[ Page 1985 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Use of library during Saturday sitting. Mr. Chabot — 1985

Mr. Speaker — 1985

Routine proceedings

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1985

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1985

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1988

Mr. Gabelmann — 1989

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1992

Mr. Gibson — 1992

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1997

Mr. Bennett — 1998

Mr. Cummings — 1999

Mr. Gardom — 2000

Point of order

Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Gardom — 2001

Deputy Speaker — 2001

Mr. Gardom — 2001

Mr. Speaker — 2001

Mr. Gardom — 2001

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2002

Mr. Speaker — 2002

Mr. Chabot — 2003

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2003

Mr. Chabot — 2003

Mr. Speaker — 2004

Mr. McGeer — 2004

Mr. Speaker — 2004

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2004

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2004

Mr. Morrison — 2005

Mr. Speaker — 2005

Mr. McClelland — 2005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2005

Mr. Speaker — 2005

Mr. Dent — 2005

Mr. Gardom — 2005

Mr. McClelland — 2005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2006

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2006

Routine proceedings

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 10). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2006

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 2009

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates. On vote 106.

Mr. Phillips — 2011

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2013

Mr. Phillips — 2014

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2015

Mr. Phillips — 2016

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2017

Mr. Phillips — 2017

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2018

Mr. Phillips — 2018

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2018

Mr. Bennett — 2019

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2019

Mr. Bennett — 2019

Mr. Gardom — 2019

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2021

Mr. McGeer — 2022

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2024

Mr. Bennett — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2025

Mr. Chabot — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2025

Mr. Smith — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2026

Mr. Gibson — 2026

Mr. Bennett — 2027

SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a Saturday morning sitting is an unprecedented thing. I would like some advice from you with regard to the facilities of the library.

Six sections under our standing orders make specific reference to the integral part of the Legislative Assembly which the library plays. There is not a full complement of staff in the library and I find it exceedingly difficult to get some of the information which is necessary for me to debate the subject matter before the House at this time.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could investigate that problem and probably recess until such time as we can get sufficient staff to facilitate the Members of this House to research the necessary details on this terribly important question of housing.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly look into the question of whether the library is open today.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I agree that it's open.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there someone in there?

MR. CHABOT: There's one member of staff, but it's not a full complement and it's exceedingly difficult when you're not familiar with a particular subject and you need help….(Laughter.)

It might be a laughing matter across the way, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think it's a laughing matter. It's clearly spelled out in six different sections of the standing orders how important the library is to the Legislative Assembly. I hope that something will be done prior to the debate which I assume we're going into in the very near future.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you returned all the books you have out on loan?

MR. CHABOT: As far as I know, yes. I have to go and get some more, and I need some help.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll certainly help you.

MR. CHABOT: Could you come right now, Mr. Speaker? There's on specific book I have difficulty finding. Will you declare a little recess?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think that both of us can go out together.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's what I'm asking for. Let's go.

MR. SPEAKER: In a minute.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING) FUND
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is related specifically to transportation in the Vancouver area and the energy crisis, which will become more complex in the North American scene.

The energy crisis on petroleum products has at least served a useful purpose in showing that the future needs of the greater Vancouver area have to be met essentially by mass transportation and must be based on something other than the individual automobile.

In our opinion, the solution lies in the development of an efficient rapid transit system, not a third crossing of Burrard Inlet.

This Act therefore proposes to amend the purpose for which the $27 million fund may be used from that third crossing of Burrard Inlet to the provision of a rapid transit facility in the province and specifically in the lower mainland area.

Those of us who have had the wonderful opportunity of living in this beautiful province, and specifically in the Vancouver area, can understand the mistakes made by other large cities in ripping the hearts out of those cities with super highways, freeways and concrete ribbons that destroy any sense of neighbourhood or community that was left in those cities.

It is a philosophical and direct commitment of this government to ensure that our cities remain human, warm and understanding. We do not see the need for our cities to serve the automobile; cities should serve people, for that is what cities are all about. Therefore I suggest to the House that this bill is a move away, as has been started in some other Canadian cities, from serving the automobile and towards developing a rapid transit system that meets the needs of people, not cars.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, we intend to oppose this legislation. It will come as no surprise to the Premier that this is our position because Members of this party, including myself, spent many, many hours and days attempting to convince the former government that it should live up to the obligation which it

[ Page 1986 ]

undertook when it acquired the First Narrows crossing and when it subsequently undertook the construction of the Second Narrows crossing.

In January, 1955, when the government of the day saw fit to acquire the urban transit crossing known as Lions Gate Bridge and to make it part of the provincial highways system, the government stated that when further traffic arterial routes across Burrard Inlet were required the government would construct them.

The Premier of the day (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said that Lions Gate Bridge was now part of the Queen's highway system, and a commitment was made at that time not only to the people who lived on the North Shore or to those who lived in Vancouver and had occasion to cross to the North Shore, but as well to those people who required access to the lower mainland from the Sunshine Coast, from Squamish and north from there, that they would be afforded the kind of access which the future would require.

As a consequence of that commitment, numerous studies were undertaken into the means of providing new, alternative means of relieving the growing traffic congestion on the Burrard Inlet crossings. Over the intervening years, from the late 50s until 1967, in excess of 40 separate schemes were considered. Finally in 1967 the provincial government, through the Minister of Highways, convened a series of meeting with the representatives of the municipalities on the north and south shores of Burrard Inlet to consider the resolution of the problem. Out of these meetings came further meetings with B.C. Members of Parliament and provincial MLAs from the greater Vancouver area….

The culmination of those meetings was the conclusion of an agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia, under which specific examinations and inquiries would be undertaken to provide, once and for all, a solution to the problem of which we were all then so fully aware, and a problem which remains with us today.

This particular legislation, whereby the government established a $27 million fund to facilitate the construction of this crossing, was a direct result of the agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia. This legislation was introduced on the floor of this House specifically in compliance with that agreement. What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is to default on the part of British Columbia in that agreement.

For the federal government's part, following the meeting of minds between Canada and British Columbia, it undertook extensive and costly studies. Something in the neighbourhood of $5 million was expended by the Government of Canada in assessing the alternatives and providing the basic studies upon which engineering could continue. During the course of those studies the entire community — the three municipalities on the north side of the inlet, the City of Vancouver, indeed, all of metropolitan Vancouver — was engaged and encouraged to be engaged in the discussions surrounding the location of the crossing and the nature of it.

The final recommendation was that there should be a tunnel under Burrard Inlet. This tunnel would serve the needs of north-south intermunicipal traffic for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the small but vocal opposition there was, in spite of all the emotion that was displayed in the latter stages of these discussions, it is clear to those who look carefully at the scheme that the central provision in the tunnel was for public transit.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was insisted upon by the national government that in the construction of the crossing, facilities for public transit would be the primary motivation. It is true that there were also to be facilities for the private passenger vehicle. But, Mr. Speaker, too much emphasis has been placed upon those facilities for the private passenger vehicle, and it was very convenient for the opponents of the scheme to ignore the fact that facilities for the private passenger vehicle were also facilities for commercial transport.

It was convenient to overlook the fact that as the metropolitan area expands there is an ever-increasing need to expand our facilities in order to ensure that the commercial life of that community can be sustained. I agreed with many of the opponents, and I agree with what the Premier has said here this morning, that in our search for ways to diminish the demand we are currently making upon energy resources, and in particular petroleum resources, our passion for the private passenger vehicle must somehow itself be diminished. Our reliance upon it must be less than it is today, and less than has been forecast for the future.

I am a proponent of public transit. Mr. Speaker, I am a proponent of public transit in the metropolitan area which will adequately serve the needs of the metropolitan area. I recognize the need there is for an east-west public transit corridor, and I would urge the Government of British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and all the municipalities within that region to concern themselves at the earliest moment with the solution to that problem.

Mr. Speaker, while an east-west corridor is required, it must also be recognized that a north-south corridor is required. The opportunity that we have had with this bill, inadequate though these provincial moneys may be, and the opportunity that was given to us with the proposal of the national government, would have made an immediate start upon the north-south corridor — not simply a corridor which links the comparatively small North

[ Page 1987 ]

Shore communities with the City of Vancouver, but a north-south corridor which would extend to the communities lying south of the City of Vancouver such as the communities of Richmond and Delta, themselves probably one of the most important developing areas in the whole metropolitan region.

The move we are taking here today, in addition to breaching the understanding between British Columbia and Canada, is denying us the early opportunity to do something to establish the public transit system of which the Premier speaks, and with which I agree.

If I may return momentarily to the matter of the facilities in the proposed crossing available for vehicles other than public transit, may I say that the provision of those facilities was an attempt to look beyond the needs of the metropolitan community over the next few decades, to look beyond to the north of this province and to recognize the needs of the people who today live in those areas over the next decade.

It is true there has perhaps been too much attention in the past focused upon the lower mainland area, but nonetheless it is and will remain that part of British Columbia to which commerce will turn. Our highway system over the next two decades will extend north but will still link the northern regions of this province with the lower mainland, not only as access to the facilities which are here but because it is the gateway to the south.

Therefore, the improvement of this harbour crossing with facilities for other than public transit is and will become an essential, integral part of the inter-regional traffic system of which the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) spoke during the course of his estimates over the past two days.

When the present government undertook its decision to discard the proposed tunnel crossing of the Burrard Inlet under the guise of doing something for public transit, it made a blunder which will require years of careful effort to overcome. The action upon which the government appears to be set now, in the provision of a ferry link for passengers only across the inlet, is a blunder which will take years to overcome. It fails to recognize the way in which modern technology indicates people should be moved; it fails to understand what the real need is with respect to the crossing between the north and south shores of Burrard Inlet. It fails to recognize the real importance of that crossing not only to the metropolitan area but to the entire province.

It's not too late for the government to reconsider both the direction it would go in this particular bill before us today but also in the direction in which it intends to go with respect to alternative facilities for the crossing of Burrard Inlet.

To suggest that the $27 million in this fund, by releasing those moneys from the specific purpose for which the fund was established, can in any way meet the obligation of this government, so far as public transit is concerned, is unthinkable. Even by extending this $27 million for the specific purpose for which the fund was established, namely the crossing of Burrard Inlet, there still rests upon the Government of British Columbia the obligation to provide additional millions, indeed hundreds of millions of dollars in order to realize the public transit system which will in any way approach the goal which the Premier enunciated in opening this debate, namely the goal which the people in the metropolitan area out of their private vehicles and in that way attempting to avoid the continuing congestion of our cities and the continuing and expanding consumption of petroleum resources.

We cannot be blind to what is happening in other areas. We cannot be blind to what has occurred in the City of San Francisco where, after a decade and a half of planning and construction, they realized the goal of mass, heavy rapid transit only to find themselves today in a situation where that highly expensive system is almost in collapse. It is a financial catastrophe and has not made any appreciable impact on the public transit requirements of that metropolitan area. That is the nature of the challenge that faces this government if, as the Premier says, it is their aim in this bill to ensure that there are public transit facilities serving the metropolitan area.

The government is making a mistake. The government is making a mistake which it or some future government of this province will be obliged to undo. It is missing an opportunity; indeed, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that it has already discarded an opportunity to provide this crossing of this harbour and with it to embark in a major way upon the public transit solution which metropolitan Vancouver needs and to which this government gives lip-service.

I would urge the Premier to adjourn this debate. I would urge him to send his Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the head of the transit bureau division of that department to the federal government for the express purpose of bringing together the national government and the Government of British Columbia in a positive effort to have the earliest start made on the proposed and partly-engineered Burrard Inlet crossing.

It may not be too late. There is no question that the months lost since this government embarked upon the opposite course will have increased the cost of the facility greatly. But that is why we must not delay longer; it will never cost any less. After we spend the millions of dollars that this government indicates it may spend in the provision of a ferry service, the people of the Province of British Columbia and the residents of the metropolitan area will still, within a decade, face the same problem and be obliged to look for the same solution. By that time

[ Page 1988 ]

not only will we have thrown away the moneys used in the establishment of a ferry system but we will also bear the increased cost of construction incurred through the lapse of 10 years.

It's not too late. I urge the government to take this step to conclude the arrangements with the national government, to build the third crossing, to utilize these funds for the purpose for which they were set aside, at the same time to make its commitment clear to the metropolitan area to extend this crossing throughout the balance of the region, to complete the north-south axis of a public transit system and to commit itself and its funds to construction of the necessary east-west corridor or that public transit system.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made one of the worst speeches I have heard him make — not because it's not an articulate speech, which it is, but because he is inaccurate in almost every particular. I'll briefly go through part of the history of the third crossing debate which has been raging on in the City of Vancouver. I feel it is my responsibility to do so as one of its representatives. I had the good fortune to be part of the crusade that prevented the third crossing from being built.

It wasn't a small, vocal opposition; it was a large, rational, articulate opposition from the whole of the City of Vancouver, representing people from every walk of life, from every class.

What were they saying? They were talking about the quality of life in the City of Vancouver. They were people who had been to Toronto, to San Francisco and to Los Angeles — particularly Los Angeles, one of our sister cities on the Pacific coast. They could see the absolute devastation and destruction of community life in those cities because of a commitment on an indefinite basis to a freeway system, a commitment of the city to the service of the automobile on an indefinite basis and not to the service of its people.

I have seen the design of the third crossing mentioned by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, all three large volumes of it. I and some architect engineer friends who were on the committees set up to prevent the building of this third crossing pored over those documents for weeks. It was clear to anyone, even a lay person, that that third crossing proposal was a total and complete and long-range commitment to a freeway system that would cut and split the City of Vancouver for the foreseeable future.

There has never been any question of that, and the engineers themselves have admitted it on several occasions.

When the Hon. Member suggests there was some sort of an agreement between the federal and provincial government, let me suggest this. It appeared to us at the time that Mr. Basford, who represented and does represent the federal riding of Vancouver Centre, was urged by the local Liberals (and they can correct me if I'm wrong) to push for this third crossing. Mr. Bennett, the then Premier, was a reluctant bride indeed.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You didn't know Mr. Bennett very well.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, he was seldom a reluctant bride.

The suggestion that public transit corridors were available in the third crossing reveals a fairly substantial lack of knowledge on the part of the Hon. Member. As an afterthought, the engineers suggested the middle line of traffic of the third crossing could be reserved for buses. This is what the Member suggests is a public transit system. I say nonsense.

The design by the engineers considered a freeway system that would cut right across the waterfront of the City of Vancouver, would rip through the centre of the West End of Vancouver, putting a tunnel through Thurlow Street, an open trench tunnel that would take as a year and a half to two years to build, and disrupt completely the movement of people and traffic within the West End district.

The City of Vancouver currently has decided to block the streets to put in promenades, to put in the Granville Street Mall, to discourage parking facilities in the City of Vancouver, not even thinking for a moment that the concept of the third crossing will ever return.

The Hon. Member mentioned San Francisco and the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) system. There are several things that must be said about San Francisco in relation to Vancouver because they are in many respects similar cities. The BART system in San Francisco did cost a great deal of money and perhaps it was premature. But the public transit systems in San Francisco make traffic congestion on the major downtown streets of San Francisco much lighter by one-third compared to the traffic in the City of Vancouver. One can see that clearly, and those are the reports we get from San Francisco. The transit systems in San Francisco are good; they are working. BART may have been costly but I say that Vancouver doesn't need to make the same mistake. We can go to a bus service, street-car service and local gridiron system of bus traffic that will avoid the tremendous reliance on the private automobile.

Toronto. All over North America people are waking up to the fact that we've made a mistake in North America by our heavy reliance on the private automobile. What happened in Toronto when they

[ Page 1989 ]

stopped the Spadina Freeway? These were people from all walks of life; not a small vocal opposition but the mass of the community of the city who said no. They stopped that freeway hanging in mid-air. We turned around and we're moving in a new direction.

The people of Vancouver are no different than the people of Toronto in this respect. They wish to reclaim the city for people. There was a time when you would look at a map of the City of Vancouver and see that there were more parking lots and more service stations than there were services for people. The trend is being reversed by a courageous group of people in the City of Vancouver which is now the bulk of the people in that city.

Public transit. The ferry system. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound suggests there were technical advances and we must opt for these technical advances to move people and things. I say that's nonsense; that's a tautological argument. The ferry system in Sydney, Australia not only works well and carries hundreds of thousands of people every week across their inlet, but it pays for itself. Coronado in California, Mr. Speaker. All of these things pay for themselves because they use them for tourist facilities on the weekends.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They built a bridge and the people wanted the ferries back.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Premier suggests in California, in Coronado, they built a bridge and the people wanted the ferries back because it's part of the quality of life. In Sydney it's part of the quality of life. They move hundreds and thousands of people in a city that is similar in size to Vancouver.

The promenades being built in the City of Vancouver and the ferry system all add to the human dignity available to people who want to live in large cities.

Finally, the commitment to a third crossing not only commits us to the kind of freeway system that would destroy an extensive community in the City of Vancouver but to say that $27 million would have been sufficient even then in 1969, or before, to build that freeway system and that third crossing is a fatal mistake. The engineers themselves were suggesting figures of upwards of $500 million to complete the whole network. They were saying that. I say the suggestion by the Liberal Party is folly. We couldn't possibly opt for it; it would be a negation of the way the people are thinking in the City of Vancouver. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Would Members always handle the microphones by the rod and not by the microphone itself. They are very delicate instruments and they cause noise on the tapes.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker.

I think there are two points of view relating to the debate that has gone on now for quite a number of years concerning alternative crossings of Burrard Inlet. Those points of view have been expressed by the two previous participants in this debate. One has been the traditional North Shore approach and the other has been the fear in the City of Vancouver of being carved up and having another Los Angeles created in that city.

In the last couple of years in the North Shore, a new, third kind of perspective has begun to emerge. I think I was elected to this Legislature largely because I spoke out on that issue, largely because I argued as strongly as I possibly could against any further facilities for automobiles in the lower mainland. That was a major debate in the 1972 election. I am not sure I would be sitting here in this House had I taken another position, had I called for a bridge, a tunnel, a freeway or whatever the proposals were. I am convinced another candidate would have been elected.

The feeling on the North Shore has been changing. I can't speak for West Vancouver, but my guess is that in the two ridings, Capilano and Seymour, the population is probably split pretty evenly between the two views: public transit only, and a combination of public transit and automobile crossing.

I admit that. I know a great many members of our party in my riding have argued with me and said that is is impossible for us not to build another bridge. The two bridges now in operation are overloaded; they are running beyond capacity. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Lions Gate Bridge has too many automobiles on it, and at some times of the day the Second Narrows Bridge has too many automobiles on it. That is a problem we have to deal with, and those of us in different parties deal with it in different ways.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) suggested a concern that the City of Vancouver could go the way of Los Angeles. But it is not just Los Angeles; even San Francisco and many of the other cities in North America that have opted for partial rapid transit solutions are carved by freeways.

I remember on my visits to San Francisco walking in some of those streets along the Embarcadero area. Those areas, even with a fairly good transit system, are carved up by freeways. The poverty and alienation the freeways create in that city are impressive. I don't think very many of us want to see that happen in Vancouver. I know that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) doesn't want to see that happen in Vancouver.

I think the point he misses is that if we opt for any

[ Page 1990 ]

more automobile lanes across that inlet, they are going to pour into Vancouver somewhere. Even though they may tunnel under the West End, they emerge somewhere. It may be in False Creek or it may be somewhere else. At that point we begin to carve up the city. I don't think we want that sort of solution in the lower mainland area.

We have to take a good, hard look. I will be candid with you, Mr. Speaker. I have sat down with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and said, "You know, Graham, maybe we are going to have to build a third crossing if we don't do something pretty quickly about the traffic and commuter problems in North Vancouver." I said, "I don't want to see a third crossing" because of the kind of dangers the Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has talked about and the kind of fears I have begun to express about carving up the City of Vancouver in a very alienating way.

We have to do something very quickly and I think we have begun to do that. I think the first step in our programme to do something is the introduction of this legislation. And I will be very pleased when it passes. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has been quite active. He has been meeting with the city councils in various parts of the lower mainland for quite a long time now, discussing what kind of alternative transit facilities we can have in the lower mainland. I know members of his department met with the City of North Vancouver as long ago as last fall to discuss the alternative transit and commuter services across the Burrard Inlet and within the region of North Vancouver.

I have some ideas about solutions to the problem. They don't include another freeway link of any kind; they don't include any more lanes across that inlet for vehicles. We have enough lanes across that inlet if we organize ourselves properly, if we remove from those bridges the commuter traffic, if we remove from those bridges the rush-hour traffic. Why we don't begin to talk about staggering work hours so that we don't have everybody going to work between 7 and 9 o'clock, I don't understand.

That is the kind of solution; not the $500 million to build the kind of facility the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) wants. I don't want to impose that kind of burden on taxpayers. I would much rather have some of them going to work at 6 in the morning, some at 7, and some at 10 or 11 in the morning. That is one solution.

In terms of the transit facilities themselves, there are a variety of solutions. I want to be a wee bit parochial and talk about the North Shore, even though I appreciate that the transit problems are much broader and much wider than that.

We have in the east portion of my riding, east of the Seymour River, which for those Members who don't know the area too well is roughly east of the Second Narrows Bridge, an area of only 13,000 people in 8,000 or 9,000 acres. It's a very large area, very thinly populated, and an area that is going to be very thickly populated in the not too distant future. We had no public transit in that area. We had one bus operated by a private person which didn't provide very good service and, as a result, didn't carry very many passengers.

Last October, the Municipal Affairs department introduced public transit from B.C. Hydro into that area. I remember saying to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, "I hope you are prepared to run those buses empty for a year or two because I'm convinced that people's patterns of commuting are difficult to change. I am persuaded they have all had to buy that second car. They are used to going to work by vehicle and the remaining members of the family have that second car to use. They are not going to use that public transit. I hope," I said to the Minister, "you are prepared to let those buses run empty because they are going to run empty for a long time. It has to go in so that the future population in that area will know they don't have to buy that second car and, in some cases, even the first car for a lot of people."

A very surprising thing happened. Those buses went in in October and many of them are running overfull already. There is a Fastbus service. They are running from Deep Cove into the Second Narrows Bridge exchange; they are running every 15 minutes during rush hour; and there is standing room only. I cannot believe it. That is an eloquent demonstration of the public acceptance of public transportation when it is provided on a decent and speedy basis. The Minister of Municipal Affairs deserves all the credit I can possibly give him for this.

That kind of service has to be extended in the North Shore and f know it is going to be extended. But there are other approaches as well. The proposed ferries from the Lonsdale area to the south shore on the north side of Vancouver wherever that may be — Granville or whatever part of the City of Vancouver is chosen — is just one part of what has to be an integral transit system.

I hope that when the ferries are operational — and I hope that is very soon — the buses being ordered from various builders across the country will be used to funnel into those two depots. I am absolutely persuaded that we are not going to be able to provide enough buses or, enough facilities for the numbers of people who will be prepared and happy to use that kind of facility so they don't have to use their cars which are becoming more and more expensive to use. I am absolutely persuaded that people just can't wait for the facility we are prepared to introduce.

Buses and the ferry link is one part. But there is

[ Page 1991 ]

another part of it, and that is the use of rail trackage. For some reason, in the City of Vancouver and other places we've not used the rail trackage we have. In the North Shore we have rail trackage from Horseshoe Bay to the Second Narrows Bridge. At the Second Narrows Bridge we have a crossing. We have a third crossing already; we just don't use it: the CN bridge just east of the Second Narrows Bridge. That links up with Horseshoe Bay; it links up with all of the commuter traffic through West Vancouver. That can link up with the ferry terminal and keep going east to link up with the CP tracks in North Burnaby. You then have the beginning of a major light rapid transit system.

We have to go on that course as quickly as we can so we can turn around this deadly direction of the automobile. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think that that will not be enough. I think that we have to move from that one day — probably a decade away, but events may speed that up — to a rapid transit tunnel, the fourth crossing of Burrard Inlet. The locations it will go to and from is a matter that I think will have to be determined in some years to come, but that too becomes part of our commuter transit solution.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of other points. One relates to empty cars going across those bridges. I drive across the Second Narrows Bridge and I have to wait. I do not particularly mind that. I prefer that to having the kind of taxes imposed on the citizens that there would be needed to just to get my automobile across, so I'm prepared to wait the five or 10 minutes. But when I am trying to catch the ferry over to Vancouver Island I cannot take a bus. One of these days, Mr. Member, I hope I can take a bus from Deep Cove to Tsawwassen. If we are given the opportunity, I am convinced that I will be travelling from Deep Cove to Tsawwassen by rapid transit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams), unlike a lot of proponents, including myself, at least does use public transit far more than most people who talk about it. I am one of those who do not use public transit very much. I am in the same bag as Art Phillips is to a certain extent. I talk about it and don't do it very much.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Typical socialist.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I started to say a moment or two ago before I got waylaid….

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I am just going to listen to this exchange, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to continue.

I started to say that one of the problems at the moment with the line-ups is that most of the automobiles going across the bridges do contain only one passenger — the driver. I do not know if we want to get into that bag but I think we should seriously consider imposing a reverse kind of toll on those bridges. Perhaps we should say that cars with three or more passengers in them go free, cars with two passengers pay a certain amount and cars with only a driver pay a greater amount. Perhaps this is a solution to the problem, Mr. Speaker, because I think people would double up if they were given that kind of a deterrent.

I'm not absolutely persuaded that that's worthwhile in the long term. I've been one of those who has said that public transit should be free and, by that, I mean right across the board — from highways right through to buses. But perhaps there is an interim solution that might be something that needs to be considered, although I think it needs a great deal more debate. That's one thing we should be looking at.

The other final point I wanted to deal with is the inter-regional traffic argument that is put forward by the mayors on the North Shore and the Members of the Liberal Party in their attempts to provide more lanes for their vehicles. They argue that if we are going to have additional routes into the Interior those additional routes are going to have to come through the North Shore. They will have to come down through Howe Sound or, as the Member for West Vancouver said the other day, through Indian Arm. Over my dead body, Mr. Member.

If we are going to have another highway link to the Interior I do not believe that that highway link should come through a recreational area such as the Howe Sound region. One of the reasons I was against any proposal to put a coal port into the Howe Sound region was because I felt that the Howe Sound area should be maintained for recreational purposes. For the same reason I am opposed to putting a four-lane road through there. If we are going to develop the road from Pemberton to Lillooet of any of those possibilities north of Pemberton, that means a four-lane road from Squamish south. It probably means a four-lane road from Whistler Mountain south. I do not think that is either desirable or practical; nor can we afford it, knowing what kind of terrain we have got in there.

The other alternative that the Member for West Vancouver suggested is to bring the road through Indian Arm. That is an even more beautiful area, Mr. Member, and I am not prepared to see a highway rip that part away.

If we do, in fact, have to have this alternative link to the Interior I suggest that there are areas further east of the Fraser Valley, north of the Haney-Mission area where the road should go. The traffic can then funnel into either side of the Fraser River at that

[ Page 1992 ]

point. I may have some arguments from the Member from Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) about that, but that is my personal view.

I don't believe we would be very smart, Mr. Speaker, to pump more cars into the North Shore, either from the north or from the east, as some people have talked about, by putting a causeway across from Belcarra to Deep Cove, bringing traffic in from Port Moody, Mission, Haney, et cetera, and bringing it in to the North Shore so you can get it into Vancouver as an alternative route. That suggestion has been made seriously by people — Warren Kennedy is one, and many others. I do not believe that that is a very smart transit solution for moving people in the lower mainland.

I reject totally the argument put forward by many people in North Vancouver and West Vancouver that we are going to have to expand our inter-regional traffic and that that traffic has to funnel through the North Shore. I do not believe that and I don't want that. If that does not happen, Mr. Speaker, and if we do the other things that I talked about this morning, I do not believe we need another crossing for automobiles. I am going to support this bill very enthusiastically.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill. I am very pleased that the money that is being released in this bill will be transferred over for the use of the public transit and the facilities dealing basically with the North Shore.

The Vancouver district is in a unique position in that probably it is one of the very few cities in North America that still has an option as to which way it is going to go in regard to the movement of people. The options are there. They can go to a freeway system or they can go into a multi-type transit system.

The freeway system approach is no cheaper, I suggest, than the other. It's much more expensive in its facilities alone, but in addition to the cost of this there are, of course, the very severe costs of the increased construction of streets and the increased costs of parking automobiles, and so on and so on. So if we are looking at a cost figure I suggest that the transit solution is a much cheaper solution and also a much cheaper solution as it affects the environment and the cities themselves and the neighbourhoods.

I want to speak for a few moments about the proposal for the ferry system across Burrard Inlet. I am hopeful that it can get off the drawing boards into operation as soon as possible. The vehicles we hope to have will be able to hold 350 to 400 passengers. They will be loaded from the side so there will be a rapid loading and unloading movement of the people that are using the transit system. It is hoped that the operation will be controlled from both ends of the ferries so that there will be no turning-around movement at each end of the run.

It is anticipated that over 1,500 people per hour going one way can use this facility in the initial stages. When the need arises this can be increased.

The travel time, we are told, can be as low as six minutes if the pond is calm, but we are suggesting that 10 minutes probably will be the average time for crossing the inlet. Add another five minutes to that for loading and unloading aspects of the operation and there should be a 15-minute service going each way.

The other problems involved will be some parking areas for automobiles at the ferry slip. We are hopeful that most people will use the bus services to the ferry system at the North Shore and that the amount of parking required at the ferry slip will be somewhat reduced.

The other areas involved, of course, are the areas south of Vancouver, where we have a great problem in moving people in a transit system. There is a population of probably one-third of a million people that have no bus service at all and are unable or find it very difficult to get into the City of Vancouver unless they have two cars or something of that sort.

So these are other problems that have to be attended to, but I am very pleased to see it moving along. I agree it is not near enough to look after our transit problems. There is more to come and I am assured by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) that we have lots more money.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government called bills this morning, because the Premier was on the radio saying the reason for this session was because the opposition was obstructing estimates. I was hoping he was going to recognize that this particular bill was a mistake. Well, just leave it sitting there on the order paper because, Mr. Speaker, the North Shore has had a generation of threats and promises and blackmail and betrayal on the question of a crossing of the inlet and today is just another milestone in that — just another milestone that's not going to hold back the way the world's going to end up. It's just going to make things a little bit worse for a little while longer.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that this government is showing itself against the people of the North Shore. Again, this is a declaration of war on the North Shore, Mr. Speaker. This government's written off the North Shore.

That Member over there for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) who came out against this crossing won't be back. He spoke about why he was elected, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't understand why he was elected. He was elected because Derril Warren split the vote — that's the only reason he was elected.

[ Page 1993 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: This is music to his ears.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have more recent electoral evidence than the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Every single candidate in that by-election supported a third crossing and three of the four candidates supported a third crossing with automobile facilities. Those candidates between them garnered 83 per cent of the vote. I think that that's a fairly substantial vote of confidence in the third crossing from the very central riding in the North Shore. That was the number one issue, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. That was the number one local issue in that campaign.

The other issue, of course, was the performance of this government that's driving this province into the ground. That was the other issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) intervened in this debate this morning and I hope, Mr. Speaker, he understands more about his department than he does about transportation in the lower mainland. If he doesn't, the growth of secondary industry in this province is going to be even slower in the future than it has been in the past.

He's talking about freeways, Mr. Speaker. There are no freeways in the third crossing suggestion, Mr. Minister. You should know that. You pored over the plans — you said so yourself. That waterfront distributor was pulled out of the plans long ago. The Drake cut isn't a necessary part of the plan and the Thurlow tunnel, as you should know better than anyone else, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, would take 70,000 cars a day off that part of the city that you represent, and it would stop people from filtering through all those streets in the part of the city that you represent and causing the terrible traffic congestion there. You should be in favour of that Thurlow tunnel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They'll park the cars in the courthouse, will they?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier asks where they would park the cars. It indicates how little the Premier understands about the transportation problems of downtown Vancouver. Of all the cars that cross the inlet at the moment, only half of them are destined to downtown Vancouver, Mr. Premier. The problem is that at the moment those cars have to go through downtown Vancouver because your government isn't ready to provide any way of going around or under downtown Vancouver and that's exactly what the third crossing proposal would do.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's a good bridge, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, and the people from there that are destined to Richmond or that are destined to the University of British Columbia filter through the streets of Vancouver.

That's by way of introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, because it's essential to try and discuss this problem in some depth. The Members from the opposition side have been saying that they're against the third crossing with automobile facilities because they're for public transit. Those two questions have nothing to do with each other, Mr. Speaker. You don't need to be against something just because you're for something else. We're for public transit. I believe, and this party believes, that the way to get commuters across Burrard Inlet is public transit. There's no question about that, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) for what he's done on the bus system for the North Shore so far. I hope that he'll do more and quickly and I think that's his earnest intention, as quickly as he can get buses.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says everything they're doing is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I don't say everything they're doing is wrong. When you're spending $2.5 billion a year, Mr. Speaker, you've got to do a little bit right. It's almost accidental but it happens. So the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done something right there and I congratulate him for it.

Public transit is the answer for the North Shore. Public transit across the Burrard Inlet was a very important part of the $4 million study that was paid for by the federal government about a third crossing. On the very first page of the summary and recommendations of that report, it says:

"In accordance with the terms of reference, a special study was made of the desirability of providing a corridor for future rapid transit on the Burrard Inlet crossing.

"The study concluded that a rapid transit system on the Brockton alignment would generate a higher percentage of transit patronage than would a transit crossing on any other alignment..."

I would just mention that to the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour who wondered where it might start and where it might end. The study found that those would be the best places.

"...and that provision of such a corridor in conjunction with highway facilities on the crossing was economically advantageous."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that through Stanley Park?

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

[ Page 1994 ]

Speaker, that's not through Stanley Park. I thought, Mr. Minister, that you had studied these plans and pored over them for days. That's what you told the House. That's not through Stanley Park, Mr. Minister. You don't understand the plan. It's a tunnel. It goes right under the water. That's difficult to see. Of course, it comes up. It doesn't come up in Stanley Park; it comes up to the east of Stanley Park.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair; it keeps me awake.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report goes on to say:

"The crossing is therefore designed to accept a future two tracks of light-weight, medium capacity rail rapid transit, and as an interim measure the transit corridor will be available for express bus operation."

In other words, the thinking of the third crossing all along has been thinking related to transit, which has to be the solution for getting commuters across the inlet. Those who would oppose the third crossing by saying they're for rapid transit are just laying down a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker — just finding ways to excuse their deplorable lack of attention to the North Shore.

This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't understand production; it doesn't understand hard work. All it understands is consumption and spending for its friends. I want to tell the government, Mr. Speaker, that people on the North Shore are hard workers and producers. Just because they don't vote for this government doesn't mean this government should ignore them or penalize them.

Now, going on with rapid transit, the terms of reference explicitly required the consultants to "examine methods by which provision could be made to accommodate any future rapid transit system crossing Burrard Inlet."

So now we've got a $4 million study here, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's a pretty fair study. It goes into some detail on rapid transit:

"The economic merits of making provision for such a system" — that's a rapid transit system — "as an integral part of the crossing as opposed to future independent provision for rapid transit crossing across the inlet was then examined closely. It was estimated that such provision on the Brockton crossing, in addition to the six highway lanes, adds some $15 million to the cost of the crossing, compared with the approximate $75 million which would be required for a totally separate transit crossing on the same alignment."

Let's look at those cost figures for a moment, Mr. Speaker — $75 million to build a tunnel for a transit crossing alone and about $123 million to build a tunnel for a transit crossing plus six lanes of traffic, with the connectors on the end additional and the Thurlow tunnel being something justified in its own right.

Now, what's the reason that there's a difference of only $48 million between the transit tunnel alone and the extra six lanes of automobile traffic? The thing is, I'm told by engineers, that when you're building those caissons and all of the prefabrication needed to lower the tunnel sections to the bottom of the Inlet, it costs very little extra to build them a good deal larger. That's the reason why building a transit tunnel alone costs around 60 per cent — maybe a little bit more — of the amount required to build transit-plus-automobile lanes.

So as long as you're building one, Mr. Speaker, you get quite a bargain if you build the other. And if you wait and try to build the other separately, if you try to build either one of them separately — either the automobile lanes or the transit lanes — you pay a very high penalty for that indecisiveness, or, in this case, for that commitment to a particular doctrine and dogma of being against the automobile.

That's the kind of cost that this government is planning to force on to us by going the route of a rapid-transit tunnel only. I don't think that in the long run they are going to do that; I think reason is going to prevail. I'm trying to give some of those reasons and sound the alarm.

I've dealt with cost here. I'd like to give some of the arguments for including an automobile provision in that crossing — some of the positive arguments — in addition to the argument that it could be done reasonably cheaply at the same time you build that transit tunnel. There are a lot of very positive arguments.

The first is that the worst congestion crossing that inlet, Mr. Speaker, is no longer caused by the commuter. The worst congestion is caused on the weekend. That is because ordinary people from all over the lower mainland are going back and forth from Vancouver to the North Shore and vice versa. They are on all kinds of errands; some are working, but not too many on the weekends; most are visiting relatives or shopping or out sightseeing or headed up to the recreational areas of British Columbia which are now increasingly accessible through the North Shore.

If you want to get to the Sunshine Coast area, the Nanaimo area, the Whistler area, the Cypress Bowl area, you have to go through the North Shore. That means you have to go over one of those bridges — generally the Lions Gate Bridge, which is the most congested on weekends.

Of course a four-day work week, that we can see on the horizon in the next decade, is being experimented with by many companies now. It's seven-day here, according to this government. But a

[ Page 1995 ]

four-day work week for many of the people of British Columbia is just going to further aggravate this problem of weekend congestion. That's not going to be cured by transit, Mr. Speaker, either rapid transit or slow transit.

The third crossing has a second advantage, in addition to resolving that problem of weekend recreational congestion for the ordinary person around Vancouver. The third crossing would decongest Vancouver's downtown, and that's what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) just didn't understand when he was making his remarks.

It decongests downtown Vancouver by arranging that that 50 per cent of the vehicles that cross Burrard Inlet, bound for areas other than the central business district of downtown Vancouver, could take the third crossing across Burrard Inlet and then continue right underneath the city in a tunnel aligned under Thurlow, never touching the city streets at all, and exiting onto the bridges across False Creek — those being, of course, the Granville Bridge and the Burrard Bridge.

By 1985, according to the study, during the peak hour the bypass would relieve the grade crossing streets of the city of over 5,000 vehicles, which would be using the third crossing during the peak hour, and over another 2,000 vehicles of different kinds destined to the central business district from other parts of the city.

There is a relief to the city street system of 7,200 vehicles in the peak hour alone equivalent to the provision of 12 additional city street lanes for surface distribution within the downtown peninsula. That is an enormous benefit of the proposed third crossing, which obviously isn't understood by Members on the other side of the House — a tremendous benefit to downtown Vancouver.

That's why I made a plea a couple of days ago to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), who has to be concerned with these things even if some of his more woolly-headed, theoretical colleagues aren't. He has to be concerned with actually moving people around. I make the same plea to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) because he has to have the same practical concerns — and that's to do something that costs not a penny: that is, to make strong representations to the City of Vancouver and to say, "Please protect the Thurlow Street alignment for a tunnel."

I don't ask the government to make a commitment to that tunnel right now. I just ask them to ask the city not to foreclose the possibility of that connector route to a third crossing in the future, or else make it far more costly when it eventually is built. I make that earnest plea to the Minister.

The population of the North Shore is growing rapidly. It's estimated at around 140,000 now, and within 10 or 12 years it could well be up to the 200,000 mark. There is a rule of thumb that one can use for peak-hour commuter trips between the North Shore and Vancouver — across the inlet, in other words. It is the 10 per cent of the population rule of thumb for peak hours. It's about 14,000 person-trips at peak hours now and we can assume it will go up to around 20,000 in the next 10 or 12 years, using that 10 per cent rule of thumb.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs expands the transit system, as he is proposing to do, that is something that we might just be able to handle by using every conceivable effort.

The ferry system that he has described I very much welcome; I think it's a very positive step and I commend him for it. That ferry system will take about 1,500 people at peak hour across Burrard Inlet.

I suggest to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that by the end of the next decade that ferry system will have been at least doubled from those plans and perhaps redoubled. I think it's going to be a very valuable facility.

Let's say he doubles it; then that will handle 3,000 of the increase. Then if he's able to double the number of buses crossing the inlet in that time, that will handle a lot more of the commuter traffic increase. But what he's not handling with that kind of a scheme, Mr. Speaker, and which he can't handle — because it's not the responsibility, really, of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to handle inter-regional traffic; that's the Minister of Highways, or at least he has to work with the Minister of Highways on that — is the enormous growth in traffic of people destined to places that won't be served by rapid transit.

Again using that 10 per cent rule, if we say that there will be an increase of 6,000 and if we take the fact that only 50 per cent of the traffic crossing the inlet now is traffic destined to the downtown business district and therefore amenable to solution by rapid transit, that's going to mean another 3,000 vehicles on the road just with that growth — maybe 2,500, taking the standard figure of the number of persons per car.

The system just won't handle that. The existing system just won't handle that, and there is nothing that rapid transit or bus transit or the ferry or anything can do to solve that particular problem, because that is people who are headed for areas that won't be effectively serviced by a transit system.

That's the reason we have to have a third crossing facility incorporating the automobile. That's the reason, when you add to it the inter-regional traffic growth that I discussed in the estimates of the Minister of Highways the other day, currently around 10 per cent of the crossing of that inlet and absolutely certain to boom to more than double in the next decade, Mr. Speaker — let's say the next 15 years.

[ Page 1996 ]

I'll stand here and estimate that 15 years from now that inter-regional traffic across that inlet will at least have quadrupled. That may be a conservative estimate. I suspect that it is because that's about 10 per cent per year, and the population of those areas is growing faster than 10 per cent a year when you look at theSun shine Coast and when you look at the Pemberton Valley and when you look at Vancouver Island and the feeding over to there through the Horseshoe Bay terminal. So all the growth factors are there.

Instead of around 10,000 crossings on a peak summer day — and I'm including here the traffic which will be diverted from the route to the Interior through Hope, assuming that much of it will go through the Pemberton Valley — if all of that quadruples, it will be up to 40,000 crossings on a peak day. That again is going to put an unbelievable strain on the system.

So when we add the strictly Greater Vancouver Regional District traffic to the inter-regional traffic 15 years from now, with forecasts that are not unreasonable (I think if anything they are moderate forecasts), you have already reached the stage where a third crossing with rapid transit and with six lanes of vehicle access is more than justified 10 to 15 years from now.

Even if a third crossing were decided on today, which looks unlikely, it would take many years to build. There is a good study in existence but much more detailed information would have to be done; public hearings would have to be held. Then the actual design, construction and calling tenders would have to proceed. That's all a minimum of 10 years, I would say, especially given the delay that is inevitably going to be built into any such decision given the philosophy of this government.

It's not too early to be hammering at this subject and to be saying to the government that their theories are just fine but they've got a responsibility to the future as well as to this year. I know they're thinking mostly in the present, but they've got a responsibility to the future. It's not too early to start telling them about it.

It's kind of sad to see the approach this government is taking. It's a very arrogant approach; it's an approach that says "I know best for you." They don't say, "Here's hundreds of thousands of people who have a problem. How can we help them with that problem?" The approach they take is, "We solve that problem by you people changing your lifestyles. In other words, we don't like the way you people of British Columbia get around this province. Get out of your cars; get into the kind of transportation we say you should have."

I believe public transit is the answer for most of the commuter problem across Burrard Inlet. But there is a substantial number of people who disagree with that and who are prepared to pay the price for disagreeing with that. There's another level of government which has been willing to put up the money for that.

I wonder if the government might not rethink this a little bit as to the crossing fund, as to the $27 million. It's a piece of accounting, a piece of bookkeeping. It's the philosophy behind it that's more important. If the Premier will stand up and say that that $27 million he's going to earmark for transit will be earmarked to transit by the North Shore, that would be a step forward and a good thing. It wouldn't really make any difference because it's all bookkeeping anyway.

What the government has to understand is three things. The first thing is that there is a requirement within the next 15 years for a third crossing in that inlet incorporating both rapid transit and automobile lanes.

The second thing is that if it tries to build those facilities separately or if it plans to build only one facility now, the taxpayers of the future will be paying an enormous premium for duplicating that tunnel-building effort when the other one is inevitably built. As I said earlier, it would cost $75 million to built the transit tunnel alone. For the addition of another $48 or $50 million (1971 prices), you could have both. It's irresponsible to consider building them separately.

Thirdly, assuming this is a toll-financed structure with the federal government money used for it, the report which I read, you may recall, noted that if you look at it another way the incremental cost of adding the transit lanes would be only $15 million. I think one could make an agreement that all that would have to be charged to the transit side of it.

So what would this mean? It would mean motorists would be subsidizing the transit riders because it would be the motorists who would be paying for that tunnel. I think that's right and proper; I don't think that's an undue encouragement of the transit option. I think that would be a right and proper resolution.

I will conclude by saying this: growth is happening in British Columbia. The government has yet to say what it thinks about it, whether it's going to do anything to decentralize the growth. The greater Vancouver area is continuing to grow by around 3.5 per cent a year and that brings in its trail all kinds of problems, one of which is a transportation problem.

The housing estimates which we thought we had been brought back here to discuss today….

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Because we thought there was some consistency in the government, Mr. Member. The government said we were obstructing the estimates;

[ Page 1997 ]

that's why we thought we were coming back here — to discuss the housing estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: The day is not over yet.

MR. GIBSON: They give rise to a lot of concern about where housing should be located. One of the great hopes of the Housing Minister — because he has been talking that way — would be to solve a little bit of his problem by building new houses on the North Shore.

You can't have housing without transportation. Every report of the Greater Vancouver Regional District which looks at the North Shore, and particularly at the eastern half of the riding of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), puts in that caveat: "How can you have more housing here in these thousands of acres until something effective is done about the transportation problem to the North Shore?"

As I said earlier, transit will solve only half of that; but you can't just build half a house in each place. You just can't build houses and say only people who are going to ride transit are going to be able to live in these houses. You have to make some provision for a balanced transportation package before the housing potential of the North Shore can be realized. Surely that is the kind of thing which should sink into this government.

I make this representation, this plea to the government: take the $27 million and do your bookkeeping. Don't violate a commitment to the people of the North Shore. Keep that money for the North Shore dedicated to North Shore transit and then be prepared to add a great deal more to it. Be prepared to have open minds rather than dogmatic ideas about how people ought to live in saying they ought to live the way you think they ought to live. Be prepared to have open minds about that.

Be prepared to go to the national government and say, "Irrespective of the way things have developed in the meantime and the statements we've made, we hope that commitment for financing of the crossing is still open. We'd like to work with you on that."

Give some recognition to the hard-working, taxpaying, productive people of the North Shore who don't ask much out of this or any other government but who have a need here for which a solution has been too long denied.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Having come from just a little bit south and east of the Member opposite who just spoke, I feel it's important to put this whole question into perspective as far as we're concerned.

For so many years we have heard of the difficulty that confronts the people in West and North Vancouver in obtaining access to the City of Vancouver. I would suggest that you come with me on a trip just from New Westminster to the City of Vancouver, with all of those alternative access routes, and it is a worse trip, I suggest. Then to go across the bridges to Surrey, it becomes infinitely worse. Mr. Speaker, that Member hasn't driven those roads, certainly not at rush hour, and if he has, it has been with his chauffeur and he has been asleep. (Laughter.) That trip to Vancouver is indicative of things to come that are going to get worse.

The arteries are plugged up now, and what is the alternative? More arteries? More parking lots? Somehow or another, we are going to have to ask people to share. The energy crisis, as the Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) who spoke so ably a while ago, has really drawn our attention to a better perspective, and that perspective is for three reasons: (1) for congestion, and (2) for costs, and (3) for energy conservation, we must share, and sharing can only mean one thing — it can only mean public transit.

What will North and West Vancouver achieve as a result of this bill? They will achieve an approach to public transit. They will achieve something that we all want — we in New Westminster, those in Surrey, and those in North and West Vancouver. I don't think there is very much point in being romantic about the ferry system, but I suggest to you that the ferry system will be a boon to British Columbia. Our harbour is absolutely beautiful, has always been a tourist attraction, and with an adequate ferry system it will become that much more attractive.

I recognize why ferry systems have broken down. It's because they haven't had the connecting links with transit. They haven't had the opportunity to afford parking and that type of thing. But the ferry system can work, and it must work. The same thing with the whole transit system, because we can no longer increase the numbers of cars, because there just isn't the land available to build the roads, to build the parking lots and all of the other back-up services that are required for the traditional kind of transit that we have enjoyed.

I know that I am like the rest of us. I feel that it is great to have transit, so that there will be more room for me and my car on the road. But we are going to have to get rid of that attitude. That attitude has to be only reserved for those people who have real need f or their car in the process of their work during the course of the day. The rest of us are somehow or another going to have to condition ourselves and our families to move in a cooperative way with our neighbours and our friends.

The traditional approach — and this hasn't only been in British Columbia; it is the traditional approach across Canada and the United States — has been to increase the price of transit and reduce the service. The CPR has been doing it for years on a

[ Page 1998 ]

transcontinental basis. The old BC Electric and its successor has done it. Transit companies across the country have reduced service and increased price and put themselves in a position where they were completely opting right out.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this government has gone the route of saying, "We must completely change the approach, and that approach has to be transit." We want people to get the idea that it is going to be a better quality of life. What kind of a quality of life do we enjoy sitting in our car, breathing everybody else's fumes? If you made another two bridges across the harbour, you would need more unless we completely change our approach. I suggest to you that this approach is the right one, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for this bill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem to transit is one really of money and not discussing each individual facility. It is one of sharing between levels of government. The bill we had, and the agreement we had before on the Burrard Inlet Crossing Fund was an example of agreements between governments.

We have an example in the United States where the federal government — Congress — has allocated $4 billion to solving transit in the United States, in sharing with the cities and the municipalities. I think we had an earlier commitment from Ottawa here in B.C. I would like to see that commitment expanded into a policy by the federal government for sharing with provinces and with cities directly. If we are going to solve transit problems, they involve more than one jurisdiction. They involve federal, provincial, municipal and even inter-municipal, and the aspect of regional governments.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of funding and cooperation. I would hate to see a commitment to one particular area, a commitment made through negotiation by levels of government, removed and taken away under the guise of putting money for transit, because really this is one of the problems of transit. Certainly we should be putting money into a transit fund.

Everybody in this House agrees. The province agrees, and particularly in the metropolitan area of Vancouver, that we have to have rapid transit, some sort of transit system. And yes, we don't want one person to a car. This was a commitment that was made, and made to meet a problem. It is no good standing up, as the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and trying to play one area against the other. You mentioned that the money would better be spent travelling from New Westminster into Vancouver, or one area into another. How does that rationalize the fact they both have problems? The big thing that New Westminster has is that you have an option how you drive into Vancouver. There are many different roads, whereas from the North Shore they only have two options, and they are bridges. The thing they are talking about is they need a third option. That option will encompass not only vehicular traffic, but rapid transit as well.

All of the studies that have taken place over the years have talked about encompassing all levels of transportation together in one facility. I believe that it is not enough. As the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said, you are not going, by legislation or restricting facilities, to tell people how they are going to travel. Some people want to move by car. It is not just for the existing people of the North Shore that you are talking about this facility. You are talking about a facility. You are talking about a facility that has to be planned, that will take time to construct, for the major population development on that North Shore. With the restriction of the farmland in the Fraser Valley for housing, the only large area available for housing, and for any housing development of any degree, is on the North Shore up in the mountains, out of the agricultural zone, under the recommendations made by the Land Commission.

Recognizing that we are going to have a major population growth in that area, we have to look at more than just a rapid transit facility to solve that problem. We have to look at a facility that will meet the realities of the situation. That is not to say that one system isn't better than the other, because the ferry system is an idea. That ferry system isn't new, and types of ferry systems have been studied to go across to the North Shore for years, and the last study before presumably the one this one was based on was done in 1972. It gave options of types of ferry travel. One of them that is very intriguing is one that works by a track, that would be pollution free, would not have any problem with the energy crisis as to fossil fuels, and would work with a cable driven by electric motors.

I think we can recognize that we can move people. But remember this: people have to have parking lots also, when they come to ferry terminals, if we have traffic going both ways, both from downtown Vancouver and from the North Shore. Anyone who says the traffic only emanates from one side is not realistic, because on weekends when the people are driving over to the recreational areas on the North Shore, most of the traffic emanates from the Vancouver side. Both sides of the inlet take advantage of the crossing.

If they are using ferries, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have to have parking lots to park their car when they drive to the ferry. You are not going to eliminate the need for parking lots with any sort of transit system. There have to be parking lots adjacent to the transit system where they can get on and off. On a ferry system, those parking lots will be right

[ Page 1999 ]

downtown because that's where the ferry system has to stop and start. It emanates right from downtown Vancouver running to the North Shore.

We talk of transit, and in this bill it's really saying is it's a bookkeeping entry. It's taking away the obligation, the specific obligation, of negotiation to solve the North Shore problem in spreading it out over a general transit fund — a fund we all agree with. But it's losing a commitment that we had and a negotiation that was made with various levels of government.

I think the Municipal Affairs Minister has been under some fire from the regional district and the municipalities in the greater Vancouver area, because of the fact that he's arbitrarily holding meetings without discussion or without inclusion of all members, in saying — and I have my article here — where he would eliminate people who would leak the news. Yet what we want is cooperation and discussion — not one level of government arbitrarily saying: "This is how you'll travel; this is the system that will work."

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned. This $27 million was set up for travelling, or a transportation link in B.C. While we're happy to see transit, this is really just a bookkeeping entry. But I hope the government isn't removing its obligation to solve the problem of the North Shore.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Actually, I'm not a very old man but it seems that we've gone full cycle in my lifetime. I remember the ferries in North Vancouver; I remember the street cars. And I remember when it used to take about a half an hour to get from Lynn Valley to downtown Vancouver with no trouble, and with a cost of around 10 cents. It used to take about half an hour to get from Capilano, with a cost of 10 cents.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: In a way I'm disappointed when I get interference from that Member for Okanagan South (Mr. Bennett) because I think of what a great man his father was. What went wrong? What went wrong?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, just remember, because that tunnel's going to come up in Point Grey. Try and sell that to your people. And your citizens will be paying for this end of the tunnel. Try that one on your Point Grey citizens.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That's right, threats.

MR. CUMMINGS: Right now.… Yes, there is a threat to the citizens of Vancouver. We're going to be paying for this ridiculous tunnel and bridge.

Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the downtown area is devoted to the car now in roads, parking lots; and the future would even be worse with bridges or tunnels. Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Would you take your hands out of your pockets? It bothers me to see a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill, please?

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm very, very pleased, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), should be congratulated in taking this forward step — and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) too. This is the most forward-looking government, because we've profited from the mistakes of the past.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're filibustering!

MR. CUMMINGS: Sure we are. Actually I received a note and it took me a long time to find out that the note came from my friend from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He says, "You have to speak." So I'm up here.

There's an awful future with this bridge and tunnel. But where is the money coming from? Basford won't give you the money now. The federals have smartened up. Where are you going to get the money from?

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: No way. Actually, when I first heard of the proposition I thought, well, the cement companies are going to rip us off again. You know, that LaFarge Company, that noble company that managed to pay a fine of half-a-million dollars….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, you know, cities are for people, not for cars.

Interjection.

[ Page 2000 ]

MR. CUMMINGS: I'd like to prosecute them if I could figure out a way to do it. If we had class action we'd have those people.

MR. GARDOM: You can't even sue the ICBC, and you know it.

MR. CUMMINGS: I just worry about your fat friends in Ottawa. Those are the ones I….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: Keep them in order. There they are, chirping like little birds.

But if I can get back to the subject: this rapid transit system from the North Shore and from the other areas will make Vancouver a city for people. I'm very pleased to support this bill.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe he should speak more often to get that kind of recognition.

Mr. Speaker, in the political propaganda this party peddled to the public before the last general election it said that the central problem facing our cities is their chronic inability to pay for the services people need. But the inability that is paramount and certainly chronic, Mr. Speaker, is the inability of this government in any way to effectively come to grips with the problems of the cities and their chronic and continuing neglect of the financial needs of the cities.

Mr. Speaker, I would just illustrate one point before developing what I'm going to suggest here with this particular bill. By this government ignoring its honest and proper responsibility to pay its share of city-imposed taxes, it's ripping off metropolitan Vancouver to the extent of one-half-a-million dollars a year. I see in the budget….

HON. MR. COCKE: Ohhhh.

MR. GARDOM: "Ohhh," says the Minister of something or other over there. I see from the budget that the motor vehicle user taxes will be coming in in British Columbia at $184 million; that's the forecast for 1975. And approximately two-thirds of all of the motor vehicle user taxes that are collected in the province emanate from metropolitan Vancouver. That would be about $120 million.

Yet this city in metropolitan Vancouver has always received the Cinderella treatment from these big ugly sisters over here in Victoria. What they've done here by eradicating this $27 million — which should have been $40 million by now by just natural interest accretion — is once again financially stabbing metropolitan Vancouver in the back.

This isn't a metro Vancouver transit fund; it's a provincial transit fund. And if the government is unable to appreciate the fact that another crossing is vitally needed, and for provincial purposes, then every single solitary dime that is in this bill should be set aside for metropolitan Vancouver transit and metropolitan Vancouver transit alone. It certainly should not be $27 million; that wouldn't even pay for digging a hole into the ground. It should be $100 million.

If this government can't see the provincial need for the crossing, which obviously it cannot, it should certainly at least see that its greatest priority need of all is to take care of transit in metropolitan Vancouver and come up with some kind of effective funding. This thing is just a tiny bit of smokescreen, Mr. Speaker.

Before sitting down I have to mention that this Saturday exercise of the Premier is nothing more than ignorance, petulance and an appalling lack of administrative ability. I'm quite certain that his sand is running out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: You know, he may well be a socialistic social worker, but a House Leader he is not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: He's destroyed the Whip system. And no wonder there are cabinet rumblings about who's going to succeed him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member...? Order!

MR. GARDOM: Little wonder that we have Calder sitting over there in London….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…? Order, please!

MR. McGEER: You cut him off. You cut off your switch, Mr. Speaker. And his speech was getting interesting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: At what point did he shut it off? I'd like to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in the middle of your speech. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You have no authority to use that button. At what point did you use it? At what point?

[ Page 2001 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: The point of order is this, Mr. Chairman: did you cut me off or did you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! On the point of order, I called the Hon. Member to order and he refused to obey the Chair so I cut off the mike.

MR. GARDOM: At what point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the point where you were out of order.

MR. GARDOM: At what point did you consider I was out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the point where shortly after you had…. Order, please! The Hon. Member has no point of order. Would he be seated?

MR. GARDOM: I certainly do have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The House has not given you authority to go ahead and stifle debate. They certainly have not! We're not going to have closure by the Chair nor closure by this great big powerful socialistic government, and make no mistake of that! You want to carry on with this kind of Saturday nonsense, you do it according to the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. GARDOM: Saturday means no rules too, I suppose.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated? I have asked for the Speaker to come back to make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Why is it so quiet? Is something going on? Is there anybody about to take their place in the debate? Well, I've finished my lunch. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: (Mike not on.) The Deputy Speaker saw fit during remarks of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to push the panic button and stifle the debate of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I'd like to know at what point he pushed it so I won't repeat the remarks I made.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member: was he behaving himself?

MR. GARDOM: Oh, as always, as always.

MR. SPEAKER: I would assume that he was, but had he been ordered to take his seat?

MR. GARDOM: No, no, no! The Chairman was saying…. Not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there something about the button or the sound system you don't like?

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes, I do not like any Speaker of this House taking it upon himself as a result of his own initiative to stifle debate. That's just what the Deputy Speaker was doing. He just cut me completely out of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and there is no authority within our rules. You and I have canvassed these, Mr. Speaker, in the House; there's no authority for the Speaker of this House to do that thing. And that happened. I should think the Deputy Speaker should certainly not only apologize but be censured for that.

MR. SPEAKER: I've looked into the matter because I earlier had a request from the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) on the same question of this sound system. I can't find any authority for the sound system at all; that is, the voice amplification system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it out!

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you may be right that I should do that and I will make note of that immediately. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: There's certainly no authority….

MR. SPEAKER: But in the meantime until I can take it out, would the Hon. Member proceed in order in his speech?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, what I was just drawing to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, was that the Saturday exercise of the Premier is one of ignorance and petulance and an appalling lack of….

MR. SPEAKER: Oh then, you obviously were out of order.

MR. GARDOM : …on his part. Well, I think…

MR. SPEAKER: It has nothing to do with debate on this bill.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think so because it certainly concerns itself with the performance of the Premier which is becoming worse and worse every day.

[ Page 2002 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has demonstrated why we probably need a switch-off system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out to the Hon. Members that it's the duty of the House to reinforce the authority of the Chair and not to undermine it. It follows from that that if you have a sound amplification system that is there without authority, the House should have dealt with the question in the first place, not leaving the Chairman in the invidious position of being jeered at because he calls a Member to order and the Member rides roughshod over the Speaker or the Chairman because he has a sound system to do it. Therefore, I suggest to the Hon. Member that rather than attacking the Chairman he should consider his own conduct and remember the rules.

I don't want to cut off the sound system because it assists the gallery; it assists the press gallery; it assists every Member to hear what is being said in this chamber. But there is no authority for that sound system. Therefore, I am going to have to, in view of your suggestion, cut it off until the House decides on the proper authority to the Chair.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the point of order which we are discussing, one of the advantages of the sound system, of course, is the proper functioning of our Hansard. But it's not a question of whether or not a Member is in or out of order; it is the action on the part of the Deputy Speaker when in the chair which in fact stifled debate.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member on an error. There's no connection between the sound amplification system in this Chamber and Hansard. You still have to use your microphones to be on the tape. But that does not mean the sound system has to be on at the same time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, are you indicating then that when the sound system in this chamber goes dead, the remarks are still recorded…?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed, because they have authority for that under the House rules.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What concerns me is the use of the cut-off button by the Speaker — and I must say that you, Your Honour, to my knowledge, have never used that button. It is itself an abuse of the rules of this House and o parliament.

I happen to be a strong supporter of the Speaker and the honour we must give to the Chair and the position which he holds. It is traditional when a question of order is raised that the Speaker call the Member to order. If the Member persists, then, as you, Your Honour, on so many occasions have done, the Speaker rises in his place and it is obligatory on each Member of this House to take his seat until the Speaker has discharged his responsibility. The only way we will ever have order in this House is if that rule is obeyed.

But that rule is not going to be obeyed, Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker or whoever occupies the Chair does not use the power given to the Chair in that regard but instead adopts some mechanical means of cutting off the sound of this chamber, it demeans the Chair to let it take place.

I have on past occasions indicated my views in this respect to the House. I think every Member recognizes his obligation to take his place when the Speaker rises. That is the ultimate authority of the Speaker, an abuse of which is subject to the most dire penalty. I would hope we would continue to follow those rules and to ignore this matter of the sound system.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member, particularly because I know that if every Member behaved with the decorum he does, we would not have that problem at all. But unfortunately, there are other Members who have not exhibited the same propriety to the chamber.

MR. CHABOT: Name them.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure those to whom it cuts close will rise. (Laughter.)

Now, as a result of the request of the Hon. Members, I hope they cut the sound system off until this Chamber works out a system that will protect the Chair and that will be used in a proper fashion by the Members, just as it used to be from time immemorial.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: You want that from Hansard? I can find the examples.

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly will not accept that

[ Page 2003 ]

statement from the Hon. Member. It indicates precisely what is wrong when you can attack the Chair in this fashion, as you've done over many days, that there must be general support in the chamber for the conduct of the assembly. One of the prohibitions that you will read in your books on parliamentary procedure is that you do not attack the Chair; you make no reference to the Chair in terms that are slighting. That has not been generally observed in this chamber.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) clearly indicated what he had been saying, which was out of order, and persisted in doing it when the Speaker resumed the chair. It was pointed out to him that he was also out of order when speaking again and that is the problem.

We will have to proceed as best we can with our microphones. Be sure to use your microphones and raise them when you speak, so that Hansard may take your remarks on the record.

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: I have some tablets for your cold.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I put this question — of the use of the cut-off button under your desk — last fall.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know where it is.

MR. CHABOT: At that time you said that you would examine this question. You felt it was a question worthy of further study. Not too many weeks ago, I again raised the subject, Mr. Speaker.

You suggested that you would examine the thing and bring a ruling as to what should take place relative to the cut-off button on the Chairman's desk or behind your desk. So I think ample time has been given for you, Mr. Speaker, to have brought down a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I just did.

MR. CHABOT: But I want to say that you have taken a very serious action and by your very words the microphones have gone dead.

MR. SPEAKER: At your request.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, not at my request.

MR. SPEAKER: You said to cut them off.

MR. CHABOT: I think it is a very serious thing that you have done, Mr. Speaker, a very serious precedent which you are establishing at this time. I think that in all fairness to this House the question of whether the microphones should be on or cut off should be put to the House. Then, if this question of microphones, this question of amplification of voice in this House fails, then I think direction should be given to the attendants to come in and remove the microphones forthwith. (Laughter.) No, I am serious about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier. What is your point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that the House has authority to use the microphones for the Hansard service. Since the Speaker has been placed in this situation and must invoke the authority that he does have or doesn't have — and that is that there is no authority for the speakers' amplification of the voice — I therefore suggest that if the House itself wishes to give the Speaker such authority a House committee be authorized to meet with the Speaker forthwith to recommend a solution to his lack of authority or he could do it himself. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you take this under advisement and report back to the House as to what kind of authority you would need for the House to have the voices amplified, forthwith.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Would you use your microphone, please?

MR. CHABOT: Well, since we are not allowed to use it…. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You are on Hansard. If you do not want to be on Hansard, don't use your microphone.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this whole question arose not because of the amplification provided by that ball up there and these microphones here. The whole dispute we have at the moment concerns the cut-off button, not whether the Members should be heard in this assembly or not. I think we have flipped around now to the denial of the right of those members with soft voices of being heard in this Assembly. I think it has gone in a very wrong direction.

I think that there is need, Mr. Speaker, to closely examine the suggestion or recommendation you have made to those two people in the console down at the far end of the chamber as to whether they should

[ Page 2004 ]

turn the microphones on or turn them off. It is a very serious point and a very serious matter — the question of turning off these microphones.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a very serious matter to turn them on without authority.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you have been doing it. You have established a precedent, Mr. Speaker, over many months — about 19 months. I think the whole question of whether the microphones should be on or off should be put to the House. It should be put to the House forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The proper way to do that, Hon. Member, is by motion. Put a motion on the order paper and the House can consider it. If you want a House committee to deal with it, fine, the House committee can do it. If you want the Speaker to meet with a committee of the House to discuss how it can be worked out, I would be delighted to cooperate.

I point out to the Hon. Member that voice amplification in the chamber has not been installed by virtue of any standing order, statutory authority or motion of this House. It is intended to assist all Hon. Members by making remarks audible in all parts of the chamber and it has ancillary benefits for the public who may be attending in the galleries.

I point out also to the Hon. Member that I am unaware of any jurisdiction in Canada and, in fact, in other legislatures where they have a sound support system without giving the Speaker and the Chairman a cut-off button.

That the button should be used sparingly is obvious to anyone. It is equally obvious that the Hon. Member should heed the authority of the Chair. I point out also to the Hon. Members that our standing orders say that where there is disorder, the Chairman or the Speaker can leave the chair until the disorder ceases. I point out that the use of the button is a substitute, I suppose, for that idea.

At any rate, before I take on myself the continuation of an unauthorized system, I want the support of the House for whatever is done.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to speak to this. I have been in this House a dozen years under a number of Speakers before the Hansard system was introduced. We always had a microphone; it was taken for granted as one of these unwritten rules of natural justice that exist in this chamber as elsewhere.

What is new, Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of a cut-off button. What has caused the problem now has been that the Deputy Speaker saw fit to use the cut-off button rather than the gavel, which is his symbol of authority. He used the cut-off button instead of rising to his feet, in which case the Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) would have sat down. The Member from Vancouver–Point Grey did not realize that the power had been cut off. You don't need authority, Mr. Speaker; it exists in the form of precedent here. I would ask you to ask leave of the House to turn the microphones on again now.

MR. SPEAKER: May I correct the Hon. Member on this point of order that he has raised? I have indicated already to the House that the cut-off system was inaugurated back in 1956. Previously Speakers used to do so by private code of their own when they wished to cut off one side or the other where disorder occurred. This did not happen very often.

I might say to the Hon. Members that I appreciate the honour you do me by the fact that I have not had to use the cut-off button in the last three sessions. To that extent your respect for the Chair has made it possible, but there are times of disorder. As I said earlier, I feel that before we come back to a sound system, which is unauthorized now, I can put that to the House but it doesn't solve all the problems.

MR. McGEER: Ask leave of the House now to turn the microphones on.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I was here before there was any sound system here at all.

MR. FRASER: You've been here too long!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We got along very fine without it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's because no one heard you. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, they heard me. I think that probably you didn't have such long speeches because they had to use more effort to speak and therefore they would tire out that much quicker. Nevertheless, there were no amplifiers and no speaking system at all at that time and it got along fairly well. So I do not think it matters much, as far as I am concerned, as to whether you have the sound system on or not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I respectfully ask that leave be requested from the House by the Chair until this matter is resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: On the condition that the House

[ Page 2005 ]

will come to some final decision on this matter, I would ask the House to give leave to the use of the sound support system, but remember that that depends on no disorder because the Chairman must be supported.

AN HON. MEMBER: No conditions — just ask the House.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, before we get on with this point, I would like further clarification. Earlier this afternoon you said that when the cut-off button was used, Hansard was still able to record from this microphone.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. There are separate systems.

MR. MORRISON: I would like to have that absolutely confirmed, because my understanding was that in a previous debate, when the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was cut off, the only reason his remarks appeared in Hansard was because your microphone was live, and he happened to be close. If he were sitting in the far corner, my understanding was that his voice would not have appeared in Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: No. When the matter was raised with me by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) recently, I checked into it very carefully to make absolutely certain that we had the authority to use Hansard under our standing orders, and that they were entirely separate from the sound amplification system after it goes through the amplifier. From there on they are separate systems. So you are now speaking on Hansard whenever you use your microphone at the present time.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): On a further point of order on the same issue, I am not completely satisfied either. I agree, and I understand that Hansard is a separate system, but the question we really want to know is whether or not that cut-off button cuts off the microphone or the sound system.

MR. SPEAKER: As it happens now, the cut-off button is not in use at the present time. The sound support system has been cut off down below this chamber, not anywhere near the Hansard desk at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking the question: does the cut-off button cut off Hansard, or cut off that sound support system, or does it cut off the microphone? If it cuts off the microphone then our voices will not be recorded in Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. The cut-off system from Hansard, which is in the hands of the Chairman as well, does cut off Hansard because those remarks are being made after the Speaker or Chairman is standing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, might I suggest, if the House is agreeable to the suggestion from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), that we ask leave of the House until the Speaker's report comes in on this whole matter to continue with the present practice….

AN HON. MEMBER: Without the cut-off button.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Without the cut-off button. We have no authority on anything, really. So we continue using the microphones until we have a complete Speaker's report with the House committee to deal with the whole matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Members that there is no authority, and mere leave of the House in this matter is without prejudice to any future rules that the House may make one way or another on the question. Is that understood?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, just one point, and that is that on two occasions yesterday, while the Hon. Member for Skeena was in the chair, the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) refused to take his seat at the time the Chairman was standing. Therefore before I would be prepared to grant leave I would like some assurance that when the Speaker or Chairman of the House does stand in his place, the Hon. Member who has the floor would be seated.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the House seems to be very single-minded in granting leave to see that the sound system continues. Again I would stress the caveat that the House also, I think, is universally of the opinion that the cut-off button should not continue. I think it should be made non-operative today. Just put a piece of adhesive tape over it.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have it both ways, you know. If you are going to use a sound system to override the Chair, then there must be some way of stopping the override.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, the situation, Mr. Speaker, with respect to you, is no different whether the sound system is on or off. The Speaker still has the rules to follow. It doesn't make any difference whether the sound system is on or off. The cut-off button in our opinion is a bad deal, and it doesn't make any difference whether or not….

[ Page 2006 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Members prepared to have the question put? Shall leave be granted for the temporary use of the sound system? I don't think that we should make any conditions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has made the most valid point in terms of control of the House. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has stated that it has long been the practice of this House that when there is trouble in communicating between the Speaker and a speaker, the Speaker rises in his place and that Member should automatically sit down. If we adopt that practice, which is indeed in our rules, then there is no need for the cut-off button.

What I am suggesting is that we ask leave of the House to continue with the voice amplification system, eliminate the cut-off button, and when the Speaker stands in his place, it is incumbent on that Member to sit down immediately. Pending asking leave for this continuation, I suggest that we have the House committee to articulate the rules for future proceedings of this House.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I assume that the Speaker would agree that the establishment of a committee would perhaps require a motion. I think perhaps that with the lead given by the Hon. Premier, such a motion might be prepared and submitted at the earliest possible time.

I would agree to give leave to the continued use of sound amplification, and to the discard of the cut-off switch, on the understanding that all Members will obey the rules. I trust, Mr. Speaker, however, that if a Member is disobedient, you will not hesitate to exercise the disciplinary power you have, because then and only then can we have order restored to this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: On that basis, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be a short pause so far as the sound amplification is concerned. But you may carry on if you wish, because you will be on Hansard.

MR. McGEER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has, I judge, completed the burden of his argument.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this bill a retrograde step in the supplying of transit services to the people of British Columbia. The government led the people to believe before that last election that somehow a bright future lay ahead in the matter of transit services. Progress would be made. The people's government would be far more sympathetic to the crowded circumstances of the lower mainland than the denial which had been characteristic of the previous administration.

Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? First of all they proposed that we go back to streetcars, and then they proposed that we go back to the old North Vancouver ferry system. The Member for Vancouver East who likes to buy antiques, and spends most of his dreaming hours living in the past century applauds that. But I don't feel the people who are facing the future instead of backing into it are going to applaud it.

I'll tell you what a permanent citizen of that constituency said. I refer to someone slightly to the right of the Second Member for Vancouver East, Alderman Harry Rankin. They were colleagues together on the Vancouver city council, and Alderman Rankin, I remember, when someone suggested that city council should go and see the Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Why go see the monkey when you can see the organ-grinder?" He suggested a visit with the former Premier. Well, of course, it is more true than ever today. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is the monkey in this two-man act, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is the organ-grinder.

But Alderman Rankin put his finger on it again, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs came out with his plan for rapid transit, which was restoring streetcars. He said: "People have been certified for less than that." That is what the right-wing socialist had to say about the transit plans put forward by the Members for Burnaby and Vancouver East.

That is not where the problem is. The problem is between Vancouver centre and the North Shore. To provide communication between those two links, there is a total of nine lanes — six at the Second Narrows and three at the First Narrows.

If there was some other narrow point of land or had the people who put up the bridges used more imagination, there probably would be as many lanes across False Creek as are adjacent to it. There are 24 lanes there. I've never heard any suggestion that some of those lanes should be ripped up so that people would be encouraged to use rapid transit. Never once.

In a similar stretch across the Fraser River, which is about the same width as False Creek, there are 14 lanes, and more are being completed today. Anybody who thinks about the problem, Mr. Speaker, realizes that wherever you look in the lower mainland area of one region being connected with another there are at least three times as many vehicle lanes to go between the Vancouver Centre area and the North Shore.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) quite correctly pointed out that the No. 1

[ Page 2007 ]

issue in that whole North Shore area is some commonsense rationalization of the transit system. What we have at work on the problem today is miniscule minds, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're getting the kind of bills that the Minister of Finance brought forward today.

He thought, you know, Mr. Speaker, that he was bringing it forward on a day when there wouldn't be much debate. Yes, he did. It spoiled his speech. He had it all prepared; he was going to give a great flaming speech to wind up the debate — saying that the Liberal Members who were so interested in that bridge weren't here. Who wasn't here today, Mr. Speaker? Well, it's some of the NDP Members from the City of Vancouver who aren't here, and the Conservatives, of course, but they're from Victoria. Spoiled his speech.

Here we are today, Mr. Speaker, in emergency session — emergency session. We've got orders of the day. I read them and didn't see anything about bills. It talked about Committee of Supply; it talked about presenting petitions and so on, but here we are discussing a bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's hardly a priority bill, is it? Not a priority bill. It's a prolonged debate, on a Saturday, about a bookkeeping entry the Premier thought he could slip by the Liberals. That's what he thought.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Punishment bill.

MR. McGEER: He got caught in his own rugby game, and in his own campaign there in Nova Scotia. How was the campaigning in Nova Scotia, Mr. Premier, was it good? Will the NDP do well there? Well, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Premier might give us a report of his activities when he comes to close the debate because we're interested in how things were there.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is rapid-transitting it back and forth across the country and he's going to be across the ocean next. The House is falling apart; never had such chaos and lack of order and weak leadership and confusion as we've got today, never. I can never recall a period when the House was getting less direction from the government and I can tell you….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would certainly say that the Hon. Member himself is out of order. But I would ask the Hon. Member speaking to come right back to the principle of the bill.

MR. McGEER: I've caught the fever, Mr. Speaker. I wish this bill meant that something would be done to solve the crisis of transportation between the

North Shore and the City of Vancouver. All we're getting out of this is a betrayal where money which was committed for this purpose is to be taken away. In place of it, what are we to get? We're to get a couple of ferries like the old North Vancouver ferries that are going to carry only a fraction of the number of people who must be moved, even if they're successful. Mr. Speaker, I don't think they're going to be successful.

The Minister told us that these ferries would have the capacity to move 1,500 people an hour. The design terms given to the Swan Wooster firm, who did a comprehensive study of what should be done, they just didn't think how it used to be when they were a boy in the old days. They were doing a study looking for what it was going to be like in the future. This is only one of a number of volumes that have been done on it, Volume I – the Burrard Inlet crossing. May I draw your attention to page 48 of this 234-page study. Page 48 said that the crossing had to have a capacity to transport 7,500 to 15,000 passengers per hour. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that's 10 times as much as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was proposing in his substitute policy, presumably, for which this money is required.

His indulgence in nostalgia is taking good money that could be used for a useful purpose and putting it into something that was discarded as unworkable 30 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have their bags packed for a voyage into the past. That's not good enough for the people of the lower mainland.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, even those who've tried to second guess the future on rapid transit have often been wrong. The experience of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), which was looked to as the example for all great cities in North America to follow, has been nothing short of disaster and that system may close down. Originally, it was planned to cost $750 million; it cost over twice that. It's losing about $30 million a year, and is now being talked of as closing down less than two years after it opened.

One of the key proposals in that BART system was a tunnel under San Francisco Bay that would not have automobile traffic. They thought if they could put this extra crossing underneath the Bay, and not have vehicles associated with it, they could persuade people to use that subway system which had a car running every 90 seconds.

People are staying away from that system in droves and it's losing a fortune. It was a multi-billion dollar gamble that to date has been unsuccessful. I say that as an absolute warning to anyone that thinks a metropolitan subway and rail transit system going underneath Burrard Inlet is going to substitute for sufficient vehicular traffic. This will not. We could wind up pouring more than a billion dollars down the drain.

[ Page 2008 ]

The problem with rapid transit is that all too frequently it isn't rapid. More than that, rapid transit is one-dimensional. It encourages ribbon development, the kind of thing that we have seen in the greater Toronto area. These kinds of subway systems have been failures more often than they have been successes. I say right now, unequivocally, that there will be another bridge built across Burrard Inlet in the future. That time will come as soon as people regain their common sense.

It's nothing new to have the knockers, the negative people, those who are hesitant, stalling construction of bridges. Mr. Speaker, the First Narrows Bridge was delayed for 16 years by people who claimed that it wasn't needed, that it would lose money, that it would wreck Stanley Park and that it would choke the harbour.

When my uncle Gerry McGeer was mayor of Vancouver and radio was in its infancy, he had to go on the radio and encourage the people of Vancouver to support that bridge because it was going to go down again, due to those negative minds that wanted it stopped.

Mr. Speaker, where would we be today if that bridge had not been constructed? And who would wish to take it down now? The answer is no one. It's proved to be an absolutely essential component of our transportation system in the lower mainland.

Of all the bridges that the former Premier built, that was the only one that made a profit. And he never built it; he confiscated it because it made money. He took that bridge away from the people who owned it, he used the funds from that bridge to subsidize bridges in Kelowna, Nelson and Agassiz-Rosedale that were losing money, so his toll authority system wouldn't look like the financial disaster that it was.

In the final analysis, he refused to build the one bridge in the system that was more needed than any other, the bridge to the North Shore. Instead, what we did was put an inadequate sum of money aside — make no mistake about it — this $27 million that has been set aside for this bridge is now a drop in the bucket because the cost of construction has escalated so fantastically.

Nevertheless, by a great deal of sustained effort by people at the municipal level and people at the federal level, a commitment was made and sufficient funds rounded up to complete an appropriate crossing that would have included most vehicular traffic and rapid transit. Rapid transit was there for whenever in the future it could be commenced with success.

What happened was that again the petty minds and small figures took over and succeeded in postponing that project. They didn't destroy it because, I tell you, sooner or later — in the next 10 years or so — people are going to come to their senses and get this essential crossing constructed. They delayed it temporarily, and it's been a long temporary delay. This particular Act is going to set things back even farther. The people who travel back and forth from the North Shore paid for the First Narrows Bridge over and over. In paying for the First Narrows Bridge they gave money to the Minister of Finance, former Premier Bennett, and subsidized other bridges in the province. They have been patient; they are deserving. But this bridge should not be built just to satisfy people on the North Shore. It should be built because it is an essential link between the population density of the lower mainland and new access routes that must be built to the Interior of our province and up the coast.

I refer, of course, to the fact that eventually there must be a road all the way around Howe Sound, connecting the lower mainland with theSun shine Coast. There must be this new route from Pemberton to Lillooet, opening up the second canyon up to the Interior. These are things that must come, no matter how small we may be in our imagination in debating in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the people who have consistently shown the least imagination of all, when it comes to transportation of any kind whether it's in the country or in the city, has been the New Democratic Party. I have never heard a sensible, forward-looking suggestion come from any Member of that party at any time.

We've just passed the estimates of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and we find that, despite increases in the budget for this year, the increased costs of maintenance and construction will result in an actual decrease in the amount of work done. You said you were going to concentrate on maintenance, not on building new roads. There must always be a commitment on the part of government to build new roads and new crossings when they are required. It's going to be a long time in the future before there will be no requirements for this kind of thing in our province.

Certainly, today the No. I priority in transportation must be that new crossing to the North Shore for vehicular traffic. That is the No. 1 urgency. It's the No. 1 bottleneck in British Columbia.

I have no hesitation in saying it, the job should have been completed 10 years ago. Even if people come to their senses tomorrow and start work on this, it will take five, six or seven years to have it completed. You can put all the ferries you like — you can get them end to end between North Vancouver and the City of Vancouver, and you're still not going to have people taking them.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat: the government is taking a journey into the past with this bill, with the policy that they've announced for rapid transit. It can't be a

[ Page 2009 ]

priority bill because it's a negative one. Probably just a bookkeeping bill. Certainly, not justifying the calling together of this assembly on a Saturday.

I'm very pleased, however, that we can understand the priorities of the House leader who's in the worst political trouble in his life today partly because of bills like this, but partly because of extremely poor House management and his propensity to trip around. He's here on this Saturday, Mr. Speaker, and we're pleased that he's here. We would have enjoyed it if he'd been here Thursday and Friday, and we'd like it even better if he stayed in the House instead of going to play rugby.

What we would like most of all, Mr. Speaker, is to have good legislation brought into this House, passed with dispatch, and some leadership from that man who's supposed to be leading the province.

Hon. R.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

NAYS — 5

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order. Could the House leader say what time lunch will be today?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the orders of the day for Saturday, March 30, 1974, on page 2, indicate the order of business shall be oral questions by Members, orders of the day, report of resolutions passed in Committee of Supply, Committee of Supply, presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports by standing and special committees, motions, and adjourned debates on motions.

We did, however, go on to public bills and orders without any motion in this House to change from the orders as printed. I wonder whether you would indicate whether we now return to the orders of the day or if we proceed without reference to them as we have done so far today.

MR. SPEAKER: Up until now, no objection has been raised to the course that has been followed on the agenda to this moment. There is firstly the debate on bills; now the House leader has asked the House to go into Committee of Supply and that has precedence over all other business.

As I understand it, question period is restricted to Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, according to the standing orders.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. My understanding is that a motion to proceed to orders of the day is in order at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then, I move we proceed to orders of the day.

MR. McGEER: We're not following the order paper. Of course, there isn't precedent for sitting on Saturday. If you're going to depart from the order paper, which we have done, it requires unanimous consent of the House. I ask you to ask leave of the House for us to proceed to Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that, according to our standing orders, a motion to proceed to orders of the day has precedence over all other business and doesn't require notice.

MR. McGEER: This is done when you're following orders of the day on days of government business. This is not a day of government business; we've not proceeded with orders of the day as printed on the order paper. You must ask unanimous leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I must disagree with the Hon. Member with great respect. The private Members' days are Wednesday and Thursday, according to our standing orders. This is a day not otherwise ordained in standing orders so far as being set aside for private Members. Therefore, a motion to proceed, as I said, to orders of the day is always in order. It always takes precedence over anything else on the orders of the day.

The question is we proceed to orders of the day. The Hon. Member is still standing?

[ Page 2010 ]

MR. McGEER: With every respect, Sir, we're proceeding without precedent here and not according to the procedures laid down in May and certainly not according to the orders of the day laid out. There are certain days mentioned in our own standing orders for government days and for private Members' days. Saturday is not….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member provide me with some authority for that statement? I don't like just being told that without being given some advice.

MR. McGEER: My first authority is our own orders of the day, No. 61, which clearly establishes the order of precedence as outlined here. We go to oral questions by Members before we go to orders of the day. That's the first authority.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Orders of the day have precedence. section 33.

MR. McGEER: He'll have a chance to make his point of order. We've got to have the Member for Coquitlam follow the rules.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order! He has made a ruling….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm always willing to listen to any Member of the House from anywhere on what he calls a point of order. You've given us standing order 61.

MR. McGEER: I'm referring you to Chapter 2, Business of the House, Standing Order 25, which gives an order of precedence on every day of the week but not on Saturday. To assume that on Saturday we're following government days as we do on Mondays and Tuesdays is completely in error. There is nothing in our standing orders which establishes this as a government day any more than a private Members' day.

What we do have is printed orders. I submit to you that you must follow those printed orders.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that it wouldn't matter one whit whether it was a government day or a private Members' day, if a motion is made by the House leader that we proceed pursuant to standing order 33 to orders of the day. That is well known and I can find decisions on that if it would assist the Hon. Member in wending his way through this logic. But I must accept the motion and I must put the motion. I was about to do so when the Hon. Member rose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question, put the question!

MR. McGEER: Before you make that ruling, are you suggesting to the House that question period can be eliminated on any day simply be a Member moving that you proceed to orders of the day? That's not my interpretation of our House rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period is not ordained for today under our present standing orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have it on my orders of the day right here.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be true that it shows on orders of the day. It may say that. That doesn't mean that was put there correctly by the Clerk who may have done so.

MR. McGEER: We must follow printed orders. Without it, the House is in chaos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: A motion to proceed to orders of the day, as I understand it, is always in order. The orders are printed and, of course, that is the precedent we will follow. Whatever is on the orders of the day is exactly what we should move towards. Let's move towards orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: We will proceed, then, to put the question.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of Supply. If there is an oral question period, let us have an oral question period.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no oral question period according ….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of Supply, then.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please! One at a time.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. Standing order 25 does set forward an ordinary daily routine with no

[ Page 2011 ]

reference as to what day it might be. The routine, of course, includes prayers, presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports by standing and special committees, motions and adjourned debates on motion, questions put by Members, introduction of bills. I assume that ordinary pattern of business would follow on a day that is not otherwise specified.

MR. SPEAKER: It might on normal days under our resolution that was passed that authorized an oral question period.

That was so on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This is Saturday and if in error the printer has put oral questions on the order paper it doesn't follow that it is done properly. I point that out because we now have a motion to proceed to orders of the day and we've now had the business of supply, which has precedence over all other business, called by the House leader. I must proceed to Committee of Supply at this time.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

Vote 106: Minister's office, $131,688.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would have thought that the Premier would have had the courtesy to extend to the Members of this House a lunch period on a Saturday. However ….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Didn't you eat any supper last night?

MR. PHILLIPS: He seems to think that since he's on a diet I guess everybody should be on a diet, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Legislation by starvation.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I guess that he wants to get to Japan so bad, Mr. Chairman, that he'll do anything. Use his muscle no matter…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member...?

MR. PHILLIPS: …how much it offends the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed to discuss vote 106.

MR. PHILLIPS: It took him 25 years to make the football team so now….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed to discuss vote 106?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He won't be on it in 25 years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he'll have lots of time to play football in a couple of years, after the next election, I'll tell you.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the discussion of the Minister of Housing's estimates. Last night I was outlining to the House some of the incentives that had been offered in this province to individuals to own and construct their own homes.

The reason I took the time to do this is because the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) outlined to the House that the present-day government had been left such a great legacy, a legacy of the best housing incentives anywhere in Canada, a legacy of the most construction starts of anywhere in Canada, in spite of — as I outlined in my talk during the dinner hour last night when we were not allowed to go to eat either — that we have a unique situation in British Columbia in the lower mainland due to the climate and due to an influx of a lot of retired people into the province.

Public housing and land assembly, which now the present Minister has under his jurisdiction; he seems to think that he started it. He seems to think that co-op housing is something new in British Columbia.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that back in 1967 many of the incentives and rules and regulations that were started by the previous administration are now under the responsibility of the new Minister of Housing. In 1967 the federal government, in cooperation with the provincial government, for the first time made $500,000 available in cooperation with the provincial government to build private homes in this province.

British Columbia took advantage of this grant and they put up 1,400 units of public housing at an average price of $12,000 per unit. These new proposals in that year were then outlined by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) and they were guidelines to keep down the cost of housing so that people on limited incomes would have the opportunity to be in a house of their own. Municipalities were encouraged to enter into projects of buying and rehabilitating older homes so that they also could be made available for low-rental housing. A per-unit limit on costs at that time, which should be carried through now, and I recommend this to the new Minister — he won't be able to keep the cost to $12,000 — but at that time the per-unit limit on cost was placed at $12,000 in line with private housing.

Priority consideration, Mr. Chairman, was given to creating a regional housing authority by the municipal

[ Page 2012 ]

members of the Fraser-Burrard Regional District. Guidelines were established for rents on a per-unit basis which in turn would determine the income mix of tenants as well as the aggregate subsidy to be paid towards specified projects. I hope that the new Minister of Housing will see that some of these good projects, good guidelines that were established at that time, will be carried through.

It was clearly understood at that time, though, that municipalities would provide appropriate buildings and zoning requirements necessary to permit these projects to go ahead without legal impediments.

This is what the Minister of Housing was talking about last night and he said he did not want to go in to municipalities and use his muscle. I suggest that the Minister of Housing go in to municipalities and sell the idea. I suggest that if the Minister of Housing has any ability and if the municipalities that he is dealing with have any faith in him, he will have no problem, he won't have to use muscle. All he'll have to do is do a little selling.

I suggest that the Minister of Housing is not used to selling, he's used to using muscle and he comes by this clearly because that is the way the Premier operates. He doesn't sell anything or try to sell it, he just uses his big muscle, his big crushing majority. He doesn't have to sell anything. He doesn't even have to discuss it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wanted on the phone.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're wanted in Moscow too, are you going to go?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: They're having a conference over there.

So this is where the Minister of Housing is falling down. This is why he can't perform his function. He doesn't know how to go in and discuss and sell. I can see him not wanting to put the muscle on these municipal boards but he'll probably end up doing it in the long run, so wouldn't it be much better if our Minister of Housing would go in and seek the cooperation of municipal governments, seek their cooperation, explain to them what's happening? At the same time maybe he could offer some dollars to assist them in servicing some of the lots they own.

He talked about several communities around the province last night where he has gotten cooperation. What is the problem he is having with the municipalities in the lower mainland? Are they bucking housing for their citizens?

If he talks with these municipal governments he should clearly understand. What are their objections? Why would he even talk about using muscle? Why don't they want to cooperate with this new Minister of Housing? Why aren't they willing to change their zoning bylaws or whatever is necessary to allow new housing to go along?

Is it something to do with the fact that our Minister of Housing wants to take control of this land, wants to build government houses owned and controlled on this land and wants to lease them back so that the people who live in these houses will have no pride of ownership and that the municipal governments realize that these housing projects could become slums and ghettos? Is this the reason that he's not getting the cooperation from these municipal governments?

I want you to do a little research; I want you to go into some countries where there is government-owned and controlled housing.

I was reading just the other day — and I probably have the article here somewhere — where there have been rent controls for years and years. That particular city has the highest suicide rate of any city in the world. I'll find the article and reintroduce it.

The same thing could happen and will happen if the government is going to own and control, and not give people the opportunity to own their own homes. I would suggest to you this is probably one of the reasons the Minister of Housing is not getting the cooperation he sincerely seeks from many municipalities. Maybe they don't agree with his philosophy. Maybe they don't want everything controlled from Victoria. Maybe these municipalities want a little autonomy. Maybe they want to have a little say. Maybe they would like their citizens in their municipalities to own their own homes.

In 1967, a new policy was initiated by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) to assist welfare recipients to own their own homes. Even then, people on welfare were invited and encouraged to own their own homes, not to live in government-owned, government-rented housing with no hope of ever owning the roof over their heads. They were encouraged to become independent, to get off of welfare, maybe not to live on the state and in state housing. That's individual enterprise. That's something this government is against.

This government is against individual enterprise. They want to own and control everything out of Victoria — centralized power.

I want to carry on for just a moment and talk to you about other new things which were innovated by the last government. In 1968; the homeowner grant was increased again to $130. Now this great incentive is the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing. In that year also, the home acquisition grant, which is now administered by the Minister of Housing, was increased to $525 on April l. The original grant applied only to eligible residences, the

[ Page 2013 ]

construction of which commenced April 1 and June 30, 1968. The amendments provided a grant February 8, 1968. This is the owner-resident of a living accommodation constructed since February 8, 1968. This is the legacy of the previous administration and which is now under the responsibility of the Minister of Housing.

This Minister of Housing seems to think he was the first to start landbanks. Reserves were placed on Crown land as far back as 1968. Not 60-year lease, but a lease-to-purchase deal so the person who was building that home could eventually own his own portion of British Columbia.

On many of these landbanks, houses were offered: 1,098 square feet for $15,000 to $16,000 with a down payment of $1,500. This was to those who qualified within the restrictions of certain wage brackets. At that time, this was $2,000 to $3,000 cheaper than the house bought through the normal real estate market. Maybe that's one reason housing prices were held down in British Columbia.

The estimated selling price per lot was between $2,500 to $3,000. That was a pretty reasonably priced lot in those days. This helped to keep the price of privately owned land at a reasonable level. What has happened today? The government is not offering these lots for resale; they're going to build on them and lease back to individuals. The deeded land is becoming more dear every day.

It was also in that year that the government entered into a partnership with a cooperative society and brought into focus the housing problem in British Columbia. Back in 1968 this government entered into partnership to construct and build on a cooperative basis. I don't think our present Minister of Housing has any right to say he was the first one to think of cooperative housing.

I'd like the Minister to advise me of what problems he is having with the municipal governments, why he can't go in there and sell his ideas and seek cooperation. What specific areas, what specific municipalities is he having trouble with? I suggest to you that maybe it's his policies they're not buying.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Member spoke this morning outlining some of the history of the homeowner grant and the home acquisition grant, the founding of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, landbanking policies, and trying to say that I said things which I didn't say. I point out to the Member that it wasn't necessarily under the Social Credit regime that some of these policies were started either. In fact, some of the public housing programmes, notably the Little Mountain public housing programme was started soon after the enabling legislation to the National Housing Act was in place in 1951. Also, F.P. No. l, a federal-provincial project in Prince Rupert, was in place in the year 1952, construction started, and the negotiations made before that time.

In the case of building public housing, it has gone at varying rates. Some years there have been drop-offs in activity. Certainly, prior to 1967 the previous administration built 36 senior citizens' units, and 133 at 4ist Ave. and Nanaimo in Vancouver in 1957. In 1961 they built 121 senior citizens' units and 38 family units at Prior and Jackson, and so on. In 1972 and 1973 projects continued to be built. As I said earlier, some housing projects were started last spring and are now occupied.

In the matter of land assembly projects, the activity here also goes back to 1951 where, in Trail, the first land assembly project was started. Later on in Trail, in 1960, a second land assembly project was started. Now there is another land assembly project taking place in Trail.

We've had meetings with the new mayor, the members of council and the members of their technical advisory staff so we could go through these.

So, this government, the previous government and the government previous to that were carrying on land assembly projects.

The founding of the B.C. Housing Management Commission was a good thing. We are intending to expand some of the scope and vision of the commission as they'll be dealing in the future with more than just low income people, almost, one might say, captive tenants to some extent. There will have to be further training. Indeed, there are in-service workshops being held with the commission; commission employees are meeting and discussing problems with management. I attended one of these meetings which was set up by the commission; I looked in on it briefly and it seemed to be going very well. We expect the B.C. Housing Management Commission to be playing an even more significant role as we expand the scope of property management on rental properties in the future.

You've urged me to go in and sell municipalities on public housing. Indeed, this is what we have been doing. I visited Port Alberni within the next week. There were resolutions from council requesting assistance in building a mobile home park for more public housing — which we had just opened up there. It's public housing constructed under my term of office asking for more land servicing. In fact four different housing projects in that one community alone are a result of a very brief but useful meeting.

I outlined last night some of the municipalities that I have met within greater Vancouver — and it's no longer the Burrard-Fraser Regional District, it's now the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that one of the changes which we will be making is that we will be giving more assistance to municipalities, as we are in many areas as we are in lifting some of the

[ Page 2014 ]

burden of social assistance from the municipalities. We will also be lifting the sharing of 12.5 per cent of operating costs. The provincial government will bear its full 25 per cent share of operating deficits in public housing, as it does pretty much across the breadth of this country.

There are very few, if any, provinces in Canada that put more of a burden on their municipalities in this area that 7.5 per cent. In British Columbia, as in many other provincial jurisdictions, it will in future be zero per cent. These are some of the types of dialogue which we are having with the municipalities.

It might also do to look at some of the improvements that have been made to the provincial home acquisition Act and regulations. In March, 1973, the regulations were amended to allow people who have had a grant to retain the grant with nominal interest and apply for a second mortgage on another premises. In April, 1973, the Act was amended to make Indian homes on provincial reserves, as defined in the Indian Act of Canada, eligible for home acquisition grants. In August, 1973, regulations were amended to allow people who have had a second mortgage and moved to be eligible, after repayment of the first loan, to apply for a second mortgage on a second eligible residence. September, 1973, the Act was amended to make mobile-home owners in a mobile home park eligible for home acquisition grants. In September, 1973, the Act was amended to allow service personnel who live in British Columbia for five years to become eligible for home acquisition grants on older homes. In October, 1973, regulations were amended to include property leased from Crown corporations as being eligible for home acquisition grants.

Those are some of the steps that we have taken to improve those programmes which were started under the previous administration. And as a result of that the number of grants, the activity of that home acquisition grants branch has increased considerably. Off the top of my head: for the first couple of months of this year I believe we're making over 3,000 grants, averaging probably about 3,400 grants. As compared to previous years, a little bit less than 2,000 in terms of grants and second mortgages under the programme of just one year ago. We are making this available to about 50 per cent more people than it was available to in the past.

It's fine to have programmes, but if the people who need them aren't reached by these programmes then it's just merely a piece of paper, merely propaganda and an excuse to justify some advertising.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the new Minister of Housing just recently purchased himself a company — Dunhill Development Company.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would remind the Hon. Member that this matter is before the courts, and is sub judice and cannot be discussed in this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: The matter of insider trading is before the courts, Mr. Chairman, not the matter of the Dunhill Development purchase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you mean to tell me that we're not going to get the assets that the government has spent $5.8 million for, during this Minister's debate? Oh yes we are, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! As long as the Hon. Member does not in any way discuss….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to talk about insider trading at all. I'm going to talk about the assets of Dunhill Development Company.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to know. I want the Minister to tell me the complete assets that he acquired for $5.8 million when this government with the taxpayers' money purchased Dunhill Development Corporation.

1) I want to know all of the buildings that were purchased. I want to know the type of housing units that were in those buildings. I want to know the value of those buildings. I want to know how many of those premises in those buildings are rented. I want to know the rent being charged for those premises, and I want to know the mortgages on those premises. I want to know the original cost of those premises. I want to know what Dunhill Development put down as a down payment on those premises. I want to know the interest being paid on the mortgage on those premises.

2) I want to know how much land was acquired by the government when they bought out Dunhill Development. I want to know where the land is: in what municipalities, and the acreages. I want to know what the land is classified as.

3) I want to know how many housing units at the present time are in the planning stages to be built by Dunhill Development Limited. I want to know what type of housing that is and I want to know where it is. I want to know what it is going to rent for. I'd like to know how many of these units are condominiums.

Mr. Chairman, I'll give the Minister an opportunity to answer.

Interjections.

[ Page 2015 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we've come to a roadblock all of a sudden. All of a sudden the Minister has lost his tongue.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Say $5.8 million of the taxpayers' money and all of a sudden the Minister of Housing has lost his tongue. Clammed up like an oyster. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why the silent treatment, Mr. Chairman? Am I going to have to relay to this Legislature the assets of Dunhill Development? I guess it looks like I might have to. I think this House should be entitled to hear the assets which the people of the province bought. It's their money. Why all of a sudden the silent treatment? Open government. Why, my gracious, we've had all the other questions answered so far, but all of a sudden he has had a lapse of memory. He's had a lapse of memory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Milk of amnesia. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe we'll have to give the Minister a little incentive to open his mouth. Now this incentive, Mr. Chairman, could come in several forms. And we don't want to give him too much incentive at one time. So I will give the Minister of Housing another opportunity, before we start introducing some incentives, to tell me what the assets of Dunhill Development are.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The assessed assets of Dunhill Development Company are in excess of $5.8 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Housing really has got a short memory now. I'll ask the question again. $5.8 million? All right, I would like an explanation from the Minister as to how many housing units he acquired when he bought in this $5.8 million because, from the understanding I have, the Minister of Housing bought Dunhill Development to acquire housing for the people of British Columbia.

Maybe, to start out with, Mr. Chairman, we could have a breakdown of how much was housing, and how much of it was land. Let's start out easy — simple questions.

Of the $5.8 million, how much was in housing, and how much was in land? We'll make it simple for the Minister. Now, you can remember those, Mr. Minister? Got it? How much was housing, and how much was land? We'll make it real easy.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the valuation, the book value consists of capital stock of $1,895,444; retained earnings of.… I'll get some copies made and have them passed around.

The retained earnings are $1,083,538 for a total of $2,978,982. Add deferred income taxes recorded, that is, provisions for income tax that were made and federal income taxes will not be payable once Crown Corporation status is established, of $779,728 for a total of $3,758,710.

If we add appraisal increments, as per appraisals by Penny and Keenleyside Appraisals Limited, and K.J. Chauncey, some of these taken as of December 11, 1973 — and there will be an addendum to this when you get it — the land under development had an appraisal increment above book value of $696,477, Undeveloped land had a $1,409,242 increment for a total increment above the book value of $2,105,719 for a total of $5,864,429.

If we deduct our calculated discount of three low interest mortgages which are among the assets receivable; if we make a discount of $100,000 the basic valuation is $5,764,429.

The projects which were under development — that is, the buildings which we bought, either partially or substantially completed — are Lynnmore West: 123 units in North Vancouver, recorded book value, that is, as in the audited financial statement, was $1,458,530. Our appraisal value was $2,008,000 giving an appraisal increment of $549,470. That has since been sold out for $650,000 or a rough increase over what we estimated for appraisal increment, of $100,000 to the people of British Columbia, over and above what we had included in our valuation.

Heritage, phase one, also in North Vancouver: the recorded cost is broken down into two items, one of $249,828, the second phase of $1,760,389.

We appraised that value as $2,032,217 for an appraisal increment which we allowed of $22,000. In fact, the actual increment on sale was $250,000. That's approximately $230,000 over and above what we put into our valuation for the purpose of negotiations and that is almost $250,000 to the people of British Columbia.

The Heritage, Ashby House, is presently proceeding toward disposal. Its recorded cost on book value was $544,193. We appraised it at $669,200. That would have given an appraisal increment of $125,000. In fact, estimates — although this has not been disposed of — would indicate that this increment will be substantially increased approximately $200,000 — another $200,000 for the people of British Columbia.

The undeveloped land which we have, the Okanagan rockpile which was referred to the Hon. Member from South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett).

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the Leader of the

[ Page 2016 ]

Opposition.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: If you call the Premier, if you Members will call the Premier the Member for Coquitlam, it is rather confusing over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Just on the point, the proper thing is to address the person by their highest title in the House, that would be the correct thing.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I thank you for instructing the opposition benches on that point, Mr. Chairman, and I'll bow to your advice as well.

The Lac la Hache property and Okanagan property were sold together. We had allowed $85,694 for those properties. They had been disposed of for a profit of approximately $16,000 over and above those — so that's some pile of rocks.

Richmond residential property of 50 acres — this had been hanging on for some two years, with the municipality of Richmond, or with the Richmond Planning and Municipal Authority. It was in the stage of negotiation where we knew it was going to be disposed of. When we were in our own process of negotiation, we'd to go ahead with that as they were substantially commenced prior to our becoming interested.

This property we had appraised; the book value was $1,088,465. We had it appraised at $1.8 million, or an appraisal increment of $711,535. It was disposed of for an increment value of $725,000, just slightly above what we had estimated. Again, there are modest benefits to the people of British Columbia.

There is a property at Fourth and Clarkson, a half-acre in New Westminster. It has a book value of $94,106. We appraised it at $106,000 and if that is in line with our other very conservative appraisals, we should realize a net saving to the people of British Columbia.

Simon Fraser — 8.98 acres in Burnaby. The property has a book value of $895,417. We appraised it at approximately $1.2 million as you will see, there is an appraisal increment of $305,583 and we still retain that.

Twenty-first Street and Williams Street, four acres in North Vancouver. We accepted the book value on that and gave no appraisal increment — book value of $91,143. Berkley and Carnation, in North Vancouver. This is 90 per cent interest on 30 acres, $887,805 is the book value; $913,500 is the appraised value.

In the City of Mission there is an option on 318 acres of land. The position of that option is valued by the company as being worth $149,258. The appraiser estimated that the option was worth $360,000 — an appraisal increment of $210,742. In Richmond on Number 3 Road, one-half acre. Book value $84,833; the appraised value that we put on was $100,000 — an increment allowance of $15,167.

In Richmond, an industrial site was on the books at $70,000. It was appraised at $265,000 as it was an industrial site, and we were not interested in this. It was disposed of at that $265,000 price as it had been appraised. Richmond industrial site, a second site which we still retain, is on the books at $773,374. We appraised it at $707,000 and the difference there is $66,374. There could be some juxtaposition of figures there I think.

So that by taking the capital stock retained earnings as audited by Dunwoody and Company, adding deferred taxes, adding appraisal increments — which I think I have demonstrated have been very conservative estimates because we would realize in sale considerably more than that — I would say that the people in British Columbia have for nothing, and in fact will realize a great profit from this transaction. In addition they have gained very rapidly the services and experience of a very fine development team.

It's rather unfortunate that some of these remarks have been made by certain Members about these people, because they have been working very hard since the time of the takeover and during the takeover period for the people of British Columbia.

Ashby House will be disposed of as a condominium. The Lynnmore property was disposed of. The Heritage will be disposed of as a condominium. This is so that it will be a visible asset for the opposition to see in dollars and cents, which is the only thing they seem to understand, and the acquisition of Dunhill can be more than justified on the basis of a straight business deal.

However, we are in the process of acquiring other properties now. These will go into the much-needed area of rental housing so that while we might continue to build some condominiums, we will be expanding this and we will shortly be making an announcement concerning certain proposals to build rental housing in areas, especially in greater Vancouver where it's very badly needed.

This expertise is also being used to get certain parts of our provincial land bank on the market as quickly as possible in order to prevent carrying costs and needless delays such as the former government used to have in putting its projects into motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Minister of Housing relaying this information to the House and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Housing would send somebody out, if he would have some photocopies made as soon as possible — like right now — so that we can appraise. Because, there are some discrepancies.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, who did the appraisals?

[ Page 2017 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Some of them were done by Finney and Keenleyside Appraisals Limited and others were done by K.J. Chauncey. Some of the Penny and Keenleyside appraisals were also appraised by Mr. Chauncey, an independent certified appraiser.

Some of these appraisals were done quite early. The preparation was done for their annual report by Penny and Keenleyside. Mr. Chauncey's work, I would think, took place in the month of December.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, because there is quite a discrepancy in some of the figures that you have — pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The mike is on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you recognize me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If it's the same discussion taking place, I don't always recognize the Hon. Member. It is assumed that he is recognized, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, fine. I consider myself recognized by the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does your wife recognize you?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give her your regards — unfortunately not this weekend because we're sitting here on Saturday and I did have reservations to go home and see my dear wife and family this Saturday. But the Premier used his old muscle….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! Would the Hon. Member return to his comments?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I was talking to her this morning on the phone and told her I couldn't make it home.

But there is a discrepancy, Mr. Chairman, between some of the figures outlined by the Minister of Housing and many of the figures which are in Dunhill's annual report, dated October 31, 1973. What I would like to do before I comment further, I would like to do a closer scrutiny of that, Mr. Chairman. So just for a moment while those papers are being copied and circulated, I'll discuss another subject, maybe.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just going to come to the appraisal reports now. That was my next subject and if the Minister has the appraisal reports there at this time, it would be enlightening to the House to have them so that we can intelligently debate his estimates.

I was disappointed the other day. Does he have any intention of filing the appraisal reports, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does vote 106 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no! Come on now, Mr. Chairman. He's looking for something so as soon as he finds it, maybe he'll indicate to me so that he can answer. He probably has them there in his briefcase — a lot of stuff.

I was very disappointed the other day, Mr. Chairman, to read in the paper an ad that says "Let's move to Alberta." I don't know who — I guess the ad was probably aimed at anybody who was having difficulty in obtaining housing in British Columbia. And I think this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

This ad was in the Vancouver Province and it was put there by the B.C. Rental Housing suppliers — six associations supplying 100,000 rental units. I was thinking if this is happening after just 18 months of New Democratic rule in the Province of British Columbia, what is the situation going to be like in four years? They'll probably be full-page ads.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now there's the Minister of Health again. He says that he's interested in health. I'll tell you, if he were interested in the mental health of the people of this province, he'd be interested in allowing people to own their own homes.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess the Minister was out eating dinner last night. I couldn't go out and eat dinner because I had to do the people's business here on the floor of the Legislature. But the Minister of Health spoke for a minute and then went out of the House to eat. He's looking after his own health; he doesn't care about the health of the opposition. I sometimes think he'd like to starve us right out of here entirely.

That reminds me: it's now 2:15 and I haven't had a break from this House since 10 o'clock to go have lunch. But that's all right. Their own Members run in relays. They've got 38 Members and they keep six in the House; the other 30 are out eating.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has been eating all right.

Mr. Chairman, this is the type of ad that will be

[ Page 2018 ]

appearing more frequently in the province. Probably next year it won't be just a small ad like this. It will probably be a full page ad. This government is floundering so badly in this department.

Sure, the Minister has only been the Minister for a short time. But I guess that as soon as they came to office, they immediately stopped anything that was happening under the Department of Municipal Affairs to provide housing. They stopped it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Housing has had an opportunity to look through his briefcase, and I wonder if he would indicate to me whether he has found those appraisals yet.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I haven't carried all the appraisal in here. It's quite a few pieces of property. But what I have said is what our appraisals are and what we have sold these properties for — the ones that have been disposed of. I have talked about the housing units that were partially completed — what we negotiated for them and the basis of evaluation. Close to $1 million already has been realized in excess of the appraisals we made on those properties. I think this is what we should be judged upon.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I think these are public documents; they were paid for out of the public purse. If the Minister doesn't want to table them here today, we'll seek other methods of getting them. We certainly intend to see the appraisals.

As I say, maybe we'll have to introduce some incentives to the Minister.

Now I did ask the Minister of Housing just a few short moments ago if he would advise me what units are planned, or in the planning stages, by Dunhill to provide more housing. The Minister told me, told the people of British Columbia, told the House, that Dunhill Development Corporation was purchased to provide houses — not to go into the real estate business. He can't shove that off as buying and selling property, and trying to tell me what a great deal he made. I want to know how many houses he has planned. That's what he bought it for.

He's paying $300,000 for a management team. All right, how many units are in the planning stages?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just let me pursue my point, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Housing has had another lapse of memory. Now I would think that this would be the most single important thing he would know about. After all, he bought Dunhill as a management team that's to provide houses, apartments and what-have-you — housing.

Now I would think that the Minister of Housing would get up and this would be one of the first things he would say: "I've acquired this great management team, I've acquired this land and, man, we've got this project and this project underway." That's what he bought the corporation for, Mr. Chairman. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister has had a lapse of memory. Well, I'll give him another opportunity.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, rest assured that we will be making public announcements telling of the hundreds of units that Dunhill is proceeding with. We have just been in the process of transferring control of the company. The offer for shares has not been closed out 100 per cent. There were at last check some 40 persons…. I guess they were just busy, busy people that hadn't got around to looking after it. They are mostly very small amounts. And they are very busy persons who are involved.

But there will be no lack of announcements coming out, Mr. Member. There are 8.9 acres in Burnaby which are presently under negotiation. There have been meetings with Mission and presentations. Development companies, of course, go through these processes. Some of them take time. As I explained, a case in Richmond took two years and they ended up no further ahead, except in terms of the appreciated value of the property they had been holding. So they turned this over to another company and they will be going on with it.

There are proposals for rental housing, for more condominium development in North Vancouver. We will certainly be keeping the people of British Columbia informed and aware of these things. In addition, they've been assisting us with servicing programmes for property over here in Victoria in the Saanich area. They are very well occupied.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions on the appraisals of appraisers were hired by the government to appraise the property for purchase of Dunhill Developments. I understand they started at different times. I wonder whether the Minister could just tell me whether both the appraisal companies were commissioned by the government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chauncey was hired through Dunwoody and company to assist them in making their evaluation. He is a licensed independent appraiser. In the case of some remote properties such as, I imagine, the Okanagan Lac la Hache property, in some instances he accepted the appraisal of Penny-Keenleyside. On the more important ones he did a second evaluation.

[ Page 2019 ]

It's my understanding, that the evaluations done by Penny-Keenleyside were for the annual report, probably prepared in September or October of the year 1973.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister then tell me which of the appraisals were done by Penny-Keenleyside that weren't authenticated? Could we have the ones that the government did not appraise when they purchased Dunhill — ones that they didn't have confirmed by their own appraisers? Could you just give me the names? I'll mark them off on my list.

While we're waiting for that, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to also ask a question on the tax deferral. I wasn't quite sure what the Minister was talking about when he talked about the $779,000 tax deferral that Dunhill had listed as a liability previously to selling out to the government. Does that mean that the government is not going to pay that tax deferral now that it's a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's my impression that as a Crown corporation we will not have to pay tax when we take…. It's a provision which has been made for future profits, and we would not have to pay it. But it had been carried on their books as a liability. They had been making provision for it.

MR. BENNETT: Did you get an opinion from the federal government that a tax deferral taken by a private company prior to being taken over by the provincial government as a Crown corporation would in fact be recognized as being non-payable by them?

And do we have an opinion from the federal tax department that this is so?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I did not personally phone them, but this is the information that I have from Dunwoody and company.

MR. BENNETT: In business you have to get a position from the government when you are making a purchase of this nature. You check out those areas of financing where it calls for a jurisdictional opinion by one government or another — and especially when you're dealing in something that you're claiming as non-payable as large as $779,000.

Surely someone in your department cleared this with the federal government if you're going to claim it as no longer a liability. Can you find out from your department while we're still on estimates, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, whether they have got an opinion?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to slightly change the topic, Mr. Chairman, and mention three of four points to the Minister.

First of all, I reiterate the call that has been made by other Members in the House for the removal of the provincial sales tax on residential building material. I stress the word residential. In doing that I would certainly urge that you see that the saving, which would be considerable, would be passed directly along to the new homeowner and not have it gobbled up along the way by the construction industry — be they management, labour or any combination of them.

The second point, Mr. Minister: I think we've got to appreciate at this point in time, in not only British Columbia but in Canada, that there have to be changes both in the philosophy and the formula of our current tax structure. I can see no reason why landowners have to bear such an awesome responsibility as they do today for the cost of education and hospitals.

We're no longer little islands, Mr. Chairman, or pockets living unto ourselves. The communications explosion, if nothing else, has exploded that. And it's high time that this tax was spread onto the whole community. I think, Mr. Minister, it would be most worthwhile — certainly so in the interest of housing in British Columbia — that you adopt as a philosophy that the services that people require shall be paid for by taxes from people, and the services that land require shall be paid for by taxes of land.

Now we've always been an incentive country. With the advent of your party into the private sector, conceivably that incentive attitude is not one that should be dispelled, but should certainly be encouraged. There is a desperate need for better incentive in the private sector for home finance.

This is something that I've mentioned in the House before; it's something that I have referred to Members of the federal government, present and former, and Members of the provincial government, present and former — unfortunately without success. I continue to think that it's a first-class idea, and it's really very disappointing to me that no one has seen fit to explore it. No one had the courage or the innovative capacity to incorporate it.

What I am saying is this, Mr. Chairman: apart from the provincial and federal government getting more and more into the housing field, we've got to see that the private investor has an incentive to get more into the field of residential housing. In order to do that we have to find two things. We've got to find an interest rate which would not only be beneficial to those to lend, but would be highly beneficial to those who happen to borrow.

If you'll take a look, Mr. Minister, at the bank savings deposit records of the chartered banks in Canada that are published by the Canadian Banking Association, you will see that there has been an enormous increase in the bank deposits in Canada

[ Page 2020 ]

over the past 20 years, and more specifically over the past five years. And this is a money market. But it's got to be made attractive for a bank depositor to yank some of that relatively dead money out of his bank and put in into a good first or second people's mortgage.

This is the suggestion. I'd say that anyone who chooses to loan money for residential mortgages — and again I'm stressing the word residential — up to a defined amount of, say, not more than maximum NHA — and I'd say with no minimum — should be permitted, provided he keeps to a set and pegged interest rate, should be permitted to receive the interest income from such a people's residential mortgage without it attracting any income tax.

This is something that could be incorporated by this province irrespective of the federal government even entering into it. If they didn't agree to it, you could do it on your own.

I'm sorry, I can't quite hear....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Rob from the poor and give to the rich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor.

MR. GARDOM: I am just trying, if possible, to ascertain the Hon. Member's contribution; but it's somewhat difficult as usual.

Mr. Chairman, if this course was taken — and I'm not suggesting that one would be able to have unlimited rights to do this type of thing — but if you found that the interest, say, on $25,000 was pegged at I per cent less than prime bank lending, that would give today the owner of a home the opportunity to borrow money at 8 per cent. And there is one whale of a saving — one whale of a saving. It would also give the lender the opportunity to receive that interest income free of income tax.

The alternative for the lender is very simple: he leaves it in the bank. He doesn't end up with as much in his pocket once he's paid income tax on it. The borrower is forced to go into the money market and borrow at 3 or 4 per cent, even for first, over the figure that I'm talking about.

This is a perfectly valid suggestion. It would get the private sector into the field of housing. It would certainly give the individual who today is buying a house at enormous cost …. Interest charges alone double in — what is it, six years, Mr. Member? They double at less than six years today.

This is a means to find money and give both sides a break, and no one's going to be a loser on it. The government's not going to be the loser on it. We have more people in housing, more people happy, more people bringing up their families under proper conditions. It would be a terrific saving in social costs if nothing else.

For the life of me I cannot understand why this is not a palatable suggestion; to this point it certainly never has been.

The third and last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, is that I'd like to say a couple of words about the University Endowment Lands. I very much regret the attitude that is taken by the Minister. It doesn't really doesn't seem to be his attitude. It seems to me that he is really just voicing the remarks of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and accepting the dogma that he is attempting to peddle on this issue. But this is the wrong place to go for housing.

Let's take a look at Stanley Park. If the forefathers we had had not had the vision to insist that that remain a park, what would it be today? There would be highrises in there, office buildings, residential premises, or what have you. Now from the point of view of population growth, if nothing else, there is a terrific argument for the maintenance of the total university endowment lands for the purposes of park land — all of them.

Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada today. It's estimated that it will be well over 2.5 million by the turn of the century. And it is desperately short of parkland. This request for parkland is not just of the people who live in the area of Point Grey or live in the University Endowment Lands at all. That was most clearly evidenced by the people who came here to Victoria and presented that petition of thousands and thousands and thousands of names — over 10,000. I could again say that that petition could be just doubled or tripled by snapping one's finger today; there's no question of a doubt about it.

This comes from all sides of the community and members of every political faith. The message is coming through loud and clear from the general public, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that the University Endowment Lands should be maintained for park purposes.

If the government did that, they themselves would be able to find a place in history just the way our forefathers did when they had the concept and the vision to see that Stanley Park would be a park, be maintained and continue to be maintained as a park. But the Minister seems now to have adopted, according to the variety of reports we've read from time to time, sort of nibbling attitude to the University Endowment Lands. He says, "Well, perhaps we'll put a little bit in one area, or a little bit in another area." And, if this is a correct quotation, he says the plans for the University Endowment Lands are "painfully simple" and will include a "very effective approach toward creating an environment that reflects the wishes of the people."

[ Page 2021 ]

Well, the simplistic and the intelligent plan for the University Endowment Lands is to see that it remains parkland. That is the effective approach towards creating an environment that reflects the wishes of the citizens of metropolitan Vancouver. By nibbling into this park concept, you're really and truly just reflecting the wishes of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). And that's not right. It's not right.

I would implore the Minister to not be hasty because the public are concerned, they continue to be concerned. Their opposition to the matter so far is very, very small, but it's going to become much more heated as this progresses. I'd say to the Hon. Minister, shelve this project that he proposes, totally.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member has made his.… I haven't been here long enough to know whether it's one of his traditional speeches. But on the 11 per cent sales tax and 5 per cent provincial sales tax, of course, I think it's well to bear in mind that the 11 per cent federal sales tax is a sales tax on building material, and in that way, it's a very discriminatory tax. Our provincial taxes, if we start making exceptions and some have been made, perhaps too many exceptions are made…. Although I did have at one time a motion on the order paper requesting that at least the sales tax for the purchase of Hansard be removed. I felt it was a periodical somewhat better…well, I don't know, I won't go into that comparison. But that was when I was a backbencher.

Certainly, removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials would be of some help.

Drawing my attention to the volume of bank deposits made in this province by people, and the fact that they are not directed into certain areas, and his suggestion that we offer incentives in the form of not charging income tax on the interest earned is an interesting proposal.

I would say that in this line I feel we should enter into a wider type of household mortgages in this province on all forms of housing, whether it be leased land or land that's being bought fee simple, being sold through the Department of Housing or being sold through private developers. We've been too much at the whim of people who have used interest rates in the east as an economic valve to shut off or heat up inflation.

We can't afford to be the victims of the cyclical type of Keynesian economics being applied in Ottawa. We have to look after our own interests, and in order to protect our interests we should enter the fields of residential mortgages and, perhaps, mortgage insurance here in this province in a larger way in order to invite the investments of individuals in the province in this very socially oriented type of enterprise.

The Member's comments on the endowment lands, Mr. Chairman, were rather interesting because he drew an analogy to Stanley Park. I don't want to dwell on debate which took place earlier in the House today, but some of those same proponents of third crossings would see something that would considerably diminish Stanley Park and lose something in that area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There have been talks of twinning the Lions Gate, and a lot of proposals for this….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, you know you can talk about pipe dreams, but if we're to look to more highway traffic I think that some sort of a tunnel or some sort of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're not on Highways.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There is quite a travesty in the downtown area and around Stanley Park. Altering some of that vision that was there in the setting aside of Stanley Park, which is a virgin forest unlike the University Endowment Lands, would be a travesty.

However, the University Endowment Lands are spoken about with a great deal of emotionalism. A lot of the people who signed that petition, I think, object to 100 per cent seashore-to-seashore housing development, and we've never proposed that it should be developed in that way. We do feel that a significant acreage of the University Endowment Lands should go into housing.

It's very nice to ask for parkland — the Jericho site in that area has been designated for parkland. We didn't really bring up the subject, but others have tried to drag us into it. There was talk of the George Darby Hospital…and people there seemed to object. I'm sure if we were to propose using something that was designated as a parkland reserve in the Bellecara area people would object.

On the one hand we've had people talking about how we could infill and how much housing we could build if we did infilling, but a lot of these properties on which the infilling would take place, the properties designated in the report, are lands much like the University Endowment Lands.

Now, we have no intention of a mindless urban sprawl in the area. There are areas there such as the swamp or bog, the Point Grey bog, which I feel should be left in a natural state and not developed, not even given any more access than exists right now. But there are obvious areas for development.

[ Page 2022 ]

I think, Mr. Member, that one of the obvious areas where one might start developing would be right on some of those parking lots at the university itself. We should be looking toward rapid transit instead of the indiscriminate urban sprawl — the parking lot sprawl — which has occurred on the endowment lands. We should be looking at the whole university itself. I think we should compare it with institutions such as McGill which are part of a community instead of an isolated appendage of the community. We should be looking to integrate it — town and gown.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay. But there will be some housing in the University Endowment Lands, and there is a voice which is calling for this. I don't know how you can really disenfranchise people, how you can oversimplify the problem. There are some very beautiful areas out there, beautiful areas that should be preserved as parkland forever. There are other areas which in no way qualify in this respect. I think that we should take a sensible approach. I think when we do announce our approach to this, you will have to agree that it is eminently sensible.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, last week a petition was brought to the City of Victoria with over 12,000 signatures on it. The people of the lower mainland are overwhelmingly committed to the use of the University Endowment Lands as a park, first, last and always. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be out in front of a bulldozer blade if that Minister tries to carve up the endowment lands. I can tell you there will be plenty of other people out there too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, because a government has an overwhelming mandate in terms of a government for the people, it does not give them a licence to take irreplaceable land and carve it up for housing experiments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: If you've got some intentions to use any part of that land for other than park purposes, you lay out the plans for the park and complete that park first. Only after that's done should you give any consideration of using one square inch of those endowment lands for any housing or other purposes.

I tell you this: when the endowment land area is made into a park, the requirements for housing, if any of it is left over — and I say, if, because I frankly doubt that any of it will be left over — but if there was even a small portion of it, the kind of housing that should be placed in that remaining portion would be determined entirely by the nature of the park itself.

The kind of housing that you'd put surrounding Stanley Park is altered by the fact that Stanley Park is there. And so it must be for anything more that is done to the University Endowment Lands. The people have been very reasonable; they have gone about this whole business of informing the Minister and the government in the kindest possible way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the Member's impassioned appeal but I want to bring to your attention that the endowment lands are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). I would suggest that they be best debated at that time. The Minister has already stated his position. I just want to point that out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, isn't it funny that the Premier raises this point when he doesn't like the tenor of the debate. But he was very pleased to have the Minister of Housing stand up and make his announcement. There was no interference then, nor did you say that the point was well taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nobody raised a point of order at that time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just came back in. It's under Lands and Forests, Mr. Member.

MR. McGEER: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the person making statements about the endowment lands outside the House is the Minister of Housing. He was the one who first announced that he was going to use it for a housing development last August.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken that discussion would be better under the estimates of the Lands, Forests and Water Resources Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. McGEER: He was the one that raised it! Mr. Chairman, when that petition was brought over here, who was the man who made a statement in response to it? The Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would you continue your remarks, leaving that matter to the other Minister?

[ Page 2023 ]

MR. McGEER: I will certainly discuss the land question with the Minister of Lands and Forests. I will take your advice on that. I will certainly mention the park aspect with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). But, Mr. Chairman, the housing aspect of it gets discussed with the Housing Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are no plans for housing there at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the Premier's word for that. I hope everybody got it; I hope Hansard got it. The Premier said that there were no plans for housing, five minutes after the Minister of Housing said there were.

That's par for the course for the NDP at this time. Are you going to change your story again today? Is this Saturday's change of story to go along with Friday's, Thursday's last Friday's and so on? Perhaps the Minister of Housing should be believed; you can't believe the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I only repeat what I said to the Minister of Housing. I will be out in front of those bulldozers if you try and carve what the people want as a park and put it into a housing experiment that pleases you and no one else.

You say there's all this demand for housing on those endowment lands. We've been all over the lower mainland and we can't find any such demands. It's hokum. There aren't any such demands. There are only demands for a park there. Only a demand for a park. Don't you try and tell this assembly or the public that you've been getting demands for housing out there. It's baloney! None at all!

Imagine a party that stood in this House year after year after year telling us how much they were in favour of parks. They could do it in millions of acres, tell us how much the Social Credit had cut down here and there. You'd think they were the only people in all of British Columbia that were interested in parks and recreational development, specifically the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Admittedly, the Minister of Housing wasn't here to make those impassioned pleas. But, I'll tell you, they were so impassioned you would have thought they were sincere. You'd have thought they meant it.

But what happens as soon as they take office? The one piece of land in British Columbia that's needed most for a park — that's the piece they take aim at for row housing.

Now, it's all very well to say the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is only standing up for thy residents of Point Grey. I heard that from a former columnist who became an executive assistant to the Premier. But, Mr. Chairman, this tract of land was set aside by some of the great parliamentarians of British Columbia for all the people of the province. It's there now for all the people of the province. It's desired by these people who live in the most densely crowded area of British Columbia.

One out of every two people lives in the lower mainland. They are going to need another Stanley Park before long. As a matter of fact they need it now. This is the only place they can have for that, these 1,100,000 people who now live within rapid transit range of the University Endowment Lands, live within commuting range. Most of them live within an easy bicycle ride of the endowment lands. That's their park for the future; it is not your housing tract for the present. It isn't! You've got no mandate to use it for row housing or any other kind of housing.

All you would do is give special privileges to a small number of people who could occupy that irreplaceable space, and deny to millions their opportunity to have a recreational area. That isn't good enough policy for a New Democratic Party government or any other kind of government. It's a policy that's against the people, not for them. It's a policy of special privilege, not equal treatment. It's a policy of anti-recreation rather than pro-recreation.

I think the Premier had better take a second look, a third look, a fourth look and a fifth look at this thing until he comes to his senses and realizes that through lack of foresight and imagination he has contemplated destroying the most valuable territory for park that exists in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, there are some other aspects that housing Ministry disturbed me a little bit.

One of the most important is the lack of housing and rental starts in the private sector. Even the most aggressive public housing programme is only going to produce a small percentage of the new units that are required.

Our population is increasing by about 60,000 people a year. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says 70,000. I'm sure he's studied it more closely than I have — let's say it's 70,000. That means something greater than 40,000 new units a year must be created in order to take care of that increasing population. You have to add to that whatever your replacement value is. And if we've got a million housing units in British Columbia, and the average life of those is 20 or 30 years, you are going to need about another 40,000 units just to replace what's worn out.

Mr. Chairman, there's no possible way this government or any government could succeed in getting 80,000 units started in a year and do that every year. No possible way. You cannot marshal the land, you cannot do the planning, you cannot

[ Page 2024 ]

marshal the finances. Maybe a really successful government programme, if they got it going, might produce 2,000 or 3,000 units — maybe even more if you turned the heat on. But you're still going to be left with requirements in the private sector of probably greater than 70,000.

In other words, the government activity is unlikely to be more than 5 per cent of what's required. It could be a good deal less. So, in serving the shelter needs of 2 million-plus people in British Columbia you're going to have to depend on the activities of the private sector, overwhelmingly. If the policies you follow, increasing government housing by 100 per cent or 200 per cent, result in the private sector reducing their activities by 10 per cent, you've got the net loss in the number of new units that are being created.

It may sound wonderful, Mr. Chairman, to have a housing Minister stand up and say that his government's activities will double or triple what the government has done in the past, but that only has a positive effect if he doesn't do so much damage to be private sector that fewer units are actually in operation.

Mr. Chairman, I've checked with some of the corporations that in the past have been responsible for putting up a significant proportion of our new rental developments in this province. Some of them are planning to put in maybe 5 or 10 per cent of what they did a year ago. But there is not one that I have talked to that is not counting on a substantial reduction in new apartment construction in this coming year.

Without exception, the private sector is cutting back. Because the private sector is cutting back, occupancy rates for rental units are at a all time high. There is now a significant black market in rental accommodations.

If rental restrictions are placed on the private sector — and I don't want to talk about a bill that's before this assembly — that will only increase black market activities and decrease the number of new units that are being constructed.

Now, if the Minister can stand up and tell us how his proposed legislation — putting ceilings on rental accommodation increases — is going to result in more starts being made, then he will have told us and the people something that they've not been able to find out any other way.

I've even heard suggestions — and I find these almost impossible to credit, but legislation has been brought before this assembly that has been unbelievable before — that is the government was planning to introduce legislation to place restrictions on the sale of used homes. In other words, people buy a home, then they have to move back east because the mining firm that they worked for is shutting down operation. They are forced to sell their home but they are not going to be allowed the free market price because of government legislation that would limit the sale, or the mark-up on the sale of their new home, to 8 per cent or 10 per cent or whatever it would be.

Many people are worried that the government is going to bring down such legislation because it's been on the air. Rumours have been on the air; I've had several telephone calls, and some correspondence, saying, "Is the government bringing down such legislation?" I've said, "I know of no such legislation."

I don't know of any legislation the government's bringing down, but I would like the government, if they have no intention in bringing down such legislation, to stand up and say so today. Deny the rumour, because I think it's having a very upsetting effect on the housing market.

Mr. Chairman, the reason why the private sector is so uncertain today is first because of the land freeze; second, because of the discussion of government competition in the housing market; and third, because of proposed ceilings on rentals. The inhibiting effect of these various government actions is pushing the price of homes and rents faster and farther than any place in Canada.

The Minister could be doing a greater service, in my view, to the public, not by telling us what the government plans are for their housing projects, but by giving a sober and responsible accounting of future government policies that will encourage the private sector. Because when all is said and done, when it comes to housing, the private sector has to pack the weight. It has always packed the weight in the past; it will have to pack the weight in the future. The government needs to give that encouragement to the private sector if we're to stay out of worse trouble than we're already in in the housing field.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I would like to thank the Member for his comments.

Last night I did explain that while these are very significant social programmes we are discussing in the estimates, without special efforts to encourage the private sector particularly in terms of keeping a good communication between these people, between the developers and the municipal planners and the provincial government approving departments and with our department, the impact of our social programmes in housing would be lost. Indeed, Mr. Member, we are concerned that the private sector continue to move ahead. I share your concern about the decreased activity of some of the developers that you have met with. However, at the same time I have met with others who seem to be expanding or moving into this province. I hope that we will be able to move ahead.

Last year building starts were up by some 6.5 or

[ Page 2025 ]

6.9 per cent, but we realize that isn't enough, and that we have to not only build a certain number of homes for the people who are moving into the province. With an increased population we have to replace existing homes which are substandard. Also we have to make up for the sometimes hidden loss which occurs when there's redevelopment and existing units are lost and the net gain is not reflected by the number of building starts.

I would just like to say that I treat the proposed restrictions on sale of used homes for what it is — a rumour. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was confronted with this on television, and his reaction was much the same as mine, one of surprise.

MR. BENNETT: Earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was going to get me some information as to which appraisals had not been authenticated by government appraisals that were used in the compilation of this list, which the Minister had circulated throughout the House, dealing with properties in the Dunhill Development Corporation. I wonder if you have the answer for me now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To be sure, I'd like to bring this into the House on Monday if I could. I could table it at that time.

MR. BENNETT: Some other questions dealing with Dunhill. He was saying that before he circulated this paper, certain of these properties had been disposed of. I wonder if the Minister could go through that list again while we in the House have this list so we can mark on our lists those properties that have been disposed of, and what difference the figures are compared to the appraised and the recorded cost values.

I would also like to find out the sales procedures — whether the corporation puts these properties out by bid, or whether there was an open chance for all real estate companies or whether it was selected real estate companies or the corporation sells them themselves through direct negotiations. I'd like to know how they have disposed of these properties.

He mentioned buying other properties for development. I'd like to know how they treat these. Do you deal with one real estate company or several real estate companies?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: What they have been doing is to try to get a fairly top dollar, but there is a point beyond which developers tend to be put off. To answer your questions — going down the list: Glenmore West, less the actual increment was $650,000, as opposed to $549,000. The Heritage was $250,000, as opposed to $22,000. I hesitate to give the one on Ashby House, but if you'll take it just as an estimate, we have a pretty good idea and we're estimating a profit of $300,000 rather than $125,000 — I should say not a profit, but an increment on that appraisal. On the undeveloped land at Lac la Hache, we did receive an excess of about $16,000. On the Richmond residential it was $725,000.

Notice that I am giving these in rounded off figures, so they could be subject to some slight difference. The other one which has been disposed of is the Richmond industrial 3.78 acres — second from the bottom — at the same appraisal increment, $195,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken on the Minister's salary, and I don't intend to speak long at this time. I would just like to say that later on in the estimates, in vote 111, there seems to be an opportunity to discuss at great length housing and all aspects of it. We in the opposition have no wish to impede this particular vote. This is all I intend to say at this time, but I am reserving the right to speak at length on vote 111.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few short questions, Mr. Chairman, that deal with the mortgages being given by the housing commission. I want to know how many mortgages are issued each year, what the average rate of interest is and what kind of dollar volume there is in the mortgage proposals.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I would try to table that information by Monday, if possible. It's rather detailed.

MR. CHABOT: You don't have the information now?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll table it.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Since this is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this debate, I want to open up a few ideas with the Minister regarding housing in the Province of British Columbia. I promise that I am not going to take too long.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I am just going to go for just a few minutes on a couple of items. Certainly I would hope that the mood of the House is such that if they want to sit on a Saturday, they would allow the Members a few minutes in debate on this particular vote on a Saturday afternoon.

One of the things that I believe the Minister should be doing in housing is to certainly investigate the methods of construction available to us today. There

[ Page 2026 ]

is no question that with inflation at the rate we have, and the cost of construction going up, escalating as quickly as it is, housing construction going up, escalating as quickly as it is, housing construction will not get any cheaper. As a matter of fact, it will become much more expensive to construct homes in the province for the foreseeable future.

The only way we are going to be able to put housing into the hands of the people at a price they can afford is to get the unit cost down and into the realm of the price range that people can afford. There are many types of construction being experimented with today, much of it good construction — new techniques and new methods. But many of the new techniques and new methods are not particularly adaptable to building homes.

The construction industry has not been particularly devoting its time to developing methods and techniques which will produce, say, a 1,000-square-foot house at a lesser rate per square foot than in the past. They have been able to do it in commercial construction mainly because in commercial construction there has been an increase in demand. And it's certainly a better type of construction business than building homes. So they have devoted their expertise and their knowledge to a different field during the last few years.

At one time, most of the small contractors in the province did most of their work in the field of home construction. If you examine the situation now, you'll find that many of these small contractors are not in the home construction business any more. They're in the commercial construction business. Because of that their expertise and the techniques and shortcuts they may have developed are now being applied to a different field than what we would expect.

So I would hope that the Minister would try to work out some sort of incentive for people — contractors, that is, and construction people — to redirect their efforts in the building field back towards home construction.

I know that the people I know personally in the business tell me that they would be very happy if they never had to build another home, particularly under today's circumstances, and the fact that so many people would like to have a custom-made home. They start out with a contract for them, and before they end up they have all kinds of problems on their hands which they hadn't anticipated at the start.

So there should be some way of redirecting that emphasis back towards housing construction. There should be some way of reducing the cost of the material that is involved in construction. We can do something in the Province of British Columbia by removing some of the tax from building materials. That is one way we can help cut down the cost of construction.

We could, I suppose, offer some incentive to carpenters and people who are expert in the field to come up with new ideas and new techniques. You might run a programme of some sort advertising a substantial cash award for anyone who can come up with ideas and techniques that are usable.

I would like to tell you about a person in the Peace River country who has developed a technique for making homes out of round logs. He has developed a machine and builds entirely out of log construction. The old method was, as you know, to hew the logs down with a broad axe and so on, but he has a machine and he manufactures the logs to any given size from 6 in. to 12 in. He has a number of these machines in operation now in northern British Columbia and in Alberta.

It may not be a technique that could be duplicated in other parts of the country, but up there he can build about five basic home designs. It is all precut; the logs are all ready to assemble when you buy the package. It makes an extremely attractive log house, and very warm, as a matter of fact, without any further insulation, just the building itself.

So that is the technique that he has developed. It is comparatively inexpensive to other types of construction. I believe that people like this should be encouraged. The interesting thing about this particular individual is that he had the idea, he knew what he wanted to do, but he had an extremely difficult time obtaining capital to finance the first machine. He is presently in the position where he could expand rapidly. There is a great demand for his technique and the machines that will make these round logs. But here again he is strapped for capital. This is one area where I think we could be of great assistance to this particular person to develop that and spread that idea in areas where it is a solution to housing problems — certainly, it would be throughout the north, I don't know about the rest of the province.

I would just like the Minister's comment on that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I quite appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. I know how important innovative housing is to the north where you have a very short building season. I hope to be up there and perhaps we could look into this project.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, on the assurance, which I understand is available, that it will be possible to discuss factors relating to housing supply and demand, all factors related, I am quite happy to postpone my remarks until vote 111.

I would just like to ask the Minister if he could, over the weekend, come back with this figure. In his intervention in the budget debate he mentioned that

[ Page 2027 ]

the province has an offer to enter into agreements with municipalities for servicing land with water and sewers. He went on to say that under this arrangement municipalities are authorized to prepare land and accept bids for servicing, with the provincial government underwriting the total cost. I would like to know how much is in the budget this year for that programme, how much the cost per lot will be, and what is the total servicing cost per lot on the average in the lower mainland region.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, with the same sort of condition to the Minister, I wonder if we discuss many of these things under other votes, whether he can table the appraisals we have under discussion — if he can bring those to the Legislature on Monday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is a ruling of the Chair, and I would rule that any matter pertaining to housing could be brought up under vote 111.

Vote 106 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:24 p.m.