1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

701 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Political contributions by McKim or Vrlak Robinson. Mr. Barrett ––

Tenure for contract positions. Mr. Nicolson –– 702

Termination of community involvement program. Mr. Barnes –– 702

Craig Aspinall and Associates Ltd. Mr. Hanson –– 702

Harbour Board Repeal Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 703

Mr. Lea –– 704

Mr. Reynolds –– 709

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 712

Mr. Lockstead –– 713

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Tourism annual report, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 726

TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Jacobs and his

daughter, Miss Wendy Jacobs, are observing our procedures here this

afternoon. Miss Jacobs is taking

part in the 1983 Pacific Coast Junior

Tennis Championships being played at the Racquet Club of Victoria. I'm

sure that all members would like to wish these two very good people

from the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey a very warm welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the

Legislature this afternoon is a constituent of mine from Gibsons on the

beautiful Sunshine Coast, and a star reporter for the Coast News , Mr. George Matthews. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the Speaker's

gallery today from Holland are Ivone Broshuis and Lawrence Rack. They

are accompanied by one of my constituents from Surrey, Mrs. Rita

Waenink. I would ask the members to welcome them please.

Oral Questions

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

BY McKIM OR VRLAK ROBINSON

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Provincial Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary advise this House

whether to his knowledge McKim Advertising or Vrlak Robinson have given

any political contributions to any political party, federally or

provincially, during the period they've been employed by the provincial

government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not to my knowledge.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, has the Provincial Secretary checked this question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I

was aware of whether a contribution had been made by McKim Advertising

and Vrlak Robinson. I gave him a straightforward answer: not to my

knowledge.

MR. BARRETT: In light of the investigation by the

Attorney-General over the allegations made by Ms. Morrison of funds

gone through these two agencies, does the Provincial Secretary feel

that he should inquire as to whether or not those two agencies have

given political contributions to any party?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not aware of any requirements for public disclosure of campaign funds in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Since public moneys may indeed have been involved as an

answer to transfer of this money, does the Provincial Secretary think it would

be necessary to request that the Attorney-General check this particular point

to see whether any funds...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Attorney-General.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the former Attorney-General, who

failed in his job, if I considered that important, but I'm asking the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we are in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, $5.5 million is unaccounted for by

these two agencies. At a time of restraint — let alone in good times —

we want to know whether or not any money out of the taxpayers' pockets

has been laundered through these agencies to a political party. I asked

the Provincial Secretary that question.

My final supplementary: considering the auditor-general's report,

would it not be a wise move for the government, through the Provincial

Secretary or the Attorney-General, to doublecheck to see whether either

McKim or Vrlak Robinson have given money to any political party, and if

they have, where the source of this money came from?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition is asking me a

question that would probably be more properly put to the

Attorney-General. He's attempting to influence one minister to ask

another minister a question. If he has a question of a particular

minister, he should address that question to that minister and not

attempt to influence one minister to ask a question of another

minister, who might have to ask another minister to bring the question

back to this minister to give an answer to the Leader of the

Opposition. So if he really wants to ask a question of the

Attorney-General, I suggest he address that question to him without all

of the political rhetoric, political insinuations and the misleading

and misquoted statements that he's putting forth at this time in

attempting to convey an erroneous impression in the minds of the people

of this province.

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the out-of-order minister for

his out-of-order answers. I, too, Mr. Minister, were I in the same

situation, would answer the same way. It's very humorous; I enjoyed it.

However, we're dealing here with a report from Ms. Morrison of $5.5

million of taxpayers' money that has unaccountably gone to these two

agencies. You are the minister responsible, and I ask you: do you not

think it is a necessary question to ask McKim Agency and Vrlak Robinson

whether any of that unaccounted-for $5.5 million has been contributed

to any political party? I ask you, Mr. Minister, as the minister

responsible, as Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a very interesting question with a

great variety of political insinuation, and the only conclusion I can

come to is that by the question, the member is attempting to convey a

false impression. He's attempting to suggest that public funds have

been misused, that public funds have been used for a particular

political party in this province. I kind of resent the insinuation

being left by that leader of the opposition — that waning leader of the

opposition, I might say, who's leaving his post a few months down

[ Page 702 ]

the road, and not too soon. But I want to say, to

satisfy the leader of the opposition's curiosity, that I'm prepared to

take that question as notice with a view to securing and delving into

the intricacies of the financing and conveying of funds to these two

firms, to see whether any of those specific funds have filtered or done

anything else as far as any political party in this province is

concerned.

MR. BARRETT: I'm pleased that we have a modification of the

original answer by the minister, whose verbosity is humorous but

sometimes revealing. First he says he doesn't know; then he claims it's

a falsehood. Thirdly, now he wants to dig at his notes. While he takes

this matter as notice, will he assure the House that in this matter

that he's taken as notice he will consult with the study and

investigation being done by the Attorney-General? And in conclusion,

does the minister not seriously think this is indeed a matter for

police investigation rather than political investigation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As I said a little earlier, from time to

time the leader of the opposition asks questions of the wrong minister,

and he's asking a question of the wrong minister at this time. If he's

suggesting that there's a need for police investigation of a particular

allegation which he's prepared to make in this House, then I suggest

that he ask that question of the proper minister, because I'm not the

minister in charge of the police force in British Columbia. I'm sure

that the leader of the opposition recognizes that fully. Therefore, if

he wants to suggest that there should be a police investigation, or any

other kind of an investigation or examination, he should put his

question to the right minister.

MR. BARRETT: Did the $5.5 million come through your department?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You must address the Chair and the minister responsible.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Provincial Secretary: did the $5.5 million come through your department?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I can't say whether each and every dollar of the $5.5 million came from my ministry, because advertising....

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. That's fine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...is budgeted for by all ministries of government. There's my answer.

TENURE FOR CONTRACT POSITIONS

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. The minister's position on academic tenure

is well known; I guess basically it's that good academics do not need

tenure. Can the minister explain then to this House why the

neurological project of which he is a member is currently offering

tenure in order to entice applicants for two contract positions?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take the

question as notice. I take it that this is the standard advertising

required for all academic posts, but I'll discover what the reason is

and bring an answer to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: While he's taking that as notice, would he explain why the July 29, 1983 issue of Science magazine is inviting academics who are coming to British Columbia on this project tenure tracking?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I imagine this is standard

advertising and probably would have been submitted many months ago. You

can't get advertisements in magazines like Science on a daily basis.

TERMINATION OF

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Human Resources.

Participants in the community involvement program, recently cancelled

by the minister, signed a six-month contract with the provincial

government. In view of the fact that the people signed these contracts

in good faith, can the minister explain under what authority she has

unilaterally cancelled these employment contracts?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the community involvement

program has not been cancelled. The payment of $50 a month for the

community involvement program has been withdrawn.

I will be pleased to take as notice the other part of the question vis-a-vis the six-month undertaking.

MR. BARNES: While you are taking that as notice, could you

indicate to the House what will be the status of those agreements

currently due to expire on the 31st of this month? I happen to know

that some of them will last until the end of the year. Could you

clarify what the situation will be in the meantime?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll take the question as notice.

CRAIG ASPINALL AND ASSOCIATES LTD.

MR. HANSON: Can the Provincial Secretary explain to the House

why he has arranged through Doug Heal's department to engage a Social

Credit Party apparatchik by the name of Craig Aspinall to attempt to

clean up the image of the government surrounding the budget and the

bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a very interesting question. I'm not aware that the government has done any such thing. What was the individual's name?

MR. HANSON: Craig Aspinall.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Would you spell that for Hansard ?

I'll make sure that I examine the question that the member has put to

me, because I'm sure he's very interested in it, especially the party

affiliation. I'm sure he'd rather have the party affiliation read NDP

or something else, despite the fact that qualifications and skills

might be equal.

The only thing I can say in response to the first member for

Victoria is that I will take the question as notice and bring back the

answer as quickly as possible to see whether there is any substance to

the allegation he's making at this time.

[ Page

703 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Aspinall is the proprietor of Craig Aspinall and Associates,

which was the media service for the Social Credit Party during the last election

campaign. You may be aware of that. He's been engaged by Mr. Heal for perhaps

up to $150,000 to clean up the image of the government. By the way, $150,000

is one child-abuse team in this province.

Will the minister explain to the House why such a payment would be

necessary to a media operation such as this to clean up this operation,

and why the minister's personnel and staff, presently being paid

millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars, can't handle ministerial

appointments and communications with ministers without going to Mr.

Aspinall's group, which will then take $150,000 of taxpayers' money and

do this? Why does this have to be done?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've never heard of the

organization that the first member for Victoria makes reference to.

First of all, the $150,000 seems like a lot of money. I indicated a

little earlier that I would take the matter as notice, and I'll take

the supplementary question as notice as well and bring the answer back

at the very earliest opportunity.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to open second reading

of this bill which is really a culmination of one of the very

remarkable success stories in the history of the province of British

Columbia. The British Columbia Harbours Board was established by

provincial statute in 1967. The purpose was to promote harbour

development and ensure adequate access to British Columbia harbours.

The top priority at that time, of course, was the development of that

great superport now known as Roberts Bank, including adequate rail and

road access.

MR. LAUK: Who wrote your speech?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly not the same guy who writes your questions.

A provincial agent was necessary in this instance, Mr. Speaker,

because the federal government and the National Harbours Board were

either unwilling or unable to act fast enough to ensure necessary port

facilities to export coal from that great coal-exporting area of our

province, southeastern British Columbia.

The Harbours Board acquired, of course, the right of way to Roberts Bank and

constructed a 40-kilometre railway access. The board owns this railway, and

charges user fees to cover capital operating and maintenance costs. Principle

users of this little railway are the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian

National Railway. The Harbours Board is a party to the Roberts Bank Expansion

Agreement, made necessary, of course, by additional sales of coal into the export

market, Commitments to expand the causeway and related railway facilities are

now being completed and, naturally, are on schedule.

The board has also provided funds for studies for such smaller

harbours as Campbell River, Stewart and, indeed, Kitimat. A number of

factors led to the decision that responsibilities of the British

Columbia Harbours Board should now be reallocated. Expansion of Roberts

Bank and construction at Ridley Island is now well underway, thanks to

the great agreement to develop the northeast coal fields of this

province. These two facilities assure adequate capacity for coal, grain

and other bulk materials, and I must say that because of those great

decisions that were made, this province will be more than adequately

served with port facilities well into the decades ahead. I'm certainly

happy to be part of a government with such great vision and courage as

to carry on, at this particular point in history, these great

developments.

[2:30]

The British Columbia Railway, of course, already manages the

Harbours Board railway facilities, and of course they also, Mr. Speaker

— as you well know, because most of it's in your constituency — carry

out all maintenance work. The British Columbia Development Corporation

is the provincial agent responsible for the development of provincial

lands and is ideally suited to managing the Harbours Board properties.

The federal government is finally — and I repeat "finally" — seeing the

errors of its ways and is forsaking the monolithic, centralized concept

of the National Harbours Board in favour of local autonomy. The

British....

MR. LAUK: I gave you that speech ten years ago.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, it didn't do you much good, did it?

I must say that we have had some changes in the federal government,

and they are now giving up that local autonomy and are giving some

responsibility in saying that westerners should have some say in the

running of the ports on the west coast. I've had, Mr. Speaker, now that

you mention it, many arguments with Mr. Pepin, the Minister of

Transport, in saying there should be more local autonomy. He said:

"Well, if we give you too much local autonomy you might preclude the

movement of goods and services from other provinces in Canada." I had

to say: "Well, my gosh, what about Rotterdam?" The largest port in the

world. Who runs it? The city of Rotterdam. Moving through that great

port are goods and services from all the countries in Europe and even a

lot behind the Iron Curtain. So I said to Mr. Pepin: "If you make it

economically viable, and the decisions don't have to be made 5,000

miles away on dry land in Ottawa — where they don't know a port from a

whatever — and leave the autonomy, then maybe we'd get things done."

It's happening, but not as swiftly as I would like to see it happen.

MR. LAUK: You're just not too swift.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know that; I read that. I'm not too used to putting legislation through, so you'll have to bear with me.

The British Columbia Harbours Board has done what it set out to do, and its duties can now be carried out more

[ Page 704 ]

efficiently by two other existing Crown

corporations, the great British Columbia Railway and the British

Columbia Development Corporation.

MR. LEA: Which you voted against.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We won't talk about that.

By order of this act, the assets and liabilities of the Harbours

Board will be divided between the British Columbia Railway and the

Development Corporation. As of March 31, the Harbours Board had book

value assets totalling about $30 million. The Harbours Board owes $6

million on a note held by the province. Assets and liabilities will

likely be transferred to receiving agencies at book value, when the

lawyers get through sorting it all out.

The Harbours Board has done what it set out to do when the odds, at

times, seemed squarely against us. With Vancouver and Prince Rupert,

Canada now has world-class access to the Pacific Rim, that great

growing area in the world. This little province and government led the

rest of Canada kicking and screaming into the Pacific Rim. They thought

there was no other place on earth except the European community, but

this little government single-handedly now has Ottawa recognizing where

the future is. By reallocating this Crown corporation's

responsibilities, we are demonstrating that current government policies

are a logical continuation of philosophies which have been in place

since we were returned to government in 1975.

1 now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, we know that the minister has now moved that the bill be read a second time, but when shall it be read?

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister adds one more "now," we'll be....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, and I now move that the bill now be read a second time now.

MR. SPEAKER: That pretty well covers it.

MR. LEA: It would be a simple matter to go along with this

bill if the minister had put all the cards on the table, but he hasn't.

The minister has failed to mention that we are talking about 4,000

acres of agricultural land that's going to be transferred into the BCR

or the B.C. Development Corporation. There are people in the community

who are worried that either this agricultural land will be developed by

the BCR or the B.C. Development Corporation, or sold off to friends

like Dawn Development or others to be developed. There are probably

members in this House who know that I'm not the only one with that

concern. The municipality of Delta, Mr. Speaker — of which you have

some knowledge, I'm told — is also opposed to this bill's going

through. As a matter of fact, the Delta municipal council made a

representation to the minister asking the minister not to pass this

legislation because of their concern of losing agricultural land.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That isn't what they said, Graham. Read the letter.

MR. LEA: Why didn't you mention to the Legislature, Mr. Minister, that there is opposition from a locally elected council?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's your job. Do you want me to do everything for you?

MR. LEA: That's my job. That's right. We have to do your job, our job, everybody's job, because you can't do the job.

Why wouldn't the minister, in his opening remarks asking this

Legislature to pass this particular act, tell us what they planned to

do with the assets — not just that they're going to transfer them to

the great British Columbia Railway or to the wonderful British Columbia

Development Corporation, but why are they transferring them? There must

be a reason. The minister hasn't given us a reason, so we can only

assume that it's one of those Social Credit dirty tricks. That's all we

can assume.

First of all, the Delta council asked that this land be transferred

to one of two other places: either to the Minister of Agriculture and

Food, because they have a little bit more faith that the Minister of

Agriculture and Food isn't going to let good agricultural land out to

be developed.... I don't know whether they knew at the time that the

Agricultural Land Commission, which is the other agency they wouldn't

mind it being transferred to, wouldn't even exist in reality — so why

transfer it there? But I think we do have to put our faith somewhere.

As a member of this House, I would feel much better about it if these

4,000 farm acres were transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and

Food for stewardship than transferring it to BCR and that minister.

You can bet that if this bill passes there'll be members of this

House on the Social Credit side who won't be able to vote because of

conflict of interest. That's what's going to happen. Will the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) be able to vote on this? Is he

going to be allowed to vote on this legislation that will probably be

just a stopgap between the Legislature and Dawn Development? That's all

it's going to be. If only the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) were

allowed to speak in this debate. I'd be really interested in hearing

that member's plea, with mine, on behalf of the community that he

represents. Could you get a surrogate delegate here, Mr. Speaker? Could

someone else speak for the member for Delta? Because, believe me, the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is not one of those pinkos

or commie conspirators that some members of the House are so worried

about.

MR. LAUK: Now wait a minute.

MR. LEA: Well, yes, let's not get ahead of ourselves; he's never really said that. He's never denied it.

We can't vote for this bill. We would be letting down all of the

people of British Columbia if we were to allow 4,000 acres of good

farmland to transfer to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. We would not be doing our duty. The first thing we'd

probably see would be commercial property or anything at all on that

farmland except what farmland can produce.

This government seems to be under the misapprehension that we can

get rid of all of our farmland — no problem. We can import those things

we need to consume in terms of farm products from California, Mexico or

anywhere else. We're

[ Page

705 ]

okay. Get rid of our farmland and we'll just import

it. There's a higher use, the government feels, for farmland than using

it for farmland. It just sort of turns them sick to their stomachs when

they drive by farmland and they don't see a house or a factory on it.

They think to themselves: "My God, if we could just get this farmland

and have commercial and industrial property on it, and still import all

those foodstuffs."

MR. REID: Who put the industry on 726 acres of Tilbury Island?

MR. LEA: What is that harping, carping thing back there? He

still has to make his maiden speech in the House on his feet; he's made

about 55 of them sitting down.

MR. REID: Tell us about the 726 acres, because this is the same to me.

MR. LEA: Why don't you tell us?

MR. REID: I'll tell you.

MR. LEA: Oh, I bet you won't even speak on this legislation,

Mr. Member. You've probably been told to vote and shut up. That's what

the back-benchers do. They feel that's what they're paid to do. You

know, when someone said that Social Credit politicians are the best

politicians that money can buy, they meant it. And with every piece of

legislation that goes through here we're finding out that it's more

true all the time.

Farmland means nothing to this government.

MR. REID: What about Tilbury Island? That was 726 acres of the best farmland....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. All members will have an opportunity to take

part in the debate.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, when we alienated farmland for Tilbury

we were right up front. We said that that legislation was there to

protect farmland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about Kamloops?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Salmon Arm?

MR. LEA: My God, Mr. Speaker, they're going crazy on us

today, aren't they? Do you have any rule at all up there that would

apply to Social Crediters?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we do, however, have rules that

guide us in debate on second reading, and I think we could narrow the

debate somewhat.

MR. LEA: Sure, I can understand why I would be brought to task.

MR. LAUK: You've been interrupting yourself.

MR. LEA: Yes, I've been interrupting myself all along here, did you notice that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks a lot; I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, you look an awful lot like the member for Delta, and it was the

municipality of Delta that asked that this legislation not go through in its

present form, because the community is worried about what will happen to the

4,000 acres of farmland involved here.

We are also concerned about these 4,000 acres of farmland, and I

think it's only incumbent upon me to point out what I see as the

philosophy of the Social Credit when it comes to farmland. I don't

think that the Social Credit are stupid enough to believe that we can

exist without farm products. But they believe that we can get the farm

products from somewhere else.

[2:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Chile.

MR. LEA: Anywhere — so that we don't have to preserve

farmland in the province — seems to be the way they want to go. Mr.

Speaker, that's just not good enough. California, where we get a lot of

our produce now, tells us that they won't be able to supply farm

products, even to the extent they've been supplying them in the past.

They have water shortages, too many crops ruining the soil, burning out

the soil. They've got their problems. And California tells us: "Canada,

British Columbia, don't expect that we can continue the supply." Even

some of the farmland today which under existing conditions is not

economical will become economical as farm produce becomes scarcer and

scarcer from importing sources.

AN HON. MEMBER: When's that?

MR. LEA: I don't care when it is. I don't care whether it's

next week or next year or ten years from now, because this side of the

House is not only concerned with what we're going to eat; we're

concerned with what our children and our children's children are going

to eat. That's what we're concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, this government look at us and they call us

"airy-fairy." They don't really think that we're crazy; they just think

we're just a little fuzzy and woolly-headed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that, we didn't.

MR. LEA: No, you say it all the time. They believe that on

this side of the House we're a little "airy-fairy" because we're

worried about what might be happening to future generations. Their

attitude is: why worry about it? I would like to go back to something

I've said in this House before but that I think bears repeating. There

are only two kinds of people in the world today. One group looks at the

future and sees it as pretty bleak. The other group looks at the future

and sees it as pretty bleak. It's what you do after that that counts.

The Social Credit are people who say: "Look, if you've booked passage

on the Titanic, why go steerage? Let's live it up. Let's not even put

somebody up there to look for the icebergs." Maybe down the road with

science and agricultural technological breakthroughs we won't have to

worry about it. Now the scientists in agriculture tell us we do have to

worry. They tell us that especially in this province we really have to

worry about agricultural land, not only in the future, but in the

present. We have a shortage of agricultural land in this province. If

we are to use our heads, we have to worry about it.

On this side of the House we don't see the future as all that rosy either. We see some of the things we're looking at as

[ Page 706 ]

pretty bleak — nuclear armament and all of the environmental things,

and everything else. We don't have blinders on either. But we aren't

going to climb on the Titanic and go first class. We're going to try

and turn it backwards a little. We're going to fight every inch of the

way. We're going to try to maintain farmland. We're going to try to

maintain good environmental standards because we know our future and

our children's future depend on the vigilance of those of us who are

here today. It's so short-sighted to view the world in such a bleak

form that you're afraid of courage; that this government is afraid to

do the kinds of things that are needed in order to preserve British

Columbia for future generations. Their attitude is: do what you want.

Get rid of farmland. It doesn't matter. There are going to be

scientific and agricultural technological breaks in the future that

will make it all superfluous. Maybe they'll invent a pill: you can take

it in the morning and you don't have to eat the rest of the day. Maybe

California will get water all of a sudden and everything will continue

the way it has in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or hydroponics.

MR. LEA: Hydroponics is something that this side of the House

talks about, Mr. Speaker. Hydroponics is, I think, something that we

have to look at, especially for the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're pretty good at growing mushrooms.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister

introduce this bill, we grow 'em, he eats 'em. That introduction to

this bill was nonsense. Gibberish and nonsense!

MR. LAUK: That's because of the kind of mushrooms he's been eating — psilocybin.

MR. LEA: I never thought of that.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Michael), although he

probably won't take his place in the debate, is absolutely correct that

we do have to look at such things as hydroponics to survive. But people

who are more knowledgeable than 1, and I don't know about the member

for Shuswap, are telling us that even with those kinds of modern

technological breaks that we can look forward to, it won't be enough;

we do have to protect our farmland. For this side of the House to allow

4,000 acres of farmland to disappear into the British Columbia

Development Corporation, or to disappear into the British Columbia

Railway.... What experience have either of these two institutions had

in managing farmland? It seems a bit ludicrous. Other assets that are

being transferred — we have no real quarrel with the....

HON. A. FRASER: The BCR kills cows.

MR. LEA: That's absolutely right. I think that is the

attitude. The Minister of Highways says to my remarks: "The BCR kills

cows, What do you mean they don't have any experience?" Now I know he

said it in jest, but it's true. That is their only experience. What

will the British Columbia Railway or the British Columbia Development

Corporation do with 4,000 acres of rich farmland on the delta? Will

they just hold it and not do anything with it? If that's the case, why

do they need it?

If this government's record weren't so bad in dealing with farmland

and if this government's record weren't so bad in telling the truth, it

wouldn't be so bad. But their record is abysmal in both areas: dealing

with farmland and telling the truth as to their intentions. We cannot

take their word for it. I don't see how the government can expect us to

take their word for it. All you have to do is take a look at the May 5

election to see how a government breaks its word.

HON. A. FRASER: You should look.

MR. LEA: We are looking at it and so are the people of this

province, Mr. Minister. There are a great many people out there who

voted for something other than what they got. The people out there and

those of us who represent those people in here know we cannot rely on

the Social Credit Party to tell the truth. They know we can't rely on

the Social Credit Party to deal with farmland sensitively and with

common sense.

When we see agricultural land being transferred into a development

company, be it the government development company or any other

development company, I think it's reason for concern. For the minister

not to even mention these 4,000 acres of farmland in his opening debate

on this legislation would almost lead you to believe that he hoped we

didn't know about it, that somehow they could slip it over on us — just

a housekeeping bill that transfers a few assets out of the Harbours

Board into the British Columbia Railway and the British Columbia

Development Corporation. We will not vote for this bill in its present

form.

This Bill 25 is part of the package called Budget '83. How much is

going to be saved by transferring these assets to the BCDC and to BCR?

I doubt if anything will be saved. The people who now manage these

assets may not be the same people managing the assets, but the time

involved and the administrative setup needed to manage these assets is

going to be exactly the same, so no money is going to be saved. That I

can see. When the minister closes debate, maybe he could elaborate on

any money that's going to be saved. But I can't see it.

Even if a few bucks are saved on this, exclude the farmland from the

transfer of assets. If you want to bring back a piece of legislation

transferring all other assets into the BCDC or the BCR, we'll go along

with that; but we're sure not going to go along with transferring

farmland.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the past we have seen the written word and heard the spoken word

from members of the Social Credit Party on their attitude toward

handling farmland. In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, could you vote for this

legislation? If you represented Delta, could you vote for this

legislation? I doubt it. The legislation is going against local wishes.

On the one hand, the government is telling us how much they admire

local autonomy, how much they admire the wisdom of local decisions

because local decisions are made by people who are immediate to the

problem, who can understand the problem and who have to live with the

results of the decision. In fact, that's what they argue when they talk

about the Spetifore land, That's what they argue about when we're

discussing another piece of legislation which, in my opinion, takes

powers away from the regional level. Their philosophy

[ Page

707 ]

changes from bill to bill. In one bill they want to give local autonomy; in another bill they want to take it away.

I would feel a lot better if this farmland were transferred under

the agencies of the regional district, as opposed to this government.

Even at that, I would rather see this farmland transferred to the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) under this government than

to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It just

doesn't make sense that you'd transfer farmland to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, unless the government intended

to put development on that farmland. Why would the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development want farmland? Is he going into farming?

That doesn't seem to be the function of either the BCR or the British

Columbia Development Corporation. So I think we can safely assume that

it's not going into farmland.

In each piece of legislation there's a short explanatory note. On

this one it says: "Harbour Board Repeal Act, Explanatory Note. The

purpose of this bill is to dissolve the British Columbia Harbours Board

and to provide for the transfer of its assets to the British Columbia

Development Corporation and the British Columbia Railway Company."

Period. The government is saying, in a succinct sense, that this is

their intention — to transfer these assets over to another area.

I can't believe this government isn't a bit more machiavellian than

that. I can't believe they've somehow forgotten that we're dealing with

4,000 acres of farmland. I think this government knows full well that

part of the assets to be transferred are these 4,000 acres of farmland,

and I think they have plans for them. I don't think the plan is to

farm, or any other agricultural purpose. I think the plan is for some

kind of economic development; what, we don't know. But I think it would

be safe to assume that when you transfer land to the minister of

economic development, it will probably be used for economic development

and not for farmland. It seems to make sense.

On top of that, we have to continue looking at the record of this

government as it relates to farmland. We have to look out towards

Langley, at the acres and acres of farmland in Langley and this

government's efforts to get that farmland out of agricultural purposes

and into development. We have to look at the Spetifore property in

Delta and this government's efforts to take farmland and put it into

economic development, commercial development. That is their record.

It's almost cheeky for the government to come in here and try and hide,

within the context of this bill, 4,000 acres of farmland. Not one

mention of what the assets are. Wouldn't it have made better sense for

the government to bring in a piece of legislation and say: "We're going

to transfer the assets and here's the list. Here's what the assets

are." Wouldn't all members of this House, including government

backbenchers, feel a little better about that kind of legislation? Are

we supposed to be debating blind, or is the government's real intention

the hope to slip through an innocuous little bill?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh now, nothing from you, Mr. Member. Your federal leader has just condemned you, hasn't he?

MR. REYNOLDS: He loves it.

[3:00]

MR. LEA: Oh, he hates it.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member behind me, who is on record as

wanting the Spetifore property out, has interjected. Are we going to

trust 4,000 more acres to those backbenchers, Mr. Speaker? Are we going

to trust 4,000 acres of farmland to the Social Credit in economic

development? The answer is no. I don't think the people of this

province would want the opposition to vote yes on this bill. I don't

think the people of this province would want the Social Credit to vote

yes on this bill. One thing we know for sure is that the municipality

of Delta doesn't want us to vote yes on this bill.

MR. REYNOLDS: The people do.

MR. LEA: No, they don't. They want this property transferred

to either the agricultural land commission or the Ministry of

Agriculture. If the truth were known, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder) would like that too.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Isn't it amazing that those who are in opposition to the Social Credit are a bunch of commie, pinko crazies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, true.

MR. LEA: And you know, Mr. Speaker, they believe that. It's

called "groupthink." That's a theory put forward by a psychologist

named Janis, who wrote a book called Groupthink .

If certain ingredients are in place, then a group can be affected by

what Janis calls groupthink. He used four examples in history of where,

in his opinion, groupthink took place; one of them was the Bay of Pigs,

the other was Pearl Harbour.

One of the most important ingredients in groupthink which is a very

dangerous thing, because groupthink means the group thinks it's

absolutely right and everybody else is absolutely wrong — is euphoria.

Ever since May 5 we have seen a euphoric groupthink like we have never

seen before in this province. They believe they are absolutely correct

and that everybody else is absolutely incorrect. They believe that the

more people come out and campaign against them and call them down, the

righter they are. They feel better and more righteous. Every time there

are more people out on the steps and out there in the citizenry of this

province complaining, it only serves to make this government and this

euphoric group believe that they are absolutely more right than they

ever were before. We have a dangerous phenomenon going on in this

province — a group of people who are euphoric.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Speak to the bill, will you?

MR. LEA: I'm speaking to the bill; you didn't. If you had

spoken to the bill, Mr. Minister, you would have been upfront and told

us that the assets being transferred included 4,000 acres of farmland.

You would have told us what you intended to do with that land and why

it was being transferred to the British Columbia Development

Corporation or the British Columbia Railway. The minister did not lie,

but he omitted the facts. Why wouldn't the minister tell us the assets

that are being transferred?

[ Page 708 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You'll have your opportunity. In fact, he had his

opportunity to tell us, and he did one of two things. He didn't know

what the assets were. It would be unforgivable, wouldn't it, that a

minister would bring a bill in here and really not know what it's all

about. If he did know that 4,000 acres of farmland were to be included

and didn't tell us anyway, it would be unpardonable. Either way, he is

condemned by his action or lack of action.

That minister has not acted responsibly. If he had been responsible,

he would have been more upfront. In his opening remarks on this

legislation he would have come in here and said: "Here it is. We're

going to transfer all these assets. Here's what they are, and here's

why we're transferring them and here's what we're going to use them

for." He didn't do it, and you have to ask why. Did it slip his mind

that 4,000 acres of farmland was to be included? I'll bet you that

there are back-benchers over there who don't even know the contents of

this bill. They don't know what the assets are.

MR. REYNOLDS: Do you know what they are?

MR. LEA: No, I don't know what they are. Do you know what they are?

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, and I'll get up and tell you what they are if you'll sit down.

MR. LEA: You'll have your turn. That member will also have

his turn to tell us why they're transferring 4,000 acres of farmland

into there.

MR. REYNOLDS: It will be a pleasure.

MR. LEA: I can't wait to hear it, because every time he

explains his position we pick up more votes, and Brian Mulroney loses a

few more votes.

I wonder if this is one of the bills that Brian Mulroney, the leader

of the Conservative Party, said that he didn't agree with last night.

The Conservative leader said he didn't agree with the restraint program

that's being used, and this is part of the restraint program, I

understand. As I understand it, the reason that this bill is in front

of us is because the minister has said that there's going to be a few

dollars saved. Right? That's the purpose. It's going to be more

streamlined administratively and there's going to be some dollars

saved. He said that when he summed up at the end of this debate — two

or three years from now — he was going to tell us, but he didn't tell

us. I suspect that he can't tell us. Mr. Mulroney apparently doesn't

agree with this kind of restraint program. He doesn't agree with the

Social Credit Party and says he's trying to distance himself. In fact,

the only group that I know in the entire country who agrees with the

legislation is the Canadian independent small business group, Mr.

Bulloch, and he didn't even agree with it until he went into the

Premier's office and came out again.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Vancouver Board of Trade agreed with it.

MR. LEA: The Vancouver Board of Trade agreed with it and the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business people agreed with it. I

don't believe that, by the way. I believe that maybe Mr. Bulloch and

Mr. Pepper were speaking on behalf of their executive or themselves,

but I doubt very much if they canvassed the members of the small

business community in Victoria to see whether they agree with this

restraint program.

Do you know that the civil servants are going into the bank and the

lending institutions to get a loan for a mortgage and are being told no

because they don't have enough security to get a loan? How does that

affect the realtors? Do the realtors agree with this kind of restraint

measure?

AN HON. MEMBER: To the bill.

MR. LEA: To the bill. They don't like it. They're the ones

who said it was a package. They're the ones who brought 26 bills in,

this one being Bill 25. They're the ones who brought it in and said:

"It's budget '83, and this is a package." But that was too tricky by

half, because what they did was bring in a budget and then bring in 26

bills that have very little, if anything, to do with the budget. What

they hoped to do was cover up a lousy, stinking budget that will not

bring around economic recovery, but will drive us further into a

recession, and they hope to cover that up by bringing in this kind of

legislation. The Social Credit would much rather argue about farmland

and human rights, and would much rather debate about landlords, tenants

and rent controls than they would a lousy budget. So they thought:

"Aha, we'll bring in this budget, but to take the sting away, so people

won't know exactly what we're up to, we're going to bring in 26 bills.

We're going to take away human rights, transfer farmland into the BCR,

give the landlords everything, take away consumer protection; and boy,

everybody's going to be so upset and they're going to be fighting all

this stuff and they're not even going to notice a budget going through

that does nothing for no one." That's what they're doing, and you know

darn well, Mr. Minister, that was the plan. But now they're finding

out, Mr. Speaker, that on Bill 25 and on other bills people are not too

happy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The

member who is speaking has been in this Legislature a long time; as a

matter of fact, too long.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: State your point of order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that you bring him to

order and get him to speak to the principle of the bill. He's wandering

all over the map. If he hasn't got anything to say about the bill, he

should take his seat and let somebody who knows something about the

bill speak to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I will

commend to all members of the House that in second reading we speak to

the principle of the bill. I'm sure the hon. member for Prince Rupert

can do that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that there is no

principle to this bill, only a lack of principle, and the lack of

principle is transferring farmland into development. I think what we

have to do in that case is go through the litany of bad decisions

surrounding this government and farmland to prove, once and for all,

that this government in its entirety cannot be responsible for

farmland, but most specifically the

[ Page 709 ]

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

cannot be given another 4,000 acres of farmland out of the delta of the

Fraser River to be squandered and spent on economic and commercial

development, as opposed to farm and agricultural purposes.

I find it hard to believe that there are members in this House who

represent big farming communities. I don't. I was raised on a farm and

I know something about it, but there is very little farming in my

constituency. For members of this House who represent constituencies

with large farm holdings not to be upset about 4,000 acres of farmland

being transferred to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development is beyond my understanding. Is the member for Okanagan

North (Mr. Campbell) not going to take his place in this debate and

talk about 4,000 acres of farmland being transferred for economic

development? Or is he going to be silent, and when the time comes and

the Premier snaps his fingers, stand and vote for Social Credit, no

matter what?

Are the two members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) who have

a great deal of very rich farmland in their constituency going to let

their neighbouring community of Delta suffer the loss of 4,000 acres of

farmland? The answer is yes. They're on record. There's doubt for the

member for Okanagan North, because he doesn't speak much and he's a new

member and we don't know where he stands. But we do know where the two

members for Surrey stand: they will be voting for agricultural land to

go into economic development. We know that for sure.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I do want to hear him, but there is a procedure here and the procedure is that he can get up right after I finish.

[3:15]

But, Mr. Speaker, I'd be willing to bet you.... Let's not make it

too big a bet. What shall we make it? What about a medium vegetable

pizza? Which we probably won't be able to pay off if we lose this

farmland. I'd be willing to bet that the member for Okanagan North does

not speak on this bill — that he's going to silently sit there and hope

that Hansard doesn't reach his constituency. I'll bet you that

there are other members of the back bench in the Social Credit who are

not going to speak on this bill and will sit there silently and hope

that the Hansard record doesn't reach their constituents.

I have to warn you, Mr. Speaker, and I have to want them, that one

of our members may squeal. One of our members may actually go to the

north Okanagan and tell your constituents, Mr. Member, that you

silently sat there and didn't say anything, and when the time came you

voted with the government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, the member from

Prince Rupert is telling about what members of the Social Credit caucus

are not going to speak on this bill, and I wonder if he's going to

continue not speaking on this bill himself. I understand that second

reading is rather narrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Briefly, the member should speak to the bill and avoid personal reference to other members.

MR. LEA: Yes, would you chastize him for getting up on a non-point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a point of order.

MR. LEA: It was, Mr. Speaker?

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. SPEAKER: As I have mentioned before, if it is the wish of

the House on recording votes, we may do so automatically, if there is

unanimous leave.

Leave not granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to get up and speak in this

debate, but the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got my adrenalin

going and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said: "More

votes for us when he speaks," That was another comment I think the

member for Prince Rupert made, and that also got me going. It's nice to

get up and remind these NDPers that on May 5 the people of this

province voted this government in overwhelmingly. They voted in Social

Credit. This member here went into a constituency and increased the

votes over the member that was there previous to him, and also if they

— and the member for Prince Rupert — want to go back to 1972 and 1974,

they'll find that this member defeated the NDP candidates in his

constituency quite handily. In fact in 1974 I had the largest majority

in the federal House in all of British Columbia. That's because I don't

mind speaking my mind, speaking about free enterprise and telling the

truth, and I do mind if I have to listen to distortions of what is

really happening in this Legislature.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to quote the member for Prince Rupert. In one of his comments he said

"Groupthink thinks everything they

[ Page 710 ]

think is right and everybody else is incorrect."

Well, a groupthink in my mind is Solidarity — something that this

member and members of his party support wholeheartedly, I understand.

The Solidarity group think they're right and everybody else is wrong,

but I've read the brochure that they put out, and I've never seen....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm speaking on the bill, and it has to do with

Bill 25 because the Solidarity group printed a brochure full of

absolute lies, things that they know are incorrect. I would say that

outside as well as inside this chamber the people who put that brochure

together had to know they were lying. They're trying to fool the people

of British Columbia, and that's why I'm going to speak in this

Legislature on Bill 25 and make sure that the people in this province

hear both sides of the argument and know what this government is trying

to do.

Bill 25, the Harbour Board Repeal Act was put forth by Hon. Donald

McGray Phillips — I'd never heard his middle name before; I thought I'd

say that it's awfully nice — the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. The explanation for this bill explains that "the

purpose of this bill is to dissolve the British Columbia Harbours board

and to provide for the transfer of its assets to the British Columbia

Development Corporation and the British Columbia Railway Company." The

member for Prince Rupert talked about the fact that 4,000 acres of

farmland were being transferred to the minister. That's incorrect also,

because if he read the bill he would see it's not being transferred to

the minister; it's being transferred to the British Columbia

Development Corporation and the British Columbia Railway Company. I

think that's something, Mr. Speaker. The facts of this matter have to

be pointed out to show that this member for Prince Rupert is not

putting all the facts before the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or this House.

MR. REYNOLDS: Or this House, and I think that's extremely important.

The member, who's also the critic for that party, has had to leave

the House. To be fair, maybe he's got a meeting outside, but you would

think that this matter is so important that he could sit in this House

and listen to a member from the government side explain some of the

facts of life. The member for Prince Rupert said: "Can you explain what

the assets are?" I'm quite surprised that he would get up and take the

time of this House to tell us that he knows there are 4,000 acres of

farmland in the assets, but he didn't seem to know what the other

assets were. So how did he find out about the 4,000 acres if he didn't

look at something to get his information? If he had looked he would

have found out that the 4,000 acres are being transferred. Certainly

there are 4,000 acres, but there is also a railway and a port. Those

are basically the assets that are in the Harbours Board right now.

I have to say that I'm not as concerned as the member for Prince

Rupert is about these 4,000 acres of land. He talks about the council

in Delta; "the people in Delta" — is the way he put it, I think — are

opposed to this matter. I suggested to him that certainly some members

of that council may be opposed to it, but the people of Delta are not

afraid of anything this government wants to do with that 4,000 acres of

land. He may find that hard to believe. He mentioned that it was

unfortunate that the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) couldn't

debate on this thing — and it is. I know he'd love to be speaking for

his constituents, but since I represented that constituency as the

federal Member of Parliament for so long, I feel it's only fair that I

get up and tell this House that the people of Delta not only like the

job this government is doing in British Columbia but by returning that

member with a larger majority in the last election than he ever had

before, they also defeated the NDP by more votes in the last election

than ever before in a provincial election.

I'm going to quote the member for Prince Rupert: "What will they do

with the 4,000 acres of farmland?" He said that we'll let 4,000 acres

of farmland disappear into B.C. Rail or BCDC. If he wants to go back

and understand why they put it in there originally, it was expropriated

to protect the land around a superport being built in this province — a

coal port right now that is one of the finest coal ports in the world.

It has provided hundreds of jobs across British Columbia, not only in

the lower mainland but also in the Kootenays and other areas where that

coal is coming from. It was a brave and a smart decision of the

government of that day to preserve those 4,000 acres of land around

this port, because in the future the citizens of British Columbia are

going to say: my god, who were the brilliant group of people who took

over that land so many years ago to make it available for a superport

in this province? We're certainly going to have a superport in that

area.

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. REYNOLDS: I had a note about it here somewhere: it's

Ridley Island where this government is spending so much money in

employing approximately.... It happens to be in the constituency of the

member for Prince Rupert. I notice he didn't talk about that today and

tell us how proud he was that this government doesn't show bias in this

province. We created 1,200 jobs in the constituency of the member for

Prince Rupert. And here's an NDP group that talks about this party and

its inability to get jobs, and here we create 1,200 jobs right in that

member's riding.

MR. REID: Those are real jobs.

MR. REYNOLDS: And a lot of them are union jobs, done by your

good Social Credit government. That's why I say Bill 25 is so important

to this House.

MS. BROWN: That's a federal job.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, listen to the NDP. Mr. Speaker, I don't

want to listen to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, because she's the one

who also talked about her West Indian cricket team, and we know how

incorrect she was on that matter.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds to withdraw that remark.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, because he's worse than the remark I made.

[ Page 711 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sorry, it has to be an unqualified withdrawal. The member will withdraw without qualification.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw that remark, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, that's sufficient.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind what the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds calls me, because she never knows what she's talking

about anyway.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I intend in a future debate to get

up and talk about her comments about the West Indian cricket team and

how misleading they were, and how that member can create racism in this

province by false and misleading remarks.

MR. LEA: Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We're now getting into personal references

throughout the House. I'll ask the member to speak to Bill 25. I call

for order, please.

MS. BROWN: Go ahead, tell us about racism.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't have to tell you about racism; you create enough of it yourself in this province.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll call the member to order one more time. Please proceed on Bill 25.

MR. REYNOLDS: The gentleman over here says I'm Mulroney's

spokesman. Well, Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm just speaking on Bill

25, telling the people of this province what a great job this

government is doing in transferring this land. I want to explain

something that the member for Prince Rupert doesn't seem to understand.

He talked about 4,000 acres of farmland, which is what this bill is

about. That 4,000 acres of farmland is leased out to farmers in that

area. In fact, one of the finest turf farms in all of Canada is part of

that 4,000 acres. A gentleman by the name of Bill Friesen and his

father, John, are the owners of that. If this member for Prince Rupert

who complains about this bill would sit down and talk to some of those

people...they lease that land off this government right now, off the

Harbour Board; they'll lease it off of BCDC. They're developers;

they're promoters of British Columbia. They'll be happy someday to have

to give up that land that they're making money off of now as farmers to

help this government and this province create a superport in this

province. That's why it's so important, Mr. Speaker, that we take this

land right now and put it into BCDC and B.C. Rail, the people who

should have control of it, the people who are out promoting this

province to create more jobs in ths province. It wouldn't surprise me,

knowing this minister and how hard he works, that.... He must have

something....

MR. REID: He knows something.

MR. REYNOLDS: He knows something, Mr. Speaker, that these

people are working on in this province to create something in that

superport. He must have something in the back of his mind. I know how

hard he works, and I expect to see something very great in this.

But that turf farm I mentioned.... If the NDP want to go back and

check, they opposed a turf farm going in there because they said turf

farms take the soil out of the land. Only when they heard from the

experts did they find out that turf farms actually increase the soil

and the value of it. But they slunk away and didn't talk about it,

because they don't know anything about farming. They like to talk about

it, and talk about farmland as if it's their God-given right to be the

defenders of it. But it's this government that has made some good

decisions on the farmland that they've used around that coal port, and

they'll make good decisions in the future.

MS. BROWN: Giving it away to all your friends; that's a good decision.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds says we're

giving it away to all our friends. Again, she doesn't know what she's

talking about, because this land is not being given away to anybody.

It's creating jobs for the people of this province, jobs that will

allow this government to continue with the greatest social programs of

any province in this country. It's supporting things like the B.C.

Summer Games, so that people can play cricket; so that all people of

all races and creeds can play cricket with no racism involved.

Once again I would just like to congratulate the minister for

getting up and doing a great job in this House. I now move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

Reynolds

Ree

Parks

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

NAYS — I

Lauk

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 30, Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act.

[ Page 712 ]

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in 1973, when the socialists were the government in this province, they....

Interjection.

[3:45]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The socialists were the government. That's

what I said. When you socialists over there were government, the NDP

government of the day bought a white elephant on behalf of the people

of this province. The writing was on the wall. Crown Zellerbach, who

then owned the Ocean Falls Corporation, realized that its Ocean Falls

newsprint operation would shortly be uneconomical. So with the logic of

all true socialists, the NDP government blundered dramatically, and the

taxpayers of this province have been paying through the nose for that

mistake. On behalf of all of us, the socialist government purchased the

Ocean Falls mills operation from Crown Zellerbach, but they didn't have

the intelligence at the time to buy a guaranteed wood supply to go with

it. Today it costs more than half a million dollars just to ensure that

Ocean Falls will not deteriorate to the point where future operations

may not be viable.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm saying it in here. Maybe if you'd pay

attention and stay in here once in a while you'd learn something,

instead of just sitting over there yacking.

The tabling of the two acts, the Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act

and the British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act, is a significant

success story for the Social Credit government. It is a reversal of

what might be considered a serious error by the previous NDP regime,

when Bob Williams made the taxpayers responsible for various resource

companies under the umbrella of B.C. Cellulose. Among the acquisitions

were Crown Zellerbach's assets at Ocean Falls, purchased by the Crown

for $789,952.

The Bella Coola Development Co. started sawmill operations in 1908.

Pulp operations followed in 1912. In 1915 Crown Willamette Paper Co,

later called Crown Zellerbach, took over the mill. In 1917 newsprint

production began. Peak production was achieved in 1945. In 1964 Ocean

Falls began to suffer economic problems due to obsolete production

facilities. Between 1965 and 1971 three of the six paper machines were

shut down. In 1972 Crown Zellerbach announced that all operations would

cease within a year. In 1973 the NDP government purchased this troubled

Ocean Falls operation on behalf of the people of British Columbia. When

the Social Credit government returned to power in 1975, it was with the

firm belief that the government should not be involved in areas that

had traditionally been served by the free market and the private

sector. Former Forests Minister Ray Williston was given the job of

privatizing the acquisition of B.C. Cellulose Company. The result was

BCRIC. It was ruled that the trouble-plagued Ocean Falls operation

would only be a millstone around the neck of the newly created private

organization. Ocean Falls Corporation continued to be the taxpayers'

financial responsibility under the umbrella of B.C. Cellulose. B.C.

Cellulose's formal relationship with Ocean Falls Corporation is limited

to providing loans. Mr. Ray Williston is chairman of both corporations.

Between 1974 and 1978 Ocean Falls Corporation spent almost $12

million on mill renovations and equipment-upgrading in an effort to

save that plant.

MR. LAUK: Under which government?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Under this government! If you'd pay attention you wouldn't have to ask all those stupid questions.

MR. LAUK: You're incompetent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to talk a little bit about

incompetence. I'll tell you I listened to the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) just a little while ago, and I have never heard such an

incompetent, nincompoop speech in this Legislature in my life. They

have been here asking for the Legislature to be recalled, begging that

we recall the Legislature, and then they come in here and all they do

is bring in motions that they want to adjourn debate. They're not

prepared. Not once did he mention the principle of the bill as he tried

to debate it.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, while the minister is calming

himself, I think, Mr. Speaker, sir, you will find that "nincompoop" is

an unparliamentary expression. I ask the minister to withdraw that

attack on the hon. member for Prince Rupert — and on the hon. member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who was so embarrassed

and hurt that he has left the chamber,

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, I distinctly

heard the member who had the floor and who was making his speech say it

was a nincompoop speech. I would agree if he had called any member in

this House a nincompoop it may have been unparliamentary, but clearly

he referred to the member's speech.

MR. LEA: As I'm the butt of that unparliamentary term, I

don't know whether to be insulted or not. What I want the minister to

do is explain what "nincompoop" is, so we in this House can know

whether it was an unparliamentary word.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will withdraw the word "nincompoop." The

very fact that the member from Prince Rupert doesn't understand what it

means shows how incompetent he is.

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was talking about

incompetence. I have to say again, Mr. Speaker, that I have never in

all the years that I have been in this Legislature seen or heard such

an incompetent opposition. At one time I used to think they were a good

opposition, and that's what they were best suited for. But now they're

not even capable of or suited to being opposition.

However, Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. Between 1974 and 1978 Ocean

Falls Corporation did spend about $12 million on mill renovation and

equipment upgrading in an effort to save this mill for the people of

British Columbia. Losses increased dramatically in 1978 and 1979 due to

escalating wood and energy costs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 713 ]

In 1980 a very difficult decision was needed and was made. The

corporation's newsprint mill was shut down in June, but studies

indicated that logging and a flitch mill would be feasible for new

products, depending on markets recovering. With markets now on the

brink of recovery, active negotiations are underway to utilize

facilities at Ocean Falls and provide a basis for private sector

initiatives in logging and sawmilling. This is due to the preservation

and expertise of Ray Williston and the long-term planning of the Social

Credit government. It has been a long, hard battle, and the ideal

resolution is far from certain.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty short opening speech by the minister.

Before I start into my presentation, you should know that Ocean

Falls is in my riding. It's been a matter of discussion in this House

over the 11 years that I've been here.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What speech? That member doesn't know from

anything. I've spoken on this matter in every session, on numerous

occasions. In the last session of this Legislature that particular

issue of Ocean Falls was raised by me some 18 times without one direct

answer from that minister over there.

What I started to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, was that I strongly

object to the government's coming in here, as they've been doing week

after week, changing around the order of bills so that we don't know

from one minute to the next what bill is going to be brought before

this House. At a time when we should be discussing the budget we've

only have three days of budget discussion.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the budget, Mr. Speaker. Why aren't we in

here discussing the budget like we should be? You're trying to ram

these bills down the throats of the people of British Columbia. They

know very well that we will not let this atrocious legislation pass in

this House. As a democratic and loyal opposition we have a duty in this

House to protect the interests of the people of British Columbia, and I

damn well intend to take

part in that protection. That's the reason I

was elected.

Anyway, back to the bill, Bill 30, speech number 6. Mr. Speaker, I

just want to go back a bit for the edification of some of the new

members in this House who are down having coffee right now. Well,

that's all right. I go down for coffee myself, Mr. Speaker, once in a

while. There's nothing wrong with that. I just want to back up a bit

and give you a bit of the history of Ocean Falls since I've represented

that area.

The community at one time had about 1,200 employees and was

thriving. In about 1971 Crown Zellerbach Ltd. which owned and operated

Ocean Falls at that time, made a public statement that they were in

fact considering closing the operation. There was an election coming up

in 1972, so a number of things happened. Specifically, Mr. Williston,

who was then Minister of Forests, and Mrs. Isabel Dawson, now deceased,

God rest her, went into Ocean Falls and met with the Crown Zellerbach

Company. To make a long story short, I think for political reasons it

was decided....

I'm a little ahead of myself. This was about 1969, just after the

election, and there were meetings with the company. To make a long

story short, the company resolved not to close down the operation. I

don't know precisely what the transaction was; I believe it was on the

basis of Crown Zellerbach's receiving more timber rights on the coast

of British Columbia, or having their long-term timber rights renewed.

In any event, that decision was made, and as a consequence a number of

things happened.

The government built a brand-new school at a cost of I don't know

how many millions of dollars. Included in that school was the largest

gymnasium in any school in British Columbia, most of which was paid for

by private funds and public subscription, not through government funds

or the local school board. That school is still there, by the way;

we'll talk about all those things later. Another major construction was

a brand-new, fully equipped modern hospital with, I believe, nine beds.

I'm just going from memory. Certainly it was one of the most up-to-date

facilities in British Columbia.

All of those things were based on their promise that that operation

would remain open, but lo and behold, in the early spring of 1972 Crown

Zellerbach decided to close the operation. This was a few months prior

to the 1972 provincial election. It really was a black eye for the

government when all these many millions of dollars had been spent for

the library, for a new liquor store and all kinds of things. All this

money was spent, and a decision was made arbitrarily by the Crown

Zellerbach Corporation to close the community. By August of 1972

termination notices had been given, people were in the process of

moving out, and the operation was to cease total operation by August....

I'm going once again from memory, because I haven't had an

opportunity to get my notes. The way the government handles their

business in this House is simply atrocious; no other House in the

British Commonwealth handles their business so atrociously as the

people do in this House. But my notes will be along shortly. I may be

out a month or two on precise dates, but the time-frame is approximate.

[4:00]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the community of Ocean Falls was due to

shut down completely, under the Social Credit government of that day,

on, I believe, September 30, 1972. In the meantime, something funny

happened on the way to the forum, There was an election, and a good

government was elected on August 30, 1972. For the first time in the

history of this province a good democratic socialist government was

elected, a government that felt responsible to all the people in this

province. Early in 1973 the then Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Bob

Williams, announced to the people of British Columbia that we had

purchased Ocean Falls for $1 million. I am sure the minister who

brought this bill to the House remembers that, because he was in this

House at the time.

That operation then became a Crown corporation. It was a reduced

operation. By that time there were some 500 employees in the mill, and

it saved the jobs of the 500 people employed directly in the mill, and

saved the community itself. There were some 1,200 to 1,400 people,

including children, in the community at that time. The purchase price

was approximately $1 million to the people of the province, and in my

view, it was a good purchase on behalf of the people of the province.

[ Page 714 ]

I might point out — and I'm going to point it out again later in

this presentation — particularly for the benefit of the new members in

this House, that that operation showed a profit for every year of

operation under a New Democratic Party government, including, I

believe, the year 1976 when the Social Credit government regained

office in this province, although the profit for 1976 was minimal. As I

recall, it was below $100,000, but it did show a profit even in 1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than our money back.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Far more. Not only did the operation show a

profit as a good free enterprise type of operation, where you make a

profit on your investment and all these things, but it did more than

that. Ocean Falls was the focal point for the whole central coast

community. If you needed good hospital treatment, libraries, recreation

facilities — these kinds of things, whatever — all those things were

there. But it did more than that. The people who were employed in that

community paid taxes to the federal and provincial governments. And so

we had that return. There were water licence fees. There were all kinds

of returns to the province of British Columbia as a result of that

community and that corporation operating. So there were those returns

to the people. But it did something else that is very important. And

the minister over there, who brought this bill before the House, knows

very well how important offshore dollars are to the economies of

British Columbia and Canada. That corporation returned literally

hundreds of millions of dollars over those years to the province of

British Columbia and to Canada — offshore dollars that otherwise would

not have come to British Columbia, that otherwise would not have been

available to British Columbia. So those dollars were injected into the

British Columbia economy as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I see the minister is giving me a long look, and I understand why he

is looking at me that way. It's because we understood at the time that

we purchased — and I say "we" because I was part of the government,

although I was quite a way back on the back bench; you actually needed

binoculars to find me back there, but I was part of that government and

proud to be part of that government.... In any event, we understood

very well that the operation was old and would not compete in the

modern industrial age, with the large companies like Crown Zellerbach

at Elk Falls and MacMillan Bloedel at Harmac, Powell River and Alberni

— certainly at Powell River and Harmac — modernizing, putting in

thermal mechanical pulping operations and these kinds of things. In the

future that operation could probably not compete in world markets. As a

result of that, the then Minister of Forests retained Simons and Co., a

leading pulp mill consultant, recognized all over the world, to do a

study of the best future for that community, of the operations of that

corporation, of the best return for dollars invested, and all of those

things — good free enterprise principles that we're all familiar with

and cherish when we see them around here. We hardly see them any more

in this province, but once in a while there's a bit around. The study

was finally completed in November 1975. As you know, there was an

election in December 1975 and that huge study was then given to the

present Social Credit government in February, as I recall, of 1976. The

present chairman of the board was good enough to let me have a look at

that study, although the study has never been made public. I've asked

that the study — some years ago, but there's no point now — be tabled

in this House. It never was tabled. It has never been made generally

public. However — and I'll be referring to this a bit later — somehow I

received a

summary of that study in a brown paper envelope in 1976, and

I'll be quoting from it later.

But I want to back up a bit, because I really haven't had the

opportunity to discuss this. There are probably other members in this

House who are more knowledgeable about this matter than I am, but I

want to refer to it in passing. When the NDP were the government and

Ocean Falls was operating at a profit, the then opposition, the Social

Credit members who were sitting in this House at that time, continually

railed at our members on the treasury benches about the purchase of

Ocean Falls. They said that it had been a wrong and a bad buy — it was

a Crown corporation. "Give it to private enterprise, give it away,

close it down, do whatever." The fact is, as I attempted to point out a

while ago, that corporation did show a profit, did keep a lot of people

employed in the province, and did do a lot of good for British Columbia.

There was one particularly bad incident, which I'm sure some of the

members recall. I'm sure the minister sitting opposite who introduced

the bill will remember this. I don't remember the precise details, but

I will if I have the opportunity to go through Hansard and get

the details, which I'm sure I will do to jog my memory and the

minister's. This was more than an incident; it seemed to be a totally

unfounded allegation at the time that the Crown corporation and

directors were somehow selling the pulp and paper produced in that

community at some warehouse sale price and that some stock promoter was

making a great deal of money out of the on-the-spot market by reselling

paper and products produced in Ocean Falls. This turned out to be

almost totally incorrect. It's a common practice when you're selling

pulp, paper, oil, sow bellies, beans, wheat or whatever, particularly

when you have no firm markets, although there were firm markets.

I'll get into that after a while, because there were further allegations and transactions and contracts broken with the Los Angeles Times . I'll give the minister a clue now so he can make notes and we can discuss the Los Angeles Times

incident later in this debate. It left the impression that some

promoter was getting rich on products produced in Ocean Falls.

Allegations were made in this House and there were items in the

newspaper, most of which were totally incorrect and unfounded. I just

wanted to jog the minister's memory and remind him that those kinds of

allegations were made on this side of the House when they were in the

opposition. When we stand up on this side of the House to make

allegations based on good research and on fact, they yell across the

floor, "Wrong again." The fact is that that irresponsible opposition

made those allegations regarding Ocean Falls between 1972 and 1975,

without one shred of evidence that I personally am aware of. I didn't

appreciate that. These were people in my community who I represented.

They were trying to make an honest living, and I didn't appreciate that

very much.

The study I referred to still has "confidential" stamped all over

it. As I said, I received it mysteriously in the mail in a brown paper

envelope in 1976. It's not the whole study, but the

summary indicates

that the Simons study actually recommended three alternatives based on

the future of Ocean Falls

[ Page 715 ]

so that operation could become a profitable and

viable operation. I'm going to quote just a bit. I believe this is a

summary of the

summary; I don't want to read it all at this point. I

might later. This alternative would have had the newsprint production

retained at 100,000 tons a year using the existing ground wood and

newsprint facilities. The bleached-kraft mill would produce 253, 080

tons of bleached market pulp and 19, 0801 tons of semi-bleached sludge

for newsprint finish.

Alternative 2. A new bleached-kraft mill and a sawmill complex, as

indicated in the base case, would be constructed at Bella Coola. Three,

the new bleached-kraft pulp mill would be located at Ocean Falls, the

base case, where the sawmill operation is split between Ocean Falls and

Bella Coola. Those are the three alternatives.

I'm sure that sounds like a lot of gibberish. It doesn't really make

much sense unless you read the whole study. Basically what we were

saying in these three recommendations.... The recommendation which was

favoured by myself and the managers of the Ocean Falls Corporation at

the time was a combination of a new kraft mill at the Ocean Falls

Corporation site coupled with a plywood mill, because of the cheap

electrical energy. Right now, there's literally.... Every time the

price of a barrel of oil goes up, that hydro power, which is going over

the dam now and not doing anything, becomes more valuable. In other

words, Ocean Falls had access, at that time, to cheap electrical

energy. It is now and has for several years been going to waste.

Interjection.

[4:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just don't recall. I don't have it in front of me, but I know it was quite extensive.

As well, that alternative would have included a one-half million

board feet a day sawmill complex at Bella Coola, which would have

increased the tax base in that community, utilizing timber primarily

from the Chilco plateau, which is quickly being alienated but at some

future time will come down through the Bella Coola valley. The residue

suitable for pulp and paper manufacture would have been barged down to

Ocean Falls for processing. That alternative would have provided

employment for many of the 1,200 native Indian people located at Bella

Bella, because part of that plan would have been to utilize timber on

the central coast of this province, which is also being alienated very

quickly by this government through long-term leases to other companies.

But at that time, it was the single largest block of timber remaining

in Crown hands. Right now it's being alienated. I think Crown

Zellerbach has a piece of it; I know Weldwood has; also other companies

that don't come to mind. In any event, that timber is being alienated.

The plan would have provided employment on the logging operation side

for our native Indian people in the Bella Bella area. A lot of that

timber certainly was suitable for plywood production.

Part of the thinking of the government of the day was that rather

than have everything processed on the lower mainland — there was some

decentralization — we would keep that operation decentralized because

of the schools, hospitals, houses and modern homes in that community,

and have some of the work performed.... You wouldn't be aware of this,

Mr. Speaker, but there is a great deep-sea port in Ocean Falls of all

places, which has no railroad or roads leading in or out. Nonetheless,

this would have created all these new jobs, had any one of these

recommendations been followed, particularly the recommendation I

personally favoured because it would have provided jobs for our native

Indians in Bella Bella, which is an economically depressed area. It

would have provided a couple of hundred jobs for people in the Bella

Coola valley and provided a tax base for the whole central coast

region, so they could enjoy some of the things people enjoy perhaps on

the Sunshine Coast, Delta, the lower mainland, wherever.

They have a very difficult time in terms of tax base in that part of

the coast. You can understand why: a total population of possibly 2,400

in the Bella Coola valley, and some 1,200 people in Bella Bella, which

is a large Indian village, as you know; 70 people now in Ocean Falls,

but as of June 1980 there were about 1,200 to 1,300 people who remained

in that community. That's just a bit of background.

My point is that the government had all this information to work

with but it did nothing. I grant you that the operation did stay in

existence until June 1980, as I said. It did show a loss; we can read

the quarterly financial reports and annual reports as well as anybody

else, but even with the losses, it was the thinking of some economists

that the mere fact that 450 people were employed there contributed to

the total welfare of the total provincial community, through taxes and

through offshore dollars coming into this province; this would suggest

that the community could have remained open until a plan had been

completed to modernize the system. I know the minister is familiar....

In the minister's closing statements on this bill whenever we close

debate on this bill, next month or whenever — I expect to hear that

studies were carried out. There was the central coast timber survey;

there is a bit of question mark around that one; I hope you remember to

get back to that particular topic at some time. In fact, I think I'll

make myself a note, Mr. Speaker, if you wouldn't mind. There's a little

bit of funny goings-on with that survey. Studies were done on the

operations: were the energy requirements sufficient to meet a

thermo-mechanical pulping operation?

Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know that a

thermo-mechanical pulping operation utilizes some 90 percent of the

fibre,

whereas the sulphate and sulphite operations in pulp and paper

mills utilize 55 to 60 percent of the fibre. So you get much better use

out of the wood production.

Talking about wood production, I'd better make another note here.

The government did do studies and, of course, the energy requirements

for a thermo-mechanical pulping operation in Ocean Falls — oh,

availability, that was the word.... They did, in fact, do these pretty

expensive studies, and I presume, since they closed the community down

eventually, they decided that the whole operation was far too

expensive. But, Mr. Speaker, I know that it's hard to capture the

interest of the whole province in a community that has been closed down

for three years. A lot of people have perhaps forgotten about it, but I

think it's important — possibly it's my last chance — to get this

matter on record, and I intend to utilize this opportunity on behalf of

those people remaining in Ocean Falls; not only on behalf of those

people, but for the 55,000 to 60,000 people who have passed through at

one time or another and have lived and worked in Ocean Falls, including

two members of this House that I'm personally aware of.

So, Mr. Speaker, one of the excuses the government used in terms of

this study, and one of the issues they used in debate time and time

again in this House, was that when we purchased Ocean Falls from Crown

Zellerbach and set up the new corporation of Ocean Falls, we didn't

include availability

[ Page 716 ]

of wood supply. But as I recall that contract with

the Crown Zellerbach company at the time, a long-range contract was

signed with Crown Zellerbach that they would guarantee, no matter what,

even ahead of their own operations, a wood supply to that community — a

contract which, as far as I am aware, they honoured for the duration of

that contract. As a result of the Simons report — and it was our

government's intention to make available to Ocean Falls, when the study

was completed, which it was in November 1975, and presented to this

government in 1976.... We would utilize timbers from the Chilco

plateau, and particularly the central coast area, for the Ocean Falls

area.

Now, I'm very sure that the large corporations in this province

probably were very upset when they became aware of the contents of the

study. Not that Ocean Falls would remain in operation — they didn't

really care about that, because it was a relatively small operation

compared to Powell River, Elk Falls, Harmac or corporations of that

size. But I think they became very concerned when they discovered that

one of the recommendations in this study was that this timber be

allocated to the Ocean Falls Corporation and not to themselves. I think

that at that point they became very concerned. I think this government

— and I have nothing to back this statement up because I did not have

tapes in the minister's office, and I got no brown-paper envelopes, and

nobody from any of the large companies came and told me.... As a matter

of fact, I did have word from the representative of one of the large

companies at some point, come to think of it. But as my colleague says,

it's logical that the large companies weren't very happy with this, and

no wood was allocated to Ocean Falls — none of the recommendations in

this study, of which this is only a

summary; the study is volumes.

That's part of the reason why the government made no move at all, and

in fact eventually closed down the operations.

I think part of the other reason that the government closed down the operation was sheer political vindictiveness.

AN HON. MEMBER: They voted NDP.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, good point. We carried Ocean Falls for

many, many years, as far as I can remember, going, back to, in fact,

Bakewell. We once had a candidate who was fired for running as a

candidate for the CCF in Ocean Falls. He was never rehired at Ocean

Falls because he ran as a candidate for the social democratic party — a

party with a conscience. He ran for that party and was never hired

back. I had the good fortune, by the way, to meet with Mr. Bakewell's

son just a short time ago, who, by the way, is older than I am,

In any event, I might pat myself on the back a little bit. In 1975 Ocean Falls voted 96 percent for the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: The kiss of death.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, that's why I mentioned the words "political vindictiveness."

I believe that the government had made up its mind, when it was

elected to office in 1975, no matter what, not to take the operation of

Ocean Falls seriously and to close that community down — no matter what

— in spite of the fact that there were 150 modern homes in Martin

Valley, adjoining Ocean Falls. There's room in the huge, modern

apartment buildings alone for some 2,000 people, 1,500 families, plus

the older

section of town, much of which has been torn down over the

last eight years, home after home after home. Had those homes been

anywhere else in British Columbia they would have commanded a very

handsome price, but they were torn down, wrecked; garbage, gone forever.

I firmly believe the government was showing its political

vindictiveness and had made up its mind, on its re-election to

government in 1976, to close that community down no matter what. Today,

that community could be open and operating; there should be at least

1,000 people actually employed. That community should be serving the

whole central coast area. The hospital is shut down. A $2.5 million

school is shut down and just sits there, idle. Brand-new firefighting

equipment that any smaller community in British Columbia would be proud

to have, shut down. Nobody there. Nothing. A brand-new hospital

facility, totally equipped, X-ray equipment, everything that you'd want

in a modern hospital is sitting there empty. As a matter of fact, after

the government finally closed the community for good in 1980 the

arrangement was that a doctor would be flown in once a month. Would you

believe it? Once a month. Even that hasn't worked. A lot of things

haven't worked since then, but I'll get to that a bit later. The people

up there don't even have the services of a doctor on a monthly basis.

Now, if something happens and they have to see a doctor, they go by

private pleasure boat or private craft of any kind, or by charter

aircraft, which is very expensive, by the way. They have to fly down to

what is now a modern facility at Bella Bella. Luckily there is a

private person in the community who has some nursing experience, so

that's of some assistance.

That's the state of the community right now. That's a thumbnail

sketch which I'll probably go over again later, Mr. Speaker, and

possibly in more detail when I have a chance to look through the stuff.

That thumbnail sketch takes us up to June 1980, when the government,

through the Crown corporation, sent a letter of termination and intent

to all of its some 400 employees who were still employed at the mill at

that time. In that letter, a copy of which I have somewhere in this

pile of stuff in front of me, the government promised — in writing —

that within six months there would be a new operation in place in that

community, possibly a chip mill or whatever....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, it's on file. It's from you. It's a

government letter, Mr. House Leader, through you, Mr. Speaker. Ask the

minister. He must have it.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker. Because

of the atrocious way the government handles business in this House,

calling bills on the spur of the moment, without letting our Whips know

what's going on, I wouldn't have this document, which is here in this

pile of stuff. I barely had time to go and grab it out of my office and

come roaring in here to take

part in this debate. If the House Leader

wishes to come over and go through my files and pick out the letter

that I'm referring to, which I will find as soon as I have the

opportunity, he's welcome to do so. As well, in going through these

files in an organized manner he might learn something about what

happened at Ocean Falls. In fact I

[ Page 717 ]

think just by sheer luck, Mr. Speaker, I grabbed this. It was right on top of the first pile. Would you believe that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's good organization.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: At least I'm organized. You guys over there

don't know from one minute to the next what business you're dealing

with. No wonder this province is going to have another billion and a

half dollar deficit this year, on top of the $1.3 billion last year.

There was no deficit under an NDP government. We made money. We left

this government over $400 million in 1975, and what have they done?

They've squandered it and run this province into debt. Now they're

trying to pay off the debt on the backs of the poor and the working

people. They're doing away with human rights and bringing in a

so-called restraint package which has absolutely nothing to do with

many of those bills of restraint. They're simply anti-people bills.

This bill is part of the package. What's restraint about this bill?

What you could have done under this bill, had you been organized and

doing your job, Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader.... I've decided to be

designated. What the heck, I've got lots of time; I'm not going

anywhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Mackenzie has been designated as the speaker on Bill 30.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I haven't even had a chance to go through all this stuff yet, and I want to get it all in the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you going to start saying something?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You haven't been listening.

Well, Mr. Speaker, where was I? 1980. Closure. The letter and a

statement from Mr. Ray Williston, chairman of the board, Ocean Falls

Corporation....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I think I will. I think it should be read

into the record. This was dated March 6, 1980. This was the date, Mr.

Speaker, that the government, through its Crown corporation people, Mr.

Williston, announced the imminent closure of Ocean Falls. The final

closure date by the way, as I stated, was June 30, 1980. The letter

says:

"Changing economic circumstances, related to

increasing input and operating costs, have forced the Ocean Falls

Corporation management to recommend that the newsprint mill must be

closed down in the near future. All avenues to remedy the situation and

to maintain an expanded newsprint mill have been exhausted.

"A proposal for modified and expanded milling

operations to support the community, which could eventually lead to a

new kraft pulp mill, is outlined below. It has been determined that the

production of kraft pulp at Ocean Falls could be feasible if the

necessary volume of woodfibre at competitive cost could be assured

through some form of pulpwood agreement.

"The Minister of Forests has ruled that the present

standards of wood utilization on the midcoast will not permit expansion

of the allowable annual cut to ensure the required timber supply for a

new or expanded pulp mill."

Now this, Mr. Speaker, just to stop there for a minute, is exactly

the point I was trying to make earlier, in conjunction with the Simons

study. The government knew very well that in order for the Ocean Falls

Corporation and that operation to stay in effect, they would have to

designate timber from the central coast and Chilko plateau areas, as

recommended in the study to the Ocean Falls Corporation. The government

had from 1976 until 1980 to do that, but they did nothing. They did

studies but nothing else. They had a good five years to rectify that

situation and make those decisions, but they made no decisions and did

nothing.

One of the things I'm leading up to, and I want to get this on the

record now, is that — and this will come out as I go through this

material — the employees were promised that within six months a new

type of operation would be in place in Ocean Falls. A flitch-and-chip

mill is....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You know what a flitch is. A flitch is a piece of a log that has

been squared on four sides, which basically makes them logs eligible

for export to a foreign country — usually from British Columbia to

Japan, which is fine. They can do that legally, without that log being

called a raw log. It didn't, then, have to go through the log export

board or anything like that. You just knock off the bark on four sides

so it's kind of squared. A normal flitch still has bark on the comers,

but it's called a square timber — which it wasn't. The chip part refers

to a particle board type of operation, which Mr. Williston did a great

deal of work on. But that is not the point of what I'm saying here.

The point is that the government promised that within six months

there would be a new type of operation in that community. Quite

obviously, the government didn't keep its word. A lot of people stayed

in the community hoping that something would happen.

By the way, I want to rectify that shutdown date, just for the

record. Somewhere back in my speech I said June 30, but the document I

have before me shows that the phase-three, total shutdown was June 1,

1980 — just to keep the record straight.

In any event, the government did promise these people who stayed in

that community. Small business stayed in that community because there

were some small business people in that community, people who had

private stores and little operations but who made a living there. They

stayed in that community, and there was no sign of a flitch-and-chip

mill or anything else after 1980. It was just another broken government

promise.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'd like a smoke.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm just going back. I know it's boring.

We're discussing a community that's been part of British Columbia since

1908, I believe.

Interjection.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member who's not in his seat — he's

sitting in the Premier's seat and hopes to be there one of these days —

asks if we're going to pay the $35 million one of these days. Had the

government used good, sound management practices in that community

instead of setting out on a political vendetta, not only would the $35

million have been repaid, but that operation would also have continued

to bring offshore dollars into this community.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll remind all members that

it's unparliamentary to heckle at the best of times, but heckling when

one is not in one's place is even more unparliamentary.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the member might return to his seat as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't mean to get that member into a lot of

trouble. Gee, I feel like I'm back in grade 4. I didn't want to squeal

on him. I enjoy that member. Once every third week he comes up with a

really good interjection.

In any event, where was I? I was saying that I know that a lot of

this is dull stuff, but the fact is that it may be the last chance to

get the Ocean Falls situation on public record, and I intend to use the

opportunity. That operation had been a vital part of British Columbia's

economy since, I believe — once again I'm going from memory — 1908 or

so. It was somewhere around that time that the Ocean Falls Corporation

was originally founded in that community by a Mr. Martin and another

free enterpriser, who provided many jobs for many people in this

province for many years. At one time, you may be interested to know,

there were about 5,000 people employed in that community, believe it or

not. The largest hotel in British Columbia was the Martin Inn at Ocean

Falls. It was six storeys, with I don't know how many rooms. It's still

there and operational. The last time I was up there, during the last

election campaign, there were me and three others, and we had our

choice of about 700 rooms. We had the whole place to ourselves pretty

well.

[4:45]

Anyway, getting back to 1980, I guess the point I was trying to make

is that the government made a commitment in writing to the people of

that community, and in effect to the people of this province and to the

people in this Legislature, that there would be an alternative

operation in spite of the fact that the pulp mill was, in their words,

obsolete. It probably was — some of the machines up there were very old

and needed modernizing. I heard some but not all of the minister's

opening remarks; I'll see them tomorrow in Hansard . I know that

a lot of money was spent on studies, and that there was some $12

million on the head boxes, and I know what head boxes and these kinds

of things in a pulp mill are. I live in a pulp mill community, as a

matter of fact, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker. I know those moneys

were spent, but why did the government spend those moneys if they had

no intention of modernizing the community, or allocating wood to the

Ocean Falls Corporation? They could have done that, particularly once

this study was completed. This really burns me, Mr. Speaker, and makes

me extremely angry. We were a bit lucky as government that that

operation in Ocean Falls made money. We knew that the pulp mill was

old, that the machines were obsolete and needed modernization, and the

government was very much aware of all that. The government did nothing

from 1976, in spite of the fact that they had the results of the study

which we didn't have, commissioned by our government, not based on any

other principles but good private enterprise principles, on return on

investment, etc.

Any of these three options at that time, because in 1976 interest

rates were somewhere around 10 percent, would have resulted in a net

return of 10 percent on funds invested, so this wasn't some

fly-by-night type of recommendation put forward. The government knew

that in 1976 and right through 1980. Anyway, they did close the place

down. They did promise the residents a newsprint mill. I'm just quoting

from Mr. Williston's letter to the employees: "The newsprint mill now

employs approximately 410 people. About 100 workers will be initially

required to operate the modified wood-processing plant on a two-shift

basis. Logging crews will be able to operate from Ocean Falls, and this

will increase employment opportunities centred on the town." There was

not one job, in spite of 150 people they're possibly talking about

here. In spite of opportunities they may have had to go to other pulp

and paper mill communities to practise their trade, they stayed in that

community on the basis of this government promise that a new operation

would be in place in six months. What happened? Absolutely nothing. I

think there was a further study, then there was a study to study the

study, and then some studies to study those studies.

There was one study which I am a bit concerned about. That was a

timber survey of the area conducted at government expense by the Forest

Service of British Columbia. There may have been some private people

involved who were paid by the government, which is fine. It's normal

practice — I'm not complaining about that. In fact sometimes, in terms

of private timber consultants, you get a much better and a more

realistic evaluation of the type of wood and what you want to do from

them. There's some very good people. I'm not knocking that. What I'm

talking about here is a very expensive and extensive study — I have a

copy and the minister is familiar with it, I'm sure — carried on by the

government on the basis of looking at the kinds of wood we have for our

flitch-and-chip operation, for our particle board operation, to use

low-grade cedar, quite a bit of which is located in the area. The study

indicated there wasn't as much as they thought there was, by the way,

but the study did something else. This is in relation to Ocean Falls

and the corporation; this is the reason the study was carried out, so

I'm pretty sure I'm in order, Mr. Speaker.

The study did something else. That particular survey also found out

and indicated where the good, merchantable timber was in that area. It

had never really been done in that area before. Nobody really knew. So

it was a whole, comprehensive study. I want to be very careful here,

because I don't want to get people in trouble if they don't deserve it,

but certain people were able to utilize that study, the results of

which were paid for by the government, for their own benefit and

purposes, in the central coast area, knowing very well that the

government would never utilize the results of that study in terms of

operations at Ocean Falls.

A lot of allegations have been made, particularly from that part of

the coast, with regard to who got what and who got the freebies in

terms of the results of that study that was essentially paid for by the

taxpayers of this province. That's a story that may or may not come out

in this House at some

[ Page 719 ]

future date, but I think the minister will probably

know what I'm talking about. If he doesn't, I know very well the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who's in the House at the

present time studying his annual report, will know what I'm talking

about for sure.

There have been further problems at Ocean Falls definitely related

to the closure of that operation. One was the transportation into that

community. Depending on who you listen to, there are some 65 to 80

people still living in that community. Of course, as people had to

leave that community, transportation in many, forms ceased. There is no

longer a regularly scheduled aircraft service into that community,

understandably so. It simply would not pay for a regularly scheduled

airline to fly in and out of Ocean Falls. So you have to charter out of

the community.

But worse still, the government made a promise that it would

maintain water services to that community and did initiate ferry

service on a weekly basis to that community, particularly when people

were moving out. Okay, fair enough. Once again, the cost of that

operation was about $200,000 a year, according to B.C. Ferry officials.

I believe that figure. The ferry corporation then decided to terminate

that service into Ocean Falls because of the cost. You must remember

that the government reduced the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation

by some 25.1 percent last year. I notice, just for the record, that the

budget for the ferry service, which is not part of this bill, has been

maintained the same this year as last year, which means a further

reduction in subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. In any event,

because of that reduction in subsidy, the B.C. Ferry Corporation board

of directors decided to terminate service to Ocean Falls and subsidize

a private carrier. The net result of all of this....

I am not opposed to the subsidizing of a private carrier on the

coast of British Columbia in certain circumstances. That just makes

good common sense in some areas. It's much cheaper to subsidize a

private carrier that is going in that direction anyway than it is to

send a whole ten-tonne vessel into a small port on a weekly basis.

There's nothing wrong with that under certain circumstances, and that's

fair enough. But in this case the residents of Ocean Falls were able to

prove quite successfully that if the B.C. Ferry Corporation would stop

by in Ocean Falls once every three weeks, at a cost of about $60,000

per year, they would be able to get their food supplies in, and their

vehicles in and out at a reasonable cost.

That would be at no further cost to the ferry corporation, and I'll

tell you why. The government is currently paying, over and above the

regular subsidy that this particular carrier is receiving, a further

$60,000 a year at the present time. That contract goes, as I understand

it, to December 31 of this year. That private carrier is currently

unable to meet their commitments. It is not a passenger service, so

people are basically stuck in or out of Ocean Falls, or have to charter

a private aircraft, which is very expensive, or they have to hire a

water taxi, which is also very expensive. Service has not been

maintained.

I spoke yesterday morning, just as luck would have it, with a

gentleman, Al Parkes, who operates the hotel and store in the

community. He has not utilized — and, in fact, can't afford to utilize

— the subsidized private carrier currently serving Ocean Falls. So that

people can have food at a half reasonable price — still far above what

we pay here in Victoria or in Vancouver or Powell River — he has now

been forced to hire a fishboat to go out once a week, at some

considerable cost, to either Port Hardy or Bella Coola to bring food

and supplies into that community. Would you believe that this is in

spite of the fact that this government is paying a private carrier

$60,000 a year extra to call in at Ocean Falls? I understand they've

made only two trips into Ocean Falls, in any event. Obviously it does

not appear that the private carrier is living up to his contract; he

says he has no reason to call in there because there is no freight. He

tripled his rates since the contract was signed, and this government is

taking no action. I've been in touch with the Minister of

Transportation (Hon. Mr. A. Fraser) and other people. I have received

no response of any kind yet, but, in all fairness, I expect I will.

We're not talking about transportation estimates. We're talking

about the residents of Ocean Falls and the kinds of things happening to

those people right now under this bill, as a result of the actions of

that incompetent government. Can you believe that it's cheaper for that

small store owner to hire a fishboat in the area, or anybody, to go 80

miles to Bella Coola every week — the highway ends at Bella Coola, as

you well know; there's a wharf there — to bring back supplies than it

is to utilitize the private carrier that is currently receiving $60,000

a year extra to call in at Ocean Falls? It has only made two trips —

possibly three — that I'm personally aware of. It is not providing the

service but is still receiving that $60,000-a-year extra subsidy.

There are senior people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation who agree with

this analysis compiled by the residents of Ocean Falls. For that same

$60,000 a year that ferry could have called in at that community once

every three weeks at no extra cost, and provided a reasonable service

for the remaining residents in that community. It could have brought in

food and things people need, at more or less the same cost as to other

parts of the coast of British Columbia, instead of the horrendous

prices they now pay — and some kind of reasonable service. But no, it's

shortsightedness of the worst kind. On that particular topic, you'll be

hearing a lot more from me during debate on the estimates of the

Minister of Transportation and Highways in particular.

I only raise the matter now to point out the current plight of the

residents of Ocean Falls and to question what their future will be.

I'm just looking through some of my files. As I said before, I

haven't had an opportunity to go through them in great detail, but I

will have that opportunity this evening, and we'll get back to this

bill, presumably tomorrow sometime.

I want to quote from a magazine called the British Columbia Lumberman ,

May 27, 1975: "The Buy of the Century: Ocean Falls." I'm just going to

quote briefly from this article, which seems to be quite lengthy. I

haven't looked at it since.... Well, I don't read the files on Ocean

Falls every day, so I haven't actually seen this particular magazine

since 1976. But anyway, we'll have a look, and I'll do a little quoting

from it. What I'm attempting to point out here.... We were talking

about the desirability of...and the good bargain the government made in

1972. Actually it was in the fall of 1972 when we purchased Ocean

Falls, when the social democratic....

[5:00]

HON. MR. HEWITT: That was your first mistake.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You weren't here when I pointed out and made my arguments about why it wasn't a mistake.

[ Page 720 ]

Just for the benefit of that member who just walked into the

House.... I'm sure he had some important business: he was probably in

cabinet or maybe in a legislative committee meeting, drawing up some

more legislation to bring into the House — probably more anti-labour

legislation, right-to-work laws, and stuff like that, and maybe a

gerrymander bill or two. I don't know what he was doing out there. Just

for the benefit of that member, who was not in the House, I'm now

forced to repeat my argument on why Ocean Falls was a....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, that member asked me a question, and I

believe that every member in this House has a right to know. Just a

thumbnail sketch to that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I'm sure you don't know this, Mr. Minister: between

1972 and 1975