[ Page 1833 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Privilege

Statements by hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie).

Mr. Macdonald –– 1833

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Brummet –– 1833

Mr. Passarell –– 1834

Ms. Brown –– 1836

Supply Act, No. 1, 1980 (Bill 11).

Royal assent –– 1838

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

Ms. Brown –– 1838

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1839

Mr. Barber –– 1841

Mr. Hyndman –– 1845

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I have a motion based upon the statements made last night — too late for me to have brought to the notice of the House yesterday — by the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). I want to refer to those statements briefly and then make the motion that the committee of privileges be struck.

In the course of his remarks, which are recorded, the hon. member said: "No, if I were at the mercy of the RCMP and/or the local prosecutor I would not be in public life." On being questioned — "Which means you would have stepped down or what?" — the hon. member went on: "No. Which means that if I did not have the sort of protection that there is through the Attorney-General's department, then I would not be in public life."

No one prejudges remarks of this kind, serious as they may be, in a moment like this, but to ignore them is not possible either. I therefore move, seconded by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), that a committee of privileges be struck by the selection committee of this House to consider whether or not the member for Central Fraser Valley is entitled to sit in this House, by reason of his statements made on April 2, 1980, the words being appended. I so move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, under the circumstances, the Chair will reserve decision without prejudice to the member's decision.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a message to bring to the House today, in which, I think, all members of the House can join me. There is, in these precincts, a person who has proved a valuable asset to this legislative chamber and who is celebrating a birthday today. I would like the House to join me in greeting Margaret Hatlen of Hansard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-nine years old today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-nine and holding.

MR. BARBER: Strike that from the Blues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on this beautiful spring day I would like to welcome to the House a gentleman who is part of the rebuilding of an area of the city of Vancouver. He is Mr. Don Murray of Marathon Realty. Adjacent to the great trade and convention complex in the city of Vancouver, Marathon is planning a project which will bring a lot of construction jobs and tremendous improvement to the waterfront of Vancouver, a project totalling somewhere around $150 million. Will you please welcome Mr. Don Murray.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the business of the House, I'd like to draw to the attention of all the members that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be coming here this morning at 11 o'clock to give royal assent to the bill that was passed yesterday, and there will be a short recess at that time.

With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would move to adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

Leave granted.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I could briefly recap comments that I was making yesterday, I was speaking in support of Bill 7, and I made the following observations because Bill 7 reflects the economic prosperity in the province and reflects the responsible fiscal management of this government.

The surplus revenue has been assigned to projects which will assure a continued supply of revenue, in the tourism industry and in the matter of energy where research has been funded for development of alternatives and conservation measures. But it also allows for transportation policies and rebates, in effect, to people to make transportation more possible at a lower cost. The allotments also create a number of jobs now and also assure jobs for maintenance and operation in the future.

I was contrasting that, of course, to the politically expedient solutions offered by the opposition, whereby they feel that any surplus money should be immediately spent, used up on projects that do not generate future revenues. My contention is that that would be irresponsible government and irresponsible action. It is very nice to promise programs for people this year, spend all the money on it and then not have any assurance that those programs can be continued. That is certainly misleading the public.

In the short term that that group was in the position to put their philosophy and policies into action, we saw a very detrimental effect on this province, and if it had continued, we would obviously be unable to offer any programs such as the ones that they promised. So it's easy to promise anything. It's easy to spend all your money right now for political expediency, but I think it is far more responsible to invest money that you have in programs that will ensure continuation of those programs.

The second point I was making just before adjournment was that although I am happy to support the bill, I would like to suggest that it does not deal with the rural areas to the extent that I would like to see it do. Much of this is based on the power and strength of population centres. If we go by the clout that heavily populated areas have, a great deal of the money goes to those areas. I'm suggesting that in the northern areas where people live under much less developed conditions, in order to produce a great deal of the revenue that makes possible the contributions to the areas we have to consider those people on a basis other than by population or per capita allotments. I am working on this. I am trying to suggest that it would also require the support of all members of this House. We will never get these facilities and these amenities in our area as long as we have that negative attitude which says: "Don't do any of this. Don't create any revenue."

So I am speaking in support of this bill, because I know

[ Page 1834 ]

that as a British Columbia citizen I can be very proud of a stadium that is a B.C. stadium. I can be very proud of a museum that is a B.C. museum. I'm saying that that's fine; that's what I want. I want to have a beautiful capital city. What I'm also saying on behalf of my people is that when this is accomplished, I want some of that extended to our area.

I was simply using this as an example. Suppose $10 million from surplus revenue was allotted for the Peace River area. Because of our small population it would do a great deal for the people there. And suppose it was distributed at, say, $3 million for Dawson Creek, $3 million for Fort St. John, and $4 million for the rest of the area. It would assure us of some cultural facilities. It would assure us of improved communication links, which I class in the cultural area. For instance, I am working on and getting support for communication along the Alaska Highway, where people do not have any radio or TV reception at all. They're not fighting over channels; they're fighting for one radio outlet or one television outlet. I'm hoping they will be able to get that from surplus revenue.

Therefore, having seen the detrimental effect of socialism and socialist policies on our area in the 1972-1975 period, and having seen the great boom in that area since the Social Credit government was re-elected, it's easy to support this bill and ask for some of the benefits that accrue from these policies. If I may conclude, a relatively small amount of money would do a relatively great deal of good in the less populated areas if we can accept the principle of getting away from per capita allotments. So I fully support this bill and in next year's bill I want to see $10 million for the Peace River area.

MR. PASSARELL: First, I want to say a little bit about the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He said that surpluses should be placed on money-generating schemes. I just wonder if we can put a price tag on playing fields or medical assistance in northern communities and forget that these aspects, because they don't generate money, are not important. My second comment to the member for North Peace River is that I'm glad he's supporting my concerns for improved communications in the north. I think both of our constituencies will appreciate the concern that both of us are showing to improve communications in the north.

In Bill 7 there is an allocation for a Lower Mainland Stadium Fund of $50 million — $50 million to build yet another football stadium. This reminds me of a little story, Mr. Speaker, and I think the children in the gallery and across from me might enjoy this little story. Any resemblance between the characters in this story and the members of the House is purely unintentional or intentional depending on how you would like to look at it.

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Bountiful Capital lived a king named Bendit. The reason that he was called Bendit was that he was always walking into things. So he would ask his servants to round off the edges so he could make it around the corners. Well, the king wanted to build something that the people would remember him for. He tried at first to give people bricks, but they were so weak they crumbled into dust and covered the ground. So the king went to his adviser, Curse, who also served as the court jester, and Curse told him: "Spend big, grab big and don't give anything back that you can't sell at a later date." So Curse told Bendit to revitalize the inside of his castle for 25 million baubles. The people in the country asked why. What do we get from this? In Bill 7, too, the people are living in the rural communities, and areas of this province are asking the same question: "What are we getting from part 3 of Bill 7 except seeing our tax dollars going to build bleachers?"

Back to the story: The king needed some more advice so he consulted McCurdle, who happened to spoil things upon touch. Well, McCurdle believed the king, so they built a show-place with a downpayment of 15 million baubles. The people in the country asked: "What will be in it that will be good for us?" Mr. Speaker, like part 2 of Bill 7, the people of the remote areas of the north, who also go without medical facilities and 24-hour medical care, like the community of Peace Lake, also ask: "Why spend $15 million plus on a show-place when we don't even have a first-aid station for 400 people and we rarely see a doctor?"

King Bendit was down again so he consulted another adviser by the name of Whip. Whip told the king to build a new bridge. So the king went down to his overflowing treasury and pulled out 30 million baubles, but the people in the rural areas were asking why. Why build a bridge? Well, think about part 5 of Bill 7. It authorizes a $30 million downpayment and a bridge, another bridge, into Vancouver. But who pays and at what expense?

The developing community of Stewart is not tied into the provincial power grid, because it's too expensive. So Stewart is stuck with expensive diesel generators to meet the growing needs of that fine community,

The king had one last try to put his name into the record. He went to another adviser, the palace guard, who was often asleep on duty. The guard said: "Build another stadium so the people can pick which one they would like to go to. " So King Bendit went down to the money tree buried in the dungeon, and he took out 50 million baubles. But the people said: "Halt! We don't need another stadium. If we take all the baubles out, there won't be any left when we really need them."

Think about part 6 of Bill 7, which is for the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund. Since last year, when I first took my place in this House, that stadium fund has increased from $25 million to $50 million. At that time, I was the only member of this House to stand up and voice my concern and vote against that bill. I found out that $25 million was going into another football stadium, while children in northwestern British Columbia were without playing fields for their schools, and, as is the case in Greenville, British Columbia, the children have to go across Nass River to get to the school bus, often walking across the ice. At the same time, children and adults in Stewart are denied a visiting psychiatrist for the area. In reply to numerous letters to the ministers from the school principal and the residents the answer was that it's too expensive.

The residents of the fantasyland of Bountiful Capital saw their capital become less bountiful. They became restless, because they went without while the king became greedy, building monuments to himself to gain glory. The gimmick failed, and, in this little story, at last the people from all over the country began moving towards the castle to confront King Bendit. The king saw his advisers scurry off into the wind, to Taurus in Liberal-land.

The residents of Dease Lake, Cassiar, Atlin, Lower Post, Telegraph Creek, Glenora, Iskut, Eddontenajon, Centreville, Bob Quinn, Meziadin, Greenville, New Aiyansh, Canyon City and Kincolith should not go without provincial first-aid stations, because there isn't any money.

[ Page 1835 ]

The people of Stewart should not have to rely on expensive diesel jimmies, with the provincial grid only 60 miles away, because to run a line into Stewart would be too expensive. Mr. Speaker, to spend $120 million plus on four schemes in Bill 7, while residents of the north and the rural areas of this province go without provincial health facilities, playing fields, proper roads, and social services, is cold-hearted.

But back to the conclusion of the little tale. Bendit had one last adviser: Booth, the toll-gate collector. Booth told him to build a tunnel under the ocean. The rural villagers started banging on the castle door to see King Bendit, and Bendit dug and dug and dug under the castle and out into the ocean, while Booth sat up under the king's throne and smiled.

Needless to say, the castle and the grandiose schemes fell to the onrush of the people. And poor old Bendit, lost under the ocean in a tunnel, never was to be seen again, except for the occasional tremor and the belching of black smoke to the surface. And the Kingdom of Bountiful Capital was once again tiny and fascinated and happy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House Leader on a point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Was there a full moon last night?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a legitimate point of order, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, that ends the story for our children in the galleries and below.

Last year I talked with the previous Minister of Education concerning the need for playing fields in the north. The minister invited me down for coffee. He was quite receptive to the suggestions I was offering. But then the ministry changed. I notice the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is out of his seat now, but I certainly hope that sometime soon we could discuss the need for playing fields in the north.

MR. BRUMMET: What about the golf courses?

MR. PASSARELL: The member for North Peace River talks about golf courses. No, we don't need golf courses at present in the constituency.

The bill is called Special Funds Act, 1980. Well there are no special funds to build playing fields in the north; there are no special funds to build provincial medical facilities in the many communities I mentioned previously.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hear you've got an ambulance.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, but nobody can run it yet. It's nice to have it sit there and rust, Mr. Minister, in the community of Dease Lake, while they don't even have enough....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We're talking about Dease Lake now. There's an ambulance in Dease Lake that is just sitting in the Highways yard and rusting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We are on Bill 7.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you. I'm glad you refer to the Minister to hold himself back there. I wouldn't want him running out and getting hurt by an ambulance.

This is the only government in history, Mr. Speaker, with this Bill 7 that builds football stadiums and showplaces while residents in isolated areas of this province find they have no provincial health facilities and are unable to see a doctor or a dentist, except for a few days within the year when they fly up and work 17 or 18 hours a day in a small community seeing hundreds of people.

I certainly will be voting against this bill, as I did against the previous bill last year, when the allocation was for $25 million for a football stadium. It's very encouraging to see groups in Vancouver like HALT putting forward publications saying that taxpayers' dollars should be used to benefit the entire province instead of going for money-grabbing schemes. It's a special fund that does not offer help, Mr. Speaker — and that's the bill's name: Special Funds Act, 1980 — to northern workers in this province, who are faced with punitive retroactive tax penalties. Not one penny is going to help these people, who in the next two or three weeks are going to have to pay their income taxes, some in excess of $1,000.

Taxpayers throughout this province know the burden that will be placed upon them for these show-places. The priorities of the government are jumbled; health care should come before football stadiums. Communities such as Dease Lake, with 400-plus people, still do not have a medical facility. A trailer facility to serve the purpose would cost in excess of $10,000. We're talking about $120 million to build grand schemes and we can’t even find $10,000 to help the people in Dease Lake.

The community of Stewart, which is growing daily, has requested funding for a day-care facility for 50 children. The official response is that there is not enough money. In Stewart the school principal, Jennifer Leary, has written numerous letters to ministries asking why there isn't enough money, when we see $50 million going for a football stadium, $30 million for a down payment on a show-place, $130 million for another bridge in Vancouver, and some grandiose scheme of building a tunnel under the ocean for billions of dollars.

We can spend $30 million for the down payment on a car bridge into Vancouver, and Stewart still can't get a ferry run because it is too expensive. We can spend $15 million for a down payment on a show-place, and the growing municipality of Stewart can't get power from the provincial power grid; because it's too expensive to run the hydro lines into Stewart, they must rely on diesel generators. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) says we should stand up and praise the government for allocating $50 million for a new football stadium, and people in northwestern British Columbia still go without medical facilities sponsored by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill, not because it presents ideas by the Social Credit government, ideas that some people are receptive to, but because it takes taxpayers' dollars from helping to improve living conditions, health conditions and social-assistance conditions in the north.

[ Page 1836 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in speaking on this legislation the Minister of Human Resources gave a most incredible speech. She went on at great length about the wonders of B.C. Place and in great detail about the necessity for it and the benefit it was going to be. She ended up by saying it was because of initiatives such as this that the province was going to be able to provide more social services for people in need. So I decided to take a look at Public Accounts to find out what she was talking about, in what way the building of B.C. Place or the stadium was going to make it possible for her to provide more social services to people in need.

I discovered that this minister, all by herself in her own little ministry, had underspent her appropriation by $32 million. In fact, she was actually telling us that because she deprived people in this province who are in need of what this Legislature appropriated to them, there was now $32 million in the coffers that could go to the building of things like B.C. Place and the stadium. I think it's important that we know this minister deprived children in this province, in terms of services, of $12 million. She sucked $12 million out of the appropriation to children's services in this province, so that there could be the kind of surplus to build B.C. Place and the stadium that we are asking for in this piece of legislation.

It is not just the children. Last year was supposed to be the International Year of the Child, but she took it upon herself to change the United Nations designation and refer to it as the Year of the Child and the Family and to tell us that in this province we were going to celebrate it in a very special and unique way. We find, when the public accounts come up exactly the unique and special way in which that government celebrated the International Year of the Child and the Family. They did it by sucking $12 million out of the appropriations for children and families in this province, so they could have money to build things like B.C. Place, the downtown stadium and, of course, the Annacis Island bridge, which no one wants.

It is not just the children and not even just the families who were deprived by the administration of that ministry. Senior citizens in this province were deprived of $3 million, which this House voted to be spent on them. The mentally retarded were deprived of special programs; they were deprived of $3 million which this House voted to be spent on them. Every single area of this minister's department, with the exception of her own office, she underspent. She managed to plough back into the surplus $32 million, off the backs of the poor, the handicapped, the retarded, senior citizens, children and families. She took $32 million from those people so that the government could stand and talk about building a stadium, B.C. Place and an Annacis Island bridge in the Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, of course her own office appropriation went up by nearly $20,000, but when you look at community services, that was $9 million under — $9 million that this Legislature appropriated for her to spend was not spent. Think about what some of these community groups are supposed to be doing. Let me talk about one in particular.

MR. BRUMMET: Try Bill 7.

MS. BROWN: I am discussing Bill 7. That's precisely what I'm doing. The minister stood on the floor of this House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and in discussing Bill 7 told us that the sort of economic initiative of building B.C. Place and the stadium was going to make it possible to give better social services. That was what the minister said. I'm quoting verbatim from her statement. "That kind of economic initiative" she says, "is going to make it possible for us to have better social services in this province." And I'm telling you how that came about.

Mr. Speaker, there is a program called "Living Independently for Equality." It is a service of community boards in the community which assist handicapped people to move out of institutions and back into communities, to live as independently as possible. That's what that program is. It's a very small program and I think you'll agree it's worthwhile. This Legislature appropriated $450,000 to be spent on that program last year. That minister spent just over 200,000 of those dollars, so $250,000 was taken away from handicapped people to destroy a program that would have made it possible for them to move into the community and lead lives of dignity, taken away from them so that that government could build up a surplus to go and build B.C. Place which she spends most of her speech talking about and ends up by saying: "That kind of economic initiative is making it possible to provide better social services to the people in need in this province."

The Senior Citizens Counsellors program, Mr. Speaker: she was appropriated $109,000; she spent only $85,000. The achievement centres for handicapped people: $3,837,000 was appropriated; she spent $800,000 less than her appropriation. Assistance for the retarded: precisely the same thing happened, Mr. Speaker. In every single area of her ministry except her office, she was deliberately under budget, so that there would be money in the surplus funds to be spent on things like B.C. Place. When you look at the special programs for the retarded, Woodlands and Tranquille, she came in $3 million under budget; $3 million taken away from the retarded people of this province so that this government can build B.C. Place and a stadium. And that Minister of Human Resources had the gall to stand in her place yesterday and tell us that that kind of economic initiative is going to make it possible to give better social services to the people of this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If the government is determined to build a stadium, the government will build a stadium. But after that stadium is built, we must never forget where the money came from. The money to build that stadium came from the retarded people of this province, the handicapped people, it came from the services to children and families and senior citizens; it sucked $32 million out of a budget which was appropriated by this Legislature to be spent on people in need. That ministry took $32 million out of that budget to make it possible for that stadium and B.C. Place to be built. Mr. Speaker, when Hansard has completed the printing of that speech, it should be circulated far and wide in this province, so that everyone can know that when the Minister of Human Resources stands up to speak in this House on a piece of legislation, she spends the entire time talking about B.C. Place and the stadium rather than about the people she is supposed to be serving.

She was the Minister of Tourism for a while, and that's fine. The problem that people in Human Resources are having is that she doesn't recognize that she is no longer the Minister of Tourism. She is trying to take over the job of the

[ Page 1837 ]

Minister of Tourism, and instead of giving the kind of energy and commitment to people in need in this province, Mr. Speaker, all of her energy and drive is going towards things like siphoning money away from people in need so that there is money in the coffers to pay for places like B.C. Place and the stadium.

She has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, the gall, in celebrating 1979, the International Year of the Child to say: "In this province we know better than the United Nations. We're going to call it the International Year of the Child and the Family, and use the opportunity of International Year of the Child and the Family to deprive children and their families in this province of $12 million which was appropriated by this Legislature for them."

MR. KEMPF: Garbage.

MS. BROWN: I know the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is becoming restless because I'm saying this over and over again, but I intend to say it over and over again. This minister deliberately underspent by $32 million, deliberately took $32 million out of money appropriated by this Legislature for her to spend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. The discussion might well be in order in a different place, but we are on second reading of Bill 7. I would ask if we could just narrow our remarks to Bill 7.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am responding to the statements made by the Minister of Human Resources in speaking on Bill 7, in which she said that these kinds of economic initiatives will go a long way to making us able to provide even better social services for the poor of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member, but while we may refer in a passing manner to such remarks, to go into a detailed explanation would be better, possibly, under the minister's estimates. At this time, passing reference, yes, but detailed explanation under the estimates, please.

MS. BROWN: Okay. What I'm doing really in debating this bill that deals with funding for B.C. Place and for the stadium fund is pointing out to the members of this House where the money came from to build B.C. Place and to build a stadium. I'm saying that it came from the Ministry of Human Resources deliberately depriving people in this province who are in need of $32 million which this Legislature voted on and appropriated to be spent on them last year, the year 1979. That's all that I'm doing, and that's very clearly on the bill.

The other comment that I'd like to make in speaking on this particular piece of legislation is that it deals also with the appropriation of funds to be spent on the Annacis Island crossing. It's called the Fraser River crossing. Is that in order? The Walter Davidson Memorial Bridge! You realize that what the Premier is doing in putting up that bridge is that there will be a memory of Walter Davidson having been in this House at some time. That's the real reason for putting the bridge there.

But the people in Burnaby-Edmonds made it absolutely clear to the minister responsible — he was in his seat a minute ago but he's not there now — over and over again that what they asked for was a moratorium on all manner of highway development until after there was an overall plan for transportation for the lower mainland. Rather than saying, "Let's have a crossing here and a crossing there," running more traffic through their particular community, they said, "Let's just stop everything and sit down and develop some kind of global concept of moving people, not automobiles, around in the lower mainland." Lo and behold, they were ignored completely.

Their request for a moratorium until an overall plan was designed was ignored. The Premier had a breakfast one morning — I think it was in your riding, Mr. Speaker — and announced that there was going to be this Fraser River crossing and that it would go from point A to point B and, of course, Marine Way, right through Burnaby — Edmonds, would be part of it. Then we were told that it really was not going to destroy the community; it really wasn’t going to affect anybody; it was all very carefully planned. For a while I think that some of the people in Burnaby-Edmonds probably were lulled into feeling reasonably comfortable with that. Not all of them, but certainly the mayor of Burnaby said he thought it would be okay because the minister had assured him that the traffic wouldn't be going through Burnaby, it would be going around it.

Well, on February 25 the residents of that municipality got a letter from Mr. Alex V. Fraser, minister. It says: "Dear Homeowner or Tenant," and goes on to say, after the usual preliminaries about "how are you and I hope you're in good health," and that kind of thing, that the exact positioning and alignment of parts of the road system will depend on further engineering data. In other words, the final decision has not been made yet. They're waiting for engineering data. Then he goes on to tell them that although the ministry regrets any inconvenience to them, if in fact the actual construction is to have a direct effect on their particular property, they will be notified.

After hearing, "It's okay; none of this is going to affect your property; it's going to go along Marine Way; it's going to run around the outside of Burnaby; no one is going to come through Burnaby at all; your community is going to be protected; you have absolutely nothing to worry about," they then get this "Dear Homeowner" letter from the minister, which says: "We really haven't completed our decision about where the roads are going to be. There still have to be some more engineering studies. Don't worry about anything. If your property is going to be affected we will be in touch with you." How can one feel secure under those circumstances? So, once again, the residents are saying to the government: "Please, can we have a moratorium? That is what we want, not to have funds appropriated, through this bill, for the installation of that crossing. If you want to put this bill through, amend it to take out the funding for the Annacis crossing, at least until after there is an overall plan for moving people — not cars — in the entire lower mainland area."

We keep talking about the automobile, the high cost of energy, and that we must really go into more public transit, yet there is absolutely no indication that this government has any sort of commitment to move people by public transit rather than by automobile.

There are a number of quotes from a public hearing in Burnaby which dealt with the Annacis crossing. They said over and over again that it's going to destroy their neighbour-

[ Page 1838 ]

hood. East Burnaby Ratepayers Association president Jack Crich said: "It appears that the decisions have been made without any legitimate discussion taking place." It just doesn't seem right that governments can move into a community and change it in a very radical and negative way, without even listening to the presentation and paying some heed to the wishes of the people who are living in that particular area. Over and over again they've been asking the government to stop everything. "Don't do anything. Amend this legislation. Take the Annacis Island appropriation out of the bill. Take it out of the bill until you've had a chance to talk to some of the people in the area who are going to be affected."

A study was done. I know you are very familiar with this map — done by CBA engineering, I think. It insists that only 25 percent of the traffic at peak hours is going to go into Burnaby, and that it will confine itself to travelling on Marine Way. You can't guarantee that. When that causeway is clogged, there is absolutely no way you are going to be able to stop people from taking routes through residential areas — what the traffic experts call "bleeding" through residential areas.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right. That's what happened to the West End. The only solution for Vancouver's West End was to use massive concrete structures to block off some of their streets. Really; it has not enhanced the quality of life for people living in the West End, and it certainly has not enhanced its appearance at all. Having those huge concrete globs at the end of various streets has made it very ugly, but they found it was the only way they could prevent traffic from bleeding through the residential neighbourhoods when the main arterial routes were clogged.

That's precisely what's going to happen when the Annacis Island crossing is complete. All the commuters from Delta — and from your riding, Mr. Speaker — will get on this bridge and move into the Burnaby area. That is why I want to repeat that the residents are really asking for a moratorium. The government should sit down with the GVRD and plan an overall transportation and traffic plan for all the lower mainland, one which would take the community and residents into account.

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. I would ask members to retain their seats for just a very few moments until his arrival.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, would you ring the division bells so that the members might be informed of his approach.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that will be done hon. member. Thank you.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 1, 1980.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment I was discussing the Annacis Crossing. In Bill 7 this is one of the appropriations we have to discuss in terms of the Fraser River and I know that CBA Engineering, for example, did some environmental impact studies in terms of that particular crossing. They looked at such things as physiography, drainage, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, land and resource utilization, socio-economic concerns and noise. Yet none of this information was shared with the residents of this particular community. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, why the GVRD are saying that they were not consulted with and the municipality are saying they were not consulted with. Yet CBA Engineering did this very detailed impact study. The ministry and the government obviously have the results of this impact study, yet no attempt was made to share it with the community or with the residents in the area.

In particular, the socio-economic concerns and the whole noise factor is very important to people who are living in the area. These are the kinds of questions they are raising in their briefs with the minister or in their public meetings. What is going to happen to their community once the Marine Way is completed and the traffic from the Annacis Crossing comes roaring around their neighbourhood. What did CBA Engineering find when they did the noise survey? What were their findings? That's very important information to the people who are going to be living in that community. What conclusions did they come to in terms of what it would do to the vegetation? As I pointed out before, the Marine Way runs through some of the most beautiful arable land that we have still remaining in the greater Vancouver district. And some of that is going to be expropriated and taken over for the building of the Marine Way. What did CBA Engineering find in terms of their impact study on that? Why isn't this information being shared with the residents? Why isn't it being shared with the municipality?

That's why I believe that if the government is really serious about this piece of legislation, they should amend it. The appropriation for the Annacis crossing really needs so much more thought that it should probably be taken out, Mr. Speaker, so that the government will have more time to meet with the communities who are going to be affected by this crossing. They should sit down and share with them some of this information which they've got from their environmental impact studies and their other impact studies.

You realize, too, that the East Burnaby area is going to be destroyed by the development of the Marine Way. It's an area that has modest housing, moderate-priced housing. When that housing is destroyed, where are those people going to move to? With today's rising....

[ Page 1839 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds will please continue.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was trying to communicate with me, but I didn't hear what he was saying.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am very much against the Annacis crossing; I thought I had made that absolutely clear when I spoke in the budget — if that is the information the minister is trying to find.

However, before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the East Burnaby area is an area of modestly priced houses, one of the few areas left where you can afford to purchase a home. When those houses are destroyed in order to put Marine Way through, I'm wondering what's going to happen to the residents, with the high cost of mortgages, with the high interest rates. They are going to have to move to more expensive housing. But there isn't any housing anyway. Was that taken into account? Is that what CBA Engineering was talking about when they talked about the socio-economic impact study? Because if that is what they were doing, then that information should be shared with us. We need to know what's going to happen to this residential area. How many of those houses are going to be removed, and what is going to happen to the people living in those houses in terms of helping them to find alternative modestly priced accommodation at a time when there is no accommodation at all? We are being told there is no housing; there is no rental accommodation; there's nothing to purchase. In any event, even if you can purchase, with the escalating interest rates, the mortgages are out of the reach of most people.

Mr. Speaker, the really tragic thing about the bridge, of course, and about the crossing, is that it is being designed to move traffic to and from Vancouver. It's not of any benefit whatsoever to the people living in Burnaby. They are going to be sacrificed so that they can be used as a transportation corridor. That is the only thing that is going to happen to them. Traffic going to and from Vancouver is going to be running through their neighbourhood and destroying their community. Because as long as most of the jobs are concentrated in the Vancouver area, that's where people are going to be going to. And as long as the cost of housing forces more and more people to live in the suburbs, we are going to find that they are going to be moving from Delta and Surrey right through Burnaby into Vancouver. So the community of Burnaby is going to be sacrificed and destroyed so that people can go back and forth in terms of getting to and from Vancouver. There is absolutely no benefit that one can see accruing to the community of Burnaby or to its people as a result of this bridge.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible received, from the corporation of Burnaby — I guess it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — a brief outlining the kinds of things that Burnaby wanted in terms of its consideration. They wanted a transportation plan that would facilitate the movement of people and goods rather than the movement of automobiles. This has obviously not been taken into account. What Burnaby needs is an improved community bus system; that's what it needs — community Fastbuses. It needs a genuine commitment to light rapid transit, public transit. That's where the money should be going to first: improving the public transit system and going into investing in the development of light rapid transit. There should be a commitment to moving people and moving goods, rather than to moving automobiles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the development of the Fraser River crossing. I cannot support the development of the Annacis Island crossing. In speaking to this bill, I am speaking very, very strongly against the inclusion in this bill of the appropriation for the building of that Annacis Island crossing.

HON. MR. MAIR: I feel it is only appropriate to follow the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, because I have a new jacket on today, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON MEMBER: It's about time!

HON. MR. MAIR: It is about time! It's very nice, and I....

MS. BROWN: Do you shop at Madame Runge's too?

HON. MR. MAIR: I tried it, Madam Member, but I'm afraid I was big in the wrong places. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't want to get into that, but if you want to get back to measuring noses, that's up to you.

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to pursue that one!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, second reading does allow a lot of latitude because principle is discussed, but perhaps we could confine our remarks to Bill 7.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am always pleased to follow the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who, of course, comes here in sackcloth and ashes and clucks her tongue about the poor. But I did notice that she was a little premature in bringing Mr. Speaker, as he now is — the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Davidson) — to the end of his life, in having a memorial bridge. I want this side of the House to assure the member opposite that the Deputy Speaker will be here not only to cut the ribbon on that great Annacis Island bridge, but to drive his car across it for many, many years to come.

Before dealing very briefly with the bill, I did notice in the Blues yesterday that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) made an error, and I'm sure he would want me to correct that error. If I may just quote very briefly, he said: "The member for Kamloops" — which is me — "has been over to the United Kingdom, he tells the people in Kamloops, eight times since he has been a member. Eight times he has been to the United Kingdom." Well, that is not so, and I have not told anybody that I have been there eight times since I've been a member. I suppose I have been to the land of his birth at least eight times during my life. I have been there twice on government business; the rest of the times have been for pleasure. Only, I think, four times have I been there since 1975, but only twice have I been there, Mr. Member, on

[ Page 1840 ]

government business. The other times have been to see the ravages of socialism first hand.

MR. LEA: And that gives you pleasure.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, it does. As a matter of fact, I tell you, last time I was there I watched Margaret Thrasher [laughter].... She should be "Thrasher" because she just thrashed the bedevil out of Mr. Callaghan. It was very interesting.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I think that as a member for a constituency which is outside of the lower mainland, I should speak for a moment on the question of both the stadium and B.C. Place. The people in Kamloops want Vancouver to take its place among the world's great cities. I think I can say on behalf of most if not all of the people of Kamloops that they take great pride in the developments that are proposed for Vancouver. I happen to know a great many of my fellow citizens who spend a great deal of time and effort to come to Vancouver to attend football games, baseball games, hockey games, plays, symphonies and things of that sort. While they probably moved to Kamloops to get away from the big city in the first place, they do like to come back from time to time and partake of the pleasures big cities have to offer, some of them in the form of stadiums, some in other forms, I'm sure.

In any event, I am certain I can say on behalf of all people in the interior that they don't begrudge the city of Vancouver the opportunity to become one of the great cities in the world, which it is bound to do. Furthermore, they have indicated to me a degree of pride in a government that would have some imagination for a change, imagination to bring into being some cultural buildings, some sporting buildings, which are going to be for the benefit of all British Columbians, not just the people who live nearby. These facilities are going to enable them to come down to Vancouver and watch events they like to watch, or to shop — to be in a city that ranks among the great ones in the world. Last year, when the Whitecaps won the North American Soccer League championship, there was as much joy in Kamloops, Vernon and Pouce Coupe as there was in Vancouver. This is because they have pride in Vancouver as one of the great cities in the world, and certainly a city which British Columbia has every reason to be proud of, to build and to enhance.

I think, when we are talking about the stadium and B.C. Place, it is only fair and proper that those members of this House who are against it stand up and say so. Don't just be against the bills in general, tell us specifically you are against those two things. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't want any of them basking in any glory from those stadiums after they're built. I don't want to see them around saying: "Isn't this marvellous? Isn't this wonderful? Isn't this great?"

MR. COCKE: Give us a separate bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd love to give you a separate bill, Mr. Member.

That's a simple enough request, I think, Mr. Speaker. I don't expect them not to go to B.C. Place, or not to go to the stadium, or not to drive over the bridge, of course. I'm sure they will. Just don't take any pride in it. Just don't take any credit for it, because you're not entitled to it.

I think it's about time to say, once more, that the social dollars which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and others talk so much about in this House come from business and nowhere else. Business is enhanced by the very things we're doing in this province right now. There will be no health dollars, there will be no human resources dollars, there will be no education dollars, if we don't encourage business and if we don't give business the opportunity to prosper in this province.

I notice one of the key parts of this bill, of course, deals with energy. I've got to admit I'm a little confused about what the other side of this House thinks on energy. I would like to invite those speakers who have not yet spoken to, quite frankly, enlighten me. I had understood, as I listened to members of their party speak in my constituency over the last couple of years, it was a matter of great principle that there would be no uranium mining and no nuclear power in British Columbia, and that they, as socialists, stood against this — not just in British Columbia. They were against it because it was bad. "Nuclear power is dangerous. Three Mile Island is a good example of what we don't need to have here. Uranium is a very dangerous thing and people simply should not have to be subjected to it."

Now this is what the Reverend Rolston tells me in Kamloops; this is what the new MP in Kamloops tells me is the position of the B.C. NDP. If that is a matter of principle, how come it isn't a matter of principle with the NDP across the country, because I'm led to believe, by listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that it's one big happy family — all for one and one for all. Oh, there may be little differences. If you happen to be in British Columbia you may tend more towards forests and if you happen to be in Saskatchewan you may be a little more worried about rape-seed. But the basic principle of the NDP is one for all and all for one, and on matters of principle we stand together. Yet here we have this party saying that they're against nuclear power and against uranium, whereas Premier Blakeney thinks it's the greatest invention since sliced bread. And I understand that Mr. Broadbent; if he ever — God forbid — became Prime Minister of Canada, would encourage the mining and the sale of uranium from Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, they probably didn't. They didn't vote on the independent schools issue, Mr. Premier, so they probably didn't vote for him federally either.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do the Socreds say in Saskatchewan?

HON. MR. MAIR: There are no Socreds. As a matter of fact I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Member, because there's been a lot of garbage — more than usual — coming from your side of the House lately. Somebody asked us the other day what Fabien Roy has to say. Well, let me just tell you something. You don't happen to like being called any names except the NDP. You don't like being called socialist; we know you don't like being called national socialist, and I think I can understand that. But don't call us something that we're not, because we happen to be a provincial party, the British Columbia Social Credit Party, without any affiliations with anybody else.

I'll tell you another thing, Mr. Member, now that we're on the subject. That gives us the opportunity to speak only for the people who elect us. We don't have to concern ourselves with what Mr. Blakeney says or Mr. Broadbent says or

[ Page 1841 ]

anybody else who comes from outside of this province happens to say. We concern ourselves with the 2.6 million people who live in this province and the people who elect us — nobody else. So when you start to think of whether or not we're affiliated with somebody else, just remember that there are names of parties that you don't like to be associated with either. I'll consider you NDP, you consider us the British Columbia Social Credit Party, and we'll all get along much better.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But they are embracing a national party.

HON. MR. MAIR: They are embracing a national party, Mr. Premier. You're quite right.

I think that because we're talking about energy, because we're talking about it in this bill, we're entitled to know what your policy is. Now we happen to know what it isn't. Whatever we're for you're against. Okay, we accept that. But, surely to goodness, you must have some alternatives. You can't be against nuclear power, against uranium, against hydroelectric power, against coal power, against this, against that and against the other thing without being for something. Won't you stand up and say what you're for, once and for all? What do you feel about the constitution of Canada? I've asked you that before and you still haven't answered it. What do you think about an economic strategy for this country? I've asked you that and you haven't answered it. What do you think about energy in this province? I've asked you that; will you kindly answer it. Don't tell me what you're against; for once and for all tell me what you're for. If you're for the lights going out — the lights went out for you a long time ago — tell us so. That's all we ask: just tell us. Where do you stand? We see your knee-jerk reaction, like Pavlov's dog. Any time anybody on this side of the House gets up and says something, you're against it. Fair enough. But what are you for? Just tell the people, tell the press gallery, tell the people in the gallery, tell the people of British Columbia what you're in favour of.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you practising for the next parliament?

HON. MR. MAIR: For the next parliament, Madam Member? I'm going to tell you something: I wish you a long life, but I'll be around this House long after you're gone.

Mr. Speaker, they have goaded me into speaking much longer than I'd intended. I only wanted to talk for two or three minutes, and I see that I've made my longest speech ever in the House — I've gone for, I think, 12 minutes. So I'll take my seat, but I'll take my seat just on this note. I'm proud of what this government is doing and I'm proud of what this government is doing in this bill. These are positive steps; these are steps which are going to enhance the life and the economy of all British Columbians from now on; and this indicates what a government that is for things is prepared to do. Let those who are against these things stand up and itemize them one by one. And then give us your alternatives. I'll bet you they haven't got one.

MR. BARBER: In reply to the Minister of Health: we do and I will.

However, there is a problem with this bill, and it is that it does not fundamentally fall within the requirements of parliamentary tradition. In the British system, admirably enough, parliament is entitled to debate public spending in a specified, in a direct, in an uni-principled way. It has been the tradition of His or Her Majesty's governments for fully 200 years that finance bills come through this House — and any other in the Commonwealth — tied specifically to one appropriation and one purpose. Indeed, the only conventional exclusion from that practice usually occurs at the end of every parliament, when, reasonably enough, a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, and omnibus bill, comes through and touches upon, looks at, amends, usually in a minor and brief way, a whole host of bills for which there is no reasonable requirement that they come in one by one. However, the requirements of parliamentary tradition regarding finance bills, regarding the appropriation of the people's money, are very different.

One of the reasons this procedure is less than parliamentary is because it ignores that parliamentary tradition of allowing the government and the opposition — and certainly encourages all of the people — to understand one by one the single principle. In this case there are some nine, I guess it is, different and conflicting principles implicit in this bill. After a fashion then, Mr. Speaker, it can be argued fairly that this bill has no single principle at all. Thereby, it is not parliamentary in the strictest British system and tradition. I've read the explanation, and what you're doing serves not a parliamentary service but a political one. If you were to observe the protocols of the British system, which one wonders whether or not some members opposite even understand, then you would have brought in several different bills, one each for the specific appropriation purposes which you intend. But you won't do that, because your objective is not parliamentary. It is political.

I want to talk about a couple of the aspects of this bill. I want to talk about part 3, the Downtown Revitalization Fund. Part 3 of the bill poses a number of important problems, and I raise them today in order that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — when he is not offering legal advice to the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) — might come better prepared to answer our questions during committee stage. Right, Bill? Ah, good, now you're listening.

I'm raising certain questions regarding part 3, the Downtown Revitalization Fund. I do so at this point in order that when we get to committee you might be, with this forewarning, able to answer on the spot some questions I have about this particular appropriation. Is that fair?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm telling the minister I'm going to be asking questions today, and I hope he will provide answers during committee stage, I think it's fair to give him warning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps all hon. members could address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: Surely.

The principle of this is apparently sound: the purpose of it is apparently worthwhile; the intention of the government is apparently worthy of support. But what we have here in part 3, by way of concrete and practical description, is wholly inadequate, wholly imprecise and is entirely lacking in detail and specific commitment. Because it can't be found in the

[ Page 1842 ]

bill, I hope we might find it in debate. During committee stage, if the minister wishes, he might be willing to answer some of the following questions.

We see in part 3 no criteria whatever whereby and on the basis of which the minister may choose to award funds, as he puts it, in aid to municipalities and the business community to revitalize downtown areas and to provide loans for the same purpose. Now on what basis will those decisions be taken? There are no criteria listed here. For instance, will the government determine that "downtown" may mean any section of the business area of any given municipality in British Columbia? The particular emphasis — perhaps reasonably, but we don't know it because the bill doesn't tell us — on the business section of a given community rather than the residential may in fact not be downtown at all in some communities. It may be out in an abandoned part of what used to be know downtown. I think, for instance, of Williams Lake and parts of that. How will this government determine what is "downtown"? Because you have given us no definition.

It's not by any means a trivial point, Mr. Speaker. It is the point which tells us whether or not the government can advise us before we vote on this section what their criteria, what their definitions, what their tests and standards and measures shall be in order to appropriate and spend the moneys which they propose to have granted under part 3. So I want to know from the minister what he means by "downtown." The oldest section of a town, in some communities, may no longer be downtown at all, but may be on the outskirts if the town has moved. The original downtown was probably by the railway tracks. The railway tracks no longer form the centre of some municipalities in this province. The town has moved, the new "downtown" — at least as it's colloquially understood — isn't there anymore. So it may well be that one of the fair criticisms of this act is that in part 3 it lacks altogether any precise definition. The government wants a blank cheque under part 3, as far as I can tell, because there is no precise definition of what they'll spend money on, of what "downtown" means — as vague a word as that — of what tests and criteria and standards the minister will have met by any applicants for this money.

It has the unfortunate suggestion that it is going to be a bit of a pork barrel. Why is that? Because they propose to give some of the money to business for business purposes. Why does that, in this province, have the connotation of "pork barrel"? Well, because in this province, at least until recent times, business has traditionally found itself allied with the interests of Social Credit and not of the New Democratic Party. Now that's been changing in the last few years. It certainly has on Vancouver Island. It's been changing where now eight out of the ten, shortly nine out of the ten, MLAs are members of the NDP.

Small business, especially in the tourist industry, now understand who their real friends are on the Island. It is not the party that doubles the ferry rates and scuttles the Marguerite. Nonetheless, by and large, big business still identifies with Social Credit. That being the case, it is reasonable to wonder why there is deliberately no mention whatever of definition, of criteria, of specific program objectives.

Let me restate what I said at the outset. The principle of this is, at least in the abstract, probably a good thing. The credit for it, however, belongs to the federal government, not the provincial government. The credit for it belongs to a national administration which, eight years ago, first began debating and considering what came to be known as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, one aspect of which permitted the national government, with the assistance, coordination and, in minor part, the funding of provincial and municipal authorities, to invest in the revitalization of downtown areas. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) would have us believe that the government deserves all the credit for this bill; it's not so. The precedent for part 3 is not found in British Columbia; it is found nationally. The precedent is due, and the credit should be given, to a national agency and to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, which is clearly the basis from which, at least philosophically, this program seems to derive. But I should point out that the Neighbourhood Improvement Program was, from the beginning, tremendously more precise, more scientifically detailed and more administratively sound in every regard than this vague, weak, imprecise, unclear and wholly inadequate part 3.

I, for one, wish that when the minister speaks on this he will tell us what his definitions are. I, for one, wish that when he gets up to take his place during committee — and I trust he will — he will tell us what the development criteria are to be. If he doesn't, it is a considerable omission and failure of policy. If he doesn't, it is a further admission that this government has been so preoccupied with all the scandals, all the criticisms about the failure of justice in this province, all the allegations about dirty tricks and everything which has hurt them so badly in the last nine months, that once again, as with the Marguerite decision, they simply haven't thought through the consequences.

For the final time, let me say that at heart, in principle, the notion of public investment — anathema that that may be to the Socreds — in the cities and towns of British Columbia is a good one. It should not be left up to private enterprise alone. It cannot be left up to private enterprise alone. They don't have the bucks. They don't have the initiative. Many of them have nothing but a hopeless want of ideas for the rebuilding of the core areas of our own communities. Public enterprise, public investment and public policy have an important role here, and we support it. We always have and we always will. That's the fundamental commitment of our party. If the government now shares that commitment it is a good thing, but let them also share the details with us.

Under what criteria will these moneys be awarded? Will there be an eligibility committee? Will there be a grants committee of cabinet? Will there be a public body, representing many of the communities of British Columbia, to which such proposals may be put, in order that, away from the partisan interests of that administration, fair-minded and non-political decisions may be taken as to the allocation of these funds? Will the UBCM be involved? Will they have a say in regard to each significant allocation of funds under part 3? If there is no public input, no public commitment of criteria, and no precise statement of policy, then once again this government is open to all of the charges of porkbarrelling which have haunted Social Credit throughout its history in this province.

Energy Development Fund, part 4. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) asks for alternatives. I for one strongly share the commitment of my colleague from Port Alberni in the conviction he holds that the most important new source of energy is conservation. In this House and elsewhere, he has repeatedly made it clear that the start-up costs, the start-up time required, and the combination of extra time and extra costs to bring on any new energy project

[ Page 1843 ]

are so significant and so important a matter of public debate, and so lack public consensus, that an early end to that debate cannot be foreseen. Sensible people realize that the only immediately available new source of energy is conservation itself. Why this government refuses to take what we consider to be a prudent, cautious and well-advised economic approach — may I say, even a basically conservative approach — to energy matters is beyond us. I suppose once again they're in love with their own notion of great monuments to themselves. Some of those monuments won't work at all. Some of them just don't serve. It may well prove that the technological problems associated with the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line will be so great and so costly that it can never be built.

As the Speaker will know, as the people of British Columbia will know, there is yet no commitment from any engineering company that the line can be built. The load requirements, the problems with the cable and its laying, the problems with the transmission of such enormous voltages over such a distance, may prove technically impossible. They may also prove to be economically impossible. But while the government is wasting time, and perhaps wasting money, conducting studies on projects that might not be able to be pursued, the most obvious, immediate and affordable new source of energy is staring them in the face.

Let me say it again. I share personally and strongly the conviction of my colleague from Alberni that any unwillingness to look at conservation as tomorrow's source of energy bespeaks the most foolish, blind and dunderheaded attitude towards energy development in this province we could possibly imagine. Study after study after study — most recently from the Harvard Business Review — has made it perfectly clear that the costs of new energy in time and capital — be it coal, nuclear, solar or tidal — are so immense that we cannot reasonably anticipate any significant energy revenue from those sources for at least a decade or two or three. What do the people do in the meantime while these great schemes are being planned?

Tomorrow's new source of energy is conservation. It is important that this government understand, at least philosophically, that particular principle. I admit it's a bit of a difficult notion. Some people don't think of conservation itself as being an energy source. Most people think of conservation as somehow only saving a bit more what we've got already today, and never think of it as a new source by itself. They tend to restrict — I think in a primitive and not very bright way — the notion of an energy source somehow being tied exclusively to the carbon cycle: the sun produces it, photosynthesis adds to it, the seas add to it, the rain and the rivers, the hydro, the solar and the wind add to it. It's all fundamentally derived from the sun. It requires, I think, a new attitude and a new point of view to recognize conservation as being a source of energy, but that is what it is. Conservation is the single most immediately available, most affordable and most widely present new source of energy for British Columbia.

Part 4 is grossly inadequate. You tell us you are going to establish a $10 million fund for energy development. At the same time, you will give possibly $1 billion to a project which finally may not succeed, because the technical problems with the transmission at the Cheekye-Dunsmuir project may be so great that it simply cannot go ahead. They are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a system in an area where it may not be needed, and where it may not be possible. In order to shore up their failing public image they are prepared, however, to tell us they are going to spend only $10 million on what they call an Energy Development Fund. It's not adequate. It comes nowhere near the burden required. It comes nowhere near the obligation they should feel.

When this government asks those of us who stand in our place in this debate to say what we're going to do tomorrow about energy, we tell you we're going to do this: we're going to be prudent with the people's money; we're going to commit nothing that cannot demonstrably be better provided through the only immediately available new source of energy, and that is conservation.

If, 40 years down the road, wave or tidal power makes sense in British Columbia, I hope we discover that because this year we have persuaded the government to increase the Energy Development Fund from $10 million to $100 million. If this government has the right to ask the people to spend less on health and more on energy at any time, let it at the very least be through this device. Be prepared when, 30 and 40 years from now, tidal or wave power might provide new sources of energy. Move this allocation from $10 million to $100 million and spend it scientifically and well. Spend it prudently and cautiously. Spend it in a sensible way to look toward new energy sources 10, 20, 30 and 40 years from now. There's nothing wrong with that. That sort of energy strategy makes good sense. It makes good planning sense. But $10 million is not adequate and never will be; $10 million compared to the hundreds of millions you are wasting on B.C. Hydro is not adequate in any fashion. If you want to be serious, move it from $10 million to $100 million; we'll support it. If you want to be absolutely serious, realize that the only new available affordable energy for the people of British Columbia — that we can start tapping tomorrow — is conservation itself.

I want to talk about the Fraser River Crossing Fund, part 5. I will be dealing with this at greater length during the committee stage and again during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

In my opinion, in the great cities of North America the private automobile has no future whatever. In the great cities of North America in the twenty-first century, gas will be rationed for private purposes. The current waste and extravagance in which we foolishly and mindlessly continue will be forbidden by law. There will be rationing. Gas will cost $6 or $6.50 a gallon by the turn of the century, and the current wastefulness aided and abetted by this government will simply not be permitted by law. When 20 years from now the private automobile is recognized as redundant, obsolete, unaffordable and inexcusable in the heart of the great urban communities of North America, how will we look at a proposal to spend $130 million on a crossing of the Fraser that will serve solely and exclusively the private automobile? Twenty years from now, Mr. Speaker, people will look at that as they now look at the Spadina Expressway in Toronto, and they will ask: how could any government, even Social Credit, have been so foolish? How could any government, knowing what gas will cost, knowing the limitations of the private automobile, understanding the future of cities in North America, understanding what gas rationing will mean to the private commuter in those cities 20 years from now, go ahead and propose to spend $130 million or more on a bridge to serve this obsolete private automobile?

In other areas of the province the private automobile will,

[ Page 1844 ]

20 and 30 years from now, continue to be useful. It doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about public transit between Prince George and Prince Rupert. By and large the automobile will continue to serve those communities; it will have to. Those are among the geographical limitations of our province. But for a sensible person, the notion of another gift to the private automobile is entirely suspect. Surely members opposite, when they think about this commitment of funds, have got to think about the community they will be serving 20 years from now. Is there any member opposite who would have us believe that the private automobile will then be as affordable, appropriate, available, or supposedly necessary as it is — supposedly necessary — today? Of course not. The private automobile in major American communities is a dinosaur. It is obsolete. It cannot serve. It will not be afforded 20 years from now. As the people of Europe discovered 40 and 50 years ago, in the heart of great urban communities the private automobile simply cannot be tolerated as it is currently.

Why then would this government invest $130 million on another crossing for the private automobile? Important questions are raised here. Is it that there should be no other crossing of the Fraser for any other purpose? Of course not. If, for instance, for the purpose of public transit alone there were a need for another crossing, that would be fine by us. That would make perfectly good sense. If for the purpose of public transit you proposed to invest $130 million or more, and if you did so knowing that the future of the private automobile is limited in North America, then we would have no objection to this section.

However, what you propose to do implies several significant policy failures on your part. One is that you don't seem to understand why other communities have rejected your approach. You don't seem to understand why a decade ago Toronto said no to the Spadina Expressway. They said no to that for the same reason I will predict they will say no to you. In Toronto the question of neighbourhood integrity was raised in a very powerful way. The provincial government of the day, finally, when they changed premiers — a happy omen for the people of British Columbia — realized that the Spadina Expressway would hurt the human, social, recreational and neighbourly values of an immense part of its community. Because wisely at last they recognized the importance of neighbourhood integrity, they stopped the Spadina Expressway.

There is another community which also said no to this phony idea of progress: San Francisco. The Embarcadero Expressway would have ruined the major part of the downtown foreshore and many of the neighbourhoods particularly around Telegraph Hill in that great American city. Once again they got part way with it by which time the neighbours once again understood how the proponents of that expressway in the heart of a great American city was going to ruin their way of life.

Once again they managed to say no; once again it was stopped. Thank God for that; thank God for the stopping of the Spadina expressway. However, there are two American cities where unfortunately the people did not succeed in saying no to the engineers. Those cities today are in many respects entirely uninhabitable. I think of Los Angeles, a community where the engineers won and the neighbourhoods lost; a community where the private automobile won and where public transit lost; a community that is now so criss-crossed, so ground up, so cut up by highways and throughways and freeways and expressways that it cannot be said that Los Angeles works as a city. It doesn't. Any of you who have ever been there know that. Los Angeles is supremely the victim of the private automobile; Los Angeles can no longer lay claim to being a great city in any notion of the term. Would anyone compare the urban vitality of Los Angeles with that of London or Hamburg or Paris? Of course not. What is the difference? Well, among other things, the difference is this: in London, Hamburg and Paris those communities said yes to public transit and no to the private automobile. That's an important distinction which this government doesn't seem to recognize. They tell us that they want Vancouver to be a great North American city. So do we. A great city, however, is comprised of great neighbourhoods. That's how they work; that's what makes them real; that's what gives them life and safety; that's what gives them cultural variety, ethnic variety and human choice.

Jane Jacobs wrote the most important modern text on this whole principle; I commend it to every member opposite who can read. In her seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs said this:

"In those communities where people can walk the streets, where they can sit on the stoops, stare out their windows, where they don't have to worry about their children being mowed down by a twelve-lane expressway, where the private automobile is diminished in its impact and where public transit is readily available, those cities are safe, those cities are delightful, those cities are not bankrupt, those cities are great cities."

Jane Jacobs in that profoundly important work, a text now recognized in any competent department of urban studies at any North American university, argues clearly and powerfully that if you allow the car culture to have its way, you will doom any city where the private automobile wins; you will make it impossible for people to feel safe, to feel connected with their neighbourhoods, to feel a part of their community. If you make it necessary for them to walk across a 12-lane expressway to take a car from one parking lot to another, and in the whole process be entirely alienated from their neighbours, sitting in this steel and rubber and glass cocoon as they move from one parking lot to another across a city 40 miles wide because it has no density — that density having been denied by suburban growth that caved in to the automobile — then you have ruined forever the possibility of that city working on any human scale. The most successful cities in the world, without exception, are founded on these three notions: neighbourhoods come first, public transit must be available; and the streets must be safe for walking. Those are the three great principles of success.

Can the neighbourhoods come first when you're smashing throughways and freeways and expressways through the heart of them? Of course not. You destroy the interconnectedness; you destroy the tissue that binds neighbourhoods. Let me offer another example of profound importance. The city of New York today is bankrupt, because the private automobile won and because public transit failed. I offer as part evidence of that another profoundly important work, which every member of this House voting on this bill should read. It's called Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. It's written by Robert A. Caro and was published in 1974 by Alfred Knopf. It won the Pulitzer Prize two years later. It is an examination of what happened when one man, Robert Moses, built seven expressways through the heart of formerly safe, decent New York neighbourhoods.

[ Page 1845 ]

There is a chapter in this immense book called "One Mile," which details what happened to the human beings of the South Bronx when Mr. Moses pushed through — against all neighbourhood opposition, but with the support of the engineers, of course, and certain backward trade unions and certain backward banking interests — this particular mindless scheme.

It talks about how in New York city 550,000 people were evicted to make way for that road. It talks about what happened to those who were left. It talks about what happened when the human, the ethnic, the religious and the social traditions of that neighbourhood were destroyed forever because you cut it in half. Work after work, book after book, study after study documents the same thing. If you push a road, a bridge, a throughway through any urban neighbourhood, you ruin it.

There are alternatives; one of them was pursued by our administration. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) asks for alternatives; we point it out. It's called SeaBus. New technology was built in this province, new money spent in this province, a new purpose served in this province. What was that purpose? To avoid the irretrievable and irrevocable social disaster that would result if you smashed another bridge with all its ramps, its entranceways, its new roads, its new configurations, through the two neighbourhoods at either end of it. Fortunately that wasn't done and SeaBus was built instead.

This government owes it to the people of British Columbia to examine the human and social consequences, not just the economic ones, of what you do when you put another bridge and another freeway through another neighbourhood. How can you tell us you want Vancouver to become great when you destroy the source of its greatness?

May I say it again. Any of you who have been to any successful city and then have been to New York or Los Angeles surely understand the difference between the preeminent role of public transit in the successful cities and the diminished or altogether absent role of public transit in a place like Los Angeles, which doesn't work at all as a city. Thirty and forty years ago, again well documented, General Motors and Ford in the city of Los Angeles conspired to push through a referendum to force the people of Los Angeles to abandon what was a good fixed-rail system for providing public transit in that large community. For that purpose General Motors and Ford spent millions of dollars to win the referendum, and unfortunately and tragically they did. General Motors turned around and continued to push for the uncontrolled expansion of roads and suburbs and shopping centres that serve the interest of the private automobile first and the public interest second. Why should we see the same mistake made here?

If there is a need for another crossing, let it be a crossing for the sole and exclusive purpose of public transit. From any community planning point of view that makes sense. The government is here proposing to build a bridge which we presume will last 60, 70 or 80 years as a working structure. If it's well designed it will. Tell us then what will be happening 60, 70 or 80 years from now. Will we still be serving the private automobile? Well, we can't, because we can't afford it. Is there nobody there who understands that? Gas won't be available for those purposes 60 years from now. It won't be available. In the heart of the great American cities the private automobile as we know it has no future, period. Further, the current result of giving in to the private automobile has been the ruin of many American cities.

Once again, will you think of the difference between Toronto, which has a good public transit system, which is becoming a vital and successful community where the commuter comes first in the public system and where the private automobile comes second downtown...?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Yes, and you all know the problems with the 401. There should be running through the heart of it a train system going both ways all the time; that's what they should have done, but they didn't, and it's their mistake. That's what New York could have done when they rebuilt JFK and when they put out the Vanwyck expressway. That's what they could and should have done, but they didn't, and it's their mistake. Why should we repeat their mistakes? Why would you have us do this? So you can save one seat in Delta? It makes no sense at all. If you're going to build a crossing, make it for the solitary purpose of aiding, of enhancing, of strengthening every aspect of public transit in greater Vancouver. That's the only transportation future greater Vancouver has. It is in the public sector and not in the private. It is in the public sector that there is hope for a transportation policy that will serve the lower mainland, not in the private.

The private has reached its affordable, practical, buildable limits; unless, of course, you propose to do what they did in Los Angeles. If you do, I think you as an administration will be condemned forever by people who 20 and 30 years from now will wonder how on earth, with all the evidence staring you in the face, you could have made such a mistake.

It's a serious problem. It should be here as a separate bill. It will, I promise you, be debated strenuously when it comes to committee; it will be debated again when it comes to the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It will be debated on these issues, because we have yet to hear a reply to the questions with which I want to end.

What about neighbourhood integrity? What about the safety that will be diminished when neighbourhoods are ruined? What about the fact that the private automobile is a luxury we will not be able to afford? What about the fact that if you invest $130 million here, you are denying it elsewhere, which is to say in the field of public transit? If you can answer any of those questions we would be grateful. If you answer them on behalf of what makes cities successful, you will then have provided an answer that makes better sense than anything we've heard to date.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By leave of the House, I would like to introduce some students in the gallery.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Today in the House we have some visitors, students from the Vancouver Community College, King Edward Campus, accompanied by Roger Gibbard. I believe others will be joining them, and they will be here shortly. They are going to spend the day in the capital city. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Listening to the first member for Victoria, it would have been surprising, I think particularly to those in the gallery, to learn that in the very same bill now being debated, this government proposes an allocation of

[ Page 1846 ]

twice as much money for urban transit as it provides for the Annacis crossing.

For the benefit of those citizens in the gallery who to their credit have been following this debate with interest, may I just point out that the piece of legislation being debated today allocates $30 million towards the Annacis crossing, but almost double that — $55 million — towards an urban transit fund. That's the burden of my remarks today. The difference in approach between the opposition and the government, Mr. Speaker, is now emerging. The view of the government is a practical and sensible one which takes account of the needs of working British Columbians to utilize their private automobiles and takes account of the need to move goods on roads.

I'm amazed that we heard the declaration of war on roads from the first member for Victoria, a member whose city was jeopardized last year during a ferry strike because 300 trailer trucks a day supply goods as a lifeline to the citizens of Victoria. When we discuss roads, bridges and urban transit, we must remember the tremendous volume of our goods that are provided to us in cities through trucks that use roads.

The basic theme I wish to address is the fact that this government clearly in Bill 7 is addressing itself not only to the question of an Annacis Island crossing but more importantly, and with greater emphasis in fact, to the question of urban transit for the lower mainland. As I say, the emphasis is defined in the relative contributions made in this bill. This government provides in this bill almost twice the capital contribution for urban transit that it does for the Annacis crossing. As a city of Vancouver member, I applaud that. I for one am pleased to see that, needed though the Annacis crossing is, the allocation of $30 million towards that crossing is almost doubled by the $55 million capital contribution in the same bill for the purpose of an Urban Transit Fund.

The fact is that urban transit and the Annacis crossing are not in conflict in the policy planning of this government. They are proceeding together in a complementary fashion.

I want to quote the Premier in this House on March 10. He laid it out very, very clearly. Let there be no mistake and no misunderstanding that it is the view of this government and of the Premier that urban transit development and planning goes hand in hand with the Annacis crossing, and it is not the case — underline not the case — that Annacis is coming first and urban transit second. There is no conflict. Both urban transit planning and the Annacis crossing will proceed together. Mr. Speaker, may I quote the Premier March 10, in this assembly, just a couple of weeks ago. He said:

I am distressed to hear the specious arguments that somehow this government, in trying to meet the needs of the people of Delta, Surrey, Richmond and those areas, is hurting the opportunities for transit by building and constructing the Annacis Island crossing. Let me tell you that the two are not competitive. They must move together hand in hand.

How can that happen, Mr. Speaker? The Premier continues:

Because of solid management of the financial affairs of this government and this province we can proceed in both ways at once. Those people will have the opportunity to travel over the Annacis Island crossing.

He's referring to Delta and Surrey residence.

I look forward to opening day and helping to cut the ribbon as the first car crosses Annacis, just as I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to cutting the first ribbon on an LRT and a transit system that serves the people of greater Vancouver as well.

Let me quote again the Premier on the question of urban transit and the Annacis crossing. "We can proceed in both ways at once. The two are not competitive. They must move together hand in hand." Mr. Speaker, those words of the Premier are not only reflected but emphasized in this Bill 7, which, as I say, provides double the money for urban transit — $55 million — than it does towards the Annacis crossing — $30 million. There is no conflict. The two are not only complementary; the fact is that the government, through this funding, is giving double the emphasis to urban transit planning for the lower mainland than it is to the Annacis crossing.

Let us not forget — and the previous speaker failed to mention this — that the design plans for the Annacis crossing include provision for light rail or light rapid transit. In the planning and in the design there is already provision for two additional lanes for light rapid or light rail transit. That was not mentioned by the previous speaker, but that is a fact. That reflects the balanced view of this government.

There are several other aspects of the Annacis crossing worth mentioning, and they bear on energy conservation. The Annacis crossing in at least two important ways is going to do a great deal to conserve and to save the consumption of gasoline by trucks and automobiles. The first, of course, is that the enormous automobile and truck line-ups that are presently a feature of Highway 10 and the Massey Tunnel will be substantially reduced. We will substantially reduce line-up after line-up of trucks and cars wastefully burning fuel while they wait.

Secondly, more important and I think useful to stress, is that one of the consequences of the Annacis plan is that conservation of the consumption of gasoline and oil by trucks and cars is a tremendous saving in the mileage to be driven by trucks and cars coming into Vancouver. Because if you study the present plan of what must happen, Mr. Speaker, trucks and automobiles using Highway 10 and the Dease Island must, in effect, make a wide loop towards the water if they wish to get into Vancouver. The result of the Annacis plan will be a direct line path of travel for many thousands of trucks and automobiles. That direct line of travel into Vancouver, by cutting out the excessive mileage presently looped in as you drive in Highway 10 and the Massey Tunnel, on a daily basis is going to result in a further tremendous saving in the consumption of gas and oil by trucks and cars coming into Vancouver.

I have a good deal more to say about the Annacis crossing. There are a number of beneficial aspects of it which the opposition has yet to recognize. I'll continue that another day. Before observing the clock today, Mr. Speaker, may I just double stress that the policy of this government is, in the words of the Premier, reflected in this assembly in the numbers of this bill. Urban transit for the lower mainland is complementary to, not in conflict with, the Annacis plan. This Bill 7 provides double the capital moneys for urban transit that it does for the Annacis crossing. And on that balanced view, Mr. Speaker, of the content of Bill 7, may I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the House Leader, I would like to express my thanks to all hon. members for the cooperation they have shown the Chair in this past week. I'm sure we all join in looking forward to seeing

[ Page 1847 ]

the hon. Speaker, Mr. Schroeder, in the chair on Tuesday.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, may I echo those sentiments and wish, on behalf of the government and also on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, a very happy Easter to all of the citizens of our province.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:19 p.m.