Parker defends Sustut -
_.. decision, despite finding
Of political interference _

| by Michael Kelly”

” “oSkeena MLA Dave Parker acted
outside his authority in the. deci-’
' sion to award the . Sustut-Takla

forest. licence to a consortium- of

Prince.George companies when he-.

was- Minister of Forests in.1988, a

 feport from the. B.C. Office of the

Ombudsman released last - week
states.
The report was compiled a after

the Village of Hazelton complained

to the Ombudsman about the:

"_- Sustut-Takla forest license decision
’ . .fwo years ago. The report says, "It.
- was the conclusion of the Ombuds-
-man’s office that in the award of

this forest licence, it appeared that
the Deputy ‘Chief Forester. acted

. upon the dictation of the Minister, _
@ person not charged with the
- vexercise of the -discretion and.

without statutory authority to direct
the Deputy Chief Forester concem-
ing the award of the licence.”

The controversial. decision to
send 400,000 cubic. metres of
timber per year for 20 years to

"Cabinet is govern- —
ment, elected by the
people,. regardless. . of
what the Ombudsman,
the Auditor General,
the Opposition or the

media think."

— Dave Parker

Prince George dashed hopes of
mills’ in Hazelton and Smithers,
much closer to the licence area, for
additional wood supply and con-
tributed to a number of mill clo-
sures and shift shutdowns, throw-
ing hundreds of people in the
Northwest out of work over the
past two years. At the time the
decision was made, the Forest Act
specified that decisions about
licence awards were to be made at
the discretion of the Chief Forester
or Deputy Chief Forester. As the
report puts it, "There must be a
genuine, as opposed to purported,
exercise of his discretionary power
by the decision maker. He cannot
abdicate his statutory responsibility
by acting upon the directions given
him by the Minister or Cabinet.

",,. he (the Chief Forester or the
Deputy Chief Forester) was
required personally and indepen-
dently to exercise the discretion
conferred upon him and not to act
at the dictation of another person."

Dictation of another person,
however, is apparently. cxactly
what happened in the Sustut-Takla
decision. The report goes on to

~ that - time. The Director. ‘of ‘the: -

Timber Harvesting Branch also.
attended this Cabinet’ meeting.

After the Minister's presentation, |

the Director excused himself from
the room. At the conclusion of the

“Cabinet - mecting, - the ~ Minister
‘informed the Director that Cabinet

had.-concluded that the forest

licence should be awafded to
: (Prince George Wood Preserving- -
/Rustad Brothers and Takia Track ©

atidTimber). The Director passed
this information on to the Deputy
Chief Forester, who stated that he
then had no realistic option but to

award the licence to the Prince -

George companies."

“Although Parker was on the

Village of Hazelton’s distribution
list for copies of the report, he sald
Friday that he hadn’t scen it. His
‘Tesponse to the report, regulations
of the Forest Act notwithstanding,
was that the ultimate authority still
rested in Cabinet. "The staff can
recommend, but the elected people
are the government... the ultimate .
authority lies with the Minister.
"Cabinet is government, elected

- by the people, regardless of what

the Ombudsman, the . Auditor
General, the Opposition or the

‘media think," he said.

On July 11, 1988, just weeks
after the decision, the government
amended the Forest Act to allow
the Minister statutory authority in
awarding forest licences. The Om-
budsman at that time recommended .
that the Minister review the'deci-
sion Cabinet had already made in
violation of the old regulations; he

_ reviewed it and upheld the award.

The Ombudsman’s report in

vat C abinet wants,

Terrace Review — Wednesday, July 18, 1990 AS

abinet gets

‘Sustut-Takla

HAZELTON —

PRINCE eet MITHER
{RUPERL. se SMITHERS
TERRACE = NM
\ rear. BURN

K Ng KETIMAT BURNS @

“ YY an. PRINCE GEORGE
many ways underlines the contro- harvested before 1993, resulting in and West Fraser tendered a total of
versial nature of the decision. The an undetermined loss of wood. $750,000 in bonus bids, compared
Sustut-Takla licence was far closer . Cabinet went against the recom- to $45,000 from Takla Track and |

geographically to Hazelton and
Smithers, where six. mills applied
for all or part of the allocation,
than Prince George. Stumpage —
the Crown levy for cutting public
timber —- is set in a manner that
allows companies to offset trans-
portation costs. Westar in Hazelton
would have paid stumpage of
$2.65; the Prince George appraisal
Is $.25. Over the term of the
licence it is estimated the Crown
will lose about $20 million in
stumpage by awarding the wood to
‘Prince George.

As advertised in March 1988,
there was some urgency to the
licence offer due to an insect infes-
tation. By awarding it to Prince
George, however, it appears that
the trees in question won’t be

ation a

|

describe what occurred the day of | ae

-the decision:

"After receiving the Deputy
Minister's recommendations, the
Minister of Forests made a presen-
tation {o Cabinet outlining the
various award options; however,
no recommendation was made at

ee

FREE BLF

Bundle up your water heater
in a cosy blanket... and save money.

HVE

mendations of six out of seven
internal evaluations done by Minis-
try of Forests branches. The Valu-
ation Branch favoured the Westar
and West Fraser proposals from a
revenue perspective; the Engineer-
ing Branch favoured Westar, the
Industrial Development and Mar-
keting Branch favoured Westar and
West Fraser; the Prince Rupert
Regional Forest Office recommen-
ded a split of 250,000 cubic metres
per year to Westar and 150,000 to
West Fraser (the recommendation
ultimately adopted by the Deputy
Minister); and the same recom-
mendation came from the Timber
Policy Branch, with the note that

the Crown revenue would be $1.

million per year greater than the
Prince George offer and Westar

Timber and nothing from Prince
George Wood Preserving/Rustad
Brothers.

The only internal recommenda-
tion. for the Prince George bid

came from the Prince George.

Regional Forest office. The report
notes that if ‘the licence had not
‘gone to Prince George, the Prince
George Timber Supply Area
annual allowable cut would have
been cut by 900,000 cubic metres
per year.

In reaction to the Ombudsman’s
findings, the Village of Hazelton
has demanded that the ministry
revoked the license and advertise
the offer again. In the Hazelton
area, Westar’s new high-tech Car-
naby sawmill has been working

— Continued on page A8

oT , ee

Making your
electric water

aa eee

™
. 1

new gas water heater within the next year.
But if you don’t have gas service in (

heater more
energy-efficient

SMART

can save you up to 10% on your household

your home, we'd still like your electric
water heater to be as energy-efficient as
possible. So, when we install the insulating
blanket, we'll give you a coupon that’s

of charge.

*For safety reasons, natural gas, propane and ail-fired water heaters do not qualify far this offer.
Applies to B.C.Hydro customers only.

water heating costs.

_ That’s why B.C.Hydro is making you
a cosy offer: a free insulating blanket for
your electric® water heater, installed free

It’s an offer worth $40.

Natural gas is a convenient and econo-
mical way to heat water, So if you have a
gas line into your house, your best option
is to convert to gas the next time you buy a
water heater. To help you out, B.C.Hydro,
along with your gas company, will give you
a $150 cash discount if you purchase a

BGhydro

good for a $20 rebate on a new Power
Smart electric water heater.

If for any technical reason your
electric water heater cannot be fitted with
an insulating blanket, we'll offer you the
same $20 rebate.

So bundle up. Your water heater will
save heat, you'll save on your electrical
bills, and we'll all save energy.

To arrange for a contractor to install
the water heater blanket, call

Medallion Services Ltd.
at 635-4311

#VG 10 a.m. to6 p.m.
Monday thru Friday

tn