1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2755 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Kettle Valley Railway. Mr. Barber –– 2756

Air-sea rescue services. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2757

Stikine-Iskut tourist facilities. Mr. Passarell –– 2757

Archaeological sites. Mr. Hanson –– 2757

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 1) 1980. (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2758

Tabling Reports.

Kettle

Valley Feasibility Study for a Scenic Railroad under Canadian-British

Columbia Travel Industry Development Subdidiary Agreement.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 2758

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 103.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2758

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2759

Mr. King –– 2759

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2760

Mr. Lockstead –– 2760

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2761

Mr. King –– 2761

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2762

Mr. Barrett –– 2763

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2763

Mr. King –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2769

Mr. Lea –– 2770

Hen. Mr. Waterland –– 2770

Mr. King –– 2773

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2774

Mr. Levi –– 2774

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2775

Mr. King –– 2776

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2777

Mr. Cocke –– 2780

On vote 104.

Mr. King –– 2780

Tabling Reports.

Ministry of Agriculture annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2780

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislative Assembly

exchange students from Scotland, specifically the Orkney Islands, who

are in the galleries today. Their hosts in British Columbia are

Columneetza school in Williams Lake. The students have just come in

from Scotland and are on their way to the great Cariboo area,

specifically Williams Lake. Mr. Longridge, the principal of

Columneetza, is accompanying them as well as Mr. Nelson and four

students from the school. The teachers accompanying the group of 13

students from the Kirkwall Grammar School in the Orkney Islands are Mr.

Meason, the headmaster, and Mr. Rich, teacher. I'd like the Legislature

to give them a hearty welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: Joining us today from Trail are three people: Mayor

Charles Lakes, who is also president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities,

the dean of Trail aldermen, Mr. Norman Gabana, and the group vice president for

Cominco resident in Trail, Mr. A. V. Marcolin. I would hope the House would

give all of these outstanding citizens a warm welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Nicholas Smith and his wife

Jacintha, who are holidaying from Ireland and touring British Columbia.

I'd like the House to welcome them.

Also in the gallery are

Gus Conroy and his wife Joyce. Joyce is membership secretary of the

Kootenay Social Credit Constituency Association. I'd like the House to

welcome them as well.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I couldn't have leave to greet all of the

honourable ministers who aren't in their seats today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order that can be raised, and the member is fully aware of that.

MR. LAUK:

I wonder if Mr. Speaker couldn't provide some advice with respect to

the absences of ministers, when we have only a 15-minute question

period, and the front benches are empty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member rose on a point of order. The point of order is not in

order. The member, with all due respect, is fully aware that he cannot

raise this as a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge that ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson–Creston rises on a point of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Nelson–Creston has been recognized on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 16(2), the last

part of which says: "No member shall enter or leave the House during

the stating of the question, nor leave the House after the final

statement of the question until the division has been fully taken, and

every member present shall vote."

It's become almost

habitual for the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) to

leave the House during divisions. In order that divisions can be taken

most expeditiously, I would recommend to Your Honour that he bring that

to the attention of all hon. members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. That is before the question has been stated,

not after. Nevertheless the Chair will undertake to review the matter.

Oral Questions

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — the only one who ran out of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Clerk.

Hon.

members, the Chair can only recognize members who are standing. There

was no one standing. I recognize now the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

I thought the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who

left for what I'm sure was an important reason, was going to come back.

[ Page 2756 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're in question period. The member has a question?

KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Minister of Tourism; it's in regard to the

Kettle Valley Railway. This railway was built in 1915, and what remains

of it runs some 58 miles from roughly Kelowna to roughly Penticton. The

railway was used during the filming of The National Dream

by the CBC. The railway is an important part of Canada's heritage — at

least in the western part of the country. A moratorium has very

recently expired. The impact of that expiry, I'm advised, is that the

CPR has now let tenders and, I'm further advised, as of last night was

proceeding to rip up part of this track.

My first question

to the Minister of Tourism is: could she inform the House as to what

precisely are the recommendations of the very recently obtained TIDSA

report...

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell him, Bill.

MR. BARBER: Should I ask the Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I think so.

MR. BARBER: ...which,

as a matter of public knowledge, has been commissioned regarding the

tourist and other economic potential of the Kettle Valley Railway?

That's my first question to the minister.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Member, I appreciate your very genuine interest in this whole

subject. As to some of the other members, I'd just say that, unlike

your party, our leader speaks to us and we speak to him, and we talk

about a lot of things.

The member was kind enough to

indicate his interest in this project. I think that, to answer your

question — which would require about 15 to 20 minutes of question

period time — it would be best to file the report right after question

period, so you'll have an opportunity to read it for yourself.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reply and look forward to

reading the report. I wonder if the minister might tell us what the

current policy is in regard to the preservation of the Kettle Valley

Railway in respect to the alternative recreational and tourist purposes

to which the line could be put.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it would interest the House to know,

I am sure, that nearly a year ago the government, through the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), outlined at a public meeting that they appreciated

the public interest in this whole project, and that they would seek a moratorium

from the CPR for one year. They did, and that expired as of June 1. They also

committed themselves at that time to enter into negotiations with the CPR to

secure the right-of-way of this corridor. Those negotiations are underway. They

also made clear, and felt in cooperation with the private sector, that a purpose

of the moratorium would be to allow those in the private sector who were interested

in this project to have the time necessary to look at the project objectively,

to do their own analysis and to make proposals as to how they felt they might

wish to operate such a railway if in fact it was to be operated.

Following

that, the private sector did apply to TIDSA, which as some members

know, is a federal-provincial agreement, and received approximately

$42,000 to assist them with their study. That study was filed with

TIDSA a couple of weeks ago and has come forward as a management

summary, which is what I am proposing to file in the House at this

time. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development did reply

to the citizens in a wire on Friday, and I am sure he will be pleased

to file that with the House or the member when he has returned to the

House.

MR. BARBER: I have a question on the same

subject to the Provincial Secretary, responsible for the B.C. Heritage

Trust. I wonder if the minister can inform us what steps, if any, the

B.C. Heritage Trust has taken to assess and designate, to recognize in

law, the heritage value of this unique stretch of Canadian rail, and

whether he could report to the House today any steps he or the Heritage

Trust have taken to attempt to re-establish a moratorium and to stop

the basically irrevocable tearing-up of the track, the ties and the

roadbed that will inevitably result if the CPR has its way and the

track is ripped up and the scrap sold to Japan, which is the current

plan. Can you tell us what you and the Heritage Trust have done to

prevent that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to thank

the member for giving notice of this question to give us an opportunity

to look into the matter. I think the first thing that should be

explained is that CP Rail has put out a tender on this proposal to

recover the track. This tender does not close, as I understand it, for

another 30 days, at the end of the month. It is not correct to say that

today there are elements of this being removed. It would be in the next

period of time, and I just wanted to explain that fact.

From

the point of view of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, the

matter of this being considered as a heritage matter did not come to my

attention until the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society telexed me on

May 30. I could only say that they have not yet received what you might

call a formal application in this regard. This is not to get around the

question, but the response to that Telex is such that it could not be

considered a practical measure for a heritage designation.

For

the information of the members, I would like to perhaps further read

into the record the response by the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development to this question, which was directed to this

society by Telex on that same date. It reads as follows:

respond to your Telex dated May 30, 1980, and to Telexes similar in

content which you have sent to the hon. Premier and the hon. Pat Jordan.

would advise that I have considered the contents of the Kettle Valley

feasibility study to which you make reference. I would reiterate the

position of the government on this matter, which I made known publicly

last August, that the government of British Columbia had prevailed upon

the CPR to keep in place the railway tracks between Penticton and

McCulloch until June 1, 1980. In addition, through the travel industry

development subagreement, the provincial government has shared the cost

of the feasibility study, in the amount of $42,000.

"As

has been made clear throughout, our purpose has been to assist your

organization or other private sector interests to determine whether or

not you wish

[ Page 2757 ]

to proceed with a proposed scenic tourist railway. In any event,

the government is in the process of negotiating the possible acquisition of

the right-of-way, minus the track, between Midway and Penticton for a variety

of public purposes."

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table that reply submitted by the minister on May 30.

further response to the member's question and just an initial look at

this consideration, you're now speaking about some 115 to 120 miles of

right-of-way in trackage. I think we'd have to say that this is simply

not suitable for heritage designation at this point in time, in the

view of the staff. In other words, it could not be regarded as a

heritage project as such. I think the member should appreciate that to

designate a site of that size under the heritage act would involve

substantial financial commitments, let alone other considerations under

the Heritage Trust. As I understand, from information to be tabled here

very shortly, the cost implications of this consideration enter into

the $25 million to $30 million exposure. In other words, from a

Heritage Trust point of view, by making a designation, I would say that

we would immediately expose the trust to financial obligations far

beyond its means to consider. I've given this response just briefly to

the Telex I received on May 30 last. Beyond that, I think I can only

indicate on behalf of my ministry and the heritage conservation branch

that that's just an initial response to this request.

AIR-SEA RESCUE SERVICES

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Yesterday the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked a question of

the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but the

area falls under my responsibility more than it does under his, so I'm

taking the opportunity to respond. This is about air-sea rescue, and

representations by the provincial government to the federal government.

The Premier discussed it on June 19 last year with former Prime

Minister Clark. I discussed the matter with Fisheries Minister Romeo

LeBlanc when we met in March of this year, and I discussed it again on

Saturday with the federal Minister of Environment, Hon. John Roberts.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister what, in a general outline, British Columbia's position is, in terms of air-sea rescue.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

We'd like to see the matter improved. Part of the problem that I

identified to both of the federal ministers, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr.

Roberts, is the fact that there are so many different areas of

discipline involved: the RCMP's marine division, the Coast Guard, the

Canadian Armed Forces under the DND. I might tell you, the matter is on

the agenda for the conference — assuming I'll be able to get there in

September; I guess you'd have to get confirmation from your House

Leader to find out whether we'll still be sitting in September — in

Charlottetown, when this will be discussed between the federal and

provincial governments.

STIKINE-ISKUT TOURIST FACILITIES

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. What steps has the

minister taken to protect the tourist facilities in the Stikine Valley

in light of the proposed Stikine-Iskut transmission corridor?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I appreciate the member's question, although I'm not quite sure what he

means. Could you be more specific about what tourist aspects you think

you're referring to?

MR. PASSARELL: There are

approximately six tourist facilities in the Stikine-Iskut valley. The

question, again, to the minister is: what steps has the minister taken

to protect the tourist facilities in that valley from the proposed

Stikine-Iskut transmission corridor?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Has the member any specific facility to refer to which he feels is threatened?

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, the one tourist facility I bring to the minister's

attention is Mr. Willy Williams', which will be right in the proposed

Stikine-Iskut transmission corridor. Does the minister know the area I

am talking about, the Stikine-Iskut transmission corridor — or any

tourist facilities in the north?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I

would ask the member, with great respect, whether he knew what he was

talking about. If you would be so kind, if you have a constituent with

a problem, I would very much appreciate knowing the constituent's name

and the details. Perhaps then I could do his work for him.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. On March

13 in question period I pointed out to his colleague, the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), that there are four

archaeological sites representing the Indian history of the lower

mainland that are still intact, and that one of these is on the

approach to the Annacis Island bridge. The minister took it on notice

and has not reported back. I'd like to ask you, as the minister

responsible for heritage resources in this province, what steps you

have taken to ensure that the proper investigative work is carried out

at that particular site. The summer is proceeding and if the work is

not done over the summer and work proceeds on the construction of the

bridge without that, we will lose irretrievable heritage information.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, if my recollection is correct I have already dealt with

this matter, at the request of either the member or some other person.

I have already received a report on the matter from the archaeological

people in the heritage branch. They are prepared to make these

investigations that the member is referring to. I would be happy to

supply him with a copy of that information.

MR. HYNDMAN:

On a point of order, and with respect to the point raised by the member

for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), in considering your opinion, Mr.

Speaker, may I ask you to consider Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 74,

paragraph 217. It outlines the practice which as deputy Whip on the

government side I have followed, and it clearly out-

[ Page 2758 ]

lines that Whips are entitled to take steps to assemble their members before the final stating of the question.

MR. NICOLSON:

On the point of order, I would respectfully submit that what the member

is suggesting is that we go by standing order 1, which is that "in all

cases not provided for hereafter" — that is, in the following standing

orders — "the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time

shall be followed as they may be applicable to this House." It has also

been established that Beauchesne, which relates to the federal House of

Commons, is followed where these rules are silent. But as it is a rule

in the red book, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that you not look too much

further.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the Telex to which he referred during question period.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1) 1980

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1) 1980.

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.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan asked leave to table the TIDSA report: Kettle Valley Feasibility

Study for a Scenic Railroad under Canadian-British Columbia Travel Industry

Development Subsidiary Agreement.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 103: minister's office, $123,272.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I did want to follow up with a few questions. Some of these matters

have been raised in the Legislature, but I don't think we have

received, in my view, appropriate answers from the minister. I want to

say first of all, though, that I'm a bit disappointed that the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development ducked out of the House

immediately the vote was taken in order to avoid answering questions in

this House on a very important topic relating to the question that

we're about to discuss here. Where was he? Certainly the minister can

spend 15 minutes in this House answering questions. I'm extremely

disappointed in the performance of that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are in committee on vote 103, the estimates

of the Minister of Forests, and our discussion must relate to that vote. The

member for Mackenzie continues on vote 103.

MR. STUPICH: He was the one who said: "Ask Phillips." How can we ask him?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

My colleague makes a very good point, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of

Forests said yesterday in reply to certain questions posed to him: "Ask

Phillips. Ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

those questions." We were prepared to ask the minister those questions

today and he ducked out of the House. Anyway, I will get back to vote

The Minister of Forests did reply to some questions I

posed last week and did tell us that certain timber would be allocated

to the proposed flitch and chip mill at Ocean Falls. He didn't say when

or where, but he said that these timbers would be allocated, and I

believe him. I hope that that project will proceed on time.

One

of the questions I wish to pose to the minister this afternoon is this:

I would like to know when the TFLs that Crown Zellerbach acquired when

they purchased the Ocean Falls Corporation some years ago expired. Did

those TFLs expire in 1978, and were they renewed at that time? Those

are the TFLs that the Crown Zellerbach company acquired when they

purchased the Ocean Falls Corporation. What year was it? Was it 1977,

1978 or 1979? It is a perfectly valid question to ask the Minister of

Forests, Mr. Chairman, and I see he is in the process of getting the

answers from his deputy.

Pursuing this Ocean Falls thing for

just a moment, first of all in terms of what happened in the

Legislature late yesterday afternoon, I was amazed to hear that the

customers of the Ocean Falls Corporation knew very early in March that

the government was planning to shut down that operation. Yet in spite

of that, the Premier told the residents and the union in that community

at a meeting on January 16 of this year that they would not — this is

103, Mr. Chairman — put a foreclose sign on the door of Ocean Falls

without discussing the issue with the residents first. As a matter of

fact, the Premier didn't even have the courtesy to discuss that issue

in this Legislature prior to making that announcement on April 6 of

this year. Yet the customers of the Ocean Falls Corporation were

apparently told early in March that the corporation would be closing

down June 1.

I did have the opportunity of talking to Mr.

Williston yesterday, president of the B.C. Cellulose Company and

chairman of the board of the Ocean Falls Corporation. We discussed,

among other things, timber allocation. This is relating to 103, Mr.

Chairman. He told me that he had heard rumours that the Los Angeles Times was

considering suing the Ocean Falls Corporation for breach of contract.

Yet after that conversation with Mr. Williston, in a phone conversation

with the solicitor for the Los Angeles Times, he told me he had direct

contact with the chairman of the board of the Ocean Falls Corporation,

who in this case is Mr. Williston. Somebody is not telling the truth

here, Mr. Chairman. I am just trying to ask the minister if he could

set us straight on this story.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, the questions and the whole discussion in committee must relate

to the minister and the department whose estimates are before the

committee. Our standing orders indicate that we cannot discuss a grant

on which the committee has resolved or a grant which has not

[ Page 2759 ]

yet

been brought forward. That is clear in the understanding of the

committee system. With that said I would ask the hon. member if he

would contain his debate, as our standing orders indicate, to vote 103,

the administrative actions of the Minister of Forests.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To continue, this does deal with some of the

reasons why the Ocean Falls Corporation was put out of operation by

order of this government on June 1.

Wood allocation is one

of the problems. I posed a specific question to the Minister of Forests

and I expect that we will be receiving an answer, because it was Mr.

Williston as well who told me again, yesterday, and said so on the

radio again this morning, that no wood had been allocated to the Ocean

Falls Corporation. That is one of the reasons why they had to go out of

business. The fact is that, in my view, there was wood available. Wood

fibre could have been allocated to that corporation. I am accusing this

minister and this government of making a conscious decision to deprive

the Ocean Falls Corporation of its needed fibre supply in order that

that operation would become uneconomic in order to close it down

because it was an NDP operation. That is what I am accusing this

government of. I expect the minister to get up and answer those

questions. We have conflicting statements coming from Mr. Williston and

from certain members of the government, some of whom run out of the

House when question period comes up.

You know, Mr. Chairman, that if the Los Angeles Times

decides to pursue legal action for breach of contract with this

government, it could cost the taxpayers of this province, based on the

current price of pulp and paper at $440 per ton, somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $22 million. It could cost more. It could cost up to

$26 million or it could be as little as $16 million. Still, that is a

great deal of money. The anticipated revenue loss of the Ocean Falls

Corporation because of lack of fibre supply was going to be, in the

government's view, about $13 million this year. This means that the

government could have kept Ocean Falls in operation for this next year,

and further indicates to me, quite frankly, that somebody is not

telling the truth — not telling us the whole story, to be more

charitable. They're not being candid with us, because we do have

conflicting statements from the chairman of the corporation, from the

government and from other people on this whole situation.

While

we're discussing this topic, perhaps the minister would be good enough

to tell us how many other orders or breaches of contract Ocean Falls

Corporation subjected their customers to. Are there going to be other

impending lawsuits? We could be in the $50 million range. Who knows?

Perhaps the minister would be good enough to answer some of these

questions.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the NDP

government, when we were the government, honoured our contracts. We

kept our commitments. This government is a government that doesn't

honour their contracts and doesn't keep their commitments. Their word

is not trusted anywhere in the world now. Mr. Chairman, I hope the

minister will get up and answer some questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the member goes into a great deal of discussion on the

Ocean Falls Corporation. The Ocean Falls Corporation as such reports to

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). The member asked again about the timber supply study that is

taking place right now with the cooperation of the Ministry of Forests

staff and consultants of the Ocean Falls Corporation. I can advise the

member — as I have done over the last several days — where we are on

that study. It is my understanding now that the final report of the

consultant and our staff will be presented to the Ocean Falls

Corporation and to Mr. Williston on June 9. I believe I reported this

in previous discussion on the subject. It will then be discussed with

Mr. Williston of the Forest Service on June 11, and my understanding is

that the report appears to be quite favourable in the chances of making

some of this wood that has been classified as uneconomic available to

the Ocean Falls Corporation so that they can get on with their

experiment of harvesting techniques and the operation of a flitch and

chip mill at Ocean Falls.

Other areas discussed by the

member are more properly discussed under the vote of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Or question period.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Or in question period, if you wish.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But he runs out at question period.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it's not within my responsibility and therefore I cannot respond to the member.

MR. KING:

The minister insists on holding that he bears no responsibility for

ensuring that contracts which are entered into for timber products

supplied to either offshore customers or customers within North America

south of the 49th parallel are honoured. I find that rather curious,

Mr. Chairman. Social Credit members on that side of the House are very

fond of travelling the length and breadth of this province decrying the

fact that industrial relations strife, whether they be strikes or

lockouts, interferes with British Columbia's reputation as a secure

supplier of timber products abroad. We have to curb these terrible work

losses. Otherwise it may tarnish our image for competing in the

international marketplace for the export of our products.

the other hand, we have here a Crown corporation, presided over by a

cabinet minister which had plans underway to close their pulp and

newsprint plant, entering into an agreement with an American newspaper,

namely the Los Angeles Times ,

for the supply of certain newsprint. This contract was renewed last

year, and that contract has apparently been breached by the closure of

Ocean Falls, which, in effect, Mr. Chairman, was not only a cabinet

decision, but certainly a decision that hinged upon the timber supply

over which the Minister of Forests has jurisdiction. The minister says:

"Well, that's of no interest to me. Go to the minister of small." Well,

Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Minister of Forests has a mandate and

an obligation to ensure that there is efficiency in the utilization of

forest products and efficiency and reliability in every aspect of the

forest industry from harvesting to processing to marketing — that's

what we're dealing with here, the marketing of a resource which was

contracted for and then breached with the government's acquiescence;

and the minister declares himself devoid of any responsibility.

[ Page 2760 ]

Mr.

Chairman, division (6) of the new Forest Act, which the minister

introduced, deals with applications for pulpwood agreements, which is

basically supply — it may not precisely fit the terms that Ocean Falls

found themselves in; nevertheless, under this

section the minister is

given broad powers. Let me quote, Mr. Chairman:

"

(1) Where the minister determines that (

a) wood chips, sawdust, shavings,

hog fuel or other residues or byproducts of timber processing are

produced in an area of the Province; or (

b) timber below the standard

of utilization then in effect for sawmilling purposes exists on an area

of Crown land in a public sustained yield unit or a timber supply area

in the Province, or both, in sufficient quantities to warrant the

continuance, establishment, or expansion of a timber processing

facility, the minister may designate the area as a pulpwood area and

may enter into a pulpwood agreement for that area.

"

(2) Where the minister makes a determination under subsection (1) he may,

on request or on his own initiative, by advertising in the prescribed

manner, invite applications for a pulpwood agreement."

Now

if the minister is given that kind of mandate to determine whether

there is sufficient low-grade timber and residue that is not being

fully utilized, that he can precipitate by his own initiative plant

expansion and plant continuance, how is it that he denies any

responsibility that Ocean Falls, this Crown corporation, after having

entered into a major newsprint supply contract with the Los Angeles Times , closed their plant arbitrarily, breached the contract of supply to the Los Angeles Times and in so doing subjected this province to the potential loss of millions of dollars in damage claims?

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The

minister has a clear mandate and a clear responsibility in the total

scheme of forest management, as I indicated earlier, from the

harvesting process through the processing and the marketing, to ensure

that proper utilization takes place, to ensure that waste material is

utilized to the maximum, optimum level. He denies all that; he wants to

slough off the responsibility for proper management and for protecting

the reputation of British Columbia as a secure and reliable supplier to

offshore and North American customers. He wants to shift all of that to

the minister of industry, small business and small other things — I

forget the appropriate title of that minister, Mr. Chairman, and you'll

excuse me for doing so. I mean no slight upon that minister, but he

knows what he is, and that's perhaps why he ran out of the House in

question period today.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is clearly

responsible not only for the protection of our forests; he's

responsible for the maximum utilization of the resource, and certainly

and clearly he has an obligation to protect the reputation of British

Columbia as a source of forest-product supply to all customers. What

are offshore customers going to feel now that they have seen a

government agent with the apparent blessing of cabinet, certainly with

the blessing of a former Social Credit cabinet minister who is the

chief administrative officer of the Ocean Falls Corporation, and with

the passive acquiescence of this Minister of Forests, participating in

wantonly breaching a contract of supply?

I submit, Mr.

Chairman, that that kind of irresponsible action will not only subject

the people of British Columbia to very major loss in terms of damage

claims, but will also do irreparable damage to British Columbia's image

as a secure and mature supplier of forest products all over the world.

It's bad enough when some unforeseen circumstance such as a work

stoppage, extended fire season or market conditions interferes with our

ability to maximize our export of products flowing from the forest

industry, but to have it abridged by an apparently deliberate

willingness to breach a contract that had been entered into, and then

have the minister who presides over all of the forest industry and who

is clearly responsible for its efficient utilization in the public

interest, declare disinterest, declare himself devoid of any

responsibility, is either crass ignorance of the role which he has been

appointed to play or complete irresponsibility.

What steps does the minister intend to take to ensure that the contract with the Los Angeles Times

for newsprint supply will be fulfilled? Has he entered into any

discussions with any alternate supplier to see whether or not a supply

could be provided at the same price which was contracted for? Has he

entered into any discussion, in any way, to ensure that our credibility

as a supplier of paper, newsprint and various lumber products is not

going to be impaired and tarnished forever by this very, very

unfortunate incident? I would appreciate knowing what the minister

intends to do.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The corporate

dealings of the Ocean Falls Corporation are carried out by the

corporation. The minister responsible for the Ocean Falls Corporation

is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

Minister of Forests I have, as I've said a number of times in the

Legislature, had my staff work with consultants working for the Ocean

Falls Corporation in an attempt to identify a wood that could be made

available through an appropriate type of tenure. The most appropriate

type for the short-term basis of the experiment would be a direct

timber sale licence, which can be carried out under the terms of the

Forest Act without competition. A pulpwood agreement would not be an

appropriate vehicle at the present time. A pulpwood agreement, as the

member well knows, requires public hearings, and others are at liberty

to enter into competition for a pulpwood agreement. That is not the

most appropriate vehicle at this time. If the experiment is successful,

it may well be that a pulpwood agreement in combination with a forest

licence would be an appropriate vehicle. Attempting to go that route is

premature at this time.

I would say again that my

responsibility to the Ocean Falls Corporation is the same as it is to

any other company working in the forest sector, and that is the

administration of Crown timber. I've advised the members that we are

doing just that. The final report of the consultants and the Ministry

of Forests staff will be in the hands of Mr. Williston on about June 9.

We are proposing that the Forest Service then meet with Mr. Williston a

couple of days thereafter. Our understanding is that the report will be

favourable. We can then proceed with a special experimental timber sale

to Ocean Falls Corporation without competition. There ends my

responsibility to the Ocean Falls Corporation, Mr. Chairman. The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is the appropriate

minister to be asking the other questions of.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I did ask the minister about the allocation, reassignment and renewal of TFLs. As you know,

[ Page 2761 ]

when

Crown Zellerbach purchased the Ocean Falls company many years ago they

acquired with that company large tracts of timber under various tenures

— TFLs, what have you. Some of those TFLs expired — I don't recall the

exact year; I think it was 1978, but it could have been '78, '77 or

'79. I want to know from the minister if, after the leases were

expired, all those TFLs were renewed, and why, since those TFLs were

assigned to the Ocean Falls company for wood to supply their plant,

they were not reassigned to the Ocean Falls Corporation when they came

up for renewal so they would have an assured fibre supply. Those TFLs

were assigned to the Ocean Falls Corporation to supply that company

with wood, not Crown Zellerbach. I've nothing against the Crown

Zellerbach company. They have, I'm sure, their own sources of wood

supply; they must have or they wouldn't be in business, would they? So

why weren't those TFLs reassigned to the Ocean Falls Corporation when

they expired?

I was not suggesting for a moment that the

minister could have or would have contemplated breaking a valid, legal

contract on the 21-year leases or the type of tenure it may have been

at the time. There were five or six different types, as the minister

well knows. Perhaps the minister could tell us when these TFLs were

renewed. I'm assuming that they were renewed to Crown Zellerbach Canada

Ltd., not reassigned to the Ocean Falls Corporation. Perhaps the

minister could answer that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

When Ocean Falls Corporation was acquired from Crown Zellerbach by the

NDP government, there was considerable legal discussion at the time as

to whether it was appropriate or not to transfer licences to the Ocean

Falls Corporation; I believe this got to the courts at times. There are

a number of licence forms involved. The old temporary tenures, which

are one-time tenure for the harvest of timber that happens to be on a

site.... These receive various treatments under the Forest Act. Where

timber sale licences — and I guess some timber supply to the Ocean

Falls Corporation when it was owned by Crown Zellerbach was through

tree-farm licences as well....

I'm afraid that I can't help

the member with individual licences and where they are. They are in

various stages of being rolled into either the new form of tenure....

As the member knows from the Forest Act, old temporary tenures within a

tree-farm licence.... When they are used as an old temporary tenure, it

will become a part of the tree-farm licence, and those outside of the

tree-farm licence become Crown timberland. So the various things that

happen are all spelled out very clearly by the Forest Act. I would have

to research it, because there are quite a number of licences involved.

If the member wishes it, I will certainly get back to him with the

details of just where we are on those various licences.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I don't accept the minister's answer at all with respect

to his role in Ocean Falls. The minister clearly has a mandate under

the Forest Act, which he introduced a short time ago, to properly

manage the forest industry in the province of British Columbia. It

includes some very broad powers: powers to require the continuation of

an operation; powers to grant timber rights, conditional on proper

processing facilities. If the minister asks us to accept that he

exercised those powers in harvesting and processing and that he's

completely devoid of any authority to ensure the proper marketing of

the resource, then I have to say he has a shallow understanding of his

responsibilities.

Be that as it may, I guess, Mr. Chairman,

we can't really expect very decisive action from this minister. He's

prepared to let our reputation be tarnished. He's prepared to let the

contract for the supply of newsprint go down the tube, with possible

damage claims against the province of British Columbia and the loss of

millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. All he wants to talk about

is: "Oh, well, maybe we'll give them some timber for a chip and flitch

mill." Well, that in no way is going to provide the contract that was

negotiated in good faith by the Los Angeles Times

and the Ocean Falls Corporation for the supply of newsprint. The

minister simply refuses to address himself to that problem. His

colleague runs out of the House for fear he might get a question about

it, Mr. Chairman. What we have here is a whole government on the run,

without the confidence or the character to face up to their

responsibilities. I think that's absolutely shocking.

Yesterday

when the minister got up to respond to my friend, the Leader of the

Opposition, regarding this question of Ocean Falls, he made some

statements that I want to refer back to him. I want to ask him for

clarification on what he meant. I quote from Hansard , page 758-1:

Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is criticizing Mr. Williston for doing exactly

the same thing that Mr. Williams did when he was the Minister of Forests. Mr.

Williams was in the position of having this conflict of interest, being the

minister responsible for Crown timber, and also being the minister responsible

for a timber-using corporation. Even though he had both responsibilities, that

minister found no timber for the Ocean Falls Corporation. That former disaster

government signed its sales agreements with the Central National corporation

a year before they had to be signed. Strangely enough, it was very shortly after

the government changed hands, as a matter of fact. What his motivations were

for that, Mr. Chairman, I have no idea: I have no knowledge. But this government

is very concerned about the fact that there should not be a conflict of interest

in a minister's responsibilities.

Now

I want to ask the Minister of Forests precisely what he was implying

when he said he didn't know what the former minister's motivations

were. Before I ask him to answer, I want to comment briefly on his

allegations of conflict of interest.

The Minister of

Forests, under the NDP administration, presided over the Forests

portfolio — Lands, Forests and Water Resources, I believe it was in

those days — and he also presided over, from the cabinet level, a Crown

corporation called Ocean Falls, which was purchased on the open market

by the New Democratic Party, not expropriated, not seized, in the

fashion that the Social Credit government of the former Bennett had

seized and expropriated B.C. Electric and Black Ball Ferries. Rather,

Ocean Falls was purchased on the open market. What we had was a duly

elected cabinet minister representing the public interest in a Crown

corporation at the cabinet level wherefrom any profits and any

appreciation of assets flowed to the public. Now one can argue — this

may be a philosophical difference between the minister and our side of

the House — that that is an unfair advantage over the private sector.

Fair enough, if you want to make that argument. But when the minister

uses the words "conflict of interest," he implies that the minister

himself was in a position to benefit in some way by presiding at the

political level and over the public corporation at the same time. I say

that that is an absolutely untrue statement, Mr. Chairman. I say that

it is a rather poisonous slander of a former member of this House. I

ask the minister to spell out precisely what he means. He said: "I

don't know what that minister's motiva-

[ Page 2762 ]

tions

were. " Well, I can tell the minister, for his edification, that no

member of the New Democratic Party has ever been charged in a court of

law with impropriety regarding or surrounding his cabinet portfolio,

either for accepting kickbacks or bribes with the issuance of forest

licences, or for any other misdemeanour, be it of graft nature or any

other, or petty theft....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What about provincial treasurer Fines from Saskatchewan?

MR. KING: I'm dealing in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What did the judge say about Williams? What did the judge say about Dowding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING:

Well, if the mouthy member for Columbia River has some charges to make

regarding any member of this House current or past, let him have the

gumption to get on his feet and do so. But I dislike these poisonous

allegations and aspersions being cast on people when they lack the

intestinal fortitude to get on their feet and make them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sy Kovachich — who lied there?

MR. KING:

Well, you should know who lied, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you're more

familiar with that pattern than people on this side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Shuswap–Revelstoke has the floor on vote 103. Would all members give him their closest attention?

MR. KING:

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. The members on that side are fond of

trying to divert the heat from one of their colleagues when he is in

some trouble, rather than having the confidence in him to answer for

his own sins of omission or whatever they be.

The minister

has made some very objectionable statements regarding the

administration of Bob Williams. If you don't like the man and you

disagree with his politics, fair enough. But, Mr. Minister, if you are

implying some improper motivation or some wrongdoing in terms of the

private life of that individual, then I challenge you to get on your

feet and spill it out rather than making poisonous slurs and

allegations in the fashion that seems to be indicated from your

comments yesterday.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman,

I don't know what the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke appears to be so

bent out of shape about. In my remarks yesterday I said that in my view

there is a clear conflict of interest when a minister is responsible

for a Crown corporation which is a consumer of wood and is also the

minister responsible for the allocation of wood. It seems very clear to

me that he is both landlord and tenant and he'll beat himself coming

around the corner. That must be apparent to everyone. Our government

will not deal in that manner. Our Minister of Forests will not be

directly responsible for its own corporation that uses wood. It is that

simple.

The member signed a contract to the Central National Corp. What his motivation

was, I don't know. The reason I asked the question was that Ocean Falls

Corporation, at that time, did not have a secure supply of wood. What vehicle

was that minister to use in the Forest Act which would provide a supply of wood

to secure that contract? It's the same question you're asking us now,

Mr. Member. I certainly never implied any impropriety on the part of the former

minister. That member seems to be reading things into what I said that were

not there at all. I don't know what he's so upset about, Mr. Chairman,

but I don't see how I could function as a minister responsible for the disposition

of Crown wood and at the same time be responsible for a corporation that uses

wood and not find myself in a very difficult position at many times.

a matter of fact, the member will recall that when our government was

first formed I was appointed Minister of Forests. At that time I was

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources as well. For a short time

I had been assigned that responsibility and I saw a very clear conflict

of interest there. I asked the Premier to please appoint some other

minister responsible for these Crown corporations in the forest sector

because I couldn't deal that way. I think it's very clear to members

that there must be some conflict when a member has a dual

responsibility like that — the giver on one hand and the taker on the

other. Certainly there must be a conflict there. I think that is a very

inappropriate way to have the responsibilities of cabinet distributed

among cabinet members. As far as renewing the contract, you accused Mr.

Williston of renewing the contract when he didn't have a wood supply

and me of not supplying the wood. That former minister was in exactly

the same position. He signed a contract with Central National Corp. —

for some reason before it was necessary — and he didn't have a wood

supply for the Crown corporation. There was no vehicle in the Forest

Act at that time for making a direct allocation of wood without

amending or at least breaching the act. Those are the questions I raise.

MR. KING:

I don't feel that I'm bent out of shape over this issue. Certainly my

mind is not bent out of shape, but I detect that in some of the

statements that come from the other side. The minister's wording, as I

read it from the Blues, questions the motivation of the former

minister. Mr. Chairman, I think that if I questioned the motivation of

any member of this House you would direct me to withdraw any such

inference because that is unparliamentary and considered a slight

against a member of the Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: He resigned from the Legislature to make room for your leader.

MR. KING:

That is quite true. The former Minister of Forests is not in the

Legislature anymore. If he were he would be quite capable of looking

after his interests and his good name. Since he is not here I see no

reason that we should not extend to him the same kind of courtesies

that we demand for ourselves. What we demand for ourselves is that no

member of this House has the right to call into question the motivation

of another. That is the parliamentary rule. Just because the member is

not in the House at this time, I see no reason why he should not

receive the same consideration and the same courtesy from the minister.

The minister talks about the conflict of interest. Provided he spells that out in terms of a principle their government

[ Page 2763 ]

disagrees

with, fair enough. I understand that. I do not consider it a conflict

of interest in the traditional fashion of that term when the minister

is exercising a public responsibility and any benefit flowing from his

position flows to the public, whom he represents. Conflict of interest

does seem to imply that an elected person, in his public duties, stands

to gain some private benefit. If the minister is not astute enough to

understand that, then I accept his misunderstanding. But there's an

unfortunate inference in the term. He has given me an assurance that he

in no way meant to cast that aspersion on the former minister, and I

accept that. Fair enough.

Mr. Chairman, I still disagree

with the minister in his non-role on the Ocean Falls thing. He makes

the point that the former Minister of Forests under the NDP government

entered into a contract for the supply of pulp and/or newsprint when

there was a shortage of timber supply to that company. He questioned

whether or not the authority resided within the Forest Act of that time

for the minister to exercise that discretion. Well, maybe that's a good

question. Maybe Bob Williams took his cue from Ray Williston, who is

the former Social Credit minister.

I recall coming to

government in 1972 and a fairly major sawmill from the interior of the

province coming to me and saying: "Hey, we have to close down and lay

off 300 men unless we get a timber supply." And I said: "Well, how can

that be? You have just embarked on a $2.5 million expansion of your

plant. Are you coming here to tell me that you undertook a $2.5 million

capital investment in expansion of plant without a secure supply of

timber?" They said: "It would appear so." And I said: "Well, I have

great difficulty accepting that. I know you as hard-nosed businessmen.

I know that you wouldn't put out that kind of capital investment

without some indication that timber supply was going to be forthcoming

to you." They said: "Well, we did, you know, have a kind of tacit

indication from the minister that something may be coming." That was

just before the election in 1972. I think they finally got their timber

supply under this minister, ironically enough. Then they sold out to

another firm.

The point that the minister makes is something

that's been going on for a good long time in the province of British

Columbia, and I agree it's something that is not desirable in terms of

ministers acting without proper authority under the act in the

allocation of timber. I've made our position clearly known to the

minister in debate on the act, and in subsequent debate in this House,

that I feel there should be wide-open competition for timber in the

province of British Columbia.

The minister says the problem

with the Ocean Falls thing is.... He said: "Well, if they went under

the pulp harvesting licence, there would have to be open hearings."

What's wrong with that, Mr. Minister? Oh, it's complicated and takes a

little longer, but that's the way you secure the public interest. I

know the minister doesn't believe in that. I know how he would rather

do business through an exchange of correspondence with people like Mr.

Ainscough of MacBlo on the renewal of tree farm licences, changing

conditions and even changing the names, and replacement of TFLs 20,

Tofino, and 21, Alberni — all conducted through private negotiations

between that minister, his staff and that private corporation, and not

one public hearing, one tender, or one chance at public bid, but all

done in secrecy — the roll-over of tree farm licences, major timber

supply areas in the province of British Columbia, all within the

secrecy of that minister's department.

He gets up and says

about this little pulpwood supply for Ocean Falls: "Oh, gee, we

couldn't do that. It would be cumbersome to involve the public in a

discussion on supply. Don't involve them; just lay off 300, 400 or 700

workers at the plant, close down the town and let them go home."

Wouldn't it be a terrible shame, Mr. Minister, to have some public

debate regarding this policy, for you centralists, for you bureaucrats

who want to dictate policy and impose it on everybody rather than

having any dialogue?

Well, Mr. Minister, you held that it

was a conflict of interest when a cabinet minister served as Minister

of Forests and served the public interest also as the board member on a

Crown corporation, despite any preferential benefits that might flow

from that relationship going to public revenue and to the public

treasury, but you don't find any conflict at all about sitting behind

closed doors, along with your staff, and deciding that MacMillan

Bloedel shall have tree-farm licence 20 and 21 rolled over through a

perpetual tenure arrangement without public hearing, without any

guarantee to the public that they are receiving fair value, without any

vestige of competition, without any opportunity for the small

indigenous B.C. operator, without any guarantee to the public that the

fisheries and the environment and the wildlife will be protected. You

sit there smug and secure that you, in isolation and in secrecy, can

serve the public interest.

I think the people of British Columbia are going to have a message for you when the next election rolls around, Mr. Minister.

MR. BARRETT:

I have some questions to ask of the minister; I know I have the

minister's full attention. Could the minister tell me whether or not

his ministry has been asked to help in any way to resolve the problem

created by the lack of newsprint now for the Los Angeles Times ?

Has his ministry been asked in any way to help them resolve this

problem — you know, an inventory analysis or production analysis or

anything like that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I as minister have not been asked, and my deputy advises me that he has not been asked.

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister tell me when he first learned of this problem? Was it yesterday that he was first aware?

Through

you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister didn't hear me; sometimes I

speak too quickly. Could the minister let me know when he first heard

of this problem of the shortage of newsprint and the breaking of the

contract with the Los Angeles Times ?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, if a problem exists, the first I heard of it was when the

member discussed it in the Legislature yesterday. As I told the member,

I do not have responsibility for the Ocean Falls Corporation, and it

would certainly have been brought to the attention of the minister

responsible long before it would come to my attention.

MR. BARRETT:

The first you knew that there might have been a problem was when Her

Majesty's loyal Leader of the Opposition brought this problem gently to

your attention yesterday, is that correct? That's right, thank you. And

you tell me that your ministry has not been asked to help in any

[ Page 2764 ]

way

— even perhaps by an inventory survey or production capabilities of

some other plant. There has been no call upon your office to help with

this problem, which you just learned about yesterday, that may not be

in existence. Well, that's okay.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I answered the questions.

MR. BARRETT:

You did; you're a good boy; you're a nice boy; thank you very much.

Yes, he answered the questions today; we're getting somewhere. Really,

you're a nice fellow. Don't get nervous, I'm just getting around to

helping you.

Did you ever have any discussions with Mr.

Williston about the possibility of Ocean Falls running out of timber or

fibre and therefore in the future having problems meeting existing

contracts?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the

responsibility for the Ocean Falls Corporation — the corporate

operation of that company — lies with the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. As I said yesterday, I've been discussing

with Ocean Falls Corporation, through the Forest Service, the

possibility of timber availability for the last couple of years, but it

has never been related to any corporate dealings of the company outside

of British Columbia or to the sales of its products. My responsibility

lies with the administration of Crown timber.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister if he had any conversations with Mr.

Williston personally about this problem of shortage of timber and fibre

supply for the Ocean Falls mill.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, that's not what the Leader of the Opposition asked. He

asked if I had discussions about the fibre supply as it relates to the

fulfilment of a contract, and I answered the question.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, if I didn't ask it before, I'm asking it now. Through you, Mr.

Chairman, on vote 103, did the minister have any conversations

personally with Mr. Williston about the problem of the shortage of

timber and fibre for the Ocean Falls mill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

As I said yesterday, for the last couple of years my staff have been

discussing with the Ocean Falls Corporation the possibility of timber

supply, and those studies are going on now. The report, which is being

developed by consultants of that corporation and my staff, is due, I

believe, on June 9. That is the latest information I have.

MR. BARRETT:

The minister tells me that he did have conversations with Mr.

Williston, who is the chief executive officer of the corporation,

concerning the shortage of timber and fibre for the mill. At any time

in those conversations with Mr. Williston, did he indicate to you the

necessity of guaranteeing a supply of timber and fibre based on

existing contracts that Ocean Falls had? Or, during all of those

conversations, were you totally unaware that there were existing

contracts up to 1984, based on a timber allocation that was not there?

Were you aware that those contracts had been signed with the full

knowledge that there was no timber to back up those contracts?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The provision of timber, if available, is the extent of my

responsibility to the Ocean Falls Corporation. I told the member —

three times, I believe — that I have not discussed with Ocean Falls

Corporation, or Mr. Williston, anything related to their contracts, or

how their timber supply affects their ongoing contracts. The member

could ask me the question twenty times and the answer would be the same.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm just trying to be accurate and exact in dealing with what appears

to be a very simple problem, and it shouldn't take too long for me, as

limited as I am, with no backup staff to help me in these complex

questions, such as: "Do you remember meeting with somebody?" So I've

got to go through it slowly. I am led to understand by the minister

that he did have conversations with Mr. Williston. He did discuss the

shortage of timber and fibre. That's fine. That's only proper. But at

no time did Mr. Williston say to him: "Look, we have contracts and

obligations, and if we don't get timber we can't meet those contracts

and obligations." In other words, the minister is stating here in the

House that his conversations were purely related to the timber and the

fibre, and that at no time did Mr. Williston alert him to the fact that

the shortage of timber and fibre could lead to the closure of Ocean

Falls and the non-fulfilment of existing contracts. I'm to assume, from

what the minister said, that he had no knowledge that that would be a

consequence of a shortage of timber or fibre.

If my

assumption is wrong, then that's what I want to know. I want to be able

to say, in discussing this matter, that the minister assured me that

even though he discussed with Ocean Falls their request and need for

more timber and more fibre, he was not part of any conversations,

related to those discussions, which indicated that if they didn't get

the timber and they didn't get the fibre, existing contracts might not

be met. Now am I incorrect in that statement — after listening closely

to your answers?

You see, Mr. Chairman, that's why I get so mixed up with that minister.

MR. REE: Well, you're mixed up anyway.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, I know, Mr. Member. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a humble servant of

the people trying to find out how this member can ski in June in

Victoria — ice skate and slip around. What he's trying to do is leave

me with the impression — never mind anyone else...he's trying to leave

you and me with the impression, Mr. Chairman, that he did discuss with

Mr. Williston, in his capacity as chief officer of the Ocean Falls

Corporation the fact that Ocean Falls was short of timber.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: We're not dealing with Cargill, or with the fantastic success of the compulsory Heroin Treatment Program. They're next.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sexist.

MR. BARRETT: I've never referred to the gender of any tree, Mr. Minister. I have not referred to the pollen or the

[ Page

2765 ]

birds

and the bees. There have been no overtones of any kind of

interpretation of generic relationship. I'm just trying to determine

the minister's recall abilities. It's got nothing to do with sexist.

After a certain age, Mr. Minister, sexism is not a problem with

ministers and others.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hear you had a problem in your caucus the other day.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't a problem of sexism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition does have the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's me, Mr. Chairman. I'm on my feet and I

enjoy the kind of interruption from the former Minister of Health.

To come back to the matter at hand, Mr. Minister, would I be correct if

I made a public statement outside this chamber saying that the minister stated

in the House that although he had discussed the shortage of timber and fibre

with Mr. Williston and/or representatives of Ocean Falls, at no time did he

discuss with them or they with him the consequences to the existing contract

of not obtaining more fibre or more timber? At no time was the need for more

timber and fibre to be able to meet existing contracts shared with you or discussed

with you. Is that right?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Ocean Falls Corporation has not, since my term as Minister of Forests,

had a Crown timber allocation. Their timber supply has been through

purchases either on the market or through private purchases. Ocean

Falls Corporation has had a number of proposals to do various things

with their plant during our term of office as government. Of course, it

has always hinged upon a timber supply. I've advised the House that

there's a tight timber supply in the mid-coast. We and our staff in the

ministry have been dealing with consultants of the Ocean Falls

Corporation in an attempt to define an operating area in timber that is

currently classed as economically inaccessible, and that's as far as my

responsibility to the Ocean Falls Corporation extends.

MR. BARRETT:

Then I'm safe to say, without denial from the minister, that we are to

believe that he did have discussions with Mr. Williston about the

timber and fibre supply at Ocean Falls but at no time was that

conversation related in any way to the need for timber and fibre to

keep Ocean Falls going and existing contracts met. Is that right? Is

that wrong?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Over the last couple of years I and my ministry

have been attempting to determine whether or not a fibre supply from Crown timber

can be made available to Ocean Falls Corporation. It has become apparent that

there's an area of wood in the mid-coast classified as uneconomic. My staff

and the consultants at the Ocean Falls Corporation have been attempting to

identify areas in which they can operate. A report of those consultants is due

on June 9. Shortly thereafter, it will be discussed with the Forests ministry.

It appears that it is going to be favourable; if it is, then perhaps a timber

allocation can be made to Ocean Falls Corporation. As long as I have been the

minister the Ocean Falls Corporation has not had a timber allocation. That was

the case when it was under the previous government as well. They acquired their

timber and fibre supply from purchases either in the log market or private purchases.

If they acquire a Crown timber corporation it will be as a result of the procedure

that I have outlined to the member.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the minister for being so careful in his answers. The

minister said that the reports from the consultants will be made

available to him on June 9. Can you tell me why, in your opinion, Ocean

Falls would close before they had the consultants' reports on their

desks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure the member is

well aware that the plan of the Ocean Falls Corporation is to install a

flitch and chip mill to upgrade wood as it's harvested, to resell it

and perhaps provide a supply of chips. If the experiment is successful

it could lead to an increase in the cut on the coast as this timber is

brought into the economically usable category. There's a possibility

that down the road a pulp operation could be established at Ocean Falls

based upon what is currently uneconomic fibre.

MR. BARRETT: I thank the minister for his answer. On June 9 the minister will receive reports....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Williston will.

MR. BARRETT:

Williston will receive the reports. You will be familiar with the

reports. The government and Mr. Williston will know better on what

basis to guide their future policy with an inventory that is being

prepared and will be delivered on June 9 for a flitch and chip mill.

That is correct. I'm talking about something before that mill. Did you

prepare any reports for Mr. Williston or Ocean Falls in the two years

that you discussed with them their need for a timber or fibre supply to

keep the newsprint operation going? Did you discuss that with them?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

During the period of time that we were investigating the possibility of

a wood supply and the state of wood supply on the mid coast, we of

course produced a number of reports. I am sure that the Ocean Falls

Corporation has been working with the ministry and has copies of the

wood supply situation. What it indicated is that presently, in wood

that is in the allowable cut, there is not sufficient available, if it

could be allocated to Ocean Falls Corporation through some form of

licence, to carry on the paper operation. That is why that corporation

has decided to go this experimental route to try to increase the wood

supply by demonstrating that some of this uneconomical wood can in fact

be used.

MR. BARRETT: Then we have the minister

saying that reports were introduced indicating that there was not

sufficient supply to continue the operation of the newsprint part of

the Ocean Falls. Is that right? Could the minister tell me what date,

approximately, those reports over the last two years were given to the

Ocean Falls Corporation from your department indicating that there

wasn't enough fibre and supply of material to keep the newsprint going?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can't help the member with any specific dates, I'm afraid. I would say the last

[ Page 2766 ]

summary

of the timber supply situation on the coast as it relates to the Ocean

Falls Corporation and to other wood users on the coast would be within

the last six to eight months; I'm afraid I can't be any closer than

that.

MR. BARRETT: Think you, Mr. Minister. Would it

be reasonable to assume that people in the industry, including Ocean

Falls, knew that you had such studies in process and that they did know

before the studies were concluded that there was a problem of a

shortage of fibre and timber for the newsprint operation going back to

the early seventies? That was publicly known, but your reports in the

last six or eight months confirmed what was already knowledge — that

there was a shortage of timber.

Do you know what I'm getting at, Mr. Minister? Could I be very candid with you and let you know what I'm getting at?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Why don't you come out and say what you're getting at?

MR. BARRETT:

I think your ministry probably did its job. When asked for information

it probably gave information to confirm that there wasn't the timber

and fibre supply to keep the newsprint going. There is an honest desire

on the part of Ocean Falls to move to the flitch and chip mill which

would use material that ordinarily would be discarded. That is what I

understand. What it reveals to me is that perhaps the advice from your

department, publicly and privately known by Ocean Falls, was ignored.

What I'm trying to get at is whether there was any information that

your ministry provided that would lead the management of Ocean Falls —

specifically Mr. Williston — to believe that when he signed the

contract or allowed the contract to be signed in 1978 and 1979 he was

going to get the supply to keep the newsprint operating. Otherwise he

wouldn't have signed a five-year contract in 1978 and renewed it in

As I understand what you are saying today, you gave

them all the information that they requested. As I understand your

position, it was a confirmation of a historical fact — there wasn't

enough timber and fibre. Yet the contract was signed in 1978 and

renewed in an election year, 1979, to run for five years when, by your

own statements here, Mr. Williston must have known that he couldn't

fulfill that contract unless he got more of a timber supply. He must

have known that. If you tell me that in your conversations with Mr.

Williston or with your department none of the motivations for the

study, or in any of the discussions on the study you had any knowledge

or awareness of the importance of finding a new supply of timber and

fibre for Ocean Falls — to your knowledge — so that they could meet

those contracts....

In other words, you were an innocent adrift in a world of facts,

removed from the policy demands of Ocean Falls and of keeping those

people employed and meeting the contract that had been signed. That's

fair enough. I take your word for it. But you're leading us to a

situation where you would want us to believe that you were just

gathering this information for the sake of gathering the information,

that its application was absolutely none of your business. Fair enough.

If it's a conflict of interest you viewed, and it's another minister's

responsibility, and you never talked to Williston about it.... You're

telling us — and I accept it — that you had nothing to do with it, that

your reports confirm that there was no timber, that there was no fibre

supply to maintain Ocean Falls, and that Ocean Falls had that

information but still signed the contract.

Mr. Chairman, now that the

minister has said that he didn't know about these contracts until

yesterday, as I understand it, I would like to ask the minister's

opinion of a business that would sign a contract for the delivery of a

product when they had no guarantee of supply of material to manufacture

that product. Would that fall in the category of not being very nice,

Mr. Chairman? How would you describe a business operation owned by the

Crown, or by private enterprise, that would go out and sign a contract

for five years to supply a product, knowing at the time they signed

that they didn't have enough material to meet the demands of the

contract? They renewed the contract in 1979, a year later, to run to

1984 with knowledge from your department that there was no timber or

fibre supply, and they still signed the contract with the full

knowledge that they couldn't meet the contract. What would you say if

you were a shareholder and somebody acted on that information, and you

were the minister and you were never consulted about it? What kind of

business practice would you describe it as?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

As I've said a number of times, the Ocean Falls Corporation has had no

Crown timber allocation since it was acquired by the government. Their

timber supply has been coming from purchases either in the log market

or the private sector. They have signed a number of contracts since

they were acquired by the government in the early seventies. They were

in exactly the same position, I guess, as far as the timber supply was

concerned when the last contract was signed as they were when the first

one was signed, in '72 or '73, whenever it was signed. So nothing has

changed.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you see, Mr. Chairman,

the point has just been made by my colleague. When they signed the

contracts in the early seventies, they met the contract. When MacMillan

Bloedel signs a contract, they fulfill it or face legal action; that's

true.

When you employ someone to sign a contract, and they

have knowledge, as testified by the minister over and over and over

today.... The minister has testified in this House that they knew they

didn't have the timber; they knew studies were going on; they had no

guarantees — I have to take the minister's word for that. Is a wink as

good as a nod in a conversation with Mr. Williston? Was there any way

at all that he could believe in a handshake and a chat with you over a

cup of coffee that you hinted that timber might be available? I don't

think you did. I think you're innocent, in the best sense of the word.

I don't think you gave him any hint whatsoever that there would be any

timber; you were just looking into it. Now there are skeptics in my

group who might disagree with my conclusion. There might be people in

the public who would think: "My goodness, it's mighty strange that Mr.

Williston never discussed the contracts with the Minister of Forests."

But not me. Mr. Williston is a busy man, and he's very cautious about

who he spends his time with. So if he ignored the minister, I

understand. But what you're really saying and confirming in this House

is that Mr. Williston, on behalf of this whole government, including

you as a cabinet minister, signed a contract with full knowledge that

at the time he signed it he could not guarantee that he could fulfill

it.

[ Page

2767 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I will refer all hon.

members to May, seventeenth edition, which says that the administrative

action of a department is open to debate during Committee of Supply,

but that matters involving high public servants cannot be criticized,

and a member cannot discuss a vote which has not been brought forward.

We are on vote 103, that of the Minister of Forests.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the sixteenth or seventeenth edition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventeenth, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Could you give me the page, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 739.

MR. BARRETT: Yes,

I'm not familiar with that passage. I'll certainly make note of that.

I'll leave that for the time being, and I want to thank the Chair for

his advice.

But I should point out that what I've been left

with in leaving this is that the minister — and I only refer to the

minister's part, because I don't want to bring in Mr. Williston — has

told us that as far as he recalls, his department completed some

studies six or eight months ago that were related to the attempt to

find more wood fibre for the newsprint operation at Ocean Falls, but

that up to that time — and included in the reports — there was no

guarantee that Ocean Falls would have the supply that it needed to

continue operating.

We'll leave Mr. Williston alone and the

fact that he signed a contract knowing that he didn't have supply; it

would be out of order to even say that. So I won't say that he signed a

contract when he knew that he didn't have supply. But we know from the

minister — related strictly to his responsibilities — that at no time

was he asked to give an opinion on contracts and he didn't know about

those contracts until yesterday.

With all due respect to the

minister, I'm left with this conclusion: this government doesn't know

which end it's coming from. You can't run a Crown corporation with

taxpayers' money and be responsible in cabinet and say you don't know

what the Crown corporation is doing — but you told them there was no

timber — and then wash your hands of it and say that that contract has

got nothing to do with you. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you this: in my

opinion, the government and this minister have absolutely bungled this

whole matter. As my colleague has pointed out, because of this bungling

we may end up paying close to $20 million in court — because of

inadequacy of communication in dealing with the business

responsibilities that people get when they're elected to office.

Failure,

failure, failure! Twenty-two million dollars may go out of this

province because of this failure. How many hospital beds would it

build? How many services would it provide? It could have kept down the

health care costs and it would have made the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) happier. What we've had today and yesterday is the

catalogue of an exposure of a bungling government that doesn't know the

first thing about a commitment to signing contracts with full knowledge

that they couldn't be fulfilled — and signing them again in an election

year, perhaps to give the impression to voters that they were going to

keep Ocean Falls alive. "Tut, tut, tut" would be the most damning thing

that I could say.

Mr. Chairman, this government has displayed an arrogance of indifference towards

its responsibilities from one department to another. The minister has washed

his hands completely of this whole operation by saying: "It's that

minister's fault. It's in his department. It's Williston's fault.

All I did was tell them they didn't have timber." Well, if that's

all you told them and that's all you felt you were obliged to tell them,

then you explain to the taxpayers of this province how we got in this mess simply

because you want to isolate yourself from what's going on in the rest of

the world of the cabinet and government that you belong to. If it means that

this minister wants to leave on the record that he has nothing to do with this,

that his skirts, metaphorically speaking, are clean, that he had done his duty

and that he never discussed the contracts with Ocean Falls, Williston or

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, let that be the matter

of record. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is no defence to isolate oneself

from the rest of the cabinet and say: "Whatever mess they're in is

not my fault. I did the reports and I had conversations, but I didn't know

what they needed the reports for."

That's

what you want us to believe. You didn't know what they wanted the

reports for. Oh, goodness gracious, they wanted those reports for

something; but: "Don't tell me what you want the reports for. Don't

tell me that you need to meet contracts. Don't tell me that we might be

in the glue. Don't tell me that we might have problems. All I'm telling

you is you haven't got the timber and fibre. Don't tell me why you

asked me the question. Don't tell me why you want this problem

solved.'' If that's the way you want to operate — in an ivory tower

encompassed by lead, so you won't get any radiation from other problems

— so be it; but that's hardly a way for the taxpayers of this province

to be protected and it's hardly a competent manner in which to run a

government. You're going to have to explain, along with your

colleagues, how we're going to have to make up this money because of

this mess.

What about the other competing forest companies,

from the very humblest to the super-humble. MacMillan Bloedel? They're

going to have to have their taxes increased to clean up the mess that

you made. What do you think about that? Because you didn't want to say:

"Fellows, you haven't got enough timber, and I know why you're asking

me to see if you've got enough timber." All you said was: "Oh, if

you're asking me, I'll go and try to confirm it." You've been the only

minister, to my knowledge. who hasn't been shifted in the cabinet.

MR. KING: He shifted from Mines.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you shifted from Mines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Split in half.

MR. BARRETT:

Split in half. Nobody had Mines — Lands and Forests to begin with. Is

that right? He's the only survivor. Just Mines. But he survived, and

how did he survive? No matter what kind of mess his colleagues got

into, he swam away from it. What a way to survive! Don't you have any

responsibility to add 2 and 2 together and figure out that Ocean Falls

was asking for timber because they might be in trouble? I knew Ocean

Falls was in trouble in 1971 because

[ Page 2768 ]

a lack of timber supply; I knew it in '72, in '73, in '74, in '75, in

'76, in '77, in '78, in '79, and it closed in '80, but you only knew

about it from '78 on. You didn't tell the fellows: "Tut, tut, don't

sign any contracts!" If that's what you want us to believe, fair

enough, I'll believe it. But that's even worse than taking the position

of going out and warning them: "Fellows, you don't have timber, don't

sign any contracts!"

You're thinking of saving your own skin

and your own image, and the line you've been peddling to us yesterday

and today confirms that the only interest you had was to be pristine in

terms of any discussions. Oh, no, you didn't hear any evil, speak any

evil or see any evil related to the possibility that the Crown

corporation might be signing contracts that they couldn't fulfill.

Well, if that's the way it is, so be it, but that's one heck of a poor

way for a cabinet minister to define his responsibilities: just wash

your hands of it. "It's a mess — it's got nothing to do with me." Fair

enough.

If that's the way the whole outfit operates, who's

left to take the can? They can't even find someone in there to take the

blame for writing a phony name on a letter, let alone dealing with some

real issues. What an outfit! What a minister!

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister when he was first

notified that the Crown corporation had made the decision to close

their plant. As I understand it — and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.

Chairman, though you to the minister — the Crown corporation, like any

private-sector corporation, would be obliged to notify the Minister of

Forests when they intended to suspend their operations; and as I

understand it from the act which the minister himself introduced and

was passed, he has certain authority with respect to closure of plants,

the curtailing or discontinuance of any processing, to receive certain

undertakings from those corporations. So I would like to know

specifically when the minister was notified that Ocean Falls intended

to close on a specified date, and whether upon receiving that

notification the minister entered into any discussions or set any

conditions surrounding the closure of the Ocean Falls plant.

Now

let me read the pulpwood agreement. I appreciate that Ocean Falls was

not applying for a pulpwood licence per se, but they were applying for

a supply of pulpwood to transfer into newsprint so that they might

fulfill their contractual obligations with the Los Angeles Times .

Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I hope you listen to this, because I

think this directs some statutory responsibility to the minister. It

says:

"

(1) Where the minister determines that

(

a) wood chips, sawdust, shavings, hog fuel or other residues or

byproducts of timber processing are produced in an area of the

Province; or (

b) timber below the standard of utilization then in

effect for sawmilling purposes exists on an area of Crown land in a

public sustained yield unit or a timber supply area in the Province, or

both, in sufficient quantities to warrant the continuance,

establishment or expansion" — and get that — "of a timber processing

facility, the minister may designate the area as a pulpwood area and

may enter into a pulpwood agreement for that area.

"

(2) Where the minister makes a determination under subsection (1) he may,

on request or on his own initiative, by advertising in the prescribed

manner, invite applications for a pulpwood agreement.

"

(3) The minister shall not enter into a pulpwood agreement

under this

section unless he advertises as provided in subsection (2) and a

public hearing is held on the applications.

"

(4) The application shall be made to the minister in a form required by him

and shall include a proposal, providing information the minister

requests, for the continuance, establishment, or expansion of a timber

processing facility in the Province."

Now I'd say that that is an awfully broad mandate, for the continuance of a processing plant within the province anywhere.

appreciate that there has been a shortage of timber for pulp in the

Ocean Falls area for some considerable length of time. But I believe

they use chips at that plant, do they not, Mr. Minister? Did the

minister contemplate diverting to Ocean Falls any of the chips we are

now exporting out of this province by the shipload, so that plant may

continue to operate? Did the minister consider the supply of pulping

material, be it hog fuel or chips, from other areas of the province

where there's an excess and it's not currently economic to use it? In

some cases it's being burned or wasted. In some cases it's being

stockpiled until it spoils.

Mr. Minister, don't tell me that

Ocean Falls didn't even advise you that they intended to close down and

lay off — how many men was it? — 423 men; completely kill a

one-industry company town, in which the public of the province of

British Columbia has an investment of some $7 million to $9 million in

public facilities — schools, hospitals, roads and so on. Does the

minister really intend to tell this Legislature that he just stood

aloof from the whole process? It would be scandalous, Mr. Chairman, if

he took that position and posture with a private-sector corporation. It

would be scandalous then to think that he was so insensitive and so

ignorant of his statutory mandate that he stood back and said: "Let it

happen, because in this area I and my bureaucracy have not been able to

come up with a supply in the immediate area of Ocean Falls." It would

be scandalous if he hadn't looked beyond there to some possible

alternative supply.

Is he telling us that Ocean Falls never

advised his office that on such and such date they intended to close

the plant down and depart from this town and lay off over 700 people,

and torpedo $7 million to $9 million of public investment in plant in

that town? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that corporation would be in

violation of the Forest Act had they not notified the minister. I

suggest that if the minister, at the time he was notified, did not

undertake, as the act empowers him to do, the obligation to set some

standards and to require some undertakings, then I suggest that that

minister is derelict in his duty in an absolutely unacceptable way.

see friends around the gallery representing private sector companies. I

kick them around a little bit from time to time, but I believe most of

them are pretty efficient operators in British Columbia; they're doing

a fair job. I want to ask the minister what he would do if Crown

Zellerbach or MacMillan Bloedel entered into a five-year contract for

the supply of newsprint to an offshore customer and then said: "Well,

we're going to close down our plant. We're going to breach those

contracts. We're not going to confer with the ministry in terms of

phasing down the closure and protecting the jobs. We're just going to

do it." How would the minister react? Would he consider that under the

language of the act he designed they were a responsible and efficient

operator in the province of British Columbia? Would he be prepared to

[ Page 2769 ]

extend

more timber rights to them, if they alienated customers and tarnished

the reputation of British Columbia as a reliable supplier of resources?

Would he consider that acceptable? If the same company that had

conducted itself in such a shocking way then came back and set up

another corporation, or purchased another corporation, and came back

and said to the minister, "Okay, we want additional timber supply,"

would he give it to them? Or would he say, "Look, your performance was

such that you violated a contract which you had entered into. You show

shocking and abysmal irresponsibility in terms of signing contracts

which you knew you did not have a supply of fibre to fulfil, and

consequently you're down the tube. You're not going into business with

my sanction in British Columbia anymore." I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that as I understand it, Mr. Williston, as the custodian of

Ocean Falls, has a great deal to do with Can-Cel as well. Is that not

so? Is he not on it anymore? I believe he still has something to do

with Can-Cel. I wonder how the minister is going to respond to dealing

with Mr. Williston if, indeed, Mr. Williston is as irresponsible as the

minister indicates. How are you going to deal with him with respect to

Canadian Cellulose? Do you have any confidence in him? Is he going to

be fired for subjecting the government and the people of the province

of British Columbia to millions of dollars worth of damages?

Working

people in the province of British Columbia who subject their employers

to garnishee proceedings are fired. Should not an executive who enters

into an agreement for the supply of millions, thousands or hundreds of

tons — whatever it was — of newsprint in a five-year contract and then

wilfully breaches that contract receive some sanction and discipline?

Or is the minister prepared to do business with people like this as if

nothing had happened?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I

will once again remind all hon. members that our standing orders do

indicate that the actions of high public servants cannot be criticized

except by substantive motion.

MR. KING: I don't think

that I've referred to any high-standing public servants during debate

in the Legislature today, Mr. Chairman. If I have I would be pleased to

have that indicated to me but I'm not aware of any public servants that

I have referred to.

I am referring to a corporate chief

administrative officer installed by that government. I know it was

without any reference or consideration given to his political

allegiance. I know that it must have been made purely on merit, in the

fashion that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) appointed a certain

lady a short time ago.

I want to ask the minister — and I

hope he gives me a response — when he was notified that Ocean Falls was

going to close. What undertakings did you demand from the corporation

in terms of phasing out this plant in the province of British Columbia

over which you have jurisdiction?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Shuswap–Revelstoke surprises me to some extent. First of

all he says that Ocean Falls Corporation is required to notify the

Minister of Forests when they plan to close the plant. I think the

member realizes that the requirement to notify a minister is a

condition of various forms of licence and I have said to that member a

number of times that Ocean Falls Corporation had no licences.

MR. KING: You said they had no statutory obligation to notify you?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Right, Mr. Member. They don't have tree-farm licences, timber-sale

licences or forest licences, and it is those documents that require

notice to the minister. Yes, I was notified as a member of cabinet in a

cabinet meeting. That member knows very well that I can't discuss when

and what is discussed in cabinet meetings. The member was a member of

cabinet at one time in a disaster government. Perhaps they discussed it

in public and breached their oath of confidentiality that they took on

being sworn into cabinet. I don't operate that way.

That

member surprises me in another way. When they were the government they

acquired the Ocean Falls Corporation in 1972 or 1973, somewhere around

there. I don't believe that member ever went through the Ocean Falls

operation. Perhaps he did, but if he did he went with his eyes closed

because he talked to me about providing a chip supply to the Ocean

Falls Corporation. The Ocean Falls Corporation does not use chips. They

have the groundwood process, which requires very firm logs cut into

small blocks to make pulp. A few days ago that member was telling me

that firm-wood sawlogs should not be used for the pulping process and

now he's telling me to direct this good saw material to Ocean Falls

Corporation so they can cut it into little blocks and grind it up and

make mechanical pulp.

The member doesn't understand the

first thing about the process there. He probably hasn't been there and

if he has I'll stand corrected. But if he did he was completely unaware

of what type of operation existed there. It is a paper mill which made

paper from groundwood pulp blended with raft pulp which they purchased.

A pulp supply, in the normal sense of the word, would not be

appropriate for Ocean Falls because they cannot make pulp out of

decadent wood when you're using a groundwood process. You have to have

very firm, solid blocks of wood cut from logs which would probably best

be used in lumber and plywood manufacturing, as a member advocated here

a few days ago.

MR. BARRETT: Why would they sign a contract then, if they had that knowledge?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The Leader of the Opposition keeps yipping in his seat, Mr. Chairman.

He continues to ask questions of me as the Minister of Forests which

are not appropriate to my estimates. He's been called to order a number

of times.

Why Ocean Falls Corporation signed a contract is a question which you'll have to ask of the minister responsible.

The

member from Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) gets a little bit of

information: he's read us twice today some of the terms of a pulpwood

agreement. I'm glad to see that the member can read and he's actually

reading the Forest Act, because it's about time.

MR. KING: Aren't you a sarcastic little cuss! With an intellect like yours you should be more humble.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

After sitting here listening to the garbage that you've been throwing

across this floor all afternoon, I think I'm entitled to be a little

bit sarcastic — really I am.

[ Page 2770 ]

You

talk about the Ocean Falls Corporation where you have such concern for

the people. You don't even know what they do at Ocean Falls. You think

they purchase wood chips and make them into paper. Well, they don't.

They use groundwood pulp, Mr. Member, which is made from firm blocks of

wood, which you say shouldn't be used for pulp. You say they should go

into sawmills and plywood mills because it's an obsolete process and

wood can be put to better uses than pulping in a groundwood process at

an obsolete plant, which requires not pulpwood but good sawlogs if it's

going to continue to operate in the way it has in the past.

MR. LEA:

I know it's beside the point, but I'd like to share some secrets with

the minister if he wants to discuss the operation at Ocean Falls. I

worked in that pulpmill and I know a little bit about it too, but

that's not really the point. A minute ago, when he was talking about

taking those round logs and wasting them in a pulpmill when they could

be used for plywood or sawlogs, did the minister forget that almost

every month he signs export permits for round logs that go out of this

country and are used somewhere else to create jobs somewhere else? What

is the priority of the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he not know that chips are made out of wood too?

MR. LEA: He should know that but he probably doesn't.

I'd

like to ask the minister a question. When the decision was made to

close Ocean Falls, did that corporation and/or Mr. Williston recommend

to cabinet that Ocean Falls be closed or did that corporation and/or

Mr. Williston notify cabinet that Ocean Falls was closing? I'd like to

have an answer to that before I continue my questioning.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Prince Rupert surprises me. He said he actually worked

at Ocean Falls. Why didn't he advise the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke

what happened there before he made such an ass of himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, that is not parliamentary.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Prince Rupert has asked me to tell him what was

discussed in cabinet. He said: "When was cabinet advised? Was it

discussed with cabinet or did cabinet take

part in the decision?" The

member, I think, was a cabinet minister at one time. You couldn't tell

from the highways he administered, but he was a Highways minister. He

knows the confidentiality of cabinet and he expects me to breach that

oath of secrecy and confidence which I took. I can't do that, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. LEA: We used to admit every day that we came out of there that we'd

been in there. That's not big. Every day we'd come out of there and

say: "Today we passed an order-in-council. Today we made a decision on

this; we didn't make a decision on that." You say it breaches the privilege

of secrecy of cabinet to talk about the decisions that were made in cabinet,

but I didn't ask that anyway. What I asked was this: did Ocean Falls Corporation

and/or Mr. Williston notify cabinet that Ocean Falls was closing, or did they

recommend to cabinet that Ocean Falls was closing? I'm not asking about

the decision in cabinet; I'm not asking about a conversation in cabinet.

All I'm asking is what the procedure was. Did it get to cabinet and how

did it get there — by what route? Was it a recommendation or a decision? That's

what I like to know. I think the minister will admit that I'm not asking

about a decision or conversation that happened in cabinet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member for Prince Rupert says: "Did Ocean Falls Corporation come to

cabinet and recommend, or come with a decision?" He's asking me to tell

them what took place in cabinet. I can't do that.

MR. LEA: Was it a cabinet decision to close Ocean Falls? Was it a cabinet decision or did Ocean Falls make the decision?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll have to remind all hon. members that during Committee of Supply we

discuss the administrative action of one department. The department

before us right now is the Ministry of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on what you said, I've been trying to

tell these members for almost the last full day that questions

regarding the Ocean Falls Corporation are the responsibility of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. I would suggest

that they address the questions to him. These questions, according to

the rules which you have quoted to us, Mr. Chairman, are not

appropriate to my estimates. I can't help the member.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to a statement made by the minister today

in this chamber, not something that happened a long time ago. The

minister said that yesterday was the first he learned that there was a

contractual arrangement between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times

that may or may not have been broken. He learned about it yesterday.

I'm going to suggest, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong,

that somehow or other — perhaps by visiting cabinet, in written form or

on electronic tape — Mr. Williston and the Ocean Falls Corporation

conveyed to cabinet that either they had made a decision or they wanted

a decision made.

Somehow or other Mr. Williston reported to

cabinet. Is the minister asking us to believe that Mr. Williston

reported to cabinet that Ocean Falls was going to be closed and didn't

talk about contractual arrangements that that corporation may or may

not have had? Is he asking us to believe that Mr. Williston is a

complete dumbbell and a stumblebum? Is that what he is trying to do?

his report to cabinet, either verbal or written, the minister is asking

us to believe that Mr. Williston had a one-liner: "Please close Ocean

Falls," or "I have just closed Ocean Falls." He is asking us to believe

one or the other, and that there was no discussion in cabinet about

Ocean Falls. If there had been a discussion, he is asking us to believe

that Mr. Williston failed to mention that there were some contractual

obligations that could cost the province millions of dollars.

Maybe it's because Mr. Williston, in his role with the

[ Page 2771 ]

B.C.

Cellulose Company and Ocean Falls, didn't spend most of his time

working in that particular area. Maybe it's because Mr. Williston spent

a lot of time in the office of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) talking about energy problems

and solutions and the Kitimat pipeline. Maybe that's what Mr. Williston

was doing all the time he was drawing his paycheque to try to make sure

that a forest industry in this province, or a segment of it, worked

properly. Instead, maybe he was off running around, meeting the CNR in

Edmonton about energy, and meeting with the pipeline people about

pipelines from Kitimat to Prince George. Maybe he was doing that. Maybe

the Energy minister could let us know in his estimates whether that is

how Mr. Williston earned his money.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When did you work at Ocean Falls?

MR. LEA: It doesn't matter when, Bob.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: I could ask you when ran your country-and-western magazine out in Langley, but it doesn't matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: But I could tell you.

MR. LEA: I know you could tell me, Bob.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You can't even say when you worked at Ocean Falls.

MR. LEA: Yes, I can, Bob. It's none of your business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources....

MR. LEA: I mean, Conway Twitty — to heck with him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When did you work at Ocean Falls?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. minister, if you would come to order, and if the member for Prince

Rupert would continue debate on vote 103, the Minister of Forests.

MR. LEA:

Can the Minister of Forests tell me: did Mr. Williston inform the

government that Ocean Falls was to close? As the Minister of Forests

surely this is not too hard for him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, very simply, no, I cannot inform the member. I cannot

tell the member what takes place in cabinet. Whether he informed the

minister responsible, he will have to ask that member. I don't know how

many times I have to say to that member just who is responsible for the

Ocean Falls Corporation. If I say it enough, eventually he might

understand.

MR. LEA: What we are trying to find out,

Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the minister taxed his memory enough

when he stood up in this House earlier today and said yesterday was the

first time he found about the Los Angeles Times

having the contract with Ocean Falls. In other words. had there been a

discussion in cabinet surrounding Ocean Falls? I'm not asking for the

details, but it seems highly unlikely that Mr. Williston, either by

letter or by a visit in person, would talk about the closure of Ocean

Falls without talking about the contractual arrangements. It seems

darned odd that the Minister of Forests wouldn't be either informed or

at that meeting. It seems mighty odd to me that yesterday was the first

time he heard about it. Either he's got an awfully poor memory, or Mr.

Williston has an appalling administrative record in this province — and

he's drawing dollars from the taxpayers to do the job. It's one or the

other. He can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

I'm not asking what happened in cabinet. I'm asking: did a

recommendation go to cabinet? I'm not asking what cabinet did, what

they discussed. What I'm asking is.... Let's try it a different way, to

see whether the minister can worm out of it this way.

MR. BARRETT: Ask him to read standing order 67.

MR. LEA: Okay.

Could

the minister tell me whether it was a cabinet decision? I don't want to

know how you arrived at the decision. In fact, we have

orders-in-council that come out of there every day, Mr. Chairman,

saying this was passed in cabinet. But now, according to the minister,

we're not going to be able to tell the public what decisions cabinet

made. I mean, cabinet makes decisions. Do they let the minister into

cabinet? Let's start with the simple ones. Does the minister attend

cabinet meetings? Does the minister know whether it was a decision of

Ocean Falls Corporation to close Ocean Falls, on its own, or was that

decision ratified by the government?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, let's leave out the cabinet; he's got a hangup on the cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, is he? Can I see that?

Well, I don't want to act confusing. Standing order 67 says:

"It

shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote,

resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the

public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not

been first recommended to the House by message of the

Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution,

address or bill is proposed."

Did he fall down over there? Where is he?

MR. KING: He did the disappearing act. He went out to find Phillips: he's supposed to answer.

MR. LEA: Okay, there are some things we know do happen in cabinet. For instance, we know that they don't pay Pat.

Would the Minister of Forests please tell me if he knows whether or not Ocean Falls Corporation made the decision on

[ Page 2772 ]

their

own, with no direction from government? Can the minister tell me

whether Ocean Falls made the decision, completely autonomous from

government, to close Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The responsibility for the Ocean Falls Corporation lies with the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), and I would again suggest that the member for Prince Rupert

direct questions about Ocean Falls Corporation to that minister.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I hate to remind the minister, but he is the Minister of

Forests. There's a direct responsibility for the Minister of Forests in

any forest operation. Surely the minister knows whether or not Ocean

Falls made the decision on their own.

It seems to me that

the minister is afraid to answer these questions. He's afraid because

he doesn't know what Mr. Williston is saying right now, somewhere else.

He doesn't know what the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development is saying somewhere else. He doesn't know, so the minister

is afraid to tell the truth. He's cowering over there afraid to tell

the truth in this House.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw any imputation that the

minister — any member in this House — is not telling the truth.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: Sure.

Now

the minister obviously is afraid to tell us what he knows. That's what

he's afraid of, because he's afraid that he'll be contradicted by a

statement being made somewhere else in this province today, and because

it's his estimates and he can't leave the House. He's just afraid

silly, because he knows his job's on the line. That's what he knows,

and he's afraid to level with this House and tell us what he knows.

Once again, to the Minister of Forests: did Ocean Falls make the decision, autonomous from government, to close that plant?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for the Ocean Falls Corporation lies

with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. I don't

speak on behalf of other ministers in the chamber, or outside, unlike

the previous government, where the leader of the government fired

people in other people's ministries without even telling them about it.

I am responsible for my actions as the Minister of Forests. The Ocean

Falls Corporation is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. If the member wishes to know anything about

the Ocean Falls Corporation, then I suggest he ask that member. Our

government doesn't work in the manner that that disaster government

worked in previous years. We don't take on the responsibilities of

other ministers and fire people in other ministries without them even

being aware of it. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development can speak for himself. And if the member would ask him

questions, I'm sure he would answer them for him.

MR. LEA:

Okay, let's go at it from a different way. As the Minister of Forests,

was his ministry ever notified that Ocean Falls was closing? It's a

simple question. Was the Minister of Forests or his department ever

notified that Ocean Falls was closing, and by whom?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member has changed his question. He said: "Was the minister ever notified or was the ministry ever notified?"

MR. LEA: Either one.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I've told the member that we have discussions in cabinet which are

confidential. Do you expect me to breach that oath of confidence? I

don't know how those members operated when they were forming the

government, but judging from the results, it wasn't in a very

appropriate manner.

MR. LEA: So we now know, by his own admission, that the minister found out in cabinet that Ocean Falls was closing. That's in Hansard .

The minister won't tell me when he found out that Ocean Falls was

closing because he found out in cabinet. We know that for sure. So now

the minister wants us to believe that during that cabinet debate Ocean

Falls didn't explain that there were some contractual obligations out

there, even though Ocean Falls was to be closed. He didn't know about

those. He said he just found out yesterday that there were contractual

obligations with the Los Angeles Times .

He also said he didn't know about any other contractual arrangements

that Ocean Falls had, but now he admits that he did find out about the

closure while in the cabinet meeting. That's what he's admitted now.

You didn't? Then when did you find out, Mr. Minister? Then you don't have to worry about your confidentiality.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I told the member, as I've told him a dozen times, that I

do not discuss what takes place in cabinet. He asked me a number of

times: "Did Ocean Falls Corporation come to cabinet with a

recommendation or with a notice that they were closing?" I've told the

member a dozen times that I don't discuss what takes place in cabinet.

MR. LEA:

Just before I go through this résumé of decisions in cabinet for the

minister, because he hasn't heard of them.... I'm not asking what the

minister learned in cabinet; I'm talking about his administrative

responsibilities as the Minister of Forests. When did he, not as a

cabinet minister up in the cabinet room but as the Minister of Forests

in his office...? When did the administrative notification come to the

minister or his ministry that Ocean Falls was closing? Not up in the

cabinet room, but when did you, as Minister of Forests, in your office,

find out that Ocean Falls was closing — or did you?

Ah, now

the minister won't talk. He can't talk. He doesn't have the oath of

secrecy around cabinet to protect him. Administrative responsibility,

under vote 103: when did the minister, in his role as the administrator

of the Forests department, find out that Ocean Falls was to be closed,

how did he find out, and who informed him — not a cabinet decision, but

in his role as an administrator? As a Crown minister responsible for

the Forests ministry, when was he or his department notified that Ocean

Falls was to be closed?

[ Page

2773 ]

MR. KING: Well, the minister is struck dumb, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't want to answer.

want to tell you that the minister's attack on me was extremely

painful. He really caught me out. I hadn't visited Ocean Falls and

actually seen the plant, and I wasn't aware that they used groundwood

rather than chips. What a terrible admission! The fact of the matter is

that I haven't visited every pulpmill in British Columbia, but I've

visited quite a few. I appreciate that there are various types of

material used and there are various processes in the development of

pulp in the province of British Columbia. But I think the minister

misses the point. When I talked about the export of chips, I want to

advise the minister that wood chips are made out of logs too. They're

wood, Mr. Minister. The point is that if you are chipping an excess

supply to the pulp needs of the province of British Columbia to the

extent that many of the woodchips in the province are being used for

purposes other than pulp, are being lost because of ageing, or being

exported as is the case now, logically, that would seem to dictate to

me — and I would hope to you as minister — that perhaps we shouldn't

chip as much of the wood supply as we are doing, when a pulpmill in the

province is without a supply of the necessary groundwood to continue

their operation. Did the minister consider the supply of the excess

material that is now being chipped and shipped offshore? Did he

consider transferring that into a supply of groundwood for Ocean Falls?

To me, that would seem like a reasonable thing to look at. Maybe it's

illogical. I don't know, but I can't find any evidence that the

minister even investigated any alternatives in terms of keeping that

pulpmill going.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The

minister hides behind the fact that he won't reveal publicly what went

on in cabinet. We're not asking him about the discussions that went on

in cabinet; we're simply asking him about public business decided in

cabinet. For the minister's information, the government themselves put

out an order-in-council résumé. The latest one was issued on May 30,

1980. It outlines the orders-in-council passed at cabinet. It actually

talks about decisions made at cabinet. Apparently some of those foolish

colleagues of yours, Mr. Minister, feel that that is valid public

information. I want to quote a few of them.

The public

service approved order-in-council 1178, appointing James D. Rae deputy

minister of tourism, at $50,000 a year, effective May 27, 1980. Do you

think that's a breach of cabinet confidence, Mr. Minister?

What

about this one? Here's order-in-council 1212, PSGA — public service —

salary of one David P. Brown, communications adviser, be increased by

$3,615, effective — get this — October 1, 1979.

AN HON. MEMBER: A retroactive secret!

MR. KING: A retroactive pay increase to good old Dave Brown, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Goodness gracious!

MR. BARRETT: Holy cow!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell anybody, Tom!

MR. BARRETT: No, we won’t tell anybody. Don't spread that around.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I see a whole variety here concerning energy.

MR. BARRETT: What does Dave Brown do?

MR. KING: Dave Brown is communications adviser.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Could I remind the member that the rule of relevance applies in committee as it does in the House. Would he continue?

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister has been refusing to answer for

his administrative responsibilities on the grounds that any decisions

made in cabinet should not be shared with the Legislature. Having been

a brief occupant of cabinet rank for a period of time, I appreciate

that the discussions and deliberations undertaken in cabinet are to be

secret. But the public and the Legislatu