1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

727 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Rentalsman's office. Mr. Blencoe –– 727

Mr. Lauk

Letter to Parks Ministry staff. Mr. Mitchell –– 728

Highgrading by Macmillan Bloedel. Mr. Lea 728

Tenure for contract positions. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 729

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

Mr. Nicolson –– 730

Mr. Lauk –– 733

Mr. Cocke –– 738

Mr. Barrett –– 742

Mr. Macdonald –– 748

Appendix –– 750

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: A number of my constituents have come over to

Victoria today, and I'd like to introduce them. I beg the House's

indulgence for the numbers that I've got here. Mr. and Mrs. Dorte and

Thor Frosiev, who are the owners of the Brackendale Art Gallery and

Theatre Restaurant in Brackendale, British Columbia, are sitting in the

gallery today. I would ask the House to welcome them.

I'd also like to welcome Mr. Brian Purdy of Crane Canada Inc. He's from West Vancouver and is sitting in the gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery we have three distinguished members of

our community: Mr. Rahamin Amram, who's a businessman from Vancouver; Mr.

Bernie Smith, the president of the Social Credit Party; and last but not least

a famous British Columbian, a man who lives in the constituency of the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I'm sure you will be happy to see

here one of the world's greatest promoters, Mr. Murray Pezim.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a

friend of a very good friend of mine, Dr. Peter Montgomery. Dr.

Montgomery is lecturing at Camosun College at the present time, and on

behalf of that mutual friend I would ask this House to make him very

welcome.

MR. LAUK: I thank the hon. member for West Vancouver (Mr.

Reynolds) for bringing to my attention the fact that I have a

constituent in the Speaker's gallery. I want to welcome him here to the

Legislature and retract what I said about him in Hansard . I'll give him the citation and thank him very much for that recent cheque. Thank you, Murray.

Interjections.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that representative of

that constituent would also be interested in buying a bank on behalf of

Mr. Lauk.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a Vancouver

small businessman who is in the audience today: past national president of the

Automotive Retailers' Association, Mr. Dave Bruce. I'd like you to welcome

him.

MR. GABELMANN: We have as many elected representatives from

North Island in Victoria today as there are MLAs, I think. One of them,

at least, is in the gallery this afternoon, and that's alderman Pat

Cadden from Port Hardy. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

RENTALSMAN'S OFFICE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. Given that no agent or spokesman for the Social

Credit Party is on record as stating during the recent election

campaign that the Social Credit government will abolish rent

regulations and security for tenure for B.C.'s 355,000 tenants, does

the minister agree that the government has no mandate for this action?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: A typical response: lack of, Mr. Speaker.

I have a supplementary question. It is sometimes alleged that the

silent majority supports this and other regressive actions by the

government. A recently published survey shows that 72 percent of

British Columbians oppose the elimination of rent controls. Does the

minister not agree that this is a conclusive expression of public

opinion on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the member if he would table that survey to which he referred in the question?

MR. SPEAKER: The question was ruled out of order, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a further question. One of the

results of that survey to which I referred is that a further 67 percent

agree the rentalsman should be maintained to protect tenants from

arbitrary eviction. Has the minister decided to stop listening to

property developers and professional ideologues such as Michael Walker,

and listen to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, that is a typical question from that member in regard to the comments he makes prior to putting the question.

[2:15]

We had a mandate on May 5 that spoke very clearly on what the people

of this province wanted the government to do. If the member across the

floor identifies with, I believe, 313 questions raised by the Province

newspaper in their survey, as opposed to 2.5 million people in the

province of British Columbia, as the type of direction or voice of the

people, I say that his numbers are wrong. I prefer to look at the

election results, which were far more conclusive than the member's

comment about a questionnaire.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the rationale of the rent controls being

lifted on July 7 was given considerable consideration at that time. At

that time 35 percent of the rental accommodation in this province was

under rent controls; all others were outside the rent control limit.

Vacancy rates in Vancouver and Victoria were approximately 3 to 3.5

percent, and vacancy rates in other areas of the province ranged

anywhere from 5 to 15 percent. It's fair to say that this government

identified this particular time as a window in which we could move to

let the marketplace work and allow renters the opportunity to have

available to them rental accommodation and have competition as opposed

to government intervention in the marketplace.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for

the minister. Does not the minister agree that tenants have certain

basic, inalienable rights, and that they should not be allowed to be

evicted from their homes and their apartments without cause? Does he

not agree that there should be cause for eviction in those notices?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the question, of course, relates to legislation before the House at the present

[ Page 728 ]

time, and I think the debate would be more in order when the legislation comes up for debate.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the minister. In answer to the

question from my colleague from Victoria, the minister said that the

questionnaire didn't reflect the opinion of the voters, that the

electoral result on May 5 did. Is my understanding of the minister's

reply correct?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the democratic process.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister can confirm that it's part

of the democratic process that candidates in Vancouver Centre

representing his party denied that there was any plan to abolish rent

controls, that indeed they would be enhanced to protect tenants. Is he

about to undertake an investigation into that kind of false advertising?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the question, because there

could be a tremendous amount of investigation going on with regard to

comments by candidates during campaigns, such as those on the mining

policy of the NDP — one candidate in Omineca saying one thing and the

Leader of the Opposition saying another; one candidate in Peace River

saying to the people of Peace River that northeast coal is the best

thing that's ever happened, and the Leader of the Opposition saying he

wanted to close it down.

The question is out of order, but I think the member opposite knows

that when a candidate makes statements during a campaign he is not

dictating future policy of any party or government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would appear to follow that if a question is out of order, an answer would also be in the same category.

MR. LAUK: If the minister is suggesting that we are not to

believe Social Credit candidates, can we then believe the Premier, who

placed a full-page ad during the 1979 election, saying, "We shall not

abolish rent controls," signed "W.R. Bennett"? Will he investigate that

as false advertising?

HON. MR. HEWITT: To answer the member's question, no, I will

not investigate it. He is now talking about the 1979 election, and we

didn't abolish rent controls between 1979 and 1983. So the ad was

correct.

Interjections.

LETTER TO PARKS MINISTRY STAFF

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I hope you have better control

over this House when I ask questions of the minister I'm directing them

to than you did in the case of the last two.

My question is for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Will

the minister advise why parks and outdoor recreation division staff

have been ordered in writing not to express personal opinions about

government policy or otherwise offer comment about the wisdom or

correctness of government decisions on which they might disagree?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member refers to a letter

that went out from one of the acting deputy ministers. The intent of

that is that people should be carrying out their jobs and not be

getting involved in political hassles during the day.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to follow up with a supplementary to

what he said about working. Staff at the parks and outdoor recreation

division have already been fired from their jobs, and others working in

the campsites have already been told to look for other jobs. Would the

minister explain why these actions have been taken?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: First of all, I would like to have a list

of the people who have been fired, if the member has such a list,

because in the parks and outdoor recreation program auxiliary staff

have been notified that they would not be rehired in the future. I

hardly call that firing. I'm sure they wouldn't want to put on their

application form for another job that they were fired when they were

basically told that they wouldn't be renewed. I think the member is

simply fishing here.

MR. MITCHELL: Can the minister confirm that the real reason

this gag order has been introduced is that the government is starting

to privatize all provincial camp facilities in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, it's typical to make these sorts of

accusations. We are not privatizing the parks. We are privatizing some

of the operations. We have been upfront and announced that we are

privatizing the government operations at Manning and Cypress. We are

not selling the parks. The parks will remain as part of public land.

Why would we want to gag people about that? The only things that we

have discussed about privatization have been open and upfront.

MR. MITCHELL: Can he assure this House and the province of

British Columbia that he does not intend — and I didn't say that he is

intending to sell or give away the parks — to privatize the services in

the provincial parks in British Columbia, and that this government in

the next term of office will not allow the parks to be leased out on

privatization for separate fees outside of the present park system?

MR. SPEAKER: There is future policy implied, hon. member, in the question.

HIGHGRADING BY MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Forests: on Monday I asked the

minister if he as satisfied that a correct assessment was being done on

whether too much waste was being left on the forest floor. The minister

replied that there's a standard practice within the ministry. He said:

"However, my advice to the member is that we carry out constant waste

assessment throughout all cutting permits. Standard practice within the

ministry is to have a minimum of 12 test spots to assess waste per

logging opening."

I'd ask the minister whether those test plots are done by the company or by the Forest Service?

[ Page

729 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, waste assessments are generally done

by Forest Service staff.

MR. LEA: The minister is not answering the question.

Are the 12 test plots done on an opening after logging done by the

Forest Service, or by the company that does the actual cutting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, as I said, they are

generally done by the Forest Service. I'm sure there are times when we

ask the private sector to do test plots and to scale them by a

professional forester. As long as we accept the professional ethics of

foresters, we are bound to accept such test plots as well.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I would suggest that's

not the standard practice. The standard practice is that they are done

by the companies, and 10 percent of those 12 test plots are then

checked by the Forest Service. On the Queen Charlotte Islands alone,

because there are no scalers in the Forest Service to ensure whether or

not the companies have actually done their job, there are presently 200

hectares of forest land that have not been checked at all by the Forest

Service. Would the minister confirm that that's the case?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that as time

goes on we'll be doing much more auditing work and much less policing

work by the Ministry of Forests. Our whole intent is to get government

off the backs of people and to accept the fact that people do act in a

responsible manner. We will continue to audit all the work that is done

by the ministry, but we're not going to be a police force, as that

member would probably like us to be.

TENURE FOR CONTRACT POSITIONS

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took on notice a

question from the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

Fortunately, I'm able to bring an early reply to that notice question

because I see that the name to which people are responding in the

advertisement raised in the House by the member is Dr. E.G. McGeer,

someone known to myself. This particular advertisement was sent for

publication on June 24, which was prior to the time that legislation

was introduced into this House. The question concerned tenure-track

positions, a phrase used in this particular advertisement. I should

advise members of the House that "tenure track" is a euphemism for

people employed by universities to distinguish those employed on hard

money versus soft money. Soft money is that not coming from the

standard grants that would be in the estimate book, but from research

grants. And I might add that in my experience the bulk of productive

scientific work in North America is done by people who are on so-called

soft money, or grant money, and therefore not in tenure-track positions.

TUNNEL-THROUGH PROGRESS

ON ANZAC BRANCH LINE

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. As

you know, British Columbia Railway has been building what is commonly

known as the Anzac branch line to connect the great and growing port of

Prince Rupert with the northeast coalfields, which are presently under

construction by two great Canadian mining companies investing over $1.3

billion of private money and creating thousands of jobs.

What I really want to share with the House is the fact that the port

on the west coast is almost built and the mining company, the mines and

the infrastructure in the northeast is almost built, but in between

we're trying to build a railway branch line which consists of two major

tunnels. One tunnel has holed through, and I would like to tell the

House today — because I know the members of the opposition are very

interested in this — that yesterday the progress made on the Table East

and Table West tunnels was a total of 27.1 metres, and that there

remains only 223.6 metres to go. I know the House will want to share

this great news. The anticipated tunnel-through, as it is called, will

take place about August 20. Thank you.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: A response?

MR. LEA: Yes, I would like to answer in kind. Bubblybub, buh

bu blah blah, beeblabub, blah, blah, blah, blah. Blee blow, blah, blah,

blee, blee, blah! Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take

offence at the comments made by the member for Prince Rupert. I would

ask him to withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: I was wondering if it was the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to give us a direct translation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, prior to proceeding

to the next point of business, could I read from Beauchesne one simple

line, our first rule in question period, which is: "The question must

be a question, not an expression of opinion, representation,

argumentation or debate." Hon. members, I think that, while we adhere

to most rules in the House, it is time we paid a little bit more

attention to the rules that we must follow for question period. I thank

members for their attention.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, under the rules of the House

the question that was placed before this chamber was a precedent motion

to debate the budget.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave was just granted. What are you talking about?

MR. LAUK: The opposition, of course, grants leave because we

are very interested to see if this government has a plan. But it should

be pointed out to Mr. Speaker that the precedent motion chosen by the

House Leader has been ignored now for almost two months.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the point of order raised by the member is not one that can be given a great deal of

[ Page 730 ]

cognizance by the Chair, and is not really in essence a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: If the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Reynolds), who is the member who adjourned debate on this, does

not wish to speak further, I seek the floor on the bill.

It's interesting how time kind of fuzzes up various things.

Yesterday we certainly didn't have any explanation of why the

government wanted to repeal the Harbour Board Act.

The Harbours Board has been very successfully collecting revenues

and transmitting these revenues to government. The Harbours Board was

granted no equity capital upon its creation in 1967, but it has

received Crown advances totalling $25 million, all of which have been

repaid, with $7 million interest. Looking over the financial reports of

the last couple of years, we see that the Harbours Board has actually

performed quite well, that it has given up some of its retained

earnings to the province of British Columbia, that it will have

actually been returning.... It looks like the return on this

investment, the original capital of which is all paid up, is now

something like $7 million, $8 million or $10 million per year.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So one really has to wonder why it's necessary to get rid of this

organization. Is it because of bureaucracy? Is it because of the

downsizing of government? Is that what we want to do? Do we want to get

rid of the one legal secretary, who also doubles as a bookkeeper? Do we

want to get rid of the manager of special projects, the comptroller, or

the executive director, Mr. David King? Or is the real purpose of this

bill to get rid of the chairman? You people feel that you should get

rid of the chairman of a corporation that has returned millions of

dollars to the people of British Columbia. If anybody in the opposition

feels that we should not get rid of the chairman, would you please

stand up on your chair. Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously they all agree

that we should get rid of the chairman. Of course, the chairman being

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), I would also have to go along with that. But that has to be

about the only failing in this particular entity, because it has

operated very efficiently.

It's really rather interesting to hear some of the comments that

have been made about this piece of land and to realize that the member

who did speak yesterday, but who was told not to continue today....

MR. REYNOLDS: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe we have one, but go ahead.

MR. REYNOLDS: The hon. member just said I was told not to

speak today, and that's absolutely not true. I chose not to continue my

speech. It was finished and I said everything I wanted to say.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

The member for Nelson-Creston continues, and members are reminded

that under standing order 42 a member may correct a part of his speech

which may have been misinterpreted, but that's the only reason.

MR. NICOLSON: That member said that the people of Delta are

not afraid of what the government will do with the land. That same

member sat in a caucus.... It's rather interesting the way federal

caucuses of the Conservative Party and provincial caucuses of the

Social Credit Party tend to be the same characters sometimes moving

back and forth. Back in 1969 when the land was being expropriated by

the then Social Credit government, one of their back-benchers got up

and said: "Too much land grabbed. Socred Delta MLA Wenman says

government expropriates more than needed." So when the member who once

represented Delta as a Conservative and now represents West

Vancouver–Howe Sound says that the people of Delta were not afraid of

what the government will do with the land.... This former Social Credit

MLA for Delta in the provincial House then, and now in the federal

house, representing a nearby area which might encompass some of the

Delta riding....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I said which might include some of the Delta riding, because the Delta riding includes....

Well, I don't certainly don't know the federal boundaries, whether

it includes White Rock or Douglas Crossing, but I certainly know my

geography of Delta, my friends. I wonder if that member could point out

Tree Point at Boundary Bay, because I certainly could, being somewhat

familiar with some of the geography down there.

The way things change! At that time the Social Credit MLA was saying

that the B.C. Harbours Board seemed to be expropriating more land than

was immediately necessary for the Roberts Bank superport. He made the

comment after it was revealed that 37 Delta property-owners with 2,000

acres of land received notices for expropriation to bring to 4,000

acres the amount of land expropriated for the port. We see that this

government is now taking this land — along with the assets that are

evaluated at a rather considerable figure — and turning it over to

either B.C. Rail.... These assets, worth about $29 million, according

to the 1982 public accounts, are to be transferred to BCR and BCDC.

That is in contravention of what the people of that area have been

saying for many years. Even the present council apparently has been

uttering the same kinds of misgivings.

One of the purposes of this act, and one of the reasons that we're

here today, is to exempt this transfer, to give a tax exemption on the

taxable assets so that sales tax will not have to be paid.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: If it's not necessary, I don't know why it's contained in the bill.

We see that a good portion of these assets are assets on which sales

tax should be paid, and yet the government is exempting itself from

sales tax while it's increasing sales tax for the people in the

province, placing sales tax on meals, depressing small business and

putting restaurants out of.... Mr. Speaker, this government has two

different standards. They're saying that the people of this province

have to pay more tax. They are creating tremendous inconvenience and

paperwork for small restaurants who are having to keep track of meals

that are over and under $7, and separating bills, bar tabs, services

and holding room charges, saying

[ Page 731 ]

that they have to do that. This government is going to exempt itself from having to pay sales tax on the transfer of assets.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder they used to call you flathead.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat this for some of those

who are slow to team. I said that some of these assets are taxable, but

the government has created an exemption from the payment of social

services tax by this particular act.

Interjection.

[2:45]

MR. NICOLSON: And so they should, I hear.

You know there are some principles of cost accountability. When you

make a transaction, maybe we should exempt other exemptions also. You

talk between governments. What is government, Mr. Speaker, but people.

When one person in Nelson-Creston goes into a restaurant and has to pay

tax to another person who acts as a collector, that has to be remitted

back down here, and it creates a whole circle. What it does, really, is

keep people out of restaurants. It stops the flow of dollars. I say

it's rather ironic that the government here exempts itself, but says

that.... What would be so wrong in showing some revenue here to the

people in general, instead of giving special privileges to Crown

corporations? Because that's what you're doing. You're exempting Crown

corporations from paying sales tax. There is a real irony in this

particular piece of legislation.

The other major point in this bill is that we are transferring

thousands of acres of agricultural land and placing it under the B.C.

Development Corporation and B.C. Rail. There is also a fight — or was a

fight underway a couple of years ago — where Trimac Transportation

System of Calgary was seeking legal advice about a ten-year-old

document which gave them the right of first refusal on additional land

created at the National Harbours Board Roberts Bank coal-loading

terminal. Those are tidal flats. They are easily filled and diked and,

indeed, that's why the causeways and such have been built there, and

Trimac fits into this. So what are we planning here? Is Trimac going to

get some tradeoff, Mr. Speaker? We haven't had a decent explanation of

this, but what we do know is that some of the very best agricultural

land in this province — 4,000 acres of it — is being jeopardized by

this action.

This party has no faith in this government which overrides the

recommendations of the agricultural land reserve, and then exempts

lands like the Spetifore lands, lands out in Langley and the lands at

the north end of Seymour Arm on Shuswap Lake, overriding the Land

Commission and local regional governments and their recommendations.

This places every small property–owner once again in a very untenable

position. I have seen people prevented by the agricultural land reserve

from subdividing a four- or five-acre parcel of land simply because

it.... Admittedly, that piece of land is gravel. It couldn't grow

potatoes, although I suppose it could grow anything hydroponically.

These people have been given a rational explanation: that while their

land is not directly arable, they are very close to high-productivity

agricultural land. If there is more urbanization, there will be more

intolerance of agricultural activity by the insects that are attracted

by a dairy farm operation — the odours that come from pig farms and

such. Increased urbanization interferes with agricultural land. When

people see 4,000 acres of agricultural land going down the tube, they

ask: "What about my four acres? What about my five- or ten-acre parcel?

Actually we were going to do more with it if we could have had a small

subdivision."

This government is really trying to stir up all those people who

have made a sacrifice. I know of one farmer in the Metchosin area who

has beautiful seafront land, but it is in the agricultural land

reserve. He said: "Thank God. The temptation was getting so great that

I might have subdivided." He does support the principle of agricultural

land. What this government is trying to do to people like that, people

who accept their responsibilities, is to provoke them with all these

moves, whether it is the Spetifore lands, the old Grosvenor-Laing lands

in Langley — now they've got a different name — and other land

assemblies that this government has put on the market. These are Class

1 and 2 agricultural high-productivity land, with an almost no-frost

season; yet people in my riding who live at the 3,000-foot level and

who have maybe 120 frost-free days are being told: "No, you can't

subdivide that Class 4 and 5 agricultural land," and they live with

that. They are trying to systematically undermine the basic support

that people have, and trying to create an obvious unfairness.

And it is unfair. If you've got thousands of acres and can make

millions of dollars by a development, you have the blessing of this

government, in spite of the fact that somewhere down the road, when

California and other jurisdictions will be unable to provide us with

the food we need, or when we cannot provide a sufficient amount of our

own food to create prices competitive with imports — and that is the

real purpose of agricultural policy in this province for the past 11

years — when we no longer have enough agriculture to create competition

for imports, we will see the price of foodstuffs go up in an unexpected

way, as if no one had ever predicted it. It will be as much of a

surprise to us as the energy crisis was a few years ago. For quite a

few people the energy crisis was no surprise. For quite a few people an

agricultural crisis will be no surprise but certainly it will be with a

great deal of regret that we have allowed powers such as this, and the

erosion of another major piece of agricultural land.

I know whereof I speak. I use to work for Hall Packing. I worked out

in the fields, testing peas to see if they were ready for harvest.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Peapicker? Sure, yes. It's not dignified enough

work for you, I suppose, but it's work of which I can be proud. I would

be prouder of going out to pick peas than I would be of bringing in a

piece of legislation like this, which is a disservice not just to this

House but to our children and our children's children. Yes, I think

that bending over and picking peas and getting a little bit of cow

manure on your boots is dignified enough work. There's a darn sight

more dignity in that than bringing in this kind of legislation, this

kind of budget that we're dealing with in this House and this whole

package of draconian, regressive legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, the big pill that we're being forced to

swallow by this government that is gloating in victory. The euphoria of

this government. This government

[ Page 732 ]

which thinks that it can bring in anything under the sun and that it should do this sooner than ever.

MR. MOWAT: Take your head out of the manure.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that's the way they feel about farmers, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is going to reduce the bureaucracy by perhaps five

positions — a little bureaucracy of five people that brings in maybe

$10 million a year in revenues. That's what we're cutting back here.

Well, I'm not fighting for those jobs, because probably those people

will have to be transferred. They are the people who know what's going

on and probably know how to continue the operations of this until, of

course, this land is maybe gobbled up by some kind of industrial

development. This government has shown that they don't know how to be

entrusted with the kind of responsibility that goes with these kinds of

assets. This government has been divesting itself of assets in a

methodical way. This government has, since 1980, divested itself of

roughly a billion dollars of assets in the form of actual cash deposits

in the bank and of other disposable assets such as special purpose

funds, and has disposed of land but not replaced anything. It has sold

off land assemblies that were purchased jointly by the CMHC, the

previous NDP government, and maybe by government in the early days of

Social Credit in 1976. Those lands have been sold off for millions of

dollars of profit, but now they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has never collected as much

in revenue since 1980 as the government has spent in any fiscal year.

They have gone through $2 billion in assets, like a spoiled child with

an inheritance who suddenly wakes up one day and finds himself

penniless. Only it isn't that spoiled child who is going to have to rue

the day and pay the price; it's the people of British Columbia who are

going to lose 4,000 acres here now, because probably the government is

going to look for some way of turning a quick opportunistic profit.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cut the hogwash!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

MR. NICOLSON . This government, Mr. Speaker, is now forced to really

start scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for anything that they can

sell, any money they can put their hands on to feed their very expensive habits

of meddling in multi-billion dollar projects that are way beyond their competence,

way beyond their imagination and very much premature for the time. You people

are spending a million dollars to create one coal-mining job.

Mr. Speaker, give a small businessman $10,000 and he'll create five

jobs. You could save millions and billions of dollars. That's how you

create jobs. You don't spend $1 billion and create a handful of jobs.

You don't spend $1 million to create one coal-mining job. That's what

stops you short of having to sell off some of the very last land we

have in this province. This land is being put into the hands of the

B.C. Development Corporation so it can become probably an industrial

park associated with the rail access and such which is there, but....

Interjections.

[3:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Is that what the minister is going to do, Mr.

Speaker? This land is already paying its own way. It's agricultural

land. It has the potential to be put back into food production. It is

not alienated....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's in food production, dummy!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One moment, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister withdraws. Thank you.

Perhaps if the hon. member could relate to the principle of the bill we can maintain orderly debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to

take this piece of land — 4,000 acres, which produces two crops of peas

a year.... A great deal of this land is presently being used for

producing turf, which is a compatible use. It will not alienate the

future potential of that amount of land dedicated to producing turf for

agricultural purposes.

This government is just going ahead and showing.... I suppose the

misgivings of the Delta MLA, Mr. Wenman, in 1969, who had some

foresight.... It took about 14 years to come about, but now his worst

fears are being realized. Yes, this government....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You must be the main reason you lost in the last election.

MR. NICOLSON: Now it's being suggested to me that Mr. Wenman

was defeated in 1972 because of the stand that he took on this

particular piece of land. He was defeated as an MLA. Well, I don't know

that that's the case. I think he was defeated because of some of their

policies and because of the threat that Mr. Phil Gaglardi might become

Premier of this province. That's probably one of the reasons that Mr.

Wenman was defeated. He was probably defeated because the party that he

supported was against the concept of public automobile insurance cost

at cost. I think that there were probably a lot of reasons why that

would answer the speculation of the members that are interjecting from

behind. There are lots of reasons why Mr. Wenman might have lost that

election — absolutely unrelated.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask me why Mr. Wenman was

defeated in 1972, I would say right off the bat.... I'd come right up

front and say it's not because of the statements that he made about the

expropriation of land by the Harbours Board. I would go on to say that

that was one thing that Mr. Wenman did in his career that will probably

be long remembered, and it certainly has been remembered for at least

13 years; otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it here in this House

today. That would be one of the benchmarks, I would think, in the

career of Mr. Wenman. I would hope that all members of this House would

bear that in mind when reflecting upon the career of that hon. member,

who once served in this House and now serves elsewhere.

This particular piece of legislation is also going to bring about some effects having to do with taxation exemptions,

[ Page 733 ]

pursuant to

an act that hasn't even been published.

It isn't even in the statutes over there, yet it is a statute of this

province. In effect it's a statute that was never actually turfed out

or "Sun Lifed". We find that somehow it escaped the clumsy hand of the

modernization of the statutes. Mr. Speaker, it's a very interesting

statute; it just doesn't seem to pop into one's hands immediately.

Sometimes it is a little difficult to come in prepared for bills when

the government doesn't seem to know what bills are going to be called

up for debate on any particular day.

Mr. Speaker, I would commend to your reading some day — perhaps some

evening, if you were having troubles with getting to sleep or something

like that — the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Taxation Exemption Act.

We are indeed fortunate, because I have been able to find it. One of

the things that this bill is going to do is virtually repeal this act,

which has been in effect since 1927. You might think that

an act that

has stood the test of time since 1927, and that is three sections long,

should deserve a better fate. This act was printed not by the Queen's

Printer, but by Charles F. Banfield, printer to the King's Most

Excellent Majesty, being the case in those days. "An Act Respecting

Taxation of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company." "His Majesty,

by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia," enacted that the act could be "cited as the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway Taxation Exemption Act." It established that the

company, "its capital stock, franchises, income, tolls and all

properties and assets which form part" of that particular operation,

and those parts of share capital that "continue to be held by His

Majesty" — and incidentally, by his successor, Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II, and her heirs and successors in right of this province —

"be exempt from all taxation whatsoever, or however imposed, by, with

or under the authority of the Legislature, or by any municipal or

school organization in the province; but the exemption provided by this

section shall not apply to lands or to improvements upon lands held

under lease from the company or occupied for other than railway

purposes."

As clear as that act was, it was amended in 1929. It then said that

the

section "shall not apply to lands or to improvements upon lands

held under lease from the company nor to lands which have been

subdivided into lots containing one acre or less in respect of which a

plan or subdivision has been or may hereafter be registered in any land

registration district and which do not form part of and are not used in

connection with the operation of its railway." That too would give one

some cause to be hesitant, because this bill is now going to change all

that. What it meant was that if some land that the railway didn't need,

land that was excess to its needs, was to be disposed of to a private

individual and subdivided into lots, the taxation exemptions would not

apply.

So we had the original act in 1927, then the act in 1929 which said

that certain parts will not apply. Now we have

an act that says that

the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Taxation Exemption Act, the act to

which I have just referred, shall not apply. Does it mean that things

that originally applied apply again? Does it put us back to 1929 or

does it bring us up to 1983? This is for me a very tautological

argument, and raises the spectre of....

What really worries me about this is the lawyers. I have the feeling

there might even be a secret group in this House. I sometimes have the

feeling that over at the Union Club members of this side and that side

get together, only they are part of that one profession, which I think

might be lawyers.

Call me suspicious, call me cautious. We have this bill which takes

an original bill that said certain tax exemptions will apply, a second

one that said they won't, and now we have one that says the amended one

doesn't apply to that. I am greatly concerned that people who have

alienated lands will not have to pay taxes, people who usually.... You

know, it will work out that the people who should be paying more taxes

aren't, and the people who are already paying too much tax will

probably have to pay more than ever. That is what always happens; it

seems that is an immutable law of government.

When I see

an act that is going to.... I haven't heard any

complaints in the past. None of my friends who live in Delta have

written to me about the way the act is working in its present form, as

it has been since 1929, but if this act is amended, it could put us

back to whatever the trouble was between 1927 and 1929 that caused them

to bring in that amendment. I think it might undo the amendment, and

then we could be facing the same kinds of problems that they were

facing back in 1927. So I hope that when the minister rises to close

second reading on this bill he will be able to give a lucid explanation

of this, or perhaps bring in amendments that will clarify this

particular piece of legislation. I don't know why this original piece

of legislation isn't simply amended, to put it succinctly. Why isn't

this original piece of legislation just done away with and a new piece

of legislation taking its place brought into effect that clearly spells

out...? Why are we amending some...? Really, by saying that we'll be

exempting ourselves from this legislation..... Why not bring ourselves

up into the year 1983 in terms of legislation?

Well, thank you very much for your attention. I now move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[3:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Disraeli is dead. Wilfrid

Laurier is dead. Mackenzie King is dead. And I'm not feeling too well

myself today. [Laughter]. I just want to give

[ Page 734 ]

a little time for the chamber to empty while I.... What bill is this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. LAUK: Twenty-five. This is the Harbour Board Repeal Act.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I see I've already made an impression on the Deputy Speaker.

This bill dissolves the B.C. Harbours Board, dismisses its board and

employees, and distributes its substantial rights property and assets

to the British Columbia Development Corporation and to B.C. Rail.

The B.C. Harbours Board was created in March 1968 to establish the

Roberts Bank superport near Tsawwassen. It was empowered to borrow

certain sums of money for the purpose of developing these harbour

facilities. As we may recall, the debate surrounding the establishment

of the B.C. Harbours Board encouraged some response from the federal

government of the day, but it was in some respects a jurisdictional

dispute between Her Majesty in right of this province and Her Majesty's

federal government.

It was a necessary thing to establish, and I think that since 1968

the board has acquitted itself very well. Certainly its current members

and its staff have done a superlative job. It seems to me that this

government is removing an establishment that has had some success. The

Harbours Board has never been criticized for inefficiency, bureaucracy

or discriminatory policies in terms of its activities. It has in all

ways acquitted itself honourably and well, and as its reward the

government is going to abolish it.

The arguments that the government have, in a very fuzzy and

woolly-headed way, presented to this chamber for the repeal of this act

and for the abolition of the Harbours Board, if they are correct today,

in August 1983, were always correct. The arguments that the government

makes today could have been arguments used 10 or 15 years ago. They are

no more just or correct today than they were then, and this facade of

eliminating the Harbours Board must be seen through. We must look for

the ulterior motives of the Social Credit government, its party, its

supporters and its campaign donors for some of the answers behind the

real motivation for the repeal of this act.

It has already been mentioned that almost 4,000 acres of good

farmland is going to be transferred to either the British Columbia

Railway or to the B.C. Development Corporation. Can the things that

I've said about the Harbours Board, with its efficiencies and

even-handedness over the years — can these attributes be said of the

B.C. Development Corporation and B.C. Railway? When such land, assets

and statutory rights and powers are transferred to the Development

Corporation, can that be said of the BCDC since this government's term

of office? I think, quite simply, it cannot be said. The British

Columbia Development Corporation ignored the mandate given by this

Legislature in 1974 when this government took office. The British

Columbia Development Corporation became controlled by persons with

conflicts of interest. The Crown corporation itself became personally

directed with a maximum amount of political interference by the

Minister of Industry over the years. It has failed, since 1976, to live

up to its mandate. It's failed to bring about that kind of economic

development and the creation of jobs that it was thought it could bring

about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is waiting for you to canvass the current bill, which is the Harbour Board Repeal Act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that you were busy when I

was opening my remarks, and I'll recanvass that for you so that you can

see that I've connected it clearly to this bill. It's a question of the

principle of Bill 25.

This bill not only dissolves the Harbours Board; it's going to

transfer the substantial rights, property and assets of the Harbours

Board to the British Columbia Development Corporation. I canvassed over

the years, and I will continue to do so, about the Harbours Board's

efficiency and its record of even-handedness and so on, contrasted, if

you will, to what's happened to the B.C. Development Corporation since

1976. I urge the government to reconsider this bill, and leave it where

it should be in the hands of the Harbours Board.

You may recall that prior to 1972 the Social Credit Party of the day

campaigned on a promise of bringing about a corporation that would help

to create jobs and economic development in the province, under the

stewardship of W.A.C. Bennett. As a matter of fact you may recall, Mr.

Speaker, that that campaign promise was made prior to 1969, 1966 and

1963. And, I suppose, the Social Credit Party has always believed that

you never destroy the advantage of a good campaign promise by

fulfilling it. I think when the NDP came to power they thought it was a

good campaign promise, and they established the British Columbia

Development Corporation to help small business in this province and to

create jobs. Yes, and to set aside and develop industrial land to

provide opportunities to medium and large as well as small companies to

establish their manufacturing and warehousing projects within the

jurisdiction of British Columbia. But that was not to be. In its first

year of operation the British Columbia Development Corporation had a

tremendous record.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is still waiting for you to connect your line of debate to the current bill.

MR. LAUK: I would have concluded my speech, Mr. Speaker, but these constant interruptions.... I'm trying to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will continue to interrupt, hon. member, unless

you get back to the principle of the particular bill before you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's just a city-slicker lawyer.

MR. LAUK: I'm just a country boy, Mr. Speaker, trying to do

my best in this chamber, not a millionaire used-car dealer who wears

fancy $1,200 suits and comes into this chamber with Gucci alligator

shoes on. I'm just an ordinary country boy coming in here and trying to

defend the rights of ordinary citizens in the province of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

[ Page 735 ]

MR. LAUK: I won't be as uncharitable as I just heard in our back bench and suggest that Gucci does not make jackboots.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. Please continue.

MR. MOWAT: How is your Mercedes...?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't drive it anymore. He says he can't afford it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Can you imagine that that second member for Little

Mountain said one thing in the hustings...? He said he would defend the

interests of the citizens of Vancouver, and now when he comes into this

chamber he turns his back on the citizens who voted him into office.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's these interruptions.

The Speaker has asked me to draw a connection between the British

Columbia Development Corporation and the Harbours Board. As I was

trying to outline to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House,

the record of the Development Corporation has not been good since 1976.

It has not done what it was supposed to do. The new minister savaged

the board and restructured it with his own friends and political

cronies.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Some of us are not as intellectually endowed as

others. You can make fun of me for not being as intellectual as you

are. I'm no millionaire used-car dealer with Gucci shoes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've been spending too much time in your dark basement reading those files you took out of my office.

MR. LAUK: I stopped that now. I'm reading your files, and I'm absolutely shocked and disgusted!

Mr. Speaker, in 1976 the minister changed the board and added his

cronies and political hacks. It's surprising to me that after eight

years of these people being on the board they haven't drowned in the

public trough. The projects that were being proposed by the Development

Corporation for Duke Point in Prince Rupert and Tilbury Island and so

on have failed. They've failed because of the incompetent stewardship

of this government. That's the record that we have to look at. They

even put a man on that board who directly profited from a decision of

the Development Corporation and the benefits of taxpayers' dollars.

MR. LEA: Don doesn't know which one you mean.

MR. LAUK: Yes. Guess which one? Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of board

of the Development Corporation that we want to take over the substantial responsibilities

of the B.C. Harbours Board — Roberts Bank, which has been a success? What's

behind it all, Mr. Speaker? That's what I'd like to know. He couldn't

reach the Harbours Board, I guess, so now he's decided that he's going

to take over the Harbours Board and wipe them out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Oh, it's a sad day when this minister is so intoxicated with power

and so moved by the fact that he's in high office that he will destroy

the original principles of democracy and destroy the opportunity for

the B.C. Harbours Board to continue to do its excellent job. It's a

shocking thing, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Here we have a situation where

the Harbours Board has been a fine and first-class manager of the

resources of the board over the years. It has responded to the need of

the private sector in the export of coal. It has responded to the need

and has worked hand in glove with the governments of the day to ensure

that expansion of the facilities at Roberts Bank would proceed in a

timely and seasonable way so that we wouldn't lose opportunities for

increasing the exports of our coal to the foreign market. When I look

at what's happened to the competence of the Development Corporation and

the general direction — misguided sometimes — of the British Columbia

Rail company, I'm beginning to realize that this government is not

making decisions in the interest of the public as a whole but is making

purely political decisions.

It's not enough that this minister would be content with the power

and the public funds already at his disposal with B.C. Rail and B.C.

Development Corporation, with the money he's draining out of the

pockets of single parents, of people on social assistance, of old-age

pensioners and others for these vast political projects in northeast

British Columbia. That's not enough for him; he wants to take the

rights, the property and the assets of the B.C. Harbours Board and do

the same thing: run them into the ground. It's a sad day indeed.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, you can make personal allusions if you like

and insult me if you like. The point is that what I've said is correct,

and you know it. You have no doubt about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're getting worse every year.

MR. LAUK: Some of us improve with age; some of us don't. It's one of those things. You shouldn't make fun of people for that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you see that, Mr. Speaker? I'm not feeling very

good because I read this bill. Would anyone feel good after reading

Bill 25? It's a power grab. It's a land grab. It's a money grab.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster....

MR. LAUK: "A disaster," said the minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister could avoid personal references.

[ Page 736 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I mean his disastrous policies were a disaster as Minister of Economic Development; I didn't mean him personally.

MR. LAUK: It's his opinion that my policies were disastrous.

I'd call his policies disastrous if I could find them. That minister

hasn't had an original thought since he took public office.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Jealousy will get you absolutely nowhere. You know I'm the greatest minister of economic development of any province in Canada.

MR. LAUK: I'm not jealous of a performance such as the performance of the minister of the day over the past few years since 1976.

Now they're going to repeal the B.C. Harbour Board Act. Why? Here we

have a board of directors of the Development Corporation who are not

loath to grant themselves substantial benefits in a

conflict-of-interest situation, either at Duke Point or elsewhere. Is

this board going to take over the responsibility of the Harbours Board,

its land and assets? I should say not. The government is proposing that.

The staff is dismissed — an excellent staff, economically competent and efficient over the years, as I said.

It seems to me that the transfer of assets should be carefully

perused. Some protection for the public's interest should be built in

to any change of the B.C. Harbours Board structure.

I'm convinced that relative incompetence and lack of direction of

the Development Corporation since 1976 should not be transferred to the

area that hitherto has been administered by the Harbours Board. It

would be a sad and unfortunate day indeed.

What about the export of coal? What about the opportunities for the

Harbours Board in the future — expansion of facilities not only for the

export of coal but also other matters involving British Columbia, which

is, as you know, the gateway for Canada to the Pacific? Vancouver is

one of the finest ports in North America and one of the busiest. There

is a role for the B.C. Harbours Board to play.

In the opening remarks of the minister we were told that there is

now some kind of agreement or understanding with the federal

government. I'm not convinced. We know that the track record of this

government in negotiating with the federal government has not been good

over the years. We lost millions on the Dease Lake extension because of

the incompetent negotiations by this government. We got a junior

partnership position when this minister and the Premier negotiated the

understanding with respect to the northeast coal development. It was a

terrible piece of negotiation. What kind of backroom deals have taken

place now? Talk about bush league! What has this minister given away

now? He's agreed with the federal government to abolish the Harbours

Board in British Columbia. At least when we had jurisdictional

disputes, the old Social Credit administration and the NDP

administration fought them on the basis of upfront politics. We were

able to resist the expansionism of the federal government into what we

perceived in British Columbia to be our responsibility. We were not

that impressed with the Canadian Harbours Board role, particularly with

the port of Vancouver. There have been improvements, that's true, over

the years. But I wonder if those improvements would have occurred had

it not been for courage and relentless pursuit of the provincial rights

in the face of federal encroachment, with respect to the development of

our harbours. One of the tools that we used over the years was the B.C.

Harbours Board. It was fully supported on all sides of the House in

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You spoke against it when it was being formed.

MR. LAUK: Not at all. We voted for it; you check the Journals of the House. The NDP voted for it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No.

MR. LAUK: You weren't even here then.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better believe I was around.

MR. LAUK: Where were you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I was here — right here — in 1968.

MR. LAUK: No, I think you were sitting way over there someplace.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I was sitting on the government side, not in opposition like you always are.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what I call revisionism. The NDP did support, in principle, the question of the Harbours Board.

Nevertheless, over the years it has been used as a very effective

mechanism to resist the federal jurisdiction and its unjustified

encroachment on provincial rights. Who best to make decisions on behalf

of the people of British Columbia than the government of British

Columbia? That was the argument. It's not always true, mind you; in the

face of these 26 bills we're beginning to wonder.

[3:45]

But it seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that the Harbours Board served us

well. There were other ways in which to resist federal encroachment;

this was one of the ways, and it served us well. Now we're going to

abolish it. That's the reward. After years of struggle, efficiency and

good service to the people of the province, the government abolishes

it. I think that's a pity.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why didn't you listen to what I said yesterday?

MR. LAUK: You've been ordered to abolish it. You've given

away something to the federal government, which will be disclosed in

course. You've sold out the shop again to the federal government the

way you did at Dease Lake and the way you did at the northeast coal

project, and you know it. What have you given away for one local

appointee to the board? What's the quid pro quo, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now I know why your leader took you away

from being economics development critic and put you down.... What are

you — Tourism critic now?

[ Page 737 ]

MR. LAUK: You see, that's all he can do: sit there and yap and interfere, but he can't answer these criticisms.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sit down. I'll answer them.

MR. LAUK: You'll have your moment. Just relax.

It seems to me that over the years the Harbours Board has acquitted

itself well. There is no economic reason for the minister coming and

asking to abolish the board. Why are they disbanding the board? What is

the backroom deal with the federal government? I've asked two questions

that I want the minister to address himself to. Why take these assets

and put them into the hands of the BCDC? Why? What are you up to? Which

of your friends is going to profit from this move? That's what I would

like to know. Oh, you may laugh. They don't tell you everything. I say

through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich). They don't tell him everything. You're laughing now. You

probably don't know what's going on — the transfer of assets to the

Development Corporation and the B.C. Railway. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that these questions have to be answered. The British Columbia

Railway has had more direct tax money paid into it than most other

Crown corporations.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It had to. You fellows ran it into the ground when....

MR. LAUK: Oh, you know that's not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You went from a profit when we were

running it to a loss of $22 million the last year your lame-duck leader

was president of the railway.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the minister will have ample

opportunity to enter into debate when the debate is closed. In the

meantime, could we listen to the member now speaking.

MR. LAUK: This is the kind of thing that the current Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development is trying to perpetrate on

the public. It's a matter of public record that the British Columbia

Railway was in debt over the last several years of the old Social

Credit administration. That's a matter of public record. You saw the

report tabled in this House. It's a matter of public record that the

accounting was manipulated to show a profit when it was actually a

fraudulent manipulation. It was not a profitable railway. In the face

of facts that came out in court cases and in a royal commission, the

minister has the nerve to say in this chamber that it was running at a

profit before we took office. In the face of facts like that, he has

the nerve to make that accusation. That's the kind of thing we have

learned to expect from the member for South Peace River.

It seems to me that we have to look behind the scenes to see what

the motivation of the government is. There's farmland, other assets and

the rights under statutory authority of the Harbours Board which will

now be exercised by a corporation that since 1976 the people of this

province have lost confidence in. We pleaded with this government to

make changes and they have refused to do so. We have board members on

the Development Corporation. We haven't seen the minutes. We don't know

whether they've voted on such resolutions or not, or whether these

board members have directly profited from the taxpayers' money through

that corporation. It's a scandalous situation, and now we're going to

have that board running the affairs of the B.C. Harbours Board? Surely

the minister should answer those questions. He couldn't get to the

Harbours Board, I guess, and that's why he's disbanded it.

Now we've got a situation where he says we've made a deal with the federal government. What

kind of deal? Appointing one or two token members to the National

Harbours Board or to some regional control or regional management? Is

that going to solve the problem? No, it's not.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say we'd made any deal with the federal government.

MR. LAUK: You did so. You opened your remarks in this House

by saying the reason we've got this bill is that the National Harbours

Board is doing better and they're listening to us. That's what you said.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We made no deal with the federal government.

MR. LAUK: Well, then that's even more of a scandal: you're

going to abolish our own Harbours Board when you haven't made an

agreement with the federal government. We've got nothing — zero — for

abolishing the B.C. Harbours Board.

It's not just Roberts Bank or Prince Rupert. There are tremendous

opportunities for port development which are within the provincial

jurisdiction, and we should have allowed the Harbours Board to expand,

not to abolish it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder socialism is declining in popularity, with guys like you....

MR. LAUK: You're declining in your faculties. It seems to me....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I lost half mine I'd still have more than you've got.

MR. LAUK: There you are bragging again. An empty vessel makes the most sound.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, good line. Clarence Darrow lives again.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that a good line? Speaking of Clarence

Darrow, the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey made an early

decision. I think he was 12 when he made the decision between honest

arrogance and hypocritical humility. He's the George Hees of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, isn't my time up yet? Isn't my number up?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can't call me that now. Ten minutes? Okay.

Somebody gave me a note here when I was saying quid pro quo. It says: "Kid

Pro Kwo was a Korean boxer who was known for giving as good as he could get."

Who sent that note?

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it must be one of yours.

[ Page 738 ]

MR. LAUK: It must be.

My criticism of the Development Corporation, I think, is justified

on the facts. We have a board which has discredited itself over the

years. It has failed to fulfil its mandate. It has had conflict of

interest situations arise that are still unanswered. It has dragged its

heels on the development of Duke Point. It has practically fallen flat

on its face in its role in terms of Prince Rupert. It has to be bailed

out by other organizations in the federal government and private

corporations and so on. This minister and his Crown corporation are a

disaster.

In 1976, the first year of operations of the Development

Corporation, they made a tremendous profit, and while they did so they

were developing more jobs per month than the corporation created in the

ensuing years. It was a total failure, and they have the nerve now to

hand over the operations of the Harbours Board to that corporation. The

B.C. Railway, I say again, is being used as a political tool by this

minister in his own riding to create these massive megaprojects up

there at tremendous public expense, and at the expense of ordinary

little taxpayers throughout the province. Senior citizens, single

parents, young people, old people — we've all paid through the nose to

see this kind of project go ahead for purely political reasons. Are

these the two organizations that are being asked to take on the

responsibilities of the B.C. Harbours Board? I think it's a very sad

day, and I urge all hon. members to oppose this bill.

I would ask, before closing, that the hon. minister withdraw this

bill. If he won't withdraw it, would he consider thinking about it over

a day or two? For the purpose of giving him some opportunity to

reconsider this legislation and its impact, I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[4:00]

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Rogers

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowatt

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sad heart to tell a

story of a poor little port in a storm. I know that the minister is in

a hurry; he has other things that he prefers doing, rather than sitting

in the House. So he felt that if he could close debate at this point he

could run along and do those things that he does so well. The thing

that he does well is rest. He hasn't done a day's work, that I know of,

since I've known him, and that's been years.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The one problem that we have solved with this bill is that the

chairman of the Harbours Board gets fired along with everybody else.

Everybody knows that the chairman is the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He could easily have quit his

job and moved over to let somebody with a little more kudos handle it.

The history of this entire question goes back a long way and through

a number of governments. In 1968 a very able group of local politicians

came down with a report that suggested very strongly....

HON. A. FRASER: What year?

MR. COCKE: It was 1968. Joe Francis and company, Emmott and

many other politicians in the lower mainland, all highly regarded, and

with a great deal of unanimity came down with a report that suggested

that the Roberts Bank corridor — the rail corridor leading from the CPR

across the Delta farmlands and finally culminating at the Roberts Bank

port....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'll edify that poor, uninformed minister anytime,

but this isn't the place, because you see, Mr. Speaker, you would no

doubt call me out of order if I discussed ICBC — a very involved

question that that minister would have a great deal of trouble

understanding.

In any event, back to the corridor. At the time it was suggested,

very definitely by the group who were doing the planning survey and

study — a group who had been commissioned by the Social Credit

government of the old days....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) remembers it well, he tells me.

They came out with not only a suggestion, but a demand, that the

Delta corridor not be abused with warehouses and industrial development

throughout. It angered the then-Premier. As a result of his anger he

dismantled the committee and sent them packing. So that land was

destined to be developed industrially right through that corridor. It

was saved, however, by virtue of the 1972 election, when we brought all

that farmland back into farm use, which is something that some of the

Socreds are not happy about to this day.

One thing, however, that came of this whole question is the fact

that we had our own little port, and we had its Harbours Board — a very

small staff and an efficient job well done — once we guarded that

farmland. Now much of that farmland is still held by that Harbours

Board. That farmland is leased out to people who are farming it, to

people who are

[ Page 739 ]

providing for the needs of our community. What greater needs are there than those supplied by agricultural land?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We are not arguing with the coalport. As a matter

of fact, we are calling for that Harbours Board to remain in charge. Do

not turn that harbour and its accompanying lands directly over to the

B.C. Development Corporation — I'll give you some examples of why I say

that — and the rest of it to B.C. Rail. Talk about failures! Two of the

biggest failures we've ever seen in the province of British Columbia

are those two agencies under the direction of the present minister. It

wasn't always so, but it is so today. The Ministry of Industry and

Small Business Development is now to be involved with some of these

assets — the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development

through its B.C. Development Corporation. The B.C. Development

Corporation came into New Westminster in 1976 and said, "We will serve

you well, brothers and sisters," or whatever they liked to call New

Westminsterites at the time. They said: "We will decorate your

waterfront with housing, hotels and assorted commercial development."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: An improvement? What they had there were viable

docks, providing at least some taxation base for our city. What we have

there now is....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...good restaurants.

MR. COCKE: There's not even a good restaurant anymore. It's gone. They barged it away. What we have now is desolation.

MR. REID: Wait till it's finished.

MR. COCKE: I have been asked to wait till it's finished since

1976. I'm just waiting till it starts — Mr. Member — seven years later.

Now that's the kind of efficiency we look forward to in the

implementation of Bill 25. I see the furrows on my colleague's brow

when he thinks about his precious Harbours Board being dismantled by

this minister without a conscience.

Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that we have to face in this House a bill

that creates a storm in this port, a bill, among others.... They

thought they could hide it. The monstrous bills that we have before us,

naturally, in most instances, would take our minds off something of

this magnitude. But we must not let our minds be led astray by virtue

of the fact that there are other bills in this session of the

Legislature that have a great deal more impact.

If we had any imagination here, we would refer back to some of the

reports that have been made over the years on potential harbor

development in the province. Instead of that we say: "We're not

interested. Turn it over to the railroad." The minister was talking

about that railroad that was so successful over the years until

suddenly there was an NDP government. I ask the minister where that

unaccounted $45 million went last year.

[4:15]

Do you know how they show a profit on that railroad that is to take

over some of these assets? The government loans them money and then

forgives the indebtedness. Then they say: "Hosanna! We have made

money." That has to be the fastest job of bookkeeping that one could

ever imagine: lend them $45 million, then excuse the $45 million with

no interest and no payback and then say they have made some money.

Inefficiency sublime! The inefficiency of that minister and those

aspects under him are well documented.

If he would step aside as chairman of the Harbours Board and leave

the Harbours Board in place, I think we as a province would be well

served. Then we could find a chairman with imagination, a chairman who

would look all over the province for opportunities for harbours — sites

that haven't even been looked at seriously other than by the Ministry

of Environment and a few able people outside the present minister's

purview. They give documented sites in the Prince Rupert area.

The federal government are now saying in terms of their ports:

"Let's have some local control." I don't particularly like the way they

run their shop down in Ottawa, but at least they are asking for some

local autonomy. What a difference from this centralist group over here.

During the time Mulroney was in town, he spent most of his time washing

his hands and saying, like Pontius Pilate, "Take this away from me." He

felt he didn't in any way want to be identified with the centralist

philosophy — this autocratic direction — of the Socreds in B.C., yet he

has difficulty keeping himself at arm's length. He said he would not

participate in the way that they have, yet I see a lot of centralism in

his philosophy as well.

We have to be worried when we see a minister decimate a Harbours

Board that's costing us virtually nothing, one that is proving harbours

can make money. In 1977 the then Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) —

poor benighted chap — was speaking to a group at the Empress Hotel.

Speaking to the ports and ports policy people of Canada, he said:

"Ports should pay their own way. The reason why I am hammering

this issue is twofold. One, with the exception of Prince Rupert — an infant

port, a port with a future — ports out of the Pacific pay their own way. They

have been paying their way for years. Most ports — that is, in eastern Canada

— haven't. I doubt if all of them will or can in the immediate future. The

habit of running to Ottawa to bail them out is too ingrained; it's hard

to shake, and will take tremendous effort on your part."

He was giving advice to port managers across the country. Here we

have a port that's been making money. Can you imagine in your wildest

dreams, Mr. Speaker, that port making money once it gets into the hands

of the Development Corporation, or into the hands of B.C. Rail? I

can't, and I'll tell you why: it will be embroiled in all the political

things that happen in those two areas. As with northeast coal, they

will then be subsidizing foreign steel interests with cheap coal.

Already we see a tremendous downturn in southeast coal, which

incidentally goes directly to Roberts Bank, directly to the Harbours

Board that we're now talking about repealing.

I think it's a mistake. In particular, I think it's a mistake

because, at the beginning of his debate when the minister rose and

explained why this was in fact occurring, he gave us no reason. He

waved his arms and told us what a splendid fellow he was, what a

splendid province it was because he was

[ Page 740 ]

around, and, urging us to support Bill 25, he sat down. Maybe the

minister wasn't feeling quite himself that day; therefore somebody from

either the government back bench or the cabinet would have been up

supporting him. No. Instead, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Reynolds) — that reluctant bride, hoping for a defeat so that he

could get the leadership of the then-decimated but future Conservative

Party of British Columbia; in any event, his ambitions weren't realized

— jumped up and said he agreed with the minister. Did he give us one

argument? Did he say one thing that was succinct?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he did; the member for Surrey is quite right.

I'm quoting him now, so don't misinterpret what I'm saying. He said:

"Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House." The business that followed was a switch of bills. "Get

off it," they thought, until maybe they could put together a few

arguments about why this bill should be presented and adopted and

proclaimed in this province. Well, overnight they slept, and we

expected that today.... All my colleagues, didn't we? We discussed

it in caucus in depth. We had lots of debate, saying to ourselves:

"Surely they're going to come in here today and tell us why it is they

want to dismantle the Harbours Board." They're sitting dumbfounded.

Then, for goodness' sake, as I was about to speak, the minister jumped

up to close debate. I predict what he would have done, had he had that

opportunity....

MRS. WALLACE: Said nothing.

MR. COCKE: Precisely, because he has no reason to close down

a Harbours Board that has done well for the province. Should he have

wanted to in any way alienate the farmland that we're dealing with

here, some 3,900 acres — I can't convert that into hectares, but

sometime when I get out my converter I will — had he wished to take

that 3,900 acres away from the Harbours Board and give it to somebody

else without decimating the Harbours Board, then we could have dealt

with that in and of itself. But we can't. It's far too vague. It's

amorphous. We don't know what he's going to do. But we do know that the

track record of the economic development corporation in its handling of

this sort of thing needs a tremendous amount of in-depth examination

from our side of the House.

I lost myself there. There's a word that just escaped me, and I'll

get it before I'm through because I think I've got just a few more

minutes — maybe 20 or so.

In any event, I worry a good deal about this acreage, and I also

worry about the 3,500 acres outside the diking, some of it under water.

MR. REID: Did you worry about the 726 acres at Tilbury? You never worried about that, did you?

MR. COCKE: The member from Surrey, who seems to be terribly

preoccupied by Tilbury, could very easily get up in this debate and

tell us why he supports this bill.

MR. REID: The same reason I supported Tilbury.

MR. COCKE: He's told us what we feared the most. He supported Tilbury, which was the alienation of farmland and we know that.

MR. REID: It was done by your government.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it was done by our government at the time.

MR. REID: You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

MR. COCKE: I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth. It

was a project that was well underway, and unfortunately was too late to

do anything about, in my opinion. That is neither here not there. We're

talking about far more land in terms of numbers of acres than we're

talking about at Tilbury. Frankly, I wish it had not been alienated.

That's my own personal bias. In any event, it has been. It was done by

us, I recognize that, but let me tell you something. To be able to

admit a mistake is something that some of us should take cognizance of.

We're not talking about 700 acres, in any event; we're talking about

3,900, and that member has told us the whole story. Get it out of farm

production and get it into industrial development. That's what Tilbury

was all about.

MR. REID: It's all covered with coal dust now and it's no good for anything.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's not true. They are farming

that land successfully. That same member stood in this House and told

us the Spetifore land doesn't grow things. What a crock! That land has

been growing things in that family for years and years. The only time

good agricultural land quits growing is when people quit looking after

it; and that member knows that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Okay, maybe we could use some of that out there

and grow better crops. In any event, what I'm interested in is the

better crops. We have here 3,900 acres that will be sorely needed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were a disaster running ICBC and you're still a disaster.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: Isn't that fortunate? Anything more? Any more about my disastership?

The Minister of old hubcaps. He has a record made of old hubcaps

that goes around and around and says: "Disaster, disaster, disaster."

He knows it better. He's an expert on disaster, Mr. Speaker.

That farmland is a heritage that we must not deny the future

generations of this province. I don't know how many times one must say

it: not we, very likely, at our age; maybe not even our children; but

there are generations to come who, denied the agricultural land in this

province, could very well starve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh, what a bunch! They could very well starve, Mr. Speaker. We are dependent today on California to

[ Page 741 ]

a large extent, and believe me, their land use policy is abysmal.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can grow eight crops a year.

MR. COCKE: You can grow six crops on that land, and you know

it. Their land use policy in California is abysmal, and our land use

policy under the Socreds is abysmal. All we can do as an opposition is

work to protect as much of that land as we possibly can.

We took an awful lot of flak, I'll tell you, in 1973-74, when we

introduced the land use act and the Agricultural Land Commission. It

was probably one of the best pieces of legislation ever introduced

here, or anywhere in North America. The reason that it was such

excellent legislation was that it protected the future food of the

people to come in our province — your grandchildren, mine, and

everybody else's.

The member talks about the Burns Bog. He knew perfectly well that

what was asked of the regional districts of the day was: "You decide on

what's to come out and what's to stay in. Give us your maps."

MR. REID: And you made the decision; it wasn't the regional district.

MR. COCKE: The Agricultural Land Commission made the decisions. What do you think we set it up for?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please. Hon. second member for

Surrey (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

May he please continue uninterrupted.

MR. COCKE: In a way, Mr. Speaker, he's rather helping me with

my speech. And I just adore the responses from the minister. The

minister, who got up in this House to introduce an important bill like

this and said absolutely nothing in defence of his action, spends all

of his time criticizing the opposition for asking for answers, begging

the government to get up there and support their own minister and his

bill. They won't. One member got up yesterday and moved adjournment,

and that was it. I haven't seen the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who isn't in Toronto right now — surprise,

surprise....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't hurt him that way.

MR. COCKE: Oh, sorry.

Anyway, I haven't seen the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

get up and defend this legislation. You know why he hasn't got up to

defend it? He can't. He's ashamed of Bill 25. He's as worried about it

as I am, because he knows....

MR. REE: Sit down.

MR. COCKE: Are you going to jump up if I do? Oh, so one

member speaks for a minister? Hey, I'll tell you something, we've got

coordination over there like we never believed.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: How're you doing?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to allow plenty of time for the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to settle down.

Back to the bill. Just to give an idea of what we're talking about

here, they're taking a paying port.... The member for North

Vancouver said is that what we need in this country, and he insists

that all the ports should pay their own way. We've got one that does,

and they're turning it over to a loser. They're turning it over to B.C.

Rail; they're turning it over to the B.C. Development Corporation and

we've now been told by the member for Surrey that the reason for that

is so that it can be like Tilbury. That's why he supported it, he said.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What he's saying, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, because you're looking quizzical, in effect is....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Garde, are you being bored?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MR. COCKE: All right. Then ask that man to withdraw this bill

and I'll gladly sit down. We've got 26 more where that came from that

you'd better start thinking about withdrawing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now you're threatening.

MR. COCKE: I'm threatening! And what are you going to do about it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now we know what your silly little game plan is.

MR. COCKE: Our silly little game plan, my foot! We're dead

serious in terms of the direction of this government. The direction is

all wrong, dead wrong, and we're dead serious, Mr. Speaker. If there

were arguments in defence of Bill 25 we would have heard those

arguments by now, surely. Hasn't this bill been before this House for

some couple of hundred minutes? That's a fair length of time — two or

three hours or more, Mr. Speaker — and the member is worried about

wasting time. As far as we're concerned, we are dead serious about this

and every other bill that hurts this province or its future.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're dead in the water.

MR. COCKE: Wouldn't that minister like to think so!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's why you're in opposition; that's why you remain opposition.

MR. COCKE: Maybe. Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I'm in

opposition, and will be in opposition, and have been in opposition.

Yes, I've been around for a while, and I'll tell you something, Mr.

Speaker: our form of government demands an opposition. It demands a

responsible opposition, and that's what I plan to be in the next few

years. As a responsible opposition member, it's up to me to see to it

that

[ Page 742 ]

we don't have the kind of legislation that's being poked down the

throats of the people of this province by a government who never told

anybody what they were trying to do until they got here. No, Mr.

Speaker, we're not going to accept this easily; we're not going to

accept it all.

Getting back to this bill, I would just like to say that rather than

go the direction that we're going we should have been going in the

direction of expanding opportunities. Take a look at other areas. That

minister is talking about industrial development and about the great

opportunities in B.C., and what is he doing? He's taking away an arm

that could very easily be looking at other site possibilities for the

B.C. Harbours Board. There are other site possibilities. He knows it

and I know it. But, Mr. Speaker, what's that minister doing? No, no,

he's turning it over to his Development Corporation that he's wrecked

and that is wrecking New Westminster like it's never been wrecked

before; he's turning it over to his B.C. Railway that's borrowing money

to subsidize the Japanese coal industry. Come on, Mr. Minister, what

are you expecting from us? You're expecting us to give you assent or to

give you any kind of support on this? No, we can't.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I keep getting an increased majority. I don't know what the minister's talking about.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know, and you're very happy about that. Why

don't you come over and run against me sometime? You'd do fine up

north, but you wouldn't do very well down here, because they know you

down here.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that member never goes home, they don't know

him anymore, and he does okay up there. But let him run down here where

people know him. I dare you to come near New Westminster. I'll tell you

something: the majority there would go to 95 percent. Even the best

would vote against you there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 25, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry for getting off Bill 25,

but sometimes that minister gets to me, and he gets to me in such a way

that I have to say this: I do not and will not support a bill that

takes away the agricultural land from those people that have now got

it. I don't support a bill that turns over assets to the B.C. Rail or

to the B.C. Development Corporation. I want the minister to sleep on

it, and I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House. How do you like them apples?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[4:45]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like you

to ascertain how the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) got the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: I wasn't aware, hon. members, that I had given the floor to any member.

MR. LEA: Then why was he speaking?

MR. SPEAKER: A question, hon. members, that could well be asked at many times during the course of the proceedings.

Continuing, hon. members, on Bill 25.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications has left to catch the government plane back

home. At a time of restraint he's making sure he doesn't fly at night

because they have to turn the lights on and this is a little saving on

behalf of the peasants of British Columbia. The little car waits for

them and picks them up and carries their soft derrieres out to the

airport, lifts them into the plane and takes them home so they can rest

overnight. Sometimes Alec would like to go to the races but there's no

room in the plane for him. He's just the minister who gets the heat

when he has to table the books. By the way, when are the books coming?

When are the books coming from the plane rides?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly do, and I know where my home is too, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we can cease with the

interjections and ask the hon. member now taking his place in debate to

speak to Bill 25.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly intend to speak on this bill sometime during the 40 minutes that I have.

Actually, we know what this bill is all about, but nobody wants to

talk about it. This is a companion bill to the move of the government

to eliminate the Crown corporations supervisory committee. This is an

attempt to remove from any

[ Page 743 ]

scrutiny in this Legislature assets in the normal process of dealing

with budgetary items and ministerial responsibilities on boards. Put it

under Crown corporations, emasculate the Crown Corporations Committee,

and there'll be no more accounting to this Legislature or to the people

what they intend to do with the properties.

The one person in this chamber on the government side who has had

the guts to stand up and publicly say that he won't see the Crown

Corporations Committee emasculated is one of the true right-wingers

over there. He's got a sense of accountability. I know that that member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was thinking exactly of this kind of

legislation when he spoke out against his own government's move to

eliminate the Crown Corporations Committee. We know exactly what is

intended by this legislation. It seems to be innocuous and seems to be

the matter of some debate on a lazy afternoon, but it is actually

designed to remove from public scrutiny examination of control of those

lands. That will be slipped into the Crown corporations, and the Crown

corporations can't do research or study any more.

I remember that the Crown Corporations Committee was established to

avoid exactly what they're attempting to have take place here in this

legislation: putting in the hands of those Crown corporations more and

more assets. Big government on the backs of the people, hidden in the

Crown corporations that have no accountability whatsoever to this

chamber. While this government spends tens of thousands of dollars

looking for cliches and slogans to sell its policies, and while they

have high-priced hacks from Ontario designing buzzwords about getting

governments off the backs of people, this bill is designed to get

governments right on the back so that they can cover up what they

intend to do with this land in the people's names. Where will the

accounting be once the Crown Corporations Committee is emasculated? Do

you think that that minister, of all ministers, will come into this

House and tell us all what's happening to that land?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stonewall Phillips.

MR. BARRETT: That is complimentary, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have to repeat, Mr. Minister, I'd rather be lame-duck than lame-brain.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How come you're both then?

MR. BARRETT: Well, my dear friend....

You know, it's very interesting to see how they behaved four months

ago in the election campaign and how they behave now: " Oh, we want

accountability. No sirree, boy, we won't change anything." Do you

remember how they were? They got on television and said: "Oh, we won't

charge more on medicare premiums. No sir, not us. Oh, no, we won't

dismantle rent control. No sir, not us. Oh, we won't do away with the

Crown corporations. Just vote for us and trust us." They lied, Mr.

Speaker, and as example of this....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Social Credit Party lied, Mr. Speaker. That's who

lied. Now there were members in that party who delivered the message, but it

was the party that lied — not the members or the candidates or the ministers

or the MLAs. It was the party that lied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind all members that

when canvassing debate, temperance and moderation in language is

certainly a courtesy in this House, and if we can avoid unparliamentary

language.... I would also remind the hon. member that he is

anticipating other legislation. We are on Bill 25.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you telling us that the Leader of the Opposition is not in order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair found some of the terminology

offensive, hon. member, and there were also references to another piece

of legislation, which offends the rule of anticipation.

MR. LEA: Do you have a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there is a ruling on anticipation.

MR. LEA: Are you ruling that that was anticipation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I was just cautioning the member, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, why did you interfere if you have no ruling or anything to say?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the rule of anticipation is

quite clear. It is stated in Sir Erskine May and is a parliamentary

standing order in this House, and I'm sure the member is aware of it.

MR. LEA: That's true, Has there been an infraction, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, there is....

MR. LEA: Are you ruling there has?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was cautioning the member speaking that....

MR. LEA: You're not ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish a ruling?

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, you either have to rule on it or not interfere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair can caution members.

It's a common comment in Sir Erskine May that the Chair may intervene

when in fact they presume or they understand that a rule is being

offended. The rule of anticipation was being offended.

MR. LEA: I see. That's your ruling,

MR SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Then I challenge your ruling.

[ Page 744 ]

[5:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the time under standing orders has elapsed.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the time is not elapsed in

accordance with the clock in the House, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what

measurement you're using, but under standing orders it's quite specific.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the standing orders are

specific. There are two timers up here, which I believe are accurate,

and the time has elapsed.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there are lots of two-timers over there.

[5:00]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Rogers

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

MR. BARRETT: Could the Chair advise me exactly how much time

I have left? Thank you. I don't want to inconvenience too many cabinet

ministers.

I was making a point that is obvious to almost anyone who wants to

scrutinize this legislation carefully. It's true that I did mention

another piece of legislation; I won't do that any more. But in terms of

Beauchesne and May, the other part of what I was saying — it's a

part I

intend to leave at this moment — is thoroughly researched and

permissible: a person or a member cannot lie, but a political party can

lie. If anybody wants evidence of that, just examine what was said in

the last election campaign by that political party. It lied all the way

through the campaign. That's the point I'm making. I don't need to

overemphasize it.

In that context, we must deal with the bill that's before us. It is

a bill that will permit the weakening of legislative control and

authority over property that is held in the name of the Crown on behalf

of the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We did nothing of the kind, and you know it.

MR. BARRETT: Go make another long distance call to Australia. Did you ever pay those Australia phone bills?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Now we understand each other.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MR. BARRETT: The fact is, as these assets are moved to the

Crown corporations named in the bill, both the railway and the

Development Corporation, they pass from jurisdiction of examination and

ministerial accountability in this House for those Crown corporations.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know that's hogwash.

MR. BARRETT: If the minister would only calm down a little

bit! When I see his anxiety over this probing scrutiny on the bill, one

begins to wonder if a deal has already been made for this property. Is

somebody waiting at the trough for the slops as a result of the

election campaign? Is there more payola waiting out there to push this

bill through to get control of that land? I know very well the record

of this government and access to government property, and the number of

criminal records that have been established through a former Social

Credit government, and cabinet ministers going to jail.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years ago was that?

MR. BARRETT: How many years ago? That doesn't wipe out the

record. The only cabinet minister in the whole Commonwealth who went to

jail came out of that cabinet bench right over there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: And that's relevant to the bill?

MR. BARRETT: It certainly is, because the record of this

government makes me question the loss of control of public land that is

of high value and may not have accountability here in this Legislature.

We've seen what's happened before.

MR. REID: What about Tilbury?

MR. BARRETT: What about Tilbury? Has there ever been any

allegation that any NDP member made any money out of the development of

Tilbury? None whatsoever, and you agree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know.

MR. BARRETT: "I don't know." Well, I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker. There has never been an allegation of that. My suspicion here

is in terms of access to land by this government, and loss of control

of this land. The record of those kinds of wheeler-dealers over there

is that accountability will be lost, and who knows what's going to

happen to that land? Do you? Do you know, Mr. Speaker? Does the

minister know? Can the minister, in closing this debate — sometime in

January or February — assure this House that there will be no

[ Page 745 ]

private development of any of these lands without bid, without open

sale, without access to everyone? And, indeed, if there is a plan for

private sale of these lands that are being transferred? Is there

already such a plan?

Mr. Speaker, this government has a record of lack of accountability.

It has a record of lack of consultation with the people in the

community. And this move will allow the land that is now held by the

Harbours Board to go into the hands of those Crown corporations and

then it may be disposed of by those Crown corporations. It is a way of

finding a vehicle to transfer valuable land assets over to Crown

corporations, and then put them up for sale. Is that the plan? Is

somebody in line to buy it?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Well, my good friend, we've seen this before.

We've seen it many times. We have the present Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) who stood up and said that the

Attorney-General saved him from recommended prosecution by a Crown

prosecutor. Now when a Crown prosecutor goes out and recommends that a

politician be prosecuted, and then the politician gets up in this

chamber and says, "I have been saved from prosecution by the

Attorney-General," one gets suspicious about the motivation behind

this kind of legislation. If I were a police officer and had to go out

and do an investigation on a politician, and the Crown prosecutor

recommended on the basis of that investigation that charges be laid and

a prosecution take place, and the minister — who was then an MLA —

stands up and says that even in spite of a Crown prosecutor

recommending prosecution, "The Attorney-General saved me"....

That's the record of this government, Mr. Speaker. Now it's not

known to too many people, since there are probably about 50 or 60 in

the galleries, but the fact is that we have Crown ministers admitting

that the Attorney-General has saved them from prosecution after the

Crown prosecutor recommended prosecution. We wouldn't want that to get

out to too many citizens. But for those who are there, let us

understand the record of this government, how they handle Crown

property, how they wheel and deal, and when they get caught they look

for protection politically within this government.

What is being set up here? I'll tell you what is being set up.

MR. MOWAT: Opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Opportunity? Good, good, good! He's learning

fast, Mr. Speaker. Opportunity! Opportunity for who? Mr. Speaker, we've

seen Crown assets disappear into the private sector. And end up where?

MR. LEA: There was $5.5 million last time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the $5.5 million that disappeared in McKim ad agencies — they won't call the police on that. I want to know....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Panco Poultry?

MR. BARRETT: Is there any allegation of wrongdoing in Panco Poultry?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, all right. You just call the police if

you've got any allegations to make. But I find it interesting that in

situations like this, when these assets are being slipped across, under

the umbrella of a Crown corporation that will no longer have to report

to a committee.... What do we know is going to happen to those

assets? Does the minister have a plan to sell off that land? I'd like

to know that. Is there already a plan in hand to sell this property off?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're pitiful.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, personal attacks on me are

completely acceptable — I mean, if that's all you've got to say. But

aside from any personal feelings you may have for me, the validity of

the question is there. I don't think you like me; and I love you. I

don't understand why you don't reciprocate. On occasion I've even blown

you a kiss, but you've ignored me. In spite of our friendliness, the

fact is that the specific question that you have to answer in closing

is: are there already plans to dispose of any of these assets that are

going to be transferred to the British Columbia Development Corporation

and B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Look out, the sky's falling in. You'd like to make people think that, wouldn't you?

[5:15]

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Well, just get up and deny it. Just get up and tell this House....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Will you sit down? I'll get up and deny it.

MR. BARRETT: Get up, when your time comes....

Just calm down. Mr. Speaker, every time that minister gets riled I

know that I have pressed the guilt button somewhere. Just calm

yourself; there are some more questions.

Interjections,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it might be worthwhile to

reconsider the earlier Speaker's lectures, or little informal classroom

discussions, to some of the new back-benchers. If you want to

interrupt, get a few years behind you and learn how to do it properly.

We have been through this before, Mr. Speaker, where innocuous bits

of legislation come into this chamber. It is being sold as some

administrative possibility of better control, only for us to discover

that those assets that were acquired in the name of the Crown on behalf

of the citizens of this province have ended up under the private

ownership of friends of the government. Now is this not part of the

same pattern that we have seen time and time again, where a little bill

has slipped into this chamber; where a little bit of administrative

transfer is going over; where there's just a little bit of shifting of

ownership and it's no longer under the scrutiny of the Crown

Corporations Committee, and all of a sudden six months from now or

eight months from now contributors to the Social Credit Party end up,

as free-enterprisers, the owners of this land? What an amazing series

of coincidences.

Mr. Speaker, the chances of that happening are better than winning a lottery

ticket when there are only two of you in the lottery. What is happening here

today is that tremendously valuable property worth tens of millions of dollars

is being

[ Page 746 ]

quietly scooped out of the control of the Harbours Board. The

Harbours Board is being killed, and these assets that are scooped out

are being transferred over to two Crown corporations that no longer

have to have accountability to this chamber through the Crown

Corporations Committee.

What is going to happen to that land? Well, I am going to make a prediction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a bunch of hogwash!

MR. BARRETT: You know, in the 23 years that I have been here,

wilder things than what I have suggested have come true. Who would have

thought that carpets or land deals or gravel pits would be part of a

major scandal in this province? It all came true. Is nothing Socred?

Mr. Speaker, when you look at it that way, anything is possible when it

comes to dealing with this outfit. Anything is possible! It took them a

little while to figure that one out, but they laughed. But a little

touch of humour only recalls exactly what we have seen in this chamber

time and time and time again.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Trust them! They've got a long record. I don't know if it's a good record, but it's a long record.

MR. REID: It's going to get better.

MR. BARRETT: If it's going to get better, it will be a longer

time maybe; I don't know. Maybe the people of British Columbia....

Maybe they'll get paroled; I don't know. Certainly I wouldn't give them

probation, not after the lies they've told.

Mr. Speaker, if you examine under the

interpretation section, you

notice that not only is there a specific outline of what is to be

transferred but there is this curious no. 4. I want to bring to the

attention of the House "transfer date." What's the rush? Why is the

transfer date specifically mentioned in the opening paragraph of this

legislation? Normally when such a transfer takes place, it can be

handled through regulation, not in the bill itself. Is this an attempt

to lock in, legislatively in this chamber, a specific transfer date so

that any court case afterwards can say: "This is not regulation; it is

in the legislation itself"? It's an absolute signal. It's a signal to

anybody who's out there waiting.

It goes on to talk about this

section here that justifies the

suspicions I have. The disposition of assets and liabilities of the

corporation. Everything goes; and all it has is assets. And what has

the Development Corporation and B.C. Rail got? Debts.

Do you know what the argument will be when the property is put up

for sale? The argument will be that we have to reduce the debts of B.C.

Rail. It's like walking down the street and seeing your neighbour's

house mortgage-free. So you go and expropriate your neighbour's house,

incorporate it into your mortgage, and then sell your neighbour's

house, saying: "We need to reduce our debt." They're taking the assets

that the taxpayers of this province have already paid for, transferring

them to a Crown corporation, and then they'll sell them off.

I find it interesting that the minister does not give us a reason

for the disposal of the assets. Why? What is the rush? Why is it

necessary to put these assets in the hands of those two Crown

corporations, unless, as I suspect, there is a move to sell those

assets as quickly as possible? Will the minister tell us when he closes

that there is no intention to have those assets sold off? Will the

minister tell us that?

Mr. Speaker, I think we have found the real reason for this bill. I

think it's becoming all the more obvious why this bill has been

presented. I believe that this was a simple transfer of assets to

facilitate sale of these properties to the private sector so that there

will again be access to Crown property. To whom? We've seen enough

evidence of the philosophy around this kind of land. Need I mention

Gloucester, where the minister himself went to the hearings? Gloucester

Estates. The minister, Mr. McClelland, went to those hearings and

beseeched the ELUC committee to remove those lands. Unprecedented.

There in the minutes — the verbatim transcript of the committee

meetings — the minister is pleading for private citizens to have access

to a decision that would remove farmland — and immediately increase its

value. Spetifore is another case.

You know, it's very interesting how these members respond.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Harbours Board could sell that land if they wanted to.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, they can sell the land if they want to, eh?

The Harbours Board has no intention of selling the land, so the way to

get around that is to get rid of a recalcitrant board and put it under

the control of a Crown corporation that no longer has to report their

scrutiny to this chamber, one more malleable to the desires of the

minister and his goals of eliminating public control.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Is it wrong, really, Mr. Minister? We have seen....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I'm enjoying this. We're finally getting a

little bit.... You know what we're getting an indication of from this

kind of interruption now? It is indeed an idea to sell. Yes, it's

coming out slowly. I'm sorry that I only have 40 minutes; another hour

of cross-examination and I'd have the names of these people who it is

denied have access. Are the Olma brothers involved? Well, we can

eliminate them; they're too high-profile right now.

But let's examine what the minister just said. He just said: "Well,

the Harbours Board could have sold the land." They don't want to sell

the land. That's why you're getting rid of the Harbours Board. You want

to sell the land. That's what's going on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're such a disaster. No wonder you lead your party into opposition all the time. You're an absolute disaster.

MR. BARRETT: I want to encourage the minister to keep

talking. Please, Mr. Speaker, the more he talks, the more we get a

glimpse of what's really going on behind there. The minister is not a

very complicated person.

Interjection.

[ Page 747 ]

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I'm simple. Once I see a crook I

recognize one, Mr. Minister. I've seen this government dispose of Crown

assets and get in trouble before. Ministers have gone to jail. Others

have been hidden behind the Attorney-General. That's a matter of

record. Your record is one of shameful loss of control of Crown assets,

and I say that this seems to be another move in the same way. No one on

this side has ever gone to jail for accepting bribes; only a Social

Credit cabinet minister has done that in my time here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, hon. member. I'll advise

that there are an awful lot of interjections going on. They're quite

unparliamentary. And there have been terms used that the Chair has

found most offensive. Perhaps we could allow the speaker now addressing

the debate to speak uninterrupted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm making a case under this bill.

This House is losing control of these assets and it is my suspicion

that these assets, once transferred to the Crown corporations

mentioned, will be made available for disposal to private interests. It

is my suspicion that the private interests that these will be disposed

to are probably already known — already know the date. Why else would

the bill have a transfer date in it when normally, with assent of the

Legislature, dates are set by regulation afterwards? Why does this bill

actually specify a transfer date? Because there is anxiety around

related to a business deal.

Then we go through this bill, and we discover that accountability

for the people's assets, land owned by the people of this province, is

now disappearing. Again, it's another move under the guise of

"restraint" to give people access to Crown assets, to privatize in a

way that individuals benefit. There's no other reason on the face of

this earth to eliminate the Harbours Board — other than to get rid of a

recalcitrant administrative group and turn over the assets to pliable,

manageable Crown corporations that don't have to report to this chamber

and will allow the loss of ownership.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know full well that both the railway and BCDC report to this chamber.

[5:30]

MR. BARRETT: Again, when you let him talk a little bit it

comes out a bit more. "You know full well that the B.C. Railway has to

report in this chamber." I refer you back, Mr. Speaker, in the context

of this bill, to the $45 million taken by warrant from general revenue

in the last week of March 1982 and handed over to B.C. Rail. When that

minister was asked where the $45 million went, and when the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was asked the same question, they refused to

answer in this chamber. It took almost 15 months to discover that the

$45 million that had been taken from general revenue, out of school and

hospital budgets, had been handed to B.C. Rail and used as a debt

write-off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's only half of what was lost the last year you were Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, whether we lost or won, we told the truth.

You didn't tell the truth about that $45 million. That minister never answered

a question in this chamber. We found, 14 or 15 months later, that that $45 million

showed up in public accounts, written off as a bad debt. Why weren't we

told the truth then?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why can't you keep your MLAs in to listen to you when you're speaking?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, sooner or later the public of this

province will catch up to this government. Sooner or later there'll be

a day of reckoning and accounting. But until that day comes, and as

long as I'm here, and I may not be here a long time, I'll speak in

defence of public assets against a selloff by this government — any

single time.

There was $45 million taken out of schools, hospitals and from the

elderly of this province and written off as a bad debt, and no truth to

the people of this province.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the interruptions or

the catcalls, but no matter how much the minister raises his voice it

still doesn't cover up the intent of this bill as a pattern of what

we've seen by Social Credit before: an attempt to move assets into a

Crown corporation and then sell them off. Why else would this bill be

in front of the Legislature today? Why else would there be a transfer

date in the legislation rather than in the regulations? Why is it in

Bill 3 they can't come up with regulations, but in this bill they've

got regulations material right in the context of the legislation? It

leads me to believe, as I suspect, that these assets will be

transferred to the Crown corporations and they will then be sold off to

private interests. I believe, because even the transfer date is

included, that the principals involved are already salivating over the

pros