[ Page 2993 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Accuracy of press release. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2993

Mr. McClelland — 2993

Mr. Bennett — 2993

Mr. Speaker — 2993

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2994

Mr. Speaker — 2994

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2994

Mr. Bennett — 2995

Mr. Speaker — 2995

Mr. Phillips — 2997

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2997

Mr. Speaker — 2997

Mr. Bennett — 2998

Mr. McClelland — 2998

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2999

Mr. Speaker — 2999

Mr. Bennett — 2999

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources estimates —

Amendment to vote 137.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2999

Mr. Chabot — 3004

Hon. Mr. King — 3010

Mr. Smith — 3011

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: State the point of privilege.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This evening during the dinner break I heard the recorded voice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the radio make serious charges against me related to a statement I made in the House yesterday and questions I was asked during the oral question period today with regard to a recent ferry purchase by the government.

The Member of the House will recollect that I was asked why it was that the government....

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a point of privilege I'm on.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. McCLELLAND: Is it possible to raise a point of privilege in the House about something that went on on a radio station outside of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If somebody calls you a nasty name outside, whether it be in the newspaper or on the radio, you are entitled to raise a point of privilege at any time in this House. The question then arises after you have stated your point of privilege

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When you have stated your point of privilege the Speaker has to hear the point of privilege — what the complaint is — and then determine whether a prima facie case has been made out that requires the immediate concern of the House, above all other business, under standing order 26.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You wouldn't let me do it.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. What name did the Member give you just then that made you believe that he had a point of privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: He said he was rising on a point of privilege.

MR. CHABOT: Personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I asked him to state his point.

MR. BENNETT: Well, you quoted, Mr. Speaker, that something was said outside the House that I didn't hear mentioned in here. This must be beyond your knowledge. What is the point of privilege?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Unless you and the Hon. Minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have no knowledge of anything any more than you or anyone else has as to what the point of privilege is until he has made the point of privilege. I may say that a point of order does not have precedence over a point of privilege.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You quoted specifically that a nasty name had been called outside the House. I did not hear it mentioned inside and I wonder whether the Speaker consults with the Minister before they plan their attack inside the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that if a remark was made outside of this chamber in a newspaper, for example, calling a politician a nasty name, you are quite entitled to raise the matter as a point of privilege in the House. In this case you state your point of privilege, and it doesn't matter that the Speaker heard it on the radio or read it in the newspaper — you are entitled to lay your complaint before this House that you have a breach of privilege that you wish to raise and a contempt against you in regard to something that happened outside this chamber. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

MR. BENNETT: In your first comments you didn't say "if," as you said.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, I most certainly did. I said if you have a point of privilege and if somebody said something about you or...

[ Page 2994 ]

MR. BENNETT: No, you said

MR. SPEAKER: ...used a nasty word about you.... As a matter of fact, I was thinking of the complaint made by the Hon. Member for Langley that somebody had called him something he didn't like. He was entitled to stand in this House and raise his complaint. I listened to it and had to determine whether it was a matter of immediate privilege or one that should go on the order paper.

Now I'm trying to hear the Hon. Minister of Transport, whose point of privilege comes ahead of a point of order, to find out what his complaint is — to determine, as I did in the case of the Member for Langley, whether the House proceedings should be adjourned while we discuss the urgency of the point of privilege. Now, may he proceed to make his complaint to the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I shan't start at the beginning again, but the question related to a question I was asked during the oral question period today with regard to a recent ferry purchase by the government.

The Members of the House will recollect that I was asked why it was that the government had paid $13,875,000 for the Stena Danica, while its sister ship, the Stena Britannica, was purchased a few days ago, I said in the House, by some Greek interests for $7,200,000 from the State of Alaska by some group of private shipowners.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a copy of a press release which was issued by the Leader of the Opposition which says:

"Bill Bennett, Leader of the Opposition, today charged that the answers by Bob Strachan related to the recent ferry purchase of the Stena Danica for $13,875,000 were either (a) incompetent, (b) misleading or (c) false."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the House will recollect that I warned the opposition that their questions and statements were based on a completely erroneous story which appeared in The Province newspaper this morning.

I had seen the story just shortly before entering the House at 2 p.m. and had not had time to check it out. But there was one paragraph in the story which indicated to me that the writer of the story had made a serious error. Despite my warning, Mr. Speaker, I discovered just before adjournment that the Leader of the Opposition had issued the press release to which I have referred, in which he made the accusation that I have been responsible for a waste of $10 million of the taxpayers' money in not purchasing the S.S. Wickersham from the State ofAlaska instead of the Stena Danica from Swedish interests.

Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know, because I have checked it out, that last year I was offered the S.S. Wickersham, which had once been known as the Stena Britannica, for about $7 million. I refused to buy that ship. Mr. Speaker, the Stena Danica, which we purchased, is not a sister....

MR. CHABOT: Cheap politics!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is my point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think a Member who says that he has been impugned is entitled to make a full statement of the case.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) had exactly the same privilege.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ask the Hon. Members to observe the same restraint that they ask for on other occasions. This means that a Member is entitled to put his case for the House to judge and for the Speaker to consider. I'm asking for the same leeway that you would expect in your case. I did not on any occasion that I know of prevent the Hon. Member for Langley from laying the precise point of complaint, the newspaper proceeding, what happened — it was read out to this assembly — and to explain why he felt justified in raising it. The question after that is done is whether it is indeed a prima facie case which should be answered by this assembly by some action. I'm asking the Hon. Members to restrain themselves.

I point out that if it had been raised merely as a point of order to correct a mis-statement in the House he would be entitled to raise it at the earliest possible moment and to give a full explanation. Now you are trying to deny an Hon. Member the chance to do what he could do on a point of order. I ask you to restrain yourselves, All will, presumably, be learned in due course.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again refer to the press release issued by the Leader of the Opposition in which he states:

"The British Columbia purchase represents in just six days $6,675,000 more than the Greeks had to pay for an almost totally similar vessel."

Mr. Speaker, the Stena Danica which we purchased

[ Page 2995 ]

is not a sister ship to the Wickersham; nor is it, as the Leader of the Opposition says in his press release, an almost totally similar ship. The Stena Danica which the government purchased was built in 1969 and has an auto capacity of 170 cars. The Wickersham was built in the 1950s and has a capacity of about 80 cars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Erroneous statements!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: More important, Mr. Speaker, the ship we purchased....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Look, every person is entitled to their say in this House, but let's not all talk together.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: More important, Mr. Speaker, the ship we purchased meets the SOLAS requirements, which are international standards agreed to in 1966. All ships built in this country or brought into this country must meet these SOLAS standards. These initials mean Safety of Life at Sea and SOLAS standards are mandatory in Canada. Mr. Speaker, the S.S. Wickersham does not meet these standards and that is why the State of Alaska was anxious to sell that ship.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would not want this government to purchase a ship that did not meet accepted standards of Safety of Life at Sea. I'm sure that he didn't realize the error he was committing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of privilege.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am getting just a little disgusted with the continuous barrage of completely unfounded, erroneous, misleading accusations on the part of the opposition.

MR, SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wish to reply to the complaint?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is in discussion through my office with the Alaska government and commissioners there.

I will be issuing a full statement, but there is discussion that there are ships involved and there is some mystery — I believe there is some misunderstanding — between the ships. Before I get caught in making a mis-statement, because it is my information that the information that the Minister has presented to this House is wrong, I will recheck the information right now, Mr. Speaker, if you will give me the opportunity to make a statement this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is a matter of such gravity that before considering the matter....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please!

May I point out to the Hon. Members that their own reputations are, I hope, precious to them. And I hope they are prepared to deal with this in a calm spirit. All sorts of repercussions follow and flow from heated exchanges that may make it impossible for everyone to retrace their paths. I would like the time to consider the complaint, and in the same time it may come to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he may want to consider his course as well.

MR. BENNETT: So might the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that we can do without any further assistance on the matter. Leave it at that for the moment. Give me the opportunity to look at the complaint; give the Hon. Leader of the Opposition a chance to consider some of these other factors. We may come to a happy conclusion of a very unpleasant affair.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the opposition, we can only deal with the information as it is presented piecemeal to the House by the Minister. He made an incomplete statement the other day, but he made another statement tonight about the safety of this ship — that Commissioner Henri of the State of Alaska says that the Wickersham must be sold under the Jones Act which states that no foreign-bottom ship may pass between two American ports carrying passengers. It has nothing to do with the safety factor of this ship at all. It has to do with the Jones Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it a twin ship?

MR. BENNETT: Is the other one a twin ship? What do you mean, a twin ship?

AN HON. MEMBER: A sister ship.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I made a suggestion to you that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon.

[ Page 2996 ]

Members of this House agreed, and I hope that they are not in breach of their engagement in this matter, that it wouldn't be necessary to use a cut-off button when the Speaker or the Chairman stood up. But the talk keeps going on. I don't care which side, both sides....

MR. BENNETT: I wasn't there when you said it.

MR. SPEAKER: I happened to be addressing the Members who were interrupting, and it happened to be the Leader of the Opposition. I was on my feet and he wouldn't stop. I'm sorry that he didn't.

I suggest that I look at the question of the complaint and report back to the House as speedily as possible, after the business of the House gets underway, on the point of privilege.

MR. CHABOT: I hope you will sift out the cheap politics in that statement. I'm sure you will.

MR. SPEAKER: The complaint has to do with a press release, and that is what I will be studying. In the meantime it is my hope that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will also give consideration to this question. The usual policy is that if you have mis-stated a matter that affects the reputation of another Member, you consider your position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why doesn't he put questions on the order paper?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: You have made no complaint about his statement in terms of any question of privilege. I have only one point of privilege at the moment to deal with.

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you tell him to put a motion on the order paper like you tell everybody else?

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, it depends entirely on the rules whether or not it affects what a Member is doing in the House. That is the real test. That is what I based on the last time. The question here is that May has indicated that where you accuse a person of something that affects his performance in the House by way of false statements to the House, it is an entirely different matter than some newspaper outside libeling you.

In the case that you are referring to I said that it was, in my view, a breach of privilege, but that is for the House to determine when the committee on privileges deals with it. The only test with which I have to concern myself is whether or not the House business should be interrupted to deal with the whole question now or at some future time before a committee.

MR. BENNETT: What's your decision on that?

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to consult the authorities first.

MR. BENNETT: May I just point out that I have no intention of being in contempt of this House, nor to falsely accuse another Member. My information and my press release were based on detailed discussion with the State of Alaska. If the Minister wishes to....

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is not in his seat. He said I spoke to the janitor, which indicates his contempt for people in that position. Would you ask him to withdraw that? Whoever gets elected in Vancouver Centre....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister not to speak out of his own seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BENNETT: Since he has achieved his new status, he has contempt for people in lesser-income jobs. That is his right.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested that I did it in detailed discussion with the Commissioner of Ferries in Alaska, and with the Attorney-General. If the information they gave me is incorrect, I will most gladly make a statement in this House to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. SPEAKER: I think the problem is — and I mention this before I deal with the subject myself, and what I am mentioning to the Hon. Leader — that you have to take responsibility for the statements you make. In the event that it is drawn to your attention by another Hon. Member that your statement is, in his view, offensive to him, the normal course is for you to apologize and withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. SPEAKER: The other alternative is that if it is a matter of privilege, and if it is found to be one that is prima facie to be dealt with, it is not for me to decide whether it is a breach of privilege; it is for a committee of this House. That is the usual course. If you maintain your position in that regard and wish to prove your case one way and the Minister another,

[ Page 2997 ]

then it is a matter for a committee.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I said that I presented the information as it was presented from another government. If he wishes me to withdraw on that basis, then I will, but I wish the privilege of checking information. If I am correct, what sort of remedial action is taken against someone who has made a charge against me in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the important thing here is to decide first of all whether the allegations that are contained in the matter of the complaint constitute a prima facie case. If we can get on now with the business of the House, I will consider this and report back.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Point of order, and I address you, Mr. Speaker, the most honourable servant of this House. I recall last spring session — and I bring this up because I brought up a point where the Hon. Attorney-General had made certain statements to me through the press — when I raised a point of personal privilege I was asked by the most honourable servant of this House, Mr. Speaker, yourself, to introduce into the House a copy, a signed document, of the newspaper article which impugned me as wasting the time of this House. When I couldn't do that, Mr. Speaker, rising on a point of personal privilege, I was told....

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you just let me finish, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm interrupting you because you are going into a different area altogether than this type of complaint.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If a newspaper is the source of your complaint, then there is a formality for the paper being read into the House. Here it is a complaint that another Member has issued something, not a newspaper and not a stranger, but a Member of this House. It is being dealt with by this House about a Member of this House and concerning another Member. There is no question being raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he did not issue this release.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It was read out to the House....

MR. PHILLIPS: On my point of order....

MR, SPEAKER: Order! It was sent up to me just now. I would have demanded it be sent up....

MR. PHILLIPS: If I am allowed the courtesy of this House, Mr. Speaker, all I'm pointing out is that I was asked to introduce prima facie evidence. All I am suggesting is that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) be asked to introduce into this House either a motion or produce a signed document from the radio station as such evidence as it was.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to be consistent in our points of personal privilege, and this was the case against me. I didn't introduce it into the House; I didn't have a copy of the newspaper. Therefore I think that the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat should be asked to introduce either a motion on the order paper or a signed document of the television or radio release. Now that's my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to say I have no intention of being vindictive about this. I just want to draw the correct situation to the attention of the House.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I just want to make my position clear. The Minister has accused me of making a mis-statement. What recourse is there on this Minister if he's made mis-statements in his attack on me tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't attacked you.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, he has!

MR. SPEAKER: The point of it is....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: You did so! If there's any mis-statement in his statements tonight, what recourse do I have?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I advise the Hon. Member....

MR. BENNETT: You're caught!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? You've asked your question and I'll try to answer it. Would the Hon. Members kindly attend to what I want to say? You asked several questions. You put several propositions. I'll try to

[ Page 2998 ]

answer them in order.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) thinks that because a newspaper article was the source of his complaint we are treating it differently, but the fact of the matter is that here it was a Member of the House who issued a press release, according to the allegation made by the Minister. That was read out to the House and then a copy of it was sent up to me. That's an entirely different matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who sent it up to you?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know. There were several copies over there, but it doesn't really matter because the Leader of the Opposition did not deny that this was his press release. Therefore it wasn't a question of proving that something in a newspaper abroad, outside of this place, had been published by someone — in the case of the Hon. Member I think it was a Mr. Lorne Parton, the columnist. In this case it was a question of a direct statement alleged to have been made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If he denied that then we would have to refer the whole question to a committee on proof. So that really isn't a similar issue.

In May it clearly sets out that I must do it in the way I did, when it's in a newspaper article. Then it's for a committee to decide whether it indeed was said by the Hon. Attorney-General or by the columnist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then by motion.

MR. SPEAKER: And then it's by motion — quite right.

In this case here we have a complaint made. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has not in effect denied or withdrawn any of the subject matter complained of; on the other hand, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications has said that he's not prepared to or does not wish to push the matter further than to straighten out what he says are the facts. So the matter could rest there.

I point out that if he hadn't taken it as a breach of privilege and an allegation or libel against him, he has the right to stand up in the House and contradict the allegation made against him and the matter then rests right there. There's no question of withdrawal if he merely deals with it as an error on the part of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Is that the situation, that both parties are prepared to leave it at that point, or do you want it tested further?

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to make a statement, Mr. Speaker. There are two Stena Danicas. The first, built in 1965 by Lloyds of London, was 260 feet long, half the size of the reported ship. It is now in Canadian registry called the Lucy Maud Montgomery. It operates out of Charlottetown. The Stena Danica that B.C. purchased is the second one that we're referring to. It was built in 1969. According to the Swedish Consulate, Commissioner Heinrich and Captain Bendickson, Stena Danica II and Wickersham are sister ships.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How can it be a sister ship when one is twice the size of the other?

MR. BENNETT: That's the statement I just read.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Big sister. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, all I can say is that it even makes it much more certain that each of you could legitimately be confused about the subject matter of this whole question, depending on what ship you are talking about. Therefore, I would think you would both be very content to leave the matter at a draw.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the Minister, when he's explaining the purchase and the transaction on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to prepare all the facts (Laughter) and not create any confusion to the people of British Columbia. In an attempt to receive further information we called the State of Alaska.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest the matter, unless either party to this wish to carry it further, just remain where it is and that we get on with the ordinary business of the House.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to wait until I can read the Blues or the Pinks or whatever is legal to find out exactly what that Minister said.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Here comes the other leader. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Jut on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm concerned only with consistency, Mr. Speaker, because I've been involved in a similar matter earlier.

You should have been listening, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) spoke. You should have been listening, because the Minister of Transport and Communications did not refer to a statement that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made, but rather to a statement which he heard on a radio station.

It doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker, that you happen to

[ Page 2999 ]

have a piece of paper in your hand which you got from some unknown source, which may or may not have been delivered by a radio station. It may never have got out of the Leader of the Opposition's office. It may never have got out of the hallway of this building. Nobody knows, Mr. Speaker, where that piece of paper came from.

Mr. Speaker, you do not know whether or not that paper got beyond the precincts of this building. What I'm saying to you is that when the Minister of Transport and Communications said to this House that he heard a statement on a radio station, then he should be demanded, as we are demanded, to show proof that there was in fact such a statement made on a radio station. And that's the point, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the Member for Langley didn't listen to what I said, because I twice referred to the press release by the Leader of the Opposition. I gave two exact quotes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Did you say you heard it on the radio station or not?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to say that he did not issue this press release, then I will apologize to him profusely, but I quoted from this document twice. If he wants to stand up and tell this House that he did not issue this press release, I'll apologize profusely, but I referred to it and quoted from it twice in my statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I first say that I heard what the Hon. Minister said, I heard what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said and I also drew the conclusion from this document, which I presume was a copy of the one that the Hon. Minister was reading, from....

MR. McCLELLAND: Where did you get it?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was the one who sent it up to me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not supposed to read from the Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I saw two copies of this, one on the desk of the Minister and one on the desk of the Provincial Secretary.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! These glasses are pretty good. I want to point out to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) that if he wanted exact proof in the fashion he suggested with relation to a radio broadcast, then of course I would have entertained that just exactly the same way as with the previous case. But before that question came up as the basis of the complaint, or a radio broadcast, I thought the parties had resolved what the contradictions were all about, and they had determined they were not going to proceed with it. Now, if the Hon. Member for Langley wants everybody to get into a fracas, I'm afraid....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't have the opportunity to pursue it any further if the parties don't wish to do so themselves. I could do it very precisely the way the Hon. Member wants if the Members who are concerned want to go ahead, but they expressed the desire not to and I don't think anyone should incite them.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity I didn't offer to withdraw. For the sake of clarity, what I would like is the Minister to put.... That is my press release and I will admit it, and now I would like the Minister.... If he will put his statement into writing, I will be prepared to make a further comment on it. If he will put it into writing I would be pleased to leave this chamber with him and discuss the matter, rather than wait for Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we should get on with the business of the House. May we proceed?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 137: Minister's office, $105,352.

On the amendment to vote 137.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on this

[ Page 3000 ]

amendment because I think that while it is of some narrow compass, it deals with matters which are important to the House and to the people of British Columbia. I might say that the 40 minutes we have spent so far reminds me, as it has one other astute Member of this House, of a motion picture which was enjoyed many years ago called the "Ship of Fools." I trust that the foolishness will soon come to an end.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member address himself to the vote, please?

MR. L, A. WILLIAMS: I am addressing myself to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, then.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't know why you would object to a few cautious comments, with respect, when I consider the extent to which the time of this House and of this committee has been taken up with matters which are entirely extraneous to the subject before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we are debating an amendment to reduce the salary of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) by $1, and thereby to express a want of confidence in that Minister. The motion was predicated upon remarks in this House made by the Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

I have read very carefully what the Hon. Member has said; and if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, scarcely have I seen a case so tenuous and arguments so specious as those that have been put forward on this subject by the Hon. Member for South Okanagan.

AN HON. MEMBER: I definitely agree with you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If, as has been suggested in the daily press by prominent political columnists, the impact of this speech was one designated to confront the Minister, and if the information upon which those remarks were based was the result of the liberal application of money, then let me say that never before has any political party been so badly cheated.

Indeed, if the legislation before this House dealing with trade practices had been the law, I would suspect that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party would have proper cause for complaint and for return of the moneys that they spent.

The arguments placed by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition amount to nothing more than the mere addition and subtraction of dollar amounts dealing with the probable world prices of pulp, and then, having arrived at what appear to be reasonable figures, the embarkation by the Hon. Member on the wildest kind of speculation to confront this government, the Government of British Columbia, with a charge which he cannot sustain.

If this is the calibre which we are to expect from the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, then truly in the Province of British Columbia we are in serious difficulty. As I look at the remarks in Hansard I find that, having arrived at certain normal world prices for pulp, all that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has done is to speculate that if certain things were done on the black market and if certain prices were realized, then perhaps certain people may have made some profits. And from that argument he attempts to bring home to this government and to this Minister and to this province an involvement in international profiteering which he finds objectionable.

Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to better than this from the first speech in this House by the man who calls himself the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Where is his proof that this Minister, that any corporation controlled by the Province of British Columbia, than any agent of that corporation, has indeed sold any pulp on any black market?

Mr. Chairman, there is no such proof. Therefore, the hour or so that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition took in this House on Tuesday evening to lay this story before this committee was a waste of this committee's time. The only profit to be gained thereby was the profit which he and his party expected to gain from the obvious pre-release of that story to a member of the press.

And to the everlasting shame it shall be of that individual who calls himself a political columnist in the Province of British Columbia for having fallen into that trap. And on this basis we have a motion of want of confidence in this Minister.

But, Mr. Chairman, what disturbs me more, what disappoints me, is that after such a specious attack upon a Minister of the Crown, of the Government of the Province of British Columbia, we have had no answer from that Minister. No answer. Well, I considered the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition at length and compared them with the brief, inarticulate response of the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I am compelled, unless the Minister is prepared to stand in his place before debate on this amendment is concluded and change the picture, to support the amendment. Let me tell you why.

The only defence that has been raised to these charges, incompetent as these charges may be, has

[ Page 3001 ]

been a view of history by the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) this afternoon. I made a note of what he said as he began his remarks. He said: "If you don't learn from history, you will live to suffer again."

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's the story of the world.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's the story of the world. It's a story which the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, after just 20 months in government, should never forget.

I recall when the Hon. Minister sat on this side of the House. I recall the way in which he documented before the House and before the committee the consequences of the failure of government, the Social Credit government, to account for its Ministers. I remember the way in which he articulated the Del Cielo affair. No one could have done it more competently than that Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No one could have researched more carefully the web into which cabinet Ministers and the Government of British Columbia were drawn in that particular instance.

I remember the way in which the same Minister displayed before this House what had taken place in connection with the incorporation of Dufferin as a municipality. No one could have done it more competently than that Member.

He was telling it like it was. Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Attorney-General, he is not telling it like it is.

HON. MR. COCKE: You started off well. Why didn't you leave it like that?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the Members of his party carefully investigated Cypress Bowl and the involvement of the government with private corporations in that disaster. It was competently done and to their credit. It was a situation which had also at that time involved the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in a snare as a consequence of the actions of those private corporations which were involved in that venture. And they were disclosed.

I also say to you that this government, when it came to power, recognizing the problems with which it was faced because it was engaged in business operations, caused inquiries to be made into the conduct of the affairs of the British Columbia Railway. We know what the results of that investigation disclosed, because of the constant refusal of the previous government to open its affairs to examination by the Legislature and the sunshine kind of government that the New Democratic Party had promised to the people of British Columbia prior to the time it became government.

Here we have again, even though it has been incompetently done by the Leader of the Opposition, a charge made which the Minister has refused to answer; and yet the power rests with him to provide those answers. What did he do? He told this committee about the prices that were received for pulp under the former contractual relations that they had with Crown Zellerbach.

He admitted that they had a contract with CNC, which was not a fixed-price contract, which floated with the market, but which recently had required renegotiation. He admitted that further negotiations were being carried on with respect to that agreement. Yet he refused to table the agreement or to provide to this committee any particulars of that agreement as they exist today.

Mr. Chairman, what has the Minister, what has the Crown corporation, to hide? If the agreement is, as the Minister says, better than any other agreement for the sale of pulp in the Pacific, what has he to hide? He should be standing on the rooftops proclaiming to the Province of British Columbia what a good deal they have made for the people of British Columbia. But he remains silent.

He remains silent in the face of charges made this afternoon in this House by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that through the Minister the Government of the Province of British Columbia was involved in illegal and immoral activities. No objection was made to that charge by any Member on the government benches.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): You didn't take it seriously, did you?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in the course of her remarks the Hon. Member for North Okanagan suggested that there was even a basis for corruption, and the government challenged those words. But they did not challenge the suggestion that there was complicity through this Minister in illegal and immoral actions on the part of the Government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the Hon. Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Crown, typically speaks from his seat. Obviously that's where their brains rest. And the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, after barely one paragraph in Hansard, has failed to answer

[ Page 3002 ]

these specious charges. Until he does, we are compelled....

You have the ability to respond; you have the ability to account for your performance. Your estimates are before this House, and you remain silent in exactly the same way that the former Government of the Province of British Columbia remained silent whenever it was challenged from this side of the House.

You are no better, Mr. Minister, than the person whom you replaced in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the dealings with pulp emanating from Ocean Falls, is that the Minister has within the space of a telephone call the opportunity of providing the answer to the charges which have been made on the floor of this House.

The pulp that is shipped from Ocean Falls is not shipped to CNC in New York, there to be held in some warehouse while it is then sold on the world market. The pulp is shipped from Ocean Falls directly to its designation.

If the Minister doesn't know where the pulp from Ocean Falls is going, then all he needs to do is to phone the management of Ocean Falls and ask the question; they have a tally of every shipload that has emanated from the plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: That goes through Nanaimo.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's all right, Nanaimo. If it is trans-shipped there's no difficulty in knowing the destination of every roll of newsprint that leaves that manufacturing plant. The Minister can give us the answers. And why won't he? Why is he withholding the information from us? We are entitled to know. We are entitled to know the terms of the arrangement that this government has made through its Crown corporations with CNC for the disposal of its pulp, because that is one of the penalties that the Government of British Columbia pays for engaging in business.

You are not a private corporation. You are not entitled to withhold that information from the people of British Columbia. You are spending the people's money to maintain that corporation in its existence, and we are entitled to have an accounting from you as to the way in which the people's money is being invested and used.

HON. MR. COCKE: You want to put the people's investment right down.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to put the people's investment right down, as the Minister of Health seems to suggest. I want to give the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources the opportunity to stand on his feet in this committee and tell us what a wonderful job he's doing with the investment of the people of the Province of British Columbia.

If he is doing a better job than the private sector, if the contracts that he makes with CNC for the sale of pulp is better than the private sector can do, why isn't he standing on his feet and telling us?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I did — better than anything in Canada.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you have not given us any particulars at all, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister. He says we are doing better than the Canadian price, but no figures are being given upon which we can compare the Minister's judgment as to what is better with anybody else's comparison.

You will not account, Mr. Minister, for the performance of your department and of that Crown corporation. You did not, when you rose...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...to answer the charges of the Leader of the Opposition, give one dollar figure to show that you were doing better than anybody in the private sector.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): What do you want the information for, Allan?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the remarks from the Hon. Minister of Labour across the floor, the reason that I want this information, is so that once and for all the Members of this committee can judge between the charges of illegal and immoral conduct made by the official opposition...

HON. MR. KING: But they are irresponsible.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...and the responses made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Which of them is right?

HON. MR. KING: You said they were nebulous and irresponsible.

[ Page 3003 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I said it was a tenuous story, one which threads its way very carefully through the facts. But the answers were given, and the answers have been given by people who have been connected with this situation. I would like the Minister to indicate whether or not he has read the story in The Vancouver Sun of May 9, 1974 on page 8 whereby, as a consequence of the remarks made in this chamber on Tuesday evening concerning the Crown corporation of Ocean Falls and Mr. Wallach.... I hope I could attract the attention of the Minister to perhaps pay attention to these matters. Mr. Wallach, who has figured largely in the remarks in this House as being a person engaging in the blackmarket activities with regard to pulp or newsprint which he or his company has obtained from Ocean Falls....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! Order! Is the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) making a point of order? The proper procedure, if you have a point of order, is to stand in your place and say, "I rise on a point of order." Would the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound proceed?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The press story says:

"In New York Wednesday, Wallach flatly denied any black market dealings. He said all the newsprint his company obtains from Ocean Falls is sold under contract at 'the standard Canadian export price.'

"This price, he said, fluctuates according to the importing country but is well known in the industry. 'We sell at exactly the same price charged by MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach or anybody else he says,' he said.

"Wallach said this applied to every ton of newsprint from Ocean Falls and none was put aside for any kind of other deal. 'We happen to be a very reputable organization,' he said.

"Wallach declined to discuss the terms of his contract with Ocean Falls because, he said, he deals with various other suppliers in Canada and other countries and it would be unfair to make such disclosures."

I would like the Hon. Minister to stand in his place and tell us whether or not he agrees with the statements of Mr. Wallach that he has not been engaged in any black market dealings, that all of the pulp obtained from Ocean Falls has been sold at standard Canadian export price, that the pulp has been sold at the same price charged by MacMillan Bloedel, Crown Zellerbach or anybody else, and that there has been no pulp set aside for any other deal.

Why would the Minister refuse under these circumstances, with a charge of this nature made by the Leader of the Opposition, to disclose whether or not the agency with which the Crown corporation has contracted has conducted itself legally and morally and in accordance with standards acceptable to the Government of British Columbia?

Would the Minister please explain to this House why he is unwilling to table the contracts with CNC which Mr. Wallach says results in the same prices as any other company — the standard Canadian price? If what Mr. Wallach says is true, what is there for the government to hide? Particularly, what is there for the government to hide if, as a result of recent negotiations, they have been able to improve upon that contract; and particularly, if there are continuing negotiations, as the Minister indicates, to improve that contract still more; and particularly if, as the Minister says, the contracts are not of fixed price but provide for the Crown corporation of the Province of British Columbia to enjoy ever-increasing prices as the market rises? What is the reason for the Minister to withhold disclosure of these agreements and of these subsequent negotiations? This is not what the Leader of the official Opposition has said.

Either the government is right or the charges of the Leader of the official Opposition are right. You have the answers, Mr. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources): A full circle.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You know from the time which you have spent in opposition in this House the consequences of the failure to disclose. There has only been one rational and acceptable basis upon which the Minister could decline to answer. It was given in this House this afternoon by that distinguished parliamentarian, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He said it was the right — indeed, I suggest the obligation — of a Minister of the Crown to decline to answer a question posed to him if by so doing he would be disclosing information contrary to the best interests of the government and of the people of British Columbia. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has not in the course of his debate claimed that that is the basis for his failure to disclose.

I challenge the Minister now to give us the facts with regard to the Ocean Falls contract for the sale of its product, to give us the facts of the renegotiation of that contract, to assure this House, based upon information obtained from that Crown corporation,

[ Page 3004 ]

that newsprint from Ocean Falls has not gone into any black market–profiteering operation in the international market, or else to stand in his place and tell us that he cannot disclose that information because to do so would be contrary to the best interests of the people of British Columbia and of its government.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Unfortunately, I don't have a vest that I can tuck my thumbs into like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and stand up here in all self-righteousness...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member...

MR. CHABOT: ...and his pious and pompous attitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: I just got up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Remain seated.

MR. CHABOT: For how long?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just request that the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the amendment before us.

MR. CHABOT: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want you to treat every Member in this House equally. You allowed that Liberal Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to attack the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago. You allowed him to say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. He was not attacking the Leader of the Opposition personally; he was merely attacking his arguments.

MR. CHABOT: He made a series of dishonest statements, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I would like to make two points of order. One, I never put my fingers in my vest. (Laughter.) Secondly, I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "dishonest."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to withdraw the offensive word "dishonest."

MR. CHABOT: If it offends him, but he said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he said that the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...Leader of the Opposition's first statement in this House.... That is dishonest; he knows it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Member please be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: That was his first speech.

MR. CHABOT: It wasn't his first speech, and that is dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, there is a big difference between saying that a statement is incorrect or dishonest, and accusing a Member of being dishonest. The Hon. Member knows that it is contrary to the rules of parliament to accuse another Member of being dishonest. On that basis the Chair must rule.

MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't accuse him of being dishonest; I accused his statement as being a dishonest statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member took it as a personal offence. I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River, in good spirit, to indicate to the Hon. Member that he did not mean that he was dishonest.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't mean that he was dishonest or that he had made a dishonest statement, but apparently he doesn't sit in this House often enough to realize that the Leader of the official Opposition spoke during the throne debate for one hour and 45 minutes while the leader of the Liberal Party was in North Vancouver campaigning for those 57 votes.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): He never spoke at all during the throne debate.

MR. CHABOT: He never spoke at all during the throne debate. I can't really say that it is dishonest, but it is because the Member was not here. The Member is never here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Point of order.

[ Page 3005 ]

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Columbia River is, I think, trying to cast doubt on the election of my colleague. We were not campaigning on election day, and we did hear the Member speak for one hour and 40 minutes.

MR. CHABOT: You didn't speak in the throne debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite agree, I did not speak on the throne debate, but on the afternoon when the turn was called, the Hon. Member will recall, I said, "Pass," which is a term in bridge. Nevertheless, I did not speak and we went on to the Member next to me, namely the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I made a conscious decision not to speak. I was here at the time when I refused to speak. I'm sure, I'll just jog his memory, I heard the Hon. Member...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...from Okanagan....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We accept the Hon. Second Member for Victoria's correction. I would ask the Member for Columbia River to proceed on the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly. It is quite obvious that the Liberals are in trouble in Ottawa and they are in trouble in British Columbia as well.

I'm sorry. What we really should have done, Mr. Chairman, on this question of the Ocean Falls rip-off of the taxpayers of British Columbia was maybe have shared our material with the Liberal Party. Then they wouldn't have to use the Blues and the newspapers to make their argument.

Nevertheless, we are discussing the dirty, rotten, filthy mess at Ocean Falls, perpetuated by that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who always stays down in the trench. He believes in ripping off the taxpayers of British Columbia to the extent of millions and millions of dollars every year at Ocean Falls.

The taxpayers of British Columbia lost $850,000 in Ocean Falls last year while the Minister's friends in New York made in the vicinity of $20 million. How long can the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia, tolerate this web of abuse against themselves by this Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources? You are abusing your office. You are abusing the trust that was instilled in you by the people of British Columbia. You are abusing it by making fortunes for people in New York while the people of British Columbia are holding the bag and losing the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Profiteers.

MR. CHABOT: Straight profiteers because of the lack of understanding of international finance on the part of that Minister over there. All he can do while the taxpayers of British Columbia are losing the shirts off their backs is go "Ha! ha!" That's all we can get from that Minister while he is taking the shirts right off the backs of British Columbians.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nobody could take your shirt — nobody.

MR. CHABOT: It is unbelievable that that Minister smiles away and laughs while the taxpayers are being abused.

I want to speak briefly about the Kootenay Forest Productions situation and Crestbrook as well.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I guess you know as much about it.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I do know a fair amount about Crestbrook Forest Industries because I watched that company grow in my constituency. I saw it from its inception. I saw it from the time, in 1950, when they bought out Columbia Contracting in Canal Flats. Just a little company. It has had serious financial difficulties over the years. For 15 years they had serious financial difficulty — this company that you accuse of being a terrible conglomerate in the hands of your enemy, the Japanese. The Minister from Kootenay — Crestbrook is in his riding too. He doesn't like, as he said, those people. I won't repeat the word that he used to describe the people of the Japanese nation.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I never said I didn't like them.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say you didn't like them.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw. I'm not trying to suggest that you said that you didn't like them; I know you do. I'm sure you do. It was a bit of a slur, and I have to admit, I think it was a bit of a slip on your part, Mr. Minister. It wasn't intentional. It really wasn't intentional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think this is not relevant to the matter before us.

MR. CHABOT: Well, it is relevant because we are talking about the financing of Crestbrook Forest Industries. I watched that company go almost belly-up until one of the Vancouver sawmills moved

[ Page 3006 ]

in on them a few years ago when they were in financial difficulties. They managed to bail out of that financial mess.

Then they wanted to establish a pulp mill in Skookumchuck to use what used to be waste from the forest. They looked all over Canada and the United States for financing. They were unable to find that financing in North America and they had to look to Japan. That is where they secured their financing.

For the Minister to accuse Crestbrook of being in the hands of a Japanese corporation and using as his reason for taking over Kootenay Forest Products that it is foreign control is not keeping with the facts. I suggest to you that Crestbrook Forest Industries has more individual shareholders in the east Kootenay than they have anywhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't belong in Canada.

MR. CHABOT: That is the corporation — that big, vicious....

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): How many?

MR. CHABOT: I don't know at the moment how many, but it runs into the several hundreds. In other words, probably 2,000, I would guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister not to speak from his seat, please.

MR. CHABOT: This is that terrible corporation that the Minister wants to abuse. I wonder whether the Minister is going to move against Crestbrook Forest Industries as he has against Plateau Mills.

I want, right now, Mr. Chairman, to accuse that Minister of abusing his rights and his privileges as a Minister of the Crown in the method in which he took over Plateau Mills.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrorist tactics.

MR. CHABOT: Absolutely. There were terror tactics. The Minister has never denied that statement of having used terror tactics against Plateau Mills. I challenge him tonight to stand in his place and deny with some evidence that he didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Threats, threats.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Why don't you present the evidence?

MR. CHABOT: The evidence has been very well documented.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It has not.

MR. CHABOT: It has never been denied by that Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that he harassed terror tactics in the takeover of Plateau Mills.

HON. MR. LEA: I hope you never serve jury duty.

MR. CHABOT: Absolute threats against the owners that unless they conform to his terms, there was a strong possibility that timber allocation would not be available to them.

I wonder whether that is the direction he is going relative to Crestbrook Forest Industries. His approach here might be a little different, but the end result might be the same.

I read very carefully the press release which the Minister issued under the heading of the Environment and Land Use Committee on April 4 regarding the establishment of the Purcell wilderness conservancy, an area which separates the east and the west Kootenays in the province. I found it very misleading.

I'm not going to accuse the statement as being non-factual, but very misleading. It created the wrong impression in the minds of people who are not knowledgeable about the forest industry.

In the final paragraph of that press release from he Minister.... He didn't sign it — it just says it comes from the Environment and Land Use Committee. I picked up this copy from that secretive Minister's office.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That man's secretive, all right.

MR. CHABOT: I had difficulty getting it. I don't think I should repeat what you said to me when I was in your office, as you walked by. You threatened the community within my constituency — a district within my constituency.

I'll read from the last paragraph what you had to say.

"In the forests included in the area only 34,000 cubic feet were found to be at high attitudes and slow growing. No significant mineral potentials were identified in the conservancy."

You're suggesting to the people of British Columbia by this misleading press release that there are 3,400,000 cubic feet of timber locked into wilderness conservancy. I suggest to you the fact that you said the forests were found to be at a high altitude and slow growing is extremely misleading.

Why didn't you tell the full story as to what kind of timber you locked into this wilderness conservancy in the lower elevations? I suggest to you you've locked in over 100 times what you've suggested in this article — something in the neighbourhood of 400

[ Page 3007 ]

million cubic feet of timber. When converted into board feet, which is the measurement which is used in the industry, that's 2.4 billion board feet of lumber you've locked into this wilderness conservancy.

Are you suggesting that that's not going to economically affect the Kootenays? I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, it's going to have a serious detrimental effect, not only on the east but on the west Kootenay as well. It's going to affect some of the small sawmills in the area, despite your attempt to bring Crestbrook to its knees — and that's exactly what you tried to do by the establishment of that wilderness conservancy.

Why have you failed from the start of this session to table the Chambers-Purcell study in this Legislature, when I've asked you time and again, on numerous occasions, officially through the question period and unofficially through questions across the floor to table that report? What do you have to hide? Is your establishment of this wilderness conservancy in serious conflict with the findings of Professor Chambers? If it isn't, why do you refuse to make this report public?

A government that stood in its place on numerous occasions, from many public platforms in this province, has attempted to lead the people of this province to believe that you are an open government, that you have nothing to hide. Why won't you table the Purcell study by Professor Chambers? It's been in your possession since last October. Despite the numerous times I've asked you to table this you've utterly refused to let the people of British Columbia know what they paid for in this study of the Purcell ranges. Why don't you table that report?

There's the Minister who talks about the old government many times. It's a new era because you're government now. It's an open era. I'll tell you — it's a shameful era in British Columbia, with that Minister in his portfolio.

Member after Member stood in his place and asked that Minister to table what is essentially public information, or what should be public information — the agreement on the Ocean Falls sale of newsprint. That Minister sits there like a stone wall in silence and refuses to tell the people of British Columbia what they have a right to know.

Where is the Farquharson report as well, which has been in your possession and which you've been asked to table in this House? It has been in your possession for months.

That Minister is unwilling to tell the people of British Columbia. He's unwilling to come out of his trench and tell the people of British Columbia what kind of secret deals — I was going to use the word "devious" but I didn't think that was fair — what kind of secretive deals that Minister is making with the taxpayers' credit and with the taxpayers' dollars?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What would John Barrymore say?

MR. CHABOT: Now I'm going to read an article that appeared in the Cranbrook Courier, I believe it is, dealing with Crestbrook's position relative to the establishment of the Purcell wilderness conservancy. It points out very clearly, I think, the statement made by officials from that company as to the problems the Minister has created in the economic well-being of the east Kootenays.

It appeared not too long ago. Unfortunately I don't have the date on the top of the newspaper but it was roughly three or four weeks ago. It says:

"A look at the Purcell wilderness conservancy map dismayed John Murray, woodlands manager for Crestbrook Forest Industries. He says it will 'wipe out plans for this year's logging operations and force the company back on a crash programme of road building and logging in the St. Mary's watershed to feed the sawmill in Cranbrook. It also precludes any logging in the Fry Creek area and about half of the Carney Creek area and dictates that there will be no wheeled logging in that area where Crestbrook and T. and H. Logging of Kaslo were given permits two years ago.'"

Kaslo is in the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King) riding. It's over the mountain from where I live. I think that the Minister of Labour should be concerned about the effects this wilderness conservancy will have on the sawmill that gives employment to the Kaslo region.

It goes on:

"'The best timber in the Skookumchuck area is now out of bounds and plans for Findlay Creek cannot be followed out.'

"The 325,000-acre wilderness conservancy was announced last week by Resource Minister Robert Williams and Recreation and Conservation Minister Jack Radford. Among Kootenay forest companies, Crestbrook is hardest hit by the establishing of the conservancy, although President Vic Brown points out that areas will have to be realigned to take the changes into consideration.

"Each company has an area within which it makes its plans. Crestbrook's area was severely affected by the establishment of the conservancy. Revelstoke sawmills of Radium Hot Springs had plans on Toby Creek and T. and H. Logging were affected by the Fry-Carney watershed.

"Mr. Murray's estimates of the amount of timber within the conservancy is higher than Williams' estimates by 100 times. He says about 350 million cubic feet will be lost in the

[ Page 3008 ]

industry. He also maintains that little of it is in the sub-alpine area.

"'They are all choice areas with choice timber and logging grounds,' he says. 'The Fry-Carney area holds the best stands of spruce and the Lardeau, Dewar and Skookumchuck stands are also prime starting at 4,500 feet,' he says. Sub-alpine is considered to start at 6,000 feet altitude.

"Clement Gartside, general manager, made a more detailed list of the amount of timber alienated by the establishment of the conservancy. Forest Service figures would put the loss in the Lardeau area at 1,850,000 cunits, in the upper Kootenay 1,290,000 cunits, and Windermere 227,000 cunits. The total loss would be 4,022,000 cunits.

"Crestbrook will lose $20,000 worth of roads and landings built in the Dewar Creek area, the mainstay of 1974 operations. 'We are in a disastrous position there,' he said, in reference to Dewar and the west arm of the St. Mary's river. Plans were made and approved three years ago for logging there and roads built two years ahead of time to prevent sloughing when the logging starts.

"'Crestbrook got a gold star for planning in Dewar Creek,' Mr. Murray points out in reference to reaction from fish and game people who lauded Crestbrook's cut-and-leave approach on Dewar and the St. Mary's west arm.

"What will the company do instead? They will have to move to a crash programme on Redding Creek and Matchin Creek. On Redding they will have to build nearly 20 miles of new road before it hits an area it can log, at a possible cost of $400,000. On Matchin it may be cut off halfway by the Department of Recreation and Conservation, who have indicated concern for some alpine lakes at the head of the creek.

"'We might helicopter-log Carney, at considerable expense,' said Mr. Gartside. 'The Frye and Carney areas contain the best peel logs in the Lardeau area. Logging would have gone on there for up to 35 years. Studies are already underway on helicopter logging the area,' Mr. Gartside said.

"'Peeler logs are used to make plywood. Crestbrook's plywood plant at Creston is operating only on a three-day week because of a shortage of logs suitable for veneer. Crestbrook had counted on Frye Creek resources to maintain full production,' said Gordon Fisher, plant manager.

"He added that prospects for full production of the plant do not look rosy at present. Crestbrook may also have to go back to Blue Creek, although the area has already been logged.

"'Crestbrook is a strong believer in the multiple use of resources and its planning has been directed to allowances for other users than logging. That is one reason,' says Crestbrook president Vic Brown, 'that the company is upset with the map. It deprives the community of the economic benefits of the force,' he points out.

"He also wonders what happened to the elusive Chamber's report on the Purcell, which was completed in its first draft last fall within months of the government's freeze of the Purcell, but which has not yet been officially released, although it was leaked to media sources in Vancouver.

"Mr. Brown said, 'Crestbrook made an extensive submission to Alan Chambers, who made the report, but if he included the information we gave him, it was ignored about 102 per cent.'

"Dave Malenka, head of Crestbrook's planning department commented, 'We're worried sick.' Added Mr. Murray, 'They want us to plan five years ahead; with this we are back to a crisis situation, planning now what we will do this year.'"

And that is the exact predicament that the Minister has put Crestbrook Forest Industry in in the Kootenays. He's jeopardized the jobs of the working people in that area by his establishment of the Purcell wilderness conservancy.

I would like the Minister to tell me as well what kind of protection there is in this kind of conservancy. Is he suggesting at this time that the fact it has been established means it will never be opened again — that logging never will be permitted? Or is there a possibility that this is a squeeze play on Crestbrook Forest Industry and that at a later date, once the government has moved its web of control into the east Kootenays, they will again open up bits and pieces of this wilderness area?

MR. PHILLIPS: He never denied a complete takeover.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No way.

MR. CHABOT: Is it your intention, Mr. Minister, to take over...? Do you have an intention to take over Crestbrook Forest Industry?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Is it your intention to break Crestbrook Forest Industry? It appears by your

[ Page 3009 ]

action in the Kootenay Forest Products Company takeover that you are out to deny Crestbrook Forest Industry the opportunity of economic survival.

Now I'm not suggesting to you for one moment that the timber that is controlled by Kootenay Forest Products does not rightfully belong in the Kootenay–Slocan–Arrow Lake economic area. I'm not going to suggest that. But I suggest to you that you are attempting to squeeze Crestbrook Forest Industry, denying them the opportunity of making their plywood mill, the 400-ton a day mill, an economic unit.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Four hundred tons of plywood?

MR. CHABOT: No, pulp mill — 400 tons a day.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Squeeze them and take them over.

MR. CHABOT: Is this part of your ideological master plan to have your web established in every corner of this province?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Are you attempting to bring Crestbrook to its knees so that you can say: "This company is in a shaky financial position; I must protect the jobs of those working people in the Kootenays. And that is why this government, to save the jobs of the people, found it necessary, because of the financial problems of Crestbrook.... We had to move in to take over this firm to protect the jobs for the people"?

From your press announcements to date, Mr. Minister, by your establishment of the Purcell wilderness conservancy, and the denial of access to timber or access to the purchase of Kootenay Forest Products in Nelson, it appears at the moment that you are attempting to destroy Crestbrook Forest Industries.

If you did, you would have established a monopoly in the east and west Kootenays so that you could rip off every small sawmill in that region by forcing them to sell chips to you or to your operation at an uneconomic price. There is that very serious danger.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: It is that very serious danger which I am concerned about. I think it is healthy to have this competition for chips so that a realistic price is paid — a far more realistic price than Can-Cel is presently paying at $10 a cunit.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Approximately, yes, I do. And it is more than $10 a cunit — substantially more than $10 a cunit,

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): How much more?

MR. CHABOT: You don't even know what a cunit is. There's that Minister, the gospel down there, who wants to know how much. Why should I tell him how much, because he doesn't know what a cunit is all about?

MR. ROLSTON: Well then, you teach me.

MR. CHABOT: It is substantially more than you are paying at Col-Cel, I'll tell you that right now. Maybe it is not enough. I'm not going to say or suggest that it is enough. But I suggest to you that you are attempting to bring Crestbrook to its knees, that you will pay substantially less than what they are presently paying to the operators in that region.

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at that Minister, who sits back and refuses to reply to the very serious charges that have been levelled against his administration of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

We've heard, very clearly stated, that there is a Belgium connection in British Columbia. There is a web of intrigue in the management of the forest resources of this province. There is this web of involvement between multi-national corporations and the so-called Crown corporations of that government. There is that connection between the Williams forest complex, the personal fiefdom of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, interwoven with the multi-national corporations.

I will never understand, Mr. Chairman, how that Minister can sit there in utter stupid silence when these accusations are being made. He attempts to laugh it off, as he abuses and rips off the taxpayers of British Columbia. It goes to show you the kind of consideration that government is prepared to give to the people of British Columbia.

I think the Minister has a serious responsibility to stand in his place and tell the people of British Columbia that he is going to dissociate himself from the sale of newsprint and pulp in the black markets of the third world.

I have said before: this government has stood on many platforms and suggested that it is an open government. If that Minister is unwilling to confide in the people of this province by refusing to table the agreement of sale of the products from Ocean Falls....

[ Page 3010 ]

I see some snickers and some sneers from that back bench over there. Yet I'm sure they weren't sneering and snickering when this resolution was presented at their convention by one of their supporters just last fall.

This is what that resolution said:

"An NDP government would ensure full financial disclosure by private companies by opening their books to government, unions and other concerned bodies."

Moved, seconded and accepted by the NDP. This is what they suggest should take place relative to the private sector.

If they feel this resolution which passed at that socialist convention had some merit, do they really believe government should hide their affairs? Is this a schizophrenic government? Is this a government with a double standard? It certainly appears that it is.

I want to assure that government over there and its back bench that unless that Minister tables that agreement in this House, he is going to be the No. 1 reason why that government will be destroyed; he is going to be the No. 1 cause of your absolute defeat at the earliest opportunity.

I listened to the Minister stand in his place and put up a great smokescreen against the accusations of the Leader of the Opposition about the sale of newsprint in the black market in the third world where an organization in New York is making the real bucks while the people of British Columbia are losing their tax dollars. He never answered those charges. All he wanted to discuss was the Columbia River treaty and the shortcomings of that agreement. I'll have more to say about that later on. I'm sure we'll have ample opportunity at a later date to discuss the Columbia River treaty.

I want to say it is pretty low politics and pretty cheap on the part of the Minister to engage a professor from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia in an attempt to smear the former government on the Columbia River treaty. The professor happens to be the grandson who disowned the former name of McNaughton; he happens to be the grandson of A.G.L. McNaughton. He expects, strictly for cheap politics, to bring this individual to British Columbia to give an objective analysis of the Columbia River treaty.

How can he possible give an objective analysis of the Columbia River treaty?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Can't the son or grandson be different?

MR. FRASER: You be quiet! Go fix some potholes!

MR. CHABOT: He is trying to lend support. There is no doubt in my mind that he is trying to lend support to the position of his grandfather. That's the only reason he was engaged. It's cheap politics at its lowest form. I'll tell you that that Minister believes in cheap politics. You better believe he does.

All we expect of you, Mr. Minister, is to come clean. Tell the truth. File the papers. File that agreement between Ocean Falls and that New York organization. It's about time you filed the Purcel study as well.

HON. MR. KING: I just want to make a few comments in response to some of the so-called speeches that were made this evening.

We heard a great deal about cheap politics from the last speaker. I want to agree with him that perhaps the kind of politics this party indulges in are rather cheap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they are.

HON. MR KING: Because we certainly don't have the expensive friends like the official opposition. We don't have the Frank McMahons and Wenner-Grens...

MR. CHABOT: Mac who?

HON. MR. KING: ...and the Clynes and so on. I imagine that brand of politics and that kind of reliance on vested interests comes very, very expensive.

We're not particularly interested in clients and cohorts of that ilk.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) gave a very interesting speech earlier on this evening. I thought he presented a very interesting kind of speech.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): The first half.

HON. MR. KING: The first half of it was very good. As a lawyer I can understand, because I have heard them referred to as people who try to rationalize the irreconcilable. I thought that was a spectacular exercise by that Member this evening.

He referred in the first instance to the motion which is before the House, placed by the Leader of the Opposition, as being nebulous, incompetent, irresponsible speculation without a shred of evidence, poorly-researched and without evidence.

Then he suggested that politics in the province had indeed arrived at a low point when an aspiring political leader indulged in this kind of innuendo to challenge and move non-confidence in a Minister of the Crown.

He then changed his coat and donned the lawyer's robes, I suppose, and attempted to rationalize. He

[ Page 3011 ]

suggested that in the face of this scandalous, nebulous attack, a motion of non-confidence, the Minister should rise to defend himself and deny such irresponsible allegations and speculations.

Surely, if he believed what he was saying in the first instance, if that made any sense whatsoever, then obviously it would be a frivolous and stupid exercise to even give any credence to denying the kind of rabble we've heard from across the House for the last few days.

It is a strange and irrational position which the Member took. It's too bad, because he is indeed a very articulate Member of this House and presents an imposing and impressive figure when standing and lecturing the House as he does with his waistcoat all a-flying and his well-enunciated words. It's too bad he won't stick to a more credible approach.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. CHABOT: Order! It's a different chairman. He won't let you get away with it!

HON. MR. KING: There are a couple of other points I want to make. As far as the call of the official opposition to table contracts and negotiations that are underway between a Crown corporation and other companies, I find it somewhat curious that the people on the opposition side fail to find anything wrong whatsoever with the usual business practice in the private sector of making annual reports to the shareholders once a year on the basis of the business which has been conducted throughout that year.

I have never heard anyone on that side of the House suggest that any private corporation should reveal their day-to-day negotiations and business relationships with other competitors. I think that would be detrimental to the ability of a company to compete in our kind of system.

I find it curious that free-enterprisers, who always like to make that distinction, would suggest that a Crown corporation which is in business to protect the interests of the people of this province should place themselves at a disadvantage with those companies they are competing against.

I believe with other Crown corporations, annual reports are placed before this House once a year. For that Social Credit opposition, which for 20 years governed this province, it comes as a bit of charade that they express the concern about open government and the availability of reports when we contrasted their demand against their sorry, hidebound record for many years in this province. We all remember demands for the tabling of the Carrothers report and a whole variety of other reports which rested on dusty and musty shelves in this House and in areas other than this House — on shelves of private Members where public documents had no right to be. I think it is curious that they have developed such a social sense of conscience. Perhaps it is repentance at a late date.

The last point I wanted to discuss is the whole approach that appears to be developing by the opposition, particularly the Social Credit opposition. I think the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was correct in questioning the propriety of attempts to impugn the integrity and honesty of the Members of this House — any Member — without some pretty valid and soundly substantiated evidence.

We have had cases in the past where a Member's integrity has been called into question. I think the Hon. Member on the Liberal backbench can recall those occasions. It is a serious matter. I think that when any Member refuses to accept the word of any other Member of this House, he is duty-bound in the tradition of this British parliamentary system, in the tradition of gentlemanly conduct and common decency, to table with the House prima facie evidence of some wrongdoing.

MR. CHABOT: Table the agreement!

HON. MR. KING: It's a whole new approach by the opposition where it is fair game to impugn the integrity of any Member of the government and to indulge in the wildest and the most scurrilous innuendo that I have ever witnessed. That is considered fair game, perhaps because we are socialists and you think we have no right to govern. But it's a shame. Perhaps Big Daddy should have handed the reins over at an earlier point.

Nevertheless, I want to make it very clear that the public of this province are not going to be taken in by this kind of approach, this kind of attempt to impugn and besmirch the integrity and the character of individual Members of this House. The public of British Columbia have more respect for the institution; they have more respect for politics; they have more respect for common decency. I suggest that at the next election, the dwindling Members on that side of the House will receive the message loud and clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order, please? The Hon. Member for North Peace River, please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: How many more Members of defence have you over there? Come on, get up!

MR. SMITH: During this debate it has been interesting to note the attitude of the No. 1 Minister

[ Page 3012 ]

in terms of resource management in the Province of British Columbia.

It is very interesting indeed to watch the Minister while he sat in silent contemplation at the remarks made by the opposition Members in this debate. It started out Tuesday evening with the Leader of the Opposition giving the House a detailed presentation based on fact, based on carefully researched information concerning the forest industry and the operation of it under the control of this Minister.

For the first half hour, as I recall, the Minister and the Attorney-General sat there and used their favourite weapon — they tried to divert attention from the debate by interjection, and smart-aleck quips.

MR. BENNETT: Little dumb-aleck quips!

MR. SMITH: Maybe a little dumb-aleck quips, but quips nevertheless. At least, they thought they were making quips to the Members of the House.

Then it became noticeable that the attitude of the Minister of Lands and Forests changed. He became a little brighter red and there was a look of acute discomfort on him at that time as he knew the Leader of the Opposition was zeroing in on a number of important points and making charges. If he rose in his place and was to do the job he was elected to do, he would have to answer those charges in this House.

He became agitated. But before the Leader of the Opposition finished, it was apparent that there sat a man, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, caught in a trap of his own invention.

All during this debate we have listened and we have waited for that Minister to give us answers to the charges — and they are serious charges — which have been levied in this chamber and are documented.

Tuesday night we had no opportunity to hear from him, and I guess he decided that the best defence was offence on Wednesday. He rose to his feet in the debate and counter-attacked.

And what did he use? Did he use fact? Did he rebut the arguments of the opposition by coming clean with the Members of this House, by presenting the contract between Ocean Falls and an American company that markets newsprint? No. He used ridicule. He scoffed at any serious suggestions we have made. He used the gimmick that the NDP Members in the cabinet have used ever since they became government: they rehashed 10 or 15 years of the previous administration.

MR. LEWIS: Rather embarrassing, isn't it?

MR. SMITH: It is not embarrassing at all, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about the last 20 months. I don't care about what happened in 1940.

MR. SMITH: Back as far as Wenner-Gren and the ideas that he delivered to the province and the rip-offs that Wenner-Gren made of the taxpayers of British Columbia. Then he waxed eloquently for a short time about the Columbia River and the terrible treaty the government had signed on the Columbia.

Then he spoke in glowing terms about repatriation of nine million acres of forest in the northwest of British Columbia.

What nonsense, Mr. Minister, what nonsense!

Where was the nine million acres going to go, Mr. Minister? It was always in the right of the Crown. All you ever did or any government ever did was to allow people to go in and harvest the trees that were there. You know as well as you are sitting in this House tonight that you had full control all the time, Mr. Minister. It has never bothered your conscience to break a contract or decide that you wanted to renew it. Not at all. So you had nine million acres there that were never in any doubt as far as repatriation is concerned.

What a specious argument!

Then he talked about the Skagit — the terrible deal on the Skagit. He wound up, I believe, by accusing the Members of the opposition of witchhunting.

If there was one Member in this House that invented witchhunting, it was the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources when he sat in this House as a Member of the opposition. He invented it. Not only that, he was certainly able to enlarge on a few facts from time to time to suit his purpose. In rebuttal to the arguments of the opposition, we've got nothing, absolutely nothing from the Minister.

He asked what was wrong with Can-Cel having Americans on their board of directors. After all, many corporations have Americans on their board of directors. It is a little astonishing to me because that is the same man who a few years ago in opposition berated anyone who would suggest we should allow Americans to even invest a few dollars in Canada or in any way control any part or any segment of the Canadian economy. But what is one of the first moves he makes after being appointed the Minister in the acquisition of this star jewel of the NDP crown? He appoints a number of Americans to the board of directors of Can-Cel.

The double standard, Mr. Chairman — the one he operates by and the one he tells the people of British Columbia that they should operate by.

But in all of this we have not yet heard one single solitary answer to our charges of monumental mismanagement of the most important portfolio of all to the people of this province, because the forest industry produces 50 per cent of the revenue and the jobs and the opportunity for expansion for the

[ Page 3013 ]

people of the Province of British Columbia.

No, all we have got is bluster and bombast and a rehash of what happened 10 or 15 years ago. It is amazing when I look back to realize the super-Minister, the No. 1 Minister with the largest portfolio, had all the answers in opposition and now as the No. 1 Minister, he has no answers to the charges of irregular marketing practices, of conflict of interest, or forced takeover of industry in this province.

I believe the Minister is still on one great ego trip, super infatuated with his own power and importance. Still the super planner whose record in private business was really not that great. Nevertheless, a Minister, who, through circumstances now wields the power that he needs to vent his frustrations on the business world and the forest industry in this province. And from what we have seen, that is exactly what is going on and the people of British Columbia don't like it one little bit, Mr. Chairman.

That is why we don't get any answers. That is why we stand in our places as ask for answers. File these documents with the House, Mr. Minister. It is your obligation and your duty as a Minister of the Crown. After all, when you were sworn in as a Minister of the Crown you took an oath, and if you believe in that oath then you will protect the interests of all British Columbians by making sure that the Members of this Legislature have access to the information which you, and you alone, seem to think is your sole discretionary position to hold and withhold whatever and whenever you desire.

Now, let's take a look at some of the irregularities in the marketing. I'm not going to go back into the same detail that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) used when he presented some arguments to this House on Tuesday night. But I will say this: it is a matter of record that a government-owned corporation, Ocean Falls, cancelled marketing contracts and agreements with Crown Zellerbach for the sale of the newsprint from the Ocean Falls operation.

It is a matter of record that the Minister negotiated a deal to sell outright to Gottesman-Central National Corporation out of New York the production of the Ocean Falls plant. Gottesman in turn, and this is a matter of record, sell to the underdeveloped nations of the world — to Korea, Thailand, to Burma, and they sell at whatever price a tough, hard-headed powerful corporation can extract. I use the words "tough, hard-headed" businessman because they are the words that were used by the president of that corporation. They sell at whatever price the traffic will bear.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they control the market.

MR. SMITH: They control a sizeable amount of the market for newsprint, and that's a matter of record.

A question, Mr. Minister, that has been asked time and time again: what price do the taxpayers of British Columbia receive for the sale of the No. 1 natural resource by-product, the sale of newsprint from Ocean Falls? What price, Mr. Minister? File the documents. File the copies of the contract with this House. But no, the Minister prefers to maintain his conspiracy of silence. He refuses table details with this Legislature. He knows what's going on and I think he is embarrassed by it, so he's turned a blind eye to the whole business, and says, "I choose not to table documents with the Legislature."

There is one other thing, Mr. Minister, with regard to the operation of Ocean Falls. Even though his own party suggests that every corporation should reveal full financial details about their operation, he's made sure that Ocean Falls will never have to do that. Guess why? It just so happens that this Crown corporation, by order-in-council, was exempted from 200 sections of the newly touted and developed Companies Act which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is so proud of.

The Minister knows the details of the contract in the agreements with Gottesman-Central National Corporation, and there's at least one other man who knows. Ira Wallach knows the details.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear hear!

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. SMITH: After all, he's president of the company. I talked to Mr. Wallach in New York today, person to person, Mr. Chairman. We had a very interesting conversation. I told him who I was and why I was phoning him, and he said: "Yes, I'm an innocent bystander to this dispute. I'm an innocent bystander to this dispute," as closely as I can recall his words. "My company entered into a business transaction with a corporation which happens to be a Crown corporation. We enter into many business transactions with many different suppliers. The terms of all business transactions are confidential. I will not talk about contractual relations with Ocean Falls, except to say the contract ends in 1976."

MR. PHILLIPS: In 1976!

MR. SMITH: "I don't want to get involved in a political battle of words." He repeated: "I'm an innocent bystander. We follow decent sales policies."

These were the words, as close as I can recall them, from Mr. Wallach in a telephone conversation with me this afternoon. I take him at his word, Mr. Chairman. If he is not prepared to reveal the terms of

[ Page 3014 ]

a sales contract with the corporation, even though it is a Crown corporation, I take him at his word. But there is a great deal of difference between the position of Mr. Wallach, as president of Gottesman Corporation, and the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as a responsible Minister of the government responsible to this Legislature Assembly.

Like it or not, Mr. Minister, you have a sworn duty to recall to this House the transactions of this corporation. what price are you receiving for Ocean Falls newsprint? One thing is sure, it is not a fluctuating price that follows cost of production, as other major marketers receive. What are they receiving, Mr. Chairman? What are they receiving today? Well, let's take a look.

Quoting from an article from The Province of May

"Two B.C. newsprint producers are studying the announcement in Montreal that Consolidated Bathurst Ltd. will increase its newsprint prices for U.S. customers. The company said its current Canadian price of $192 per ton is not affected by the U.S. move.

"Tuesday, a Crown Zellerbach (Canada) Ltd. official said it is also reviewing its price structure, but have no announcement at this time. Spokeman for M&B, 'We have just heard of the Consolidated Bathurst announcement and may comment at a later date.'

"B.C. Forest Products Ltd. sells its newsprint at an average of the prices charged by MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach. The following day, because there was an error in the first print of the price that they were to receive, there was a correction print, Consolidated Bathurst Ltd. said Wednesday.

"Its latest increase in the price of 32-pound standard newsprint to U.S. customers will be $250 from $225 a ton effective July 1. It is a raise of $25 per ton following record demands for newsprint in the world market."

So I ask again, Mr. Minister: in your negotiated contract that you are so proud of, what is the price you received from Gottesman International? If you won't tell us, perhaps I can suggest to you that it is around $213 to $215 per ton, less freight and exchange. That would deliver to the Province of British Columbia about $188 per ton.

If that is true, Mr. Minister, taking into consideration the prices that are being negotiated now in the contracts we know are in effect for newsprint, the people of British Columbia are being ripped off for millions of dollars.

The most charitable thing that I can say to the Minister is that you were taken in. You were taken in, Mr. Minister, by a tough, sharp, Yankee trader — a trader who in turn markets our newsprint from the Province of British Columbia to undeveloped countries and makes millions in rip-off profits. That is certainly nothing to be proud of.

Yes, we are faced with a conspiracy of silence not only about the operations of Ocean Falls, but the whole Can-Cel operation as well. The Minister called the acquisition of Columbia Cellulose, as it was then known, the "financial coup of the century." How he bragged about it and how pleased he was with the fact that he had liberated this company and repatriated its assets to the people of the Province of British Columbia.

What did we get? Let's take a look. Who was it good for? Who did it help? Well, it helped the Celanese Corporation unload a $90 million operating loss. It liberated the company, as the Minister has said, for the benefit of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

"We repatriated the company," he said. It was a great financial coup. But tell me, Mr. Minister, in this process of repatriation, did the Celanese Corporation retain an agreement or a right to the supply of pulp from the Can-Cel operation at Prince Rupert? Does Can-Cel supply pulp to Celanese Corporation — yes or no? Yes or no, Mr. Minister: that's all you have to say. Just nod your head. Does Can-Cel supply pulp to the Celanese Corporation — yes or no? Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

We still are faced with a conspiracy of silence. If it is yes, at what price? If, as I suspect, the Celanese Corporation does receive pulp supplies from the operation at Prince Rupert, your brightest star isn't so bright after all, because what really happened is that the Celanese Corporation unloaded all the headaches of a real problem child and an unprofitable operation...

MR. PHILLIPS: And all the debts.

MR. SMITH: ...and a large operating deficit and all the debts of that company, but in the process retained the one thing that they really needed: that is, a guaranteed supply of pulp.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. SMITH: Question, Mr. Minister: are you supplying Celanese Corporation with pulp? If so, Mr. Minister, that company is laughing and you're the butt of the joke. Are you supplying Celanese Corporation with pulp for the Prince Rupert operation?

Well, Mr. Chairman, we are still faced with a conspiracy of silence. The Minister won't even shake his head yes or no.

Let's take a look at the operations for a few minutes at Plateau Mills. It is an interesting company. It would have been interesting, Mr. Chairman, to have been in on the conversation which took place

[ Page 3015 ]

between the Minister and some of the shareholders at Plateau Mills prior to the takeover by the provincial government. It would be very interesting indeed to know what kind of persuasive tactics the Minister used.

What tactics did he employ to gain the consent of these people to sell a going operation to the government? Why would they decide to abandon the business that they had built up through a lot of sweat and hard work and sell out to the government at a price much less than what they were offered by another corporation? Why would they do that, Mr. Chairman? Can you hazard a guess as to why they would do that? I wonder.

Would it be because of a suggestion that if the government did not enter into an agreement with Plateau to buy them out, there might be some difficulty in renewing cutting rights in the part of the province they operated in? — that it might require a comprehensive review by the Minister of all the timber operations? Goodness only knows how long that might take before they could be sure of a supply of wood for their operations.

No, Mr. Minister, these are questions that we have every right to have an answer to. To the present time we have received nothing but a conspiracy of silence.

It is interesting to note, too, that the charge of terror tactics was hotly denied by the Minister in the takeover of Plateau Mills. If that is a fact and the Minister didn't use terror tactics to take them over, what did he use? I suggest that if it wasn't terror tactics it was certainly a lot of arm twisting. Perhaps terror tactics in that case is the correct terminology, because a company who knows their future is in jeopardy will think long and hard before they refuse an offer from the government to buy them out if they know there is no future for them.

MR. PHILLIPS: You made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

MR. SMITH: Yes, an offer that they couldn't refuse. Are those not terror tactics? I've heard other people describe terror tactics over situations and company deals that had less authority than that.

No, there is a great reluctance on the part of the Minister to answer questions, a great reluctance.

It is interesting to note, too, that the Minister, in talking about Can-Cel, likes to brag about the $12 million profit that the corporation made in their first complete year — $12 million profit. Mr. Minister, we would be interested in knowing, before you brag too loudly and too long about the $12 million profit, what that corporation paid the government in stumpage for the right to cut timber in this province.

For instance, what did they pay last year for the total cunits of their production? What did a number of other companies operating in the same area pay the Crown in terms of stumpage for their cunits of production?

Mr. Chairman, I've had six questions on the order paper for months now to the Minister concerning this very problem. How many answers have I received; I have received none — absolutely none from this open government and this open Minister who thinks so highly of revealing to the public what is going on in the business of the operation of the Department of Lands Forests and Water Resources in this province. These other companies are operating in the same area as a Crown corporation.

If the Minister has given preferential treatment to a Crown corporation, wouldn't anyone consider that unfair business tactics? If the $12 million profit is predicated on two things — the reduction of stumpage to a Crown corporation as compared to any other corporation operating in the same area, and the purchase of chips from suppliers who are obligated to supply those chips at a price much less than the market demands right now — that $12 million profit is a fallacy. It's a fallacy.

What it means is that the Minister has persuaded the other corporations and the other businesses that must deal with the Crown to give the Crown corporation a preference so he can go out on behalf of the shareholders of the province and say that Can-Cel made $12 million in profits — look how great a corporation we have there, Madam House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the last speaker?

MR. SMITH: Am I the last speaker? No, no.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Lea files answers to question 177.

MR. PHILLIPS: When is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources going to file answers?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.