[ Page 167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 167

Mr. Lockstead –– 167

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 167

Division on second reading –– 168

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Octures Fund Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 169

Mr. Hanson –– 169

Mr. Barber –– 170

Mr. Smith –– 171

Mrs. Jordan –– 172

Mr. Hall –– 173

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 174

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 174

Mr. King –– 176

Ms. Sanford –– 177

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 177

Division on second reading –– 177

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 177

Mr. Hall –– 177

Mr. Rogers –– 178

Mr. Barnes –– 179

Mr. Passarell –– 180

Mrs. Dailly –– 181

Mr. Cocke –– 181

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 182

Division on second reading –– 182

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 182

On section 4.

Mr. Lea 18 2

Division on the title –– 182

Third reading –– 183

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act (Bill 8). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 183

Tabling documents

Medical Services Plan of British Columbia audited financial statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 183

Appendix –– 184

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a school class from the large community of Grindrod, British Columbia. There are 16 students from the Grindrod Elementary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Peebles, and by Mr. and Mrs. Shulte. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, another group of students who will be observing our deliberations today are from Parkland Senior Secondary School in the beautiful Saanich Peninsula portion of the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Would the House make them welcome?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming 29 students from grade 6 at Macaulay School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Pollard, who is assisted by five parents of students.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, may we move to public bills and orders?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

(continued)

HON. MR. McGEER: At adjournment time last evening we were warming up to an interesting theme. By that time I didn't have an opportunity to say how pleased I was to support this bill on second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just a few brief words on section 1 of this bill. Particularly pertaining to the amount of moneys being appropriated to the Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways. This morning I received a telegram from concerned parents in the community of Squamish. They held a meeting last night, and they specifically request, in this telegram to the Premier, that the government does not officially open a stretch of new highway between Malcolm Road and Garibaldi Way. The fact is that the government refused to build an overpass to protect 320 elementary school children who have to cross the highway in that section. I want to know from the government if part of this $25 million is going to go to build an overpass for those school children. I want it known in this Legislature today that if one child dies on that highway, let it be on their heads. So I am asking that the government take immediate steps and inform those people that an overpass will be built in that community forthwith.

Last, but not least, I should inform this House that the parents — and I have contacted the Minister of Transportation, Communication and Highways — are ready to blockade that highway on Monday morning should the government not make a commitment today.

MR. SPEAKER: Although I have permitted this statement, it is, I think, stretching the point to suggest that the statements made were relevant to Bill 7. If, indeed, it were deemed to be relevant, then anything that could be purported to be a legitimate expenditure by government could be brought under Bill 7. I would think perhaps the debate would be more in order under the estimates of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and I would suggest that would be the right time.

MR. NICOLSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the manner in which this sum of $25 million has been brought in, without any detail as to the projects which are to be funded by that $25 million, leaves open any of the projects which might be undertaken in the province. But I'm sure that the opposition would welcome the minister in future, if he is going to use this type of legislation, bringing in detailed estimates, which is where this amount belongs in the first place.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to close the debate on this wide-ranging discussion. For the benefit of those who haven't enjoyed the earlier speakers, I would remind them that this bill is very important. It designates the surplus which was created during the year of 1977-78 to some very worthwhile projects. The two most significant ones are: the commencement in the first instalment of a ten-year retirement of our direct debt of this province, namely $26 million; and secondly, the creation of a substantial increase in our homeowner grants of $100 to every citizen, and several other measures.

So let's not mistake the fact that, as I've said before, this bill symbolizes the budgeting job, the job of administration of public funds, which this government has been able to accomplish. Opposition members can belittle this, and I think what's most interesting has been the comments by the new members from Ottawa. They've descended upon this Legislature and they seem to have never heard of the word "surplus" before. [Laughter.] It's s-u-r-p-l-u-s, Mr. Speaker. The reason they fit so well into this opposition party they've now joined is that they're imbued with the deficit philosophy. Deficit philosophy translated means debt — d-e-b-t. I'm being very fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, it's really generated by the New Democratic Party and ex-members from Ottawa, and the approach they take, the aversion they have to anything called "surplus," which is really responsible budgeting, not surplus, It's developed by what I call pie-in-the-sky budgeting: in other words, you overestimate your revenues, you kid yourself, and you underestimate your expenditures. It's as simple as that.

There's an old rule we all learned some time back: if you want to balance the public funds, you don't spend more than you're taking in.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do it the other way around.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, they can argue over semantics, but that's the rule. They're against surplus; they're for deficits. It's as simple as that.

[ Page 168 ]

This surplus was created simply because of a responsible budget, and during the course of the year we're talking about the surplus was created mainly through buoyancy in resource revenues. If you want to criticize that, you members of the opposition go ahead. As we've said before, the revenues from resource allocations in the immediate year past are 75 percent over the best year under your administration. This surplus was created through the strength in resource revenues, in part evidenced by our resource taxation policies.

So, Mr. Speaker, I only want to deal here with two items of a specific nature. First, there was criticism by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) of the sale of the ferries in the early months of our administration, as though this was some unusual transaction, and a very hidden transaction which we should be ashamed of. He also referred to the fact that a person should be apprehended and put in jail if he were to do this kind of thing. However, I would only mention that this is very commonplace in terms of public administration financing, when you're short of funds due to a prior administration. Practically every one of Air Canada's aircraft is leased. A great many railcars in Canada are leased. Here we have three vessels. So this is no unusual transaction.

Any administration, which in order to reduce the sort of debt load which we incurred had an opportunity to enter into a transaction whereby it could, instead of paying 10 percent on that debt, enter into a lease under which the effective rate was 7.5 percent, would be foolish to ignore it. That was a very opportune and beneficial transaction which put funds in the hands of the people of this province and reduced taxes. There is no question in my mind or on this side of the House that the transaction can be supported from any way you want to argue it.

Secondly, the same member was critical of the fact that in the first year of our administration we allocated $40 million in special funds. He said there was some devious transaction which we pushed into the budget. He's wrong. It wasn't $40 million, but he was pretty nearly correct; it was $27 million. There were a number of special purpose funds which were devoted to the problems of that year. I want to emphasize that I don't know where he got his figure of $40 million, but it's incorrect. The member for Nanaimo, the member for Prince Rupert and several others have argued that there was no debt. They said we fiddled the accounts and told Clarkson Gordon what to do. Any responsible chartered accountant knows, and the member for Nanaimo well knows, that you don't instruct an auditor how to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to tell me that ICBC didn't lose $185 million in two years? Talk to the auditor.

They're trying their best to persuade the people of this province that there was no debt. They're failing because even the staff members who worked for both governments will tell you that there was plenty of debt, that there was plenty of trouble.

You remember Bill Stowe. He was so concerned at the time of the election. Listen to what he said, not what I said. He said there was going to be a loss. He was extremely concerned, dedicated and sincere. He called a press conference and told everybody on day two of the new government that this province was in deep trouble and was going to lose about $500 million. He was their own staff member who that government hired. He had an independent view.

They should hold their heads in shame for the last budget they generated in 1975-76. You know what they did. They estimated their revenues and their expenditures using all the experts they had, and the budget didn't balance.

So I had a little bug on the wall of the room, and what happened was: "What do we do, boys? Well, let's just boost those revenues about $300 million. We'll up the sales tax, we'll up the timber sales, we'll up the resource taxation, and so on." They overestimated. They committed themselves, Mr. Speaker. They knew. They thought they would get away with it, and they got caught short.

This is the same old history we've had over and over, but there is an issue they should hold their heads on in shame for all time. There was a valid reason for them being thrown out on their ears, Mr. Speaker, in the election of that time. So let's not make any mistake about the fact that they cooked the books in 1975, not this government. They cooked the books. Mr. Speaker, they cooked that budget, and they didn't get away with it.

At the same time it is reassuring to know that all members of this House support the direction in which these funds are being placed, and I am pleased to note that both sides of the House are going to vote in favour of this measure. As I've said, we've had a wide-ranging debate, and I have referred to the fact that we have this aversion to surplus, which has arrived from Ottawa. I take note of that, and with that I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if your office would consider commissioning an investigation, in light of the minister's admission that he bugged the office of a member of this Legislature. Was that statement not true?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sit down while you're behind, Bill.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that is what the minister said, and if the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to accept that the statement is not true. If that is the case, I wonder how much of the minister's statements were true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is not a valid point of order and I don't think we can expect a response to it.

Shall we proceed? The question is second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[ Page 169 ]

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 7 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

Bill 7, Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE
AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUND ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: We acknowledge the fact that the tourist industry is an important industry to this province. It is one of the fastest growing industries and its benefits affect all residents of the province. The industry also fits within the government's objectives of providing more jobs and diversifying our resource-based economy. This government also wishes to encourage trade and promote manufacturing industry within the province. These activities will assist the government's objective of more jobs and diversification of our economy.

Therefore, as an incentive to the tourist trade and manufacturing industries, this bill proposes to set aside $12.5 million from the 1978-79 revenue surplus to help pay for construction of trade and convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria. There will be $10 million to be placed in a Vancouver trade and convention centre fund and $2.5 million in a Victoria trade and convention centre fund. These funds will be paid out towards the construction costs of these centres, only when financial arrangements have been satisfactorily made to pay for the total construction costs of the centres.

Mr. Speaker, these centres will be a positive step toward assisting the economy of this province. This bill, therefore, should have the support of all members of this House. I move second reading.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, throughout the election campaign, my colleague in Victoria and I indicated to the people of Victoria that, in the event of our election or in the event of the present government's election, we would support the Victoria convention centre.

I support it for a number of reasons. I look forward to a convention centre that will take into consideration, environmentally, urban environmental aspects that are of such great concern in Victoria. The citizens of Victoria and the tourists coming to Victoria are very interested and concerned about the maintenance of the heritage aspects of this city.

I'm speaking in favour of short-term employment goals and long term employment goals. To ensure that the environmental considerations and the architectural sensitivity of this structure will meet the needs and aspirations of the residents of this city, there should be public hearings. There should be public discussion and involvement in the design and how a new structure of this type would relate to, and could be integrated into, the existing services in Victoria.

Transportation and parking and how it would vitalize the small business community should be considered. I would like to read for you some of the short-term employment possibilities that may help rectify our very, very bad employment situation for the construction industry. One-quarter of all plumbers in Victoria are unemployed, as are one-third of all bricklayers, one-third of the glaziers, one-third of cement masons, 25 percent of labourers, 50 percent of plasterers and 40 percent of carpenters. In Victoria,400 of 1,000 organized carpenters are unemployed. On a short-term basis construction of the Victoria trade and convention centre would be a stimulus to the employment in the construction industry which, we agree, is very, very necessary.

I also believe that the convention centre could be an asset in offsetting a characteristic of the economy of British Columbia, which is the seasonality. Our fishing industry has a seasonality aspect; and so has the forest industry through fire shutdowns and snow shutdowns. Our entire economy is seasonal, as is the tourist industry. The trade and convention centre business is competitive, but I think that we can do it properly. We can encourage people to visit our city in the off-tourist season, where small business does have difficulties.

So I agree that, on the short-term, construction jobs will be created; there will be other spin-off jobs. I believe it can help offset the seasonality in the tourist industry, bringing people in the off-season. Another very important aspect that we would all agree upon is that we do not want the downtown core of our city to lose its vitality. A convention centre would help encourage the kind of restoration work, the kind of upgrading that is presently going on in Victoria to ensure that our downtown core is alive, prosperous and vigorous.

One of the steps taken by the former NDP administration was purchase of the Marguerite, which I read brought 148,000 people to Victoria in 1978. Also, they brought something in the order of $6 million. In Seattle they are very concerned about the systems aboard the Marguerite for the maintenance of sewage disposal. I think the proper maintenance of the Marguerite and the ongoing guarantee of that operation go hand in hand with the construction of a trade and convention centre. I think they go together.

Another thing we have to look at is ways in which the trade and convention centre can spin its benefits into as broad a region of the lower Island as possible. There is a present tendency for tourism to concentrate around the legislative precinct. It would be worth investigation during the planning to look at ways in which the benefits can be spread more evenly, or that they can extend to a broader region — Esquimalt, Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay. I think the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith) would certainly be looking at ways a trade and convention centre would benefit Oak Bay.

So I'm speaking in favour of it. I think there are short-term benefits. I think it can be an asset if it's done properly, if the public gets a chance to say how they think it should be constructed, and what their concerns are. Residents of the lower Island should have a say. They reside here year round. I do recognize the importance of the tourist industry, but at the same time, people who live here year round should have a say in how it's constructed, what the design is, and so on.

So I'I be standing in support of it.

[ Page 170 ]

MR. BARBER: This has been my first formal opportunity in the House to debate the concept of a trade and convention centre in Victoria. I'm happy to do so and I'm happy to support it and want to offer very briefly some other reasons complementing those put forward by my colleague from Victoria.

First of all, I'd like to give credit where it's due; and that belongs to Sam Bawlf. Sam has a very fine record. For the northern members, he was the former first member for Victoria. He has a fine record of recognizing the particularly apt value of the natural siting at the Inner Harbour and the natural opportunities in Victoria for a project like this described today. He deserves credit for pushing that in public debate. He deserves credit for pushing it through cabinet.

It should be noted as well that he was not defeated because he favoured proposals like this. He was not defeated on the basis of his really first class work at the Inner Harbour and the Crystal Gardens. That had nothing to do with the fact that he isn't here today. He was defeated because he had the misfortune of running for Social Credit on Vancouver Island, and that's politically suicidal these days.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We did win eight out of ten of them, Jack. That's not too bad a record.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you do in the rest of the province?

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you do in the real world?

MR. BARBER: We'll talk about that later too. What do you mean, "the real world"?

Sam deserves credit for the fact that we are debating this today, and I for one, as a friend and colleague of his over some years now, want to make that clear and make that a matter of public record.

There are a couple of other people who deserve credit as well, when you look at how it is we can use the land where the trade and convention centre will be built. Those two people are Bob Williams and Peter Pollen. Bob at the time was Minister of Lands. Peter at the time was the mayor. Between them, they managed to stop a stupid and disastrous proposal for two high-rise buildings, of all the ridiculous places, at the Inner Harbour. Between them they managed to fend off a completely lunatic scheme that would have ruined the scale, in human and architectural language, of the Inner Harbour.

Peter Pollen stopped a very bad and dangerous proposal at the Inner Harbour. Bob Williams, to his credit as well, persuaded the administration of the day to buy the site and guarantee it for public purposes. And it's only because Bob Williams and Peter Pollen had that vision and that determination that today we're able to debate this bill on the floor of the House; otherwise the land would have been long gone. They too deserve credit, and that should be a matter of public record.

As for the proposal itself before us today in the form of this bill, I have a number of questions which I appreciate the minister may not be able to answer today, so I should like, if I may, to put them to him today and hope that in committee he could come back with some answers. I realize you can't have all the stuff at hand.

The first question is essentially political. Who, ministerially, is in fact in charge of the convention centre? It's a question of some interest to small business in Victoria and particularly to the people now involved in the planning committee for the convention centre itself. Who, in fact, ordinarily, and in the future can people approach? I appreciate, or presume, it won't be the Minister of Finance. He's simply presenting this bill today, and that's fair enough. Who in the future would be able to stand up in the cabinet benches and reply to questions we may want to ask from time to time about the convention centre?

I would like to observe as well that the local planning committee now is well composed and is doing a good job. The local planning committee has earned the respect and confidence of many people in Victoria. They too — at least those who've come to me privately — want to understand where, within the government's view of things, future direction will come for Inner Harbour planning. For the moment, that's not entirely clear.

There are questions as well of operating losses, questions of the deficits that inevitably will accrue to the ledgers of the Victoria trade and convention centre. Is the government willing to entertain a commitment to pick up a share or a percentage of those deficits? If so, what will that share or that percentage be? How will that be determined, and how quickly may a decision be made on that matter? It's of real concern to the planning committee in Victoria. It's of real concern to people generally who look at convention centres and observe that indirectly they are tremendously valuable, but directly they sometimes lose money. The indirect benefits are considerable and worthwhile. The direct problem may be of how operating losses at this particular convention centre will be paid for. I'd appreciate today, or in committee, an opportunity to discuss that with the minister.

Does the minister today, or perhaps in committee, find himself able to tell us the current estimated final capital cost for the building? We appreciate, of course, that the government proposes to contribute $2.5 million. That's very generous. I don't criticize that at all. I wonder if you could tell us what the final capital cost is now, as prepared for you by the Provincial Capital Commission.

The lines of at least the first drawings of the building and the restraint and the architectural sensitivity of the first models coming forward are really fine. They must be honoured; they must be respected. There is no point in putting up an enormous garage for human beings with four plain walls and presuming that we've done justice to the remarkable location made available to us here at the Inner Harbour. No one wants that — it wouldn't serve any good purpose. The site is extraordinary and so the building should be. The sea access is extraordinary and should be reflected in the design and the usability of that building. The access to the Inner Harbour by a promenade for ordinary citizens — not necessarily coming for a convention centre or coming for trade centre purposes, but simply wanting access to the site — is also extraordinary and it must be respected and honoured in the design.

There are other remarkable aspects here that have to be understood and have to be integrated into the final design. One of the lucky circumstances is that this site connects

[ Page 171 ]

with virtually every significant form of transportation, save one, to and from Vancouver Island — and I refer of course to Swartz Bay. It has bus access, it has seaplane access, it has direct access to the Coho and the Marguerite.

There is one more form of access that it could incorporate, and I simply propose it as something worth studying. I don't know if it's entirely practical — I'm advised it is — but it would be up to the government to conduct the feasibility studies that may make it so. Would it not be possible to simply consider extending the E&N track down Wharf Street for four blocks and using the convention centre at ground level on Wharf Street as the terminus of that service? Would it not be a marvelous thing to be able to invite tourists who come for convention centre purposes to catch the train at their front door right there on Wharf Street, all of four blocks from the present terminus, go across the Johnson Street Bridge and proceed up Vancouver Island? Would it not be a marvelous thing for all of us on the Island to be able to encourage that direct, local and physical use of the last remaining active rail line on the Island? Would it not be possible to at least consider extending the E&N track from where it now ends at the foot of Johnson Street down Wharf Street to the foot of Fort? It's all of four blocks. I'm told that to extend the rail line itself that short distance may cost less than 5 percent of the total final cost of the convention centre and the related facilities. It may well be that that 5 percent could make a first-class difference. It may well be that that 5 percent, should the figure prove accurate, should the feasibility study bear it out, could allow us to heighten and enhance the outstanding connectedness of that really outstanding location to all of the forms of transportation that we enjoy in downtown Victoria. It is at the very least, I think, worth some study.

There is one final argument that I'd like to make. The commercial enterprise values of this convention centre are self-evident; they are not in dispute by anyone. It is important that they be enhanced here. The commercial worth of this site.... Its annual operating losses, which one can predict will be in the order of $200,000 to $400,000 in the first years — so we're informed — are worth bearing, because the final result, the indirect asset, is much more considerable. So it is that this House every year justifies the small operating losses of the Princess Marguerite, because the overall benefit to the economy is enormous. So too the small operating losses of this convention centre can be more than justified by the overall impact of the literally millions of dollars that will come in in convention centre activity. Those values are self-evident and we respect them. The opportunities for retail space, for active, small, private enterprise space down there — also serving the interests of the people who come for convention centres — are significant, worthy of respect and worthy of incorporation into the final design.

There is one other aspect that should be considered here and that is the cultural aspect of a centre that recognizes its location on the Pacific Rim. We have here some very special interests that we share with the people of Australia and New Zealand, of Japan, of Mexico and the United States, and with every other person living in this part of the continent. The pan-Pacific opportunities have to be recognized — and they are more than just commercial ones, they are more than just opportunities to gather, to meet about business and trade possibilities, as important as they are.

There are opportunities as well to invite international bodies to meet here in Victoria — agencies of the United Nations, agencies concerned with the Pacific Rim development, agencies concerned with planning the political and economic strategies open to all of the Pacific Rim nations as the twenty-first century comes closer. Here in Victoria these too can be recognized at this site. Those aren't strictly and ordinarily just business opportunities; they are also opportunities to invite people from around the Pacific Rim to come here to an outstanding location and do business that otherwise would be done elsewhere — if we're not bright enough to attract it here in the first place.

The specific possibilities of a Victoria convention centre are considerable. It's not just southern Vancouver Island or the lower part of British Columbia we should be addressing ourselves to. It's also presented as an opportunity for and a means of inviting people from the cultural world to come here and share what we've got. The opportunities for festivals are considerable, and I know that it's been frequently proposed that this centre be a home for dance festivals, for film festivals, for ethnic organizations' festivals. It's been frequently described as a means of bringing together under one roof some splendid cultural and commercial enterprises.

There is no reason why this centre shouldn't start with a major cultural event. When it opens a year and a half or two and a half years from now, the way in which it opens should be with a major cultural enterprise. I think, for instance, of a musical enterprise, that being my own interest in these things. There are many others, I know, being discussed and debated privately in Victoria. They are well worth consideration; they're good ideas. They would be a way, if we could start it, to give a particularly distinct complexion to this particularly distinct opportunity for a trade and convention centre that no one else could have.

We would be half blind and half bright if our thinking were restricted to commercial enterprises alone, important as they are. The field is much broader. The international agencies, the international interests, the cultural and ethnic possibilities here at this site are very considerable. They're worth debate; they're worth support; and they certainly have mine.

MR. SMITH: I'm very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It is a bill that has enormous and exciting importance for people who live in the area of greater Victoria, and I'm going to try and speak to it, not just as a member for one of the constituencies here, but as a citizen of the capital region.

I'm also very pleased and delighted that the two members for Victoria appear to be joining with members on this side of the House in a bipartisan resolution to support in a positive way the realization of this facility. I can assure them that this is much more important than politics, and that it is not a partisan endeavour. It is, indeed, the lifeblood of greater Victoria that there be a commercial centre of this kind, a centre that will attract not just major conventions but also major cultural gatherings to greater Victoria.

I cannot, however, fail to join with the member opposite in paying tribute to Sam Bawlf, whose brainchild this is and who did so much to restore the beauty, the history and the vitality of the downtown core in greater Victoria.

I also would like to pay tribute to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) whose imaginative leadership in the field of tourism is another reason why this bill is before this House.

[ Page 172 ]

The formation of a foundation to ultimately operate the convention-trade centre has taken place. It is a reasonably broadly based community foundation known as the PanPacific Conference and Trade Society and it has already done feasibility studies and advanced some preliminary drawings of what this convention facility would look like. A medium-sized convention centre is proposed on the site on Wharf Street, which used to be known — infamously at one time — as the controversial Reid site, and that has quite a planning history in Victoria. Thank goodness it is now going to be used as a model showpiece for a trade and convention and cultural gathering place, instead of, as my friend observed, a high-rise development.

The proposal is that a medium convention centre be built on that site, a Class C centre, looking after approximately 1,500 participants or convention delegates. That is similar to the size of the facility in Charlottetown and other cities, where centres of this kind have had an enormous impact on the local economy, and where they have been a great cultural enrichment.

I can assure the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that already there is a very strong degree of public support, and there also has been a fair amount of vetting by locally elected bodies of that site and this proposal. Approving this proposal are the city council of Victoria, the regional board, and the Provincial Capital Commission, under whose auspices, I understand, this will come.

I have been a member of the Provincial Capital Commission as a mayor for the past six years. That commission has been charged with the management and overseeing of the Inner Harbour lands. So I presume it will come under their auspices. There will be a good deal of sensitive planning and also opportunities for input into the final design.

The need for this centre cannot be overestimated. Greater Victoria cannot accommodate more than a small convention of 500 people. The last large convention that I recall attending here was a convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities about nine years ago. We were all stuffed into the Esquimalt Arena. The UBCM has not tried to come back to Victoria since.

The facilities of the Empress Hotel are excellent as far as they go, but the Empress can only cope with a small convention. The tourist industry here is a growing, clean industry which is welcomed by merchants and most citizens who hope that Victoria will remain economically vital but don't want Victoria to change radically or rapidly.

There are many examples of the importance of a convention centre to a British Columbia community. The best one that comes to mind is Penticton. Their convention actually has been important to the lifeblood of that town.

About a year ago I had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Quebec City at the Quebec Hilton. At that time Quebec City was undergoing an economic recession. But because of the Hilton convention centre, which is a Class B centre, and the major conventions that had come to town in 1977-78, the economy of Quebec City was far healthier than it really deserved to be. The centre buoyed up the local economy, and it had enormous side effects and ripples in the economy of the surrounding area. I believe that will happen in southern Vancouver Island.

Victoria is ideally located for a facility of this kind. Victoria, as you know, was a major trade centre in North America at the time of the 1858 gold rush. For a short period of time it was a more important port and community than San Francisco. Victoria has a great history as a marine centre. The city and the site are ideally sited for a convention facility. It also, of course, is the provincial capital.

We have a lot of hotel and motel accommodation in Victoria and the centre will not require additional major accommodation facilities. We have about 4,000 available hotel and motel rooms now in the downtown core of Victoria. The exciting possibilities of this convention centre and trade centre are unlimited for this community. I urge all members to support the concept and the project. You will see before the end of this session that it offers enormous vitality to the downtown area of Victoria.

I take great pleasure in joining with the members opposite for Victoria in endorsing and supporting the bill.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to introduce some very important guests to our House?

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a group of very important people from the great constituency of Central Fraser Valley. They are a group of students from the Abbotsford Christian School, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Messelink. Would the House please welcome them?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to say too much, but I would like to speak as an Interior member and on behalf of the members for the northern Interior and the Kootenays. We believe that the people we represent in all areas of the province heartily support the development of both the Vancouver trade and convention centre and the Victoria trade and convention centre. We know that international cultural and economic benefits they will bring to British Columbia. We want to support the development of this type of facility.

We should take the ultimate advantage of this development and utilize it not only in the sense that has been referred to by previous speakers, but also to enhance other parts of the province so that the spin-off trade will reach the interior of the province. The people in the Interior should be made aware of the opportunities there will be for them to take part. We should develop our own Interior centres in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of these two centres. In turn, they will strengthen our economy and our cultural assets and interests.

I would suggest for consideration that this might be accomplished through either inviting one or two representatives of Interior people — from perhaps the north, perhaps the Kootenays and the Okanagan — to sit on the boards of these convention centres; or that there be established a structure that is not too large to which they can bring input into the management and future of these centres. Equally importantly, if not more importantly, they can take back to other parts of the province news of what is going on. They can suggest ideas as to how smaller communities can take part in these activities. They would be made aware of events that are going to take place in these centres long before the date of public announcement so that they can, again, plan their own tourism and their own cultural activities in coordination with it. There is then a reverse benefit.

[ Page 173 ]

I would also like to suggest, particularly to the members in this House who will be sitting on these boards, that they remain very sensitive to the problems of the people in the Interior when they want to take part in functions in some of our provincial entities. I will use the PNE as an example, hopefully to be constructive, not critical. An exhibitor from the Interior who wants to take part in the PNE runs into the difficulties of time elements, transportation elements, and problems in trying to move their needs, their wares or their animals into that setting. I would cite, for example, with the PNE, that bringing livestock to that program is extremely difficult.

You must arrive at 3 o'clock in the afternoon; you must bring one vehicle in, deposit your animals, and take that vehicle about two miles away. There is nowhere to live or camp on-site, and yet those animals are very valuable. There is not sufficient safeguarding of these animals for Interior people to really have the confidence they need to enter into the cost of exhibiting there.

That's just a very small example, but if you can remember that the small merchant in the Interior who may wish to participate in a trade fair is going to have similar problems, and if you can just be sensitive to their needs, I'm sure there's a method that can be developed that will not make the operation too cumbersome, but in fact can recognize the difficulties they have in taking part.

So I would just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we do support this. We are as excited, I'm sure, in Pouce Coupe and in Kimberley as you are in Victoria. We want to be part of this program, and I would ask that consideration be given to an avenue of linkage to the Interior of the province so that we can put our best foot forward.

I would just also mention the finances, which did come up in the election, I think, very narrowly on the part of some of the opposition members. We recognize dollars are needed, and we know that some of the Interior communities have developed their own convention centres. The hon. member mentioned Penticton. We have excellent convention facilities in Vernon through a multiple-use concept. Incidentally, I was surprised when he said that you couldn't house the UBCM convention here, because we've been fortunate enough to have it twice in Vernon.

We also know we can't support these major centres around the province, but we can give consideration to assisting in the development of other attractions in other parts of the province which are unique to them and which will have good reason to encourage people who are visiting these centres to spend time in the Interior and to take part in these activities.

I would cite one example in the Okanagan and Kamloops area. We're trying to develop a blue and white weekend ski train which goes from Vancouver. It would stop at Kamloops for Tod, Vernon for Silver Star and Kelowna for Big White. This is something that we're going to need help with, and perhaps this is the type of thing that government can give some recognition to in order, as I say, to strengthen the spin-off effect from these two centres.

MR. HALL: In rising to support this bill, the main reason for my own support is the effect the project will have on, first of all, the current unemployment situation and the current economic situation in the province. This is a traditional economic device, pump-priming if you will, to fill a gap, to start something off, to take into account the multiplier effect that the expenditure of public money will have in the private sector. It's one which we have recommended all the time we've been a party and all the time we were a government.

May I add, as it were, parenthetically, it perhaps points out the peculiarities of politics and perhaps the inconsistencies of politics when on the one hand we have the people opposite tweaking our noses when they appear to see some inconsistencies on our part, and at the same time standing up and asking for government involvement in the private sector the next day. While I know it's easy to say you can’t have it both ways, politicians, I suppose, will continue to have it both ways as long as they've got two feet to stand on and one mouth to talk out of. It seems to me that I should mention that in passing, before some of the new members start to line up at the public trough for more tax moneys to be spent in the private sectors of their own constituencies in a similar way to this. I want to just get that on the record, so we know where we're all going.

Leaving that to one side, let's look at what is going to happen with this bill: the expenditure of $12.5 million matched, I'm sure, by all sorts of money from other places. That multiplying effect is going to be very important to the city of Vancouver, very important to the city of Victoria, and obviously to the outlying areas in the lower mainland.

I remember when I first came to this House, we frequently saw special-fund allotments. Invariably the Premier of the day had strings attached to those special-fund allotments and, I'm going to suggest, if not strings then some conditions attached to this money under the payment section. It seems to me that if you had all of these dollars that are going to be spent. and the multiplying effect.... We're all, I think, unanimous and united in the desire to see that full effect in British Columbia. We don't mind, to be sure, if the ripple effect stretches into eastern Canada or even below into the United States, but primarily we'd like to see the effect in British Columbia.

Therefore I'm going to suggest to the minister and to the foundations, if I understand the words of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. Smith) correctly, or whatever committees or whichever minister is responsible for the issuance of the money and answering to this House, that there be constructed in the agreements that will be signed some sort of preference for British Columbian products, for British Columbian companies, for British Columbian workers.

I think we should see the bidding technique used, as is always the case in public tenders of this kind and public expenditures of this kind. While traditionally we've had a 5 percent preference for British Columbia, I think we should now increase that 5 percent in view of the fact we've got all of these unemployed people in the province and in view of the fact that we've got the kind of difficulties we are facing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should make that a much higher preference and a much higher head-start for British Columbian products and British Columbian workers.

My second point, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope we're going to see fair wages, good working conditions and good corporate citizens used in the construction of these facilities. When I first came to this House, we had what was called the Fair Employment Practices Act, which left it simply and singularly to the Minster of Labour to determine whether or not a public dollar was expended through a tender to a company and arrived in the pocket of a person

[ Page 174 ]

who was working in fair measure compared to the kind of wages that were paid in that district. That Act was repealed and another Act took its place. That Act was repealed as one of the first measures of the new Social Credit administration in 1976, and I don't know what has taken its place in order to see that fair wages and fair conditions exist when public moneys are expended. I want to make an urgent request of the minister to make sure that there is a preference again for organized working people and a preference for fair wages and fair working conditions when these moneys are expended. In that knowledge, and with the knowledge of a B.C. preference, then I think everybody in this House can fully support this bill, and we can wish and hope good luck and good fortune to this trade and convention centre.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 8, dealing with the trade and convention centre for Vancouver and a similar, but understandably smaller, centre for Greater Victoria. My colleague, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head — my MLA, sir — touched on a number of points which relate to the greater Victoria centre, the one which will be constructed just a few blocks from this spot.

It may assist you and the House to know, sir, that the responsibility for the Vancouver trade and convention centre, of course, rests with the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the lady on my right. One doesn't get an opportunity very often, Mr. Speaker, to publicly express one's admiration for a colleague in a particular area of activity. I do so today with respect to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Human Resources, for the enthusiasm and the tenacity — the determination, if you will — with which she tackled the Vancouver project and brought it to this point where the Minister of Finance introduces a bill which will assist in its funding. I congratulate her for that project.

One other lady member spoke in the debate thus far, sir, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I think it's important to know that on the basis of her remarks residents from other parts of British Columbia support the two centres, because the capital city and Vancouver, as Canada's third-largest city, are major arrival points for visitors to beautiful British Columbia. The benefits which will accrue immediately to the two cities will inevitably spread to other parts of the province. I think that the suggestion with respect to Interior participation in the design or in conceptual studies has merit. My responsibility, however, relates to the Victoria centre. The member opposite who asked the question is still in the House. On behalf of the Provincial Capital Commission, the agency to commence work with respect to the centre in Victoria, I want to say that those points which have been discussed on both sides of the House have been noted and will be kept in mind.

We recognize the need for sensitivity at that site, on Victoria's Inner Harbour. The former minister, Sam Bawlf, to whom tribute has been paid, understood the need for sensitivity. I intend to maintain contact with Sam Bawlf in order that he can continue to contribute his ideas and thoughts. A change in ministerial responsibility should not introduce an abrupt change in the very successful activity which has taken place thus far.

The Capital Commission rests within this ministry now, and we have had discussions in these very few weeks which indicate that a great deal of thought has gone into the centre for Victoria. I encourage public participation and full cooperation with the city of Victoria, the council, the councils of adjacent areas and the public.

Another remark which struck a responsive cord is that there should be a strong multicultural flavour to the Victoria centre. There should be, there can be, and there will be. Our Premier has shown this government's commitment to multiculturalism around the province. This is not going to be strictly a commercial convention centre in Victoria that pays no heed to non-profit, cultural activities which all of us, regardless of our political affiliation, want to see in that major facility.

I think that the bill is great, not only for the city of Vancouver, not only for the capital city, but for all of the province, and I think that we will be able to share in the success. We will be able to see two major facilities, albeit the larger one in Vancouver, and I can understand the reason for that, in spite of the constituency I represent. We have something which I believe, sir, is going to be very important in the months, years and decades ahead in this province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I just say, in addressing my remarks to Bill 8, that we are discussing, embodied in this bill, a very large concept which none of us should lose sight of. It is adding a dimension to the third largest industry in this province. A convention and trade centre in Vancouver, and a convention centre in Victoria, will add to the plan, if you like, to the whole travel industry in the province, and it should not escape anyone's notice that that industry — the travel industry and the hospitality industry — is the largest employer in this province.

I have waited until those members who represent the greater Victoria area and Vancouver Island have had their say on the Victoria convention facility. May I say that there isn't any area in British Columbia that has a greater potential than has Vancouver Island for conventions and so on. In reference to the remarks that have been made about the Victoria centre, may I just take exception to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who said that we have a seasonal tourist business in the greater Victoria area.

Mr. Speaker, we need not have a seasonal tourist business in the city of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, in all of British Columbia. We have, by virtue of the two facilities which are embodied in this bill, the opportunity to make sure that in Victoria we have an opportunity to bring people to Vancouver Island, this tremendously beautiful part of British Columbia. We have an opportunity to bring them all through the year. That was very much proven by this government in the past two years when we initiated package tours on the B.C. Ferries, which were super successful, and showed that people wanted to travel Vancouver Island and stay at ports of call within Vancouver Island, and elsewhere in British Columbia, all through the winter as well as summer.

I would also like to say now, in addressing myself to the total province — and I was very pleased to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) comment on other areas of the province — that the surface has not yet been scratched on the potential for post-convention tours in this province. The fact that they come to the centres of Victoria and Vancouver to visit — and they come in great numbers,

[ Page 175 ]

Mr. Speaker; 11-1/2 million people toured or travelled the province of British Columbia last year, representing $1.6 billion to the economy of our province — has much reference to the larger centres, but it need not be the end of their vacation or their convention, and we have proven that over and over. The Greater Vancouver Visitors and Convention Bureau has proven statistically that, in the average convention they host in the city of Vancouver, 25 percent of the delegates leave Vancouver for other points.

I would like to share with some of the members who are from those other areas of the province the information that should be passed on to those areas, and we've certainly tried to do it through our portfolio of travel industry. But there is not yet enough done in other parts of this province to improve the services and entice those who come to visit Vancouver from Japan to then visit the Interior, to ski Big White and to enjoy all the other beautiful and wonderful experiences that are available. But those experiences are available, those opportunities are there and they are representative of a tremendous economic thrust that is available to all areas of the province. I'm delighted to see the support from other areas, which has also been expressed to me on a personal basis from all parts of this province.

I'd like to just say today that important to us in the Vancouver centre is the design. In the execution of that centre, we hope the kinds of things which we envision, the kinds of translation facilities, the sophisticated kind of centre which will have international appeal for conventions and trade shows.... May I say in that regard that I am extremely interested in seeing that we have the very best of British Columbia thought and creativity expressed through an architectural competition in this province for our Vancouver centre. I'm pleased to recognize today — although I haven't had a personal introduction to them, I do know they are in our gallery today — Mr. Kalkin and Mr. Bain, members of the British Columbia Architectural Institute. In a meeting with them later today, I will express to them my desire that all of the people in the architectural profession have that opportunity. Who knows what very exciting plan will come forward from, perhaps, some unknown architect out there in British Columbia somewhere. Surely that opportunity should be there, and I will certainly further that within the committee that is planning the Vancouver centre. I hope that I will have the support of the Vancouver committee in that regard, because I do believe that we need to have that kind of thinking and expression from the community, and particularly from those very, very fine architects. We need not go outside the borders of British Columbia for excellence. We have it right here.

I would refer to the tremendous potential for construction positions and so on in the first building years. In addition to those 600 or 700, it has been estimated there will be up to 1,000 construction jobs in the construction time.

May I emphasize the long-term input that this will give to the economic health of our province. Every person who comes to British Columbia and leaves dollars through international trade shows, international conventions. national conventions, and so on, contributes to the well-being of each and every one of us. None of us is isolated from the hospitality and the travel industry; we are all hosts.

We can't isolate ourselves from what this really means to us in social services. I'm going to refer to that because no one yet has. I say to you, as I have said to people from one end of this province to the other: this government's commitment to making sure that the economy of the province is viable and healthy is for the greater commitment we have as members of the Legislature, as government in this province, to the social good of the people of British Columbia. The dollars that have come in from the travel industry, through the conventions which will go through these two centres, through the hospitality industry, through the trade shows, through the tremendous health of the tourist industry, that third-largest industry in this province, have accrued to the benefit of the people of British Columbia through the dollars which have been realized by the government through that industry.

When one looks at the Ministry of Health it's incredible to think that in just three and a half years we have doubled the amount through the kinds of dollars that have come from the travel industry and through the great economic thrust of this government, in hospitals alone from 1976, when there was an expenditure of $380 million, to $650 million today — almost double. When one looks back on an expenditure in 1976 of $700 million, one must realize that more than $1.2 billion is now spent on health — $10 million a week on human resources, almost $25 million a week on health.

The travel industry which this bill supports brought in, in 1978, just last year, $1.6 billion to the province. I'm sure in this gallery today there are visitors from other parts of the world. Through these galleries and through these halls we have people from other parts of British Columbia, too. They leave their dollars in Victoria, in Nanaimo, in Vancouver. Through their expenditure on their travel plans, their hospitality industry, all have assisted. In health alone $1.2 billion has been spent. The travel industry brought $1.6 billion to our economy last year.

When we talk about the industry of the province, it must be said that by our collective thoughts in the economy of the province, by our collective motivation in making sure of creating jobs and a way of life and opportunity for every individual, all of us, no matter on which side of the House, no matter on which side of the political spectrum, contribute so that we can provide for those in need. The travel industry in this particular bill pays tribute to providing for those who cannot help themselves.

The Vancouver centre is more than a convention centre. Our province is today on the threshold of a truly great opportunity for economic development. As one of the Pacific Rim countries, and situated as we are, and as is this trade and convention centre, we are essential parts of the modern industrial revolution of the Pacific Rim. All that incredible opportunity is going to accrue to us, but we have to be prepared to be competitive in that marketplace. Unfortunately, across Canada the only place in this country where a proper trade show can be hosted — and I say "proper" with tongue in cheek — is at the CNE in eastern Canada. There is really no other area in all our country that will properly host trade shows and offer competitiveness in the industrial world. This Vancouver centre pays tribute to that.

I would like to share with you the fact that in the United States there are approximately 100 of the top international shows that require an exhibit hall of at least 100 million net square feet on an annual basis. Every year these shows attract in excess of 30 million potential buyers. In comparison, our record, Mr. Speaker, has been a dismal one in Canada. With fully 25 percent of our GNP, as

[ Page 176 ]

opposed to the U.S. 5 percent figure, derived through export trade, only Toronto with its CNE space has the kind of property and the kind of facility to offer trade shows and this kind of trade expertise. We want this bringing together of the buyer and the seller so that we will have the benefit and the realization of that trade and become Canada's international showplace on the Pacific Rim. Only Toronto at this point in time has an adequate facility. When this convention and trade centre is finished, Mr. Speaker, it will give us a trade and convention centre of incredibly great world proportions which will be honoured and revered not only by the people of British Columbia but, as we are a trading nation, by all of Canada. It will be definitely our window to the world.

I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people who have been involved in the planning.... Let me pay tribute to the members of the Vancouver city council and to the people who were involved in the federal administration. This is not just a one-government idea. It has been an ideal and an idea which has been brought to fruition by three levels of government, which represents a very remarkable kind of cooperation.

May I say too that in looking at that centre and what it will do, not just in the immediate job-making from the construction area but in the ongoing jobs which it will bring to the province of British Columbia, we see in this bill today the kind of planning and the kind of cooperation between governments and between the community which will result in a very fine facility, of which all of us can be proud.

I am very pleased to see this day. It is a happy day for Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. It is a happy day for British Columbia and for our nation. This is an extremely excellent bill which will pay tribute to the economic development of our whole nation, to our commitment to trade in the Pacific Rim and to our province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: I am going to be fairly brief. I support the bill. The Interior of British Columbia provides much of the revenue for the power sources and so on that feed the rest of the province of British Columbia. As such, we undergo much of the disruption in our communities that is required to shoulder the large projects that are undertaken.

I refer specifically to Hydro projects and the dislocation that flows from those kinds of projects. Nevertheless, I don't believe in being parochial or too provincial. I believe that anything that is good in general terms for the overall province should be supported by all areas of the province provided there is adequate regard to the interests of all of the people of British Columbia, not only those who reside in the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the dissertation by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) about the wonderful things that are happening in tourism. I just want to read into the record some of the conflict with the stated objectives of the minister which I am experiencing in my particular area of this province, and which fly completely in the face of this government's stated objective of attracting tourists and providing them with facilities in the province of British Columbia.

We have a number of public campgrounds in the Columbia River area north of Revelstoke at Mica Dam that are maintained by the B.C. Forest Service. They accommodate visitors that come in from Alberta and indeed many other areas of the world, as well as our own residents of British Columbia, for their fishing excursions up into the reservoir behind Mica Dam.

Mr. Speaker, those campgrounds have been closed up until this point, and the response given by the regional forest manager in Nelson when he was approached on this matter was that the government had not provided adequate funds to staff the recreational grounds and to ensure that there was a custodian for the clean-up of those campgrounds. The consequences were that there were as many of 40 campers and recreational vehicles lined up on the highway, obliged to dump their refuse in public areas and, of course, contributing immensely to the hazard of forest fires in that area.

Now, I'm going to have more to say under this under the estimates of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), but whether it's the Ministry of Forests or any other ministry of government that provides facilities for tourism, obviously there has to be a relationship and there should be one policy. And that policy should not be to provide millions of dollars for trade and convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria while starving the Interior of the province of the most mundane kind of facility, such as a campground. That is a conflict, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to stand for and support, and it's one that the people of British Columbia do not support.

I'm not going to read them into the record now, but I have a large number of letters complaining. Tourists came into Revelstoke, drove 86 miles to Mica Creek anticipating that the campground would be there to facilitate their fishing expedition — there was no notice that the campground was closed because the Minister of Forests would not accord the appropriation to staff it — and after arriving up there after an 86-mile drive, found that the facility was closed and that they had to turn around and drive 86 miles back.

I have many letters from the Calgary area, Mr. Speaker, and if there is anything that is designed to discourage tourism and impair the image of British Columbia and the facilities that we afford for tourists, that is the kind of conduct that will achieve it. So I suggest that the Minister of Human Resources talk to her colleagues, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance, and get their act together. Either we are interested in accommodating tourists on all fronts throughout the province or we are not.

The other point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is while I certainly believe that all British Columbians benefit from a facility in Vancouver and Victoria, that can only be supported by Interior people if we feel that we are getting fair treatment up there as well. When the city of Revelstoke was unable to obtain a $400,000 grant toward our community complex until it was propitious to do it during the course of an election campaign, then it kind of jades my support and my enthusiasm for this kind of multimillion dollar expenditure in the lower mainland. That is not consistent; that is political manipulation for political considerations.

I hope the government cleans up its act. I hope they have proper regard for all of the interior and northern communities and ensure that there are playing fields and park sites and recreational facilities that are maintained, open and accessible to the public. I hope they don't cut back on their budget so that they can't even afford a staff person to act as the custodian of these public facilities while at the same time expending millions of dollars for trade and

[ Page 177 ]

convention centres just because that happens to be where the votes are. That is inconsistent, Mr. Speaker. In my view that kind of policy is most hypocritical, but I support the concept and approach of the bill and I trust that the government will have some regard to the observations I have put forward.

MS. SANFORD: I was listening with interest to the comments from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and would like to point out that it's not just in his area alone in which the problems that he referred to with respect to facilities for tourists are in fact a problem. The convention centre on Vancouver Island will undoubtedly bring more tourists to Vancouver Island, as the Minister of Human Resources pointed out. The people who come to convention centres often make trips beyond the actual site of the convention centre. But I would ask the government and the Minister of Finance to take into account the remarks made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and to take note also that on Vancouver Island, north of Victoria, there is a great need. We have experienced the same problems in the constituency of Comox and in the constituency of North Island, where....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt just long enough to remind you that the former speaker used the absence of a certain facility in his area as an example of why the money should be distributed in other areas. I don't think that we can go into a wide debate on recreation facilities under this bill.

MS. SANFORD: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to briefly point out that because the convention centre is here, and because we will be expecting more tourists on Vancouver Island as a result of the convention centre, many people who attend the convention centre will want to make trips up to Port Hardy to take the Prince Rupert ferry. There is not one government campsite in the whole north Island.

The Premier has just been up to Port Hardy in order to open up the new facility for the docking of the Queen of Prince Rupert. With the completion of the highway, we can anticipate that tourists who attend the convention centre will want to travel north. There is not one provincial campsite up in that area, and that's something that must be taken into account. The Forest Service, as well, has had to close down facilities that were available to tourists before.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I was interested in the comments by the members, particularly the very positive comments by my colleague, the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is the recognized promoter of tourism in western Canada.

I've come to the conclusion, having heard her today, that she is in favour of tourists. I think it's all been said here this morning. We're all for tourism and the many benefits which are derived from it. These two centres are very necessary, probably overdue, and it's fortunate that we have the surplus funds available to put this money up front to expedite the completion of these two necessary projects. I'm very happy to move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 8 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

Bill 8, Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this Act will set up a fund of $25 million from the 1978-79 revenue surplus to be used toward construction of a lower mainland stadium. This stadium will be used for professional and amateur sports activities and events.

Such a stadium fits within the government's policies of encouragement of sports and provision of tourist facilities. The stadium will be used not only by British Columbians, but will attract out-of-province competitors and spectators. This will act as an incentive for improvement of all sports activities and events.

Hon. members should note that the fund is to be used only after satisfactory financial arrangements are made to cover the total cost of the stadium. I believe all members of the House will wish to support this bill. I move second reading.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HALL: In rising to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we again support the government's attempts to assist in the stimulation of the economy of the province, to assist in making Vancouver one of the places that has a major and superb stadium. I should say the lower mainland, perhaps, rather than the city of Vancouver, because I am not entirely certain that the location has been finalized. This party lends its support to the idea that when things are a little tight the government should take some aggressive action in stimulating the economy — a traditional method which has been undertaken by previous Social Credit administrations, and by the previous New Democratic Party administration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to exercise his prerogative when he signs those agreements, to make sure that there is preference for British Columbian products, for British Columbian working people, for British Columbian companies, to make certain that that multiplying effect stays at home to do the greatest good.

I also want to say in passing that I hope that when the professional and private enterprises that use the stadium — as I hope, indeed, they will; and I hope to be there as a spectator from time to time — enter the agreement to pay an economic rent, we don't see some of the mistakes of the past visited upon this stadium and that the professional groups do, in fact, pay their way.

[ Page 178 ]

Mr. Speaker, the major reason for my earnest support of this legislation is the effect it is going to have on the construction trades in the Vancouver area. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is, I am sure, aware, as is the Minister of Finance, being a Vancouver MLA, that at the end of last month there were 6,600 unemployed construction workers in the organized construction locals in the Vancouver area. That doesn't include the locals situated outside the Vancouver area, such as the New Westminster carpenters and others. And I can give you the figures of plumbers, of tunnel and rock workers, of carpenters, of electrical workers, of glaziers, of bricklayers, of painters, and so on.

MR. BRUMMET: Send them north.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I hear the member opposite talking about sending them up north. You know, one of the reasons the people don't often go up north is that sometimes the contractors up north won't pay decent wages.

Interjections.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that one of the reasons for part of the problem is that there are not the kinds of wages and working conditions available with some of the smaller companies. That is what I was referring to earlier on, about when the Socred government did away with the legislation entitled Fair Employment Practices Act, and this government did away with the subsequent legislation. There appears to be little reason to have confidence that the public money is going to be spent, and protected, in terms of making sure that the recipients do enjoy fair working conditions and fair wages. That is the point I am trying to make — that we should make sure that in the expenditure of public money that is carried out.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Flip-flop.

MR. HALL: I don't know where the member got the flip-flop idea from at all.

In supporting this bill, I want to make sure that you understand that this group is not endorsing the commonly understood location of the stadium, namely the PNE site.

I want to make it abundantly clear that until a number of things happen, we will not endorse that location. The traffic nightmare there is well-known. The destruction of the neighbourhood around the PNE is well-known. Until there is some honest-to-goodness planning, some organized attempt by the participants of this project in terms of light-rail rapid transit, there is no way that that site should be considered, no way whatsoever. I think that's been said by the proponents of the scheme, and I welcome the fact they've acknowledged that is indeed a major problem in the area. I know there is a certain light-heartedness and a certain casual approach to dismissing some of these complaints with the enthusiasm that is being mounted by the proponents of this scheme. I admire that enthusiasm but there is a tendency to overlook some of these problems. We're going to make sure that everybody pays their fair shot at this thing, including those who are going to get a great deal of advantage from it. To simply say, without any recourse to intelligent planning and intelligent studies, that it should be at one place is not serving the best interests of the people of the area.

No doubt there will have to be a stadium, and we support the concept. There is no doubt that time has left Vancouver at the end of the table in terms of comparing facilities in the major cities of Canada. More important than anything else, Mr. Speaker, the economic impetus that the expenditure of this money will give to a city which is unfortunately undergoing major unemployment problems, particularly in the construction industry, must be supported. We supported the previous bills, and therefore this group on this side of the House will support Bill 9, the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act.

MR. ROGERS: Not only am I in favour of this, but I see the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is here, and I want you to know that the last time I went to a football game at Empire Stadium, that member was participating on what I believe eventually turned out to be the team that won the Grey Cup.

Second, it's interesting that the amount is $25 million. I am prodded to remind the House that $25 million was the total cost of construction of the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The Astrodome is covered, air-conditioned and usable for all types of sports.

There's no question that what we're doing here is making this money available for a lower mainland facility. But I want to speak against locating this particular facility at the Pacific National Exhibition. I think that it's high time we addressed the fact that the PNE is in a residential neighbourhood. It is not in the mainstream of transit. It is certainly not in the mainstream of facilities for parking and restaurants. It is a $25 cab ride from the hotels in downtown Vancouver. The downtown facilities are underutilized in the evening, which is when a stadium is primarily used.

Everyone has said nice things about Sam Bawlf today, and I want to say that he made points about building a stadium in downtown Vancouver. There is land available. A land swap between the city and Marathon Realty would be required but there is land available, and it is the ideal place to build it. Almost every major bus route in Vancouver loops through the downtown core: Dunbar, Fourth Avenue, Granville Street, Victoria Drive, Hastings. They all come through downtown, so the transit core, at least in terms of busses, is already there. There are some 37,000 parking stalls in downtown Vancouver which aren't used in the evening.

In addition there are restaurants, hotels and we heard about the proposed convention centre. What happens when people come to Vancouver for a convention? Suppose the pipe and valve people are having a workshop one night, but also the New York Yankees are playing against the Vancouver whatever-they-might-be-called in a baseball game. I think a few people might slip away from the workshop and catch the ball game. I know I would.

I want to tell you why I don't think we should build the stadium at the PNE. I want you to follow this imaginary evening in 1982. It's a Monday night and many people are home watching Howard Cosell and Frank Gifford call the football game, but nonetheless the PNE facilities are being strained to their absolute limit. Under the proposal to build the multiplex in the PNE, the forum would still be in place. With the forum in place, and it being a Monday night, there would be the wrestling crowd there. The wrestling crowd

[ Page 179 ]

has nothing to do in relation to any other group. If it's a wrestling night, it wouldn't matter if it was someone's wedding night; he'd cancel the wedding and go to wrestling. That's the loyalty of the wrestling fans.

In the Agrodome on this same Monday night, there is a totally different group. There is a rock concert, and the kind of people who go to rock concerts don't necessarily go to wrestling. The Agrodome is filled to capacity, and the security people are having all the trouble that they naturally have with rock groups.

Coincidentally, at the Coliseum the Vancouver Canucks are playing against the Montreal Canadians; every seat is taken because they want to watch Montreal, which by 1982 will probably still have the Stanley Cup championship team.

Just the other day we passed an Act about the reduction of the pari-mutual tax. Naturally there's a better quality of horse running at the track. Being a Monday night, necessarily the horses are running. The people who go to rock concerts aren't the people who go to the races or wrestling or, for that matter, to hockey games. So let's assume the track's full.

If in the midst of all this, and all those facilities are supposed to be left in place, we add a multiplex, the multiplex has agricultural display areas, industrial display areas, and sporting display areas. So what happens? The world's forklift manufacturers are now in convention in Vancouver, and they have the industrial area full of forklifts. It's totally stimulating. Nonetheless, there'll be a lot of people out there.

The member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) isn't in the chair, but he'd appreciate the fact that maybe the Holstein cattle breeders are over in the agricultural side. They aren't the people who go to wrestling; they aren't the people who go to rock concerts; they aren't the people who go to the track; they may not be the people who go to the hockey game; but they're also going to be there.

The old Empire Stadium is still there, and in September 1982 we are due for a Jehovah Witness convention, so that's full to the door with 16,000 or 17,000 people. If on top of that there's something going on like the B.C. Lions against the Calgary Stampeders, there is going to be one unbelievable jam so that nobody can go to any of the things that take place in the PNE, because the facilities are strained beyond limits.

There is no need to concentrate every single function in the same area; there's absolutely no need whatsoever.

In this horrendous Monday night in 1982 when this nightmare is taking place, I've added just one other thing. It seldom happens in Vancouver, but it could, and that is that at 8 o'clock it could rain. If you put all those things together — it does happen; they do join together — you know what kind of a nightmare we're facing. ICBC would have a field day. It is so critically important that we locate this stadium where people can get to it without having to take their cars. In order to do that, we should be locating it in downtown Vancouver. It is viable.

I have the feeling that several people involved in the PNE are interested in building what amounts to a monument to the people who are involved in building this thing. We should be practical: it should be plain; it should be simple; it should be functional; and it should be covered.

MR. BARNES: I'm just going to make a few brief comments about this legislation. It has to do with a facility that over the years has been the means by which I've made my livelihood, as the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) pointed out. However, I must associate myself more closely with the remarks by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who outlined some of the problems with the proposed lower mainland stadium in terms of the impact it could have on the PNE site, if that is one being seriously considered. Certainly the government should stipulate the conditions under which these funds will be made available.

In my discussions with residents in the East End of Vancouver, I find they are concerned about the traffic impact this project could have on the community, particularly the problems with respect to transportation, the possibility of homes being demolished, people being encouraged to sell out for more and more development in the area in order for speculators to get in on the potential spill-off from such a large facility in that area.

There are many dangers to a carelessly put together complex. The public should be involved. There should be serious attempts to involve local interest in the planning stages, to give guarantees that would virtually be irrevocable in terms of protecting the existing community. I would say that the government has a duty, while at the same time it's responding to a request to recognize this need for a better facility, a more flexible facility. Just as we recognize the need for a trade and convention centre, a city of this size should obviously have a good sports facility such as the one being contemplated.

But with progress comes considerable problems, no matter what the scheme may be. I know the athletes will be happy. I know the sports organizations — soccer and football and other professional organizations and amateur organizations as well — will be very pleased to see themselves come into the modern day with a facility that will rank with other major centres throughout North America, and for this I'm pleased.

It could be exciting. But in order for it to endure over the years and not to have serious repercussions, not to burden the taxpayer with further costs, debts that have been carelessly conceived, there is every need to go slowly and to be above board and not to let this project develop in the backrooms among people who may have ulterior motives in mind, who may be playing politics with the public purse by indicating that the private sector will bear the burden; that the various ventures will be self-sustaining; when in fact knowing full well that once the public purse is committed we find, as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was suggesting, that they're asking for concessions in terms of leases, in terms of forgiveness of debts, and so forth. We're sort of caught in a situation where we've got to keep the thing afloat, but we're being blackmailed in terms of the private sector not assuming its responsibilities, the imagination not being there, the guarantees not being there. So there are many dangers in putting up a facility of this immensity, even though it appears to be a tremendous boon to industry, to the building and allied trades in terms of employment on a temporary basis. It would appear to have a stimulating effect on the professional sports.

I would just conclude with the idea that with the first move the government makes, its first stipulation should be go to the public. Let's make this thing a truly public venture. Let's do what you've said you wanted to do with

[ Page 180 ]

BCRIC; that is, involve people in the real decision-making on something that will have a real impact on their lives. Let's talk about what could happen if the guarantees were not there, such as communities suddenly eroded, inundated by large influxes of speculators, and problems of automobiles, lack of parking, and so forth, and having perhaps a seasonal momentum being created that's on and off, which makes the community rather unstable. The kind of effect would be disturbing for established communities, particularly in the East End.

For those members of the Legislature who perhaps haven't visited that area, there are many long-standing communities and very beautiful homes right around the Pacific National Exhibition grounds. I don't see how that could be really a serious proposed site. But I'm a little bit concerned. We may find that that site is being quietly supported because obviously when if you're going to have a venture, you want to be where the action is. You may do what the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) suggested: go down, maybe around the False Creek area, get where the core of the spill off of the bus system, et cetera, is.

I'm not even too sure about that. On the one hand, we want it to be a success, but unless we have a strategy that will protect the existing milieu, because the stability of that community is concerned right now and investments have already been made by many small businesses. I think we'll find that the effect of bringing in large facilities like the convention centre and the proposed stadium could be devastating. It would, in fact, just mean that greater power goes into the larger capital holdings. This is inevitable. There is every reason to be cautious. Obviously the public can't support the private sector in every respect although we recognize you need the seed money to get things started. But once they're started, there are all kinds of Catch-22s, and the public invariably ends up being paid by some indirect suggestion that this is good for business. But what happens if the returns aren't there.

So let me make just one other comment. I wasn't here on the debate dealing with the convention centre, but I would say this on behalf of tourism: that those entrepreneurs who hold hotels and have investments in the existing tourist facilities in the downtown area, the West End and so forth have every reason to be concerned about the prospects of a convention centre, because while it may sound like a good idea, if we're not careful we could be blackmailed into giving out to the private sector....

We all know what should happen, but what would happen, for instance, if we found ourselves unable to foot the bill and a private investor were to say: "Fine, I'll put the convention centre up and the private sector will be totally responsible, provided we get a permit to put up, say, about a 50-story hotel right down the middle of it." I think that would be a negative effect in terms of the existing accommodation.

I'm saying let's go slow, let's find out exactly how the thing will come down in five or ten years and what the public's commitment will be. We don't want to have another Columbia River on our hands or the kind of situation we have with B.C. Hydro where the public is paying out and paying out and paying out, Mr. Chairman, with no hope of ever getting out of debt.

The PNE has many problems that we don't want to repeat. With respect to Mr. Swangard and others who have promoted this new facility, I hope that there will be a serious impact study done with respect to what could happen in any part of the lower mainland. I don't see this being an overnight venture that everyone is saying we've got to do really fast without involving the public, because I think that would turn out to be a cost — a sort of a white elephant — that the public would be faced with for many, many years to come.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm a little concerned about the money that's being allocated for a lower mainland stadium fund. Looking at it from the perspective of where I live and looking at the youth of the area and what they have in the facilities of sports....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right — if we find some place flat enough, and that's where the problem lies. Five of the six schools in the Stikine School District do not have playing fields; there is not even a place to take the children outside of the schools and play kickball or soccer or football. I've gone through this for three years as a principal of the school and, as my hon. colleague for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) knows, when you sit down with the superintendent and you start saying that you want something built on to a school or you want to help a small community, they always come back to you and say: "Well, there is not enough money." When I see $25 million being allocated for a football stadium in the lower mainland or whatever it's going to serve, I would like to see some of this money allocated for the youth of the north, so they might have the opportunity one day, Mr. Speaker, to be able to become active in sports.

I always find it interesting how this facade comes back: "Oh, we don't have enough money for this, we don't have enough money for that," especially when it comes to youth. I think the youth of the north, the youth where I live, have suffered long enough, and I would like to see some of this money allocated for the youth.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Very often the children don't even have the chance to play hockey up there, even though the weather sometimes gets to be 60 or 70 below and the lakes freeze up pretty well, but then you're dealing with three or four of five feet of snow on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, out of respect for the fact that you're new in the House — and several other members are new — I have delayed interrupting your speech. However, we are in second reading of this bill on the stadium, and it's straying somewhat from it when we're getting into the weather in Atlin, and unrelated sports facilities. So could you direct your comments to second reading of the bill?

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I respect that.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member was making a case....

[ Page 181 ]

MR. KEMPF: How do you know? Did you write his speech?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member is making a case for the distribution of funds, and that is that he indicated the $25 million was a large sum of money for the downtown area while he felt that people were being neglected. That was really the case he was making.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate your point of order, and I also appreciate that the member for Atlin takes my remarks as they're intended, but if we are to allow for the debate in this House to go wide-ranging, we can draw an analogy that compares another debate with virtually anything in this House if we choose to do so. We'd like to try and keep it within the realms of order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker.

One of the reasons why I'm talking on this is that I'm going to propose an amendment on this bill at the proper time. I was interested when I heard the previous speaker, or the Deputy Speaker, talk about watching Monday Night Football on television. I wonder how many of my constituents have ever had the chance to watch television, if there was television, and then to be able to watch a sporting event.

I'm totally against the allocation of $25 million for a football stadium on the mainland without giving some help to the residents of the north to be able to put in some type of a playing field of some sort. I think the youth have suffered long enough on this and I'd like some consideration to be given to the youth to be able to become active in sports sometime and not give the entire sum of money to the mainland.

MRS. DAILLY: I certainly endorse the point which my colleague from Atlin was making and, I know, will make later on when he produces his amendment. Basically, of course, the point is the priorities which the Social Credit government seems to place on the needs of children versus the needs of sports fans.

So once again we're placed in a dilemma in voting for this bill, because we know that the sports fans of this province are in great numbers and they certainly would welcome, and they need a stadium. But at the same time, surely a government which can place $25 million into this fund should be able to give consideration to the needs of children in areas such as Atlin. But we will speak on that further, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Set your priorities and vote against it.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we have set our priorities in the past and our record speaks. When the member who is interjecting sat on this side of the House, he faced, I know, the same dilemma. We have to put the needs of people first, and at the same time we have to be able, as members of the opposition, to propose constructive objections. I think this is what opposition is all about.

I just want to say that I endorse the concerns expressed to the Minister of Finance by some of my fellow members on this side of the House. I do hope that before you hand over one cent of these public moneys for a stadium in the lower mainland, you do not do so unless you have assurance that proper expert studies have been made on the locale of this stadium.

Now the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) as member for Vancouver South, made a very good argument and proposal for the centre going in not at the PNE but in another part of downtown Vancouver. He did an excellent job; but the dilemma we face is that we also hear people who advocate the PNE doing an excellent job. I have heard people from my own riding suggesting that Burnaby would perhaps be an excellent place for it. And we are not the ones to make that decision.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What I want to find out, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Minister of Finance is going to assure that not one cent goes to this stadium unless there have been proper studies done by some committee, whether it be made up of Greater Vancouver Regional District mayors or whatever. I'm just asking for a commitment from him.

I'm particularly concerned because, as you know, I represent the area of Burnaby North, in which, if they should happen to decide to pick the site of the PNE, we already have practically every bit of feeder traffic going from the Second Narrows Bridge, from Cassiar and Hastings, from the Fraser Valley — you name it. They use the residential areas of my riding in Burnaby North. Also, the people of Vancouver East are going to face increased traffic congestion. So I have a responsibility as the member for that area to ask the minister not to move on this until a proper site is picked, one which will ensure that the residents of the areas involved are not going to be inundated with more traffic.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Finance is now ready to close the debate on this. I do hope he'll make some comments and give us some assurance that his money will not be handed over before those studies are properly handled.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have only two or three words. It strikes me that no matter where the site will be, we have to be assured by the government that there will be transit service to that particular area. This government has been notorious in its three and a half years in neglecting transit entirely, or almost entirely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame!

MR. COCKE: "Shame!" the Provincial Secretary says. I would like him to come to New Westminster, Coquitlam, Delta or Surrey and see the cutbacks in transit in those areas. "Shame!" he says. What kind of shame? Shame on the government. That has absolutely no mind when it comes to human needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure that this is just a passing remark.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister, and those responsible in that government, will be taking a very good look at transit services to wherever the

[ Page 182 ]

site might be, because without that, chaos is created on the streets, the highways and the byways of Burnaby North, Little Mountain, or wherever they decide to place that stadium. Heaven help us if we have something more monumental than we have now at the PNE. I defy anybody to try to get from a section of Vancouver to the east end of North Vancouver during the course of horse racing, hockey, football or whatever. It's just impossible, and I just hope that that's part of the consideration.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want the House to know, in moving second reading and closing the debate, that it's not true I've requested a seat on the 50-yard line. I had one in the previous stadium, the Empire Stadium. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I recollect the opening of Empire Stadium in 1954. I witnessed the Bannister-Landy race, the famous race which later became the subject of a trophy outside the stadium. Incidentally, last summer I attended about four days of the Empire Games in the new stadium in Edmonton, which is really a beautiful facility. I've some notion that this could be a very worthwhile stadium.

Twice or three times the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), has mentioned the desirable aspects of entering into this arrangement in terms of preference for B.C. products. I don't think he has the existing policy quite straight. It is 10 percent preference as far as the government is concerned. We have made this very clearly known to Crown corporations and others. This has been the stated provincial policy on preference. The member referred to our present policy as being 5 percent and recommended that it should be 10 percent. He doesn't seem to be aware of the policy.

I appreciate the recommendations and concerns of members in terms of the location of this facility. I think it's clear that we have indicated in the bill that it's for the lower mainland. It's going to require input from local authorities, local government and regional districts before any decision is made. Those bodies will be making the recommendations. So those decisions or any fixed notions of where it should be have certainly not been arrived at. It's very definitely clear in the bill that this is to be defined as simply for the lower mainland. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 9 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, the words that the minister had to say in the closing of second reading will come back to haunt him when we get to his estimates.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, section 4 reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations and may by regulation define a word or expression used in this Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's in a lot of other statutes.

MR. LEA: Is it? I haven't noticed those exact words in other statutes. How would the minister explain this section? Give me an example of how you would define a word or expression.

AN HON. MEMBER: From black to white?

MR. LEA: Do you change black to white? Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps these remarks could be made through the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: One might choose by regulation to describe the word "surplus" as being the excess of revenue over expenditures.

MR. LEA: Does the minister know? Have you had this kind of definition in other legislation you have brought in?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 18

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was not standing in his place when the division was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The observation of the Chair was that he was standing.

[ Page 183 ]

MR. HOWARD: It could be clarified, I'm sure, by asking the member for Esquimalt if he was in his seat when the vote was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there was some question, we'll have to take the vote again.

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 18

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, at the moment of my not voting earlier, I didn't appreciate that the rules required me to vote. I was sitting in my seat not voting on the first round because I thought it was a rather silly procedure.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, notwithstanding your remarks, standing orders require that every member who is in the chamber must vote on a division.

MR. HOWARD: Those who are well versed in the rules knew that; that's why they voted.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order.

MR. HOWARD: It's still a stupid procedure.

Mr. Cocke requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE
AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Curtis filed answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. McClelland filed audited financial statement of the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p. m.

[ Page 184 ]

APPENDIX

13 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following question:

What is the total number of persons employed in each of the following: the Public Service, the B.C. Systems Corporation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows: