[ Page 701 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Political contributions by McKim or Vrlak Robinson. Mr. Barrett –– 701

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

NAYS — 28

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

NAYS — I

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 the Ocean Falls Corporation showed a profit in every one of those years. Those are the years, by the way, when the New Democratic Party was the government of this province. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) shaking his head. Don't shake it too much. He wasn't here. He wasn't even elected. How would he know? Just going from memory, because I don't have the accounts before me, I believe that even in 1976, in spite of reduced prices for pulp and paper on the world market, the Ocean Falls Corporation showed a profit of under $100,000, somewhere in that area. I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will do his homework. He wasn't here either between '72 and '75, and that's why he's not familiar with the facts.

It's a strange thing. Those people over there just want to believe what they want to believe. They don't want to look at the facts or listen to the truth, because it hurts. Were you in the House, Mr. Minister, when I was discussing the fact that your government did not tell the truth in 1980, when in a letter to the employees and the residents you said that within six months there would be a new and viable operation in Ocean Falls? Where is that operation? That was in 1980. You didn't keep your promise. You didn't keep your promises in the last election campaign. You said that in terms of government employees you would reduce the size of government by attrition, and what did you do? The moment you were elected you brought in an atrocious bill laying off people and taking away people's human rights. You didn't talk about that in the election. You're a government that's not given to telling the whole truth, or even part of it sometimes.

In this case in Ocean Falls and in Bill 30, the government as well.... When this letter was issued in March of 1980 telling the employees they were going to shut down the pulp mill operations in June 1980 and said there would be a viable operation in place within six months, that's some three years ago, and we're still waiting. Now we have this bill before us which totally abolishes the Ocean Falls Corporation.

I heard a portion of the minister's opening remarks where he indicated that they were negotiating with some private company. No details. We don't know who they're negotiating with, what the terms are, or anything else, and that's fair enough, but we would like to know from the minister, in his closing remarks sometime next month when we get to the crux of this bill, a bit more about the negotiations that are taking place, what kind of operation they are talking about and what the terms of that agreement may be.

I just found a copy of the Sandwell report, which the minister is very familiar with, I'm sure. This is relating to an integrated market study, potential products evaluation, the possibility of a thermo-mechanical pulping operation in Ocean Falls, and going back for several years. But we won't go into that one unless we have to.

As late as July 1983.... Here are three or four current news clippings. I've only got these to trigger my memory. July 1983: "Logging Near Ocean Falls Raises Hopes." This is just what I was talking about. This was an article in the Province.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He says to read it out. I was just reading it to myself, but I guess we're supposed to read it out loud if we're going to read it in the House, aren't we? Just to quote from this very current article, it relates to what I was saying about the minister not being candid with the House and giving us, during the course of his opening remarks, a great deal of information.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I didn't get much information. Of course, I was out of the House for a while, but he didn't tell us very much about what kind of operation we are talking about or considering locating in Ocean Falls, what stage the negotiations are at or anything else. That's simply not good enough.

Here's another article. I haven't read this one yet, but we'll get to it. "Axe Poised Over Ghostly Ocean Falls." Mr. Speaker, if you go into that community today you will see a couple of hundred homes boarded up. Large apartment blocks are boarded up. Homes in the Martin Valley — modern three-bedroom, full-basemented....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It proves how wrong you were.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the minister interjects across the floor, which is fine, that it proves how wrong we were, the government, to purchase Ocean Falls. I thought I had attempted to rationally point out to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, why the preservation of those jobs in Ocean Falls for those employees and their families was not a disaster for the province. It only became a disaster when that government was re-elected to government in this province. They mismanaged Ocean Falls Corporation and the whole situation to the point where they couldn't make any money. After the total mismanagement by that government and by that minister, then it made no money and they said: "Well, we're going to close the place down because we're not making any money."

I tried to point out to that minister, Mr. Speaker, that that corporation showed a profit in every year that the NDP operated that operation in Ocean Falls. It brought in I don't know how many millions of offshore dollars and paid taxes, water leases and everything else to the province. Every employee in that corporation paid income tax to this government and contributed in some way to the economy of the province. That corporation only became a disaster when that minister of disasters sitting over there got control of that corporation. That's when they started to lose money, and that's when it

[ Page 721 ]

became a disaster, and that's when the people of Ocean Falls started to lose hope.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Everything you guys did was a disaster.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister says everything our government did between 1972 and 1975 was a disaster. I've got your words on the record. I want to tell you it's quite the opposite. The New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975 was probably the best government this country had seen in 114 years of Confederation, in my view. Let's look at this House, for example. Let's start now. We'll just look at this House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were rejected in 1963. You were rejected in 1966. You were rejected in 1969. You were....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Look at this House. This building was falling down, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have just one at a time. Right now it's the member for Mackenzie.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, there was much more than that. Do you realize that there was no Hansard in this House before 1972? We're just talking about this House, not the whole province, and our record between 197 and 1975 including Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's a waste of money, recording the garbage you're drivelling across the floor!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you realize that there was no question period in this House? Now we've got question.... There's no answer period, but we've got a question period in this House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't asked an intelligent question since you come in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if we'd return to Bill 30 we might maintain some semblance of orderly debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, they keep interrupting. I just can't take those remarks lying down. That member made some atrocious statements about the government between 1972 and 1975 — the best government that this province has ever seen. That government over there has attempted to dismantle many of the programs, including Ocean Falls, put in place by a very good government between 1972 and 1975. Perhaps one of the reasons they were re-elected, Mr. Speaker, is they did not tell the truth out on the hustings. Did they tell the people that they were going to terminate without cause, fire people left, right and centre, and do away with every form of human right that you can almost imagine?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Back to the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, that minister doesn't want to listen. He doesn't want to hear that, does he? I don't blame him. If he's so cocksure of his position, why don't they resign and call an election now, based on their legislation? They're gutless, that's why — gutless wonders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's getting just a bit noisy here. I'll ask the hon. minister not to interject. That applies to everyone. I'll ask the member for Mackenzie to return to the principle of Bill 30.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. House Leader — through you, Mr. Speaker....

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I learned it in logging camps and mining camps. Some of the best words I've learned I learned right here in this House, like "strawberry."

Back to the bill. I see the minister is running for cover — as usual. Mr. Speaker, I could just go on and on. There is a basic concept here. We've had a little fun. We've had, I hope, some serious debate and some history of this Ocean Falls situation, and I know that other members want to speak. But I'm serious when I tell you that over the 11 years that I have attempted to serve the people in Ocean Falls.... We've attempted to maintain that community, which contributed greatly to the economy of the province — a community that should stay in operation. There are a lot of things that can be done even at this late date. Utilizing the recommendations in the Simons report — a summary of which I have here — could return that community.... Because of the cheap electricity, the cheap energy costs there — the dam is in place; the four large generators are in perfect working order; the hospitals, the modern school, library and recreation centre.... All of those things are in place in that community. In my view, to close down that community is a crime against the people of British Columbia.

Well, I've just about....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I'd forgotten about that. That's right. In fact, I had a note on that. Where's the minister?

Mr. Speaker, this government, through the offices of its Crown corporation — and I'm sure we'll hear more about this later on — signed a five-year contract with the Los Angeles Times and then proceeded to break that contract when they announced the closure of the Ocean Falls Corporation in 1980. I don't think that figure has ever been revealed, has it? Have they ever told us how much it cost them? They settled out of court. This government was taken to court in a legal action by the Los Angeles Times, as I recall. The government reneged on that contract. The Los Angeles Times took this government and the Crown corporation to court and they settled out of court. They never did go to court, and that figure has never been made public. I haven't been able to find it in Public Accounts, and I haven't been able to find it in the annual report, nor have I been able to find it in quarterly reports from before the election.

Interjection.

[ Page 722 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, 1979. That's exactly right, an excellent point.

Is the minister at some point going to tell us how much of the taxpayers' money went to pay off the Los Angeles Times in that out-of-court settlement? Why wasn't that figure made public, Mr. Speaker? How much would you guess — three million or four million? We don't know.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One guess is $8 million. Do I hear $10 million?

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We thought that these people.... They claimed to be good money managers, and they blew at least $3 million, $4 million or $5 million of taxpayers' money on a contract they didn't keep. You know what people who don't keep their contracts are called, don't you, Mr. Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Used-car salesmen.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Better a used car-salesman than a social worker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we've had quite enough interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Now that the minister is in his seat, calmed down, with his earplugs out, and is listening, I wonder if, in his closing remarks next month or the month after — whenever we've completed debating the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker — he will tell us how much of the taxpayers' money was spent in that out-of-court settlement with the Los Angeles Times. You never made that figure public, Mr. Minister. That figure wasn't in Public Accounts.

MS. BROWN: Was it $8 million?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We don't know.

Mr. Speaker, that relates directly to this bill, which I have before me. If the government had not made that atrocious out-of-court settlement with the Los Angeles Times, perhaps Ocean Falls would be operating today. That's why it relates to this bill. How do we know Ocean Falls wouldn't be operating? So I'm asking the minister how much of the taxpayers' money he forked over, or under, or around, or through. How much of the taxpayers' money went to pay off that out-of-court settlement with the Los Angeles Times over a contract which that government broke with that newspaper? How much, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not as much as your leader paid Bob Williams to resign.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll call the House to order again.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, is the member having a caucus meeting there, or is he addressing the bill? Although I'd much rather hear him speak than Tweetie Bird, I think he should address the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has brought to the Chair's attention that many other members are speaking and interrupting, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition is interrupting as well. Perhaps we could hear the member for Mackenzie on Bill 30. However, there are more points of order.

MR. COCKE: On that point of order, the minister obviously raised a spurious point of order to try to distress my colleague from the great riding of Mackenzie. I think the minister is probably quite embarrassed because of some of the things this government has done, and that's why he jumped to his feet. It had nothing to do with the fact that the member was asking his colleagues a question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister's point of order was well taken by the Chair, as the Chair ruled, because several members in the assembly were speaking at that time, when in fact the member for Mackenzie had the floor.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Chair to keep order and see that speeches are not interrupted by anything other than bringing a point of order to the Chair's attention. The minister did not have a point of order; he made a statement. I point out to the Chair that it is the Chair's responsibility to keep the House in order, particularly the former Attorney-General and the minister whose bill is being debated. We'd get a lot more work done if order was maintained by the Chair.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the contrary, I was very interested in the speech by the member for Mackenzie, but I couldn't hear it because of all of the little meetings taking place over there. I wish to hear his speech and hear him direct his remarks to the bill under debate in the House at this time. As I said, I'd rather listen to him than Tweetie Bird over there.

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we've had quite enough, thank you. Now, if we can return to debate on Bill 30.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do think I will continue. I'm concerned for the residents. The minister has shown no concern for the residents and the people in the whole central coast area of this province. I think I do have a few more things to say on this bill.

I know that the minister will answer the question on what the out-of-court settlement was to the Los Angeles Times — how much of the taxpayers' money. They broke their contract to that newspaper, as they've broken many contracts and promises in the past and will continue to do.

I've been waiting to quote from this magazine for some time, but I just want to make this point. I can tell from the attitude of that minister and some of the people on the treasury benches that this government has no intention whatsoever.... They'll say one thing and do another time after time, as with this letter to the residents of Ocean Falls telling them that within six months they will have an alternate and viable operation that will employ maybe 150 to 200 people in that community. That was written three years ago, and what have we got? Nothing. This is the same government elected to office some four months ago, who went around this province

[ Page 723 ]

telling people: "Vote for us and we'll practise restraint. There will be no firing without cause, no hospital user fee increases, no tax increases." That is what they did at Ocean Falls under this bill. They said to these people that within six months it would be a viable operation, and what have we got? Backing up, in terms of Ocean Falls, this article in the British Columbia Lumberman by Jean Sorenson is entitled "The Buy of the Century." I don't want to read the whole article; maybe I do. It's worthwhile reading, because it sort of puts into perspective — and I'm sure the minister has read this article and I'm sure he has it in his files; he has a photographic memory, anyway, so if he read the article, he would remember every word of it.... Just to refresh the memories of some other members in the House, so they'll understand a bit of the background, I think this is a good article to read into the record. It's from an article in the British Columbia Lumberman, 1974, quoting a manager of the corporation:

"Skeptics who believe Ocean Falls" — I'm quoting now, for Hansard's sake — "should have been turned into a penal institution will have to deal with Ted Vesak."

Mr. Vesak was the general manager of the operation between 1972 and 1980.

"That may not be an easy matter. Vesak, mill manager, accountant, chairman of the Ocean Falls Corporation, and former pulp and paper planner for Crown Zellerbach will tell you straight out: he believes in the future of Ocean Falls. 'I've studied it inside out, ' he says. He'll also tell you Ocean Falls is sitting in the middle of the largest untapped block of timberland left on the province's west coast."

I believe I said that before, to give you some explanation along those lines.

"Mr. Vesak, who came to Ocean Falls to work for Crown Zellerbach in 1954, and later left a Vancouver head office job to go back, is convinced the provincial government got the buy of the century."

That's from the general manager of the corporation, a leading free-enterpriser.

[5:30]

"For the $1 million paid to Crown Zellerbach by the provincial government, the government received a five-storey hotel, a wood mill, a groundwood mill, a newsprint mill, schools, apartment buildings, subdivisions, a hydro dam, commercial buildings, recreational facilities and 45 acres of townsite valued at close to $50 million."

It was valued at that in 1974. You heard the remarks from the minister across the way; obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Vesak, who also knows the area's weaknesses and strong points, is determined to make Ocean Falls go."

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to just tell you a bit about Ted Vesak. He did not have to return to Ocean Falls when the government bought that corporation. He did have a commitment in that community, and he knew it well. He had the confidence of the employers and residents of that community. He was determined, and actually did a very good job. That operation showed a profit, as I said before, between 1972 and 1975, and, I believe — just going from memory — in 1976 they made a small profit as well. It was quite down, but you must remember that the pulp and paper market was down in 1976 as well. But Ted Vesak did a good job, and he did have a commitment to that community. I firmly believe that if this government had let Mr. Vesak operate that corporation the way it should have been operated, it would be operating today and showing a profit.

This government meddled on a sheer political, vindictive basis, and it was determined to scuttle the Ocean Falls Corporation, which you're doing under this bill, and to undermine Mr. Vesak in every way possible. You made it impossible for Mr. Vesak, the general manager and chairman of the board, to operate that community in an effective way.

Quoting again from this article:

"It is to the chagrin of those opposing Ocean Falls that the corporation can even announce a modest profit for the last fiscal year. 'We made a profit last year, believe it or not, but I haven't submitted the annual report to the Resources minister yet.' "

At that time it was Mr. Williams

" 'He will have to table it first before we make public the profits of the corporation.' "

Going from memory once again, I believe the corporation made a profit that particular year, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, of close to $1 million.

" 'But he has announced on the radio that we have made a modest profit, and we have.' "

We're talking about 1974 now, and still quoting Mr. Vesak in this article.

"Things are starting out good this year and if things keep going as well we should do better than last year,' Vesak says. 'The move by the provincial government in 1972 to purchase Ocean Falls was an eleventh-hour decision.' "

And it was. I remember the time very well. I was sitting over in that comer and the then Minister of Lands and Forests was sitting back here somewhere near where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) sits now. I recall that right after the election, and during the course of the first session of the Legislature in 1972, I approached Mr. Williams, the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Resources. And he was a good one, not like the kind of thing we have now. He was a good minister, Mr. Speaker, and did his job for the people of this province during the course of those three years. The people of this province owe Mr. Williams a lot.

Nonetheless, I recall approaching the minister in his place and saying: "We have some 1,500 people in Ocean Falls who are going to be out of work. It's an operating community. Is there anything we can do about it?" By this time I'm sure Mr. Williams had thought of this on his own, but I asked him, because that community was in my riding, to have a look at the situation, and he did. He said sure. I recall that sometime in the spring of 1973 Mr. Williams approached me again and said he had been having discussions with Crown Zellerbach Corp., and that they were quite close to an agreement. He outlined the terms of the agreement and asked me what I thought. I said: "Well, we're getting $50 million worth of assets for $1 million." You will recall that at the time Crown Zellerbach had the community up for sale for $10 million. Ten million dollars to buy a whole community. "B.C. for sale." "Ocean Falls for sale." "Town for sale." This was largely advertised in the United States: "Town for sale, $10 million, " and then they listed the assets of that community, which I listed here a few minutes ago. Fifty million dollars worth of assets, and they would have chucked everybody out on their ears. You could have bought the place for a yachting club, or whatever.

[ Page 724 ]

Our government was successful in purchasing from Crown Zellerbach $50 million worth of assets in that community, for about $1 million.

At that time, to get back to the article:

"Production is averaging 260 to 270 tons a day, with annual output estimated at 96,000 to 100,000 tons a year. Vesak says the output is a little less than half of Crown Zellerbach's Elk Falls division on Vancouver Island, which turns out about 235,000 tons a year.

" The three paper machines standing idle at the mill could be brought back into operation if economic circumstances found a demand for the specialty paper such as" — and it names the various types of wax tissues and those kinds of products that we were capable of producing in Ocean Falls in 1974 and which were produced up to 1966 at Ocean Falls. " 'We've cannibalized a certain amount of equipment off them, but they can be brought back' " — he's talking about machines now — " 'into operation for a certain amount of dollars, ' Vesak maintains."

But of course once again the minister, who's sitting in his place listening intently, was very much aware of all this. For an expenditure of certain amounts of money, that community would be operating today, and the government chose for political reasons to shut that community down and keep it shut down.

The article goes on to say:

"If Ocean Falls has a problem, it is the constant need to buy its raw materials to produce newsprint, a problem that Vesak is both aware of and concerned about."

Right. We discussed that earlier, Mr. Minister, and we understood that problem. That problem could have been rectified had the government decided to allocate timber that should have been allocated to the Ocean Falls Corporation on the basis of the Simons report, the summary of which I have here. The government had the results of that study in their possession, and didn't in fact allocate raw materials. Up to that time there was an agreement that had been reached with the Ocean Falls Corporation and Crown Zellerbach that, when we purchased the community, Crown Zellerbach would supply the Ocean Falls Corporation with an assured supply for some years.

Then there was a period of time when much of the timber had to be purchased on the open market. This cost the operation, and gave the other companies like MacMillan Bloedel, if you will, and Crown Zellerbach — I don't have to name them all, but those two companies I'm very familiar with — an edge on the market because they had timber supply in terms of tree-farm licences. In fact, as the present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will know, they had more timber than they actually required for their needs. You will recall that the present Minister of Forests maintained and put out an edict some years ago: "Use it or lose it." I think he did take action against one company. He cut back, not on the annual allowable cut but on the tree-farm area for one large company in this province. He said they had more timber than they required for their purposes, and they weren't properly utilizing that area, so he reduced their size. However, what that minister failed to do was to make available to the Ocean Falls Corporation a timber supply so that that community could have stayed in operation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's right here in black and white. Can't you read? Can't you think? Your opening remarks on this particular topic, Mr. Minister, were simply atrocious. What did you tell the people of British Columbia when you opened this debate? What did he say? He said absolutely nothing. He closed the mill down. He's totally and personally responsible — he and his government — for arbitrarily closing this mill down in 1980. He had made a promise in writing to the people in that community in March 1980 that there would be a new and viable operation in that community in six months. Did he keep that promise? And here the minister says: "You don't know what you're talking about." If there's anybody in this House who doesn't know what he's talking about, it's that phony minister sitting over there, in my view.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster. We're still trying to dig ourselves out of three years of socialism. What a disaster!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You dug yourself in. If I may point out to you, Mr. Speaker, when those people over there were returned to government in 1975 there was a surplus in the budget of this province, and where are we now? Two years in a row we're....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: More than that. That's in out-of-court settlements. I want to tell you more about that. Last year there was a $1.4 billion deficit, and this year a projected $1.6 billion deficit. When we left government in 1975 there was a total deficit of some $4 billion. The deficit stands today at $14.1 billion under the mismanagement of the people sitting over there, and he's got the nerve to say we don't know what we're talking about.

This is a very good article, and it relates directly to the Ocean Falls Corporation. Ted Vesak goes on to say, and I quote for Hansard:

"You see, we are not an integrated operation. We do not have any chemical pulping. We just make groundwood pulp and buy the cellulose kraft for newsprint from Elk Falls." The Ocean Falls operation consists of a wood mill, a groundwood mill and the newsprint mill, with the total townsite operation employing 400 people with an annual payroll of some $6 million."

This was in 1974 — a payroll which contributed to the welfare of every person in this province: 400 people who paid taxes and a product that brought offshore dollars to this province and to this country. And what did this government do?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You bought all the losers.

[5:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All the winners!

This article really concisely puts into words the situation at Ocean Falls as the people in British Columbia knew it and know it. It was actually sickening to most of us when this

[ Page 725 ]

government shut that operation down for no reason other than a political, vindictive one. We had saved the jobs of those people at Ocean Falls, and this government and that minister threw them out of the window and hung them out to dry. That’s what they did. They don't care about people. A government that will break its contract, a government that will break its word, a government that will take away human rights, is a government that does not care about people. If they had any gumption they'd resign today, go to the electorate, and ask them today in British Columbia what they think of them. They won't do that.

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and to quote Vesak:

'The market price of cellulose kraft went from $170 a ton in 1973 to $370 a ton in January of this year, more than a 100 percent increase, ' Vesak says."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Loser!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be here, mister, when you're not. I guarantee you that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you'll still be sitting in opposition too.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, that member is still yelling. I know he's going to gerrymander his riding. He finds that South Peace is too much for him to handle, so he's going to gerrymander his riding, cut it in half — one MLA for every four people in South Peace, because that's about his limit. That's all the people he can handle. We know they're going to bring that gerrymander bill in. We know they're going to carve up those Socred ridings into little hunks and pieces here and there. And the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) riding — are you going to gerrymander Oak Bay?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where I come from they eat guys like you and spit 'ern out.

MS. BROWN: No respect! He's gone three hours without a cigarette!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Maybe I'll quit.

MS. BROWN: No!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I mean I'll quit smoking.

MS. BROWN: Oh.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not going to quit this. Jeez!

He says here: "Under the terms of the agreement between Crown Zellerbach and the provincial government, Crown Zellerbach agreed to supply the mill with pulp and logs until December 31, 1975. 'We've got another ten months to go. It looks like we've got 1976 covered for pulp, and we're in the throes of trying to cover ourselves for logs.' "

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You sound like an old phonograph that needs winding.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, somebody wound you up this morning, you turkey.

I'm quoting from this very well-done article by Jean Sorensen in 1974, regarding Ocean Falls, generally quoting Mr. Vesak, who was a very fine general manager of the corporation. The minister should listen to this, instead of yacking and hollering. You know, it's strange to me that he gets so upset. Why is he getting so upset, do you suppose, Mr. Speaker? Is there something...? Are we hitting a nerve? He said nothing in his opening remarks regarding Bill 30. He didn't tell us anything. He said: "We're conducting some discussions with somebody somewhere, but we don't know who and we're not going to tell you who. We don't know what's happening in those discussions, but they're going great."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He won't tell us. He won't tell us in the House. He hasn't got the nerve to stand up in his place and tell us exactly what's happening. He'll sit in his seat and holler like a banshee or a wounded hound-dog, but he won't stand up in his place.

To quote from this article.... I'm only on the the second column and it's eight columns wide. If the minister would quit interjecting, I might be able to get through the whole article. Mr. Vesak goes on to say: "I think we are going to have to apply and bid for timber the same as any other operation would." Those are good, sound, free-enterprise practices. Isn't that right, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know. I was in logging for some time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's the date of that article?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You can have it. In fact, you can have the whole thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's the date of it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I told you four times. If you would stop and listen instead of interjecting.... You have very bad manners, Mr. Minister, I have to tell you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a rule in the House that members are not supposed to read newspapers during a sitting of the Legislature.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for having offended the House. The next time I offend the House I hope it is the Minister of Forests who will again bring it to the attention of the House. That makes me feel even sorrier that I've offended the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, on the matter of newspapers, while it has been traditional that newspapers are not openly read, some care in reading the paper is difficult for the Chair to find offensive — if they're not sort of held up broadly in front of the member. I think that's a rule we can all afford to live with. The point of order from the Minister of Forests is well taken.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Can I quote from the paper? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm only on the second column of this

[ Page 726 ]

article, and if the members would quit interjecting, I could........

AN HON. MEMBER: And you're slow readers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, tell me about it.

To continue on with this article: "Ocean Falls is near four public sustained yield units which have available timber. They are the Kimsquit, Dean, Rivers Inlet and Chatsquot." These are public sustained yield units which the Minister of Forests....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you quit mumbling! I can't hear what you're saying.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you haven't been listening all day. You haven't listened to anybody in this House since I've been here in 11 years. You haven't listened to anybody in this House or in this province. When are you going to start listening? What I suggest that member should do, Mr. Speaker, if he's really interested in what I'm saying, is get somebody to read Hansard to him tomorrow morning.

To continue my quote: "There is a lot of unallocated timber in this area. In fact, it is one of the last areas of the coast with unallocated timber. Ocean Falls will probably make application for this timber." And they did, Mr. Speaker. I think the present Ministry of Forests processed that application. The Minister of Forests was also Minister of Mines at the time; he had a dual portfolio, you will recall, when he was first appointed. That member for Yale-Lillooet was probably too busy with his mining portfolio to really know what was happening. In the best interests of the people of this province, he should have allocated some of that timber to the Ocean Falls Corporation. The minister sitting over here to my left, the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, (Hon. Mr. Phillips) should have insisted in the cabinet that that minister allocate timber as suggested in the Simons report, which the minister has a copy of, and so has the Minister of Forests. They should have allocated timber to the Ocean Falls Corporation.

What did they allocate that timber to, Mr. Speaker? Did it go to the Ocean Falls Corporation? No. Who did it go to? I believe a large block went to Doman. Do you remember Doman? It had nothing to do with Ocean Falls. They had their plants elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that Doman should not receive a fair allocation of timber, but in this case the forest service, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ocean Falls Corporation all had recommended that that particular area of timber be allocated to the Ocean Falls Corporation, and this government did absolutely nothing about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're just a lame-duck member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's a lame-duck minister sitting over there.

I can't take much more of that minister this evening, Mr. Speaker. I've barely begun to discuss the Ocean Falls situation. I have letter upon letter to read into the record, from Mr. Williston, from people in Ocean Falls to the government, from the residents' council. I haven't even referred to any of this material yet. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report for the Ministry of Tourism for the year ended March 31, 1983.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can only accept that motion from the government side.

MR. NICOLSON: It's been accepted before, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This isn't one of those days, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.