[ Page 1883 ]

CONTENTS

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 1883

Oral Questions

Sale of Elko sawmill operation. Mr. Segarty –– 1883

Appointment of D.E. Smith. Mr. Lea –– 1884

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1884

Agricultural land reserve. Mrs. Wallace –– 1885

Tabling Reports

Okanagan Basin Implementation Board third annual report. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1885

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Barrett –– 1885

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1887

Mr. Barrett –– 1891

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

Mr. Hyndman –– 1894

Mr. Levi –– 1897

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1900

Mr. Lauk –– 1901

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1905

Matter of Privilege

Allegations against member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). Deputy Speaker rules –– 1906

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings (Bill M205). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 1907

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a representative from the government of the Northwest Territories, Mr. James Wah-Shee, who is the Minister of Local Government in that government. He is visiting our House today and has been in the precincts for the last two days visiting various ministries. He is accompanied by Tessa McIntosh of Yellowknife. I would ask each member of the House to welcome them.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, both in the gallery and in the precincts today are the executive council of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. Their president is Ruby-may Parrott, who is a very distinguished school trustee in the province. I wish the House would welcome them all here to the capital.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome this large delegation of the B.C. School Trustees Association who met with both our caucuses. We appreciate the real interest they take in their province and in education.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, with the B.C. School Trustees delegation is the chairman of the Burnaby School Board, Mr. Gary Bagin, whom I would like to welcome personally. Also in the gallery today there is my nephew, Kevin Gilmore, and his friend Kevin Holt.

HON. MR. MAIR: I also would like to join in welcoming the school trustees, and particularly one from my School District 24, Mr. David Kendall. While I have the floor I would also like to have the House welcome one of my constituents, a person who brings much news to Kamloops because he operates a number of news stands, Mr. Frank Craig.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to ask the House to recognize a tour of students from Richmond high school in Richmond. They are accompanied by Mr. Henderson. I also understand that the mayor of Richmond, Mr. Gil Blair, is in the gallery.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Mel Repell who is visiting us from the community of Atlin. He is doing some research on children's fairy tales. I'd like the House to pay him due today.

MR. RITCHIE: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a very good friend of this House, Mayor George Ferguson of Abbotsford. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. SEGARTY: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today His Worship, Mayor Gus Boersma of Fernie; Alderman Byron Hill; Harry Harker, a planner for the regional district of the East Kootenay; and Warren Andrews, a consulting engineer. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: With us in the gallery this afternoon from Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver South will be 54 students from grade 11, along with faculty members, Mr. Buim and Mr. Goddard. And Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, because the person after whom Churchill Secondary School is named ranks as one of history's great parliamentarians, I wonder if I might quote my two favourite quotes from Churchill. On politics, he said: "Politics are almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous; in war you can be killed only once, but in politics, many times." As we know, Mr. Churchill had some affinity for liquids in bottles, and I think his very best quotation is this: "All I can say is that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Doug Murray of the B.C. School Trustees Association is in the chamber today. I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: I would also extend my best wishes and welcome to all the representatives of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. I would also like this House to welcome two guests of mine from Calgary: my aunt, Marion Strachan, and Frank Smart.

MR. MUSSALLERN: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to welcome a good friend and neighbour, Mrs. Casher, chairman of School District 42 and also chairman of the board of Douglas College. At the same time I have here two good friends, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Langston, whom I ask you to welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome all the members of the B.C. School Trustees Association who haven't been officially welcomed, and also Mrs. Marjorie Showler from Kelowna, who was chairman of the Kelowna and District School Board for a number of years and is now our regional chairman. It's very nice to have her here, and I know that she'll enjoy the great democratic action of this House and the debate this afternoon. I'd ask you all to welcome her.

Introduction of Bills

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SALE OF ELKO SAWMILL OPERATION

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests. Canadian Shell announced recently that their sawmill operation at Elko would be sold, and the 230 members of the International Woodworkers of America employed at the plant are concerned that that mill will not be kept in operation once a successful bidder has been

[ Page 1884 ]

announced. What assurance can the Minister of Forests give to this Legislature that the timber rights won't be transferred to a company without guaranteeing the future security of those employees?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question deals with future policy, but the minister may answer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay for posing that question; he shows his normal concern for his constituents. I also thank the member for giving me notice of the question.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of companies which have offered, I understand, to purchase the Crows Nest Industries operation, and I can assure the member that the condition of the transfer of cutting rights will be that the mill will continue in operation so that the employment base will remain.

MR. HOWARD: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the rules don't preclude rehearsed questions being presented in the House.

APPOINTMENT OF D.E. SMITH

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. On March 27, 1980, order-in-council 731 appointed the former Social Credit member for North Peace River, Dean Edward Smith, as chairman of a mediation and arbitration board in the energy area, at a remuneration of $33,000 per year. Is the government serious?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think that question deals with policy.

MR. LEA: Can the minister confirm that order-in-council 731 did appoint Dean Edward Smith at $33,000 per year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The order-in-council is a clear matter of public information at this moment.

MR. LEA: Can the minister indicate to the House what special skills Mr. Smith has that would make him eligible for this job?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Having personal knowledge and acquaintance with the gentleman being referred to, I feel he has all of the qualifications required for appointments that may be offered to him. I think he's a very capable gentleman and has all the qualifications required for such an appointment.

MR. LEA: Can the minister indicate to the House whether any other persons were interviewed for this position? If so, how many?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Could the minister assure the House that Mr. Smith will not receive any MLA's pension while receiving this money for the job from the B.C. government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. LEA: Can the minister indicate to the House whether Mr. Smith, since retiring as the member for North Peace River, has received payments from any oil companies operating within B.C.?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would not have that information.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he confirm that he met with representatives of both the broiler and turkey industries yesterday on the mainland?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Would the minister further confirm that during these meetings he encouraged members of those groups to withdraw their objections to the Cargill purchase of Maplewood Poultry?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: To be very sure, Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that while meeting with these representatives of the turkey and broiler industries on the mainland…? Did he or did he not suggest to those people in any way whatsoever that they should withdraw their objections to the purchase of Maplewood by Cargill?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a repeat of the same question, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: I assume, as he is not answering that question, that his answer is no, that he in no way suggested to those people that they should withdraw their objections to the takeover of Maplewood by Cargill. Can the minister confirm that he has communicated, under the Foreign Investment Review Act, his opposition to the intended purchase of Maplewood Poultry by Cargill, a commitment which he made to this House some time ago? Has he in fact transmitted those objections to FIRA?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the communication to Ottawa was made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who was the liaison between this government and the federal government. That was made, as I stated in the House, I believe, a week or ten days ago. For the member's information, the meeting held in Vancouver yesterday with the members of the broiler and turkey boards was to discuss the ramifications of either Cargill acquiring Maplewood or Cargill not acquiring Maplewood.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask if the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is prepared to file with this House his intervention to FIRA on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will take that question as notice.

[ Page 1885 ]

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Agriculture, on a slightly different subject. This question has to do with his responsibilities in relation to the Land Commission.

Now that the courts have overruled the decision of the Land Commission to hold public hearings regarding the inclusion of Gloucester properties land in Langley, has the minister decided to recommend that that property be reincluded in the agricultural land reserve, under section 10(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the ruling, as I understand it from the court considering the case, dealt with the fact that the Land Commission could not or should not carry out hearings while the matter was before the court. That meant that the Land Commission could not hold its public hearings and take a second look at this 626 acres in Langley. As the member knows, the land is already in a state of freeze, you might say, with regard to the order-in-council which was passed by this government, and until the court case is settled there will be no action by the Land Commission in taking the second.

MRS. WALLACE: I am sorry, but the minister did not answer my question. I was not referring to the actions of the Land Commission. I was asking him: is he prepared, as the minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission, to take a recommendation to cabinet, or has he decided to take a recommendation to cabinet, under section 10(3) of the Land Commission Act to reinstate that land in the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can tell the member this government doesn't act with a knee-jerk reaction. We review the matter, and the matter of a second look will be taken when the court case is completed. But with regard to the member saying whether or not I should recommend it, that's a matter of future policy of this government.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the question was: has he decided? But I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he would call the reason that he's into this situation with Gloucester, if it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Premier that got him into the situation.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that the Attorney-General's department or ELUC or both had a counsel at the preliminary hearing before this case had gone before the court, objecting to the case going to court? Are you aware that that was the position of the Attorney-General's ministry or ELUC?

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for this legislation, if he is aware that the Attorney-General's office or ELUC was represented in the preliminary hearing by government lawyers opposed to this case going into court. Are you aware of that?

This question is to the Attorney-General. Did the Attorney-General instruct lawyers representing the government of British Columbia to appear at the preliminary hearing of this case and to object to the case proceeding further in court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's an improper question. It deals with advice to the government on a legal matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's quite proper.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking for a historical fact. Is the minister aware that government lawyers who appeared at the preliminary hearing opposed this case going on to a higher court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the officials of the ministry attending any preliminary hearing in this matter.

MR. BARRETT: My question is to the Attorney-General. Are you aware of any lawyers representing the government appearing at a preliminary hearing and opposing Gloucester estate's application to carry this case into court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I answered before. I am not aware of any such appearance.

Hon. Mr. Rouers tabled the third annual report of the Okanagan Basin Implementation Board.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I just have four or five simple questions to ask the Premier before these estimates pass. Firstly, did the Premier meet in his office with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Secondly, if such a meeting did take place, could the Premier tell us who was invited to attend? Thirdly, could the Premier tell us what commitments were made through his office to have BCDC finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle for a six-month period? Fourthly, would the Premier table with this House any written agreement that exists? And fifthly, would the Premier tell us whether he informed BCDC of these meetings by writing or by a phone call?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Premier some straightforward questions dealing with business of the government. These are his estimates and I ask him again. Firstly, did the Premier meet with a group of Victoria business persons regarding jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Secondly, could the Premier inform us who the persons were that he met with? Thirdly, could he tell us what arrangements were made between the Premier and this group of business persons to have the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle financed by BCDC for a six-month period? Fourthly, could the Premier tell us if he notified BCDC in a letter or by phone? They are simple questions. Just clear up these matters and we can go on to other things.

[ Page 1886 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the…?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I still I have the floor. I'd like to know whether the Premier intends to answer the questions. I would like to ask the Premier if it is his intention to answer these questions that have been the subject of discussion for some days now. Perhaps if you say you're not going to answer them we can ask other questions. I'd like to know what questions you're prepared to answer. I've asked a series of questions about the jetfoil. Are you prepared to answer those questions?

HON. MR. SMITH: You're opposed to the jetfoil, eh?

MR. BARRETT: Not at all. Are you going to buy a pig in a poke? Were you at the meeting? Can you tell us what commitment was made financially out of the taxpayers, pockets? How do you know you support the program unless you know what the details were, hon. member? Are you part of a secret deal?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, as a responsible member of the opposition, I ask these questions of the Premier of this province. Did a meeting take place in his office with a group of business persons concerning a deal to be made to finance a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria for the forthcoming tourist season? If such a meeting took place, would the Premier inform the House who was there at the meeting? Would the Premier inform the House whether he agreed that BCDC should finance this project for the forthcoming tourist season? Would he inform the House how he contacted BCDC and told them of the decision to finance the jetfoil service that has been reported in the newspapers?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier did not hear the questions.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I don't consider any of this to be frivolous. We're dealing with the Premier's estimates. We're dealing with the accountability of taxpayers' dollars, and responsibility to this Legislature and to the people who pay the bills.

Now that I have the Premier's undivided attention I will repeat questions that have been asked for some days. I'll put them very simply. Did the Premier meet in his office with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Was a deal made in the Premier's office to have BCDC finance a jetfoil service for the forthcoming tourist season? Will the Premier tell us that he committed BCDC to finance this jetfoil service? Would the Premier tell us how much money he committed for this service, and would he tell us how he contacted BCDC to inform them of the deal that he had negotiated for BCDC? Mr. Chairman, I'll gladly yield the floor if the Premier wishes to answer the questions. Does the Premier wish to answer the questions?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor, if he's going to continue to speak.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if the Premier is ready to answer the questions I will certainly yield the floor to him. Is the Premier ready to answer these questions? Mr. Chairman, through you, as one who understands the rules of the House, I will gladly yield the floor to the Premier if he just gives the nod and says: "Yes, I'm going to answer these questions."

Mr. Chairman, I will gladly yield the floor if the Premier indicates, as courtesy wonts, that he is going to answer the questions. I ask this question of the Premier: are you going to answer these questions?

I'm thunderstruck by the silence. Is the Premier of this province going to meet his accountability in his estimates and answer questions that have been put to him simply over a number of days? Yes or no.

Well, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier sitting there? Did anyone tell him his responsibilities when he took his oath of office? Incredible! We're talking about taxpayers' dollars, and the author of the slogan "Not a dime without debate," when called to account under the law of this province to deal with the estimates of his office….

I'll just wait until I have his attention. I know that he's under a lot of pressure, has heavy business responsibilities and can't work nights, so he's got to deal with those things here. So we'll just wait until this committee meeting is over, and then we'll go back to the questions.

Mr. Chairman, now that I have the Premier's undivided attention I ask him these questions. Did he meet in his office with a number of Victoria business persons to discuss jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria for the coming tourist season? Could he tell this House who he met with, and would he tell this House whether or not he made a deal with those Victoria business persons to finance the jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria out of BCDC funds? Would he inform this House as to how he contacted BCDC and told them about this deal? Was it by phone or by letter?

Mr. Chairman, for your information, I'm prepared to yield the floor to the Premier if he wishes to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, only one person can be recognized at a time, and as long as one person is standing no other person can take the floor.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. That's why I'm making the offer to yield if the Premier indicates he wants the floor.

Mr. Chairman, we don't work nights any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we're not working days either.

MR. BARRETT: And now we've decided not to work days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 9, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's only courteous that the minister involved has my full attention or I have his full attention, whichever is preferable. Now that the Premier has had a little chat to refresh his memory, could he tell us who was at the meeting in his office on March 13 at 4:30 representing the Victoria business community to discuss the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Could he give us the names of the persons who were there, and could the Premier tell us what deal was made to finance the jetfoil

[ Page 1887 ]

service out of public funds through BCDC or any other method that was discussed and agreed to in his office'? Can the Premier tell us, if BCDC was involved, whether or not he phoned them or wrote them about the decision that was made for their involvement in the jetfoil service? Are you prepared to answer? Are you prepared to stand up?

Mr. Chairman, I'd gladly sit down if the Premier says he's going to stand up.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. We've reached this point in the Premier's estimates after how many days?

MR. HOWARD: Six days.

MR. BARRETT: It's the sixth or seventh day. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield the floor to the Premier. Does the Premier wish to answer?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Bye-bye yourself. Are you prepared to answer?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I rise under standing order 43, which deals with repetitious and vexatious questions. I think that this House has listened with great patience to these five questions being repeated three, four and five times, and however much the Leader of the Opposition might wish to have them answered, he has no right to dominate this chamber while he repeats the questions over and over again. There are others in this House, including, I might say, myself, who are seeking the Chairman's attention so that we might ask some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, it is a valid point of order. Nevertheless, at this point the Leader of the Opposition continues.

MR. BARRETT: The rules of this House allow me to ask questions. If I want to be lectured by a cabinet minister…. I appreciate the lecture; however, the rules clearly state that it is my duty and my responsibility and my right to stand in this place and ask questions. How other people define their responsibility is on their consciences. But the rules apply.

Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Premier some simple questions, and I ask him now whether he is prepared to answer those questions. Are you prepared to answer those questions? No? Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Premier if he wishes the floor, which I will gladly yield to him so he can answer these questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am amused by the defence being run by the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair). If the rules forbade me to stand here, I am sure that the Chairman would have ordered me to sit down, but when you order me to sit down or you threaten me in terms of my time here, there is no way I will back down from my responsibility to ask any questions in this House — facetious points of order or not.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, I take exception to anybody suggesting that I have been threatening anybody. I have simply asked the Leader of the Opposition if he'd stop repeating the questions so that others in this House, who have the same rights as he does, could seek the attention of the Chair and ask the Premier some questions. There's no threat; I'm just asking him as a man who calls for courtesy if he would return courtesy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the clarification, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the speech by my good friend. the member for Kamloops, but it certainly wasn't a point of order. Now if you want to deal with a point of order, the point of order is that I have the floor, I am asking some questions, and I have made an offer.

HON. MR. MAIR: You accused me of threatening.

MR. BARRETT: Could you keep the member in order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. HOWARD: Keep that wild man from Kamloops in order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you don't keep him in order he might try to do something in the hallway.

I ask the Premier of this province whether or not he wishes the floor to answer these simple questions that I have put to him. Do you wish the floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see that we are finally getting back to members taking their place when they wish someone else to let up. You would think that after 20 years in this assembly the Leader of the Opposition would know better. But today, as usual, he is playing to the galleries. He also knows that the responsibility for the British Columbia Development Corporation rests with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Certainly those parts surrounding BCDC can be dealt with during the minister's estimates. He also knows that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is responsible for ferries, can respond to those areas under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I will make one comment. I am pleased to see a jetfoil service, and I am pleased to see a society. In this Legislature yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and others were suggesting that there was something wrong with a society operating anything — operating a jetfoil, operating a ferry — as if somehow the only public group should be government. Of course, that's a good philosophical debate, and I wouldn't mind entering into that in this chamber: that's what can be discussed under my estimates. I don't believe government has all the answers; I don't believe they are the answer; in fact, quite often they can become a large part of the problem.

Do I believe in societies? Yes, I believe in people not going to government and always crying to government. In fact, I even support the right to have the Nanaimo Cooperative Commonwealth Holding Society — or whatever it is that has such a strong association with the Leader of the Opposi-

[ Page 1888 ]

tion — and other societies that provide help in the areas of medical and other services to people in need in their communities. I have already publicly commented that I am pleased to see the response in Victoria; I am pleased to see the formation of the society; I am pleased that they apparently are going to be operating a jetfoil service. I am also pleased if some agency of government has played a role; and certainly when we get to those ministers' estimates, they can discuss that. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, with the accomplishments. And that's what we should be dealing with here — the accomplishments. Certainly there is ample opportunity to discuss accomplishment if it involves government agencies, if in fact it does; there is ample opportunity for members when those ministers are in their estimates. But in my estimates, I'm quite willing to discuss the philosophy of whether we should have government ownership or whether we should have societies operating, because I believe there is a valid role for them. I also believe there is a very strong role for the private sector in many areas. We, as government, wouldn't be here if there wasn't somebody out there working and paying taxes so we could be here to talk. If everything was owned by government, who'd pay the taxes? Who'd pay the bills? Especially with the record of some governments when they got into business.

So, Mr. Chairman, in regard to jetfoil service, I welcome the service. I'm sure all people in Victoria do. And I'm sure any minister that has some responsibility for transportation, who may play a role, or have an agency that may play a role, will be willing to respond.

Mr. Chairman, a number of other things have been brought up in this Legislature, beyond those things that might best be answered in another minister's estimates, and I would like to take this opportunity to respond in a number of areas, particularly in the area of ferry agreements with Ottawa, which was brought up a number of times. Perhaps the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) might wish to speak to this issue in this Legislature.

It's been suggested by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that somehow this province's achievement of the first-ever agreement with the government of Canada to have a subsidy paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation was a failure. That's nonsense. It has been a matter of policy — perhaps not when they were government, but a policy certainly since the ferry system was incorporated — that the west coast of British Columbia, Canada's total Pacific coast, be given equal treatment with the east coast, where subsidies are paid to ferry transportation systems. We entered into an agreement and convinced the federal government. It was a time when provincial action was sorely needed, because it had been some months since the federal government withdrew their subsidies to those partial private services that operated on the north coast.

Perhaps there wasn't strong enough representation, or voices to speak; but we as a government some time afterwards, in our negotiations that we had on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, made an agreement, an agreement that broke new ground — new principle. Now, for the first time, British Columbia was going to be treated in principle — not to the same amount financially, but in principle at least — the same as the east coast. It never happened before. It had certainly been something that had been striven towards, that the former Social Credit government, prior to 1972, had fought for; it had been a matter of policy.

I remember the former Social Credit Premier commenting on what a major breakthrough it had been, that this had been achieved after the years of frustrating negotiation and hard discussions with Ottawa. He felt that the lapse of interest that had taken place during the hiatus in British Columbia's growth and relations with Ottawa from 1972 to 1975 might have seriously impaired our ability to even introduce such a measure, let alone make a major breakthrough and get an agreement. I give full credit to the government — and particularly the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — for helping to achieve that agreement, because it wasn't easy.

There will be opportunities for this government now, this government in the future, and perhaps other governments to follow, to make a financial case for equity in dollar terms. But the major breakthrough had to come in an agreement in principle, a principle that had never been recognized by the government of Canada. In fact they had stated on many occasions that they would never put a nickel into the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. But it was a major breakthrough.

I found it alarming that the member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard's) sense of history — he comes from that part of the country — both in the climate and in the history of British Columbia's continual fight with an unresponsive government during those years in trying to get some agreement…. I believe that the negative attitude that opposition has had, not only during this session, has now become part of the history. So ingrained is it in that party that even when they were government they were negative. They do not have the ability to work with this government to try to improve an agreement that was a breakthrough in itself. Instead they stand up and, not knowing what they're talking about, attempt to paint a false picture. It is easy for the member for Skeena to sit there and laugh at it, because he laughs and plays games in this Legislature as no member has. I remember when the federal government withdrew their subsidies, and I wonder where that member was then — if he was a voice for the north. Where was he then?

But it wasn't just that British Columbia had two problems. One was historic getting an agreement in principle that the British Columbia Ferry Corporation receive the same treatment as those transportation companies on the east coast receive. Secondly, we had the problem that a part of our province had lost its service for a number of months, after an announcement by the federal government that they had withdrawn those subsidies and would not reinstate them. That was finished; it wasn't part of the negotiations; that had been lost. Apparently those who were to speak to the federal government were not able to convince them, or were not even voices at all at that time. The B.C. Ferry Corporation, and this government, moved in to rationalize ferry service on the coast of British Columbia.

We talk about service, but the basic agreement was one that was history-making. It broke new ground, for it provided for the first time a change, a 180 degree turn by the government of Canada. From saying, "We'll never subsidize the B.C. ferry system," they changed and signed an agreement in which they paid a part of their share and made a commitment to the future that British Columbia was part of Canada and deserved equal treatment. We can argue dollars and cents — because I don't believe the amounts are adequate when they relate to the large dollar amounts that go to the east coast — but at least we have the breakthrough in principle, and now we can get on with providing further equity for the people of British Columbia who live along the coast.

[ Page 1889 ]

The British Columbia Ferry Corporation at least now has, through the government of British Columbia, a continuing commitment from the government of Canada. And that was not, as the member for Skeena says, a loss but a great victory for this province. But then again, only those who can only be negative, asking silly questions and making silly statements, could ever believe that. Perhaps there's someone else who will believe him when he says it, but it's not true. Those who know the history of the fight to get an agreement from the government of Canada know full well the victory that was achieved. And it can be improved upon. I think that is an area for which this government can take some credit. No, we didn't hit a home run, but we got on base. That's the big thing. We didn't strike out; we got on base. The criticism from that member is not that we didn't get a hit: it's that we didn't hit a home run. But at least we got a hit; and we didn't strike out, as had happened before.

British Columbia is now heard by the government of Canada. We have a record of achievement in a number of agreements that formerly escaped this province, either through lack of attention during the administration we followed, or because that administration was incapable of knowing what federal programs offered opportunity to this province to participate in development, not only of transportation but under the general development agreement and other agreements. It may be history now, but because the member for Skeena wishes to put his own version of history before this chamber, perhaps we can get down to the facts of history and talk about the major breakthrough of the general development agreement that was signed by this province, It was signed by this government during our first term. It brought us an opportunity to assist small business.

A lot of lip service is paid to small business by many people, but this government signed an agreement that brought us the type of programs that were available in the rest of Canada with the aid of the dollars we send to Ottawa to assist small business in this province. That hadn't been done before. New ground was gained in the TIDSA for tourist facilities. Perhaps the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will expand upon that during her estimates. That hadn't been done before and just as the ferry subsidy had not been done before, had eluded government.

Those are not the areas to criticize. Mr. Member for Skeena, through you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he could stand up once in a while and be proud of some of the things that are happening in this province. Instead of being part of the wrecking crew, how about being part of the building crew in this province? The negative, negative members of the opposition consistently, through this debate and others, year after year, cannot seem to realize that they have an opportunity to be a part of the building team. They have an opportunity to be a part of providing better government and government services and also providing greater opportunity for the private sector.

The opposition members have earned their reputation as the "bad news boors" by their consistently negative attitude and behaviour. That is why they keep talking their political games about numbers in the House and what would happen if an election was held. I see a movement developing in this province. They are not looking for an alternative to government, although this government could stand an improvement. They are looking for an alternative to the opposition. That is what they are looking for.

I have taken special pains to gather a collection of the type and style of questions from that opposition since we have been sitting, I am mailing them and making them available when I go home to my constituency to as many people as possible. I want them to see the type of questions you are asking. I want them to assess your conduct. I also want them to be critical of this government. We don't go to the people of British Columbia with all the answers. We don't go to them with the holier-than-thou attitude or with a rewritten history, like the member for Skeena. We go out there in an honest attempt to try and do something better for the people of this province,

Instead we get cheap theatrics from the opposition, like last night at adjournment. They say: "The government wants to work bankers' hours." There has never been a government that has put in more hours as a government or as individuals in the history of this province. Last night they held up a cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for some time, and I suspect they knew it had been scheduled. The government members were going right from this assembly to that meeting. Members had been in these buildings since early morning, worked through lunch and worked through the sitting, and they were going to work through a light dinner last night and work right through the evening. Yet they have the effrontery and the gall to say that this government was only working four hours a day. I ask you. hon. members opposite, through you, Mr. Chairman, do not take your own standards and try to apply them to us through the cheap theatrics of last night and those of the Leader of the Opposition today.

You might well know, Mr. Chairman, that a number of years ago the Leader of the Opposition, who was the then Leader of the Opposition, was thrown out of this chamber in what was assessed by the news media of the day as a calculated move to draw attention to himself and get a headline by asking the same unanswerable question over and over. I think it was 34 times he asked it, finally trying the patience of the Chair. I wasn't here. I only have the newspaper reports, but they are in my memory.

Certainly we have grown beyond those cheap theatrics. Certainly now there are a number of issues we have tried to discuss. I have said I do not intend to trv to deal in detail with the estimates or questions that can be brought up in ministers' votes, nor will I respond to what I think are silly questions. Silly questions are those political questions from which they get great glee but which provide little in the way of answers for the people's business in this province.

B.C. Ferries and the agreements with Ottawa…. All of those have been great successes. They asked me about a jetfoil service. Yes, I am pleased to see one. Yes, I believe in societies and their rights to operate many of the facilities, whether they be health facilities or others, including transportation. They provide a community service.

Yes, I believe in the right of the private sector beyond societies to grow and develop. I do not find all the answers in big government. Yes, if a government agency under a ministerial responsibility has played a role, an opportunity to respond during his estimates will be given to the minister responsible. The type of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition when he makes a premise and asks a question on his premise is hardly the type of question we in this assembly are prepared to deal with in a positive way.

I would also like to move on to some areas which the opposition has found boring. They say they don't like the speech about what this government has done to improve the economy of the province. They don't like the feeling of

[ Page 1890 ]

optimism, the feeling of growth which has taken place in this province, or the confidence felt by the private sector. The House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is responsible for the organization of the business of the House, will remember the opposition saying before the session opened that they had this great research and were going to concentrate on things such as unemployment. Yet that subject has not dominated question period. In fact, I've been waiting for my first question on unemployment from that party. Both in my estimates and in question period — they talked about inflation — I've been waiting for a question on that. Those are problems that plague us.

I'm quite prepared to say that, although the figures we have are an improvement on last year's figures, in the province generally we have continued to make steady but slow improvement on the unemployment figures. Compared to 1975 our position has improved in comparison with the Canadian position. I think this province, this assembly and this government should feel proud that we have made progress. It is dramatic progress when you consider the concerns which face the country as a whole. We've made dramatic progress in the area of trying to do something. Perhaps the operative word is not unemployment but employment, because that is the area we have tried to tackle. We're trying to develop a climate in which the private sector can create employment. That's where the response has been. It's easy to solve short-term unemployment by creating jobs through a large amount of construction in the public sector, but these jobs do not last and are not permanent.

If you analyze the record of this government, its success has been in the private sector. That means that it is a solid success with a solid footing and a solid base which gives confidence to various parts of our economy. We know about the results in the resource sector. You can't rewrite history on that, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The Leader of the Opposition can't hide that fact with cheap theatrics, old tricks which are honed to a fine skill after performing for 20 years here on the stage. You can't rewrite that. Those things are solid; they're happening.

But today unemployment is still too high. It will always be too high as long as there is one person willing to work who wants to work and will take the trouble and time to try to get that work. There are too many unemployed as long as there is one person like that in this province or in this country. So while our statistics show a record of moderate success, we're not satisfied. We want permanent, lasting employment in this province. That's what we came here to do: to try to provide the climate. We know it can't be provided just in the resource sector. We know that our resource sector is the cornerstone, and that it can be the basis for increased industrial production, secondary production or more value-added production which can provide jobs.

We know that an important part of this is the training of our young and of those not so young who go back for new training to give them the skills to take on the new challenges developing in our economy. We know, too, that we must improve there. In the throne speech His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor touched upon the renewed efforts by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to deal with this problem. There's no sense creating jobs if our own people don't have the skills to take those jobs.

We have growth in mining. It has been encouraged by coal development. We're poised on the brink of major new development in the northeast. It's like that, Mr. Chairman. But what's the good when our own people aren't offering themselves or taking the jobs in that industry, when the companies in the Kootenay say they can't find people to work there and are advertising in Great Britain for miners? These are good jobs. What we've got to do is to give our people the skills to take those jobs and to undertake the building that will take place as we develop the infrastructure, the transportation links, homes, schools and hospitals — to build in these new and growing areas.

We haven't done the perfect job. We haven't even, by my own admission, done the type of good job we would like to have done, because it hasn't been resolved. We're making steady progress, but you're right: there's a lot to be done. It's an area in which we could receive some pretty good constructive criticism.

Along with my colleagues the other Premiers, we discuss this. We'll discuss it again at the Western Premiers' Conference, hopefully — how we can try to resolve this area that none of us have found the final solutions to or the final programs or have them in place. There we get cooperation; at those conferences Premiers of various political views can get together. And do you know what? It might come to as a surprise to the opposition. We try to help each other, we try to give each other the type of help and suggestions that will build a Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba as well as a British Columbia. We look for ways to cooperate in which we can serve the people of the various areas. Sometimes a single facility is better than competing facilities when it comes to some sort of skill-training. We look for areas to cooperate there. That's what we have been trying to do as a government.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, we don't have all the answers. The answers aren't to be found in silly things. The answer is yes, we'll talk about things we have accomplished. We'll argue whether they should be there or shouldn't be there, but we're not going to discuss…. I don't think it's our role to be sidetracked into silly discussion. At least I don't feel it's mine, and that's the way I intend to try to continue to lead this government. In the area of development, as I say, we've made progress — not as much as we'd like, but steady progress in creating employment, compared to the rest of the country; steady progress in fighting inflation. All of us feel the effects of inflation, but do you know that since 1975, a significant date…. I don't pick it because of the political events that took place then but because British Columbia became, instead of one of the worst in cost price increase — that's inflation, in case you'd like to know — year after year, by the same Statistics Canada measurement, among the lowest each and every year since then. That's a record you can take some pride in — still no pride, because we haven't got the cost price increases to where they're manageable, but they went to the best from the worst.

The member for Skeena might wish to try to rewrite history in this area. His party might not wish to even discuss it this year, although this was their battle plan, coming with their greatly improved research section into this session. The press has been very impressed with that research group, but they haven't discussed it. We talk about the other areas….

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I inform the Chair that time is up.

[ Page 1891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That had escaped the notice of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there are people who wish to do business with the government, and they want to know if the method of doing business with the government is going to the Premier's office and making deals. I ask these questions of the Premier. Did he on March 13 at 4:30 p.m. meet with a group of business persons from Victoria to make a deal on the jetfoil? We're not talking here about the minister who's responsible. The responsible minister did not meet with these people; the Premier did, and it is the Premier's estimates we are dealing with. As I understand it, as the first minister you are answerable to this House as you are answerable to the people.

I ask these questions again. Would you tell this House who you met with? Would you tell this House what kind of financial deal was made between those people and the Premier using BCDC to finance the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle with taxpayers' money? Would the Premier tell us how he notified BCDC what business he had done on their behalf? Did he tell them by telephone or by mail? Would the Premier tell us clearly the names of the people with whom he met?

I think it would be worthwhile for other people who want to do business with the government if the Premier would tell us how they go about getting an appointment to do business with the Premier and BCDC rather than the minister. Because a pattern has been set, and if there's been a change in approaching how to do business with the government, then every citizen in this province should have free and equal access to this method of doing business. No one should receive favour and no one should receive any approach or benefit that the Premier is not prepared to give anyone else. We all know that the Premier is a fair man, and if he's opening his office to one group, then we want to know what group he met with; what the circumstances of the meeting were; the deal that was made: how many tax dollars were committed; and whether the notice was given to BCDC in writing or by telephone.

The Premier spent his allotted time of half an hour lecturing us on what he thinks is our behaviour, lecturing my colleague, the member for Skeena and chit-chatting about how hard he works. We all know that there's no one who's more of a workaholic than our Premier, but I don't know if it affects his memory or not. What are you working for and what are you working with? You're working with the taxpayers' dollars, and this is the one time of the year to account for the expenditure of those taxpayers' dollars by your office. You have been having secret meetings in your office with business persons, and we have a right to know what has transpired in those meetings. How do other business persons get secret meetings in your office? Is it a matter of policy, or do you have a selection group for secret meetings in your office? Would you tell us how you made the deal? Was it on a handshake? Is there a written or verbal agreement? Would you tell us who was at the meeting? Would you tell the taxpayers of this province how much of their money you committed to this project? I will gladly yield the floor again, Mr. Chairman, to suffer another half hour of a running stream of unconsciousness, if necessary, but I intend to ask these questions, as is my responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers. Why did the Premier have such a secret meeting in his office? Was the minister concerned in attendance?

I don't mind being lectured by the Premier about how he thinks I should perform my role, and I don't mind the observations or the insults. As a matter of fact, I understood the Premier to say that the people are wondering why there isn't another opposition and that they really want to get rid of us. Mr. Premier. If you firmly believe that and you don't want to answer these questions, call an election and we'll find out what the people really want. They really want some answers to questions about their taxpayers' dollars. Some people might call it arrogance. If we had television in here today and the Premier were to swing around in his chair and give this performance, some people who are paying taxes might call it arrogance. I prefer to be far more charitable.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're just asking the questions.

MR. BARRETT: We're just asking the questions. How you respond is your responsibility Would the Premier tell us and the citizens of British Columbia who met with him in his office on March 13 at 4:30 to discuss the jetfoil service to Seattle? Will the Premier tell us how much money he committed in his office to that service? Would he tell us the details of the deal made in his office for that service, and would he tell us when and how he contacted BCDC as to their role in this?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your undivided attention. Perhaps we should give the Premier a little pause to write the questions down. Perhaps in the anxiety of his office and with the tremendous pressures of all the meetings he has 24 hours a day, he can't recall the meeting in his office on March 13 at 4.30. Maybewe should start at square one. Does the Premier recall meeting with a group of Victoria business persons in his office on March 13 at 4:30 p.m.? Does the Premier recall whether or not he discussed with this group of business persons the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Does the Premier recall whether or not he made a commitment to finance this project on behalf of the government of British Columbia through the British Columbia Development Corporation? Mr. Chairman, some candour and sonic specific answers would be a welcome relief from bafflegab.

Well, I've never seen anything like this. The Premier loves to refer to my 10 years in this House and my accumulated experience. Well, every day is a new experience, as far as I'm concerned. I've never seen anything like this. During seven days of the Premier's estimates, in lengthy speeches by the Premier, he defines what questions he thinks are appropriate for him, and then he gives a blanket statement about other statements he made saying that whatever he said was "appropriate at the time." My colleague yesterday raised the name of Gordon Liddy. Does the Premier know who Gordon Liddy is? Well, if he doesn't know who Gordon Liddy is, he's getting it by osmosis.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier again: dealing with public funds, taxpayers' money, could he tell us who attended the secret meeting in his office — still secret, no public admission of what went on, dealing with taxpayers' money — about a deal for jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Would the Premier tell us whether or not a meeting took place in his office March 13 at 4:30 p.m. with a group of Victoria business persons to arrange financing for a jetfoil service, through BCDC, between Victoria and Seattle? Did that meeting take place?

[ Page 1892 ]

Does the Premier need some time to read, or perhaps consult with staff to remind himself of the meeting? I'm certain that the House would gladly give a time. Did the Premier make the deal with his own personal money? Perhaps if the deal was made with his own personal money it's none of our business to ask these impertinent questions. If it's not the taxpayers' money, then perhaps the Premier could correct me on that. I will gladly yield if he's gone to the bank and taken out some of his money and put it up for a risk on this jetfoil project. That's fine; then I won't ask the question.

Was the deal made with taxpayers' money or with your money? Mr. Chairman, that's a fair question.

Was the deal on the jetfoil made with the Premier's personal money or with the taxpayers' money?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I assume that it was made with the taxpayers' money, because I don't see any late amendment to the Premier's declaration or statements.

Does the Premier feel responsible to the people of this province to give an accounting of decisions made spending their tax dollars?

Is the Premier familiar with the slogan called "not a dime without debate"?

Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll just go over it again slowly. Maybe I should get a blackboard and chalk it up so we can deal with it one by one.

Is it true there was a secret meeting in your office at 4:30 on March 13 with a group of Victoria business persons to conclude a deal, in secret, over financing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think you will have to agree that the Chair has been most tolerant of section 43.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, no question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to sit down for the moment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm not yielding the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I will read section 43 for all members.

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

With all due respect, hon. member, I think you will have to agree that the Chair has been most tolerant of this particular level of debate. While we can ask questions of ministers under the votes, we cannot insist on answers. Being at this particular stage, I would ask the hon. member if he could possibly not shift his attention or his focus to another section away from the one that is really, at this point, most tedious and repetitious.

MR. BARRETT: Quite right. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to ask, continuing on the point of order, that this interruption does not take away from my time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope not.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that we've established that a point of order does not take away from my time, I refer to your point of order in standing order 43. That deals with argument, not with question. If you will repeat the last line of the standing order, you will see, in terms of a question, I am entitled to ask a question. Repeating a question is my determination, and certainly answering the question is the determination of the person who is being asked. There is nothing in the rules that bars me from repeating the question; the rule applies to argument and discussion.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, with my unlost time, because I know you're fair, this question to the Premier.

1) Is he prepared to tell us who was present at the secret meeting in his office, dealing with the jetfoil proposal between Seattle and Victoria? I ask the Premier questions under his estimates, according to the rules of this House and parliamentary practice.

2) Will the Premier tell us how much money was committed in these secret meetings by him, through BCDC, to finance the jetfoil service?

You know, Mr. Chairman, that accepting your ruling and your graciousness, if the Premier indicates he wants the floor again I will gladly yield the floor to him to answer the questions. I thought the last time I yielded the floor to him he was going to answer these questions. Did he try to fool or trick me to get the floor? I don't think so. He just forgot the questions. That's why I have to repeat them.

3) Would the Premier tell this House that he had made a deal with Victoria businessmen to finance the jetfoil service, and that, indeed, BCDC would be financing it, and would he tell us how he notified BCDC of this? Was it by letter or was it by phone call?

Mr. Chairman, you pointed out to me in your ruling that this doesn't detract from my time. You pointed out to me in your ruling that the minister does not have to answer. That's perfectly correct, and I don't argue with that at all. If he had to answer you would have called him to order and asked him to answer. But I think that it should go with your attention, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has ample time to answer these questions that perhaps wouldn't take four or five minutes to answer specifically, yes or no. He could tell us how he's dealing with taxpayers' dollars in secret meetings in his office. There's nothing wrong with that that I can think of. I can't recall any previous minister or premier in this province ever behaving in this manner. I don't recall, in my 20 years that the Premier wants to talk about, any minister ever, either when we were in government or when Social Credit was in government, refusing to answer specific questions in estimates. We usually got y-e-s, which means yes, or we got n-o, which means no. Sometimes we got "yes, my friend" or "no, my friend," but we got answers.

Mr. Chairman, I have the undivided attention, again, of the Premier. Perhaps he was distracted from writing the questions down by a rude interruption. I would like to ask the Premier this question: does he understand the questions that I'm asking? Does the Premier understand that we're discussing tax dollars? Does the Premier understand that we're discussing his manner of conducting business in secret in his office? Does the Premier understand that if the public gets the perception that that's how people do business with the gov-

[ Page 1893 ]

emment of British Columbia, they too would like the same opportunity of meeting, in secret, to make deals in the Premier's office? Mr. Chairman, if one group of businessmen make secret deals in the Premier's office about a project, would it not be fair for another group of businessmen to be entitled to the same opportunity of making a deal in the Premier's office? Would that be fair?

AN HON. MEMBER: How were they selected?

MR. BARRETT: Well, we don't know how they were selected. We don't know how you get into the Premier's office. We do know that the meeting took place on March 13 at 4:30 p.m. with a group of Victoria businessmen to make a deal on a jetfoil service involving taxpayers' dollars. The Premier lauds private enterprise. Could the Premier tell all the private enterprisers in this province, who may have a scheme involving jetfoils or any other project, how they get into the Premier's office to sit down and make a deal with him, so that he will instruct BCDC to make public money available for their risk?

That's a new concept in private enterprise: use public money for private risk. It's a new challenge in philosophy, a whole new approach to doing business. Private enterprise is to be lauded. Just come in to the Premier's office and gouge a little bit out of the taxpayers' trough and throw it on the table. "If you lose money, the taxpayers pick up the bill" — out of a secret deal in the Premier's office — "and if you make money, we might get a little of the profit back later on."

So I ask again: will the Premier tell us who was at the meeting in his office on March 13, at 4:30 p.m., with whom he made the secret deal on the jetfoil service? Would he tell us exactly how many of the taxpayers' dollars he committed to this deal made in his office? Would he tell us how he informed the separate Crown corporation, the British Columbia Development Corporation? This socialist instrument was started by the NDP — which was negative under us but positive under you, in your terms. How you could keep these socialist agencies, Lord only knows. The British Columbia Development Corporation was started by the socialists and is still here today — shocking! Why are you keeping these socialist agencies? Is it so you can use them privately in your office, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman? When did you decide to use this socialist agency privately in your office to benefit a small group of business people acting under a society for jetfoil service? Who's entitled to the benefits of socialism with your personal intervention through the British Columbia Development Corporation? I don't know. Is there a group of businessmen somewhere in this province which wants to meet with the Premier to make a deal with him on BCDC? Do you receive letters from businessmen who'd like to meet in your office to make a deal about BCDC?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I can ask the question, but the minister is not obliged to reply. But I think the shirking of one's duty, the absence of responsibility, the lack of commitment to the British parliamentary system and responsibility and advocacy are things that should be measured by the silence of the Premier. Elected office means accountability, elected office means responsibility for funds that are collected from the taxpayers, and that accountability requires answering questions about public funds related directly to the Premier's office. I'm not asking about any other minister; I'm asking about your office — not the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), not the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I'm asking the Premier under his vote: will he tell us who was present at the secret meeting in his office on March 13, at 4:30 p.m., at which meeting he made an arrangement to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Will he tell us how many people were there? Will he tell us what the financial arrangement is? Would he also tell us how he notified BCDC of his decision on their behalf to use taxpayers' money to finance this project?

I don't think those questions are unfair, Mr. Chairman. I know you don't think they're unfair. My colleagues don't think they're unfair. And if I presume to suggest that the people of the province don't have a right to know, then we have a king rather than a Premier. Then we have a government that views its ascension to power as a consequence of the natural unfolding of divine right rather than a responsible government giving responsible accounting in the only final court for all the taxpayers and the people of this province — this chamber. I think the people have a right to know whether or not the Premier's having a secret meeting. I think the Chairman has a right to know it. And I ask these questions, Mr. Chairman, on your behalf and that of every other taxpayer of this province. Would the Premier tell us who was at the secret meeting in his office, March 13, 1980, at 4:30 p.m.? Would the Premier tell us how much money he committed to this project.

To be fair, Mr. Chairman. perhaps I should ask the Premier: does he understand the questions?

Through you. Mr. Chairman, does the Premier understand these questions? Does he understand how important it is for people to know whether or not they too have access to secret meetings in his office to make deals with taxpayers' money out of the British Columbia Development Corporation? Does he consider that to be a serious matter?

Does the Premier consider it to be serious that other people in this province who have entrepreneurial projects, be they private enterprises or societies…?

Mr. Chairman, I think we should be gracious in understanding the great strain that the Premier may be under. Perhaps these complex questions are too much for him to handle at a time like this. Perhaps the pressure is so overwhelming that these questions are just beyond anybody's ability to grasp. They seem clear enough to me. Does the Premier wish to get up and answer these questions now?

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have had a little sample and study of arrogance. I think maybe it would do us all good to pause for a few minutes and reflect on each of our responsibilities.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

MR. BARRETT: Run away and hide. Run down to your office and think about it.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

[ Page 1894 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Public bills and orders. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to resume debate on Bill 7, a bill which provides a series of special funds for projects for the benefit of British Columbians, including a funding of $30 million as this year's fiscal contribution to the new Annacis Island crossing, and also including a capital contribution of $55 million towards urban transit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, if I may briefly recap the point I was making upon the adjournment of debate last week, I was comparing within the same piece of legislation the financial provision in respect of the Annacis crossing and the larger financial provision in respect of urban transit. I was pointing out, contrary to the impression left by some critics of Bill 7, that there is no conflict between funds required for the Annacis crossing and funds required for urban transit; that the policy of the government is as stated by the Premier, and the financial fact of the matter is as reflected in the bill; that planning by this government for urban transit and the Annacis crossing, far from being in conflict, in fact are complimentary and go hand in hand. Not only do they go hand in hand, but the emphasis by this government on urban transit is twice as great as it is on the Annacis crossing. The fact of the matter is, in Bill 7, for every single dollar this government will contribute to a new Annacis crossing, it will contribute two dollars for urban transit. There is double the emphasis for urban transit in Bill 7 that there is for the Annacis crossing. I would like to emphasize that policy as laid down by the Premier, speaking for the government on March 10 in this assembly, and pointing out that because of sound financial management the government of the people of British Columbia is in a position to proceed hand in hand on these two important policy fronts. The Premier spoke as follows:

I'm amused — maybe even 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....

Because of solid management of the financial affairs of this government and this province, we can proceed in both ways at once. Those people — in the suburbs — will have the opportunity to travel over the Annacis Island crossing, and I look forward to opening day and helping to cut the ribbon as the first car crosses — 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.

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. It cannot be fairly or honestly argued that in the government's policy planning there is conflict between the Annacis crossing and urban transit, or that Annacis crossing takes precedence over urban transit or prevents capital funding for urban transit.

A further complementing of the Annacis crossing and urban transit is reflected in the planning for the Annacis crossing. Critics of the Annacis crossing have been careful not to point out one of the important ingredients of the plan.

The design for the bridge unveiled by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), along with the Premier, clearly provides two additional lanes for light rail or light rapid transit. The fact is that under this government the Annacis crossing, from day one of planning, makes provision for two special lanes for light rail or light rapid transit.

Critics of the Annacis crossing have spoken solely in terms of automobile traffic. They have not been realistic, and they have not been fair in recognizing the high volume of truck traffic today, which moves much-needed goods to people in all parts of British Columbia. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), a strong critic of the Annacis crossing, directed his criticism solely towards the use of the private automobile. He apparently fails to recognize the importance of truck traffic for Vancouver Island. During the recent strike of the CP ferries, it was made known that CP alone, apart from B.C. Ferries, carries 300 tandem units a day, carrying goods onto Vancouver Island. The number of truck units moving into Vancouver and carrying much-needed goods for our people is greater than that. As population grows, practical accommodation must be made for the movement of truck traffic.

The first member for Victoria, who spoke strongly in opposition to the Annacis crossing, bases his criticism on the profoundly mistaken view that it "will serve solely and exclusively the private automobile." That is simply not fact. It is clear, first of all, that the Annacis crossing will provide major service to commercial truck traffic and, additionally, will provide two special lanes for light rail or urban transit.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to members of the opposition as they launch their critique of Bill 7 and the Annacis crossing. If you read the Blues, they've been very careful, with one exception so far, not to explicitly oppose the Annacis crossing. To his credit, as he is an intellectually honest man on the issue, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has risen in his place and clearly told this assembly he will vote against the bill because of the provision for the Annacis crossing. But, Mr. Speaker, the other opposition members have not been so direct. They have worried about the mode of planning for the crossing. They have worried about the ultimate cost figure, but they have stopped short of stating a clear yes or no on the Annacis crossing. The government benches are going to watch the final vote on Bill 7 with great interest and listen with great care to subsequent opposition speakers. We'll listen to see if they will directly and clearly take a yes or a no position on the issue of the crossing itself. If one reviews the history of the NDP administration between 1972 and 1975 and its then view on the Annacis crossing, one could understand the reluctance by present opposition members to take a clear yes or no position on the Annacis crossing.

The former member for Delta, Mr. Carl Liden, is on record as supporting a bridge across the Fraser River — a third crossing. The Vancouver Sun, September 10, 1975, for example, clearly records that support. Mr. Speaker, the previous NDP member for Delta is a member from the same region that the current member for Delta comes and is the member who led the charge for the Annacis crossing. His NDP predecessor supported an Annacis crossing. It's most interesting that on September 10, 1975, the NDP member for Delta was supporting the Annacis crossing. It is interesting to learn that the first studies towards the Annacis crossing were initiated by the NDP government.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was Minister of

[ Page 1895 ]

Highways during the time when the first Annacis crossing bridge proposal was to put to study by CBA Engineering. The then Minister of Highways had some very interesting things to say about the Annacis crossing when that first report, which his ministry commissioned, was released. Speaking in 1974 the then Minister of Highways said that an Annacis crossing was about ten years away, meaning 1984.

The member for Prince Rupert, the Minister of Highways at the time, was either afraid of the issue, couldn't afford the issue or had a do-nothing attitude, because to attempt to deflect the decision-making process…. He indicated in 1974 that the Annacis crossing was about ten years away. Well, we're approaching that ten-year period. If the bridge is started, as this government plans it, hopefully it will be finished by 1984, about the time the member for Prince Rupert, now in opposition, then Minister of Highways, saw the need for the Annacis crossing would materialize.

There was something of a do-nothing attitude by that former government on the Annacis crossing, Mr. Speaker. This is what the then Minister of Highways said when that first report on a proposed Annacis crossing, which he had commissioned through his ministry, was released. In the fall of 1975 the member had this to say to the Vancouver Sun: " I don't know how long it will take for a commitment one way the other. I would rather wait another year or so, so everyone can make up their minds." There was strong and dynamic leadership from the then Minister of Highways, who had a report commissioned, released it, and said he didn't know how long it would take to make a decision. He would rather wait a year or so, so everyone could make up their minds. Well, that's a bit of an abdication of leadership, but it's not so hard to understand in the context of the day if one understands that the policy of the day of that previous government was really to wash its hands of any responsibility for urban transportation problem-solving in the greater Vancouver regional area.

This is what the previous Minister of Highways had to say in this assembly. He spoke on June 12, 1975, and this is what he said about his responsibility as Minister of Highways for possible assistance to the lower mainland with regional traffic planning. The former Minister of Highways, the member for Prince Rupert, now in opposition, said:

I would like to point out at the outset that there is no way that this department can solve the traffic problems of the greater Vancouver area. There is no way. The responsibility mainly lies with the local governments and the 14 municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. We shouldn't be involved in the greater Vancouver area as much as we are as a department, but it has evolved that way through the years. I believe the concern of this department should be mainly with those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and out of Victoria too, like they do in other jurisdictions.

"Just pass the buck somewhere else. It's not my problem; don't bother me with that tough decision."

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be a member of a party and government benches which are prepared to face and tackle a problem, however large or demanding. That's what our Minister of Transportation and Highways has done. We are tackling the problem. We in no way are abdicating our responsibility, and we aren't prepared to adopt the philosophy of the previous NDP government: "Gosh, we had this study done on the Annacis crossing, but we'd like to wait a year before we decide what to do. Hopefully, with a good finger in the wind, we'll get an opinion from the people as to what is the politically expedient thing to do. Anyway, it's really not our problem to be involved in helping the lower mainland.'' What a wonderful attitude of leadership, perhaps safe in the short term.

This government is tackling the question of the Annacis crossing. the question of urban transit. As I mentioned last Friday in debate on this bill, there are conservation aspects to the Annacis crossing. It is an interesting engineering calculation to calculate how much gas and oil we are going to save by getting rid of those intolerable morning lineups along Highway 10 and the George Massey Tunnel — that waste of gas and oil from cars and trucks and buses. The elimination of those lines of traffic is going to eliminate that wasteful usage of gas and oil.

Additionally, if, as I say, you look at the direct line along the proposed Annacis route versus the wasteful looping into the city presently required along Highway 10, there is a tremendous saving in miles to be driven by commuters and commercial vehicles. Those tremendous savings by thousands of automobiles every day are going to mean the savings of thousands of gallons of oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I would like to speak about my home constituency, Vancouver South, and some aspects of Vancouver South that relate to both the Annacis crossing and rapid transit planning. I'd like to point out to all members in the House that over the years I think Vancouver South as a constituency has been a very fair-minded and good neighbour to all parts of British Columbia, particularly the lower mainland, in making its fair contribution to sharing the regional traffic burden. Most members from lower mainland constituencies can properly argue that their particular area, over the years, has seen a growth of roads and streets. They've been busier and their particular neighbourhood and community is contributing to the overall well-being by carrying its fair share of regional traffic. In no place is a fairer share of the regional traffic load carried than in Vancouver South.

Along the south slope of Vancouver, between Burnaby and Angus Drive. over the last 20 years we've seen a series of regional traffic routes utilizing new bridges across the Fraser River. We've seen the Oak Street Bridge, the Arthur Laing Bridge. the Knight Street Bridge, to name the three major arteries that now link the south slope of Vancouver to Vancouver South. Travelling along the shores of the Fraser River we have Southwest and Southeast Marine Drive, a major regional traffic artery. One of the positive aspects of the Annacis plan, which is going to assist traffic routing through the southeast quarter of the Vancouver South constituency, is the relieving of some considerable east-west congestion, because the traffic studies show a number of the cars and trucks which presently come in on Deas Island throughway, Highway 10, George Massey Tunnel, and then Oak Street and Knight Street, hit the south slope of Vancouver and then turn back toward the east side of Vancouver or Burnaby or New Westminster, the area of their ultimate destination. Under the Annacis plan, that wasteful looping in and then cutting across Vancouver back toward the Burnaby–New Westminster area, is going to be minimized. The tremendous east-west congestion through southeast Vancouver is going to be reduced considerably, and those vehicles will take a steady, direct path right in to their destination, which is not only energy saving and mileage saving, but means a reduction of congestion in the southeast quarter of Vancouver. And that's a big benefit for Vancouver South flowing from the planning for the Annacis crossing.

I want to emphasize to the Minister of Transportation and

[ Page 1896 ]

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that people in Vancouver South, I think, are largely responsive to the needs of the eastern suburbs of Vancouver, because they see in this same bill, for every dollar going towards the Annacis crossing, two dollars going to urban transit. That's a pretty fair balance. We also see a government which, after 30 years of lip-service by various levels of government, has done something organizationally with local transit to provide the framework to get the planning for rapid transit going. They have created the UTA — the Urban Transit Authority — and the Metro Transit Operating Company, and they have funded it, not only with the $69 million this year to assist the transfer of operating costs from Hydro, but also $55 million for future capital requirements. So we're pleased to see that urban transit planning is in fact a priority of this government. People in Vancouver South — and my seatmate, the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), and I underline this — stress that urban transit planning be continued as a priority. We'd like to see the same kind of greater emphasis on urban transit planning and on the Annacis crossing continued; let them both continue, complementing each other.

Before concluding my remarks I would be remiss if I did not contrast the balanced and responsible view of this government with the remarks made by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is, I believe, the chief opposition critic on the Annacis crossing. This government, as I've shown, unlike its predecessor, was not prepared to duck the Annacis issue, was not prepared to sit around and say, "Well, that's somebody else's problem," and is now prepared to face the issue and get the ball rolling. If we listen to the first member for Victoria, the chief critic of the Annacis crossing, we get a further understanding of the NDP opposition's alternative approach to regional planning. The government's approach is clear — a balanced approach, a commonsense approach, which sees the immediate need for a solution to the Annacis crossing problem met with the provision of an Annacis crossing balanced in a commonsense way with a larger capital contribution towards urban transit planning, both going together hand in hand. It's a balanced, commonsense view, which recognizes the immediate and urgent need for something to be done about the Annacis crossing issue and couples that with a constructive plan and financial capital assistance for urban transit planning.

By contrast, what is the approach of the opposition'? Well, presumably it was first seen in 1975 in the words of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the previous Minister of Highways, who said that Victoria really shouldn't be involved in traffic and urban transit planning for the greater Vancouver area. That was somehow the problem of 14 local governments over there, and he really thought the Minister of Highways shouldn't get involved in that kind of thing. Our response is clear. Regardless of the challenge, regardless of how apparently hard the problem is, we're prepared to tackle the challenge. And that's what we're doing with the Annacis crossing. Equally, we're providing substantial capital funding for urban transit.

Now what is the alternative of the opposition? The alternative of the opposition is the following: it is a declaration of war on the private automobile. We see more of the NDP policy in the statements from the first member for Victoria — a guarantee of gas rationing for our people in the future, and a guarantee that under an NDP administration private cars in our cities will be forbidden by law. That's the kind of harsh and Draconian declaration-of-war approach to the problem which the first member for Victoria would suggest — the typically negative and pessimistic view of a member who has no optimism and no faith and no hope that British Columbians, with spirit and working with technology, can solve their modern transportation problems in a modern way. If you read the Blues it is very interesting to see that whenever the first member for Victoria speaks of the automobile, he speaks of the private automobile. You get the impression that the first member for Victoria and, presumably, the NDP opposition are really bothered by the concept of private property rights — once again.

We've heard the scenario; we've had the comment in this assembly some sessions ago from the then member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who is now the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), with his oft-repeated, well-remembered views against private property rights. Private property rights, a negative aspect — it's right in Hansard.

The party whose MLA, now the member for North Island, advocated in this assembly an assault on private property rights…. He has a colleague, the first member for Victoria, who assaults the rights of private car ownership. More private rights are being assaulted. We then couple that attack on private rights with the pessimistic, negative views of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). What did the first member for Vancouver Centre advise British Columbians last summer when he spoke to the Young NDP convention? He predicted a depression was coming for British Columbia in 1980; sell your stocks and bonds, sell your homes. And now the first member for Victoria says sell your cars. That's the advice of that group, and that's how they solve the problems: "Sell your stocks and bonds, sell your homes, sell your cars; we're against private property; we're against the private automobile." It's negative thinking.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we're going to look with interest on how the members of the opposition vote and continue speaking on this bill. As I've indicated, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), to his credit, has clearly said he will oppose the Annacis crossing. We watch with interest the position which will be taken by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), remembering that the previous NDP member for Surrey, Mr. Liden, supported the crossing.

In conclusion, can I make this observation? If the opposition wanted a constructive speaker on the Annacis crossing, with the greatest of respect I think they might do better than somebody who told us Friday: "The private automobile simply cannot be tolerated as it is currently." There are a lot of British Columbians who have to drive to work, who need a car for their business, who rely on automobiles. If the opposition had a spokesman on Annacis who either lived in Vancouver's eastern suburbs or had some experience living there or had gone through the process of commuting to work through the road network as it presently is, there might be some greater understanding by those negative opposition benches.

The world isn't black and white. You can't have it all one way. You're going to get nowhere with the hysterical approach which attacks private rights and advocates gas rationing and the abolition of automobiles. You have to have a balanced and commonsense point of view. In its approach to transportation planning, I think this government shows a balanced and commonsense view. In one piece of legislation

[ Page 1897 ]

we see a contribution of twice as much money for urban transit as for the Annacis crossing.

We don't believe that you help the people of Surrey, Richmond and Delta by declaring war on their private automobiles, or by telling them that their private automobiles cannot be tolerated. We don't think it's fair to our people to predict the abolition of cars, gas rationing, and dire consequences. We believe that in the future British Columbians on the lower mainland who work together with a positive spirit and with technology can enjoy a balanced regional transportation program, including the kind of urban transit and rapid transit which the Premier has predicted and a modern, sophisticated urban road network. We believe we can have a balanced view and a balanced amount of both.

MR. LEVI: That was a delightful speech by the second member for Vancouver South. If I could, I would ask him if he lives in Vancouver South, but I don't know whether I can ask him that from the floor. He has a lot of knowledge about Vancouver South.

It looks like the bill of the Minister of Finance is turning into a surrogate bill on transportation. We really should get into some other items. It's the luck of being the Minister of Finance. Most of the debate is concerning the Annacis crossing.

The previous speaker was concerned about where some of us stand on the bill. I made my position very clear in the budget speech. I was opposed to it, and I stated at that time why I was opposed to it. But the member would have us believe that, over the period of four years since the report was made available in 1975, what actually took place in the development of the Annacis Island bridge was a continuum of planning and thinking about exactly where the bridge should go and how it should be done. The government has been in power for four years and, presumably, from time to time they've addressed themselves to this problem. This is what they would have us believe. After all, they had a report in 1975 which made certain recommendations about construction and the cost. At that time the cost was of the order of almost $200 million. Now if we multiply it by inflation, what are we looking at in terms of the cost of an Annacis Island bridge? Presumably it's not $130 million, as the Premier tells us, but something of the order of between $200 million and $300 million. That's if they were going to build the bridge they talked about in 1975, but that's not the bridge they are going to build at all.

The previous speaker in the government would have us believe it was always their intention, once they got their agenda straightened away, to build an Annacis Island bridge. Were they completely oblivious of what was going on in the Greater Vancouver Regional District in terms of all the planning and research, in terms of traffic patterns, in terms of light rapid transit and what people in that area wanted to do through their elected representatives in the GVRD?

We had a great deal of discussion about light rapid transit from the member who is now the Minister of Finance. Yes. we're going to do something about light rapid transit. That was the hope that was held out to all I of the people in the lower mainland in the first instance. That was the hope that was held out to people in Coquitlam, Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey and Delta. That was the development of the idea of having a transit system where the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs came up with the Urban Transit Act and started to breathe some life into the idea of light rapid transit. Yes, to his credit, he did this. We have to recognize the present Minister of Finance, because the poor guy isn't getting very much recognition these days. He introduced the bill and indicated that was where the government wanted to go in terms of moving people.

There was no discussion at that time, as the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) would have us believe, about the preservation of the motor car. No one said there was something special to be addressed, that we were Going to preserve the automobile. He never talked about that. He said: "We've got to move all these people." All of a sudden he has become the saviour of the automobile and the saviour, again, of the right of everybody to own his own piece of property.

Those people over there are going to have to tell us how a young couple in their early twenties is even going to be able to afford to get the mortgage to buy a piece of property. It's very nice to stand up and mouth some of these nice little platitudes. The reality is that some people who eventually wind up here are not going to be able to afford that kind of option — not with 17, 18 and maybe 20 percent mortgages.

In terms of the kind of planning that's gone on in this Legislature for rapid transit in greater Vancouver — not for 1 or 2 years but for 20 years it has been discussed. There was a test of moving people by an expansion of the bus system, which took place in 1974-75, which attempted to demonstrate that it's possible. If you have sufficient buses, to take away some of the pressure that exists on major arterial roads in terms of getting into and out of the Vancouver area.

The second member for Vancouver South — who has been the member for a few months — wasn't down in Vancouver South recently, talking to people about the way they feel about that Annacis Island crossing and what they feel are the eventual implications for their lifestyle. They are concerned about having Boundary Road as a quasi-freeway. That is right down in the member's riding. I can remember the debates 11 years ago, at the time they built the Knight Street crossing, about the kind of dislocation and the long period of adjustment people went through because of that. Here they are going through the same kind of threatened dislocation in terms of the development of Boundary Road and the possibility that it will be widened to six lanes to take up some of the slack. That is what they are worried about down there, but he doesn't know that — he rarely goes down there.

I was down there six weeks ago and met with over 100 people at a meeting who were concerned about what was going on. They are members of the NDP, but they also live there. They had a resolution: they were very concerned about it. They have been in touch with the member, but the member doesn't note that. He tells us that everybody in Vancouver South is prepared to make his contribution to the transit system. Yes, it's true, but they worry about the kind of ad hoc planning in respect to this particular bridge which is going to have a direct effect on them.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) presumably will tell us when we get into his estimates — unless he participates in this debate — that all along it has been their plan to build the Annacis Island bridge. If that is the case, what were they doing spending money two years ago on the Pattullo Bridge utilization study, a joint study of his ministry and the Greater Vancouver Regional District transit people? They were interested in looking at some options, and they looked at that option.

[ Page 1898 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: We still are.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you're still looking at it. Which is going to come first? If the minister says they are still looking at it, what's the Premier doing making announcements in February about an Annacis Island bridge? What's he doing? What kind of planning is that? Integrated, balanced planning the second member for Vancouver South talks about? The Minister of Highways heard about the Annacis Island crossing on the radio or read about it in the newspapers. He didn't know what was coming, because he has just said the Pattullo Bridge option is still there. What's he talking about — that we're going to have an Annacis Island option and we're going to have a Pattullo Bridge option?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Pattullo Bridge is still there. What are you talking about?

MR. LEVI: Yes, it sure is. But the study looked at the possibility of some restructuring of the bridge and some high-level care for highways. That's what the study looked at. The minister tells us that it's still in the works. Well, what happened to the Annacis Island one, if this was in the works? All right, that's the kind of balanced planning you talk about. You look at one option. You're not making decisions for next year and the year after. You're making decisions 20 or 30 years down the road. So you take your time. You don't get a report in 1975 and decide to throw the bill up in 1976.

I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that if the Annacis Island bridge is built the way it's presently designed, in three years — and this is from officials in the GVRD — they will need something else to take up some of the pressure. That bridge does not envision in any way, as the 1975 report did, all sorts of arterial roads and that kind of thing. What you have is a bridge that goes from one side to the other, and it will take the traffic that's coming down. It's literally an extension of the highway, but it does nothing about looking at feeder roads or the arterial structure. It does nothing at all about integrating it into the planning in terms of moving people. But part of the objective with light rapid transit was that wherever possible you would integrate light rapid transit with the movement of cars. There is no such integration in this at all.

We can't have those people, Mr. Speaker, telling us that what we have is the direct result of some skilful planning on the part of the Ministry of Highways. It's not that at all. What it is is a classical knee-jerk reaction by a Premier who was told by the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson): "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going to resign."

HON. MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. LEVI: That's what he said. He said: "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going to resign." And I'll tell you over there that you can't take too many resignations. My gosh, you get two more resignations and you're really in trouble. Most of you are going to be on unemployment insurance.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Except for our bolt manufacturer over there. He can always write columns in The Columbian.

Here is the Minister of Highways feeling a little prickly because he's probably sitting on a thorny rose there. He says "rubbish." Do you mean to tell me that the member for Delta did not say publicly in the last election: "If I don't get that bridge, I'm going to resign within six months"? Now that's a heck of an ultimatum to give to the Premier of the province. So what does he do? The Premier of the province goes to the Minister of Highways, and he says: "Look, that jerk there is going to ruin us. What can we do for him?" So Alex just pulls out his little tinker toys and says: "Well, if we put a bridge across here, we're okay."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, the Chair will have to ask you to withdraw the term you used. That is not showing courtesy to another member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're quite right, Mr. Speaker. I shouldn't call him a jerk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Perhaps you should remember that members in this Legislative Assembly are not addressed by their Christian name but by the riding they represent or the portfolio that they hold.

MR. LEVI: Right. Well, I apologize. I withdraw. The member for Delta is not a jerk.

The Minister of Highways…. He's pretty quick on his feet. Did you notice how quickly he got out of his chair? I am amazed. That's how quick he got out of his chair when the Premier walked into his office and said: "Look, build a bridge across there from Delta to the other side or we're going to lose him." So he jumped out of his chair and he got a piece of wood, and said: "Simple, Mr. Premier. Here is the map. Let's put it across here. You know, anywhere. Let's just put it across so that he'll be satisfied." If that's not the case, then we might have the minister tell us exactly how it was planned, because I don't know anybody in the Greater Vancouver Regional District who agrees with the location of the bridge or with what you were talking about in terms of just what it's going to serve three or four years after it's built.

HON. MR. FRASER: They'll catch up.

MR. LEVI: You won't be here then, Mr. Minister. You won't know; you won't be here. He says: "They'll catch up." Only we know. We can ignore it. You know, this is the great freedom-fighting party, Mr. Speaker, who talk about local autonomy. Let's have the people make some decisions.

It's like the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He's going to make some decisions about the municipal structure; he's going to create counties. Has he backed away from that now, having done a poll and realizing that people don't want counties? Because if you have counties, like in England, you have to have cricket teams, and they don't play cricket over here.

We have the Minister of Highways. He told us just now. Here it is. I can ask him, through you, Mr. Chairman, is this it? This is a nice, beautiful report. It's called "A Review of Methods to Improve the Utilization of the Pattullo Bridge." It's a joint study, and he tells us it's still in the works. Well, what are we doing debating this particular bill at this point in time? This section of the bill deals with Annacis Island. What are we dealing with this for if this is part of some ongoing planning that's going on? What are we doing? How much do we spend on the utilization? Has the Highways ministry rejected it? No, the minister says they haven't rejected it. So it's still in the works.

[ Page 1899 ]

We're having a great debate here. We know that by the end of the fiscal year they won't have spent any money anyway. It's going to take some time to get this bridge moving. You know, if you don't get the footings in, that member may very well resign, Mr. Speaker. You know, if you don't make a hole in the ground, he can precipitate a general election in this province. I mean, after all, if he leaves your party, how much more can you take? It's very tight over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who else will take him?

MR. LEVI: Yes, who else will take him? That's the point. We'll have to find him some accommodation over here. Then maybe somebody else will come across, and the decisions won't be theirs to make anymore.

Mr. Speaker, in the constituency that I represent, they had some expectation down the road — five to seven or even ten years — that they could look forward to some kind of relief in terms of moving about, in terms of some beginnings of a light rapid transit system, some beginnings in terms of expansion and improvement in the bus system. After all, there are a large number of people living out there. Almost 6,000 people a day are commuting into Vancouver from Coquitlam, because they work there. They spend a long time trying to get through that traffic on the highway. They had some expectation, in terms of the announced plans of the GVRD, that down the road there would be some relief. That was fair enough. It takes time to get what you want. Suddenly, out of the blue, injected into this is this bridge, which departed completely from the principle that had been discussed for the past three or four years in this House and in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That principle is that there will be a strong attempt, first, to move people, then to move cars.

Now we haven't heard from the government over there, except for today. We heard from the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). Was he enunciating the government policy, that that government is committed to the movement of cars and not to anything else? Because that's what we heard from him. We haven't heard from them over there. We got some inklings two and three years ago from the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs that perhaps they were moving in the direction of talking about moving people — moving people in terms of the development of a rapid transit system. Now there's been a complete departure from that, because we've now got an enunciation that what's on today is "we're going to move cars."

It's the basis on which the decision was made that makes us cynical. You don't take all of that planning, all of the money that was spent, all of the expectations and hope that people have in that area, and suddenly slap them in the face with an enormous piece of ad hockery. There was no planning, no pre-thought to it; it was simply a straight political decision to bail the Premier out of a very difficult situation. In terms of political situations, those are the kinds of decisions you have to make. There is no care about how it affects people; you simply make it for the business of survival. That's how crucial that decision was in terms of the future survival of that government, in terms of being in power. It's down to the numbers game, that's what it is. So we've got that kind of cynical decision made that we're going to build an Annacis Island bridge. There was a suggestion by the Premier at the time, until he was contradicted, that somehow that was the bridge that was talked about in 1975. It is not. That is not the same bridge that was envisioned in 1975. He has not been forthcoming on just exactly what it is going to cost. The only thing we can say is that it was done to bail him out of a political problem. No amount of waving the bill around and saying how much money you are going to spend on it is going to convince anybody on that particular question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some other aspects of the bill. I want to trust the minister, when he is summing up the bill and we get into the committee stage, to talk about some of the things that appear to be missing from the bill. When we look at where the special funds are allocated, we are looking at Barkerville, B.C. Place. downtown revitalization. energy development, a Fraser River crossing, the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, northeast coal, provincial computerization, and an urban transit fund. Nowhere in this bill is it envisioned that you could take money that would be available specifically for projects that would assist people directly on the human level. I have in mind. when I talk about this, Mr. Speaker, that if there's a special funds act, because we have this amount of money that is surplus…. We've gone through the arguments that all of this could have been adequately put into the estimates of the ministries — that's the way it could be done — but this is quite a bit of window shopping, so they can get in a bill about special funds.

Everything they do is with a bill. Well, that's the way they play the political game. But nowhere in this bill do they talk about specific projects for people, in terms of directing themselves at a particular problem area. After all, if they've taken the option to provide programming through the Minister of Finance's department in no less than six different ministries. I would have thought he would have gone one or two steps further and made an allocation of money in the human services area. I would suggest to the minister that he might have addressed himself to the very serious problem that exists among some of our children, that there might have been in this bill something which directed itself to a specific problem in terms of children. If the minister was lost about what he might do, we might give him a couple of suggestions. They talked before about balance. Well, if you want balance let's do something specifically about certain target groups that have some problems which are not specifically being addressed by the departments that have their budgets.

We were told earlier, for instance, about under expenditures in the Ministry of Human Resources, but what's missing here is some concern about a specific target group. I’ll mention one target group where the minister might have exercised some real feeling of humanism about what he was doing and said: "Yes. not only are we building roads and stadiums and restoring heritage buildings, we are also interested in target groups who have specific problems." It could have been specifically in relation to the handicapped; it could have been specifically in relation to problems existing in the area where children are involved. We could talk about the need, for instance, for broaden the existing programs for the abused child. He could have addressed himself to a report which we recently were given. Oh, we've got that groaning minister over there, Mr. Speaker. My God, what a contribution he's made since he's been here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, during second reading great latitude is allowed…

[ Page 1900 ]

MR. LEVI; Yes, we're allowed to discuss principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …on the principle of the bill, but on the bill, thank you.

MR. LEVI: The allocation of surplus funds.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: That's what you're looking for — the principle in the bill. Yes, we know about the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I just talked about it. You've got all this money. Instead of putting it through the estimates you put it in a bill. What's the principle? Politics. That's what it is. That's the established principle. Nobody has stood up and said anything else. That's the principle. I'm suggesting to the minister that the bill would have had more humanity in it if he had addressed himself to a few more human problems, if he had said we're going to allocate $30 million or $40 million to specific areas of problems with children. Everybody presumably has received the report on the sexual abuse of children. A study has been done and that's a problem to address; that is a particular target group that needs to have some assistance. It would have been well to have it in this bill because, after all, we're dealing with surplus funds.

But all the minister could do was to tell us that it's necessary to do something about Barkerville and B.C. Place and an energy development fund. Yes, all of those things are quite necessary, but they could have been very adequately handled within the departmental estimates. But having gone this route it's fair to ask: why is there missing from this bill a particular address to the problems that people have as individuals — not because they have to get a car across a bridge or because when they're tourists they have to look at something up in Barkerville — these specific substantive problems that exist in our society? That's my position with respect to the way this is being done. One would have thought that had they been able to give some thought to what they were doing they would have created a balance in here, but they haven't created a balance at all. It's all directed to some high-flown projects which are not going to get off the ground this year or next year.

We don't think for one minute that next year there won't be surpluses, because there will be surpluses, because we are told by various resource ministers that there are going to be big revenues. Perhaps there will not be as much as they expect in the forest industry, but nevertheless the revenues have been increasing. The question is, where are your priorities? What do you address it to? Nowhere in that government have we had any discussion or any point made in a bill with respect to addressing itself to a target group. Everything is done in terms of the hardware; nothing is done in terms of software and people. That's the problem that exists here; it's the problem that exists with the bill.

We really are used to this kind of bill. We've been getting them for the last four years, but they still haven't learned that there are more things out there than the suggestion that you're going to do something which will satisfy particular target groups. If you're going to do that then you're addressing yourself to other target groups that have equally pressing problems. You go beyond the car and the buses and address yourself to some of the problems that government has decided are not so urgent, and so they don't address them. I named one here today. If you want to bring in a bill like this, then balance it and address it to people as well as to hardware.

I have no trouble in terms of the way this bill is done, Mr. Chairman. In the years I've been in this House I'm used to voting for or against allocations in terms of expenditures in the estimates, and I'll make those decisions in exactly the same way that I've always done. There's no problem about that, no problem about voting against particular votes in the estimates that I don't agree with, that don't represent what I think are the interests of the people. I won't have any problem voting against it, because I think simply that what we've got here is a piece of window-dressing. I've no problem about that at all. I'm quite prepared to go, as I did in my riding, and talk about the thing that they call the Annacis Island crossing, and there is general support for being against that kind of thing because they've been disappointed.

One might very well ask whether, had the political arrangements in the lower mainland area been somewhat different, had the Socreds represented Burnaby or Coquitlam or New Westminster, they would have done what they just did. We wonder about that. We know the way you make decisions; we know the kind of options that you have; we know that you've given up on Vancouver Island and you've given up on the coast. If anybody suggests that the only reason for the Annacis Island crossing is other than the preservation of one government seat, then they better get up and justify it, because so far, Mr. Speaker, they haven't justified anything at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again we've heard a great deal of negativism today, and certainly when this very bill was being discussed earlier there was a great deal of negativism then also. It's just unfortunate that we can't hear at least a few positive comments or some good suggestions from the opposition with respect to this or any other piece of legislation.

In the community of Surrey and in Langley and Delta, all the people I've spoken to are extremely grateful for the very positive things which are being done by this government with respect to transportation and transit. Frankly, I'm not so sure that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) is really aware of how the people in his area feel, because they, too, will benefit considerably from this new traffic artery which will assist the whole of the system.

MR. LEVI: They don't believe that, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This member for Maillardville-Coquitlam suggests that perhaps we can do all things with the Pattullo Bridge. Well, the Pattullo Bridge happens to be across from Maillardville-Coquitlam, or certainly very close to it. The member should recall that when he was electioneering there he obviously might have seen it from time to time.

Mr. Member, I would be very pleased to meet with you one day in your constituency and talk to some of those people, because I think they too would be very proud of what's happening in the area of transit and transportation in British Columbia, and particularly in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It is interesting that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), my colleague in the constituency, hasn't said a great deal about the Annacis Island bridge, although recently in Surrey he put forth an article which was mailed to a number of people, and in it he stated that he was not in support of the Annacis Island bridge, but on the other hand he

[ Page 1901 ]

was not against it either. Now this is the sort of thing we've heard from the opposition: negativism, or a backing away.

We have here the opportunity of providing a very necessary link in the overall transit system. Certainly the Pattullo Bridge may be a good carrier for a rail line or a monorail line or whatever mode of rapid transit is adopted for that part of the region. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam mentioned that we need feeder roads, but you cannot funnel all of the traffic from all of that very rapidly growing area of the lower mainland through Whalley onto Pattullo Bridge. It cannot be done, and those members who are suggesting it might be done don't know what they're talking about.

They talk about the Greater Vancouver Regional District and what they had to say about these proposals. Well, let me tell you that three days before this announcement was made, I met with GVRD and lower mainland planning officials in the Surrey municipal hall, where they proudly displayed their plans for the lower mainland, and those plans indicated a crossing at or near Annacis Island. So while on the one hand those elected people had been very much a part of preparing a plan which indicated a crossing at or near Annacis, some bureaucrats within the GVRD, a day or two before the crossing was announced, suggested that some other engineering might indicate there was an alternative elsewhere. That was not the Greater Vancouver Regional District: those were a few of the bureaucrats, and they may have been the same bureaucrats that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has been talking to, because the elected people in greater Vancouver generally are well aware that in order to have an effective rapid transit system you must also have an effective road system.

Certainly this government has set a very good example already in the first year by providing $55 million right here in this bill to assure the acquisition of capital assets for the transit system. Mr. Speaker, their solution, in keeping with the negativism we've heard all along, and in keeping with their opposition to all that's progressive which has been put forth by this government — as was mentioned by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) — was that we abolish the automobile and ration gas. The member who was once the Minister of Highways for that government back in 1974-75 felt the solution to getting people on the buses was to let the roads go to pot. He certainly showed that that could be done in short order, because the roads did go to pot. In my own constituency there was a very good example of their negative approach to all things. When the plans were being developed for the Scott Road widening, they suggested that we should not build any bus bays and that instead the buses should be somehow made to stop in the middle of the road. That way it was felt by the then government that cars would line up behind, and sooner or later the people would become very frustrated, get rid of their cars and get on the bus. That was their solution.

The first member for Victoria said: "You know, we shouldn't have cars in the downtown core of the city. It spoils the city. We should abolish the car from the downtown core. We should do what they've done in London, Amsterdam. Paris and Rome." Well, obviously the member is not aware that while perhaps the city of Amsterdam has one of the best transit systems in the world, they also have the greatest number of cars on the road and they too have had to provide for cars within the city. You cannot have one and abolish the other; a rational approach must be developed. This bill is certainly an example of a most rational approach. where we're providing double the money for transit services that we're providing for the new crossing, but it's also recognized that the two go hand in hand.

Bill 7, Mr. Speaker, also provides for the downtown revitalization program. I’ll certainly have the opportunity to speak on this again later, but I want to make it very clear that we as a government have a particular concern for the small businessman in the downtown core. For too long now we've seen too many small businesses suffer in the downtown core, attempting to compete with the larger centres on the outside, while they do not have all of those opportunities available to the large shopping centre operator. Here we will have the resources to provide a good program which will give the business community. especially, the incentive to participate in downtown revitalization — a tremendous program and a first. It is certainly an example for the whole of Canada, if not North America. It is a product of this government in 1980 and a product of this Bill 7, which I'm hoping, perhaps, before we're all through, the members on the other side would consider supporting.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to the Urban Transit Fund, because for the first time we have a fund established so that we can now set up not only planning for it, but also actually get down to providing a good program towards rapid transit in our greater Vancouver area. We've begun by improving the bus system, by approving the acquisition of diesel and trolley buses. But we must begin moving very quickly towards providing the first start on a rapid transit system. We must secure our options. Something has to be done and we recognize this. The moneys are there and we're prepared to move on it, and that has not happened for a good while anywhere. But again this government has set the example for the whole of Canada, and we will be negotiating wherever possible with other governments to participate to the greatest extent possible.

This is a very good bill and I would highly commend it to all members here. I would hope that the opposition will change their ways, get away from the negativism, get away from the knocking everything that's good, and realize that British Columbia is a going place and a province with tremendous opportunity — a province where positive people can still do very positive things. And I think most British Columbians not only recognize that, but certainly are willing to participate in the building of this province.

British Columbians are not knockers, they're not people wanting to tear down, they are people for the most part who have come here from other places, from other lands, or they're children of pioneering families who want to build a province, who want to see the opportunities developed. Frankly, I am very pleased that I can at least now take some of this comment that's been made by the opposition, put it in print, and present it to my constituents, and perhaps we'll have the opportunity of going to some of those other areas as well and pointing out very clearly that the opposition has been negative throughout all of the debates so far.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke and many other members on the government side accuse the opposition of being negative. I would suggest to that hon. member and to all members of the House that negativism and positivism are questions of points of view. It depends on where you sit. It depends on what opinion you have about an issue. It's not enough to say: "Because you

[ Page 1902 ]

disagree with me you're being negative." It's not enough to say: "Any criticism you make is negative or unconstructive unless you agree with me." That seems to be the kind of simple-minded rationale offered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and other members on the opposite side.

It is first of all primarily the task of the official opposition to took at the proposals and legislation of government and find out if they are in the interests of the public of British Columbia, and find out if they are being honestly administered, and find out if that legislation and those proposals will indeed do the things that the government says it will do. Or, on the other hand, if it will do the things that the government says it will do, will those things benefit the greatest number of people? Is it in the interests of the common weal? Is it in the interests of the communities within the city of Vancouver, the suburbs or the entire province of British Columbia'? I would say that the minister's pathetic attempt to suggest that this paltry sum offered for urban transit is a great stride forward…. I can't take him seriously, Mr. Speaker — he must be joking. He's argued that the government is being positive, that the government is taking leaps and strides in urban transit by this simple $55 million. He argues that that government has been doing positive and constructive things since their election in 1976. But the people all over the province of British Columbia, when they hear speeches by the Premier that are mindless — run-on sentences that don't make any sense whatsoever — when they hear the pathetic simplistic statements that were just made by a minister of the Crown, they say: "Stop. The things that you do speak so loudly, I can't hear the things that you say." They do look at the actions of the government. The actions of the government on urban transit and all matters concerning the great city of Vancouver are a betrayal of the people of the city of Vancouver. It is neglect and an attack on the people of the city of Vancouver. This omnibus finance bill is a classic example of that kind of an attack.

Let me get to the details. Annacis bridge requires some discussion about the automobile. In 1980, we hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying you can't abolish the automobile altogether, as if anybody has said that anywhere in the province of British Columbia or in any city in North America. Has anyone ever said that? No! This is the constant style of sophistry and false argument raised by the government members. They raise a bogeyman — a shadow of some principle to attack — and then spend their time attacking it. No one said it; no one raised it in opposition, but they spend their time shadow-boxing. They careen off the walls in that state of intellectual insobriety.

The automobile, at the turn of the century, brought great benefits to North America, and particularly Canada, with vast areas to travel, and small communities with vast distances between the communities. It gave that freedom to individuals to travel highways. Our roads were improved, commerce improved and social life improved because of the automobile; but, surely to goodness, that is understood. No one argues that outside of the large urban areas the automobile should be abolished. Even within the urban area the automobile has its uses.

However, when the government is a willing participant in that sort of unspoken conspiracy between the automobile dealers and the freeway builders to destroy the core of the city and its communities, it cannot go without comment from this side of the House. In the United States Congress, in the Legislatures of all the states of the United States and in Legislatures across Canada it has been said that the automobile has destroyed the core of all North American cities. The small businessman is destroyed; housing is destroyed. Residential desertion is taking place in Chicago, New York, Detroit and to some extent even in our own great city of Vancouver. Empty, deserted, decaying cities are the legacy of the Social Credit administration since 1952. If there is anything for which we we can criticize W.A.C. Bennett and this government, it's their desertion of the plight of people who live in the city, and turning their backs on them. It's the back-of-the-hand treatment for the city: overtax them, deprive them of government services, provide them with nothing in the way of tax relief, and destroy the core of their cities in order to pander to the automobile.

What do we find out now? We're finding out that acid rain is not just caused by the burning of fossil fuels in our industries. We're finding out that acid rain is a threat to the west coast of North America because of the overuse of the private automobile on city streets, and that acid rain is destroying our agriculture, and it may destroy our very way of life. The automobile, once a boon to the development of North America, is now one of its greatest threats. It contaminates the air we breathe. In an urban centre with freeway systems running through our cities, elevated highways, tunnels and trenches — all catering to the automobile — with vast areas for parking and clogged traffic strangling the core of the city, to pander to the automobile now with another crossing from a suburban area, serving only to bring more traffic into the city core, is absolute madness.

How can the first member for Vancouver South, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), and the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) argue that the people of their constituency support this? They will get a thunderous and resounding rejection from the people of Vancouver South, and rightfully so. It will destroy the communities in Vancouver South; it will bring down property values; and it will attack the communities which have been historically existent in that city for generations, simply because of the mindless pandering to one member of the Legislature and to the automobile.

We have received letters and inquiries from the constituencies of Delta, Richmond and Surrey. They say: "This is madness."

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. LAUK: Certainly I will. We've got one from Harold Steves and one from Carl Liden. They were two hon. members of this House, and they speak more for their constituencies, I'm afraid, than the members who sit in the House today.

Outside the urban areas in British Columbia we have to improve our highway system, and we have to emphasize the private automobile. That's why I was surprised at that silly tax on the so-called gas guzzlers without some sort of area differential. The people in outlying areas absolutely depend on the private automobile, large enough to travel great distances in winter weather and to take their families and transport goods. It's stupid to on the one hand penalize the large automobiles required in the interior and, on the other hand, give a pittance for urban transit and build the Annacis bridge at great cost to the public taxpayer.

The automobile in the city represents the economy of waste. The massive amounts of steel, rubber and petroleum

[ Page 1903 ]

products which go into manufacturing huge cars for use in large cities is the economy of waste. That is the essential philosophy of the Social Credit government. They believe in the economy of waste; they believe in driving inflation to ever higher rates, because they don't care about ordinary people. They care only for their own interests. Selling cars and building freeways profits the people who support Social Credit and who sit in this House for Social Credit. They're bleeding America and the American economy, both north and south of the border. Mr. Speaker. The history of the Social Credit Party is to support the selling of automobiles and the building of freeways in urban areas at any cost to the communities, to the economy or to the taxpayer.

Let's talk about freeways. When the New Democratic Party came to power in 1972, this government was going to build a freeway right through the east end of the city of Vancouver, taking out 500 family homes along the freeway system out the east side of Vancouver. The NDP fought an election in the city to defeat that. They were resoundingly put into office, and the Social Credit government was thrown out of office, as this government will be at the next general election of the province of British Columbia. You pander to waste, you destroy our communities and you attack our people in the city of Vancouver. Because of that they'll throw you out of office, and that's precisely what you deserve.

They're totally behind the times, Mr. Speaker. The tradition of the Social Credit government is to attack the city of Vancouver and its people, destroy its communities and its values, darken its skies with pollution and pollute the air that our children breathe. In the city of Vancouver the people have said "enough," and they'll stop you. You can no longer tyrannize Vancouver's population the way you have, no matter what kind of willing dupes you have in city hall to protect your interests there. They should be thrown out of office too, if they do not oppose the Annacis Island bridge.

Mr. Speaker, there is an alternative. You've got to come to your senses as a government. There is still time, brothers and sisters. You've got to come to your senses. Expand the amount of money that's going to be available for the city and the Greater Vancouver Regional District to support a public transit system. It will include buses. But more — it should include light rail and it should include that sensitive and civilized attitude towards handicapped persons by providing special transit services for them. Most of the handicapped people in the province live in the city, because of medical facilities and other services that are specialized to their needs. They need the transit services, but what do they get from this government? They get a $150 million piece of concrete and steel that will be clogged by congested traffic one year after it's opened, and not a penny for handicapped transit. They turn their backs on people, and they fall down on their knees in adoration of the god of freeways and the god of the automobile.

It's part of their isolationist philosophy: don't come into contact in any community way; do not identify with your community; do not feel the belonging to the cities and the people that make up this great province, but isolate yourself in your suburban areas and your big cars with fancy chrome; don't care about the ordinary people who are facing impossible odds just to try to make a living and have a decent life in the city, and to belong to a decent community that is unpolluted and uncongested by heavy traffic.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about B.C. Place as well, but before I do I'll just turn to the Annacis bridge project itself as a project. Now it's claimed that there is a $128.2 million cost — this is in 1979 dollars, so we know right away that it's going to cost a lot more than that. I'm told that it does not include the cost of upgrading Marine Way in south Burnaby and many other obvious additional costs that will be concomitant with the project. In the ordinary course of events the government cannot bind the people that will bid on construction contracts for the bridge, and it will be interesting to see whether the lowest bidder does come in at $128.2 million. I really doubt it. I think this is an opening figure so that the taxpayers will not be scandalized by the real figures as they come down later on — the water torture kind of thing. Give them a little bit at a time so they don't get too excited about it. It's quite a cynical point of view. but nevertheless one that I believe they have.

The Annacis bridge itself flies in the face of the liveable region plan by the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That plan calls for a diversion of jobs to the suburbs to avoid that flow of traffic to the city. These two perspectives seem quite contradictory. The government, on the other hand, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)…. He says he supports the liveable region plan. He goes about in his capacity in that portfolio saying he supports it, and then he supports a bridge at Annacis. They're totally contradictory concepts. He's not yet been made to answer for it.

The flow charts that I've seen through CBA Engineering show that 49 percent of the traffic on the Pattullo in the mornings is headed into New Westminster. If this is the case, then an aggressive light rapid transit system. perhaps with a park-and-ride facility. could take a major portion of the traffic off this bridge. Such an alternative does not appear feasible for the Deas Island situation. That's the alternate approach. and that's the constructive criticism that I have to offer. Get with the modern times, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Support public transit. Support edifices and construction that will support public transit. Do not pander to the automobile and to the destruction of our communities.

As far as B.C. Place is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the more answers that are given, the more questions I have to ask. I've sketched out from the press releases and the non-answers I get from the new young minister in Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that he'll be finished representing that constituency after his second term in office unless he can go to his constituency, fall down on his knees, and say: "There'll be no bridge. We're only fooling."

To B.C. Place. There are two concepts involved in this False Creek development. There's the so-called multipurpose sports facility on the east side of Cambie bridge, and there are Transpo '86 pavilions and sundry buildings on the west side of Cambie bridge. That's all we know. The ancillary facts that we know are that a Mr. Nerod is chairman of an action group or a building committee and that he's never at his office. He's in Bombay or in the Caribbean or on his yacht. I understand he's got a radio-telephone in his yacht, but we as yet have not been able to receive that number. All we want to do is to ask Mr. Nerod if he knows about B.C. Place.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I have some order from

[ Page 1904 ]

the back row there. I want the new Minister of Environment not to be influenced by the old crocodile and the old mover and shaker over there. They've been in this House too long, and they've got a lot of bad habits that might transmit to a young fellow just out of CP Air.

AN HON. MEMBER: Air Canada.

MR. LAUK: Yes, CP Air Canada — a Crown corporation.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He's never made a private enterprise buck in his life, Mr. Speaker. He just inherited it.

Those are the only two facts that we know other than that Mr. Nerod is not available. He's on some kind of a committee.

I want to talk a bit about the agreement that was made between the city of Vancouver and Marathon Realty. The minister should be well aware of this. He has enough people to read him these documents in his office. This was in July 1974 and the agreement is quite clear. They've got to dollars and cents, and the understanding of June 10 is outlined quite clearly.

" Marathon Realty agreed to pay the standard costs of a large-scale development, the cost of construction to city standards. It's also agreed that the above standard provision of a major subdivision represents costs to Marathon of approximately $3.5 million for utilities, $5 million for parkland and $2 million for standard seawall treatment."

Then they go on to actual areas.

"In addition to the standard subdivision requirements, Marathon Realty agreed to the following: a donation to the city of an additional 15 acres in area two for park purposes, a donation to the city of an additional 10 acres in area three," and so on.

There are 23 points in all to the benefit of the city of Vancouver and its people to make it a mixed housing commercial area with parks for kids and schools. In other words, it was for people, not for grandiose monuments to people's egos, like Transpo '86, the so-called pipe dream of the Premier who wants to put a plaque on it with his name on it as he goes down to defeat after the next general election. He's afraid nobody will remember him. Well, they'll remember him all right, Mr. Speaker. They'll remember him for the waste and the destruction of the city's core by his irresponsible acts. That's how they'll remember him. They don't need a plaque or a monument to him.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Listen, Fred, I've told you a hundred times: go to your office and sign your mail with the usual "X" and peanut butter thumbprint.

With respect to Marathon Realty, let's talk about B.C. Place. For years the proposed B.C. Place site has been a CP Railway yard and always has been zoned industrial. During Art Phillips' tenure as mayor of the city of Vancouver the zoning was changed to urban use, apparently having the effect of increasing the land's value from $50,000 per acre to $500,000 per acre. The city didn't just give that to the CPR. They entered the agreement for its development.

Yet the other day in question period the minister clearly indicated: "We are not bound by that agreement. We can do what we want in the city of Vancouver. We are the provincial government. We can do what we want" — without consultation, without commitment to public housing or even public hearings so the government could hear from the people they want to demolish in the city of Vancouver.

This was done with the announced objective of committing the CPR to provide some $21 million worth of improvements. Seawalls, parks and a community centre were mentioned. The CPR's real estate arm, Marathon Realty, unveiled plans to build a massive housing development comparable to the south shore of False Creek. In addition, the zoning change involved a direct payment of $10 million from Marathon to the city. That is over $35 million alone, plus park use, plus contributions toward utilities and servicing. The provincial government said they will be bound by none of those provisions.

What about the utilization of this area? The original False Creek development scheme envisaged mixed-income housing on both sides of the water between Cambie and Granville Street bridges. If the Transpo '86 project is pursued, it is obvious that such a development would not be forthcoming for many years, if at all. Look at the terrible experience in the aftermath of Expo '67 in Montreal. Only now are they taking all of that city space and construction and putting it to use, at a cost of hundreds of millions of 1980 dollars. They are going to build exhibition space to be used for an exhibition without any conception whatsoever of its use afterwards, dead space costing the city and the provincial taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars to utilize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Member, you're not going to tell anybody in the Environment minister's (Hon. Mr. Rogers') riding, are you?

MR. LAUK: Oh, they already know. We're going to send his latest speeches out to his constituency. It's nothing personal against the minister, Mr. Speaker.

As a member for Vancouver Centre I make the following demands of the government before this project proceeds: that the False Creek proposal receive federal support regardless of the form which the development schemes take; that the final plans include a large mixed-income housing project which must have priority over exhibition space; that existing plans for exhibition space be so designed that the buildings will be readily utilizable after the exhibition dates expire; that the rapid transit system be integrated into the plans immediately and that the government assure the people of the city of Vancouver that the transit system will be in place and operational as the project becomes completed; that the development scheme not proceed until a close examination of the effects which it will have on the downtown communities is undertaken. Those are five simple demands the government can easily and readily undertake, and not show their contempt once again for the people of the city of Vancouver.

It's little wonder the Premier gave this project to the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers). He needed a scapegoat in the city; he needed somebody to take the heat for the Annacis bridge and for B.C. Place. The price of a cabinet seat is to forget all those old speeches about how interested you are in the community and the city. Forget all those old speeches and those thoughts of why you got into politics in the first place.

[ Page 1905 ]

Do you know how that member got into politics? He opposed the lengthening of the runway at Richmond. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? Why was he opposed to the lengthening of the runway? It made too much noise. Wait until the Annacis Island bridge goes in. Noise? The daffodils will grow to one centimetre before they die off after a week in that area, when you get the Annacis Island bridge going in there.

This is the brass ring that the Minister of Environment reached out for and grabbed. "Forget about the past. Forget about my commitments to the people of my constituency. Let's go for the whole bundle," he says.

I'm not entirely against the provisions of this bill, and I would like to support some aspects of it. I would like to support, if I could have a moment of your time, Mr. Speaker, the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. I think it's a good idea. It's long overdue, and we would have done it ourselves. Barkerville reminds me of this government — a ghost town. I was raised there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments made by the member for Vancouver Centre. The comment I found very interesting was the one about the economies of waste that he kept referring to. He mentioned this government being thrown out of office because of the economies of waste.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: His waist is getting bigger. That's the point, Mr. Premier. That member's waist is getting bigger. He's running second only, I think, to the Leader of the Opposition.

He mentioned the economies of waste with regard to the government being thrown out of office. The only relationship I could make to that was what happened between 1973 and 1975. In fact, that party was thrown out of office because they wasted the people's funds. That's the only relationship I could make to the comments of the member for Vancouver Centre.

With regard to Bill 7, the Special Funds Act, 1980, I would point out to the members opposite that this comes out of surplus funds, not deficit funds that occurred during their time in office. As those members opposite must admit, they don't come from surplus funds through overtaxation of people. The taxation in this province since 1975, when you consider the reduction that has taken place with sales tax in this province, with personal income tax rates in this province, with the small business tax rate in this province, hasn't come from taxation of people. It has come from the economy of this province and the relationship that this government has with the private sector that earns those revenues to provide us with the funds. So, Mr. Speaker, I point out to the members opposite that we're talking about surpluses being redirected into the economy — and to specific projects which will benefit the people of this province. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) says there is no consideration for people in this bill. Well, as I go through this bill I hope to indicate to him and others opposite just how much consideration there is for the people of this province.

First, let's start off with part one: the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. We all know what place Barkerville played in the history of this province, that it was the pioneers of this province, the people who came here and worked with their hands and their hearts, who developed this province. They explored and opened up the land. Barkerville is an example of that type of pioneer that came into British Columbia and opened up this province for us who have come after them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has never even gone there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Vancouver Centre, as I understand it, has never made it there yet — even in his Mercedes-Benz, which he should trade in for a bicycle if he's so concerned about the use of cars in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm getting a lot of additional lines here, Mr. Speaker. Somebody also remarked that he is a perfect example of a sourdough, but I'm not sure if that's true.

Those people that opened up our province, those people who came before us, who worked with their hearts and their hands, should be recognized. And one way we can do that is to preserve some of our heritage. We are pampered today in this province and in this country. We have pretty well everything we need: we are protected almost from the womb to the tomb.

It's important that we recognize the part that those pioneers who opened up the country played in this province — and not just for ourselves but for the generations to come, who otherwise probably wouldn't understand the hard times there were for the pioneers. It's important for them to see places like Barkerville, just as it is important for them to visit our Provincial Museum and look at some of the displays there to get a grasp of what came before us. I relate that to the consideration of people. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam mentioned that there was no consideration for people. I think the heritage factor in this bill — the preservation and maintenance of the Barkerville community — is for people in this province, for generations to come.

In regard to the B.C. Place Fund, a total of $15 million is being made available out of the surplus. Let's look at this province and where it's going. All of us know you can't stand still. You can't accept the status quo; you must continue to advance and improve and to set some example. This province is growing, and it has the fastest growth in Canada. It is an aggressive province. It is the showcase of Canada on the western shores of Canada, and I think it's important that we're able to show to the Pacific Rim countries and to the rest of the world the beauty of our province, and be able to attract those trading partners that do business with British Columbia and with Canada.

Where better a place to have such a facility as B.C. Place than in the most beautiful city of Canada, Vancouver, Mr. Speaker? I think that is also in consideration of people, because you would have the opportunity to display your wares, to have your conventions, to have meetings, international conferences, etc., which assist in the education and the betterment of the society of the people of British Columbia. So I also consider that fund, and the establishment of B.C. Place, as being in consideration of people, not just for this

[ Page 1906 ]

generation but for generations to come, and what better time to provide those funds to do those things than when you have surplus funds available from a growing, expanding economy?

The downtown revitalization fund is a most important fund. The members opposite have talked about the fact that the downtown cores in many cities are suffering, becoming empty. This fund gives an opportunity to revitalize those downtown areas, to set up and beautify and bring back into healthy existence the downtown cores of many municipalities. In my community, where we have one major shopping centre and another one going in, our downtown community has suffered, and by being able to rehabilitate this area, to revitalize it, we will maintain those small businesses and the activity which is most important to the downtown of any community. Let's look at the fact that it's also energy conscious. You have ease of moving around. Instead of driving out miles to a shopping centre, you have the facilities in your downtown core and ease of access for residents of the community.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose on a matter of privilege founded upon a series of questions and answers which had occurred between the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and some person or persons unnamed. The hon. second member for Vancouver East then indicated to this House that if in order, he would propose the formation of a committee of the House to consider whether or not the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley was entitled to sit in this House.

The Chair will recall to the House that in 1978, upon a question arising as to whether or not alleged breaches of the Constitution Act had resulted in disqualification of members, the procedure then invoked was by way of notice of motion and not by way of privilege. No specific charge is made against the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, and the Chair cannot assume that it is sought as a matter of privilege to controvert the election of the hon. member.

If such were the case, it is clear the jurisdiction in this area has been given up by the House to the courts by section 201 of the provincial Election Act. This House, like Westminster, has not, however, relinquished its remaining control over the conduct of its members. Halsbury says, in section 709, page 355:

"Although the House of Commons has resigned its right to be judge in controverted elections, it retains its right to decide upon the qualifications of any of its members to sit and vote in Parliament. Subject to the exclusion of controverted elections, there is little doubt that the House has the right to expel a member for such reasons as it sees fit."

The reference is Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 16.

Our own Legislative Assembly Privileges Act gives the House the right, among other things, to summarily inquire into and punish any member of the assembly for a specified offence.

Beauchesne states further, at page 17: "In any case where the propriety of a member's action is brought into question, a specific charge must be made." The authority cited for this statement is to be found in a Speaker's ruling in the Journals of the House of Commons, Ottawa, 1959, pages 582 to 586. The ruling is lengthy, but I will quote therefrom in part because the ruling has even more force by reason of the proposed motion having been put on notice.

I read from page 582:

"The question of whether or not the notice of motion relating to the conduct of the hon. member for Peel, which had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, properly raised a prima facie question of privilege for determination by the House through its Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which the motion would refer the matter for examination and report."

The question is of considerable importance. If the notice of motion properly raised a question of the privileges of the House, it is entitled under standing order 17 to be taken into consideration immediately, all other business being laid aside until the debate is concluded.

Page 584:

"In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence. On the authorities, it appears to be open to an hon. member to confront the House with charges against another member implicit in documents in the possession of the House, but in my view the charge must be there."

Page 585:

"In finding that a question of the privileges of the House is not prima facie involved in this motion, I am making a procedural decision, the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the House of the matters in issue. The effect is to refuse precedence to this discussion but not to prevent it."

Hon. members will know that this House, like the House of Commons in Ottawa, generally speaking looks to Westminster to determine its privileges. The Journals of this House will also disclose that the conduct of a member may only be questioned by substantive motion on notice. I have carefully pursued the content of the statement of the hon. second member for Vancouver East and the transcript appended thereto, and, as I have indicated, no specific charge has been made therein. In the present circumstances, where no specific charge has been made, I find that there is no prima facie basis for setting aside the prescribed order of business of the House to permit the moving of the motion proposed by the hon. second member for Vancouver East.

MRS. WALLACE: I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it is not the customary time of the day, hon. member, it will require leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 1907 ]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING
IN PUBLIC PLACES AND MEETINGS

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M205, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.