# June 16, 1978?



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

June 16, 1978?


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

no, june 18, 1973.


----------



## Thunder (Nov 5, 2003)

Ringo releases "Bad Boy" album; Wings releases "I've Had Enough" 
It was a good day


----------



## Becky (Nov 5, 2003)

Thunder said:


> Ringo releases "Bad Boy" album; Wings releases "I've Had Enough"
> It was a good day


I know you had to have looked that up cause your memory is NOT that good!


----------



## kikachuck (Nov 10, 2003)

Becky said:


> Thunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ringo releases "Bad Boy" album; Wings releases "I've Had Enough"
> ...


People tend to remember momentous events like that Becky :lol


----------



## Becky (Nov 5, 2003)

kikachuck said:


> Becky said:
> 
> 
> > Thunder said:
> ...


oh yeah, it sounds like a real winner of a moment :lol


----------



## Thunder (Nov 5, 2003)

Has Dave _ever_ posted a poll you didn't have to look up? :lol


----------



## Becky (Nov 5, 2003)

:lol


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

I'm torn.

I was alive, so I could vote "yes."

But I was under 10 months old, and therefore, not yet old enough to know what a taco is, so I should vote "no."

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Thunder said:


> Has Dave _ever_ posted a poll you didn't have to look up? :lol


Odun posts stuff you have to look up. Dave posts stuff that you can't look up as it doesn't make any sense at all. :lol

As for that date, I was 5 at the time, so I don't know and don't care.


----------



## Laura (Nov 12, 2003)

...


----------



## green and lonely (May 29, 2006)

I was still a happy, innocent child (or at least, I assume so)...so I say "yes."


----------



## ghostgurl (Sep 20, 2004)

This happened.

Friday, June 16th
IN THE NEWS: In the 12th ML season of a career speckled with near-misses, Cincinnati Tom Seaver finally hurls a no-hitter. The Cardinals are the 4–0 victims as Seaver strikes out 3.

After doing a morning cooking demonstration at a Boston department store, Bill Lee (7-3) storms out of the Red Sox clubhouse saying he is retiring from baseball. Lee has had arm problems in addition to the Sox allowing 10 unearned runs in Lee's last two starts. The Spaceman is also upset that yesterday the Sox sold his good friend Bernie Carbo to the Indians, reportedly saying, "Today just cost us the pennant." Lee's walkout will last one day. Despite Lee's takeoff, the Red Sox top Seattle, 6–3, as Carlton Fisk bangs two doubles, his 4th multi-hit game in a row. He has 11 doubles in his last six games.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

_Location. Oulton, England
*Date: June 16 1978*
Time: 2315
The 16-year old witness was returning from his girlfriend's house under a heavy rain when suddenly he heard a very loud voice "talking nonsensically" all around him; this was so loud that witness thought it must wake everyone in the village and he compared it to that of a radio newsreader. The volume intensity rose and fell as though the voice was being blown on the wind; words however could not be distinguished and it faded away after about five seconds. The witness then continued walking, and about 50 meters further on he noticed, through a wooded gate to his right, a cylindrical column of white light. This vertical beam appeared to be in the grounds of a convent and was an estimated 200 meters away, seemingly 3 to 3 1/2 meters high and 2 meters in diameter; it appeared to be solid and sharply defined. At the precise point where the witness considered the beam to be, there is a tall cross about 2 meters high, but from the witness' position, only its top could be seen due to foliage and a small bank obscuring the rest. The bottom of the beam, however, was visible, just as if it were reaching the bottom of the cross. The witness then had the impression that something was in the beam, became scared and ran home, having watched the beam for about 5 seconds._

Note: This was just a prank being pulled on the kid by WinterDave


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

One month and two days away from my third birthday. And yes, my bowels were functioning normally :b


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

I wasn't born yet so it's completely irrelevant :b


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Lonelyguy said:


> One month and two days away from my third birthday. And yes, my bowels were functioning normally :b


Heh, coincidence - speaking of bowels!

It was four days before my third birthday and six days before my first memory of going to the bathroom by myself. I know I was potty-trained before this, but this was one of my first memories - along with chewing and swallowing a half a package of Feen-a-mint laxative gum at a drug store. I thought it was regular chewing gum! :stu They advertised it on TV.


----------



## spb123 (Dec 15, 2003)

1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1978

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2371 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

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

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

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

Introduction and first reading -- 2372

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

Introduction and first reading -- 2372

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

Introduction and first reading e -- 2372

Forest Act (Bill 14) Second reading.

Mr. Lauk -- 2372

On the amendment.

Mr. Cocke -- 2378

Mrs. Wallace -- 2381

Mr. Skelly -- 2383

Mr. King -- 2386

Hon. Mr. Waterland -- 2391

Mr. Lea -- 2393

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

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

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

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

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

Presenting reports.

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

Leave granted.

MR. BAWTREE: This report is being tabled

[ Page 2372 ]

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

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

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

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills.

COMMODITY CONTRACTS TRADING ACT

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

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

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

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

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

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

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

FOREST ACT

(continued)

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2373 ]

body knows that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: For forever, maybe even longer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Who wrote the summary?

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2374 ]

report written by that author, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Please proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2375 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2376 ]

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a third of the total exports.

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

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

[ Page 2377 ]

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

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

(14r. Rogers in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2378 ]

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

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

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

On the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2379 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2380 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2381 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2382 ]

encourage the contractors' continued existence."

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

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

An interior pulp mill type says:

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

A Vancouver Island reader says:

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2383 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2384 ]

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now those other recommendations which Pearse made, and which he made in conjunction with the tenure recommendations, do not appear to have been given adequate emphasis in the bill. Those recommendations had to do with markets, with the competitive allocation of standing timber, with markets having to do with the Vancouver log market - and there are provisions in other statutes, in the Timber Products Stabilization Act passed by the NDP government, to improve the market for logs and other end products. But nothing seems to have been done by this government - and no proposals have been made by this government, and nothing of any substance seems to be incorporated in this Act - that would deal with that problem of freeing the coastal log market and making it more competitive and making the in


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

Hell yes.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

millenniumman75 said:


> Lonelyguy said:
> 
> 
> > One month and two days away from my third birthday. And yes, my bowels were functioning normally :b
> ...


Oh.............Gads................Why, am I not, surprised :kiss

When I was very young, like 20 :b no, a child, I wanted gum, we didn't have any, my mom had the laxative gum in her medicine closet, I gave it to my brother to chew for me, so I could have it after the med was worked out, four pieces later........... :evil


----------



## Disintegrate (Jun 28, 2006)

^^:um



ghostgurl said:


> This happened.
> 
> Friday, June 16th
> IN THE NEWS: In the 12th ML season of a career speckled with near-misses, Cincinnati Tom Seaver finally hurls a no-hitter. The Cardinals are the 4-0 victims as Seaver strikes out 3.


I was actually listening to that game. opcorn


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I had to take ipecac - I don't remember my mom freaking out that much - it did happen in a drug store. The company is still around.


----------



## RX2000 (Jan 25, 2004)

Nope


----------



## clenched_fist (Jan 4, 2004)

mserychic said:


> I wasn't born yet so it's completely irrelevant :b


 :ditto


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

clenched_fist said:


> mserychic said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't born yet so it's completely irrelevant :b
> ...


:agree

As far as can tell, the world did not exist before June of '80, and I may be a Truman. :stu


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Mazikeen said:


> clenched_fist said:
> 
> 
> > mserychic said:
> ...


I remember that month for sure.
I had this strange fear of wearing blue jeans. I always wore brown jeans. It was right before I started kindergarten. Carter was President :b.


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

i was 3 days shy of being 10 months old.

im sure i was pooing diapers and slobbering on toys.


----------



## mismac (Oct 27, 2005)

realspark said:


> When I was very young, like 20 :b no, a child, I wanted gum, we didn't have any, my mom had the laxative gum in her medicine closet, I gave it to my brother to chew for me, so I could have it after the med was worked out, four pieces later........... :evil


OoO evil!!! :lol

I did not exist in 1978, so the answer is no?


----------



## jjbnum3 (Nov 12, 2003)

Yes

and

*I got chills, they're multiplyin', and I'm losin' control 
Cause the power you're supplyin', it's electrifyin'

You better shape up, cause I need a man, 
and my heart is set on you 
You better shape up, you better understand, 
to my heart I must be true 
Nothing left, nothing left for me to do

::chorus::: 
You're the one that I want 
(--you are the one I want--), ooh ooh ooh, honey 
The one that I want (--you are the one I want--), 
ooh ooh ooh, honey 
The one that I want (--you are the one I want--), 
ooh ooh ooh, honey 
The one I need (--the one I need--), 
oh yes indeed (--yes indeed--)

If you're filled with affection, 
You're too shy to convey 
Meditate my direction, feel your way

I better shape up, 
cause you need a man 
I need a man, 
Who can keep me satisfied 
I better shape up, if I'm gonna prove 
You better prove, that my fate is justified 
Are you sure? 
Yes I'm sure down deep inside 
*


----------



## Eraserhead (Sep 23, 2006)

A definite no from me.


----------



## LoneLioness (Nov 16, 2003)

Did something important happen on this day or something? :con


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

12ays after I graduated high school


----------

