[ Page 3075 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 75.

Mr. Macdonald — 3075

Division on motion to rise and report progress — 3076

On vote 75.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3078

Mr. Shelford — 3078

Hon Mr. Fraser — 3080

Mr. King — 3080

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3082

Division on motion that Mr. Chairman do now leave the chair — 3083

On vote 75.

Mrs. Dailly — 3083

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3084

Mr. Skelly — 3084

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3085

Mr. Barrett — 3085

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3085

Mr. Barrett — 3085

Division on motion that Mr. Chairman do now leave the chair — 3087

On vote 75.

Mr. Barrett — 3087

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3088

Mr. Barrett — 3088

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 3093

On vote 75.

Mr. D'Arcy — 3093

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3094

Mr. King — 3095

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3095

Mr. King — 3095

Division on motion that Mr. Chairman do now leave the chair — 3096

Point of order

Procedure during challenge to Chairman's ruling. Mr. Lauk — 3096

Mr. Speaker — 3096

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 75: departmental administration and support services, $28,755,041 — continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, dealing with the forests here, and the foresters under this vote, I must admit that I'm very concerned about the sudden shift to the right side of the political spectrum and the right-wing philosophy that is being played out in our woods at the present time in B.C.

I'm talking about the leaving in the woods, after logging operations, of stumps and tops that have been left up to eight inches, 11 inches, 14 inches diameter. And the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is one of these cut-and-get-out people, one of the old gang who made a devastation of our forests in the past, smiles about what I am saying. But I'm very serious. If we neglect conservation and proper forestry practices — and this government is doing it — if we allow big business cut-and-get-out practices to return to the province of British Columbia, and if we favour the big companies by the kind of policy that has been adopted by this minister, where the logging companies, the big logging companies, can go into a block, cut what they want, leave the debris in the forest and waste our wood fibres — if that's the direction we're going under this big business government, I don't want any part of it. I don't think the people of this province want any part of it.

You can laugh all you like. You are all the big operators and you don't give a.... You've got nothing to say.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to quote a few words of what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has already said in this House, and if these members who are doing so much yacking at the present time agree with this philosophy, so be it. It's an issue that we ought to join in this province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: You're turning back the clock.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not going to argue with that Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I think I know more about the logging industry in this province than he does.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, all right, let's have that issue out. I've been counsel for the loggers for the province of B.C. over the past 15 or 20 years. When bad conservation practices are being imposed in this province I ought to know something about it, and I do.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Let me

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I remind the hon. Minister of Economic Development that if he wishes to speak in this debate he should stand in his place and address the Chair? Because if we afford luxuries that he has supposed belong to him to every member in this House, it would be anarchy in here. Therefore we'll have to have some order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're quite right.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is what the minister has said in defending his policy of abandoning close utilization. That Minister of Economic Development who knows nothing about our most important industry ought to leave this chamber, and he has. Now we can get onto a sensible discussion.

AN HON. MEMBER: You chased him out. He can't take the heat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to vote 75, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Forests, Mr. Chairman, said this the other day in defending his abandoning of the progressive policy of this province of British Columbia which has been developed, not

[ Page 3076 ]

only over the last three and a half years but over a number of years, by the B.C. Forest Service. He said: "We're not totally going to cut back on the standards of utilization. We're only doing it through permit applications on a one-to-one basis."

But he says this, and this is the direction towards which this government is pointing: "I'm afraid that if costs continue to escalate in this business, some day in the not-too-distant future only the very, very best quality wood in this province will be economic. The other wood, the fantastically, good utilization standard that we have gotten down to over the last 20 years, will be meaningless, because if you can't sell the stuff for more than it costs to produce it, it has to stay in the bush."

Mr. Chairman, if that's where we're going, to leave the lower grade logs to rot in the bush because we want to look at the bottom line and the profits of the big corporations who dominate the forest industry in B.C. and give them their way, which is cut and get out, then we're becoming a regressive province in this world.

You're never allowed, in the countries of Europe which are our competitors and will be in the future, in the Scandinavian countries.... Do you think they would allow logs of up to 14 inches diameter to lie in the bush to be a fire hazard, to attract insect infestation and to prevent reforestation? Because when you leave debris in the woods behind your logging operations, you've done all of those things. It's rotten conservation and it's a loss of the valuable woodfibre that this province produces.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Can-Cel!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, a surplus.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you can raise other issues all you like, but what you're doing now in order to benefit the big companies is allowing valuable saw logs to go into the wood rooms of the pulp mills and be ground up for chips, and you're allowing valuable saw logs that would be valued anywhere else in the world to lie on the forest floor and create the kind of debris and hazard that I've been talking about. That's the policy of this government.

The result is that recovery mills — and this is the direction we should be going in to utilize the wealth of our forests and the woodfibre wealth of this province — that have put in the equipment to manufacture lumber from the smaller logs, such as, if you want to name examples, Sooke Forest Products — you don't need to go far to see them — are short right now of saw logs. They have no timber limits of their own. They have to go onto the open market and bid against the big companies for saw logs. The result is that we're not using in this province the small-dimension timber and we're allowing it to be wasted in our forests and ground into chips, and we have a surplus pile of chips at the present time. Another one is Plumper Bay Sawmills.

So what we ought to be doing, Mr. Chairman, and what this government is not doing, is developing these recovery mills so we can use the smaller-dimension timber, and put it to good use and not let it waste and rot and destroy the replenishment of our forests that should be taking place either naturally or through reforestation.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, the kind of philosophy expressed here may be good for big business, and it is, for those companies that have their forest management licences — they have their wood supply in good, large-dimension saw logs. But for the recovery mills, the smaller mills that have in many cases spent thousands of dollars to be able to process the smaller wood, you're denying them a chance to get that kind of a saw log.

I think cutting back the standards of close utilization of our forest wealth in this province is a disaster, and it's a direction this government is taking that is in tune with everything else they've done, which is to favour the big business operators and not develop the recovery mills that can use the smaller dimension timber and use it to the benefit of all the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I see, although I think this is a very important issue in what is the first industry in the province of British Columbia, that there are not too many members here, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 29

[ Page 3077 ]

MR. W. S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I think I've unearthed an error in vote 75, and I want to ask the minister's advice and guidance. It seems to me that under vote 75, on page 121, about halfway down the page 1t shows....

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A point of order. I don't want to interrupt the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan who is about to make a very substantial point, and I am sure that he will want to repeat his remarks after I finish my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask the Chairman that when reporting to the Speaker, he report that a division took place in committee...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...and that the Chairman ask leave...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK:...to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is out of order at this time.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Ask leave. Ask leave of the House.

MR. LAUK: Could we ask leave?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't normally ask leave in committee. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: So what do you say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's out of order, but by mutual consent of the House, we've entertained your motion.

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

MR. KING: Now to get on to more serious and weighty problems, Mr. Chairman. I want to draw the minister's attention to a vote for a staff of five involving $42,756, and the designation is "flunky."

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. KING: Flunky. I want to ask the minister if that should not more properly be shown under the minister's office vote...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...because, Mr. Chairman, after the advertising exercise that took place in the minister's office, I think that's more properly where the flunkies reside. I wonder what the minister has to say about that.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. We want to know who the flunky is.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Chairman, the job has not been filled, if some of the members opposite would like to apply.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is just passing off this question of abandoning close utilization. Apart from what I have talked about — the difference between this party and that party on the government benches — the fact is that we do have recovery mills in this province that have spent thousands of dollars to be able to use smaller saw logs, and they are either being left in the forest or cut up for chips at the present time — to add to that mounting pile of chips.

Now is this really an expression of the minister's philosophy that the other wood will be meaningless because if you can't sell the stuff for more than it costs to produce it has to stay in the bush? Is this going to be the direction of the Social Credit Party, that the good wood product of the province of B.C. is going to be lying in the bush as debris as long as this government remains in office? Is that what we're talking about in terms of utilization?

The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) is making a lot of signals and semaphoring down there. He's got forests in his area.

Do you believe that in this province of British Columbia we should be wasting our valuable wood products in that kind of a way and contributing to debris in the forests and fire hazard and all the rest of the things that happen when you allow the forest to become cluttered with debris after a logging operation and delay reforestation? These are the results of what I say is a disastrous change of direction in terms of good conservation practices in the province of British Columbia. I think, Mr. Minister, that in this change of direction that you have initiated...you did it within a few weeks of coming into office.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Next! Next!

MR. MACDONALD: You received representations

[ Page 3078 ]

from the big forest operators. They said: "Oh, it's going to cost us a little too much money to take out those smaller pieces out of the woods." So we'll let you take out just the logs that you want to select — the big ones, the most profitable ones — and leave the others behind, because we've got to watch our profit figures so very carefully that we're going to ignore the kind of conservation and utilization practices that have been built up in this province, as you say yourself, over the past 20 years. Now I say that that is a disastrous change of direction, Mr. Minister. I want to know if that is the kind of future you foresee, where we are going to abandon those smaller wood products, Mr. Chairman, in the province of B.C.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Vancouver East gets very excited at times. I think he thrashes around to the extent that he really can't see the forest for the trees. We have not changed the utilization standards in the interior whatsoever. The only change we have made is on pulp logs on the coast; we haven't done a thing with saw logs. It is until the end of this year only. It is simply an attempt to stop the necessity of bringing in this junk material — it is junk. It cannot be sold; it cannot be used. It is being brought out of the bush; it is being allowed to float in our waterways. It is creating a hazard and an eyesore on the coast. That material has to be left somewhere. Do you want to leave it in the water, up on the beaches of our populated areas? Or do you want to leave it in the bush where it is of no value, just as it is of no value on the coast? We cannot sell them; there is no market for them.

There is a surplus of pulp logs and chips, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member. It really doesn't make any sense that this material, which is just junk.... They are short pieces, fractured pieces, timber that cannot be used for anything. It cannot be used for saw logs. It creates a hazard if it is brought out. It creates less of a hazard, less of an environmental problem if it is left in the bush. This modification — it is only minor; it is only relative to the coast — is good only up until the end of this year in an attempt to bring some kind of a balance to the study of pulp material and chips.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, let the minister say precisely what diameters are being left in the woods under this policy which he has initiated. It's all very well to say it is for one year, but it wasn't necessary to be done in the last 20 years of this province. What are some of the diameters of tops of trees and the smaller growth which you are going to leave in the woods after a logging operation? Do they go up to eight inches, 11 inches, 14 inches in some cases?

I'm not talking about a bad piece that might be lying on the ground. What are those dimensions that you are leaving? Because in every civilized forestry nation in this world if you have a piece of, say, eight inches diameter, it would be used to make saw lumber, or at least it would be used for chips. What I am saying, Mr. Minister, is that you have helped to create this mountain of chips.

We do have a surplus — no doubt about it — because you're not encouraging the recovery mills to make lumber from the smaller pieces in the forest. I say you have just turned the clock back in the woods with this kind of a policy. Would you tell me what dimensions you are leaving in there of perfectly good tree tops and stumps?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the size of material left is not a simple one-figure answer. It is quite complicated. It depends on the species, the grade of log, the length of it. I would be very happy to table with the House — and a copy to the member if he wishes — the details of this temporary moderation of utilization standards of pulp material if he so wishes. It is not a simple thing; it is quite complicated and requires quite a lengthy answer.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Some of them go up to 14 types of pieces that are being left....

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I was certainly interested in the remarks by the hon. first member for Vancouver East. It's all very well saying, "Let's take out all of these pieces." It sounds good. Unfortunately, it's like we usually hear from that side of the House. It's not always that practical. When you get to taking out that type of material, say, in the Terrace area where you have so much decadent wood, those types of pieces that are being left....

I used to go into the operations five or six times a year just to take a look at what was being left. That type of wood is no good for sawmills. Most of the stuff that is left is only good for what the member just mentioned, to help create a greater chip pile, which doesn't resolve our problem at all.

Certainly a lot of the problems have been building up over the years in the forest industry, as our costs have been escalating for some time. But certainly the actions of the former government, where wages in the public service were increased quite often by as high as 40 per cent in one year, had great effects on the effectiveness of the forest industry to compete on world markets so that it could take out this material that my friend refers to. I don't think there's anyone on this side of the House or on the other side... I think we'd all like to see this material taken out, but how do you do it if you can't sell it?

As far as the increase in costs goes, the environmental controls brought in by the former

[ Page 3079 ]

government increased the cost of logging in the Terrace area by $10.50. I'm not saying that they were all bad, because they're not. I'm just saying that it did increase the costs, because we had to build three times as much road to take out the same amount of timber. This is what creates the increased cost, and it makes it practically impossible for some of these people to take out the wood and sell it at a profit.

I would say that forest problems, and I mentioned this before, are extremely serious in this province. I don't think the members sitting really realize the problems we are facing in staying in the world markets. Unless we do come up with some answers very quickly, many of our social programmes will have to be cut back. I think we, as members, should stand up and acknowledge that we have a very serious problem. So far we're not coming to grips with that problem, because wages and costs of all kinds are going up, up and up, and world markets are not going up. They're staying pretty well stable and are not likely to go up, according to information I received in talking to people across the line the last few days.

World markets are normal, really. The only way we are competing is on peak world markets; we can no longer compete on normal world markets or low world markets.

Saying that by leaving a few bits in the woods it is going to create insect control.... I would like to ask my friend across the way: what about the wood that is rotting in the parks? Isn't that an insect problem too? Logs have been rotting in the woods for years, and I don't think a few extra will make that much difference.

We hope there is some solution. We can, of course, take all of this material out and turn it into pulp, because that's all it's fit for. But that material is not saw-log material, let's face it.

MR. MACDONALD: Some of it is.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: I think that you can make a case that you can make a 2x4 out of some of this stuff, but it will cost you about $40 more than what you can sell it for. It's that simple. It will cost you right now about $165 to take that material out, which you could sell for $140 at the best. Now if that's an economic venture, no wonder you lost so much money when you were in government.

One thing I am a little bit confused on, I must say, are the various reports made by Can-Cel and also by the former minister. Now as far as Can-Cel...in their 1973 report they paid $13.98 stumpage. Yet they only paid, according to their report, $8,421,000. Now if they had been paying $13.98, as suggested in answer to Mr. Bennett — the question was asked on November 26.... It was asked: what was the average stumpage paid by Can-Cel? The Hon. R.A. Williams replied: $13.98. Then you go over a little further, and in answer to Smith...they asked the question again: what was the total number of cunits cut in the northwest area by Can-Cel? The answer was 916,194 cunits. Now if you take that figure and multiply it by $13.98, then it should come to over $12,800,000; instead it only comes to over $4,906,000.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, oh! Is that right?

MR. SHELFORD: Now if you take Can-Cel's figures in their annual report, where they cut 1,147,000 cunits, then, of course, it should have come to $16 million instead of the $8 million as reported by Can-Cel, and the $4 million reported by Williams.

I think it's extremely confusing, and it appears that someone didn't know what they were talking about, to put it plainly. I certainly wouldn't want to say that the former minister lied to this House, but he certainly had as much regard for the truth as a tom-cat does for a marriage licence.

MR. MACDONALD: I think that should be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: It's an allegation of, in effect, lying there, and the member should withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Justice Anderson said the same thing about him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Vancouver East has obviously been offended. Would you kindly withdraw?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you impute any improper motives to any member of this House?

MR. SHELFORD: I'm just saying, Mr. Chairman, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. SHELFORD: I'll withdraw if it's offensive to the hon. member, but I would point out ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SHELFORD: ...that all you have to do is read the Can-Cel report....

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr.

[ Page 3080 ]

Chairman, a lot of things are said in this House, and a lot of different kinds of language are used in this House, but I found the reference made by that member particularly offensive. I'm referring to his analogy about the respect that "a tom-cat has for a marriage licence." I really don't think we need that kind of offensive language in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member. The hon. member has withdrawn.

MR. SHELFORD: I'm just saying, Mr. Chairman, and I want to conclude that all you need to do is read the Can-Cel annual report and read the answers given by the minister and they don't add up. I think a report such as this should be information to the members, and it simply isn't worth the paper it's written on.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss a little about forest administration, which is covered under this vote. More specifically, I want to talk about the way it was handled in the last three and a half years by the prior government, and more specifically, dealing with the administration of the prior minister, the ex-MLA for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who got an $80,000 pension for declining his seat after being elected and letting a carpetbagger walk in and take it over.

I want to tell you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, we're dealing with vote 75.

HON. MR. FRASER: I realize that and I now want to go into how timber was allocated under the prior administration.

I might say that I have high respect for the professional administration of the Forest Service, but I would suggest to this House that they didn't have any control under the prior administration. They were dictated to from on high. I want to deal with the allocation of timber supply and how they were interfered with, the administration department of the Forest Service.

More specifically, I want to refer to how timber was allocated to a Crown-owned sawmill, namely Plateau Mills. I have here, Mr. Chairman, that I want to read into the record, a letter how they got preferred treatment over other companies that were established in the area, and I would now like to read into the record.... This is a longhand letter, I might, say, not even typed. This is how timber was allocated:

Minister of Lands, Forests and
Water Resources,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.
April 18, 1976.

Mr. William Martins, President,
Plateau Mills Limited,
Vanderhoof, B.C.
File 0320827.

Dear Mr. Martens:

"Further to my letter of January 20 last, I would like to confirm an annual supply of timber (additional) for Plateau Mills of 90,000 cunits to fulfil the needs of the expanded facilities at Engen."

Engen is, by the way, Mr. Chairman, where Plateau Sawmills are located west of Vanderhoof.

"As I indicated, the timber will originate from the area tributary to and the Kluskus road. I have advised the Forest Service to prepare documents that would assure you of 12-year tenure and assure you that this will be the case. We expect some legislative changes in the Forest Act which may be necessary prior to final documentation.

Yours sincerely,
R.A. Williams, Minister."

I just want to say here that this was written, Mr. Chairman.... Here's the longhand letter. No public tender — and at the time this happened by the prior administration, two mills, private operators, were out of timber in that very area of Plateau Mills. I refer to Bond Bros'. sawmill and L&M Sawmills of Vanderhoof.

Did they have any right under the prior administration to bid? Certainly they did. But they weren't even given the opportunity, because timber was handed out on a longhand letter like this.

I want to say that now you are talking about changes in the administration — the member for Vancouver East is talking about changes since the change of government. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you it sure was about time changes were made. I want to point out to you that since this government took over this timber was never allocated. Finally it was stopped because of the fuss put up by the private sawmill operators who were entitled to at least bid, and since this government took over this timber has been put up to public tender and the tenders are in on it.

But I say to you, it sure was time to change the administration. I congratulate the now minister for seeing this happen, and I want to say that now the Forest Service administration, which is the vote we are dealing with, will have a lot more to do with the timber supplies, and rightly so, rather than the minister interfering with private memos.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we have before us vote 75, and we've been querying the minister on the

[ Page 3081 ]

administrative policies of the current regime. Yet I find, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Highways and Public Works, and various other government speakers, are not interested in trying to impute something seamy or seedy in terms of the former administration.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right!

MR. KING: I find that very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because I want to tell the House again, and remind them, about how things used to be done under the former Social Credit government regarding the allocation of timber. I've related this story before, and I'll do it once again to remind the Minister of Highways and Public Works that under that Social Credit government there were not even letters, not even signed documents, executing the allocation of timber to friends of that government.

In 1972, when we took office, Mr. Chairman, I had a visitation in my office from a couple of timber operators from the interior, operators who had just indulged in a $2.5 million expansion of their mill. They showed up at my office wanting an appointment with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), and I said, "fine, I'll see if I can arrange one for you," which I customarily do for constituents and anyone else from the region. But I said: "What is your problem?" They said: "We have no timber." I said: "You have to be kidding me — two hard-nosed businessmen like you investing $2.5 million in plant expansion, and no firm supply of timber?"

They told me, Mr. Chairman, that they had a commitment from the minister, the former Social Credit Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Ray Williston. I said: "Well, that's a different matter. Could I see that commitment you have?" They said: "Well, I'm sorry, we have nothing in writing. We have the minister's word."

AN HON. MEMBER: But you were caught.

MR. KING: They had his word. Mr. Chairman, you know, I found that difficult to accept. I queried these two hard-nosed businessmen who were involved in a $2.5 million plant expansion. I said: "Do you mean to tell me that you're prepared to invest that kind of money on plant expansion with a nod of the head and a wink of the eye from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that you will be provided with the firm supply of timber to operate this mill?" That indeed was the case.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you: in the absence of any signed document, can anyone really believe that that was the extent of that arrangement? We had seen in the past, for the first time in history, a cabinet minister in this province charged with a criminal offence under the old allocation system of Social Credit. That Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has got colossal gall to stand up in this House, waving a handwritten letter that apparently was in the files of the department — nothing secretive about it — and suggest and try to impute something improper.

I say shame on him, absolute shame on him, because I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the former member for Vancouver East (Mr. R.A. Williams), the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is not present in the House to defend himself, and this is about the only circumstance under which the Minister of Highways and Public Works would be able to muster the intestinal fortitude to make and to infer the kind of charges he has made. I think it's shabby and it's without substance — absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, again the government has abandoned the poor little Minister of Mines and Forests, who has so much difficulty justifying his tenure, his administration and his responsibility, which is what we are dealing with here today the estimates of the current Minister of Forests not mud-slinging and mud-raking over what has gone on in the past. I don't want to bring up Bob Sommers.

HON. MR. FRASER: You went back to 1950! What are you talking about? I went to 1975.

MR. KING: I don't want to raise Bob Sommers in this House, but if you want to talk about comparisons of integrity and businesslike administration, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'll stack Bob Williams up against anyone in that Social Credit coalition — anyone, any day.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in our tenure, both in this province and every other province where the NDP had held government, there has been not one charge of corruption. Not one! I challenge that government to measure up to that record. I challenge them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: We've never had a cabinet minister go to jail, never.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the current minister's estimates, and he is trying hard to do his best. He's not getting very good advice and he's not getting very good support; his cabinet has departed and left him to the mercy of the opposition.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's time that the committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the motion is out of order because there was no intervening business.

[ Page 3082 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during debate the member for Revelstoke-Slocan moved that the committee rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again. I ruled that this was out of order because a previous motion on the same motion had been defeated and there had been no intervening business.

The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order and challenged the ruling of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Am I to understand, Mr. Chairman, that a motion to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again was moved more than once while you were in the chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: You ruled that the second time was out of order and your ruling was challenged.

Hon. Members, in that case it's just a matter of the Speaker putting the Chairman's ruling to the House. It's not a debatable matter; it's whether the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained or not.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 16

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, while the vote was being taken, the Chairman whose ruling was in question was seated on the floor of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite correctly.

MR. LAUK: My understanding is that he should be excluded from the House when the vote is being taken.

MR. SPEAKER: No, that is not the correct procedure. Either the Chairman, if he's taking the vote, or the Speaker can be seated on the floor of the House and not necessarily in his chair.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, every member who is in the chamber must vote, according to the standing orders. Therefore the Chairman whose ruling is impugned should be excluded from the chamber.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member will you be seated for one moment, please?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order? Would you be seated for one moment and then I will hear your point of order? Would you be so kind? The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) made what the Chair considers a very uncomplimentary, unparliamentary statement during the discussion across the floor. I would ask that hon. member to kindly withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: Are you asking him to withdraw remarks across the floor?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, what would you like me to withdraw?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The unparliamentary expression that you know you used. Be so kind as to add to the decorum of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Who was the offended party, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe all of the members of the House would be offended, Hon. Member. Would you kindly withdraw?

Interjections.

[ Page 3083 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member kindly withdraw?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, when a Speaker is bound to make rulings...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it is not....

MR. NICOLSON: ...in the House, and doesn't make rulings and doesn't answer to orders....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, will you take your seat, please, Hon. Member?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for the withdrawal.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, standing order 16(2) states:

"Upon a division being called the division bell shall be rung forthwith. No sooner than two nor longer than five minutes thereafter Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment (if any). No member shall enter or leave the House during the stating of the question, nor leave the House after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every member present shall vote."

This is the point of order that I was raising to the Speaker when the Speaker did not rule but left the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you be seated while we make a ruling, please?

Hon. Member, as this is not something that the committee can deal with at this time, would you kindly raise the matter in the House? You will not be prejudiced by anything.

MR. LAUK: For that purpose, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 30

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we proceed on vote 75, I would ask that we take the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan's (Mr. King's) advice and stick to vote 75, which is the estimates of the minister.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, following the questions posed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to the minister on the utilization of the chips and our great concern over what is happening there in this province today, the minister stated that there are no markets for the chips, period. I wanted to ask the minister if it is not possible for he, as minister, to give some leadership in this area and provide short-term markets, say, over a period of five years. That means, of course, finding export capabilities and export markets for those short-term chips. I know we prefer to have this handled here, but the minister knows it takes almost five years to move on the creation of pulp mills, so really what I wanted to ask him is: why are you not taking the leadership in some short-term markets for chips instead of leaving it in the situation it is in now?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I also wanted to ask you what your plans are, and what the government is doing to encourage the development of pulp mills — you may have answered that earlier.

So my basic question is: why are you not taking the initiative within the next five years to find some short-term markets which would alleviate the problems which the member for Vancouver East already talked about — the cleanup problems and the possibility of forest fires — and, of course, it would

[ Page 3084 ]

provide jobs in this province.

I would like to know why the minister is not taking the lead in this area. Does he have plans to do so? If not, we consider that you're being negligent in this situation in allowing it to stay as it is with just simply a statement that there's no market. We feel there is an alternative for the next five years. So I would like to hear from the minister, when he has the opportunity to reply, why he does not take some steps in short-term marketing for chips.

Just one more point, in relation to the comments made by the Minister of Highways re a letter sent by the former Minister of Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams). I don't know if the Minister of Highways is there — and I know it's not his estimates — but I wonder if the minister in charge of this portfolio has been informed by the member, the MLA for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who is also the Minister of Highways, that even before we became government the professional foresters of British Columbia recommended that there should be provision and allocation of timber to the north. So this was not a one-man ministerial decision. This was on the recommendation of the professional foresters of British Columbia.

I wonder where the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has been throughout this debate. He has sat very silently. He has heard the MLA for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) complain about the allocation of timber to the north, and here we have the member for Omineca, who is a member from the north, and he's sitting back very quietly. He's not bothering to speak up on behalf of his constituents and their need for work and employment — which was provided by the former administration. I find it amazing that he would sit quietly and let the MLA for Cariboo make these statements and he doesn't stand up to defend what was done by the former administration, which obviously helped his area.

MR. KEMPF: Read Hansard.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister plans to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby North relating to the Kluskus timber.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, regarding the comments made by the member for Burnaby North on exports of chips, during the last several months two five-year chip export permits have been issued, one in the Kootenays and one in the Okanagan. These particular areas are quite close to markets in the United States. However, there are first-need clauses in these chip export permits which, in that particular area, doesn't create any great problem.

To ship chips from the coast, which would have better access to any potential markets, requires a port facility for the handling of chips, and companies which are interested in exporting chips are reluctant to construct such facilities unless they can be assured of a minimum five-year permit.

Now we have investigated this and we are in a position where, subject to the approval of the chip export advisory board, we would be willing to issue permits for five-year non-interruptible export permits. This would give the incentive required to establish markets and to provide export loading and unloading facilities on the coast.

The member was quite right in saying that about a five-year lead time is required in the establishment of new pulp-mill capacity. It's for this reason that we are limiting it to a five-year period — because we don't want to be in a position where we will discourage the establishment of further manufacturing in British Columbia. In fact, that has been a policy of the Forest Service since 1912. We don't want to interfere with that. However, we do have an immediate problem and we are, in fact, looking into ways of encouraging exports until our surplus situation is no longer with us.

As far as reference to the Kluskus timber sale, there's no authority within the Forest Act to direct the timber supply to a particular company. There are ways of limiting the people who can bid on a particular quota when the proposal is drawn up by the Forest Service. This wasn't the case in the Kluskus area where it was found necessary, in order to comply with the Act, that other companies be allowed to bid on this. That has taken place. The tenders are in now and they're being assessed by the Forest Service. I have not yet seen them. However, whatever companies get that will receive the chips in strict compliance with the terms of the Forest Act. There will be no direction, in this case, to any particular sawmill.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, just following up on what the minister said regarding the Kluskus PSYU, is it not true that a study was done within the Forest Service, before the NDP government took office, which recommended that the timber from the Eluskus PSYU — or at that time it was part of the Chilko PSYU — be diverted north to the Vanderhoof area, which was about 50 miles, rather than going through the 100-mile haul to Quesnel? As a result, the Kluskus area was separated from the Chilko PSYU and a forest access road was built, I believe — according to the Vancouver Province of June 19 — within 14 miles of that timber to provide access to the Kluskus timber and diverted northward to the Vanderhoof area.

The bids, as you say, have come in on that timber; it's not a case of awarding timber without bids. But the paper also points out just what the bids were for that timber — the bonus over stumpage. Plateau

[ Page 3085 ]

Timber Ltd. bid 70 cents a cunit; Suscha Lake Forest Products, which is the group that the Minister of Highways seems to be carrying a brief for from the Quesnel area, bid 5 cents a cunit — 70 cents versus 5 cents a cunit; a 50-mile haul versus about a 100-mile haul. L & M Lumber and Bond Bros. of Vanderhoof bid 16 cents a cunit.

You'll possibly recall that Mr. Williston told those people when they were building their sawmills in the Vanderhoof area that they would never get quota, and yet they are bidding on that timber within the Kluskus PSYU. Clearlake Sawmills bid 5 cents a cunit as well, so we have a case where Plateau is bidding 70 cents a cunit — probably because of more efficient operation, shorter haul and better utilization of that timber as determined by a study within the Forest Service before the NDP took office. I'm wondering if the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would comment. I wouldn't like to prejudge to whom the allocation will be given; there are many more things to be considered other than strictly the bonus bid. It would appear that Plateau Mills has put in by far a higher bonus bid, but the plans for the area and the total utilization of the timber is a very important factor and, quite frankly, it appears that Plateau Mills has an advantage there as well.

However, the bids must be assessed by the professional staff of the Forest Service. Generally in cases like this an outside consultant's opinion is also obtained, and the timber will be allocated to that company which has the best bid when all factors are considered.

You're quite right, there's a shorter haul into Vanderhoof, and there are three mills there which could take advantage of this shorter haul. If it were to go to Prince George or to Williams Like, then the haulage costs would be higher and thus the total revenue directly to the government would be lower because of the necessity of allowing a higher haulage cost in the stumpage appraisal system.

I'm not going to say who's going to get it; it's going to be done on a purely technical basis in compliance with the terms of the bid proposals, and when that is completed the award will be made.

MR. SKELLY: I'm pleased to hear, Mr. Chairman, that the allocation of that timber will be made based on the best utilization of the timber and the best return to the province and that it will be done on a professional basis.

The minister has previously outlined why he has decreased the level of utilization in the coast forest district so that we're no longer at a close-utilization basis. We've allowed some leeway to the large companies operating on the coast, and the reason for that is to provide a better return to those mills so they can keep operating.

I'm pleased to hear that the minister will, on a professional basis, judge the bids of the companies who bid on the Kluskus timber, and that he won't submit to pressure from the Minister of Highways and the member for Quesnel (Mr. Fraser) in making the determination as to which way that timber will be diverted. It'll be done strictly on a professional basis and he won't accept the pressure from the member for Cariboo and Minister of Highways when that timber is allocated.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise the matter of the administration of Can-Cel, the selection of Mr. Williston, and the competence of Mr. Williston to take this administrative position, and also find out whether or not there was any competition for this job or if it was a direct appointment.

Before I go any further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know an answer to these questions: was the job advertised? If it was, how many applications were there? Who studied the applications? Who was on the panel to make the decision for this job?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The position which Mr. Ray Williston filled was not advertised; he was appointed in exactly the same manner as Ray Jones, the former president, was appointed.

MR. BARRETT: We are told, then, there was no effort to seek out anyone with any other knowledge in the forest industry. The appointment was made of Mr. Williston; no advertising, no competition, no stating of background or anything else.

Now my dear friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will have to be reminded about the record of incompetence of Mr. Williston in this House in the area of forestry, related to a park, namely Cypress Bowl, where in that whole sordid record of that bowl, through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister demonstrated his incompetence time after time after time, and the Vancouver area lost a major parkland simply because of that minister's consistent, erroneous decisions and frank incompetence in this House.

That record goes back to 1964, Mr. Chairman, when timber allocations were given in Cypress Bowl Park, using West Vancouver City Council as a guise, and we were told in this House that that logging would only be for a ski development.

I refer you to what I think is perhaps one of the best, succinct records of this whole sordid affair — an article by Lisa Hobbs in The Vancouver Sun, dated Saturday, November 7, 1970, where this whole matter ended up with international gambling interests being the last group in the Cypress Bowl area to scalp the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know from the minister

[ Page 3086 ]

whether or not he's familiar with the Cypress Bowl matter, whether or not the handling of Cypress Bowl was a consideration in the selection of Mr. Williston, and frankly what his attitude is as to Mr. Williston's competence in light of the Cypress Bowl affair.

HON. Mr. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are on vote 75. I can't really see any relationship between the actions of Mr. Williston in the Minister of Forests portfolio years ago and the present vote 75 under consideration.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a direct relationship. We are dealing with the allocation of timber at an administrative level under this vote. One of the major timber operations in this province is Can-Cel. Fortunately it is over 80 per cent publicly owned — a major success initiated by the former Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Robert Williams. In its first year of operation under government ownership, it made $21 million. In the second year of operation it made $50 million. While MacMillan Bloedel was losing money because those private enterprisers don't know how to run things in tough times, the government operation was making money, Mr. Chairman. This company has a record of making money ever since it was under public ownership — a record to be proud of, a record that is frankly unparalleled at a time of recession in North America.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the selection of the general manager of that important corporation is a key factor in whether or not that corporation will continue to make money. The reason I am raising this, Mr. Chairman, is to point out the incompetence of the choice made by this government. The incompetence is related to his lack of administrative skills in handling timber allocation, especially with Cypress Bowl. Word-of-mouth, wink-of-the-eye, half-hearted promises and administrative decisions went on without the minister knowing. We have seen no evidence that his manner of operation changed. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out an accident where in his own riding two people went ahead with major investments on a nod from the head of the then minister, Mr. Williston.

Are we to be told that we must have confidence in Mr. Williston, based on his record of incompetence in administration? Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I want the people of this province to be assured that you are satisfied that he is capable of creating new directions or at least continuing the success of that corporation.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Williston's record is not one to be envied — although he is remembered in this province for one major lake. I'll tell you, if they ever name anything after me, I hope it's not a disaster like that. Williston Lake is the most ungodly sight in the whole horizon of British Columbia — that filthy, filthy mess behind the Peace River, caused by decisions made by that minister, Mr. Williston.

Mr. Williston had no administrative ability. It couldn't be better demonstrated than on the Cypress Bowl affair. Why, even the Vancouver Province was forced to write editorials at that time against Mr. Williston.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why New Brunswick hired him.

MR. BARRETT: Well, New Brunswick hired him, but I notice that no private corporation would spend a nickel on him. No private corporation would spend a nickel on him, and I'll tell you why. Examine the record of Mr. Williston on Cypress Bowl. I had to fight six years in this House to expose that — six years of insults, attacks and innuendo — only to be proven right after six years of bitter, bitter struggle in this House. The most violent insults I ever received as an MLA were over this issue.

Right back to 1965 Mr. Williston said: "Oh, the member for Dewdney doesn't know what he's talking about. There's really just logging up there on Cypress Bowl just so they can put in a ski-lift." The West Vancouver council that had the go-ahead from Mr. Williston said: "Oh, well, we're going to have a huge ski development in there." Then the mining company said it lost $19,000. Then after the logging company said it lost $19,000 we find out that the government had paid them $1.5 million for road work. Not only that, but under Mr. Williston's tenure the company did not lose $19,000, because they had transferred $465,000 profit to a Panamanian subsidiary of the company that went bankrupt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: The mine went down to Panama. Then Benguet came in. Who was Benguet? Benguet were the gambling interests that were involved in the Bahamas. Do you remember Meyer Lansky? Meyer Lansky, the international crook who was involved with Benguet, was one of the principals. That was before he got riddled. Benguet was a principal interest moving in. They had, unbeknownst to the people of this province, been allowed by the then minister to go ahead with a housing development programme in Cypress Bowl. The minister denied all this and said: "Oh, the member for Coquitlam is making it all up." Then what did we find? We found that after the profit went to Panama and the local company went bankrupt the minister denied that there was going to be subdivision development at Cypress Bowl. We found out some months later that in actual fact an order-in-council had been passed in secret — in secret, not presented — giving that company the right to develop a subdivision, and that an electrical engineer

[ Page 3087 ]

by the name of Trewin had been hired by B.C. Hydro to go in and do the electrical layout for a subdivision.

That's the record of Mr. Williston: the giveaway of timber; the scalping of a park; that unholy mess over there in North Shore. It's a record of incompetence and stupidity, and that is the kindest thing I can say — absolute stupidity recorded document by document of the giveaway of a park, a cleaning of that park of timber, a profit made by a subsidiary in Panama, and the minister saying in 1970: "I'm going away on holiday because the thing is all rolling around."

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): In 1970 — isn't that marvellous!

MR. BARRETT: In 1970 — isn't that marvellous! The scars still exist right across in the city of Vancouver, and that scar is a measure of that former minister's incompetence. It was a six-year fight where I took personal insult after personal insult in this House in exposing this mess, and then when it was all over the minister said: "Well, I think we might have made one or two errors." One or two errors!

I tell you that when the Premier stands in this House and says, "Mr. Williston enjoys my full confidence," then we really get scared. I remember the speeches by the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) attacking Mr. Williston, by the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) attacking Mr. Williston, by the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) attacking Mr. Williston — every one of them condemning his administrative incompetence based on their experience in this House when that man was minister.

Now we are faced with a story that there was no competition for the job. He was appointed because his name happened to come to mind. Well, I'll tell you, his name comes to mind, all right — that mess behind Williston Lake and that filthy, ugly scar in Cypress Bowl, left after a six-year fight when a Panamanian company walked off with $600,000 of the people's money.

One of the ways they had of doing some logging in there was putting in a placer mine lease, Mr. Minister. You'd be very familiar with that. They said they were looking for gold in Cypress Bowl Park, in the creek. They put a 20-year placer mining lease on it, and then started logging on the basis of that placer mining lease. That's how the system used to work. And that minister was responsible for it.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's pretty poor to stand up here and say: "Oh, well, we didn't advertise; he's a good minister and he's got a good background." Mr. Chairman, I can't understand that. You're supposed to be businesslike. You're trying to tell us that there was no one else to be considered for this job. I won't accept that.

Mr. Minister, I ask you this question: are you familiar with Cypress Bowl and what happened with those timber leases in there? Have you made a study of that since you've become the minister? Are you aware of that giveaway?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Minister, I think I should review it in detail then. I think it is necessary to review it in detail, but I think there are people, Mr. Chairman, who should be here to listen to it in detail because they're culpable too, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that you do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that it has to be stressed that when we're talking about Can-Cel and we compare, as the minister said, that Mr. Ray Jones was appointed, we have to compare what we're dealing with in terms of Mr. Williston's appointment.

Mr. Ray Jones was a former vice-president of the Powell River Company. He was a former vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel and he was the former president of the E.B. Eddy Co. in Hull, Quebec, one of the most outstanding people in all of Canada in this job.

Mr. Williston was a former Minister of Lands and Forests in British Columbia. He was responsible for the disaster in Cypress Bowl, which the member for West Vancouver roundly condemned him for at the time, and appropriate Hansard quotes will be sought if the member wishes to be reminded of those

[ Page 3088 ]

comments.

Mr. Williston....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): What has that got to do with the vote?

MR. BARRETT: What it's got to do with the vote is that Mr. Williston is going to be administrating a major area of forest service in this area through his administrative post in Can-Cel, and I'm saying that it is wrong for his appointment, especially based on your assessment of Mr. Williston, Mr. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if the committee might have your direction. We are dealing with a vote which deals with the administrative direction and support service for the department...

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...and the member is dealing with matters relating to a corporation which is a public corporation in which the Crown happens to have some interest. The relationship of his comments to the administration of the Department of Forests seems obscure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. Perhaps the minister whose vote we are discussing could give the committee some direction as to in what vote, perhaps, the present questioning might better take place.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have an opinion too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We have no direction.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have the floor. Mr. Chairman, vote 75 deals with departmental administration and support services: it deals with timber allocation of public timber lands; it deals with the support services of the Department of Forests to all forest companies, whether it is Can-Cel, MacMillan Bloedel or any other company; it deals with the method of allocation of timber and the administration of that allocation of timber in terms of full use or under use of that timber allocation. If I choose to speak on one company under this department, whether it is MacMillan Bloedel, whether it is Can-Cel or whether it is fly-by-night in Cypress Bowl, I have a perfect right to discuss those timber allocations.

At this moment I happen to relate fly-by-night in Cypress Bowl to Mr. Williston and his new role in Can-Cel. That is perfectly in order, and what would be even more appropriate would be for me to read Hansard quotes of the now Minister of Labour's assessment of the former Minister of Lands and Forests. I think that it is an assessment of his qualifications in terms of his administering a major forest industry that, coincidently, the public has a share in, but is dealing directly with administration of our resources in this province.

I say again: the qualifications of Mr. Ray Jones were that he was a vice-president of Columbia Cellulose....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williston has not been appointed to Can-Cel; he has been appointed to British Columbia Cellulose Corp., which company has no timber allocations or timber rights in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Minister, your point of order — please state your point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williston was not appointed by me, and he was appointed to British Columbia Cellulose Corp., not to Can-Cel to which that member alluded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, Mr. Minister, that is not a point of order and perhaps could have been explained when you next gained the floor.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. He is with the B.C. Cellulose, Corp. — that is right — and it deals with the forest industry which comes under the administration of vote 75, such as timber, TFLs, close utilization and all of that related to the administration as under this vote. We have, under this vote, the deputy minister, the associate deputy minister, senior officers, all the foresters in British Columbia, and there's no more appropriate vote to discuss this under.

I would like to read the Hansard quotes to the new Minister of Labour, the now Attorney-General and the now Minister of.... Well, come back. Don't leave.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you made the speeches when you condemned Williston. Have you forgotten that? Oh, they leave the House now. Let Hansard record that the former Liberals who attacked Williston bitterly have now left the House. They don't want to hear their own speeches attacking Mr. Williston. Why, I'm shocked.

[ Page 3089 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to vote 75.

MR. BARRETT: They had no confidence in Mr. Williston before. Why do they have confidence in him now? Has Mr. Williston joined the Liberal Party or have they joined the Socreds, or what's happened here?

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying to you very clearly, to you, Mr. Chairman, and to no one else, since the former members of the Liberal Party are no longer interested, that it was a tragic mistake to hire Mr. Williston without open competition. There are competent technical people throughout the whole industry who are more competent and more available — in a technical sense more available — than the former minister.

I want to point out too that member's attitude towards expansion and retention of jobs. It was Mr. Williston who agreed to allow the closure of Ocean Falls. It was Mr. Williston who as a minister would have allowed that town to die. In his new role over the B.C. Cellulose Corp. will he take those entrenched ideas of letting towns die because private enterprise feels that way? Who kept Ocean Falls alive? Was it Mr. Williston? No.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Clean.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Clean. Now, Mr. Fort George, you explain to us why unemployment is almost reaching 14 per cent in Prince George right now because of this government's policies in forestry — 14 per cent unemployment while you sit here in Victoria and interrupt brilliant speeches with incompetent remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, why that should be allowed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, let's debate the subject material that's pertinent to vote 75, and let's avoid attacks on personal subjects.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. I agree and I would ask that member to stop attacking me personally, because it upsets me. Mr. Chairman, I can't handle that kind of interruption, and it's devastating.

Mr. Chairman, I want to relate to you that it is my understanding that one of the.... Is it correct, through you, Mr. Chairman — and I wish to ask the minister this — that Mr. Adam Zimmerman of the Noranda Corp. recommended Mr. Williston as a prime person for this job? Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that question of the Minister of Lands and Forests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He can't answer as long as you have the floor.

MR. BARRETT: No. Do you wish to answer? Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, no, he did not.

Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is attacking the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr Williston, a man who served this province very well indeed for quite a number of years. When Mr. Willston was defeated in an election, many, many governments in Canada were seeking his advice and his expertise in the forest industry.

How many people in this country, Mr. Chairman, sought the advice and counsel of the former Premier when he was defeated? As a matter of fact, he had to be put on the payroll of a political party and we had to have the resignation of a member — an $80,000 resignation — so that member could get back into the House again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, $80,000 just to vacate a seat for that funny fellow, formerly from Coquitlam.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite asked what competition took place when Mr. Williston was appointed and I told him none. We recognized the expertise, the knowledge that man has in the forest industry. We recognized his tremendous ability. What competition took place when Mason Gaffney was appointed to assist the government? What competition took place when Marc Eliesen was appointed or Jimmy Rhodes or Frank Howard?

Mr. Chairman, we recognized the tremendous knowledge of the forest industry that Mr. Williston has and we are very proud to be able to take advantage of that in the British Columbia Cellulose Corp. And speaking of scars on British Columbia, what about the tremendous scar left throughout British Columbia by that former administration? What about the scar left on the finances of this province by that former Finance minister?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williston is a very well-informed man on forestry matters. He was appointed to the British Columbia Cellulose Corp. and I am sure he will bring good advice and good counsel to that corporation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've seen a lot of things in this House but this is the first time that I've

[ Page 3090 ]

ever seen the justification of hiring one man by calling me a bad boy.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, you are a bad boy.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you go and bail that cow out. (Laughter.) You've been playing politics with that cow, Mr. Member, and they've got your number up there.

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

MR. BARRETT: One way or the other, they've got your number.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 75.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate "back to vote 75." I wish you'd call the minister to order. Let us catalogue all my failures. Let us say that in his opinion I am a bad boy.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): We don't have that much time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that I would never have it any other way. If that minister started calling me a good guy then we'd all be in trouble.

In his opinion, I'm a bad guy. Well, in the people's opinion of Cypress Bowl.... If they had listened to our warnings about Mr. Williston's incompetence, we would not have had that disastrous logging in Cypress Bowl in the first place. We would not have to suffer the vindictive, bitter speeches from the former Liberal members — (1) the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), (2) the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and (3) the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — attacking Mr. Williston in a far more vicious manner than I could possibly muster, because they are far more skilled and educated and more liberal than I am. I am a bad socialist, Mr. Chairman: I criticize and say things because I am a socialist. But those esteemed members have the respectability of being party-jumpers.

When they were Liberals, Mr. Chairman, they told this House that Mr. Williston was incompetent; Mr. Williston gave away Cypress Bowl; Mr. Williston left the scar on Cypress Bowl; Mr. Williston allowed $400,000 of public money to escape to Panama, and not through the canal but into the pockets of a subsidiary of Alpine Mining and Logging Co. Mr. Williston never demonstrated any competence in allowing that park to be logged!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you, and especially you, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), that there are more potholes up there in Cariboo since you were here than any other time....

HON. MR. FRASER: We'll fill them.

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, they're looking for 11 cows, the 12th was lost in one of the potholes, Mr. Member.

So, Mr. Chairman, what do we find as a defence? We find in defence of the appointment of this incompetent administrator that, in the minister's opinion, I'm a bad boy.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Well, how about that! How about that! Just to think that my mother might read some of the Hansard when you've said a thing like that about me. Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 75, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr Chairman, what an utterly silly, petty, backward, ignorant defence of the appointment of a man who cost us a major park in the lower mainland area, the appointment of a man who would allow international, crooked, gambling interests to come into this province on the Cypress Bowl development — and that is a matter of record — the Benguet interest, involved in the embalming of Mr. Meyer Lansky who got in the way of a machine gun; the Bahamas interests that came in and were allowed the development permits in Cypress Bowl Park north of West Vancouver; and while poor old Meyer was being lowered into his grave, Mr. Crandell was saying in New York that there's nothing really wrong with this operation — anybody could trip in front of a machine gun.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Order!

MR. BARRETT: Order! Mr. Chairman, I'm...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please restrict your remarks....

MR. BARRETT: ...responding to the minister's remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you must do it within the scope of vote 75.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, and I'm doing that. I'm trying to point out, in my usual quiet, disciplined fashion, that in my humble opinion, in my usual manner....

[ Page 3091 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: In my usual manner, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to point out that, in my humble opinion, this minister has made another mistake — No. 126, I think.

The selection of Mr. Williston without protest by that minister will mean trouble, in my opinion, for the public sector of the forest industry. In my opinion, the philosophy of the minister, as demonstrated when he was minister, is to let the private sector have its way.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to relate to you his incompetence in administrative details that led to such disasters as the Cypress Bowl. I'm trying to tell you, in my humble opinion, that the people of British Columbia are in danger of losing protection of the public interest in the administration of forests in this province. In my opinion, the major shareholders — that is, the people of British Columbia — in the Canadian Cellulose Corp. are in trouble because of the new director's past record as an administrator in the forest field.

Having expressed that opinion, Mr. Chairman, I found it necessary to elaborate, giving the details of the Benguet Corp.: the $400,000 that flew down to Panama while the company went bankrupt and the minister said he knew nothing about it; while an electrical engineer was in doing the subdivision layout while the minister said he knew nothing about it; while orders-in-council were passed and not gazetted, and the minister said he knew nothing about it. That's all a matter of record. In fact, Mr. Chairman, no one could have spelled it out better than the former Minister of Labour in his words when he described Mr. Williston as a complete incompetent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if that is out of order, I see no ruling to substantiate it, or no reference to substantiate it.

I cannot feel that there is any need for confidence in Mr. Williston's selection. This is a technical job, not a job for a political appointee. There are even some backbenchers who may be technically qualified, some who know how to wield a toothpick with some technical skill — at least they have some association with the timber industry.

Mr. Chairman, I find it incredible that the minister gets up and says that I'm really a bad boy, and that's why they should hire Mr. Williston.

How can you possibly have confidence in Mr. Williston, considering his record? I ask the minister to read the whole sordid detail of the Cypress Bowl Park logging situation and the incompetence, the fumbling and the frank stupidity in handling that whole development. Mr. Minister, you've already demonstrated to the people of this province an ability to stick your foot in it. Now, with your defence of Mr. Williston's appointment, we see both feet going in at once.

We don't have any confidence, Mr. Chairman, in this appointment. Frankly, we're worried about the philosophy that will now be followed. Since Mr. Williston was a strong opponent of the continuation of Ocean Falls, what is the minister's position? Will he be allowing a greater timber allocation to Ocean Falls to keep it alive? What are his opinions of the continuation of Ocean Falls? Will he be using Mr. Williston as a guide in formulating those opinions? What news can we give the people of Ocean Falls now that Mr. Williston is in a key position in the forest industry of this province?

I ask the minister: will he be considering further timber allocation to Ocean Falls? You can get up and tell me I'm a bad boy again, and then tell me whether or not we're going to have more timber for Ocean Falls, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister again: is his department considering a further timber allocation to Ocean Falls?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: That is the question, through you, Mr. Chairman. He's consulting his deputy right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister cannot respond as long as you are in possession of the floor.

Shall vote 75 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister: will you be giving Ocean Falls further timber allocation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we've been over the fact many times today that timber cannot be allocated to a company; it has to be acquired through competitive bidding. There is no timber sale at the present time being put up for tender in the Ocean Falls area. That member, I'm sure, must be familiar with the Forest Act. He must know that the minister cannot legally direct timber to a particular company.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised the question was that there was allocations and there were changes made by the former minister, who you seem to respect, on the basis of words and commitments. I don't know if that's changed in backing that up. As a matter of fact, the major non-confidence motion....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, as a matter of fact I'm saying

[ Page 3092 ]

that the former minister Williston never even put his word in writing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the former Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Williams) kept the people at Ocean Falls working, I'll tell you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Your confidence is waning, Alec — you have got to bail out those cows first. You have got to be consistent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the reason I ask this question is a whole matter of confidence in decision-making. I'd like to point out that it was the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who moved the motion of non-confidence in Mr. Williston in 1970. It was the present Minister of Labour who stood in this House and who moved a non-confidence motion against Mr. Williston because of his handling of the Cypress Bowl affair.

I have to know from this minister what his philosophy is. It was the Minister of Labour who stood in this House and accused Mr. Williston of developing the philosophy that they can cut in, cut and run. Does Mr. Williston enjoy the whole cabinet's confidence? Mr. Chairman, these are questions that I need to know.

It was Mr. Williston who said in this House that he would refuse an enquiry into Cypress Bowl when all the facts that he had suppressed finally came out. It was the present Minister of Labour who attacked him on a non-confidence motion. This minister appears to be weak, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't appear to be a strong minister. I'm worried about the influence Mr. Williston may have on this minister in terms of his opinions of allocating and considering new forest policy. I have valid reason to be concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know what the minister's general philosophy is in regard to Ocean Falls. Does he consider it to be a viable entity? Does he see it as a priority area? Does he think Ocean Falls has a chance to survive or will it go down the tube or what? What is his general feeling about Ocean Falls? If he can't tell us about timber allocation, what does he think about the operation? Does he feel it's worth making an effort to keep alive or does he think eventually it will have to die? I would like to hear that from the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are discussing vote 75, which has nothing to do with the Ocean Falls Corp.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to the Chair that the administrative responsibilities of the minister might better have been discussed under vote 74, Hon. Member. Perhaps you could make your remarks more relative to the administrative direction and support services of the department.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to you that vote 75 deals with a total of some $28 million. That is the major administrative role of the Department of Forests. All the technical staff are in this vote. I have asked a simple opinion from the minister in regard to the direction of his technical staff. Does he see his technical staff playing a role in formulating a decision as to whether or not Ocean Falls should be kept alive? Before he gets that information from his staff, how does he feel about Ocean Falls at this very moment? I think that question is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it appears that this might fall into the category of policy, which ought to have been debated under vote 74, rather than administration. Perhaps....

MR. BARRETT: Yes. All right, I will accept that strict definition, Mr. Chairman. I respect your definition. Then I will rephrase the question. Has he assigned any of the foresters under this vote to give him a report on the viability of the continuation of Ocean Falls?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 75 pass?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the minister, with all of the technical staff in this vote, has he assigned any of his technical staff the responsibility of giving him a report on the viability of Ocean Falls? That's in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the H.A. Simons report, which was commissioned by the British Columbia Cellulose Corp. and received by the Department of Forests through that corporation, has been assessed by the Forest Service and by two outside consultants. None of the cases which were presented in that report were economically viable in the opinion of both of the consultants and also of the Forest Service technical staff.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is important enough that other departments should be involved. We have a continuation of absence of ministers from this debate when we are told it is

[ Page 3093 ]

urgent. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 25

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

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman under vote 75, administration of the Department of Forests, I would like to continue the discussion or questions on the history we have had in this province under Social Credit governments of logging in parks. I would like to express my concern and dismay that this should take place in 1976, or at any time in the future that this government is allowed to remain in office.

We had a statement a week ago today by the minister in this House in which he implied and further imputed that he, philosophically, was not terribly concerned about the possibility of logging in parks. While he did skate around the issue of coming out and saying that he was, in fact, in favour of it, he did make some statements. He said: "Most land has multiple use. Recreation can be compatible with forestry." He said that the province has a tremendous amount of parkland and wilderness lands. Now perhaps the minister is going to get up and assure the House that he certainly did not mean to allow the department to issue permits for logging in parks, but the fact remains that I would like to get that kind of assurance from him for this House and for all the people of British Columbia.

There are a tremendous number of philosophical, ethical and aesthetic arguments as to why this kind of activity should not take place, but I'm going to try and relate my discussion to the kind of language which I believe this government can understand, which is the bottom line and the black ink. We have had statements by a number of people in the industry in British Columbia and we've had reports on the business pages of many of the province's dailies that would indicate, in the past six months, that there is a tremendous surplus of raw materials right now in the forest industry. We've heard many people say in this House that there's a problem of oversupply of chips. We have also heard statements — not so common, but now and then — that there is also an oversupply of saw logs and peelers in British Columbia.

I don't have immediate, up-to-date figures, but it is my opinion that there are probably few, if any, sawmills in this entire province operating on a three-shift basis today — few, if any. I think many members of the House will remember that less than two years ago virtually every mill in the province was operating on a four-shift basis — that is, including weekends — if they had not found it necessary to shut down on weekends for necessary maintenance. Now we find an average selling price of lumber, certainly not in excess of $160 a thousand, and the only mills getting that are the ones that have a very solid, efficient, hustling kind of a sales force.

We have this situation — we have companies operating saying they are concerned about what happens when B.C. Rail starts up again and all the mills along the line which have not been shifting start flooding the lumber into the U.S. market. What is going to happen? Is the market going to soften? Is the price going to go down? Are we going to be forced to cut back from two shifts a day to one shift, or perhaps no shifts?

That is a concern of mine and I would like to hear what the minister can tell us, because if he is suggesting that in order to get a proper utilization in order to ensure the viability of the industry, and if he is suggesting administratively that perhaps we need to start logging in parks, when there already is a crashing surplus of pulp logs, saw logs and peeler logs in British Columbia, it would seem to me that either he is very misinformed about the inventory situation in the industry, or — and I hesitate to even suggest this — he may even be willing to see loggers go into parks to high-grade timber which has never been cut and which should be there in perpetuity for ourselves and the generations who follow us. There is no need for it — there are no loggers to be put to work because they are all working now. There is no shortage of saw logs, peelers or pulp logs in British Columbia. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

Another reason why I am concerned about logging in parks is that some of the best stands in parks in British Columbia are at high elevations, depending on whether you're in the north or the south of the province, of over 5,000 to over 4,000 feet. Some of the best potential stands as peelers are in these areas.

[ Page 3094 ]

One of the major arguments for not logging these things is that the regeneration rate at those elevations is so terribly slow. In coastal B.C. we know there were forest logs 30 or 35 years ago, when I was a small child, which are now being thinned. That's the incredible rate of regeneration.

In the interior — in Kokanee Glacier Park for instance — there are snags standing up there three feet through which have been there since that area was burned in 1908, almost three-quarters of a century ago. It's hard to find a new tree in excess of 12 feet in height 75 years later. Mr. Chairman that's why I am so tremendously concerned. I'm sure a number of companies would look at some of the best stands and say — "Hey, we could make excellent peelers out of those, we could make excellent saw logs out of those" — but you might almost say that we're looking at a non-renewable resource. It's so slow to renew itself that certainly not in my time or in my children's time, or probably in my grandchildren's time, would there be logging once again in those areas if they were logged at those elevations.

There is no shortage — indeed, there's a surplus in the province of British Columbia — of saw logs, peelers and pulp logs. Perhaps the senior administrators with the minister could confirm or deny this, but I doubt if there is a PSYU in the entire province which has not been under-cut and in many cases seriously under-cut in the last few years. So I cannot understand for the life of me why the minister, if he has any idea what he's doing at all, is even implying, imputing or inferring that it just may be a good idea to do some logging in parks.

In closing my remarks, I would like to ask the minister: has his department or has any consultant done, to his knowledge, while he's been in office, any inventory of the timber resources which may be contained in any park anywhere in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member for Rossland-Trail has made statements to the effect that I am suggesting that we carry out logging operations in parks and that member knows that that is absolutely untrue.

He quoted from Hansard, Mr. Chairman, and if he would care to read what I said in the House, he could find it in Hansard. I said: "I think we must respect the parks which we now have." I also said: "I personally don't think we can afford to alienate to single use much more of our province." That is what I said, Mr. Chairman.

There are times when it is necessary to remove timber from parks, such as when there are fires — we have to clean up fires — or when there are insect kills of timber in the park. We have to protect the rest of the park area, and these are perfectly legitimate. I'm sure neither that member nor any other member would argue that point. In order to protect standing timber, it is at times necessary to remove diseased timber or timber which is being attacked by bugs or beetles.

The southern half of British Columbia is totally committed, certainly on a year-to-year basis. There is the occasional year when there is an undercut, but this is because of market conditions. If sawmills cannot sell their product, they do not cut their full quota that year. But they must, over a period of their sale, meet the requirements of their quota within very well-defined limits.

There's not a surplus of peeler logs in British Columbia. The supply and demand for peeler logs is probably in fairly good balance right now, although there are areas and particular operations where peeler logs are not available, or possibly they should be.

But, Mr. Chairman, I must emphasize that that member read sections from Hansard which he chose and which he knows gave a completely erroneous view to those listening of what I did say. That member knows very well what is in Hansard.

Some mills in this province cannot work three shifts. Some of them do not have a sufficient timber quota to allow them to work three shifts. Those that do quite often cannot work three shifts because market conditions are not available for them to sell the products of a three-shift operation.

MR. D'ARCY: Just a couple of points. The minister says that mills cannot work three shifts. All I can say is that that's not what the mills tell me: they tell me that they're not working three shifts, not because they're short of logs but because that's all the lumber they can sell at a price that's worth their while to operate at. Surely the minister, if he knows anything about business, will understand that kind of reasoning. They can only sell so much lumber at a price they can afford to operate the mill at. They are not short of saw logs. That is what the operators of mills tell me. Perhaps they're telling the minster something different, but I can't understand why they would.

The other point, Mr. Chairman: I certainly have no intention, now or at any other time, to misquote any minister out of context. I would, however, as I asked before, ask again: can the minister stand in his place in this House and say: "I am opposed in principle to logging in parks."? Can he give us that assurance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question might better have been asked in vote 74, but if the minister wishes to answer....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the previous government issued logging permits in Strathcona Park. Now whether or not that was right I don't know; I don't know the full circumstances. But I do not believe that we should have logging

[ Page 3095 ]

operations in parks unless they are certain circumstances that dictate that, and which I have outlined.

That member stands up, Mr. Chairman, and repeats exactly what I say. I say that some mills cannot operate three shifts if they cannot sell their lumber. That member stands up and repeats the same thing in the form of a question again. We could carry on all day doing that.

MR. KING: The minister appears to be getting tired, but this is important business. I have quite a number of things I wanted to raise with respect to my own particular riding, and I know the minister will not become impatient and be hesitant about answering the questions at all.

I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the practice of booming logs in certain interior lakes, and I refer specifically to the Slocan Lake where Triangle Pacific Mill keeps a permanent booming ground with a large supply of logs in the lake.

I'm sure that the minister has already encountered this, and his officials could confirm that over the years there have been very, very many complaints from residents in that area that recreational use of the lake is seriously impaired because these logs eventually, if they're not used in sequence of their dumping in the lake, become waterlogged and sink, which results in submerged deadheads being carried throughout the lake.

It's becoming more and more of a recreational area, and I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not the department has recently checked this problem on the Slocan Lake, and whether or not there's any regular type of inspection to ensure that Triangle Pacific utilizes those logs for chipping and for saw logs which are the first ones dropped in the lake. I understand that this is what is required, that the logs stored earliest must be used in that order.

Conversely, I've had a tremendous number of complaints from area residents that this is in fact not taking place and that the last supply of logs dumped into the lake are often the ones first used through the mill, with the consequence that logs are sitting in that water for many, many months, eventually, as I say, becoming so waterlogged that they submerge.

The other problem that goes just beyond the hazard to the lake per se is the fact that these logs apparently frequently get carried to the mouth of the Slocan River which flows out of the lake. They, along with certain debris, contribute to blockage, or partial blockage, of the mouth of the river with the result that it's partly dammed up for a period of time and then suddenly released when the pressure overrides the blockage. Consequently, tremendous damage is done downstream in the Lemon Creek-Winlaw area. We've had a continuing problem in that area with the erosion of good farmland, and it's essential and tremendously important that the mouth of the Slocan River be maintained in an open and uncongested state.

I wonder if the minister could check with his department and give me any indication of what plans are underway to remedy this problem that, admittedly, has been a continuing problem for quite a number of years.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the queries from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the problem of deadheads in lakes is very similar to the problem of deadheads on the coast. This arises, to a great extent, because material which is not usable is required to be taken out of the bush. Now if this stuff is not usable, the sawmills will not put it through their mills and they do tend to become waterlogged and become deadheads.

The Forest Service does discuss from time to time with the different operators the control of their booming grounds and the turnover of logs in their mills. However, there never has been formal policing programme to assure that the first log in is the first out. Much of it works back to the simple fact that much of the material is not usable, and if there's no demand for use of this material as pulp material, then it stays in the water for considerable length of time and indeed is a problem. It's a problem that I have not yet had an opportunity to address myself to, but I do think it's something we must have a very close look at.

As far as logs in conflicts with dams and so on, this is a problem which would have to be solved jointly between British Columbia Hydro, the Forest Service and the companies who own the logs. But it is something that does require attention, and I am sure it will receive attention from my department.

MR. KING: The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) has made a suggestion to me which I think is a good one. He has suggested, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister, that these logs might well be brought out or dumped into the lake in bundles so that there's no chance of them sinking, and they're easier to handle in terms of putting in the lake and retrieving.

Of course, this is the system that Can-Cel uses in bringing material from the Big Bend area north of Revelstoke down the Columbia River to their mill at Castlegar. I think it's quite true that it's clean and there's no loss through sinkage unless one of the bundles breaks. This might be something that would be workable up there, and perhaps the minister could have his department discuss it with the company because that is a prime and a choice recreational area, just coming into its own now. It's a beautiful, unspoiled lake and I'd be very sorry if I thought that continued development in the area, such as we've seen

[ Page 3096 ]

in the past, continues and despoils the area for all time in terms of recreation.

Mr. Chairman, there are not many people in the House. I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 27

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the committee rose on a challenge to the Chair. During that period of business of the House, during that challenge, the Chairman, who was then the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, was still on the floor of the House. I raised a point of order and Mr. Speaker did not rule on it before the House went into committee.

I'll point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that standing order 16(2) says clearly that "every member present shall vote." It's my submission that that particular challenge to the Chair is void because the member for Burnaby-Willingdon should have been excluded from the chamber. He was present and he did not vote. I'm not sure whether he did or not but my advice is that he didn't vote.

I don't think he did, but he may have. Anyway, it's in question and there is a breach of standing orders on the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing with the hon. member's point of order, Hon. Member, I appreciate your attention to bringing rule 16 before the Speaker, but I would have to say to you this. Many of the things we do, or at least some of them, in the House are as a result of long-standing customs of this Legislature for as many years as I have my knowledge as a member has been that the Chairman of committee remains in the chamber when a division is taken or a challenge to his ruling. He absents himself to the extent of not voting on the ruling.

If it is an offence to the members of the House and you feel that there is an offence against our rules and our customs, then I suggest to the hon. members that the Chairman would certainly take that into consideration as well as the Speaker and make sure that a Chairman absents himself from the floor of the House if that was your decision or your wish.

I do wish to also bring to your attention Beauchesne, 4th edition, 1958, particularly with respect to rules and forms on page 10, number 8, subsection 3.

"In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the House is generally guided not so much by the literal construction of the order themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the House with respect to them."

I submit to you, Hon. Member, and to the other members of the House, that the practice of this House has been to allow the Chairman to absent himself from the chair, report to the Speaker, and sit at the side while a division is taken. If it is an offence to the members of the House, I'm sure that we can reconsider that.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:06 p.m.