It is really another component part of our economic recovery at the municipal level, designed to deregulate where possible, to streamline and to give more accountability to those who are making the decisions at the municipal level.

I should point out, in view of the fact that a letter was circulated by the opposition in respect to how legislation of this nature is arrived at, that this legislation is the result of a great deal of work put in by a committee that fully represented all municipalities and regional districts in this province. Not only were they fully represented, but we also took into consideration recommendations by municipalities who had certain things they wished to see changed in the land-use section of the Municipal Act. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we also consulted throughout with the private sector — those who had anything to do with the Municipal Act, particularly the land-use sections. The people I speak of are those who, along with municipalities and regional districts, have a role to play in developing the kind of communities that we require and wish to see for our residents.

So I do want to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, particularly those on the other side, that indeed this is the result of a great deal of study and work by people at the municipal level and the regional level, and indeed from the private sector as well.

Bill 62, Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, 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.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Veitch, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services,

[ Page 6886 ]

presented a committee report which was read as follows and received:

"Report, Legislative Committee Room, June 26, 1985.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble to Bill PR401 has been approved, and the bill ordered to be reported as amended in committee.

"Respectfully submitted, Elwood Veitch, Chairman.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. A. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I have a few comments. The provision of this bill contains a number of amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that allow for administrative simplicity. For example, a person must now notify the superintendent of motor vehicles of a change of address in writing. This amendment allows the superintendent to accept other forms of notice, such as a verbal notice given by a driver when he attends a motor licence office.

Other provisions include the clarification of the term "legal entity," the setting of a minimum fine where a person uses another driver's licence, the setting of a maximum fine for corporations where a corporation's vehicle is involved in a serious accident, and the removal of the prohibition of having TVs in cars to allow, under certain conditions, the installation of these units when used as a safety device.

Bill 60 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.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING HOURS
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT

Mrs. Johnston presented a bill intituled Holiday Shopping Hours Freedom of Choice Act.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give operators of businesses situated in shopping malls the freedom to set their own hours of operation on Sundays and holidays. Many of these people, who, incidentally, represent the largest employers in British Columbia, are locked into leases which were entered into long before Sunday and holiday shopping was a factor in this province.

Whether or not we support wide-open Sunday shopping, I believe all merchants should be free to decide their hours of operation on holidays. I would ask the House to consider giving this their support.

Bill M224 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.

Mrs. Johnston tabled the annual report of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation for 1984-85.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 1), 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 58 is primarily designed to strengthen the enforcement part of the Motor Vehicle Act and particularly to close a loophole which was used by persons who had been convicted of driving offences involving alcohol in avoiding the statutory prohibition by launching an appeal which had the statutory effect of staying the driving suspension. So what we're doing now is closing that loophole. The amendment will require a person appealing a conviction to apply to the court to have the court order a stay. It will not be an automatic stay and will not be just simply a device. The court will then have the authority to stay the prohibition and to set limits on the length of the stay. It's expected that this procedure will both reduce the number of frivolous appeals launched in impaired driving cases and improve traffic safety.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker tabled special report No. 15 from the ombudsman.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. The hospitals throughout B.C. have signalled the closure of 783 acute care beds this summer. As the minister knows, the Hospital Act requires your permission, Mr. Minister, to close those beds. Have you decided to close those beds this summer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a number of hospitals have indicated to our ministry that they will be putting forward propositions — some have — to close a number of acute care beds during the summer, an annual occurrence. I have not as yet received in written form requests from the hospitals in question. They have been in communication with representatives of the ministry and they are being reviewed. I can't offer you a prediction as to how many will be approved, because we are processing the applications as they are received.

There has been a tradition in British Columbia and in most provinces and in many other countries as well that they

[ Page 6887 ]

take advantage of the slack time during the summer to provide the opportunity for staff members to vacation along with the medical people, and to do it at one time rather than spread it out throughout the year. It's been historical fact that they do close beds in summer, and 783 acute care beds.... There are approximately 11,000 acute care beds in operation, of which today there will be 1,500 open but not being used. So we can see there still remains an ample supply of beds available for emergency or urgent cases.

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the same minister. The Royal Jubilee is forced to close 31 beds in July. In March of this year Dr. John McCaw, head of general practice at the hospital, wrote a report stating that the present situation is "at times a danger to patient care." Will the minister advise what consideration Dr. McCaw's report has been given in the ministry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the hospital keep unoccupied beds open?

MR. BLENCOE: They are occupied.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with that particular doctor, nor do I believe I have received any communication from him. We discuss matters of hospital administration with those responsible for hospital administration — the administrator and the representatives on their board. It is for the hospital board to discuss with staff difficulties identified or suggested by a staff member.

We work with the hospitals with those people who have the responsibility of management. If a specific doctor has difficulties or believes there are certain problems, then I think it is quite obvious that he should bring that to the attention of the chief of medical staff — unless he happens to hold that position himself — or the administrator or representatives on the board. If they believe the situation exists, obviously they will then communicate that to the ministry officials, and we will possibly do an audit or a review of the case. But we seldom communicate directly with an independent or individual doctor when it is to do with a hospital problem.

MR. BLENCOE: In March of this year, Dr. McCaw who is, as I indicated, head of general practice at the hospital, wrote that several close calls had been recorded up to that time. I can tell the minister today that we're getting close calls again. The corridors are getting filled up again and we have a really unfortunate situation at the hospital. Dr. McCaw stated: "Seriously injured patients have to use corridors for bed space overnight and for many hours the next day." Dr. McCaw has also stated to me that some of the sickest people in the hospital are being put on stretchers in the corridors in an emergency department.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the question?

MR. BLENCOE: What action has the minister taken to monitor the situation at the Royal Jubilee in light of the unfortunate necessity of closing more beds in a matter of days?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is the care a patient receives in the hospital that is paramount. If the member is suggesting, because there is a blockage in a certain ward, that the patient be denied access to medical care in the hospital rather than be placed in a corridor where they may be receiving the medical care.... If that member is suggesting that if there is no immediate bed available we send the patient away.... The responsibility of those in the hospital is to care for the patients.

Mr. Speaker, each emergency ward has a capacity. Frequently that capacity is used and further admissions come in. They are treated by the staff at the hospital to the best of their ability at that time. If a person is on a stretcher or on a bed in a corridor, but is receiving proper medical care, that is paramount. The person then would be placed in a bed when one became available. It is a very difficult real world in running a major hospital. You do not have the luxury of deciding when patients are going to need care. The hospitals in British Columbia — Royal Jubilee included — offer an incredible service to the citizens of our province. I have not heard that member speak out when there perhaps are empty beds, surplus beds waiting for someone to use. We are looking at a system whereby we try to accommodate the maximum number of people in a given year. An individual doctor may have some difficulties with management of a hospital; that's for him to resolve. It is the patient who comes first, not an independent medical practitioner.

MR. BLENCOE: He's warning you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not sure if the member is speaking of the incident where he barged into the hospital with a television crew, annoying a great number of patients, without permission from the hospital....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If the member tries it again, I've advised the management to kick him in the butt and tell him to mind his own business and leave patients alone. The member may think it's funny or humorous for a television camera to be trained on a person who is very ill, intruding into their privacy for some cheap political trick.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The leading doctors in this community.... The chief of general practice, Dr. Scott Wallace, one of the most respected surgeons and doctors in this province, is telling you you have a dangerous situation at Jubilee Hospital, and you have patients who are the sickest who are stacked up in corridors for 30 to 40 hours. It's totally intolerable. Does the minister regard seriously ill and injured patients lying about corridors in emergency wards as an adequate standard of care for our citizens? Particularly in this community senior citizens fie on these stretchers for 30 or 40 hours, and the doctors and nurses are saying they cannot guarantee their safety. The report says it: they cannot guarantee the safety of these patients. Do you consider that adequate care, Mr. Minister?

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if questions are addressed to the Chair and through the Chair to the

[ Page 6888 ]

individuals responsible, we take away from the personality aspect of it and we conduct a generally orderly question period. If members follow that course, we will find that our results are much more effective.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the purpose of question period, I wonder why, since it's almost the end of June and the member is speaking about something apparently with reference to March, how it becomes of such importance that it should be asked in question period today. The member has not raised that issue since March.

The management of the Royal Jubilee Hospital and the other hospitals in our province retain the expertise they have had for many years. I believe the board of the hospital is going about managing the affairs of the institution in a responsible manner. It's fine for the member to second-guess board management's decisions. It's regrettable when any patient is in a hospital and unable to receive optimum care at that moment. But, Mr. Member, we are dealing in hospitals with emergency situations frequently, unpredictable situations, and I believe the staff almost all of the time respond with their professional capability. You cannot predict.... You cannot guarantee optimum conditions in every circumstance. Such is the nature of a major general hospital.

The member speaks of some people who are required to be out of a ward for a period of time. That is regrettable. We're not running the Holiday Inn; we don't take reservations only. But, Mr. Speaker, there are 11,000 people in acute-care beds in the hospital today. You are dealing with thousands of people who require treatment, frequently under unforeseen circumstances. The hospitals practise in a professional way.

There are going to be situations, just as there are in every other avenue of life, in which optimum conditions cannot be met. They are exceptions. The boards of management of the hospitals review such occurrences. They are responsible people, and they accept that responsibility. Our system of hospital care in B.C. is excellent; but there are exceptions to every rule.

I know the member is not criticizing the staff of the hospital or the management of the hospital or the board of directors. I believe they are attempting to resolve their problems in the best possible way.

It has been a tradition to close beds during the summer months. Frequently it is inconvenient for the patient to be in hospital during the summer months. Frequently it is difficult to staff hospitals when staff members are taking vacations during the summer months. Frequently the physician wishes to take a vacation during the summer months. Beds have been closed every year in the summer. Beds are closed over the Christmas holidays every year. It would be irresponsible to have a massive number of beds sitting empty yet staffed when people are not using them. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, approximately 1,500 acute-care beds are empty in the province today, waiting for patients.

LNG PROJECT

MR. WILLIAMS: A question for the Minister of Industry. In recent weeks the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has indicated that the LNG project estimated to be worth $2 billion is getting close to fruition, and that they are simply arguing about price with respect to gas. Can the minister advise the House whether he has been involved in those discussions, and can he assure the House that if this project is approved, all the fabrication and construction will take place in British Columbia, that there will not be fabrication abroad with only assembly in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That is a private sector project, and it will be treated as a private sector project. I can't make those guarantees, nor would I attempt it.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have 50 percent to 70 percent of our tradesmen idle: the boilermakers, the iron workers, the pipefitters, the electricians. What is being offered in this deal is gas at a price of a quarter of what we're charging the Americans. There are major concessions in terms of public sector policy. Surely the trade-off is work in British Columbia. Can the minister not guarantee that the government will demand that all of this construction takes place here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If the project goes ahead, Mr. Speaker, it will be built at Grassy Point, and I can guarantee that all the construction will take place there.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 47A(b) it says that questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion. I can well appreciate Mr. Speaker's difficulty in allowing a fair, interesting game to take place and in not intruding too much into the question period, as it makes it rather impossible for it to have any real meaning if we adhere strictly to these rules. But I would wish that Mr. Speaker would review the amount of time taken up, particularly by the Minister of Health in answer to a question which was reasonably precise, because it has severely hampered other questions being asked in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, as the Chair has observed on many occasions, if the strict rules that govern us in question period were applied, there would virtually be no question that would be allowed under those strict guidelines. Nonetheless, again, the spirit of question period is one that must prevail as well. I would recommend this to all members, both in the questions and in the answers.

AIRPORT SECURITY

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to make a ministerial statement on the subject of airport security, and I will touch upon the security at Victoria International Airport as well.

Arising out of the terrible air disaster of the weekend and the investigation into that disaster, and also the investigation of an explosion that occurred on another aircraft in the Orient, the RCMP, nationally, have launched a major investigation in Vancouver which involves municipal, provincial and federal RCMP working together under the direction of a senior RCMP officer. They are operating under the Security Intelligence Service Act. As a result of this investigation, security at Vancouver International Airport has increased considerably in its intensity, particularly for all baggage destined for international flights directly or indirectly through connecting flights. There has also been an increase in manpower to handle airport security, for which the RCMP is responsible, and there has been increased security from

[ Page 6889 ]

private security agencies for security checks of passengers prior to their entry into a secure area.

One of the offshoots of this security beef-up and investigation has been that the federal government has postponed a decision that it made in January to withdraw RCMP from a number of secondary airports — they are considered by volume to be secondary airports. Those airports included Victoria, Quebec City, Charlottetown, I think Regina, and a number of others. When that decision was announced in January, I protested that decision and wrote to the federal Minister of Transport on February 7, 1985, and expressed the opinion that to lessen the security is unwise and creates an unnecessary risk to the personal safety of our senior air travelers, and recommended that Victoria airport, which serves the capital city of our province, particularly in view of it being Expo year, 1986, should continue to have RCMP

I might say that I've had two or three meetings since then both with Mr. Mazankowski and last week with Mr. Elmer McKay, the Solicitor-General, who's in charge of the RCMP in Ottawa. Mr. McKay told me before there was a security problem arising out of the terrible disaster at the weekend that he was now advocating a review of the policy of removing the RCMP from the airport in Victoria and the other secondary airports. We received notification today that in fact the Minister of Transport has put a hold on the removal of the security service from Victoria airport which was scheduled for July 30 of this year. The five men were going to be transferred to other duties, and they were going to use a commissionaire service for security. That is on hold, and for the time being the RCMP will remain at Victoria International Airport. So our representation seemed to have had effect. But I guess it's a sad commentary on life that there has to be a tragic disaster before policies are reviewed. Anyway, I have that good news: the RCMP will remain at Victoria International Airport for the time being. I commend the federal government for that.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that remain unanswered as a result of second reading of the bill. I'd like to reiterate some of these questions and some of the concerns. The first question is: what is the amount of the loan that the minister wishes to advance through this bill? I might point out that the cost of meeting the Century Tours failure has been estimated at approximately $280,000. About $130,000 was paid out to get the stranded tourists home. So it will be interesting to see whether the proposed loan is large enough to restore the fund, or whether it is a bare minimum and the costs are still to be borne by the anticipated travel agent levies.

Secondly, can the minister assure the House that the amount forwarded to replenish the fund will in fact be sufficient for foreseeable future needs — if in fact the loan is made?

A third question that comes up deals with a previous statement that the minister made in the Times-Colonist on March 29, 1985, and the minister is quoted as saying: "This loan should cope with the present emergency; however, the government certainly does not expect to be called on to do this again." In the context of his statement, it begs the question as to why there is no provision or sunset clause in this bill, if that in fact is his intention.

[2:45]

Fourthly, given that the travel agents Mr. Addison and Esther Smith had notified the ministry way back last fall, when there was still time to avert the collapse of Century Tours, steps were not taken. The question is why should an agent-generated fund now pick up the tab for customers' losses? The minister may argue that there was insufficient time or ability for action to be taken. If that is the argument, the fact is that this bill doesn't change that; it's only basically a legislative change brought in by the minister — despite, I might add, comprehensive recommendations that had been made some time back in the Shandro report that was compiled about four years ago.

I'd like to remind the minister of some of the comments made in that report — comments, I might add, that the government has not acted on. Some of the concerns were that the government should consider: increasing the level of the travel assurance fund from a base of $500,000 to $1 million; an immediate assessment to bring the fund up to the $500 mark; increased initial contributions; excess insurance being obtained to ensure that if the fund were ever depleted there would be moneys available to cover all claims — instead, the government seems to want to make loans directly to the fund; and, lastly, that bonding of security requirements be instituted for extraprovincial companies if there are any further claims against the fund as the result of the failure of such companies. Had these recommendations been acted upon, SPIA, the.... I'll have to go back and.... Well, the company involved, anyway, would have been bonded in fact, and the taxpayers would not now be held responsible for bailing out the fund with a loan to that fund. I think those recommendations were made way back in 1981; not much has been done with regard to implementing them. This legislation certainly doesn't seem to address that fact.

Some more questions to the minister. The necessity of this bill hinges on information that has not really been made public by the minister. On January 10 the Times-Colonist reported that the provincial government had taken control of the financial aspects of Century Tours. Stewart Goodings said, basically: "We're in control of the company's finances." The House, I think, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — is entitled to basic information, such as what were the assets and liabilities of Century when the government did take control? Does the government still have control of Century's assets? What has been the net change in the company's worth in the six months of control? What payments were authorized and why? Has the minister decided to table Century's accounts for fiscal 1983 and '84, as well as '84 and '85? What steps has the government taken to protect the public interest either by getting Century Tours to claim against the airline or by directly suing South Pacific Island Airways, since the failure is their direct responsibility? So there are quite a number of questions that were raised. As I mentioned, these questions were hit upon during second reading. The minister didn't furnish answers to all of them, and I wonder if he'd like to comment on them now.

[ Page 6890 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have a great deal of difficulty finding out whether we're in second reading or committee. The member is to be dealing with the structure of the section, not reviewing second reading. However, I will take the opportunity to respond as best I can to the member to satisfy his concerns. But I would suggest to him that he read Hansard for second reading, from which he will get most if not all the answers to the questions he has raised.

The reason for Section 1 is the fact that there are insufficient funds in the travel assurance fund to pay claims. Therefore Section 1 allows the government to make an advance or a loan. The future funding of the travel agents' assurance fund will be through assessment, as it has been in the past. The loans should cope with the present emergency, which is the reason for this bill, and it's not the government making the advance or the loan, as the member made mention; it's the taxpayer. The section is worded the way that it is because we want assurance that the taxpayer is reimbursed, along with any interest that may be allocated to that advance or loan from the Minister of Finance. There's no sunset clause because the piece of legislation allows the flexibility, should there be another crisis in the travel industry where assistance is required, to use this ongoing vehicle to protect the traveling public. The advance or loan would be made, Mr. Chairman, but at the same time the industry itself would have to reimburse the taxpayer of this province. So that's why there's no sunset clause.

The member went on to talk about Century Tours' problem: that we had notice of it, and had we acted, the problem would not be as severe as it is. I would correct the member. Had we acted the way the member indicates upon the first advice that there was a problem, the loss would have been substantially more. We worked with the travel agency, with the people in the industry, and as a result reduced the exposure of the taxpayer in assisting this fund.

He mentions the Shandro report, which of course has nothing to do with this section at all. However, Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that the recommendations to increase the level of the fund automatically mean increased assessment to the travel agents themselves, because they fund this assurance fund. We have the vehicle to increase their assessment or to make special assessments from time to time if so desired. To have increased the level of assessments at a time when the economy is not as buoyant as in previous years would mean that some travel agents would have been sorely pressed to meet those increased assessments. So we were taking into consideration the impact on the travel agents themselves.

I think the member raised the issue of the necessity of the bill: that had we acted there wouldn't have been any necessity for it. He talked about Mr. Goodings. Mr. Goodings took control of the situation, he had investigators in to audit the books and review the circumstances, and then after we were fully informed, he suspended the company.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the member for Skeena, let me as your Chairman observe that some considerable latitude has been allowed the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), as well as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. But we are in committee stage now and this act, specifically in this section, enables the government to make advance or loans. I think we should limit our debate to that ability of what the section says.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the minister was quite correct when he said it's the taxpayers who will be lending the money. I wish the minister and the government would always remember that, because when it's to their political advantage I notice they run around saying it's the government that's doing things. But this is true; it is the taxpayer through the agent of the taxpayer, who is becoming a banker.

When government borrows money on behalf of the taxpayers, they pay the market rates for those borrowings, whatever they might be — long-term bonds, T-bills or the like. When the government, acting as agent for the taxpayers in a banking capacity, lends money out, it would seem to me that taxpayers are entitled to get market rates for the money so loaned. That has not always been the case. The Minister of Finance — who is referred to in this section — approved by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time, proceeded last year to authorize the lending of $445,000, I believe it was, to a gold mine at no interest. I hope that is not going to be the practice here. If we are going to lend money, then taxpayers are entitled to get correct market rates for the money they're lending.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 22, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6891 ]

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. HOWARD: Section 2 is the provision that permits a holder of a forest licence basically to roll it over into a tree-farm licence, which is permitted under the Forest Act at the moment. What the amendment seeks to do is to say that the holder of the forest licence can select that portion which he wants to roll over into a TFL, and either abandon the portion that he doesn't want that has been used up or contains timber that in the eyes of the holder of the forest licence is not suitable to be included in a TFL — in other words, he doesn't want it — and thus have that revert to the Crown, or to enter into another arrangement; in other words, to keep the balance in his possession and under his control in the form of a forest licence or a timber sale licence.

[3:00]

In simpler terms, what that means is that the holder of the forest licence can do whatever the holder of that licence wants to do with respect to keeping timber or letting it revert to the Crown or putting it into a TFL or doing whatever that person likes, subject to approval, of course. But under the provisions of the Forest Act the basic force of it is that holders of licences to cut timber can basically do whatever they feel like. That's the force and effect of the administration of forestry under this government and under this minister. I understand this minister has been the consistent minister ever since the government was formed, more or less, so he's been the Minister of Forests for the past ten years; so while we're talking about the attitude of government, we're also talking about the attitude of the minister.

It doesn't seem to me appropriate that we should be continuing to alter the laws of this province with respect to a public property called timber simply to suit the convenience of companies that have licences to cut that timber under the Forest Act. That's what this is doing: simply endorsing and approving further the idea that the government has abandoned its responsibility in terms of protecting the public interest, and is subjecting the law and the development of statutes with respect to forest licences to suit those who want to cut the timber. That's wrong in principle.

Secondly, the minister, during second reading in talking about TFLs and seeking to establish more of them, or allowing for more of them under this particular amendment, said that it was not the intention of the government to issue TFLs that would result in further concentration of control. He referred to the Pearse commission report in that regard and was saying that's what Professor Pearse said as well. Well, that's just a lot of nonsense, and the minister knows full well that it is, because while it may be the intention and the desire at any given time to keep an eye on concentration of authority with respect to the ownership and control over public forest lands in the province, in no way does this act or this bill or any declaration of government interfere with or intrude upon the opportunity for companies to sell themselves, one to another.

As an example, Noranda now controls Mac and Blo. MacMillan Bloedel is no longer that home-grown company existing in British Columbia that the Premier identified as being not for sale at some time in the future. But Noranda entered into the game and bought a controlling interest in Mac and Blo. There's a concentration for you. The minister has not indicated in any legislative stance or policy statement that he is going to prevent one company taking over another, that he is going to prevent one company buying additional common shares in another company, and thus effectively controlling it, depending on the distribution of shares in the market and how widely they are held; nor is he moving to prevent one company from owning more than 50 percent of another, and thus having effective concentration of control over it.

A number of years ago, when the original forest management licences, the predecessor of tree-farm licences, were brought into this Legislature, the government of the day declared unequivocally that forest management licences were not for sale; they would not become a saleable commodity; there would not be a concentration of power and authority within the forest industry into fewer and fewer hands having a greater and greater domination and control over the forest land. One company in that period of time, B.C. Pulp and Paper, I believe it was, acquired a forest management licence. No sooner was the ink dry on the licence than they sold the company. The company was bought out, I believe, by Alaska Pine and Cellulose — I may have the names of the companies a little mixed there. So the declaration of government that forest management licences were not for sale suddenly became meaningless. The company was for sale and the company was bought, and B.C. Pulp and Paper's forest management licence went along with the sale. We had a concentration, and that's exactly what's going to occur with this.

The comment of the minister that there's going to be no concentration of power and control in the industry is just balderdash. He doesn't appreciate what's involved here. And there isn't any way in which his government, or any government in Canada, has taken steps to compress the takeover activity that has been prevalent throughout North America in the last few years, the result of which has been concentration of control.

This is simply a bill that once again exhibits the attitude of the government that whatever industry wants, industry gets, and the public good be damned. That's the hallmark of this government; that's the hallmark of this minister's administration. It's regrettable. It's a sad commentary on the democratic institution called the Legislature when government policy responds favourably to the requests and the demands of the group that is supposed to be regulated in the public interest. It's a sad commentary upon government's perception of what its role is when it becomes the handmaiden to the group that it is supposed to regulate. When the government becomes the regulated agency and industry becomes the control factor, then the public interest is not served. It is not served by this minister, and hasn't been for the last ten years. I see nothing at all in this particular legislative proposal before us to dilute that impression; it substantiates it completely, and indicates this government's barrenness of attitude about protecting the public interest.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Dealing with section 2, the member went into a rather long discussion of the history of forest licences in British Columbia. I'll try to confine my remarks to this section.

[ Page 6892 ]

The industry in British Columbia consists of those people who own the companies — the shareholders, the proprietors — those people who manage the industry, and those people who work in the industry. Somehow this conglomeration of people is evil in the mind of the member for Skeena. I've never taken that position at all. I've taken the position that the industry, as I've described it, is an important part of the economy of British Columbia, and it's my responsibility.... In fact, it's laid out in the Ministry of Forests Act that we should, as a government, have the responsibility of ensuring an economically viable and competitive forest industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the member referred again to Dr. Peter Pearse, and I have reproduced a page from Dr. Pearse's report. As a matter of fact, I had the pleasure of the company of Dr. Pearse at lunch time today. We had an excellent discussion on many matters relating to forestry. We discussed in some detail his comments in the report about tree-farm licences.

Mr. Chairman, the Pearse report suggests that the section which we are dealing with is appropriate. We have made provision in a previous amendment to the act for the rollover of other types of licences, mainly the forest licence into the tree-farm licence. Dr. Pearse stated in his report: "Accordingly, the government should consider sympathetically applications in these cases" — referring to a change of form of tenure — "only if the applicant will release other rights they hold in public sustained yield units equivalent in annual volume to the allowable cut of the lands to be contributed to the TFL by the Crown."

That is exactly what this section proposes to do. I'll give an example of what might happen, Mr. Chairman. Last year public hearings were held in Quesnel on a tree-farm licence application by Dunkley Lumber Ltd., which is a small family-owned corporation. It can hardly be called a large corporation; they have a modest sawmill. They do an excellent job of manufacturing lumber and marketing it.

They applied for a tree-farm licence and hearings were held. As it happens, there is going to be a need at some time in the future of transferring the cutting areas operated in by various licensees in that general part of the province, the Quesnel area, to another area because of an imbalance that we have right now in availability and access to timber.

So in order to sustain that cut at some point, a part of the cut of each licensee in that area is going to have to be transferred to another area. If I defined a tree-farm licence and agreed that a tree-farm licence for Dunkley, as suggested by them, is appropriate, then I wouldn't have the ability to have them share in the need to move to this other part of the province in a few years time when the cut has to shift to another area.

So it may be appropriate for me, in considering this tree-farm licence, to suggest that we do not issue them a tree-farm licence which will include enough land area to support the total cut that they have under forest licence. But perhaps it would be better to give them a tree-farm licence supporting a part of that cut and retain some of it under forest licence so that that part can be transferred around to help in such things as the shift of harvesting area that may be necessary to have them take part in the harvest of some bug-killed wood as that becomes necessary.

The member suggested in his discussion that once a company — one of these big, bad companies — have used up a part of their licence and made it uneconomic, they can then turn that back and take up a new area. In saying that, the member expresses a misunderstanding of the nature of a forest licence. A forest licence is not site specific. A forest licence is your right to harvest a certain volume of timber a year within a timber supply area. A company cannot use up a part of their licence in an area and then have it turned back to the Crown.

The member knows full well that the licensee is responsible for an area until it is regenerated, and because it is not a site specific licence, you can't use up a part of your licence and then turn it back to the Crown. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Mr. Chairman, the intent of this section is to provide some flexibility in dealing with the rollover exchange of forest licences for tree-farm licences. Again, I will take exception to the remark made yesterday by one of the members opposite when they said that Dr. Pearse suggested that tree-farm licences should not be issued in the future, because Dr. Pearse made no such statement. In context with the idea, he said that they should not be issued in the future if it would lead to further concentration in the industry. As a matter of fact, I'll read another comment made by Dr. Pearse regarding tree-farm licences on page 118 of his report. He says:

"However, tree-farm licences were designed to promote a high standard of management not only on Crown lands but also on private lands and/or temporary tenders contributed by the licensee. This touches on the unique advantages of this tenure form. Today, with more than half of the old temporary tenures and almost one-fifth of the Crown granted forest land incorporated into tree-farm licences with sophisticated management plans, the system must be judged successful in this respect."

Mr. Chairman, it is that success in management provided by the tree-farm licence form of tenure which encourages me to carry on and, where appropriate, have additional tree-farm licence tenures.

MR. HOWARD: The operative word in what the minister has just said is "flexibility." Flexibility to do what? Flexibility to be able to respond favourably to whatever industry wants; that's what flexibility means in this minister's mind. The opportunity to be flexible and respond. That's the whole history in the last ten years of activity: flexibility to respond to what industry wants — not what the general public deserves to have, but what industry wants.

The minister referred to the act setting up his ministry. He says his duties and responsibilities are there. Let's have a look at what some of them are. That in itself is revealing. I argued yesterday, and I argue it again, that in the Ministry of Forests Act, section 4(e) says that the purpose of the ministry, under the direction of the minister, is to "assert the financial interest of the Crown in its forest and range resources in a systematic and equitable manner." Whatever the Crown possesses — and that's trees — that's what is owned. That's the asset that the people of this province own, administered by the Crown.

[3:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Over the years there has been an increase in the extending of non-competitive timber to industry. That's what a TFL is — non-competitive timber. Whenever you allocate timber on a non-competitive basis and say to industry, to a corporation, "You don't have to bid on this timber; it's yours for a long

[ Page 6893 ]

period of time at a fixed rate," then I submit that the minister, when he's doing that, is not asserting the financial interest of the Crown. He's asserting the financial interest of the corporation when that happens. He is saying that the Crown's interest, which is the people's interest, is going to be ignored.

The minister himself, not too many weeks ago, in response to some questions put to him by the Prince George Citizen, I believe it was, said: "Yes, competition is gone." It's gone because he, the minister, gave it away. He participated in giving away that competitive element. He said: "I suppose if we could do that with a small operator, we could do that too if we wanted to." That's the direction in which I submit we are heading.

The financial interest of the people of British Columbia as represented by the Crown is to get the highest price they can for the commodity and the asset that they possess when it's sold. That's the capitalist system. That's the free enterprise system that this minister wraps his arms around and loves to death. You get the best price you can for the product that you're selling. But not when it comes to timber. When it comes to timber, the attitude of the minister is get the lowest price he can for the people of the province, for their possession. Let industry get the benefit, not the people. I submit, as I said yesterday, that in my view the minister is guilty of not following the requirement of the law in that regard. Every time more non-competitive timber is given away or allocated, the public interest in respect to stumpage is not exerted, not asserted and not protected.

Secondly, the minister's reference to the Ministry of Forests Act, I think, shows fairly well where his heart lies, because one of the other provisions in section 4 points out that it is the purpose and function, "under the direction of the minister, to...encourage a vigorous, efficient" — now those are good words, acceptable words — "and world competitive timber processing industry in the province." What does "world competitive" mean? World competitive implies large, integrated forest companies. World competitive is to encourage "world competitive timber processing industry in the province" that militates against the opportunity of a small operator; that works to the detriment of the small logger and the small sawmill operator — especially the small logger, who has to find a market here for the timber that that logger may log. He has to sell those logs to a sawmill or a pulp mill — to a timber processing industry.

So long as those words remain in the Ministry of Forests Act and are not diluted by any other reference to encouraging small business, then the minister's force of law and the force of his own philosophy are going to work against the interests of the public in British Columbia, because they work against the interests of the small operator. The small operator gets what's left. He gets stepped on every inch of the way. I know from my experience that the small logger, the small sawmill operator, the small tie mill or whatever the processing unit is, employs more workers per dollar of capital invested than does a large, integrated corporation. They employ people in the smaller communities for longer periods of time than does as large corporation, given certain economic factors coming into play. They have less in the way of head-office deadwood to support, because they manage their own affairs in the community and are able to expend their cash flow in the community to a better extent than the large corporation; and they are a greater part, generally speaking, of the social fabric of the community than is a large corporation. The small operator is able to make decisions at a moment's notice in responding to whatever market factors may exist; it doesn't have to wait for an order from head office to come filtering down through a corporate bureaucracy as to what to do or what not to do. So long as that section of the Ministry of Forests Act is barren of any reference to encouraging small logging and small timber-processing facilities in this province, the small logger and the small sawmill operator is going to get stepped on.

It all leads in one direction, where we've been going for at least the last ten years; we started it ten years ago and it has intensified every year since then. It is a catering to a large integrated forest corporation, and not paying attention to the interests of the general public and the small operator and the small logger. There is no reference whatever, in this bill that's before us or in this section that gives any cognizance, except later on.... We'll deal with that in another section of the bill. I can't now, because it is in another section. There is nothing here before us at the moment under this section that gives any recognition or cognizance to the needs, the requirements, the hopes and the destiny of the small operator in this province, and I submit that what we've got to do, if we want to have any viability and any growth and development in the logging, sawmilling and timber-processing industry, is to pay attention to the small operator and quit sucking up to the large integrated corporations all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would comment that under section 61(2) of the standing orders of the House, agreed to by all members in the House, speeches in the Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. To allow something that is not in a section to be debated when trying to be relevant to that section would allow anything to be debated rather than the section, because it would leave it wide open. If the members, in future debate, would be relevant to what is in the section and not relevant to what is not in the section, debate might be more orderly.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you were the individual in the chair a moment ago, but I was simple responding to precisely what the minister said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I, regretfully, was not in the chair when the minister was in his debate, and if he was guilty of the same omission — if you can be guilty of omission — then possibly so, but the Blues would reflect that. The Chair would ask that debate be relevant to the specific section and what is in the section, not what is not in the section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In my response to the member's rather broad-ranging initial remarks I made a passing reference to the Ministry of Forests Act, which apparently, in his mind, opened the door to discussing everything in that act.

I have said many times that basically competition for a big part or the bulk of the timber harvest in British Columbia every year no longer exists. That's a fact of life which has existed for a number of decades. It's much like the situation in the United States. In the United States 65 percent of the timber values are not subject to competition because they're on lands that are owned in fee simple. The balance of the lands under state and federal jurisdiction are auctioned off in some cases, and in other cases they're disposed of in other ways.

[ Page 6894 ]

In British Columbia, even though we do not have a casino-like auctioning system, we do acquire the Crown's interest in the timber through our appraisal system. As a matter of fact, at times when our appraisal system, based upon the value of the products that can be produced, indicates a value below a certain minimum, then we acquire more than the real appraised or actual value of the timber. The members opposite don't seem to agree to that. However, it is a fact that's been demonstrated here a number of times, and a couple of years ago during the countervailing duty issue it was agreed by the international trade court of the Department of Commerce in the United States that that is a case where the appraisal system is appropriate, and it does acquire for the Crown the appropriate values for timber.

Mr. Chairman, when referring to the portion of the Ministry of Forests Act that requires the Crown to encourage and maintain a world competitive forest industry, the member suggests that because a part of the industry is world competitive, it can only be a large company. He built his whole speech on saying that because a company is world competitive, it has to be large, and that therefore that act refers only to large companies.

That's rather a convoluted way of trying to support a mythical position. Mr. Chairman, we have world competitive companies throughout British Columbia that are both large and small. I do not think that large is necessarily bad or good, nor is small necessarily bad or good. There are some large companies which are not the most efficiently managed companies, as there are some small companies. Size does not determine efficiency in any way.

I have a small company in my constituency. I have referred to it a number of times, Ardew Wood Products Ltd. It's a family-owned operation, world competitive, and a great deal of the products that they manufacture and sell go to Japan. They have developed a particular market for their products. They are a world competitive company, and they are small.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. I am still having a great deal of difficulty relating your debate to section 2 of Bill 3, which reflects on section 27.1 of the Forest Act, which deals with surrender of forest and timber sale harvesting licences only.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're right, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I am unable to respond to the comments made by the member for Skeena, because his comments were obviously out of order and not referring to section 2.

MR. HOWARD: In asserting the financial interests of the Crown with respect to this, I am advised that what the ministry is now doing is establishing its appraisal system on the basis of contract price for logging.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, what the member has just stated has nothing whatsoever to do with section 2.

MR. HOWARD: No, it only has to do with truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are in committee on Bill 3. The rules of this House, which are established by the members of the House and not by the Chair, reflect that debate should be relevant to the specific section. The Chair has no alternative but to follow the rules set by the members of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I admire your determination in that regard. I thought what I was saying was completely germane to this section. When I said all I was doing was saying the truth, I was in no way casting any reflection upon anyone else. I say it is factually so that the contract price is what the appraisal system is based on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On section 2.

[3:30]

MR. HOWARD: We are talking to section 2 — with respect, Mr. Chairman — about moving, under certain requirements, a forest licence to a tree-farm licence. What do you do about that? Do you just completely ignore what happens when that occurs? I submit not, because they are amending section 27.1. In order to have some understanding of what it is we are doing, we obviously need to refer to the whole of the section. I was simply saying that the minister is now embarking upon a program of reducing the public interest by establishing an appraisal system upon whatever the contract price is and not on the market price. The public interest is not served by that process, and the public loses.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Once again, the member's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with section 2.

MR. HOWARD: But it's the truth.

MR. WILLIAMS: The naivety of this man who is Minister of Forests leaves one aghast. I don't know if it's just plain thick or just plain naive, but he seems to think that because there are these various interests in the public's timber, they are all the same, all equivalent, all equal. So the Bronfmans and Adam Zimmerman of Noranda and the rest have the same interest as he should have or we as protectors of the public interest should have, or the workers should have or the managers should have.

I cannot believe the level of stupidity that we are getting here. This is what the minister was talking about.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't you talk about the rules of order in the House when you peddle those kinds of phony lines you did two minutes ago, wanting a double standard applied by the Chairman of the House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: ...every time he needs a double standard to protect himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair likes to give a member an opportunity to develop his argument in debate, but sees little relevance to possible personal references to the minister relating to section 2 in developing your debate. Would the member continue on section 2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's entirely up to the second member for Vancouver East if he wishes to get himself heated up in this chamber;

[ Page 6895 ]

that's his prerogative. But I quite frankly object to him utilizing the word "phony" or implying that I'm exercising any influence over the Chairman. I ask him to withdraw those statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the second member for Vancouver East please withdraw.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Chair requests it, I will withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. The Chair has requested the member to withdraw, and the member has withdrawn. The member continues.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is the idea.... No wonder we are in the trouble we're in in this industry, when this minister thinks that all those interests are the same, and that everything is fine. That's the General Bullmoose idea: if it's good for General Bullmoose, it's good for the country. Well, it just ain't so. The people of British Columbia own the forests of British Columbia. And only under this minister have we got to the sorry state where it costs us more to sell our trees than we get back. Running his slipshod ministry costs $259 million, and our return is $150-odd million — $100 million. It takes real skill to be the salesman for the forests of British Columbia and lose $100 million. Only the member for Yale Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) could have that abysmal level of competence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For the second time, the Chair is asking the hon. member to be relevant in debate, pursuant to the rules of this House, section 61(2).

MR. WILLIAMS: We're dealing with changing the statute, in terms of rolling over licences into tree-farm licences — commitments in perpetuity of the public lands of British Columbia. This is no simple trade-off, Mr. Minister, that you're talking about. You're talking about committing forest lands to private companies forever, under the terms of these statutes. That's nothing short of incredible. Why should we consider this kind of evergreen idea that one corporation should have the privilege of controlling and harvesting and owning, in effect, the public lands of British Columbia?

You know, the Americans are a little swifter than we are. They entertained this question of tree-farm licences a long time ago. And I doubt if this minister even knows that there is the equivalent of a tree-farm licence on the public forest lands in the United States. The minister can nod his head: does he know that there is in fact the equivalent of a tree-farm licence in the United States, under their jurisdiction? No, I guess he doesn't; because we get zip comment from the man who's had the job for ten years. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Minister: the equivalent....

HON. MR. HEWITT: The greatest minister this province has ever had.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. He has brought us to the level of Newfoundland.

The only equivalent in the United States is in Shelton, Washington — for the benefit of the minister; I'm sure he doesn't know — the tree-farm licence on the public lands in the southern part of the Olympic Peninsula. They tried only one tree-farm licence in the United States of America. They concluded quickly that it was a foolish public policy, because it was not the best way to assert the public interest with respect to the public forest lands. They abandoned it thereafter; it's only in Shelton, Washington, with the Simpson Timber Co.

Well, we're slower learners here in Canada, with this minister, obviously. We are continuing to transfer this great public heritage in perpetuity. The intent of this legislation is to accelerate that process and make it easier, so that existing licences that are not as tight a tenure can be carved up in pieces, and a park can go into a tree-farm licence. What that leaves, then, is the dog — you bet — with respect to Westar in the northwest. They're very happy, indeed, to abandon the dogs, the mess, the weeds and the waste they leave behind for you and us to clean up, and then put the best lands into their TFL. That's what this legislation is going to allow. And what kind of protection of the public interest is that?

The minister has said they have managed the lands better generally on the TFLs. Well, I guess so, because in effect it's public money that pays for managing those lands, so it doesn't mean very much at all. Our problem is that because he mismanages so badly, we don't have the money to manage the rest of the lands that are left over that are our responsibility. That's the problem. Don't say that's a problem of bad public management. In terms of looking after lands, we can do as well as the corporations if we want — or better, if the minister has the will. He has never had the will and he has never demanded the funds.

The other question we should ask is: what is the result in industrial efficiency and industrial plant under different types of tenure? Now maybe we're in a territory the minister knows something about. Where are the most efficient mills in British Columbia today? Are they in the interior? Nod your head. Yes, they are in the interior. All right. What type of licences do we have in the interior? The licences in the interior are by and large not tree-farm licences. So we have a more efficient industry in the interior and not as tight or long-term a tenure. That should tell us something. If we're looking for more efficient plant, we've got it where the tenure is not as tight as the TFL system. That's the reality of the industrial structure in British Columbia, but it doesn't seem to have registered on the minister. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says, the mandate he has is to see to it that we have a world-class industry. We do not have a world-class industry. The weakest industry we have in British Columbia by and large is on the coast, and that's where the TFL tenures tend to prevail.

So what really are you doing? You're capitulating to the pressure group. You think that because General Bullmoose says this is what he wants, this is what's good for British Columbia. The world isn't that way, and we shouldn't be jumping every time General Bullmoose or Adam Zimmerman or his equivalent in the Council of Forest Industries, or your former deputy of a few months ago, phones up lobbying for his buddies in the industry, as has clearly been the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would all comments be directed through the Chair and not personally to the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 6896 ]

The minister refers to Dr. Pearse and says: "This is all okay by Dr. Pearse." He chooses to ignore the basic thrust of the report of the Pearse royal commission. What he ignores is the concern with respect to some competition in terms of timber supply. If there is one underlying theme throughout the entire royal commission report of Dr. Pearse, it is that. He argues for the beginning of a return to competition for public timber. He is not recommending tree-farm licences. The main argument Pearse has put forward is for a competitive supply system, one in which there is the beginnings and a gradual phasing in of greater competition for the public's timber. Had you embarked on that kind of proposal, which was the main argument in the Pearse report, we would not today be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Existing legislation — the Forest Act — provides for tree-farm licences, which have been approved by this House in the past. Section 2 provides, as the Chair reads it, for the granting of forest licences under section 14. The overall debate about tree-farm licences has taken place in this House and would not be directly relevant to section 2. Would the member please continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, what this section does is accommodate the rollover from one tenure system to the other, which is a tree-farm licence which is, in effect, tenure in perpetuity. It is a very different type of tenure. It's the closest thing to fee simple we have outside of fee simple ownership. It allows the partial rollover of existing licences. So I would make the point that what this will accommodate is the extension of the tree-farm licence system in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rollover, as the member aptly puts it, is provided for in section 27.1 of the present legislation. The amendment is only with respect to a part where there is a surrender.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: I think what one needs to do in order for this to be intelligible is to read section 27.1, which you have in front of you, and you and I can read it together. It says now: "The holder of one or more, or a combination of, (a) timber sale harvesting licences, (b) timber sale licences, and (c) forest licences in one or more timber supply areas may apply to the minister to surrender it or them for replacement by a tree-farm licence under this section."

The amendment simply seeks to add the words "all or part" so they can apply them all to roll them into a tree-farm licence. It's an application for a tree-farm licence, in whole or in part of a combination of any of the other licences, and it has to be examined in the light of that. I submit that that's exactly what the member for Vancouver East was doing: talking about the rollover, the effect of all or part of this into a tree-farm licence — what's the result. It has to be looked at in that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for his comments, and agree with him. It simply provides for a part to be rolled over. The whole is already provided for in the legislation. So possibly on section 2, the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: We're talking about rollover in this particular amendment, but we're talking about a rollover of something that was set by legislation way back in 1906, and to say we can't talk about the merits or demerits of that particular decision when we're talking about increasing it maybe twice to what it is now.... I think we have to have the ability and flexibility to discuss the pros and cons of what we're proposing to roll over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The merit of your argument is appropriate in second reading. That is where it is permissible to go into the historical part of it. When you are dealing with the section in committee, debate should be relevant to that section and the wording of that section, not a general debate on the historical creation of existing legislation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Just some very brief comments. The member for Vancouver East again got into the Pearse report, and I will say again, in my discussions as recently as lunchtime today with Dr. Pearse he told me, as he has in the past, how extremely pleased he has been with just how the government reacted to his royal commission. As a matter of fact, he uses the way we dealt with his report as an example to other governments as to how they perhaps should react to other reports that he has done for them.

The member draws a comparison between the coast and the interior and states because tree-farm licences are more prevalent on the coast than in the interior, therefore tree-farm licences have caused the coast industry to be less efficient than the interior industry. I mean, that is really stretching the imagination. There's a tremendous difference between the coast and the interior — many factors which over the years have caused a difference in these industries and in their efficiency. The only real difference between a tree-farm licence and a forest licence is the fact that the tree-farm licence is site-specific, whereas the forest licence is the right to harvest a volume within a broader area. They are both evergreen tenures, and they both are standing and are renewable subject to satisfactory performance at various spaces in time.

The member mentioned again Westar and the fact that they have surrendered a part of their tree-farm licence after negotiations with the province, and suggested that they left behind a mess which now is our responsibility. In the surrender of a good portion of the Westar TFL, they have a responsibility and have accepted the responsibility and will discharge the responsibility of carrying out their silviculture obligations on those parts which were surrendered.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver East seems, when it's convenient, to want us to be like the Americans and other times, when it's not convenient, doesn't want us to be like the Americans. He suggested that the Americans tried tree-farm licences and didn't like them. If he wants us to be like the Americans, then perhaps we should do as they did and give 65 percent of our forest land to the private sector. That's my interpretation of what that member says, because he wants to be like the Americans.

A few years ago when that member was a minister responsible for forestry, he tried everything possible to bring the industry under his control. He wanted it out there like a

[ Page 6897 ]

marionette dancing at the end of a string, and the result of that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. Order! To the minister: there has been quite a bit of discussion in the committee about what is relevant in section 2, and many statements made by the Chairman. I think at this point I must observe that the minister is straying somewhat from the particular provisions of section 2 in Bill 3. Could we return to the section, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to that member's tenure because we just discussed Westar Timber, a company which was originally acquired by that member when he was the minister, and that was a part of his attempt to gather upon the government all of the industry practices, responsibilities and be dictating to them. In fact, during this period, Mr. Speaker....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, to the minister, there have been considerable comments from the Chair with respect to what section 2 says, what it does and what it allows the bill to do. If we could please remain within the confines of section 2 and avoid any irrelevant comments, then the committee will be well served. Please continue on section 2.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am really attempting to do that. All I was going to say was that the responsibilities and the practices of that company today are far superior in terms of silvicultural responsibilities than they were when it was owned by the Crown a few years ago.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be relevant to section 2, which talks about the rollover of various forms of tenure into tree-farm licences, which means that we are rolling over the control of those forest areas to major corporations that have a vested interest in the forest industry. It's a strange situation, and it is something that we have been saying on this side of the House for some time: that government, which purports to represent free enterprise, really doesn't represent free enterprise. It purports to represent the whole idea of competition, and it really doesn't.

This is one of the examples that I think is very pertinent. This example is indicating in no uncertain terms just where that government is coming from. It is a government that represents the large corporate interests and has no concern for the small independent businessman. It's just really an example that can't be missed in this particular instance, because it is right out there, right out front.

Here we are, making it impossible for independent operators to have access to good timber by allowing that good section to be rolled over into a tree-farm licence and leaving the poorer section for whatever kind of direct sales or licences — cut or sales licences; whatever kind of other tenure that those independents may have access to; putting it up for auction; whatever.

It is just so blatant, and it is particularly interesting to note that at the present time — and that is soon going to change — about 7 percent of the annual allowable cut is in the hands of independent operators. What kind of percent of return? The return to the Crown of those independent operators is 20 percent of the return to the Crown. What kind of an economic policy does this government have? It doesn't have any economic policy, because if it was looking at the dollars and cents that would accrue from this land that they are going to roll over, Mr. Chairman — and I'm right on the point — what it would be looking at is how the Crown and the people of British Columbia could get the greatest return. They would get the greatest return by letting that land stay, as much as possible of it, available to the small business enterprise, because that is where they get the return. For 7 percent of the total annual allowable cut, 20 percent of the government's return comes from those operators.

But no, this government doesn't have an economic policy as far as forestry goes. They have a policy that is dictated by the major corporations in the forest industry. They are making the rules, and it is ever so evident in this particular clause, because it is just helping build up that long-term, secure tenure in the hands of a few majors. It's the corporate concentration. and that is what that government stands for. That's its economic policy, and that's not any economic policy that is going to have any benefit to the people of British Columbia. The only benefit that is going to have is for the corporate enterprises in this province. It is to the detriment of the small businessman. It is to the detriment of the people of B.C. and the return that they get for their forest product, and it's no wonder that that ministry has managed to sell our timber for $100 million minus.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, repeating an incorrect statement many times does not make that statement any more correct. Section 2 deals with the change-in-tenure form from one type of licence to another. It does not result in concentration of any kind. It does not result in the selection of the better stands of timber in any way. I don't know who wrote the member's speech for her, but she is absolutely incorrect. I wish that she would perhaps do her own research; I'm sure she can do a much better job.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the member was referring to when she said only 7 percent of the cut is in the hands of independent companies, because that is not true either. I don't know how she defines independent companies, but I would assume that they are companies that are not large and integrated. She is perhaps referring to the small business enterprise program, which is in the order of 7 percent to 10 percent. I don't have an exact figure of the allowable cut which has been set up in a program which I brought forward as a member of this government specifically for the small, independent logging sector and for the small mill operators who didn't have a secure supply of timber.

It is true that that small percentage of timber does bring a higher return percentage-wise than does the total basket that we dispose of. That is simply because it is an incremental supply, and being so, is worth more, just as in the United States their option brings higher values, because they are, through the sale of federal and state timber, providing an incremental supply of timber when the bulk of the timber is owned in fee simple by private holders.

Major corporations do not have an option on tree-farm licences. I mentioned yesterday that the first TFL issued since the sixties was to the Tanizul Timber Co., which is a small company made up of an Indian band. They are not for large companies; they are for operators who can demonstrate responsibility. Dunkley Forest Products, which has not yet been awarded a TFL but has gone through the hearing process, is a small family-owned company. Large companies have had hearings as well. Canfor did, but it resulted in no concentration because Canfor had forest licences which they

[ Page 6898 ]

chose, through the hearing process and the procedures provided for in the legislation, to have rolled over into a TFL. No concentration or corner on the good timber resulted, because it was worked out in such a way that they would have the average timber chance and the average timber quality. So stating these things over and over again in terms of corporate concentration — the big guys are the bad guys, the small guys are the good guys — as has been the theme throughout these debates...repeating incorrect statements over and over again does not make them any more correct.

MR. HOWARD: I couldn't agree more with the minister about incorrect statements. Repeating them does not make them correct. But in any event, the minister seems bent on attempting to do that.

You talked about concentration: that this section does not allow greater concentration of power and control over the timber resource. I submit that that's absolute nonsense; that's precisely what it permits. I need only refer to the same company that the minister referred to, now known as Westar, and tell you a few facts of life about it, Mr. Minister, which you know full well are correct; but they need to be put on the record to indicate how in error the minister was just a moment ago.

Just a little while ago Westar relinquished 30 percent that's the figure I've been told — of its TFL 1 in the northwestern part of the province. In addition, Westar has a forest licence in the Kallum timber supply area and another in the Kispiox timber supply area, all contiguous to the area within which it holds the TFL 1. It has just relinquished 30 percent of the area or the volume — I'm not sure which, but 30 percent is the figure it has relinquished — that it gave back to the Crown of junk timber which it, Westar, didn't want, couldn't use, found uneconomic. They said: "It might be all right for somebody else to give it a try but we don't want that junk area." They gave it up and the minister said: "Thanks, give it back." So the Crown has now got it back.

[4:00]

Under this section, Westar is perfectly at ease and perfectly able.... Let me read section 27.1: "The holder of one or more, or a combination of, (a) timber sale harvesting licences, (b) timber sale licences, and (c) forest licences in one or more timber supply areas...." That's Westar exactly. Westar is the holder of one or more forest licences in one or more timber supply areas. You'd almost think this was written for Westar. And under the provisions proposed here for us now, Westar, knowing the area, having cut within those two forest licence areas and knowing where its site-specific good quality timber is, is in a better position than anybody else to apply under this section to roll over or to surrender that portion or those portions of the forest licences which it does not want, and to receive instead another TFL.

Having given up the junk timber that it didn't want, couldn't use and couldn't make a profit over and having two forest licences in its possession, it is in a beautiful position now to take the best quality timber in the best quality land areas in those two timber supply areas that I spoke about. They come to the minister and say: "Please, can we have a tree-farm licence to cover these areas now?" The only one who will roll over in that regard will be the minister, and he'll say: "Yes." That's precisely what it permits: concentration of power and authority in the hands of fewer and fewer companies. This could be called the "Westar amendment" and be quite appropriate.

I'm not knocking Westar. They're in business to do a job, to make a profit and to have their balance sheet turn out in their favour. That's their purpose in being in business. But the minister shouldn't be the one claiming to represent the public interest, the one who rolls over and satisfies whatever Westar or any other company's interests are. It's balderdash nonsense for him to stand up and say there's nothing in here that permits concentration. That's exactly what it permits.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us how many new TFL applications he's entertaining at this time, and how many are impacted by this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: At this time I'm not entertaining any. However, there have been some 30 or 40 applications — something to that extent — some of which will be considered at a later time, some of which will not. But at this time I'm not entertaining any except those two for which public hearings have already been held.

MRS. WALLACE: I think 45 is more accurate. Can the minister tell us how much Crown land that covers?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I can't.

MR. HOWARD: And he doesn't care, either.

MR. WILLIAMS: So is the minister saying that he's not seriously entertaining the 45?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are these number of applications — whether it's 35 or 45 I don't know, but it's somewhere in that area. At the present time none of them are being considered. They may in the future. At the present time there are two that have had hearings; one proposed by Dunkley and one by West Fraser. The others have not been addressed yet, and I have no schedule now as to which ones shall come. At some time in the future some of them will be considered.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister aware that those 45 applications, if they were all accepted, would put 56 percent of the Crown forest land under tree-farm licences in this province? I'm wondering if he has considered whether or not the fact that they are not coming forward with applications just right now is that they're simply waiting until their little piece of goods is dealt with here in the Legislature, in the form of this bill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They're not coming ahead now because I have not chosen to bring them ahead now. I have other matters that are being dealt with. I have no idea what percentage of the forest land would be included if they all were approved, but there is no possibility that all of those which have been proposed will be approved, because there are many overlapping areas involved and many of them are simply not appropriate as tree-farm licences.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us how he determines priorities with respect to these significant concessions? Dunkley and West Fraser have somehow got to the top of the list. Can the minister advise us how and why that happens?

[ Page 6899 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The intention is to select those which make the most sense outwardly in various parts of the province, and proceed with those as examples of what can be done in those areas. At some point I will have to develop a system for prioritizing, but that hasn't been done yet. We are having these initial hearings in different parts of the province so as to become more aware of the type of input we'll be getting from the public so that we may act better to express public needs and desires at these hearings.

MR. WILLIAMS: But could the minister explain why Dunkley and West Fraser had priority when he hasn't set up a system of priorities to date?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just expressed that. They're the ones in that particular area which made the most sense as tree-farm licence tenures, and they were an example of one for a small non-integrated company and one for a larger company. In my judgment they made the most sense of those that had been applied for in that area.

MR. WILLIAMS: The larger company — West Fraser — in court cases of half a dozen years ago or less was found to be cheating in the numbers that were crunched in terms of the appraisal system and buried benefits to a subsidiary company in Seattle that only came out in the court case. Given this kind of loss to the public that West Fraser was able to achieve through those years by cheating and misleading the Crown on stumpage, maybe the minister could explain why they should have priority above others, in view of their dismal record of not paying the Crown its full due.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the incident with West Fraser was a matter between a former president of the company and the way he reported the value received for timber sold. As it happens, the reportings of timber values received did become a part of the formula for determining the end value of the product. I was very concerned about it at the time and did an investigation. The fact is that the difference in reporting values that was received and that which should have been received as a result of a sales charge by the parent company in Seattle, had a non-effect, in effect, on the average end value for sawmills in that area.

MR. WILLIAMS: What came out in court is that these people were playing a double game, and they were misleading the Crown. They were misleading your staff — the Ministry of Forests — by subterfuge, giving you incorrect numbers, because there were not arm's-length transactions between the two companies they owned. Your staff were misled. Your staff were not given honest figures. Yet despite all this you decide subsequently that these same people — the Ketchums, isn't it? — with close links to Social Credit, some of whom have been appointed to very nice positions with Expo and Crown corporations and the like....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are straying, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You make the decision that the benefit of this tenure will go to this company despite that dismal record. That's the problem with this kind of legislation, Mr. Chairman. We don't have a system of priorities. You're transferring incredible tenure in perpetuity, and in this case it clearly went to a corporation that has historically closely been linked to government, and you admit that you don't really have a system of priorities in place today. It's too clear what the priorities are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with respect to the section here and how it deals with tree-farm licences, that debate is in order, but we can't expand it to other things. We must be strictly relevant.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, hearings have been held. The company president and senior management at the time that this incident took place and was corrected is different than it is now.

I think the member would perhaps wish to change his statement about the Ketchum family. Jess Ketchum, who was formerly the administrative assistant to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and was subsequently appointed as one of the vice-presidents for Expo, is absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the Ketchum family who are the main principals of West Fraser. I would hope that the member would correct in the statement — because he's quite wrong, and I think for Mr. Jess Ketchum he should apologize — any implications of any wrongdoing toward him at all.

MR. HOWARD: The minister said that a certain application made the best sense, and therefore that was the reason for proceeding to a hearing. Where is this best-sense criterion established? What are the components of making the best sense?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My interest, Mr. Chairman, is in proper and good forest management. I, with the advice of my forestry people within the ministry, concluded that these two would make good sense in that part of the province.

MR. HOWARD: There isn't any sort of best-sense or good-sense requirement that I can see in the Forest Act, saying this is the criterion of good sense. It's an application to have control over a certain amount of forest land. Does it, for argument's sake — say with respect to West Fraser — make good sense to award West Fraser the TFL when the argument is put forward very cogently that the awarding of the TFL "will not maximize employment and social benefits for the city of Quesnel, the region or the province of British Columbia, and will not ensure a vigorous, competitive forest industry"? How does the minister reconcile his perception of good sense with that declaration cogently made and supported?

[4:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I find it rather curious that two TFLs were heard within a few days of each other, and the one which gives most problems to the opposition happens to be the one of the larger company — getting back to their theme that big is bad.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

West Fraser has demonstrated over the years a keen interest in forest management. In many cases they have gone far beyond the requirements under the act, in terms of both silviculture operations and establishing recreational facilities on lands on which they are operating. They are a well managed company, probably one of the most efficient lumber manufacturers in British Columbia. Their record in good

[ Page 6900 ]

forest management and in good, productive lumber manufacturing was one of the factors that led to their application being considered; but the overriding factor was that it makes sense in terms of forest management. Those are the reasons why their application, together with that of Dunkley, who also demonstrated a good level of management and responsibility in both lumber manufacturing and marketing and in forest management.... Those are the criteria that I and my staff discussed when determining which one should come ahead at the earliest possible time.

MR. HOWARD: I have no quarrel with the minister's opinion about West Fraser. But surely, when the minister advances his assessment — I think, an accurate one — of West Fraser and uses that as part of the rationale for saying that their application makes good sense, he is in fact admitting what we have been contending most of the afternoon — that is, that the minister responds favourably to what the industry wants, on the basis of his assessment of a segment of that industry. That's not necessarily serving the public good.

The minister is saying that, in his view, the contention that the award of the TFL to West Fraser "will not maximize employment and social benefits for the city of Quesnel, the region or the province of British Columbia, and will not ensure a vigorous, competitive forest industry" is a contention not worth considering. Well, I ask the minister how he reconciles his good-sense assessment with the argument put forward at the hearings that the award of the TFL — and I read it again — "will not maximize employment and social benefits for the city of Quesnel, the region or the province of British Columbia, and will not ensure a vigorous, competitive forest industry." The minister is saying that is of no consequence.

How about the one that says that the award of the TFL — again, this is West Fraser — "will provide an excessive share of the upper range of the resource values in the TSA to the applicant, and therefore impose an inequity on the majority of the remaining licensees"? Does that make good sense? Is it within the criteria of good sense to give one company "an excessive share of the upper range of the resource values in the TSA...and therefore impose an inequity on the majority of the remaining licensees"? Is that what good sense means in the minister's lexicon, in the advice that he received?

What we're getting at is that the provision that we are dealing with — section 27.1 here — allows for an abuse to take place, especially when there doesn't appear to be any, as the minister admitted a while ago, established bases for setting priorities with respect to applicants. It's whatever seems to make something called good sense. Yet what makes good sense to West Fraser does not make good sense to the city of Quesnel, the region or the province of British Columbia, and will not ensure a vigorous, competitive forest industry. These contentions were put forward to the minister, but they obviously didn't mean anything. If they meant anything, then the people in the public service who did the assessment of the application in the first place would have come forward and said: "Here are some factors to consider that do not make good sense." Either they did that, and the minister completely ignored it and wanted to go along with whatever West Fraser decided to do, or the judgment of the people giving the minister advice was wrong in the first place.

Let me leave you with another one about that West Fraser application, which the minister said made good sense. "The award of the TFL will leave unresolved" — and this is a very important factor in that area — "the issues of problem stands in the Quesnel TSA inventory and magnify the effects of these problem stands on the remaining operators." That's bug-infested timber that they're talking about, and to leave the bug-infested timber stands to the remaining operators and permit West Fraser to have the best quality stands.... Does that make good sense? It may make good sense to West Fraser, but it doesn't make good sense to the general public.

Good sense to the minister needs to be diluted somewhat by this declaration: "That award of the TFL will not result in sound forest management practice since excessive volumes of overmature timber are included in the proposed area." Does it make good sense to include excessive volumes of overmature timber within a TFL so that one company has control and domination over them, to do with them as they wish?

If sound forest management practice is one of the criteria, which the minister said it was, how then do these counter arguments about that West Fraser application fit into the scheme of things? Did the minister ignore them and say: "I don't care what those are; those don't count; I'm going to pay attention to what West Fraser wants." Or did the minister get bad advice in the first place? It should be one or the other, if he bases his decision upon the advice he gets. He either pays attention to the advice or he ignores it, but it cannot be both ways.

The concept of good sense that the minister says is his criteria to follow does not encompass, in my mind, the idea.... It does not make good sense to me if the granting of the TFL will not ensure a vigorous, competitive forest industry. That does not make good sense. It does not make good sense to me if there is an excessive share of the upper range of the resource values in the TSA given to West Fraser, thus imposing an inequity upon the remaining operators, or the remaining licensees. It does not make good sense to me to leave unresolved the horrendous problem of bug-infested timber, and leave that in the hands of the Crown and to the remaining operators to deal with. It does not make good sense to me if the awarding of a TFL does not result in sound forest management practices.

There are some pretty substantive and substantiated arguments that were presented, so either the minister's appreciation or understanding of good sense is faulty, or he got bad advice, or he got good advice and ignored it. But on balance, what the minister says does not make good sense.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The advice and discussion before we decided to proceed with the hearings on this application indicated that it made good sense to proceed with the hearings. The member for Skeena is now bringing forward some of the comment made by interveners at the hearings. He is, of course, because it happens to fit his particular bias, assuming that those comments made both at the hearings and, I think, afterwards by that particular intervener are absolutely correct, and therefore our judgment should be based upon the opinion of one particular member.

It has not yet been decided exactly what will be done with that application, but the hearings have been held and all of the information, including that which the member has just quoted, is in the mix and will be judged as we come to a decision on whether we will in fact issue a tree-farm licence as a result of the hearings that were held. West Fraser has probably done more in terms of directing its cut into the bug

[ Page 6901 ]

than most other operators in the area. I said previously that they are quite a responsible company and do accept their responsibilities in terms of silviculture and that very serious bug infestation that exists up there.

During the hearings, there were a number of other comments made by different people who did not support the application. You mentioned the city of Quesnel. If I recall correctly, the city of Quesnel came as an intervener in support of West Fraser's application. West Fraser happens to be a good employer there. The member did not read what they had to say in support of the application. He chooses to read those things brought forward by people who are perhaps in competition — are, in fact, I know, in competition — with West Fraser.

So all of these things.... The purpose of the hearings is to bring forward all these factors which of course we could not possibly consider in judging who should come forward and who should not. So all the many interveners come forward and provide information and advice to me, the minister, because it is my decision in cooperation with my colleagues; once I make a recommendation, my colleagues in cabinet have to approve an order-in-council with me which provides me with the right to offer a tree-farm licence. But all of this information comes ahead, and that is the beauty of the process that we have. It does give a balance of the opinion of the people in the area; and the procedure we have set up — and the legislation which enables it — provides that public input, to make sure that when we do it we have the best total input and judgment of as many as possible as to what is good for the area, what is good for the province and what is good for the industry and their employees.

MR. HOWARD: What the minister is now very candidly admitting is that his so-called good sense with respect to picking and choosing isn't very good sense at all. Otherwise the advice that he got would have pointed out those factors to him, and he might have qualified his good-sense aspect of things.

All it proves again is that good sense to the minister is basically as we have contended: what industry wants, industry gets, and the public be damned.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

[4:30]

On section 4.

MR. HOWARD: This is going to be difficult, I think, for the Chair to deal with, because section 4 simply says what an official scaler is, if you read it, and it makes a cross-reference to a person being a licensed scaler appointed under another section of the act, namely 78(3)(c). But section 78(3), which has the cross-reference in it, is also referred to in section 7 of the bill.

I submit that what we need to do is to deal with both of those sections; otherwise, just dealing with one — if you follow with precision that standing order — then we will have a relatively meaningless debate, because we will just be talking about a cross-reference without having the opportunity to proceed to deal with the cross-reference. So I think we have to do that.

Secondly, the following section, section 5, also says that official scalers can do certain things, so we need to have a cross-reference in our debate on this, I submit, to section 5 as well, because it refers to official scalers as well. Additionally.... Mr. Chairman, this is not my doing. This comes about as a result of the foolishness of this government in trying to develop legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, please, if you will, bear with me. Bill 56, the omnibus bill — I don't have the clauses in front of me, but I think clause 58 or whatever it is, or 28 probably; yes, the one that we stopped at yesterday — talks about activities of scaling. We need to have, in order to understand what is being proposed here, some sort of reference crossways between four or five sections of this bill and another bill which the government saw fit to bring into the Legislature three months after this one, having some second thoughts about what it was going to do with respect to scaling.

I think therefore, Mr. Chairman, that if the Chair will bear with that kind of approach to it, we can have a reasonably rational discussion in the committee, because if we don't do that, it will not make sense as to what it is the committee is seeking to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates your comments and your concern for relevancy in debate and recognizes that members do have a certain leeway in developing their debate, providing it stays within reasonable relevance to these sections.

MR. HOWARD: It will stay within reasonable relevance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena then, on section 4.

MR. HOWARD: No. Sections 4, 5, 7 and Bill 56 have to be all sort of cross-referred to in there. If the government had known what it was doing in the first instance, we wouldn't have had this difficulty.

Even though the minister apologized to the House the other day upon the close of second reading of this particular bill, I think I need to emphasize at the outset that this is not a matter of casting aspersions against licensed scalers who may work for the Crown, or who may work for a consulting firm, or who may be employed by a licensee under the Forest Act, or may be in business for themselves. Our arguments have nothing whatever to do with casting aspersions about the honesty or otherwise of any of the honoured people who are professional licensed scalers. It has to do with the approach of government to the question of scaling.

The main contention I made earlier with respect to this is that it very regretfully places a licensee under the Forest Act in a conflict-of-interest position. That certainly should not be the purpose of this Legislature: to force people into a position where their actions may be subject to question; to force people who apply for and receive licences and become licensees under the Forest Act to harvest timber into a doubtful position with respect to their primary interest, and to leave them open to the accusation, if the question arises, that a conflict of interest might have arisen, and therefore the licensee saw fit to opt for one of those interests over the other.

One of the interests of a licensee is the licensee's own company. One of the interests — and I submit the primary

[ Page 6902 ]

interest — of a corporation, company, partnership or anybody engaged in business is to come out ahead of the game with a balance sheet. Their primary interest is bottom line. Their primary interest is to be able to look at the end of the day or month — or whatever that period is — and look at their bottom line and say: "We made a profit," or "We incurred a loss." That's their primary interest: to look at that profit-and-loss statement, to look at their balance sheet, and to manage their company so that they come out ahead.

I don't think anybody in this chamber will disagree with that being their primary interest; certainly not you, Mr. Chairman; certainly not anybody who knows the purpose and the function of corporations. They have some secondary interests in serving that primary one. One of the interests is to employ people to produce the products to sell in order to have the profit at the end of the day. In the process of making that profit, or seeking to make that profit, they want to reduce their costs as much as possible, because money that a corporation pays out, for whatever it pays it out for — whether it's licence fees, wages, rent or whether it's stumpage — they want to pay the least amount of money in order to ensure that the profit at the end of the day is maximized. Money that flows out doesn't show up on the balance sheet immediately. Money that flows out in terms of capital investment has the possibility of coming back later onto the balance sheet, but payments to third parties, like the people of B.C. for stumpage, does not come back and show up in the balance sheet.

I don't say this unkindly, just factually and absolutely; this is the way the thing runs. It serves the interest of the corporation to pay the least amount of stumpage possible. When we put that corporation in the position of employing somebody to measure the logs, and thus on the basis of that measurement make a determination as to how much money they're going to pay out, they are in a conflict of interest right away. It's regretful, but they are, and if doubt is raised, as doubt has been raised from time to time in this assembly in recent days, about the efficacy of privatizing the scaling system, then the question is posed to the corporation as to what it did. Unfortunately there is no one else to look at in that regard, and that's what is in question here.

Reference has been made to Overwaiteas, Safeways, liquor stores and the like. We wouldn't think of placing a customer of any of those stores in a conflict-of-interest position by saying: "You can pick up your groceries or your items in the liquor store. You determine how much they're going to weigh, how many pounds of apples you have got or how many bottles of whisky you have got. You make that determination, and you tell the cashier on the way out that you've got X pounds and are therefore going to pay Y dollars for that item." If a question arises in the situation, who is suspect? The customer. We wouldn't think of doing that. We would think that would be the most unfair position in which to place a customer of any one of those stores, and we should think the same way with respect to what is proposed here with respect to scaling.

One of the people in the forest industry of great historical remembrance was H.R. MacMillan. Another one was W.A.C. Bennett. Here's a letter to the editor about scaling. I can't get the precise date of it from the photocopy, and therefore am not able to give that to you, but obviously it was during the time W.A.C. Bennett was Premier, and it was during the time of Chief Justice Sloan's second royal commission on forestry. In a brief to that 1956 royal commission, H.R. MacMillan ardently recommended — I'm reading from the article now — that the W.A.C. Bennett administration "resist the industry call to take log-scaling away from the Forest Service." That was only one of the many recommendations he advanced to curb the rapidly growing power of the forest companies, and it's one of the very few that were listened to.

This is H.R. MacMillan, probably the person who most typifies the development of the forest industry in this province, the person who formed and headed what is now the largest forest company in the province — its successor company, MacMillan Bloedel. But this is the attitude of H.R. MacMillan with respect to private scaling. This was the attitude of the late W.A.C. Bennett with respect to privatizing scaling. They both said that they had to resist and would resist the industry call to take log scaling away from the Forest Service.

Here we have the industry call, before us in this bill, to take log scaling away from the Forest Service, and the minister is responding to it. H.R. MacMillan and W.A.C. Bennett would roll over in their graves in torture if they, knew what this government was doing with respect to something they held to be sacred and inviolate, because they both recognized what I've been saying up until now, and that is that this bill, with its official scaler approach and its privatization of scaling, is designed to heed the call of the forest industry and to serve the interests of the forest industry against the interests of the general public. In the process of doing that, it places the forest industry in a conflict-of-interest position.

Maybe they don't mind being placed in that position, because they want control of the scaling, but I would urge the minister to pay some attention to what a highly honoured and well respected Premier of this province, the late W.A.C. Bennett, thought about privatization of scaling, and what the late H.R. MacMillan thought about the privatization of scaling. Those distinguished gentlemen were correct. They were correct then and they are correct now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: My time has expired. I'm sure the minister has thought about this. I'm just surprised that he didn't pay attention to it.

[4:45]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, section 4 simply defines "official scaler." The member — and this is rather strange to me — is quoting from H.R. MacMillan's letter to W.A.C. Bennett...

MR. HOWARD: Good friends of mine.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Good friends of his, I'm sure.

...about situations that existed then and there. I'm dealing with what we have here and now. I will read again what the current president of regional council No. 1 of the International Woodworkers of America says about the here and now in light of the recording, transportation and communications systems for auditing which we have in place today. Mr. Munro states: "The IWA and myself personally support your moves to bring log-scaling back to where it belongs." Mr. Chairman, it's strange that I should be gaining support from Jack Munro and that member from H.R. MacMillan and W.A.C. Bennett, but I guess times do change.

[ Page 6903 ]

MR. HOWARD: I just want to tell the minister that Jack Munro and the IWA might control him, but they don't control me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the kind of internal union dispute which the BCGEU and the IWA might have is not critical in terms of serving the public interest. I think the minister fully understands the implications of the letter he received from Mr. Munro. It's simply an interunion dispute and has little to do with the public interest per se.

This minister has readily accepted material in measuring the public interest in timber.... It might be interesting to reflect on M&B itself in terms of this problem of scaling. M&B got burned to the tune of $10 million diverted by one of their senior officials because of unsealed logs, improperly scaled logs and various arrangements. It was a matter before the courts. Since then MacMillan Bloedel has accepted the need for 21 check scalers of their own, to be assured of accuracy and honesty in the various transactions that they must undertake as a private corporation. This company thinks it's in their interest as a prudent operator and prudent corporate manager to spend an extra million dollars a year for 21 scalers of its own, so that they can verify the situation with respect to the volumes they are dealing with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

This minister is prepared to let the whole thing be handed over to the private sector and all the vulnerabilities that that represents in terms of the people who will do the scaling. If we were going to entertain something like M&B, we would be adding to the public sector in British Columbia, to be assured that we were getting a fair and proper measure of our return on public timber. What this minister has accepted is what the Council of Forest Industries wants. He has accepted their string of recommendations that went to the Premier a year and a half ago. Clearly the prudent private sector managers in this province, when it comes to their own interest in timber, make sure the numbers are correct. This minister is indicating by this legislation that it isn't critical at all, and he's prepared to simply accept other people's numbers most of the time, and that's no kind of prudent manager whatsoever.

Section 4 approved on division.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to indicate that, of the totality of this bill, the one item in it that stands out as worthy of support — and we do support it — is this particular section. It is the one recognition that has come out of this ministry in the last ten years that indicates perhaps there's some need to pay attention to small logging operators, because out of public revenue .... There's an item in the minister's estimates with respect to that as well. Out of taxpayers' moneys there may be expended funds to defray the cost of logging roads and silviculture and the like, with respect to or incidental to the small business enterprise program of the ministry. The maximum to be spent shall not exceed $5 million, plus the bonus payments to the Crown, subsequent to March 31 of this year. Can the minister tell us what his expectation is of the amount of bonus payments?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I can't, just offhand, Mr. Member, but I'd be very pleased to get our current estimate of that and bring it back to the member.

MR. HOWARD: We may want to examine that later on, because I think probably the bonus payments themselves may be somewhat curtailed, depending on other portions of it. But we do want publicly to indicate that this is the one segment of the bill that deserves support.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to say as well that, out of this whole bill, it seems that this is one section which offers a glimmer of hope to people involved in the small business enterprise program, which, in my view, is not proceeding as well as it should. At least there is a program in place.

I was wondering if the minister could tell us, when these moneys are disbursed, if these moneys will be paid directly to the small logger involved, as they are pushing roads through, or will these roads be...or whatever other reason these funds are used in terms of basically section 88 for the large companies, or will these roads and these moneys be disbursed through the regional forest offices, or in what manner?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have an allocation for the different parts of the province where such road-building work is needed. The intention is that the roads built for small business operators will be tendered to people probably in that sector, anybody who can qualify and tender for the roads, and will be built by them for their use.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. HOWARD: Under section 9, as I read it, if a person puts up a timber sale, and functions thereby as a small operator, say, under section 18, where the volume of timber is, say, less than 2,000 cubic metres, and only one application, it can be entered into an agreement, without advertising or even if it's with advertising, and beyond that.... This section requiring the person who requests the disposal of the timber — that is, the person who puts up the timber sale — to pay for the cruise of the timber, I submit, militates against the small operator, if in fact that is the way the thing is going to work. Small loggers have a difficult enough time as it is: you know, dealing in the log market, and all that sort of thing, and being at the mercy of everybody in the industry. To place this additional cost against them of having to pay for the timber cruise is, I think, not going to be met very happily by those who seek to operate under that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, the intent of this section is to expedite the processing of sales for the small operator. Quite often a member of the small business community will come and say: "I would like you to put up a sale over here." Before it can be put up it has to be scaled, and if we don't have staff time available to go out and

[ Page 6904 ]

cruise the wood, then we can say, "Fine, we'll put it up, but you go out and hire someone and have it cruised, and then we can expedite the sale. If in fact you aren't successful in tendering for it, then whoever is successful will have to pay for that, so you don't have to bear the cost of it unless you're successful. Even then, the cost of it will be deducted from whatever you bid."

MR. HOWARD: I didn't catch clearly the last part of his comment there. Is the minister saying that if someone does put up a timber sale and it hasn't been cruised, if he pays for the cruise out of his own pocket and gets the timber sale, the cost of the cruise is returned or is deductible from stumpage?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I may have, in the way I phrased that, misled the member somewhat. The person who has conducted the cruise obviously has an investment already, so it is assumed that his bid will be that much less because he already has that investment. Someone else will be able to bid more because they don't already have that investment in the cruise. If this person is successful, he will be deemed to have already paid for it; the other person, if he is successful, will then have that amount paid by the ministry back to the original person. So if he is unsuccessful, he doesn't have to bear the cost of the cruise.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, but if he is successful.... That militates against the small operator. If he wants to put the sale up, it's placing that extra burden on him to have it cruised.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As a matter of fact, I think it probably gives an advantage to the person who requests the sale, because the other person knows that if he is successful, part of his bid will come back. It's a saw-off, really. Whoever gets the sale will wind up having paid for the cruise through their bonus bid.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm now confused. Are you telling me that the person or the company that does the cruise can submit a bid that's lower than the other bids, and then you're going to give it to the lowest bidder? That doesn't make any sense, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: All the section does really, in very simple terms, is that the person who is successful pays money to the Crown. If the successful person did not have the cruise done, then a part of his bonus bid would be paid back to the person who did have it cruised so that he will not have to pay for the cruise.

MRS. WALLACE: I understood you to say that the person who did the cruise was allowed to put in a bid for the price of the timber less the cost of the cruise, which would mean that his bid is lower than those of the people who bid the full value. Now does it automatically mean that the lower bidder is going to be able to get that? Are you going to take into consideration that the bid is less that amount, or is the bid going to be the total bid and you're just going to consider that it will be reduced by that amount? What are you saying?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm simply saying that if a person, after having initiated a sale and having had it cruised at his expense, is unsuccessful, then a part of the bonus bid of the successful person will be paid by the ministry to this person to defray the cost of the cruising. If he is successful he will have achieved his objective, and would have to consider the cost of the cruise a part of his bonus bid. He will consider that in his own mind, I'm sure; that because he was successful.... He paid for the cost of the cruise, he paid a bonus bid, and that is in effect a bonus cost for him to get that sale. If someone else gets it, that person will be paying a bonus which includes the cost of scaling, because the cost of the scaling will be redirected from the ministry back to the person who actually paid to have it done.

[5:00]

MRS. WALLACE: So what you're saying now is that he doesn't put in a bid lower than that. I understood you to say that he would put in a bid less that amount, and that's what was bothering me; but you either misspoke yourself or I misunderstood you.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. HOWARD: I need again to point out that this section seeks to permit people to conspire to reduce the amount of money they pay the Crown or the people of B. C. for the trees they're going to cut down. It permits collusion and a conspiracy to fix a bid on a timber sale, or anything of that sort, provided they do it with the consent or the approval of the regional manager. Until now it has been illegal — illegal in the Forest Act anyhow — for people to conspire to work one with the other, either to bid a common price, or to have one person bid on a sale and another to withhold a bid to ensure that they get it at the best possible price.

This should not be permitted. The law should not be so designed as to sanction collusion against the public interest, and that's what this does. It authorizes collusive action by vested interests against the general public interest — completely and thoroughly unacceptable. It's a practice that has been going on. It's a practice that the minister knows about. There are instances that the minister knows about in the past, and those have not been prosecuted and nothing has been done with respect to ensuring that the law was lived up to. It's a sad moment when government, which so far in forestry hasn't exhibited any great concern about the public interest and has abandoned completely whatever pretence it had of serving the public interest, brings in a piece of legislation that says: "We're now going to prove it." "In case you're in doubt," says the government, "we're going to prove that you can conspire against the public interest." That's precisely what this does.

It's a standard bit of practice in the economic philosophy to which the minister says he subscribes that if you buy something, you should be able to buy it at the lowest possible price. It's in your self-interest to do that. That's what the economic philosophy says. It says also that if you sell something, the highest bidder should prevail. If you sell an asset, an opportunity or a licence on the auction block, the highest bid should prevail. When it comes to the selling of timber, that used to be the case. It used to be the mode of operation, fairly universally, that the highest bidder got the timber and the general public — the people of B.C. who own the timber — got the best price. That was the purpose, I would imagine, for section 160 in the first instance: to ensure that the public interest was protected and the public got the best price for the

[ Page 6905 ]

commodity or the product it was selling — namely, the right to cut timber which the general public owns.

Now the minister, I'm sure, wouldn't do this with his own possessions. If he had a garage sale and it was an auction sale, he wouldn't be very happy if the people who came to look at the garage sale looked at an item, met outside and said: "Gee, let's make sure we only pay him a buck for something worth ten or twenty." The minister wouldn't be happy about that. He'd want to get the $10 or $20 or whatever he could get for the item he sought to dispose of. But when it comes to public property, and this minister is charged by an oath before God — if that means anything to him....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Order what? You mean he didn't take the oath?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: The minister is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment, please. Order. All members will come to order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.... Thank you. The member for Skeena continues on section 11.

MR. HOWARD: The minister took that kind of oath saying that he will serve the public interest. Every cabinet minister took that oath. And then he comes in with a law for a proposed change to the statute that says he doesn't care about that oath that he took to serve the public interest. Because this does precisely the opposite. I think the minister is in violation of that oath that he took. He's in violation of that oath that he took by bringing in legislation of this nature, because this does not serve the public interest. Any time the minister brings in statute legislation that allows a conspiracy to take place against the public interest, and the public interest doesn't get full value for the product that it sells, then that minister doesn't deserve to continue to hold that office.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, personal references are quite unparliamentary. To the section, please, and please avoid personal references to another hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: This section, once again, indicates the government's perspective — a government that does not believe in competition and that does not believe in the free market system, but believes in price-fixing and in allowing predeterminations of prices, the kind of thing that we have federal legislation to prevent in the form of monopolies setting prices. That's what this particular section is allowing to happen with our forests in this province, by simply saying that consent can be given to allow price-fixing. I'm not sure that it isn't contrary to our federal legislation even. But it demonstrates in no uncertain terms exactly where this government and this ministry is coming from; it is catering to the monopolistic control of our forest industry and absolutely wiping out the possibility of competitiveness and a free market system.

MR. WILLIAMS: This really is the end product of the system these people have been building through the years. You cut off all competition, you set it up so that the corporate bosses are in the driver's seat, and finally you get to this point that the only reasonable thing to do from your point of view is to allow collusion. Through the history of forestry, in this province, collusion has never been tolerated in British Columbia. What this change does is make collusion the law of the land.

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I just have your attention for a moment, please? I've been advised that your microphone is not working and therefore we are not recording you under Hansard. Perhaps if you would try another desk, that would be a.... We don't have that one either? Sorry, hon. member,

I have been advised that this will be brief. Standing orders require, hon. members, that all debates be electronically recorded, and we must have microphones to provide for that.

That mike seems to be working. Standing orders respecting the member standing in his place will be waived at this point.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think this really is the culmination of the kinds of activities that have been going on for all too long. As competition has finally been closed out, virtually totally, in the forestry industry of British Columbia, now the eminently reasonable thing the minister sees is to endorse collusion, to make no bones about it: let's have them get together; let's find that acceptable. All we have to do is throw in a person from the Ministry of Forests, and it's all okay. It's an invidious position to put the staff of the Forests ministry in.

What you are saying is that it's okay to cut a deal, and when you are cutting a deal, that means something against the public interest as I perceive it. What you are requiring in this process is to put a staff person in the Ministry of Forests into bed with the two people that are colluding. It's a terrible, impossible position to put a responsible professional person in. But that's what you're doing under this section of the act, and it should disturb everyone concerned about getting a decent return for the public's resources.

You've turned the laws of the province on their head. Throughout this century we have had laws and rules about colluding with respect to getting Crown timber. Now you legitimize it. This is unheard of. It is simply unheard of that the person responsible for protecting the public interest in timber should accede to collusion and agree that his staff should be party to acceding to collusion. That's precisely what you are doing under this legislation. It is unheard of. You are turning the laws of all this century on their head, and we should all hold our heads in shame today for the sorry state that this industry has come to under this minister.

MR. HOWARD: I understood that the minister had risen to say something, and.... He wants to consult about some matter? Well then, I'll certainly afford the minister the opportunity to consult with the government House Leader if it is preparatory to withdrawing this particular section. I think that would be the most advantageous thing that could occur. If that's what the minister is seeking to do, I think he really could recover....

[ Page 6906 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will come to order. The member for Skeena has taken his place in debate, and will be afforded every opportunity to continue.

[5:15]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it may be reiterating the same thing in a different way, but let's put it on record for those who want to read Hansard and see what it is that is being advocated here. Under this proposal, a person with the sanction of the regional manager can by intimidation or threat hinder or prevent a person from making an application for an agreement under the Forest Act, or from submitting a tender or bid. So a person can intimidate or threaten somebody else, with respect to submitting a tender or a bid for timber. That's perfectly legalized now: to engage in threats and intimidation. Or he, can....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in these circumstances, we would like to postpone this clause, and carry on with the other clauses. We'll deal with this clause at the end. We're in consultation concerning this clause at this point in time. That's pursuant to standing order 84(2).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the benefit of the committee, hon. members, 84(2) states that any clause may be postponed but shall be taken up before the bill has been reported to the House. So we will consider section 11 postponed pursuant to standing order 84(2), and go to section 12, hon. members.

On section 12.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question to the minister.... I'm not sure it's a question; perhaps an explanation. Perhaps I'm misreading section 12. It refers to schedule A of the Forest Act and royalty rates to be charged. Does this section suggest an increase in royalties to people in the mid-coast area, which I happen to represent a large part of? If so, to whom precisely? To everyone across the board, or will it be applied equally? We're all aware, Mr. Chairman, that people working under the small business program pay about three plus times more stumpage than the so-called large corporations. I wonder if the minister could clarify this section for us.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I hope so, Mr. Chairman. As the member knows, there is a different percentage charged as minimum stumpage in the north coast versus the south coast. For administrative purposes, we want to include parts of the north coast, or areas which are charged the lower stumpage in the north coast, in the south coast, but we don't want to have to charge them the extra stumpage. That is why we're saying the schedule is amended: so that these new parts of the south coast will be charged the same stumpage as they were when they were in the north coast.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just to clarify the point further, Mr. Chairman: then it's understood that nothing currently in the south coast would be affected by this change — the existing south coast?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Only in terms of what region it will be administered in.

MR. HOWARD: It has the potential.... If the boundaries of the mid-coast forest district are altered at some time in the future, then this goes along with it.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The intent of section 11 is to allow applicants for a tree-farm licence to discuss areas of application with other operators in the area so that there will not be conflict with other people operating in the area. It's a way of sorting out appropriate operating areas. Unfortunately, the way it was drafted, it provides far too much — I have to agree with the members — flexibility on the regional manager's part to allow other things to happen which I have no intention of happening, nor do the members opposite. What I would like to do, and am proposing, is an amendment to that section, or that we withdraw it and substitute other wording to accomplish the objectives I wish to accomplish.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, as mentioned, consideration is being given by officials to the position taken by my colleague the Minister of Forests. At this point we'll postpone that section and, hopefully, return to it before the end of the sitting tonight. I think it would be appropriate to move into the next committee. I think that process would satisfy the opposition.

MR. HOWARD: There is an alternative, given what the minister has just said about this not being the intention — that the intention was something entirely different — and that is to defeat this particular proposal or withdraw it. It would seem to me that the procedurally correct thing would be for the committee to rise and report progress on the bill, and ask leave to sit again; and then when we come back, the appropriate wording can be considered.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: It's agreed then that we'll vote against this — or withdraw it?

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 3), 1985
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 28.

MR. HOWARD: This is a companion to the bill we've just been dealing with, where it seeks to amend the Forest Act with respect to scaling. Under section 28 the first thought I

[ Page 6907 ]

would like to have replied to is: can the minister tell the committee — because I can't find it anywhere in any statute — what "check scaling" means? To assist the minister, who somehow needs to participate in rewriting something else, does he want to hold over these sections as well, or is counsel going to do that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not going to attempt to give the member a legal definition. I'll tell him what it means, though. Check scaling is simply scaling again quantities of wood that have previously been scaled, to check the accuracy of the scale. This is my best understanding. Please don't take that to court.

MR. HOWARD: I know what it means. I was involved in check scaling some years back. But I was asking.... We're now writing a statute that has got the words "check scaling" in it. Where is the statutory identification or interpretation of what that means, of what it is? It would seem to me that that would be helpful.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, I asked the same question in the committee that drafted this bill, and I was advised by legal counsel that the term is self-explanatory and didn't need definition.

MR. HOWARD: I have another question. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what is meant by a "subsequent scale." There is the original scale, the original measurement. What is a subsequent scale?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would assume that a subsequent scale is another scale done after the first scale is done. Are you asking the difference between the subsequent scale and the check scale? I'm afraid I can't answer the member's question.

MR. HOWARD: We're developing the laws of this province. We're saying that certain things should occur. The first thing that happened was that on March 11, more than three months ago, the minister brought in Bill 3, which related to scaling. But now on June 19, three months later, another bill comes in under the authority of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), containing some further references to scaling. We are making the laws of this province. It's an awfully stupid, haphazard say to go about it, I would submit, especially when we have in section 28 the words "check scaling" without any legal definition as to what that means, although those in the industry generally understand what it means.

Then in section 31 we are talking about "a subsequent scale of timber that has been scaled under section 73." Now is a subsequent scale a check scale, or is it something else? There are two different words used. There are two different groups of words used to describe the scaling of timber after it has been originally scaled. I ask the minister what the difference is, and he says he doesn't know, but it's the minister's legislation that we're seeking to put into effect here.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of what the member is disturbed about is that a check scale.... Because there are no definitions of one or the other term, they have to be taken at face value. A check scale is a scale done after the original scale, which is a subsequent scale. So a check scale and the term "subsequent scale" would be one and the same.

MR. HOWARD: Well, then, why don't you use the same language? In law, learned gentlemen like the Attorney-General know full well what a court does. A court looks at words, and it says: "Well, the words are different. Obviously the Legislature, even though it didn't know what it was doing, meant that they should mean something different."

You could end up with different types of interpretations. If you mean check scale in both cases, then I'd suggest you say check scale. If you mean subsequent scale in both places, I suggest that that's what it should say. Otherwise you're asking those who are going to look at this later.... And sage and sound people in this chamber who are members of the bar have just looked at me and nodded their heads and said that I am absolutely correct in what I am saying.

If you want to make something clear, and it means the same thing, then for heaven's sakes, use the same words.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, neither the member nor I are trained in legal matters. The bill was drafted by people so trained. I have to....

MR. HOWARD: Well, fire them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, no, I don't think I will do that, Mr. Member. It was drafted by people with legal training, and I have to assume that their legal training considers that this is appropriate wording.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I've got to contend that it is pretty sloppy way of doing things, because we just dealt with section 11 of a bill, which says something that the minister said he didn't mean it to say. Yet he relied on these same experts to write that. If he's got legal experts who are writing law that sanctions collusion, connivance, threats and intimidations, there is something wrong with the people who are doing the writing of the law. I would seriously look at the competence of them if this is what we are dealing with.

[5:30]

I would suggest too that the minister take it on his own initiative that if he is advised that "subsequent scale" and "check scaling" mean the same thing, he will bring along an amendment that says that. Otherwise we're making fools of the law and placing those who may want to interpret it or have the courts interpret it . Deal with it in an inappropriate way.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if he had the same legal advice on these sections 28, 29, 30 and 31 as he had on section 11 of Bill 3. If so, is he prepared to withdraw those sections as he did with section 11 of Bill 3, under standing order 84(2), until we can have some clarification as to what we are talking about? Because otherwise we may be here forever.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm not confused about the wording. I happen to agree that section 11 of the bill we were previously debating did not really accomplish what I intended. In this case, I am not confused by the wording. I guess that's the value of debate in the House: that we can have the exchange of ideas, and at times agree and at times disagree.

[ Page 6908 ]

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it is interesting, you know, that we are getting this change in the statute now. We received a report from the ombudsman just a while back making the point that with respect to the Cobb case there were these circumstances where the private company did not adhere to standards sheets or numbered sheets at all, and it allowed for all kinds of error to take place. I'm satisfied that that did take place and that the Crown was the loser, and the rancher-logger was the loser as well. I'd just like it to be shown, for the record, that the ombudsman in this province has been proven right once more. Once more the ombudsman has shown the need for legislative change, and we're getting that before the House today — belated and the province the loser, yes. Because the ombudsman blew the whistle on inadequate practice on the part of this minister, we're getting some modest change today.

MR. HOWARD: In section 29 we are seeking to establish some tolerance factor between the original scale and a check scale, and it's a prescribed percentage, presumably prescribed by order-in-council. I understand now that the prescribed acceptable tolerance is 3 percent over or under the original scale. If it's within the 3 percent tolerance, the original scale prevails; if it's over that, the check scale prevails. What is contemplated with respect to prescribed percentage under this, and why isn't it written into the legislation for all time for all to see? Or is it contemplated that there might be variables?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer the question as to how prescribed percentages of tolerances will vary in the future; it will depend upon any possible changes in the procedures and technology of measuring wood. It is not an exact science, as is the case with many other systems of measurement. Logs are different species and are irregular in shape, size and so on, and, in the judgment of those in business, cannot at this time and with current methods be measured to an accuracy of closer than plus or minus 3 percent, which is quite close, really. What happens in the future, I don't know, but if more accurate systems develop, then tolerances perhaps could be tightened.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister could tell the House just how much check scaling has taken place in the past, and what his thoughts are for the future. Is he going to hire extra personnel to do this job? Are we going to have check scaling, or are we just writing it into legislation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't tell the member exactly what percentage of the wood that is scaled will be check scaled, but in the judgment of those responsible, they do it often enough to assure an adequate standard. I will assure the members that as we move to more scaling by people not employed by the government we will have to do more frequent checking, particularly in the initial stages as we are changing the employment of people who are doing the scaling. Consider it, I guess, as an auditing process rather than as a supervisory process. We'll have to check-scale sufficiently to make sure that an accurate job is being done. I would think that people administering the scaling system would check more frequently those people who are newer at scaling than those who have more experience, because a newer person may yet have things to learn. So we will do whatever is necessary to make sure that we get as accurate a scale as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister says: "We'll do whatever is necessary to make sure we have an accurate scale." But can the minister advise the House specifically what monitoring has been taking place since 1976? What specific monitoring in terms of accuracy of scale has been taking place on a consistent basis since 1976?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The scaling that has taken place since 1976 has been at least as frequent and consistent as the scaling that took place before 1976.

MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't that assuring? It's one thing when we're going through the process of privatizing, when they've moved into dryland sorts, different arrangements. And what are the changes that have taken place since 1976? They're these. We've changed from cubic measure in 1979 to metric measure. We've changed other regulations as well. We've changed the grading rules with respect to timber, as well as other changes. It has been a period of significant change in grading, type of measure — shifting from board feet to cubic feet to metric measure; all of those changes underway. And the minister is telling us that there was no change. What the minister is telling us today is that there in fact has not been monitoring at all. That's what he's telling us today, and we get this load that he delivered to the legislature, the biggest whitewash we've seen on the question of scaling in ages in this province, dumped on the Legislature yesterday, and now he tells us the kind of monitoring that's going on. That's nothing short of incredible.

I said earlier that MacMillan Bloedel has found out that it's necessary to hire 21 people just to check-scale within their own business, themselves, to make sure they don't get cheated, because they've found in court cases of their own that they've lost $10 million in terms of cheating through inadequate scaling and not check scaling. That's one company. We're talking about all of British Columbia here, that's what we're talking about. And you have been willing to be part of this lack of monitoring. You have been willing to be part of the problems of Mr. Cobb. You have your staff adjust the numbers and play a numbers game and talk about utilization, until you finally get a number that works and that satisfies you.

No wonder you're happy about this particular report, because, without evidence, the conclusion is that somehow it was all under 3 percent, and yet your own best expert here says that different numbers were the best numbers that he saw, and your expert dismisses them. It's a whitewash; that's what it is.

What we've got before us now is an admission from the minister that the job has not been done properly for a long time. What we have is an admission from the minister that since 1976 they've been asleep at the switch. We've had the dryland sorts — half a dozen of them — of B.C. Forest Products. The ombudsman blew the whistle on it, and you have been stonewalling on that one ever since you got the word. You have been stonewalling at every stage; the Premier stonewalled; that has been the pattern. Even when the little rancher had a problem, you stonewalled him. They're all

[ Page 6909 ]

victims of this process, but so are all of the people of British Columbia.

You have been willing to be asleep at the switch and not carry out the kind of checking and review in terms of protecting the public interest. Just a few minutes ago, you had to send back the section of this statute on collusion — or the earlier statute on collusion — because you knew you had a real mess on your hands. You've got a mess on your hands here, and it's still unresolved, despite the kind of whitewash we were given yesterday by a middle-level staff person who was responsible in the first place. What you do when you've got a problem like this is send it out to the judiciary; you don't send it out to a mid-level staff person who wants to continue under this minister who is his boss. What do you expect you're going to get in a report such as that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when I responded to the member about how much check scaling was done, I said: "At least as much as was done prior to that." The member is right: a significant number of changes and improvements in the administration of the Forests ministry have been made since the day that member was the minister. The only thing that he managed to accomplish was to appoint a royal commission, because he didn't know how to deal with anything within the ministry.

[5:45]

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the member's accusation of Mr. Grant, the regional manager in Vancouver, and Drs. Kozak, Petcan and Smith, who did the statistical work on reviewing the charges of scaling errors made by a logger and the ombudsman. These men are all professionals; they have their professional reputations at stake. They did a completely independent report. The fact that it was done by the regional manager should not surprise the member, because it was the ombudsman, in his special report, who recommended that the regional manager do an assessment, and the regional manager who did the assessment was not the regional manager at the time when most of the scaling took place. The regional manager and I and everyone in the ministry want to learn whether or not scaling errors took place, because it is indeed a serious matter. No stone was left unturned in the efforts of Don Grant to determine whether or not certain facts — alleged facts — and figures and statistics presented by other people were appropriate to be used or not.

These gentlemen submitted this report in their best professional opinion. They say that there is no evidence that would indicate that there was an error in scaling beyond those normal tolerances within which scaling can be done. I am surprised that the member for Vancouver East is accusing these members of dishonesty and collusion. I would suggest that that member, if he feels that way, should make those statements outside of the Legislature. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the member is still smarting from the fact that it was his policies that brought down the previous NDP government in 1975.

MR. WILLIAMS: I ask the member to withdraw the statements about collusion. The collusion question is with respect to the previous legislation that you have sent back to your draftsmen in the back room. Let's get that one straight. What we've got here is a whitewash.

Let's look at the numbers. The errors that are listed by outsiders range from zero to 19 percent. The man the outside experts said had the best numbers.... In his view it was the scale by Woodrow and Shadforth in early September, but that was chosen to be ignored. He said it because he'd had some doubts about whether that would always be the case, That was the evidence. He thought those were the best numbers, but did it happen the month before? Did it happen a year before? Well, he didn't know. He comes to the incredible conclusion that it was always under 3 percent. There is no evidence before him or anyone that it was always under 3 percent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The minister said yesterday on radio how nice it is that it was under 3 percent, because if it was over 3 percent he'd have lots of problems and complications. Indeed he would. It would mean that funds would have to be paid out. I'm sure that funds will yet have to be paid out once this matter goes through the courts, as it surely will, and we'll finally get to the bottom of this question.

But I refer to the Cobb case. A professional forester reviewed the Cobb case as well, and what did he say? In a letter of August 1982 he said:

"This letter indicates that the further one delves into this case, the more the facts confirm that a volume of some 300,000 cubic feet went missing. It shows that the scale and scaling system used during this period was full of errors and improprieties, clearly capable of grossly distorting the actual volumes, with the resulting loss of many hundreds of thousands of dollars of Crown revenue and loggers' and farmers' wages. Finally, it shows that there has been and still is a continuing attempt to cover up this very bad system of Crown timber measurement, with all the losses and/or rewards that that implies."

That was Mr. G.B. Boulton, a professional forester who was advising the Cobbs on that particular case. He says they were short by nearly half; that it was an incredible system that was inadequate; that there was a continuing coverup. There it is. That's what one professional says about the system that this minister has been willing to protect.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We seem to be ranging rather widely from this section. However, I must reply to the member's suggestions again of improper scaling on the Cobb case. I told the member that we were continuing to review that situation. That member was Minister of Forests during part of the time — and just after — when Mr. Cobb was having his problem. The assumptions made by Mr. Boulton.... When Mr. Boulton tried to determine what volumes had been harvested, he assumed a utilization standard of extraction that was not in use at that time. There's a very basic flaw in that report, and that is the reason we have not been able to resolve it. If his report had been straightforward and correct, we could perhaps have long since resolved the question. But we have a responsibility towards the Crown's revenue; we have studied this at great length and we cannot find reason to assume that that utilization standard was used.

Mr. Cobb, as I mentioned yesterday, made a profit of over $70,000 in harvesting that rather modest amount of wood from an agricultural lease, and he paid taxes on it. He did go to court because he thought he had been underpaid, and he did receive another settlement from the company. Then, when he received that, he felt: "Well, goodness gracious, that was so easy, maybe I should go back after more." This is another assumption you can read into this Cobb affair. Mr.

[ Page 6910 ]

Member, if you feel so strongly about it, it amazes me that while you were the Minister of Forests for three or more years you didn't address the problem and correct it. You had every opportunity, if you were such a brilliant minister.

I'm afraid that I cannot accept the statement the member made that the report provided by Mr. Grant, the regional manager of the Vancouver forest region, and backup appendices and reports done by these professors at the University of British Columbia can be called a whitewash. Call it what he may, he is still casting aspersions against those professionals, and I think he only dares do that in this Legislature, where he has some protection from his rather irrational remarks. I think he should be ashamed of himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, there has been quite a bit of latitude afforded to the minister and to other members on section 29, and I think we should really return to the section which essentially allows private scaling and check scaling. Shall section 29 pass?

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

MR. HOWARD: This is a very curious section: "Scaling fees...may be different for different species or products and for different areas of the province." How did this come about? What's the foundation of the rationale for the minister wanting to establish different scaling fees for different species or products of timber, or for different areas of the province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, we want to allocate the costs as fairly as possible. Costs do vary depending upon the area in the province, the type of wood being scaled, where it is, the species, the size of it — all these things have an effect on what it actually costs. We want to have these costs distributed as reasonably and fairly as possible.

MR. HOWARD: Do costs include such things as transportation to and from the site where the timber is scaled?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: That makes a bit of sense.

We've already amended section 76 of the act, with respect to scaling costs, and established a prescribed scaling fee. This was introduced in March of this year. And now three months later the minister comes along and says: "Well, I was mistaken in Bill 3, which I introduced on March 11. I didn't know then that I wanted to establish different scaling fees, but I do now." It's obvious this afternoon and yesterday, with respect to this section before us and with respect to Bill 3, that the minister doesn't have the foggiest idea what he wants to do in that ministry. He comes in with half-baked legislation. He comes in with a bill that seeks to sanction collusion and conspiracy and threats and intimidation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 30 is about prescribing scaling fees. Let's be specific here.

MR. HOWARD: I am. That bill was on the order paper for three months, and the minister didn't know what it was. seeking to do. We discussed it in second reading, and he didn't have a clue then what it meant. Only at the last minute, when we make such a fuss about it, does he then say: "Oh, I was mistaken. I didn't mean it to mean what it says." Doesn't the minister know what's happening? Is he completely at the mercy and under the domination and control of the Premier of this province, so much so that he is only able...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order and, pursuant to standing orders, take his place. Hon. members, debate in committee of a section of a bill must be strictly relevant to the clause before us. Section 30 deals with varying costs of scaling, with respect to species and geography. Could we maintain relevant debate with respect to that section.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, section 30 says: "Scaling fees prescribed under subsection (1) may be different for different species or products in different areas of the Province." That came into public view on June 19. The section which it seeks to amend, section 76(l), came into existence and public view on March 11, more than three months ago. The minister obviously doesn't know what it is he wants to do. He is seeking now to do something different or additional to that which he sought to do three months ago. That's precisely what I'm getting to. The bill that contains the reference to section 76(l) — a cross-reference in this clause before us now — makes no reference at all to altered or different scaling fees or anything else. It just talks about a prescribed scaling fee. It took the minister three months to come to the conclusion that perhaps he'd been led around by the nose...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...in developing law applying to the forest industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not the business of the committee. Section 30, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's the business of the people of this province, though, as to whether that minister knows what he's doing, and obviously he doesn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. To the section, please.

MR. HOWARD: Any minister who has been in office as a minister of the Crown with respect to such a vital part of our economy as forestry for more than ten years, consistently administering that ministry, and doesn't have a clue what it is he wants to do at this stage in the game and wakes up three months after he introduces a bill and says, "Oh, I want to change it now, " is obviously....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order.

MR. HOWARD: He's obviously....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will come to order or take his seat. One more time, please. Section 30 specifically deals with scaling fees and prescribing different scaling fees.

[ Page 6911 ]

If the member wishes to discuss the administrative aspects of the Ministry of Forests, that can be done quite adequately during the minister's estimates.

MR. HOWARD: I think they're more maladministration than administrative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing order 84(2), the committee postponed section 11.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, would the House accept a motion to withdraw section 11 of Bill 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That can simply.... When the Chair calls the question, the nays will defeat it.

MR. HOWARD: Just vote against it.

Section 11 negatived.

MR. HOWARD: I just think that the record should show nemine contradicente — that it was a unanimous decision of the House that the minister was wrong. We appreciate his admission that he was wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 12, 13 and 14 having been passed, shall the title pass?

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Forest Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 3, Forest Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.