[ Page 1741 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Retroactive tax bills.

Mr. Passarell –– 1741

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1741

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1741

Mr. Macdonald –– 1744

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1745

Mr. Stupich –– 1748

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1754

Mr. Cocke –– 1757

Oral questions.

Air fare for Pearson Hospital technician. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 1760

Tabling Reports

Legislative Library annual report.

Mr. Speaker –– 1760

FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, speaking in my capacity as MLA for Saanich and the Islands constituency, I wonder if you would convey the regrets of this House to the family of the late Perceval George Jack James, who passed away in Lady Minto hospital in Ganges on Saltspring Island on March 26. Would you express particular sympathy to his wife, Dorothy, and to his three daughters, one of whom is Audrey Bennett, the wife of our Premier, as well as to the grandchildren and other family members. On more than one occasion Jack James has been in this chamber on ceremonial occasions, and he was known to many members present and past. We were very sad to hear of his passing.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's the wish of the House I'll prepare the appropriate message. So ordered.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today from Alberni constituency. I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Barbara Barrett and her daughter Jacqueline.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I have a guest, a constituent of mine, an eminent counsel in the city of Vancouver and a member of the Vancouver bar. I would ask this House to welcome Bill Esselmont to the chamber today.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this morning are four students accompanied by Mr. David Freeman from the village of Alert Bay. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two good friends. One is on his second visit to the gallery and on his first visit to British Columbia. Mr. Chuck Hoffman is with us again today from San Diego. He is accompanied by a very good friend of many of us here, a young man who has served very, very well for this assembly, this government, and the people of British Columbia, Mr. George Lenko.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the gallery is Mr. John T. Gilbert and Mrs. Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert is the Clerk of the Legislature of Bermuda. Please make them welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: It is to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for the relief of northern British Columbians who are now faced with retroactive tax bills as a result of a decision by Revenue Canada affecting tax benefits which are required by them to make their livelihoods.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the responsibility of the Chair in this matter is to determine the urgency. I must find that since we are presently engaged in the estimates of the House in which opportunity will occur almost immediately for its debate, it does not qualify under standing order 35 as being urgent enough to set aside the business of the House. I so rule.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should take the opportunity during my estimates to stress once more the very nature of British Columbia and its importance both to Canada and to the international trading community. This province provides not only a window on the Pacific Rim but port facilities that can give access to Canadian and British Columbian products around the world. Because of geography, British Columbia is not a strong trader within our country. Our products are world products and, as such, must have and be given access to the world. British Columbia ports and British Columbia transportation facilities take not only our products but other products from Canada and ship them to many communities in the world. Our ports and our transportation systems also receive products from other countries, products that will help serve the needs of Canadians and balance that trade which is vital to the trading nations of this world. Trade is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street and one which British Columbia is enthusiastically pursuing, not only because of our own interests — the development of our own economy and resources — but also because it is useful to Canada in balancing Canada's international balance of payments that British Columbia plays such an aggressive role.

Much has been said during the past few days about specific trade missions. I wish to state that this government has made external trade opportunities and market opportunities a primary concern and priority of this government in seeking to improve the lot of and the opportunities for not only the present working generation but future generations. These missions are important not only in an economic way but in a political way — to solidify friendships and make new friendships around the world.

But when we travel, Mr. Chairman, we do not travel as British Columbians; we travel as Canadians, representing a strong part of our country. As strongly as we feel about the importance of our own areas within this country — and all provincial Premiers and all people in all provinces of this country feel a strong identity with their own geographic area — we would presume too much to assume that the people of all other countries of this world understand the Canadian Confederation or the way provincial rights and the provinces work within the system, or even know about our provinces or much about the internal workings of our country. It is therefore important when we travel abroad, Mr. Chairman, that we travel as Canadians, for that is the identity we carry in the world, just as Australia is an identity, although it has some very important producing states within Australia, but when they travel — and their resource ownership is similar to ours

[ Page 1742 ]

— they travel as Australians, they present an Australian face to the world. So it is that when we and our officials have travelled, we've travelled as Canadians.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, then to realize the goals of these various economic missions, and let me specifically talk about our first major trade mission in 1977 to Europe. It was important that we improve the image of not only our country but our province; it was important that we utilize the facilities of the government of Canada, our embassies and all of the diplomatic services that are available to provincial delegations. Because, unfortunately, delegations by the previous government, who now sit in opposition, did not utilize these to the extent that would have put forth a strong face for Canada and this province. They did not use those facilities to that extent when they made a previous visit. There is some delicacy in international matters, and that is why we chose to go the proper route.

There were also impressions created by missions which did not use those facilities that had to be erased from those countries, particularly from the business communities in those countries wishing to trade with British Columbia. Many of the requests and much of the need from that mission and from others were apparent not only to British Columbia but also to our people in business and industry who would carry on the trade with the rest of the world. It is not the role of this government of British Columbia to be involved in trade; that is for the private sector. But it is our responsibility to create a climate here and to help create in other places a climate of opportunity which is consistent with the diploma tic arrangements made by the government of Canada; to clear up any misunderstandings that may have been presented by previous missions which did not recognize that they carried a Canadian responsibility when they went to visit these countries; to allay any fears which may have been created by the impression that these countries were hostile to foreign participation and to the expansion of foreign markets. It was important for that mission in 1977 to have the fullest cooperation of the government of Canada.

A number of questions have been raised about the purpose of the visit. The purpose was to show a favourable climate in British Columbia, politically and economically, which could be built upon by business and industry in our province and in our country; also to show that we were a strong part of Canada, and that we were committed to a united country at a time when the concerns of the European community and Great Britain were not focused solely on British Columbia but were concerned with the political climate in Canada because of the election of the Parti Quebecois and their stated aim to separate and to break up this country. It may come as a shock to some members of this Legislature who, when they travelled, took a very small view of the world but a large view of themselves that they were more interested in the political stability of this country and the political stability of the provinces — particularly British Columbia, whose reputation was not particularly enhanced by the previous government.

It is interesting to note that the bulk of their questions surrounded the country and our constitutional efforts to deal with not only the preservation of a country which included the province of Quebec but also the feelings of British Columbia and our future role in this country.

The political mission was important — to do away with old impressions, to meet immediate concerns, and, yes, to talk about and foster new trade opportunities. While British Columbia has dealt and does deal primarily with the United States, and while new opportunities are being developed in the Pacific Rim, there are historic links with the European community that can be fostered, as we have attempted to do. These can grow to the mutual benefit of British Columbia and Canada and of those countries with which we trade and deal.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to detail, for those in this House who have never used the services of the government of Canada for provincial missions travelling as Canadian missions, how they work, because it involves a great deal of cooperation and political preparation. It involves daily briefings — in fact, a number of briefings — not only on our own internal concerns, but also major briefings by embassy officials, trade officials, political officials, on the type of questions to be asked by various people within the European Economic Community, and by various countries and firms — because the mission took two or three parts. One part was courtesy, on behalf of the country, to organizations that have no ability to conduct trade, such as the European economic commission itself; there were specific missions with government officials in particular countries, to talk about our country and respond to questions. And then there were general meetings, in which the businesses and industries that might be dealing with those businesses and industries within our province and within our country — those are the people who will do the job after we create the climate and deal with concerns about our country as both a stable political entity and a reliable supplier....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It would be improper for me, Mr. Chairman — and this should temper part of some of the debate that goes on — to betray the briefings from federal government officials about certain questions and the types of questions that would be asked by certain individuals — and their preoccupations. However, I would point out to this House that that mission wasn't secret, it wasn't confidential, and travelling with this mission were three press people from British Columbia, three press people who were invited to participate in those briefings, who had knowledge of the specific aims and objectives of what this government was doing, and who understood the concerns of the government of Canada and what was expressed at those meetings.

It would be interesting if those people, the independent press who travelled with the mission, who reported on the mission, who were given the courtesy of not following a junket and reporting on people standing on the great wall of China with a camera in their hands, but who actually sat in on the working sessions — the briefings by the Coal Board in Britain, and the briefings by the government of Canada and embassy officials.... It would be interesting to hear their impressions and their assessment of what the mission was about and what went on. They know full well. Not only were some statements made that could be highly controversial in an international sense, but also some of the questions which were asked and statements which were made about the former government of British Columbia would not only be highly embarrassing to those people, but it would be difficult for me to relate what an impression they had left in the business and industry community and in the political community of Europe. I have no intention of going to the level of that group and that party in either the way they dealt as a government or the way they're willing to deal in opposition as individuals or collectively.

[ Page 1743 ]

Do not let them create the impression that only a few of them conduct themselves on this level. By their silence or perhaps their attempt to run away, they can't run away. I refer to members like the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and others. They are a part of the general tone of the attack and the general tone of maintaining the style and conduct of the New Democratic Party as it has been not for just the last four years, but for the last 20-odd years in this province. It is a style that has dealt less on policy and more on silly personal attacks. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, it would be easy to resort to the type of response that these attacks warrant, but we don't have the luxury of that type of frivolous behaviour, because we have the responsibility of government. But I do wish to impress upon this assembly and the members sitting here the importance of the trade missions which have gone out, both politically and by staff officials — the technical missions which have followed up the cooperation with business, industry and, yes, labour, in being a part of missions to specific countries around the world which provide opportunities for British Columbians — and the sensitivity of the politics, both international and national, that must be dealt with, explained and understood.

Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to deal and tread as softly as one would. It is not always easy to deal where the bulk of the questions will be asked on Canadian policy when Canada has a moratorium on uranium. That's why it's important to be briefed on both those people who are preoccupied with uranium in Europe — and there was a preoccupation among some of the people at that time, although not all of them were in a position to do anything about it. It was a personal preoccupation because they were advocates of nuclear power and wished to have information about whether Canada was going to be a supplier. Not only were they interested in British Columbia products, but they were interested in the developments taking place in other parts.

We had to have briefings about Saskatchewan being able to emerge from being a have-not province to being a have province, because the large basis for their future economy will be the development of uranium. Certainly the people of Saskatchewan appreciate that fact, and they've made a decision upon it that that's the way they'll stop being a have-not province in this country and be a have province. Certainly there are international questions as to what the Canadian moratorium at that time was on what shipments of uranium would do to traditional Canadian supplies. Certainly British Columbia has not, was not, and is not now a producer of uranium.

Yes, among the many potential resources, obviously, because some exploration had started and had certainly been identified by a mining authorization by the previous New Democratic Party government in this province, questions as to whether British Columbia would be a supplier might have been on the minds. Primarily the concern was Canadian. Yes, there were questions, but was the purpose of the mission to flog uranium to Europe? No, it wasn't and no, it has never been.

This province has not had a stated policy on that specific resource — not stated by any government that I know of — because we have never had to deal with it as a producing product in this province. What we have had is exploration that was encouraged by the New Democratic Party and the mines minister of the time, Leo Nimsick. This was specific exploration for uranium. But now this government in these days has had to deal with the fact that exploration was leading to indications of some resource that was not known before.

This government has made a policy decision. It is the first policy that a government has publicly stated in this province. It was the seven-year moratorium on exploration and mining of uranium in this province. It means clearly that this province has concerns that are expressed among our people. The mining community and the mining climate create such an opportunity now in other areas, including copper, coal and molybdenum. It is timely that we do it without injury to those who would work or invest in the industry. It will not create either personal or economic interruptions, but it will do something to allay the fears of those people who have been concerned that this activity has been going on. That is now the policy of this government.

Let me talk again about the need for international access and representation and also the need to cooperate with the government of Canada and other provincial governments in presenting a face to the world. Indeed, the face we present is a Canadian face. It's a country which I'm sure all members of this assembly are proud of and are willing to fight to hold together. We must express to the rest of the world that those who create doubts about the future political stability of this country are but a few and those who are and continue to be government are working not only to retain the country but to make it stronger. That is the type of message we have been carrying around the world.

We also have to carry a message that we are a reliable and secure supplier. In the past Canada and, particularly, British Columbia have not always been considered by those who would trade with us and who receive our goods to be secure and reliable suppliers. Not only do they look for price and quality in the commodities they buy from British Columbia and Canada, they look for security of supply and delivery. The uncertain industrial climate that British Columbia has had in the past and disruptions in delivery have worried those who have dealt with the people of business and industry in this province. They want assurance that this province and this country are working to resolve the uncertainties that have taken place in an industrial way in this province.

It was encouraging for us to go to these countries. More recently we had an even longer record of success showing that the number of man-days lost due to strikes and lockouts has been steadily decreasing since this government assumed a leadership role in this province. We can be considered a secure and reliable supplier of necessary goods which others would wish to purchase and which create employment and economic activity in this province. It's a message that needed to be told. It's a message that needs to be told again and again, because without these assurances the world isn't going to beat a path to our door.

It was evident during the early seventies when we were not government that they were beating a path not to our door but certainly to those countries who are our competitors, such as Australia, They were beating a path to their door, beating us out of traditional markets and taking away jobs and employment in this province. That isn't just an empty statement. That is an historical fact and part of a record of which this province can't be proud, but a record which is changing. We now have a record of recognition and acceptance by those who trade with British Columbia and Canada. That is why it's so important for us to also get on with developing new port and transportation links, such as the port of Prince Rupert and an additional rail system, to end the single de-

[ Page 1744 ]

pendency not just for British Columbian products but for the wheat that goes around the world from the great Canadian prairies plus our Peace River country. There are questions every day about the security of supply of a single outlet from the west.

We need those facilities; we need them to help other parts of Canada as well as our own, and they must be built, and we need them for the development of our trading opportunities as well. Northeast coal development has long been talked about, but under the ministry — formerly the Ministry of Economic Development, now the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development — the first major concrete steps have been taken and worked on, both in Canada and with the international community, to prepare the way for the development of those resources for our benefit, for the employment of our people.

Other British Columbia products will flow; other British Columbia products will be developed in the northwest sector of this province because of that proposed development. It hasn't come easily. The work in getting the federal government to participate in the feasibility studies, the needed infrastructure, the assessment and division of its costs, have all been important in leading up to this point in time where I feel that we're on the threshold of success. It's more than a major vision, Mr. Chairman. It's more than pie in the sky development of infrastructure or transportation for development's sake; it is development that can be carried on in a responsible, sound and very rewarding manner for British Columbians and for this country. It isn't a pie in the sky vision; it isn't rhetoric. That development on the threshold of success is going to be very real to British Columbians. And it didn't just happen. It's taken a lot of hard work, not just by the politicians trying to allay the political concerns and prepare the political ground for our province and our country, but by the numerous officials and technical meetings, the reliability of the information being gathered for both our respective governments' industry, and those who will deal with us — because they don't deal with pie in the sky, coloured pictures and drawings; they deal with hard facts and know that we have the ability to prepare.

We also need this cooperation, not only internationally, but with our national government — a type of cooperation that we have developed because we need it just for the development of our internal industry. I see today that in the last little while there has been concern about a small company in Kamloops which started up and deals not only with the local market but with the international market. It prepares pizza, which has an extensive market...

MR. LEA: Pasta.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and pasta, and has an export market that is important to it. We see the problems that Canadian policy or policies elsewhere can create for a small company, yet they are important to our province. That type of entrepreneurial talent will be lost not only to Kamloops but to B.C. and Canada if it's allowed to get away. It needs help; it needs the cooperation and decisions of the Wheat Board of Canada, which is not controlled by this government but is important to other areas. That's why I'm pleased to say that our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is playing an active role now with the officials, the Wheat Board, the government of Canada, to encourage this firm to be able to stay in Kamloops, in British Columbia. It's not just big companies and big forests and big mines, it's government dealing with government to help promote small business as well — to encourage them, but to prevent regulations and decisions that are made in other parts of the country from hurting industry and business in British Columbia. We don't want to lose the little bit of export market this firm has, but primarily we don't want to lose that entrepreneurial talent and that type of go-getter from our province or from Kamloops — they're necessary.

Mr. Chairman, these are the reasons why this government has cooperated with the government of Canada in putting a Canadian face to the world, but we have cooperated in a number of ways on our own internal development, and we expect that cooperation to come back and help our large business, our large industry, and our small business and our small industry. We not only want to see new jobs created, we want to see jobs retained.

Mr. Chairman, these are thoughts that all members of this Legislature should consider — actions that have been positive. Mr. Chairman, due to personal appointments, I would now move....

Mr. Chairman, those are thoughts I thought I should leave with the members of this Legislature because it's part of the record and part of the message we're continuing to state for British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I've been here since 1960.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Too long.

MR. MACDONALD: Too long, yes, as the Minister says; maybe it is. But I have never seen — and I'm sure many of the longer-term members have never seen this kind of a scene — as strange and bizarre a handling of estimates as we've seen in the last two days. Have you ever seen anything like it, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've never seen the opposition in such a bizarre state of mind.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's go back to where the Premier is asked for an explanation of a clear contradiction in the evidence. Instead of doing that, the caucus assigns all these members to get up and make speeches and rally to his defence on subjects that have not been asked about by the opposition, and had been covered in the throne speech debate. And then the Premier gets up as if he were filibustering his own estimates. He is not rendering himself accountable to the questions being asked, but giving these long speeches of 30 minutes, which we've all heard many times before.

AN HON MEMBER: And then he runs out the door.

MR. MACDONALD: And now he's gone.

Now, the Premier said — I want to answer this — that we're sinking to a level of low personal attack. And I resent that. I'll tell you why. One of the first and essential duties of a parliament or a legislature is to make sure that it is not misled by ministers of the Crown, to make sure that it is told the truth. Whether it's the British Parliament, or any parliament or assembly, or the Senate of the United States, or Congress, they all insist upon that. Do you mean to say that when we ask

[ Page 1745 ]

for an explanation of that contradictory evidence — and never get it — that is a low personal attack? We'll not back off on that point, Mr. Chairman, not for one minute. I regret the amount of time we're taking in getting an explanation of Etienne Reuter's revelation from the minutes of that meeting, and the apparent contradiction, but there's no reason at all why this opposition should abdicate its responsibility to ensure that it's told the truth by those ministers over there. No way!

You've all gotten up and made your nice little speeches about the Premier. But, Mr. Chairman, all those members and ministers who got up must have been thinking that the Premier — your leader — was dodging something. You must have all been saying to yourselves that you kind of admire the straightforward way he dodges the issue. He knows what the issue is, eh? You all know that.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), who is now busily engaged in conversation down in the corner — I don't want to disturb his thoughts — held up these documents up, which seemed to indicate that the Premier had misled this House — they and the press clippings and the statements that had been made by the Premier and that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — and said: "That's not the kind of proof that would stand up in a criminal court." Well, Mr. Chairman, we're not in a criminal court to begin with. But when you have the man who kept the minutes of the meeting that took place in September 1977, in writing, stating facts that are totally at variance with what the Premier has told this House, then you'd think, if we had leadership in this province, if we had accountability, that the Premier and that minister would get up and offer their explanation of that evidence.

I'm talking to an empty chair because the Premier has taken off. He has an engagement; but he....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Aw, come on, he took his 30 minutes and filled the time, and.... Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, that we're being manipulated in this Legislature on these estimates, with every kind of parliamentary manoeuvre, to get away from the fact that there are very serious charges involving the credibility of the Premier of the province? That's what we are talking about. Is it not manipulative — those long speeches, those repetitive, rambling speeches that the Premier's giving?

I don't believe for one minute that if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) were the Premier of this province, he wouldn't give an explanation one way or another about these letters. And we would have had this thing all over two days ago. You can nod your head on that, Mr. Minister; I know you would. And, you know, we do have a crisis of leadership in the province of British Columbia. The refusal to be accountable on these estimates calls into question the leadership. It may be true, Mr. Chairman, that no minister, including the first minister, has to answer questions on his estimates, or any other time. We can be here forever. That's the rule. But then the first minister also does not have to be the Premier of the province.

If you are the Premier of the province you have a duty to give a fair and clear and truthful statement to this Legislature. So I don't see how we can leave aside a matter of credibility of this importance aside. There must be an explanation as to whether or not this Legislature is being misled and abused, and whether the truth is being told to this Legislature. That's more important than the issue. The issue is uranium and whether it was being sold and things of that kind; but that's not the real issue. The real issue is the integrity of the government of British Columbia as it is now constituted. That's not an issue that can go away at all. There's every reason to believe, in the flat contradiction of these statements, that this House has been abused and misled. To say that we shall not even get an explanation from the Premier of the province of British Columbia is something that all of these members of the Legislature, whether they're on this side or that, should think carefully about. Ask yourselves whether that is leadership or not. If it isn't, there should be a change of leadership in this province.

We've had all the cabinet shuffles in the last little while. To be quite frank, Mr. Chairman, they seem to be very manipulative. You know, if somebody is strong they put him in an obscure position or a difficult position — this kind of thing. Forget all that.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on, it's happened; you know perfectly well it's happened. You know there's been a lot of manipulation going on in terms of those cabinet assignments — not yours, but some of the others.

I say this, and then I'll take my seat. I wish we could get a reply from the Premier; we can't. We've had lots of cabinet shuffles and changes, but there's one more to go, because for two and a half days, with a serious charge involving integrity raised in this House, we have had no explanation from the first minister of the Crown. Instead he's simply run away. That's not good enough for British Columbia.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill 7 into the Legislature at the second reading stage, I would like to observe to you and to all members the fact that this is one of the important and vital pieces of legislation proposed in the budget of March 11 of this year. It has companion legislation, but I don't intend to speak about other bills except to indicate that there are several which flow from that budget debate, all of which reflect in a straightforward manner the financial strength of British Columbia as we move into the 1980s.

As members well know, Bill 7 dedicates $188 million to funds to encourage industrial activity, to develop and conserve our energy resources, to assist employment and tourism and to provide a contribution to the capital requirements

[ Page 1746 ]

of transit systems in British Columbia. The $188 million is provided partly from the revenue surplus of the 1979-80 fiscal year, $38 million; and partly from the statutory appropriations from the 1980-81 year, $150 million.

In my short time as Minister of Finance I have been asked by a number of British Columbians, and by people from other parts of Canada and from the United States, how it feels to be Minister of Finance. Well, there are not many jurisdictions in which one would happily accept the position of Minister of Finance; British Columbia is one where I very happily accepted that position.

As has been the custom over a number of years, these funds are in addition to the regular amounts provided in the estimates. I would like to deal specifically with some of the elements which make up Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980. There's $5 million to set up the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. This money is to be used for the restoration, further development and maintenance of this famous Cariboo goldrush site.

It was last year that I, as Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, paid my last visit to Barkerville; and I realized with some distress that the major restoration activity had taken place through 1957 and 1958 in readiness for the 1958 centennial. The fact is that time moves along. Recently some members of this House, as well as individuals in the public service who are charged with responsibility for Barkerville, observed, quite properly, that it was beginning to look just a little frayed. There's a considerable amount of restoration work to be done to save dwellings and old office and commercial buildings within the site, as well as to expand and improve the area as a tourist attraction.

During 1979 the heritage conservation branch of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, together with the parks and outdoor recreation division of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, conducted a joint study to determine the future restoration and capital needs of Barkerville. My colleague the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will, I'm sure, be quite willing to speak about that when his estimates are dealt with, or indeed at some other time.

Based on the recommendations outlined in this review, an allocation of $5 million is being made, under the terms of the surplus revenue bill, to establish the Barkerville restoration fund. I'm pleased to say that plans are already well advanced for stabilization work to commence on some 17 historic buildings at Barkerville and at nearby Cottonwood House, which was, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a major stopover point in the early days of British Columbia. This initial work is designed to be the preliminary step of an overall four-year program of heritage restoration and capital works. Indeed, if we as government were not in a position to do this now, I think we would see very distressing deterioration at Barkerville. And in 1980-81 we would also see an inability of the operation of Barkerville to handle the ever-increasing numbers of visitors from British Columbia, Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia who want to see this very important site.

As I indicated in October of last year, I had the opportunity to visit Barkerville and to become acquainted once again with this outstanding site. It is undoubtedly irreplaceable. I'm very pleased that we were in a position to see that these special funds could be made available to ensure proper action on property and building restoration, capital works and related public services — to make sure that the Minister ofIntergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is listening carefully, I will refer to those as "infrastructure."

I understand from my colleague the Provincial Secretary, who is the minister responsible for heritage conservation, that the concept plan for the Barkerville restoration project will be printed and released some time later this year, as a public document for discussion. As I said, I'm sure the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services will want to expand on some of the details of Barkerville when his opportunity arrives.

Within this bill $15 million is allocated to establish the British Columbia Place Fund and to start work on this very exciting project in Vancouver.

Members on both sides of the House are well aware that in 1986 there is every indication that British Columbia Place will be the site for a world exposition on transportation, under the name of Transpo '86. Obviously it will be a focal point for celebrations marking the centennial of the founding of the city of Vancouver, and a centennial of the arrival in Vancouver of passenger service by rail from Montreal.

Both Transpo '86 and British Columbia Place are of world significance, Mr. Speaker. Multimillions of visits are expected — not visitors, but visits. Those individuals who will come for Transpo over its five months and will participate will see it on several occasions, as well as greater Vancouver, Victoria and British Columbia residents who will want to see it through the course of the full length of the exposition. It's therefore vital that this project be successfully developed and that work start almost immediately.

I would also refer, Mr. Speaker, to another activity I undertook in my former portfolio of Provincial Secretary, and that was to carry to the International Bureau of Expositions semi-annual meeting in November, in Paris, the province's presentation with respect to Transpo '86. It is very, very accurate to say that the presentation was extremely well received, and while we do not yet have registration by that international body comprising some 38 members, certainly we can expect that later this year.

There is an item within Bill 7 which other members will want to speak of as well, but with your permission I would like to spend just a few moments speaking about downtown revitalization, because there is in this proposed piece of legislation $25 million to be established as a downtown revitalization fund. As an elected member from one of the two metropolitan areas in British Columbia, may I emphasize that I don't believe it is the intent of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to exclude Victoria and Vancouver, but this money is to be used in communities throughout British Columbia.

Again, how fortunate we are, as a province, to be in a financial position to be able to allocate that amount of money for downtown revitalization for the start of this decade. You will know, Mr. Speaker, and members in the House will admit, I'm sure, that all too often on the North American continent in fast-growing areas — and the province is obviously one of the fastest-growing areas in Canada — there can be experienced a decline, even a disintegration and an abandonment, of the central city core of even small communities as residents move to the suburbs and a variety of businesses follow that particular movement. There are also other communities which are perhaps not caught up in quite the same mainstream of growth as other municipalities, but which provide a comfortable existence for their residents, but

[ Page 1747 ]

are not necessarily able to maintain the quality and character of their relatively small downtown area.

Each member here today, I think, could identify two or three or four communities where clearly it's not very exciting in the central part of that community. This $25 million will certainly, under the management of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, go a long way to do a number of things to encourage business, to encourage municipal councils, to encourage individuals, to encourage all involved in a particular community to assist in the revitalization. This is not a case of government saying: "Here is the money. It's a blank cheque, and we'll do it for you." But rather, it may be seen as seed money — a very large seed; in fact, $25 million worth — but money which I think will generate many, many millions more in that particular kind of activity. It is a revolving fund which is set up under this legislation. It will make funds available for improvement projects in designated areas of municipalities around the province, and that is an important point to restate.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs will obviously want to expand on that at some point during this session. The projects are expected to cover a variety of municipal improvements, and restoration of the exteriors of privately owned buildings and public buildings as well.

Many of us will recall the activity undertaken by the Devonian Group of Charitable Foundations, firstly in the province of Alberta under the name "Mainstreet Alberta," and later introduced, I think, in 1977 — I'm subject to correction — in the eastern part of British Columbia, with the same foundation providing funds for "Mainstreet B.C." Mr. Speaker, even that program had a dramatic impact on a number of communities along the eastern edge of this province. I refer again to this fact to emphasize that it is not restricted just to Vancouver or Victoria, but is to spread around the province.

There's more money still in Bill 7 for the people of British Columbia and for the 1980s. There's $10 million to establish the Energy Development Fund. This fund will be used to support development of alternatives to gasoline, and enhancement of the existing government energy conservation and substitution programs. I see a very encouraging cooperation and coordination taking place between the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources with respect to ensuring that the kind of research and development which we know can be undertaken in British Columbia is ready, providing the funds are there to assist and support it. There's $10 million for that alone, Mr. Speaker — another indication of this government's willingness and ability to face the challenges of the 1980s.

Mr. Speaker, $30 million is within this bill to set up the Fraser River Crossing Fund to be used toward construction of an additional crossing of the Fraser River in the vicinity of Annacis Island. The ten-kilometre highway and bridge project — because I think we all realize it is not just a bridge that must be put in place — called the Annacis system, is expected to be completed by 1984 at a total cost of $130 million. At the peak of construction some 4,000 new jobs will be created, 1,000 directly in the construction of the project and 3,000 in related industries, Some members opposite said that there was nothing in the budget with respect to employment, but there will be 4,000 new jobs at the peak when this particular project is underway. Clearly on the basis of the timetable which has been established — 1984 — a great deal of that employment activity will occur quite soon.

Fast-growing suburbs south of the Fraser River make this new crossing a priority, and the construction schedule has been brought forward, in fact, by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) from 1985, which was originally anticipated, to 1984. It seems that so many people want to live in that particular part of our province that the areas to be served by the Annacis system are growing faster than any other area in British Columbia. I think it is important to note — and it would be derelict of a government to overlook this fact — that almost 30 percent of the Greater Vancouver Regional District population is expected to reside in Surrey, Delta and White Rock by 1985. Mr. Speaker, you may have the first, second, third and fourth members from Surrey; that's the kind of growth to which this government is responding with the start of the Annacis system project in this bill. Obviously this new structure is expected to reduce traffic on the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge. The new highway and the bridge system will have provision for two additional lanes of traffic, which could be used in the future for preferential bus or light-rapid transit systems.

Mr. Speaker, $25 million is provided in Bill 7 to the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, and this is in addition to $25 million appropriated last year. The fund is, as we know, to be used toward the construction of a lower mainland amphitheatre for a variety of sports activities and a number of events, the list of which would be so long that it's virtually impossible to outline them. I thought that the $25 million which was placed in a fund last year by my predecessor was a terrific start. I thought that the rest would have to be perhaps paid for on an as-you-go basis out of estimates. But again, through the careful financial management of British Columbia by my predecessor and by this government, we have the opportunity knocking more than once, and a second $25 million in that fund.

The next item I would like to speak about is $20 million to set up the North East Coal Development Fund for construction of provincial support facilities associated with the development of coal extraction in that part of British Columbia. My colleague immediately to my right will certainly want to speak about that, as will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) when he takes his place in estimates in Committee of Supply or in additional debates.

Mr. Speaker, $3 million has been allocated here to set up the Provincial Computerization of Libraries Fund, to assist in instituting automated cataloguing and circulating systems in public libraries throughout the province. I've had the feeling for a good many years that as a government, whether it was in the NDP years of 1972-75, prior to that, or since, we have tended to be very, very cheap with respect to funds for libraries around B.C. I think this amount of money....

MS. BROWN: You're still cheap.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you see, Madam Member, no matter how much we want to assist, you can't say anything positive about it. She says we're still cheap. Madam Member, this is a significant start. You and your government didn't have $3 million to allocate to library computerization. You were broke in 1975. So don't say we're still cheap. This is a start. It's a start in which I take a lot of pride.

[ Page 1748 ]

MS. BROWN: It's not even a drop in the bucket and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You know, Mr. Speaker, the comments from across the floor say far more about that side of the House than they do about whether this should be $3 million or $13 million or whatever. The fact is that as a member of government I have indicated that we have not been, over the years, generous enough — that government or this government — to libraries in British Columbia. Too much of the load has fallen on the local taxpayer, and I intend, to the best of my ability, to alter that. We've started in this bill, this year. The letters coming to my desk and to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services are not negative, such as the comments we've heard from across the way this morning. They say: "Great start. Keep up the work."

You are negative. Those members are so negative. Three million dollars for computerization. The library people, the volunteers who work on libraries in British Columbia on boards and the professional librarians say — and I say it again —"Great start."

I spoke earlier about the Annacis system. Fifty-five million dollars are placed in this bill to set up the Urban Transit Fund, which will be used to cover the province's contribution to the future capital requirements of the Urban Transit Authority.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs, chuckles and cackles, or whatever it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fact is, there is a very significant amount of money placed here — fund and money, if you will. The formula is in place, and the provincial cost would occur at some point as equipment is purchased — whether it be new buses, new trolley systems, LRT or a variety of things. We are in a position, with the money being placed in a fund now, not to have to go to the bond market later to go into debt. This is a tremendous start on transit in British Columbia. As the Urban Transit Authority decides, what the government of British Columbia is saying is: "The money is there. It's in a fund, and when you need it for capital purposes, we don't have to go to the market." Mr. Speaker, thank God we don't have to go to the market right now.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is an exciting package, and I think that members opposite would admit also, perhaps privately, that it's an exciting package. We have tried to identify those areas — historic, present, small community, transit, culture and a variety of activities in British Columbia — which will benefit from this kind of funding. This government has the opportunity, the ability and the funds necessary to undertake that work now. It fulfils the government's objectives of assisting employment, industrial activity, energy needs and future public transit capital costs. Thus it will result in benefits to every British Columbian, present and future.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister's rather lengthy explanation of this bill points out the first problem in dealing with this bill that I intended to mention. It sets up, or at least adds money to, nine different funds, and yet we're supposed to deal with the general principle of legislation that puts money into nine different projects.

The minister, in discussing the legislation, went through them point by point. I think if we are going to discuss this bill in general principle we almost have to follow on his heels and do the same thing. But I think it is going to require the participation of many members in the House, not simply the Minister of Finance and one or two from the opposition. What about all the other ministers the Minister of Finance mentioned in going through the legislation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you going to vote for it?

MR. STUPICH: We listened quietly, attentively and carefully.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you did, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: All right, I did — most of us did.

I'm going to try to recall some of what the Minister of Finance said. I wasn't able to take notes of everything. Certainly we'll have it before us on Monday. First he mentioned the Barkerville fund. I don't think anyone could oppose spending money on Barkerville. I think that's a great idea. I don't think anyone would object to the fact that we're setting up a fund for $5 million and spending only half of it this year. It takes time to do that kind of work; one should take time and do it properly.

But in telling us about the program, the Minister of Finance said no doubt the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would like to say something about this bill and fill us in on some of the details. I think he included the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as one who would like to say something about this bill and fill us in on some of the details. Possibly the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) would have more than a passing interest in what's happening to this very important tourist attraction and would like to fill us in on some of the details. Perhaps even the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might like to take some part in discussing Bill 7 in second reading and deal with that part of the legislation in which he has some interest.

Mr. Speaker, how can we deal with legislation in general principle when one out of the nine programs mentioned in this legislation affects ministries where we have at least four cabinet ministers involved? I think we are doing a disservice to the members of the House in presenting them with legislation that covers as much ground and as many ministries as this bill does in one section, let alone in nine. Surely that isn't the way to bring legislation before the House if we're going to get any kind of discussion.

I think the minister, in making his presentation with respect to the Barkerville fund, shows that he knows something about what's happening in Barkerville. He has a good general knowledge of what's happening there, what should be happening and what can be happening for the good of the citizens of British Columbia and for the good of people coming in to took at what we have here in B.C. I think that's great. He has a good general knowledge of it.

But in making his own presentation he suggested to us that there are four other cabinet ministers who would like to take part in the detailed discussion of this one single program. That's not responsible legislation — bringing it to us in that form. Why not a separate bill to deal with Barkerville —

[ Page 1749 ]

a bill that would be under the name not of the Minister of Finance, but of one of these other four people who will have special concern about Barkerville?

Then B.C. Place — and the work must start immediately. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only one who has really spoken out on B.C. Place is the Premier. For three days his estimates have been before this House and he has absolutely abandoned any....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm being told it's not true. In the three days of debate where the Premier's estimates have been before this House I have not heard him mention B.C. Place. Now I might have missed it. Three days is a lot of time and he might have covered it. But, frankly, I don't think he gave us any kind of adequate explanation. The explanations he gave outside of this House for which he set up media affairs and told people outside of this House what he was planning to do with I don't know how much money.... I don't know what it's going to cost in total — nobody does at this point — but at this point we are talking about $15 million. We're supposed to vote for a $15 million fund. The Premier tells people outside of the House what he intends to do and how great it's going to be and, in three days of presentation of his estimates before this House, doesn't think it's worthwhile mentioning it even once, to my knowledge.

The Minister of Finance tells us something about it, and we thank him for that. Somebody has bothered to tell the MLAs in this House something about what's going to happen to $15 million. But the minister who spoke about it publicly hasn't taken advantage of that opportunity. He isn't here now — that's no criticism. I don't intend to criticize him for not being here now to discuss it but I do say that this particular project should be discussed when the Premier is here to talk about it since it's his baby, I understand. He should be here piloting through legislation dealing with B.C. Place. Then we should make the decision whether or not we want to put....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) says it's his. I don't think the Minister of Finance referred to the Minister of Environment in his remarks. But, again, he may have; I missed it. He talked about so many ministers in dealing with this nine-point legislation. The Minister of Environment said B.C. Place is his. Did the Minister of Finance mention the Minister of Environment in telling us who was going to be answering detailed questions about B.C. Place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. STUPICH: If he did, I missed it. Maybe he missed it in his notes.

Mr. Speaker, Part 2 deals with $15 million for B.C. Place — you can't deal with the general principle in talking about nine different programs — and the minister bringing that forward should be the Minister of Environment, if he says it's his. Why didn't he bring in the legislation dealing with B.C. Place?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't know it was going to happen.

MR. STUPICH: It's being suggested behind me that he didn't know it was going to happen. Maybe he found out at that breakfast meeting.

Downtown revitalization. This is a great program. [Applause.] But just a minute; I'm not quite finished with B.C. Place.

I think it's a great idea. I'd like to hear the Minister of Environment tell us more about it. I'd even like it if some of the money were going to be spent. But I note that a year from March 31, 1980, on March 31, 1981, according to the budget speech, there will still be $15 million sitting in that fund. That's going to be real progress on B.C. Place if, after having the money available for a year, we still have the money available one year from now. Yet we have to start immediately. What are we going to start with if we're not going to spend any of the money? That's what the budget speech tells us. A year from now the balance remaining in that fund will be $15 million.

I think we're all excited about the prospect of downtown revitalization. I think important work was done in the city of New Westminster. I can recall last year in the Legislature — I don't know whether it was before or after the election; it must have been after because there wasn't much time before — in talking about downtown revitalization, a number of the members, including myself, said: "If it's working so well in New Westminster, how about extending the same opportunities to other communities in the province?" The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said fine, but it would take a lot of money; he hoped to do it eventually. Here we see the evidence before us. Their hopes have been realized and the government now has $25 million to put into downtown revitalization. The Minister of Finance again told us the general principles of downtown revitalization, and hoped that it would not be limited to the major centres of the province but would be available throughout the province. We all share in that hope. Certainly Nanaimo would like to have a good chunk of that money. The city of Nanaimo already has had some discussions with government about getting some of that money for downtown revitalization. Perhaps I might take just a few minutes to talk about the importance of this to Nanaimo. There have been recent reports, newspaper stories, to the effect that Nanaimo has four times the national average of shopping centre space per capita. I think that's a terrible situation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Whose fault?

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development asks: "Whose fault?" That's a good question. Certainly not mine. Not his. No, I'm not suggesting that for one moment. But in the meantime the downtown area is suffering. I don't think it should have happened; I don't think we should have that acreage of shopping centre space. I don't think the investors coming in have invested wisely in looking so far into the future. I question whether city council has made wise decisions in allowing that kind of thing to happen, because it's going to hurt the whole community for quite a period of time. There's no doubt about that. But in the meantime, apart from all those investors, I really can't be terribly concerned about the money that the Hudson Bay Company is investing miles from the centre of

[ Page 1750 ]

town; I think the Hudson Bay Company and Woodward's and Eaton's will survive; all those people will survive all right.

But what about the downtown area? That's the important part; that's where I'd like to see the Downtown Revitalization Fund working. I'd like to see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development come before us and say: "I now have $25 million to assist municipalities and this is what we intend to do. We've had discussions with these municipalities; we're going to do it." The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development suggests that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is involved as well. I think that's great, but I think the Minister of Finance is not the one who should be giving us details about this program. It should be the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Likely, in second reading on this legislation, they will want to say something about the way in which they intend to use that Downtown Revitalization Fund — in second reading, which would seem to be the only way to deal with this legislation. I do have one concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is, of this $25 million, we will have spent only $5 million a year from now. I would have hoped that more than that would have been available in Nanaimo alone. Only $5 million will be spent.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development knows more about the plans of the city of Nanaimo than I do. He says: "That's for sure." And that's so, the city council made an appointment and discussed it with the minister. They're keeping it to themselves for the time being, and I think that's the way it should be. I've no objection to being left out of those discussions at this time but I do have objections and concerns that only $5 million out of this fund will be used within the next 12 months. I would like to think that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance — all of them — would set their sights a little higher than that and, with all the money that they have, would use something more than $5 million out of $25 million in the course of the next 12 months. That's for second reading — energy development.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development says that it should be spent wisely. I would agree with that too. But I think even that minister could plan to spend more than $5 million over a 12-month period in the province of British Columbia and still spend it very wisely. Another concern I have is that if he waits until the next year and the year after that, the extra $5 million that he might have spent in this fiscal period will buy only $3 million worth of work a year later. So I think there's some concern, Mr. Speaker, for doing the job now and not just putting that money away in a fund and letting it accumulate interest.

People in the province, in the west and perhaps in the whole world, are becoming increasingly concerned about alternative sources of energy. The rapidly increasing costs of the conventional forms of energy, the need to find alternative forms, the need to conserve — we're all becoming more and more aware of that daily.

I can recall when the NDP administration in 1973 thought the time was right for people to start talking and thinking about energy conservation. As a gesture, we said we would turn the lights out on the parliament buildings for a few hours so that people would recognize that government was taking some lead. The community just wasn't ready. We were ahead of the people. There was no response to any suggestion of energy conservation or alternative energy sources. We tried several things during our regime that just weren't accepted — people weren't ready for them. But now they are. The rate at which the cost of energy has been going up, and the increasing concern about the shortage of conventional forms of energy, make people aware that something has to be done. So I think it's a great idea that the government is putting $10 million into a fund for energy conservation projects, alternative energy development, or whatever.

The money will be available, Mr. Speaker, but what are we going to do with it? In the first place, the Minister of Finance suggested that the.... I think he said the Minister of Energy would be telling us about this. I'm not sure; I didn't write it down. He might have forgotten to mention him; he's mentioned so many others. But I still assume we will get the details from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — whatever details are available. I assume it is the Minister of Energy who will have to stand up in this House, perhaps in second reading of this legislation, perhaps in committee stage, or somewhere down the line, and tell us why he has no plans for spending one cent of that money in the next fiscal period. Because on March 31, 1981, the budget tells us, there will still be $10 million sitting in that fund. Mr. Speaker, is that all the ideas they have over there? It's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources who should be standing up and telling us why he has $10 million to work with, but he's not prepared to spend it. You'll get your opportunity.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I thought you wanted me to go now.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not quite finished. I've fault to find with five other programs before I finish.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really surprised that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is so quick to stand up now and tell me, when he couldn't think of anything to put into the budget. Surely if he had any input it would have gone to the Minister of Finance and he would have said: "Yes, I can spend $100 out of that $10 million. Give me $100 and I'll spend it." If he had any ideas at all, he would have gone to the Minister of Finance and said: "Look, we will use up some of that money in the first fiscal period. Just let us have it." But it's not there. No plans.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor. Interruptions cannot be tolerated.

MR. STUPICH: The Fraser River Crossing Fund is number five on the list of projects. It's going to create 4,000 new jobs. It's going to cost $130 million to build another parking lot, which is really what bridges and highways are.

There's another one down at the bottom of the list: the Urban Transit Fund, which I'm going to talk about at length

[ Page 1751 ]

later. I would far rather the $130 million went into urban transit and $55 million went into the bridge; because, really, that's what it's going to be: another place for cars to line up while they're waiting to get from point A to point B. I'm opposed to it.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's not the Minister of Finance we want to talk to. It's the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who should be telling us about this bridge. I know the Premier announced it, but surely the Minister of Transportation and Highways is the one who should be standing up and telling us why we need the bridge, why we need it in that location and why we need it by 1984. He should be the one dealing with the detailed questions and, even in general principle, about their proposal to put $130 million into a bridge — more than a bridge — that is probably going to cost twice that by the time the thing is ready to park the first car on. But instead of that it's the Minister of Finance that brings it in.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says I don't like the messenger. Personally, I have no concern about the Minister of Finance. I have no ill will towards him, but I don't like his bringing in legislation like this which has no general principle to it. You can't talk about a bill.... The Minister of Finance proved that to us himself, because he spoke for some 30 minutes and dealt with it seriatim — general principle. Item by item he dealt with this legislation; he explained what each program was, and then told us in each case of one, two, three or four other ministers who would be telling us about the details of the programs that are provided for in these funds.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Some members, who are not in their seats, take it upon themselves to interrupt the proceedings of this House. It's a practice we cannot condone.

MR. STUPICH: The Lower Mainland Stadium Fund. Mr. Speaker, I'm continually being asked if I'm against this. Well, if people will listen they'll find out how I feel about this whole legislation, and about the whole principle of bringing in legislation that covers so many different programs and so many different ministers. Then I'll get into the financing a little later on. I'm not finished yet.

On the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, the Minister of Finance sort of threw in the towel himself. Here we're putting another $25 million into a Lower Mainland Stadium Fund and he said: "I thought it would have been in estimates. "The Minister of Finance thought that it would have been in estimates. Well, it should have been. That's really where it should have been had they thought about it in time, but they didn't. So as an afterthought they stick it into a fund. There is $25 million there already; $25 million going in this year — a total of $50 million. A year from now there will be $45 million left. They're going to spend $5 million on it. Whether I'm against it or not doesn't really make much difference, Mr. Speaker, since they don't intend to do anything about it except spend the first $5 million. Are they against it? Why put $50 million into a project and spend only $5 million out of it if they really believe in it — support it — and want to do it? Mr. Speaker, we should be asking the people on the other side of the House: are you in favour of it? If you're in favour of it, why not do it instead of just talking about it and instead of salting the money away?

North East Coal Development Fund. In speaking about northeastern coal development, number 7 on the list, the Minister of Finance said that no doubt the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) would be very interested in this and would like to fill us in on the details. No doubt the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would like to discuss northeastern coal development and would like to fill us in on the details. I would think that even the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) might have something to say about it. I think that if anything happens before this is finished, he's certainly going to be involved. All these people want to get in on it, yet it's the Minister of Finance who has to bring it in in general principle as one of the items on a list of nine. It's not important enough to stand on its own. Is that the attitude of the government? Do they think that none of these things is important enough to stand on its own two feet? Do we have to lump them all together in one bill dealing with nine projects, all of which are so unimportant they bring them forward in sort of an omnibus form? Then they hope that the right minister will be here at the right time so that we can ask that minister for the details of these different projects. The minister asks if we are against that. What difference does it make, if once again they don't intend to spend the money? There's $20 million being voted in this legislation. A year from now $20 million is still going to be sitting there. What difference does it really make whether the members of the House are for the project or against it, if the government doesn't intend to spend the money? If they did spend the money, it's great for the people who own the coal rights.

I remember some very interesting figures put to this House by the leader of the Liberal Party when he was speaking about northeastern coal development, and how much it was going to cost the citizens of British Columbia to subsidize the export of this depleting resource. According to his figures, there was little net gain to the province of British Columbia. At that time I don't know whether he contemplated that the citizens of British Columbia would be putting was going to cost this amount of money into the project before it ever got started. The Minister of Finance said that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development would like to talk about northeastern coal development. I'm sure he would. He could regurgitate the speeches on this subject which he's made in this House for, I think, the past six years. And for the past four or four and a half years as Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, he's been making speeches about northeastern coal development. That's all they have been — speeches. Nothing else. Now we're putting $20 million into a fund, and we're going to let it sit there.

Provincial computerization of libraries. We have some serious questions to ask about that. Certainly the reports we've had from people in the business of providing library services are something less than enthusiastic about this particular proposal. I'm not suggesting it should not be done at this point. I am saying that there are some pretty searching questions which have to be asked about this particular way of improving library services, and whether this is the right thing to do first. I don't know. I don't pretend to be any expert in

[ Page 1752 ]

library matters but, I suggest, neither is the Minister of Finance. I would suggest that there are other ministers who more properly should be associated with bringing in this particular proposal, and who would bear the responsibility of telling the House exactly what is going to be the effect of this, whether this is the end or the beginning of something to improve libraries, or whether it's the proper way to start. These are the kinds of discussions we should have. But would we really expect the Minister of Finance to enter into a detailed discussion about that kind of service? I don't know. If he is able to deal in detail with all those questions which could, should and will be asked about these nine programs, why then do we need 18 other cabinet ministers? If he knows that breadth of detail about every program coming before us in this one particular piece of legislation, then it would seem to me that there are a lot of cabinet members over there who should be doing something else.

The Urban Transit Fund. I was going to say it's the best joke of all, but it's too serious to be a joke. We're going to put $55 million into a fund; it's not enough. We should really be pushing urban transit instead of the bridge or any other project. But we're not going to spend this. We're going to leave $55 million in that fund until somebody wants it for capital, but we don't intend that any of it will be available in this fiscal period. The budget tells us that by the end of March 1981 there will still be $55 million sitting in that fund.

The Minister of Finance tells the story differently: that sometimes it's due to the good fiscal management of this government that we have all this money to work with. At other times it's because of the unexpected revenue from natural resources. Certainly he would admit that both of those had something to do with it. I would admit that the natural resource revenue is what produces almost a billion dollars more revenue than was estimated.

A suggestion was made that taxes should be cut. In the Vancouver Sun, March 25, 1980, the Minister of Finance said: "While the alternative of further tax reductions is no doubt a politically appealing one, it would be financially irresponsible to fund them with such a volatile revenue source." That's a good argument. With so much of this money coming from what is, admittedly, a volatile revenue source, it would be irresponsible to reduce taxes; that's an argument I can accept as being one presentation. I think it follows, though, that if the revenue source is that volatile, then we should be doing something special with the money coming from that volatile revenue source.

Somehow the province of Saskatchewan has been much talked about in the Legislature during discussion of the Premier's estimates, as though what we're really discussing is whether or not the province of Saskatchewan should get a vote of confidence from the Legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, the province of Saskatchewan at least is using its revenue from its depleting resources in an attempt to diversify the economy of the province, investing it in the future of the province of Saskatchewan. That's the route they're going. Alberta has talked about doing the same thing and to some extent has done it, but we are blowing it on a bunch of projects, some of which — at least one of which — the minister himself suggested more properly belong in estimates. There is no question that many of these others more properly belong in estimates and should be funded not by volatile revenue sources, but by the regular revenue sources available to government. The volatile revenue sources, if they're going to be collected and kept by government, should be used in long-term projects to improve the economy of the province.

There is an alternative argument. I said I can understand the argument made by the Minister of Finance that we shouldn't reduce taxes when we're dealing with volatile revenue sources. There is another argument put forward by the Premier of the province, an argument to the effect that "the key to getting the provincial economy back on track is a tax cut which would put more money in the hands of individuals and corporations for investment." So said the Premier of the province. And there are the two positions. You've got a lot of money. If it's from a volatile revenue source, one argument is that you should put it away or put it into something that's going to develop the economy of the province. The alternative approach is that you should reduce taxes and let individuals and corporations use this revenue in improving the economy of the province.

The Minister of Finance isn't doing either. He's putting the money away in funds that will be available to be used for certain programs, if the money stays there. But you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that this particular administration has previously cancelled the funds when it needed the money for some other purpose as did the NDP administration, as a matter of fact, once. There was a fund for another crossing...

HON. MR. CURTIS: Another body of water.

MR. STUPICH: ...and another body of water, but we felt that wasn't the route to go, Mr. Speaker. We felt we should be doing something about urban transit, and as an alternative set a SeaBus operation in motion that's still working, and that is the route we went. So there is nothing wrong with cancelling funds. But if these funds are being set up as devices to reduce surplus, and we pretend that money is set aside for certain programs and there is no real intention of using them for those programs, but rather bringing the money back in when you want it for something else, then, I think, that's being devious.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't really believe that.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations says I don't believe it. I've seen it happen before. It's the first time that we've had these forward projections, I suppose, but it's still....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member for Nanaimo, I don't believe he wanted to suggest that I was being devious in the preparation of this bill. Surely that was not his intention.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not, but I'll ask.

Was it the intention of the member to impugn the character of the Minister of Finance?

MR. STUPICH: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I believe this approach is a devious one, but I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Minister of

[ Page 1753 ]

Finance or anyone else is being devious in this. No, I don't believe that for one moment, and I don't intend to suggest that.

Mr. Speaker, there are some real problems in our community right now. There'll be lots of opportunity to talk about many of these at other points in the debate, I would think. Revenue is at an all-time high, with an extra billion dollars last year over what was estimated. It is projected that it is going to go much higher in the next year, and I think the only thing we can say about these projections is that in all likelihood they're conservative rather than liberal.

The personal income tax is at an all-time high, in spite of the arguments that we've had from the members on the government side that we should reduce the load on individuals. Nevertheless personal income tax is at an all-time high — not just the rate, but the amount being collected. The social services tax, in spite of the fact that there have been nominal reductions in the rate of tax and in the removal of the tax from some items....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There is a bill on the social services tax under which perhaps the present debate would be more acceptable.

MR. STUPICH: Well, it would be more acceptable if I was talking in particular about those reductions. What I'm talking about is that in spite of the fact that there are some nominal reductions in the rate and in the removal from some items, the projected increase in revenue from this source is 16 percent. At a time when inflation is running at 11 or 12 percent, we're actually going to collect 16 percent more revenue in total from this source, according to the estimates, than was estimated a year ago. Now whether the figure will be that, we don't know at this point. But all I'm suggesting is that the government intends to keep its revenue very high.

There is one other source of revenue that I do want to talk about, and this one concerns me most. It's the revenue designated as "interest from investments." The estimates a year ago, for the year ended March 31, 1980, were to the effect that we would collect $52 million in revenue from interest on investments.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I'm talking about is the fact that the government has collected an extra $180 million in revenue and is proposing to dispose of it in these ways. The alternative to disposing of it in these ways is to return it to the taxpayers and let them choose what investments should be made, or put it into some other program. In other words, there is an alternative available to the members in this House, and that is to defeat this legislation and to urge the government to bring in some alternative proposals that would use this money for long-range development in the province or return revenue to the taxpayers themselves and let them make the decisions as to how the money should be spent.

That's the alternative I'm asking the members in the House to consider right now, an alternative to putting the money into these various funds and letting it sit there. The budget tells us that most of this money is still going to be sitting there. Out of the $213 million — and I'm including the $188 million and $25 million that was put into the lower mainland fund a year ago; that's a total of $213 million available in these nine funds — a year from now the government expects there will still be $170 million sitting there. It's the money and the fact that the government is going to be earning interest on that investment — interest on that $170 million in this period — that I am expressing concern about at this moment. The total interest — I can only deal with the totals because those are the figures we have.... It was estimated a year ago that we would collect in total $52 million in interest from investments such as these — $52 million represented by these various funds. The revised estimate says $90 million. Interest rates have been going up regularly since the revised estimates were prepared, and there's no doubt in my mind that the government will collect at least twice as much as it predicted from this one source in the year ended March 31, 1980. What's even worse is that it will collect twice as much as is predicted in the year ended March 31, 1981, because the amount of money has doubled and the interest rates have gone up even faster.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that instead of $145 million coming from interest on investments in the year ended March 31, 1981, with all these funds being set up and no money being spent out of them, the government will actually collect in the neighbourhood of $300 million in interest from investments. My concern is whether or not the people, the taxpayers, should have that money to use for their purposes. At a time when the number of people faced with losing their homes is being talked about daily — because interest rates have gone up so high, people are having to refinance mortgages — and at a time when taxpayers are being milked to the extent that the government is going to earn some $300 million interest on investments while the taxpayers don't have that money to reduce their mortgages so that they might escape some of the very large interest imposts, this government is telling us that it's going to put this money in the bank. That's what it's saying. It's saying that S170 million of this will still be sitting there a year from now, and: "Aren't we great. We're collecting money on this investment — we're collecting interest money on the short-term deposits in the banks." And the people all over the province are losing their homes because they aren't able to meet the mortgage interest.

Apart from all the other problems in our society, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance couldn't have come up with some better way of spending, investing or using this $188 million than to tell us he's going to put $170 million of it in the bank and let it sit there for a year and earn all kinds of interest on it. The fact that people all over the province are suffering in having to pay very high interest charges doesn't really matter to him.

There was one program that's not legislation. It was announced out of the House — the $200 million loaned to the credit unions, which various ministers have said is going to cost between $11 million and $40 million over a three-year period, I think. That's all they've done about reducing the cost of interest for homeowners. When they've got this kind of money, and when they're going to be earning $300 million interest on investment, all they had been able to do to help the people of the province who are having to pay high interest charges on their mortgages is to say: "Well, we'll help over a three-year period. We'll contribute somewhere between $11 million and $40 million, and good luck to you. In the meantime, we're going to earn all this interest in investment."

Mr. Speaker, I would invite some ten members of the cabinet who have been named as people who know more of the detail of this legislation than the Minister of Finance to

[ Page 1754 ]

get up in second reading and tell us about their share in this legislation. I have some real concerns about supporting this legislation. I think there will be a discussion about it. I'll hear the discussion, but at the moment I have some very real concerns about taking all this money out of the community, using it to earn interest in the banks while people are suffering, and not doing the kind of long-term projects that we should be doing to improve the economy of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Except for a very few short moments, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member for Nanaimo. I was trying to determine from his remarks whether he was going to support the bill or not support it. One moment he was telling us that we should put more money into the bill that wouldn't be spent, and the next moment he was criticizing us in the way we're spending this money. So, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says, it's like their usual procedure of running away from the issue — like independent schools, but I won't mention that.

In this Legislature — at least those on the opposite side of the House — we seem to equate transit with a road network. Both are necessary, because it would be very difficult for the bakery to deliver its bread in a basket sitting on the bus of a transit system. You must have a road network to supplement the transit system that we are working on. I don't care if you've got a bus running every second and it's going 60 miles an hour and you're moving people — you still must have a road network and bridges to move goods and services. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the fellow who retreads tires jumping on the bus with a tire under each arm, going to deliver them to his customer? Or is the fellow who has the towing service going to put that on the transit system? No. You must have a network. As the lower mainland grows, we're going to have to expand that network. We're going to have to build some more roads. But I have never been anywhere in the world where there wasn't a road network as well as a transit system.

Mr. Speaker, it was under their jurisdiction that Tilbury Island was purchased for an industrial park. All they did was purchase it; they didn't do anything else because no one would locate there, because people were moving out of the province, not coming in. Under this administration Tilbury Island Industrial Park has been developed. We have phase 1 almost complete, with commitments for industry to go in there.

So I won't dwell at length on the Annacis Island crossing, other than to say, once again, that it is absolutely necessary that you have a highway network, with bridges, in the lower mainland. We do have a river there, and we have to get over the water. We have to have either a bridge or a tunnel.

We must also have a transit system. Under this government, we've come to grips with the tremendous problems of transit, instead of.... We're planning for the future. I can see down the road where it will be properly run, under good administration, with the responsibility out there in the community, instead of being run by Hydro. I think that's a great thing. But there again, they say we never have any planning. In the last four years we have come to grips with more of the problems than any previous administration. And I want to tell you that we were left with lots of problems. In this bill, Mr. Speaker, I see where we are planning for the future, as well as providing some social services, as with the library fund.

There was some criticism of the B.C. Place Fund. B.C. Place, to me, is one of the greatest visions that any government has ever had for downtown Vancouver. But it's not only downtown Vancouver, because Vancouver really belongs to all of the people of the province, and all of the people of the province are going to be proud of it, and all of the people of the province are going to use it. It's also going to be good for the people of Canada, because Vancouver, on the west coast of British Columbia, is Canada's open door, window, what have you, to the Pacific; and the Pacific Rim has the greatest potential for growth of any area in the world.

You know, Mr. Speaker — and the Premier mentioned it this morning — we've been criticized for travelling. I want to tell you that everybody thinks that all the Japanese do is export goods and services. Do you know that of their gross national product they only export 10 percent of it? The United States exports about 6 percent of its gross national product. We in British Columbia and Canada, to survive, to maintain our economy, export about 50 percent of our production. So what I'm trying to say is that to survive, we have to export. I want to tell you, as the Premier said, they're not beating a path to our door, because they can buy the same goods and services elsewhere in the world that they can buy in British Columbia. We have to be aggressive, and the government must travel and explain the policy, because, as the Premier mentioned this morning, British Columbia had a very bad image with our trading partners when we became government.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said that we were not planning for the future, and he had some reservations about whether we were going to spend this money or not. We have in the northeastern section of our province one of the largest reserves of the best metallurgical coal to be found anywhere in the world. If putting some money into developing that great natural resource is not planning for the future and planning for the economy, I don't know what it is. So how can he criticize the bill and say we are doing nothing with regard to planning for the future?

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. In 1972 northeastern coal was ready to be developed. Then the government changed and northeastern coal went on the back burner. Had it been developed in 1972 the cost would have been about 30 percent of what it is today, because of inflation and so forth. We would have been exporting coal from the northeast section of the province. We would have been earning those very coveted offshore dollars to balance our trade payments — that's what the economy is all about — and we would have been exporting.

Talk about a diminishing natural resource in northeastern coal! There is sufficient coal — discovered there now, without further discoveries — in implied reserves of northeastern coal to run the steel industries, as they exist today in the world, for over 200 years. We talk about a depleting natural resource!

My theory on this is that maybe some day there will be a breakthrough in technology to use metallurgical coal for energy. At the present time there is none. Yes, we can use thermal coal and convert it to another form of energy, and we're working on that. The Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and this ministry are working together on that — to bring in technology and get some pilot plants going. There again, there is money in this to assist in

[ Page 1755 ]

that. But some day there may be a breakthrough in technology where we need northeastern coal.

Maybe I'm not very good in business, but my theory is that if you export coal, allow the mines to develop and basically pay for it through the export, then when we need it ourselves it will be in place. The workforce will be there, the mines will be developed and the infrastructure will be there so that we can use it. If not, we will still be exporting it. Because we're not really in the ball game when it comes to exporting coal with our vast reserves when you think of the amount Australia exports. I haven't got the figures with me this morning, but you're talking about hundreds of millions of tons from the United States and Australia.

We really haven't gotten into the business of exporting coal. That's why we're putting this money.... We're going to be spending this money because, as I said before in this Legislature — and I want to remind the members opposite — during the period that they were government the Japanese steel industrialists were out making long-term commitments to purchase coal. They didn't come to British Columbia because the attitude of the then government was: "Leave it in the ground. We don't need to sell it." We lost contracts to Australia and the United States. They stand up and talk about employment — jobs could have been provided had that development gone ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure of all that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm very sure of all that.

Not only are we very rich in coal reserves in that area. That is the area that, at the present time, is supplying the natural gas and the oil in British Columbia. I remember — when we start talking about jobs and the future — when the government wanted the private sector to build a pipeline in the Grizzly Valley area.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, that was stock-market boondoogle, though!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. And the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources said: "There's no gas down there. There's no sense in building a pipeline because there is no gas down there." I said: "If there's no gas down there, tell me how much more we have to prove up. I'll go to the private sector and say, 'Look, if you prove it up, we'll build the pipeline.'"

Anyway, shortly after the pipeline was announced, what happened? The drilling rigs started moving in and before the pipeline came on stream they had proven up four times as many reserves as they had there before. It just so happens that that Grizzly Valley area is right next to what could be one of the largest gas fields in the world — the extension of the Elmsworth field into British Columbia. That's what the economy is all about.

I want to say that when we became government the steel industry in the world did take a dive; it levelled off. I have the chart to show predictions for production. When you were government the predictions were for the use of many, many millions of tons more than when we were. Anyway, as I said in this Legislature the other day, we didn't say the world was going to come to an end. We knew that the steel industry would revive and we made it, through our effort and our selling, that when that happened we wanted to be first in line for contract.

I don't want to be overly optimistic, but I feel that time has arrived. From the sources I have available to me, there are available for letting of contracts in Japan at the present time approximately five to ten million tons. Some of that is going to come to Canada. The Japanese have said in their wisdom — and I agree with them — that new coal contracts to Canada must assist the development of a new coal port and a new infrastructure. The Japanese, as you know, spread their business around the world and they spread it around Australia. They don't buy it all from one port or one mine or one railway system.

What I'm saying is that the Japanese would also like to see a separate coal mining area developed, a second railway and, indeed, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) knows full well, the port of Prince Rupert. We have been working with them. And I predict, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we're going to spend this money.

The measured reserve of metallurgical coal in the northeast of British Columbia is 286 million tons, and of thermal coal 50 million tons, for a total of 336 million tons — that's proven reserves. Inferred coal reserves in the northeast of British Columbia are: 6,877,000,000 tons of the best metallurgical coal to be found anywhere in the world, and 1,214,000,000 tons of thermal coal, for a total in the northeast part of the province alone of 8,091,000,000 tons. Now I say that if we develop this resource it will do two things: it will put people to work, it will develop a new area of the province, which will help our policy of creating economic development throughout the province; and in the eighties it will bring us those much needed offshore dollars, so that we can balance our trade payments in Canada.

We're not dealing in the northeast with just one mine. We're dealing with the Sukunka mine, which has a production potential of 3 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Bullmoose mine, which has the potential of 1.5 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Quintette mine, which has the production capacity of over 4 million tons per annum of metallurgical coal and 1 million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with the Monkman mine, which has 3 million tons of metallurgical coal and 2 million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with the Mount Spieker mine, which has the potential to ship 1 million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with Carbon Creek, which has the potential of 2.5 million tons of metallurgical coal and 1 million tons of thermal coal; we're dealing with the Belcourt mine, which has the potential of 4 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Saxon property, which has the potential of 4 million tons of metallurgical coal; we're dealing with the Cinnabar mine, which has the potential of 1 million tons of coal; we're dealing with Bow River, which has the potential of half a million tons of coal — these are all per year — Hasler Creek, another half million tons of coal; Burnt Creek, 1 million tons of thermal coal. I was advised this morning that another company has just found a potential new thermal coal mine. With some work, they think they can prove up another 170 million tons of reserve thermal coal.

Now that to me has great potential. But if we're going to develop the country, we're going to have to build a railroad and some roads, because that's the way this nation of ours was put together. I sometimes think, Mr. Speaker — nothing against my staff people, and nothing against the federal

[ Page 1756 ]

government's staff people — that we study these things to death. If we had studied the building of the railway across Canada and put it on the same basis that we study some of the things we're studying today, we would not have a nation. To me it's just common sense that we go ahead and develop this province of ours for future generations.

I've already proven to you that there is sufficient coal there that you could be mining coal at the rate of 25 million tons a year — which is almost twice what we're selling out of British Columbia today — and still be mining it 200 years from now. I just happen to have enough faith in this human race that within 50 years we will find a new source of energy. We will be able to develop a miniature sun on earth — many miniature suns that don't burn themselves out — which will be supplying energy. So I can't get too excited about the gloom and doom boys and the new breed of scientists — they call themselves futurists — who are always coming up and saying that the world is coming to an end, because I have a great deal of faith in the human race.

If you look back at what the human race has done just in the last 40 years, things that.... I remember as a kid reading comic books, and there was a guy sitting there watching a television set. I thought: "Impossible!" Even to get a radio, we had to have one of these copper wires strung out in the back yard. And then there were guys who were taking off in rockets. And I said: "No way!" As a matter of fact, I can remember the first time I got on a jet plane, I said: "It'll never fly; you've got to have those propellers out there." What I'm trying to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is nothing new under the sun; it's just that man has not yet discovered it. I feel that within 50 years....

I've visited the laboratories in Livermore, California, where they are working on this project. We will have a new source of energy, and it will completely change world economics. We've had a change in world economics in the last seven years, when the price of oil went up. When the socialists were in power the price of oil went up. We will overcome these difficulties, Mr. Speaker. What I'm trying to point out to you is that we must build today for tomorrow because we have a great economy and we have a great province.

The greatest resource that we have in this province and the greatest resource any country has is its people. That is why this government relies heavily on people, on the entrepreneurship and the individuality of British Columbians. We relied on them in 1976, and they have not let us down. That is why the economy of this province is so great today.

The markets for metallurgical coal are indeed turning around. Japan is now looking for coal contracts in the vicinity of 5 million to 10 million tonnes by 1985, and I think it will be sooner than that; I think it will be 1983. We're talking mainly about the Japanese market, but I want to tell you that the coal companies have been out marketing thermal coal not only in Japan but in European countries — France, even England, Germany, Spain and Rumania — and in the Pacific Rim. We've been marketing our coal in Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan and Korea. Mr. Speaker, there are tremendously growing markets for thermal coal, of which we again have an abundant supply.

So I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting this bill and the $20 million, because it is an investment in the future of this province, and if we're ever going to tap that great resource we must build that infrastructure and we must build it now. The answer is now. The export potential in the Atlantic market is growing, because not only have we brought in policies to facilitate the development of this great natural resource but the individual companies have responded by aggressively going out there and seeking new markets.

I look forward to the day when British Columbia, instead of supplying only 10 percent or 12 percent of the world market for metallurgical coal, will be in there with the biggies like Australia and supplying a third of the world market. We have the potential to do it, we have the reserves, we have the ingenuity and we have the entrepreneurship. All the government has to do is to do the same as they've always done: provide a road network, transportation facilities. Private enterprise will do the rest.

The markets I've mentioned for thermal coal are growing by leaps and bounds. There is a potential right away. Within the next five years we could be producing 25 million tonnes of metallurgical coal and 5 million tonnes of thermal coal per year out of the northeast without any problem whatsoever.

MR. LEA: That's not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe we'll have a few problems dealing with our federal government, but they are coming onside.

MR. LEA: What do you mean? What did they just do in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The value of potential metallurgical coal production could exceed $1.6 billion per year, taking an average of $65 per tonne, if the potential mines were developed.

Now I want you to look into the future, to 1985, as our export of petroleum products declines and we lose those offshore dollars. Here we have a potential of bringing in 1.6 billion foreign dollars into Canada every year. That in itself will have a tremendous impact on the future economy and indeed on the taxpayers of this province, because as I said, Mr. Speaker, Canada must export if we are going to survive.

I'll talk about how we're building up our secondary and manufacturing industries; right now I'm trying to be a good boy and just talk to the bill. But I don't want to leave the impression with the House that all we're talking about is the export of our natural resources. We're building on all fronts and doing a good job at it. The value of thermal coal production could exceed $200 million per year. That was just metallurgical coal that I talked about when I talked about $1.6 billion. The production of 5 million tonnes of thermal coal could exceed $200 million per year, at $40 per tonne, if the potential mines were developed.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the opposition say we haven't done anything to create jobs in this province. Here's a project that has the potential for the creation of 9,000 direct mining jobs plus more than 20,000 indirect jobs in B.C. and the rest of Canada.

This is part of our long-term planning. That's why people are rushing to British Columbia today. That's why we have tens of thousands more people employed in our great economy today than when they were government, and it's growing every year. Mr. Speaker, this $20 million in this bill is to build up the economy of the province so that by the year 1985 we can possibly have an additional 29,000 jobs — from this one development alone. This investment, if it goes ahead, could create 25,000 man-years of construction employment

[ Page 1757 ]

during the next 20 years. As I've said before, in order to realize this development and to realize the benefits from the development of northeast coal it is necessary to have support facilities in place. I'm referring to roads, railroads, town sites, ports, supply of power and the like. That's what government is all about. That's what government has always provided: road network, railways.... I remember, it wasn't too many years ago that the federal government built a railway up to Pine Point to develop a mine, and after they built it they turned around — if my facts are correct — and sold it to the CNR for a dollar. We don't intend to do that.

MR. COCKE: They also own the CNR.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the people of British Columbia own the great British Columbia Railway, and I was very pleased to table those financial statements last night and to show you that under this administration the British Columbia Railway is being very well run. And if it were not for the fact that the British Columbia Railway is running so well today under good management, we would not be able to think of this.

I remember my first trip to Japan, when we hadn't been government very long. The questions were: "What are you going to do with the British Columbia Railway? Is it reliable?" I said: "Give us a year and we'll prove our fact. Yes, it is. "They asked questions about our labour situation. I said: "Give this government a little time and we'll show you that the labour situation will be much better in British Columbia." They asked many other questions. I didn't mean to get off the subject here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've been speaking about the bill, Mr. Speaker, and speaking to one portion. My colleagues will talk about others. But I'm speaking mainly about the northeast coal development.

There is a potential for great economic development and great exports. As I've said before, it's not just the Japanese market. We seem to be in a sort of chicken-and-egg situation — who makes the decision? I feel that we're on the verge of getting some coal contracts. We must be prepared to tell our potential customers exactly what we're going to do to get that coal out of there. That's why this money is in this bill. Because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Minister of Finance tabled his budget in the House the wires to our coal buyers were hot, and they were saying British Columbia makes great steps forward for the development of northeast coal — another positive attitude.

And when I talk about creating a climate in British Columbia for potential economic development and for potential investment, that's what we've done, and that's what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, when the world looks at British Columbia as a place to buy, and sees that this government has run this province so well, and that our finances are in such good order, they recognize that this would be a good place to buy, because it is a good government, it brings stability, and they know that they can do business with us in good faith.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll be delighted to speak on Bill 7; I hope I can keep as close to the bill as the previous speaker. I note that he was talking about miniature suns in the future. If they generate as much heat and as little light as that minister, then we're in trouble in the future.

One of the first things that I'd like to talk about is the minister having tipped the House off to something that none of us have known until this very minute — that the finances in this province are in good order. Here is a government that underestimates its revenues by some $900 million. And now he tells us they're in good order and assures us that the outside world is looking upon this province with great respect: "That's a province that you can deal with. My goodness, look at how businesslike they are." Look, you're a bunch of incompetents over there. You can't even budget in one year, let alone that five-year forecast. And now what you're doing here is taking the results of this underestimation, taking $188 million, setting it aside and asking us to pass a bill without any accountability at all. Once we pass this piece of legislation, we're turning over those funds to ministers who have absolutely no obligation for accountability.

They aren't in the estimates, where they should have been. Had that government had any understanding of how to budget, we wouldn't be in this spot now. Those sums could have been in the estimates where they belong. They could have been accountable in the future for the expenditure of those funds. The way it is now, they're telling us: "Give us carte blanche." The thing that really disturbs me about this.... I will predict this moment that those Liberals who are now Social Credit — heaven knows what they might be a few years from now — particularly those in that cabinet, will be voting for this, when under W.A.C. Bennett when he set up his special funds over the years, the one thing that we could all predict....

HON. MR. FRASER: You blew them all.

MR. COCKE: I'll get to you in a minute, Highways minister who doesn't really understand anything. We'll get to your situation....

HON. MR. FRASER: You threw it away.

MR. COCKE: What was thrown away? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'll get to that minister who has plenty to say from his chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please resort to temperate language.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) still thinks he's in the Empress Hotel?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: You goofed it last night; don't try to goof it today. You didn't tell us any more last night than you told us in the last few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for New Westminster please come to order. We're on Bill 7.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's coming close to the end of the week. The cabinet seem to have a number of short fuses. If that's the case, then let those short fuses blow. This is a good time for it to happen.

[ Page 1758 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll get back to my prediction. I predict that those former Liberals or whatever they might be....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) please come to order. Would the member for New Westminster kindly take a seat for just a moment until we have restored order.

I think we're here to do the business of the people. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would predict quietly that they'll be voting for this bill, which is entirely against their principles of the past.

Never would they get up in this House and advocate or vote for a bill providing a government or a minister funds without accountability. We watched them time after time, and I must confess that I feel just a little bit irresponsible in terms of some of the ways that I voted in those days, feeling that W.A.C. Bennett knew the way to spend the people's money on Hydro, and I felt that a number of those things.... I didn't always vote that way, but certainly on occasion I found myself voting in a different way than those Liberals. This is the very kind of thing that they stood very firmly on before they suddenly walked the road to Damascus, saw the light, and became Socreds. Now it's quite the custom to vote for this pattern of expenditure. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the real problems I have with the bill. I haven't quite made up my mind, and I don't think I can make up my mind entirely on how I can vote on this bill in principle when it's so diverse, and before having heard the number of ministers that are obviously going to have to speak to it, because each of these areas is a separate responsibility. And while we have heard from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on his northeastern coal situation, we certainly have to hear from other ministers. Hopefully they're going to be a lot more articulate than that minister was about how the expenditure is going to be made.

I'd just like to deal with one or two things that concern me. One thing that the previous speaker spoke on with which I could agree was that one of the reasons for our great surpluses is our resources. I totally agree with that. Some $1.5 billion over the last four, five or six years has come from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which we set up to get our fair share of the resources in this province.

Mr. Speaker, since they became government the Petroleum Corporation has continued and has produced a great resource in terms of capital for the people of this province. We owe it to the member for Vancouver East, who then sat as Attorney-General, and to people with the kind of foresight and wisdom he had. We were getting 30 cents per thousand cubic feet for our gas in those days.

MR. BRUMMET: You ran out of gas.

MR. COCKE: You'll never run out of gas, Mr. Member.

We were getting 30 cents; we are now getting some $5 per thousand cubic feet for our natural gas.

MR. BRUMMET: You did it.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right, our government did it.... I hope when this minister gets an opportunity he's going to tell us some of the ways that they managed to do it. They voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corporation when we set it up. We'd still be getting 30 cents for our natural gas had this government been elected in 1972. For sure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who sets the price for export gas?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The minister fails to remember that the contracts that were out were at 30 cents, and for years to come they were at 30 cents. So don't tell us who sets the price or anything like that. That's all we were going to get.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Who sets the price?

MR. COCKE: The federal government sets the price, that's right. But guess who got them into it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's right. You know, you're a very smart group of people, but you are just as lead-headed as you can be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The only thing that they're smart about, Mr. Speaker, is how to form little coalitions and gain power temporarily. But the people in this province are on to you, and they're getting on to you even more. The people in this province, 47 percent of whom in the last election said you're no good, are going to be about 54 percent or 60 percent next time. You're down the tube, for good reason.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the member for New Westminster please limit the scope of his debate to Bill 7.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I haven't got a great deal to say about the capitalization of northeastern coal, other than to say this: that minister suggested we did nothing about the development of northeastern coal. They've done nothing about the development of northeast coal. This is the first sign, and then it's only a sign. No money spent, just money suggested. No accountability for it — just money suggested in a bill where it's going to be put in the bank and, at the whim or the will of this government, may go into providing services for that area. What a bunch of poppycock! They've been government for four years and three months and have done nothing about northeastern coal. We were government for three years and four months and did a lot of things in this province, Mr. Speaker. We gave them $1.5 billion to fool around with, and they've done so incompetently.

I would like to also speak for a moment or two about the Fraser River Crossing Fund as an aspect of this bill. I note they sent their expert — not the Minister of Highways, but

[ Page 1759 ]

the expert on the Fraser River crossing, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). They asked that minister from South Peace River if he would do something on the Annacis crossing. They asked that minister who has difficulty finding his way outside the buildings — and when he does, it's to Japan. Then finding his way around Japan was very interesting. Anyway, he suggested that there was a real need for that. He suggested that it's going to be the solution to our problems. Oh, yes, we need transit sometime down the road, but what will we do with our tires? Put them on the top of a bus? All those kinds of irrelevancies. That development in its present form will create chaos on both sides of the river. On one side of the river it starts in the farming country, just exactly where you would hope that a transportation network would begin — in the farming country. It's not near the urban development over there, but right in the middle of nothing. Then it comes in to one of the most heavily, densely populated areas, New Westminster....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You're on the wrong side of the river, like you're on the wrong side of everything. It naturally starts on the other side of the river. That's where it's coming from.

Then it comes into a very densely, heavily populated, very poorly laid out traffic network. They are going to dump that on two major municipalities: Burnaby and New Westminster. New Westminster has already been totally tied up at the centre and the east part because of the Port Mann and the Pattullo crossings. I live near Queens Park, and our district is right in the centre of things and right beside the park. It is a very beautiful district. To find my way home any day that there's a traffic tie-up....

I don't understand that. I think they're having fun, but they're completely confused — as usual. I'm going to go over it again. I have to find my way through circuitous routes, including going up alleys, because all of the streets, including the side streets, are tied up. That's precisely what this crossing is going to do with the east side of our city: tie it up completely and congest it to the point of chaos.

They better come up with something just a little bit better than this juvenile attempt to provide an answer to a problem that is, without question, real. To me, there is nothing in their plans which would indicate that they're really serious about providing people with access to and egress from Vancouver and its environs. There's nothing at all. They're buying a vote or two. I presume that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is very interested in a crossing, and I'm sure the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is interested in a crossing — not because they figure it's the best way to go about it, but because they're afraid somebody might vote against them if in fact they don't have something to show for it.

I looked at the original plans for the Annacis crossing, which were given out by the Premier at that famous breakfast meeting. Then I talked to our city fathers, who have met with officials from the Highways ministry. Some of the officials might have been given some very broad opportunities, let me tell you. Some of our major criticism has been about what that's going to do to Queensborough. The plan itself calls for four lanes going right down Ewen Avenue. Our city fathers were critical of that, and they were told: "Oh, well, if you don't want it there, we'll take it somewhere else." It would change the budget very significantly. But they go over there and they say they'll change that: "We'll come down around Boyd, and we'll go down around the waterfront, then we'll come back up to the bridge."

Well, what scope, and what a plan! It is a plan that obviously hasn't been thought out. Because if officials can come and say, "Well, we'll change it," at the first meeting.... I suggest that every municipality in this province which has any connection with or any concern over that crossing had better see these officials and suggest to them that there had better be changes. I suggest to the government that before they move on any of this they come up with a new plan, a plan that's detailed and a plan that's strong enough to support itself. This plan is obviously not strong enough to support itself; otherwise officials wouldn't be going around changing it in the course of their conversations.

Interjection.

MR.

COCKE: The Minister of Finance indicates something about confrontation. If that's the way we're to operate in this situation, I suggest to you that we're confronted with an obvious problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I said consultation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River Crossing Fund is obviously just a place to bury some money for the moment. Hopefully they're going to come up with some kind of plan for some way to alleviate our traffic problems and our overall transportation problems. The way to spend the money in the Vancouver area is on urban transit. The way to spend that money is in consultation and complete cooperation with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is taking the responsibility for that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Surely there are parts of this bill that look good, if you're going to spend the money. I'm not sure of that because, as I said at the outset, there is no accountability here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to vote for the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The day I have to vote for a bill after having listened to the "minister of small" tell us nothing other than they are going to be developing suns in the future, some 500 or 50 years hence, not even dealing with what he was even talking about in terms of support services....

He vaguely told us about railroads, vaguely told us about schools and vaguely told us about some other kind of support services in the area of Sukunka, Mr. Speaker: there was nothing definitive about his statement. We'll hear what the rest of the ministers have to say to see whether they are definitive.

Just before I adjourn the debate I'd like to say a word or two about what the Minister of Finance said concerning libraries. He said they're going to give $3 million to the library system. He talked about those marvellous volunteers

[ Page 1760 ]

and so on. Your caucus and our caucus have met with the library people since that announcement. They know and we know that has absolutely nothing to do with the real running of libraries in this province — a computerization system that is going to require $2 million in Vancouver, certainly probably $1 million in the lower part of Vancouver Island, and nothing for the outback, so to speak. There has been a need in this province for library backup for the last four years. It was beginning when we got a library plan going under the New Democratic government and then the burn-the-book boys were back. That's what we're faced with now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cocke moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yesterday the member for New Westminster asked me a question which, in essence, concerned a request for $282 for travel to Boulder, Colorado, by one Alec Thomson to attend training school with respect to portable respirators. I'd like to answer that question, with leave.

Leave granted.

AIR FARE FOR
PEARSON HOSPITAL TECHNICIAN

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm pleased to report to the House and to the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that matter had already come forward on my desk. I have now taken it forward to the appropriate authorities and the funding has been granted. I am grateful to the member for his question. I'm sure he recognizes, as a former minister of the Crown, that expenses for travel of all people in government, whether they be elected or otherwise, are a very real concern of the Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board, and that great care must be taken. However, I'm very pleased to say that this amount has been granted and the travel will take place.

Tabling Reports

Mr. Speaker tabled the Legislative Library's report for the previous fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.