[ Page 1933 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Closure of Maplewood Poultry.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1933

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1933

Mr. Macdonald –– 1936

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 1937

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1937

Mr. Lorimer –– 1939

Mr. Mussallem –– 1942

Mr. Skelly –– 1944

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 1948

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Closure of Maplewood Poultry.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 1949

Appendix –– 1949

FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This morning I had the opportunity once again to talk to Mrs. Schroeder, who has good news for this assembly. Speaker Schroeder has been taken out of intensive care today. I'm sure all members are pleased with that news and to learn that an earlier recovery than was anticipated is expected. Mr. Schroeder is in good spirits. I know that in due course all members will take the opportunity to visit him and urge his early return to the Legislature. Again, I know that all members offer their best wishes to both Speaker Schroeder and Mrs. Schroeder in what has been a trying time.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Visiting Victoria, and in the gallery at this time, is a group of 32 students from Merritt Secondary School in the beautiful Nicola Valley. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Ansell. I would ask the House to please be on their best behaviour this morning and to join me in welcoming these students and their teacher.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I also would like to have the House acknowledge the presence in the precincts of some youngsters from a Richmond school. We have 58 students, accompanied by their teachers, from Dixon Elementary School who are visiting Victoria and the buildings today. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this morning are two constituents of mine who have visited Victoria and enjoyed the hospitality of His Honour last evening. I would like you to welcome Alan Finnie and his lovely wife Joan to this House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Gert Hollin from Keremeos. I'd just like to say that quite often we think of the fruit-growing area of this province as the Okanagan Valley; but I've got to tell you the Similkameen Valley has some beautiful orchards. Mr. Hollin is the manager of the Keremeos Co-op and has done a terrific job in that part of my constituency. I'd like the House to welcome him and his wife.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, last night Matthew Grenby's mother and father were at Government House, but Matthew is visiting the House today, and I'd like him to be welcomed by the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there is a visitor from Vancouver–Little Mountain, Mr. Phillip Butler. He has brought to the gallery and to visit the chamber today Mr. David Thompson, a member of the Social Credit Party of New Zealand who is visiting our province. Would the House please welcome him.

CLOSURE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS. WALLACE: I rise under standing order 35 and ask leave to raise a matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the matter is?

MRS. WALLACE: The matter, Mr. Speaker, deals with the impending closure of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. in the Fraser Valley. The 135 employees in that plant are receiving notice today and will be laid off as of next Friday. Not only does that mean that 135 people are out of work, but it means that there will be insufficient processing facility in the province to handle the birds that are presently on stream.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the assembly do now adjourn to discuss this matter of urgent public importance, namely the impending closure of Maplewood Poultry as a result of the failure of the government to assist Pacific Poultry Processors, a Canadian-owned firm, to purchase Maplewood and maintain it under Canadian ownership.

Under its union agreement, Maplewood Poultry is giving notice today to its 135 employees that it will cease operations as of Friday next. Because of lack of this processing facility, not only will 135 people be out of work, but poultry will back up on the farm because there is no place to process them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Firstly, hon. member, I must advise you that it is inappropriate to move the motion unless it is first found in order. Without prejudicing the member's point that is raised I will reserve decision in this matter, if I may, and get back as quickly as possible under the circumstances.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just point out, if I may, that in making your decision you recognize the fact that there is notice going out today and that those people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The urgency point was made; thank you, hon. member.

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.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the areas brought up during these estimates has been the area of high interest rates and the impact that the Bank of Canada has on the policies not only of governments, but which impact greatly on our people as private citizens, homeowners, renters, and also as people engaged in small and even large business.

One of the opportunities that this government would have had, along with our western counterparts, was to try to impress on the governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, at the Western Premiers' Conference — coming up in just ten days' time — the detrimental impact on the people of our province, the people of the west particularly, how it is affecting what would be an even stronger and more buoyant growth rate in the west, and how those high interest rates of the Bank of Canada have indeed impacted upon our people

[ Page 1934 ]

and our ability to grow and even to maintain our possessions, our homes and our businesses.

Governor Bouey was invited by this year's chairman of the Western Premiers' Conference to attend and to meet with Premiers Blakeney, Lyon and Lougheed, and me. Unfortunately, Governor Bouey has declined the request. A legitimate reason to be at another meeting is one thing, but I think we highlight the problem of what is wrong with Canada in developing a realistic and responsive economic policy when we deal with one of the reasons that Governor Bouey would not meet with the western Premiers; that is, of course, that he would find it difficult to attend formal conferences of Premiers unless they were federal-provincial meetings, because of the ultimate responsibility of the federal government. It highlights the concern that British Columbia has expressed at first ministers' meetings on the constitution and on the economy: that the working rules of this country today, and particularly one of the main instruments for developing economic policy, cannot be responsive to the needs of the provinces or the country at all if it is to be dealt with unilaterally by the federal government. In fact, I suspect sometimes that it is not being dealt with by anyone, there is no economic policy, and the people of Canada are suffering needlessly.

I'm distressed that Governor Bouey has taken this approach. I believe the western Premiers have something to say and are a voice that should be heard. I believe the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible to duly elected governments across this country, and that means provincial governments as well as the federal government. As a provincial Premier I am extremely upset, because it is a slap on the face to the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that that reason should be given.

These are difficult times. It's a time when all public servants, whether elected or appointed to positions of great responsibility — the Bank of Canada is one of those positions of great responsibility — should seek every opportunity to meet with those in the position of making and developing policy in this country, our provincial and federal governments. It is incumbent upon them that they seek every opportunity to meet. This would have been a unique and very responsible opportunity for the governor of the Bank of Canada to come together with four western Premiers who represent what is physically 50 percent of the country's land mass and about one-third of her people, but more importantly they represent the growing and surging part of Canada's economy.

There is no doubt that the gravest problem facing this country today, with all of the other problems, is that of high interest rates. Their impact upon the economy and upon the people, while it may be monetary today, may end up as major sociological problems tomorrow. This government has attempted to deal — and was the first government to attempt to deal — in a provincial way with the impact of high interest rates upon housing. Using the great B.C. credit unions we brought forth the innovative package which provided $200 million of provincial revenue as affordable mortgages, to provide homes and encourage construction at a very sensitive time of year and to help maintain employment in our forest industry. While that helps in the short term and provides some solution for some problems — it took the province through a difficult period of pressures for layoffs in forestry — the final answer can only be addressed at a federal and provincial conference that has the attendance and participation of all agencies that impact upon economic policy, but particularly the governor of the Bank of Canada.

We believe there are alternatives. We believe that working together, as the four western Premiers are attempting to do and would have done with the governor of the Bank of Canada, there are alternatives to the unilateral action of bank rates going higher and higher. Those bank rates don't just affect people. They also now have a tremendous impact upon governments that have been wasteful and irresponsible, plunging themselves into debt.

Daily we see the government of Canada having run massive deficits over the last years, but having to roll over existing debt. This debt was not for new programs but debt that was incurred by a parliament that was spending excessively. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) knows full well, because he has been in that chamber and was part of voting those spendings. They were rolling over debt that was at an interest rate of 6 percent, 6.5 percent or 7 percent and doubling that rate just to service a debt that is already there, which doubled the cost of servicing that to the taxpayers. If ever there was a lesson to be learned about foolish spending by a government that somehow convinces the people that.... While you know you can go broke by borrowing too much money and being unable to pay it back as an individual, and while you know you can go broke if you have a small business and can't earn the money to pay back the debt, somehow governments are immune and can continue to make promises that can't be kept if governments are to be monetarily responsible. Yet we've had a succession of government practice.... We had a short history of it in this province; we've had a long history of it in the government of Canada and a number of other governments. It has placed a deadweight debt burden upon the people of this country that will drive this country down. Putting up the Bank of Canada charges today is like throwing a rock to a drowning man. What we need is relief from the charges of interest rates as a people and as a country.

I would hate to say, "I told you so," Mr. Chairman, but this government has been pressing this point, not just in the recent emergency, as some who only develop policies for headlines would speak. This has been an inherent part of a researched and developed economic policy by this government. It hasn't been a secret; it has been shared with the other governments of Canada. It's been distributed in a series of economic papers to first ministers' conferences. It recommends that provincial governments be given the opportunity to appoint representation to the Bank of Canada. It's not that we want to take it over, but they must be apprised of provincial government policy. We must have a continuing formal dialogue, a way of pressing our point of view. We must have a way for them to respond to regional economic needs. We need response from the Bank of Canada. We need representation. That has been at the crux of both our economic proposals to first ministers' conferences and our constitutional proposals.

All of the now federal agencies that have unilaterally made their own appointees are not capable of developing national policy. They develop unilateral federal policy unresponsive to input from the provinces and the regions of this country. Our proposals have recommended that national boards and commissions — the prime one being the Bank of Canada — must have provincial representation if, indeed, we're going to have that type of responsive national policy.

It is foolish to suggest, at a time when the federal govern-

[ Page 1935 ]

ment is paying more and more of the taxes it collects now to interest, that we can expect it to also provide additional revenues that should be going for building programs and people programs in this country, not only to deadweight debt but just to compensate for the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada does not deal with tax revenues. It takes a unilateral action. Today its action is not positive. It is defensive only. It deals only with their fear of capital flow out of the country. I believe that in a modern economy in a modern country where people are innovative, we can find ways not only to hold our capital but to attract capital. Perhaps there is a preoccupation with debt. Perhaps now they could follow up on what British Columbia has been saying and doing with innovative legislation and innovative programs such as BCRIC. Perhaps now we can turn our attention to having the people mobilize their capital, not to be lenders to retain it but to be owners.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we can now get attention to the role that individual ownership could play in resolving the problem of tight money. Lower the Bank of Canada rate. At the same time let federal and provincial governments provide greater opportunity for individual investment. Encourage the capital that somehow they're fearful will flow out of this country; encourage it into areas of investment, so our people can become owners as well. This will serve two purposes. It will serve the purpose of lowering the cost of that interest rate on the economy, and it will meet our national and our provincial objective as well — a greater Canadian and British Columbia ownership of our business and industry and our homes.

Let us also direct attention to investment of our capital that won't flow out of the country if we give it a fair chance for a return in this country, and direct it into the sensitive area of home and rental accommodation construction. Let's restore the MURB program; let's get back and give the capital cost allowance and encourage the people in our province, in our country; let's encourage the people to get on with the job of building, instead of standing around and identifying the problem and re-identifying it, and having those opposite and all of the others who are great at problems but poor at solutions — except that the government overtax the people.... Let's just leave the incentive and the money in the hands of the people so they can get on with the job.

There is something wrong with a country that had a program in place that provided incentive, that did not have an accommodation problem 10 or 15 years ago — even though we had growth pressures — that, by removing programs, removing incentives, has somehow been able to bring us to the sorry state that we are penalizing the growth areas of this province and penalizing the people who desire accommodation. It is not an opportunity for the landlord; it destroys the opportunity for a free market in purchasing homes or in renting accommodation. Let's get back to giving encouragement, as part of our program in lowering the Bank of Canada interest rates. Let's get back to encouraging those parts of our economy that can resolve other problems as well.

Mr. Chairman, let's also take a realistic look at resources and resource and energy pricing, because they say we have these high interest rates at the Bank of Canada to defend the dollar. Let me tell you, if this country was realistic and not so wishy-washy, and if it faced up to the world energy crisis of supply and price like the industrial countries that had and now have great strength, people would have confidence in our ability to govern, and to meet challenges. That's the only thing that attacks our dollar: wishy-washy politicians trying to get elected federally, who are afraid to face up to the fact that the value of energy has changed, and until we face up to that reality all of the good intentions of this government will be partially thwarted. The innovativeness of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communication (Hon. Mr. McGeer), looking to work with his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in providing new energy forms.... Until those energy forms can be developed at comparative prices, without having an artificial subsidy on oil, we'll never meet the challenge of being self-sufficient in energy. It's been foolishness, compounded by politicians whose only campaign is to buy votes in the short term and let the problems compound at an annual rate until they become beyond the ability of any one government to resolve.

It is time that the provincial and federal governments got down to brass tacks. It is time we shed a few of the old myths of what it takes to help build a growing economy. It is time we stopped using old solutions that have not worked in the past, such as high interest rates, and developed new programs and solutions that — instead of being negative as government appears more and more to be becoming — will provide positive opportunities to the people of all regions of this country. These have been the policies of this government for four years. While we have not had any support from the official opposition on these policies, we have taken them to our counterparts across the country. These are not just identifying the problem; these papers have provided what we believe are logical answers for the growing crisis which faces the country. We talk about the strengths of British Columbia — and the future looks great — but think how great it could be. Think of the visions of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications of tunnel and communication links and fixed links on which the official opposition is afraid to take a position. They're scurrying around the buildings, waiting not to develop a positive position but to find out what they can come out against. Negative! I see that Premier Davis in Ontario has called his opposition leader negative. I'm going to bring him out to British Columbia to show him what real negativism is all about.

Let me just point out again, Mr. Chairman, the other areas, not only of seeking meetings and seeking an opportunity to provide solutions. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has sent a telegram to the Hon. AJ. MacEachen concerning the high interest rates and the charges of the Bank of Canada and what impact it's had on the housing market, and in the other areas. This message, though, must be followed up. We must get a response from those who can help us make decisions. One of the people who can help tremendously is the governor of the Bank of Canada. Having been given the news of some of the reasons why he will not be attending the Western Premiers' Conference, I'm going to write to the governor of the Bank of Canada and to the chairman of the Premiers' conference urging Premier Lougheed to urge him to reconsider his responsibility to this part of our country. I want to ask him to consider that it is not a time to hide behind the fact that he feels he can only deal with the federal government. I would like him to now feel the responsibility. There are people in the west, people in British Columbia, people who, in discussion with him, feel they could provide some of the answers to the foolish policy of high interest rates his Bank of Canada is imposing on our people. I want him to reconsider. I will send him those messages today.

[ Page 1936 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I hope the Premier will be returning to this chamber, to his estimates and his own salary vote. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) said: "Five minutes." He knows something I don't know. We listened to the Premier on the matter of interest rates and housing and foreign ownership. More than three weeks ago the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) tried to move adjournment of this House to discuss this matter at the time the government made its decision to float the interest rate. That was the time. Who objected, so that British Columbia's voice would not be heard? The government benches. As you listen to that speech, it's very hard to believe that this was the Premier who scuttled the B.C. Housing Corporation, making British Columbia the only province in all Canada — and I think of all the states of America, for that matter — which has no public housing corporation. Yet you heard what he said about apartment building, giving concessions and all the rest of it. He scuttled the thing that was doing the job, and doing it very well.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I repeat that for that ignorant minister. It was doing the job. At the end it had a profit of about $9 million. It had built up assets of about $26 million. The Minister of Finance should read the reports by the Committee on Crown Corporations before he makes those foolish laughs. That was an actively operating, successful venture, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was an absolute, abject failure, and you know it.

MR. MACDONALD: Have you read their last annual report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I had to try to put it back together.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Nor would anybody who listened to that speech and heard the remarks about foreign ownership and its relation to the interest rate know that this government sold, under a leasehold arrangement, a public transportation facility — namely, the largely tourist operation between Victoria and Seattle — to a foreign company to operate under a foreign flag and with a foreign crew.

So you come back necessarily to the question that is on the minds of practically everybody in the province of British Columbia today — and the government members know it's on their minds, but they're making a brave show of not knowing — and the question is: what do you do when a minister of the Crown, particularly the first minister of the Crown, will not answer questions?

Yesterday there was a little lady sitting up in the gallery who misbehaved, Mr. Chairman — I don't know whether you were in the chair. In the course of the first minister of the Crown refusing to answer questions relating to this jetfoil I mentioned — these were legitimate questions which were perfectly in order under his salary vote — this young lady said: "We have a right to know." It was public business and it was the conduct of the Premier with respect to that public business that she had a right to know about. Everybody in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, is asking that question today. Why, in the province of British Columbia, should we have a Premier who refuses to answer questions in the Legislature about the conduct of his office, under his own salary vote? The government benches can laugh away that question here, but they cannot laugh away that question throughout the province of British Columbia. It is a question which is on everybody's lips.

I'm a little reluctant to talk about the duties of the Premier in his absence, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I'll have to lecture you on the subject; but you don't need the lecture. The Premier of a province has been called "the first among equals" — primus inter pares. That is an apt description of his office. As is pointed out in all the books on the British constitution, he has great powers. According to Ivor Jennings in his book on cabinet government, the Premier is the chairman of cabinet and coordinator of policy. The role of the great Sir Robert Peel is described by Ivor Jennings as being the model of all Prime Ministers. "For Peel kept a strict supervision over every department. He seems to have been the master of the business of each and all of them. He was conversant with the departmental questions and formed and enforced opinions on them and answered for his conduct. "

Every succeeding Prime Minister of Great Britain has been answerable not to the opposition.... It doesn't matter whether we're a good opposition or a poor opposition, or whoever we are. We're not asking the questions for ourselves; we're asking them on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's to the people of British Columbia that the Premier of British Columbia is answerable. When he shows disdain for us we accept that. We ask legitimate questions and he goes off on some totally different things. He hasn't answered a single question in the eight days of his estimates. It's an unparalleled situation in British constitutional history. It's all right as far as the opposition is concerned, but it is not all right as far as the people of this province are concerned. And, Mr. Chairman, talk about high interest rates or anything else: once you have a situation where ministers are no longer responsible through the Legislature, through parliament, to the people of the country, there's going to be nothing you can do about high interest rates or anything else. So we're talking about very real things.

The Premier.... And again, I kind of hate to be speaking to an empty seat. I presume he's out for a....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's an empty speech.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it may be an empty speech, but I'm just a member asking questions, Madam Minister, and not getting answers. And none of my colleagues have had any answers to any of their questions. As much as we appreciate the Premier's very high-flown philosophical speeches which we've heard many times, when we come down to the specifics and ask him what he has done about it, we have no answers at all. Let me say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan): I hope you will not be following the Premier's example when your estimates come up, madam. I hope you will forthrightly answer the questions as to the conduct of your office. I think you will. I think it's very regrettable that the Premier is setting that kind of an example.

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

[ Page 1937 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

NAYS — 1

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a nemine with no contradicente!

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Public bills and orders; adjourned debate on Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

(continued)

HON. MR. HEWITT: As you know, the last time we debated Bill 71 covered a number of sections of the bill — the Barkerville Historical Park, B.C. Place Fund and the Downtown Revitalization Fund — and I mentioned that these funds were set up out of surpluses created by an expanding economy in this province. That is a credit to this government: the activity and the relationship we've had with the private sector to ensure a growing economy in the province which provided these funds that could be used at this time for these particular facilities and funds for development of energy, etc. My time ran out at that time, Mr. Speaker, and I'm quite prepared now to proceed with dealing with the other parts of the bill.

First of all I'd like to say that I can't understand the opposition in their wanting to come into this House prior to our sitting earlier this year. They wanted to come in and discuss the economy, they wanted to discuss the matters of unemployment and of energy. Yet each time we get on the Premier's estimates they seem to get to a point where they run out of material and have to request adjournment of debate. I guess it's to allow them to go back to their files and to the newspapers to get more material in order for them to carry out a debate, such as it is. However, we are now on Bill 7, and I'd like just to comment on the parts of the bill I didn't have the opportunity to speak on earlier.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) stated when he spoke on this bill that — if I remember his words — there was no consideration given for people in this bill. Well, that is very far from the truth, because if you look at the section that I'm going to deal with now, the Energy Development Fund, this fund is to be set up to provide for the development of energy technology related to the enhancement of energy supplies. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the supply of energy, the security of that supply of energy, is most important to the people of this province, for job creation and for transportation systems to move people from one place to the other. The development of the fund gives us an opportunity to plan for the future. It is a very important fund to be set up at this time to allow us to develop that energy technology which will move us out of the area of having to rely strictly on fossil fuels, and to look at energy alternatives to ensure that this province can grow and prosper and to ensure a good life for the people of British Columbia.

Energy conservation is not the only answer. It is an answer, yes; it assists in cutting down our reliance on fossil fuels; but it is not the be-all and end-all. You can't conserve energy in sufficient amounts to allow for new manufacturing plants, pulp mills, smelters, etc., to be constructed in this province. You can't look at conservation and assume that's the be-all and end-all when you consider the statements from the member for Vancouver Centre, and I believe the member for Victoria, who talked about pollution in our cities. If the energy alternatives are there which will cut down pollution in our cities, in the downtown quarters, etc., then we should be exploring them. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has certainly indicated to this House on many occasions the opportunities in looking at energy alternatives which will assist in providing, first of all, security of supply and, secondly, transportation systems and transportation concepts which will not pollute our cities and our countryside. So this is a people fund, Mr. Speaker. Energy development for the province of British Columbia does take into consideration the people of this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Fraser River Crossing Fund. This section is in many respects, in my opinion, in concert with the Urban Transit Fund that will be set up. We have to look at a grid system for any community, whether it be large or small, to be able to move not just people. Goods and services have to be able to move with ease and quickly across communities, and this bridge allows the partial completion, or a greater completion, of a grid system for a very fast-growing community, the greater Vancouver area. You can't move such things as food, heavy equipment and machinery on rapid transit.

If you're going to ban vehicle traffic and go strictly to rapid transit, as the member for Victoria mentioned, I have a tough time understanding how you would load sides of beef or heavy equipment and machinery on buses to get them from one point to another. If you don't have that grid system set up, if you don't have that ease of access to areas of manufacturing, etc., then you affect the economy in such a way that delivery times are lengthened, delaying the delivery of the product to the marketplace and thus affecting the economy,

[ Page 1938 ]

as well as the well-being and the lifestyle of the people of the community.

In regard to the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund to set up a stadium in the lower mainland, again, we have to recognize that as we grow as a community we have to provide the facilities for all sectors of our life. We know that in large communities relaxation and leisure time are important to the lifestyle of the people of that community. If you say, "Let's keep the status quo and let's not look forward into the future for the people of the community," you will create greater problems because of the psychological effect on people living in densely populated areas who don't have the opportunity, like some of us who live in outlying areas of this province — myself in the Okanagan, other members in other parts of this province.... We have to recognize that the lifestyle of city dwellers is somewhat different, and we have to provide facilities which they can enjoy in their own way in their leisure time, considering the location in which they live.

We have to recognize that what was provided a number of years ago — looking back at when the Empire Stadium came into being — was heralded as a great facility for the city of Vancouver and for British Columbia, because it provided a stadium which allowed for large numbers to view top-notch teams coming to play in the community. However, that's a number of years ago. As I recall, the Empire Stadium was built in the early fifties. Well, we've changed considerably from that time. If we take the stance of an ostrich with its head in the sand and don't look to the future in providing this type of facility for our people in the greater Vancouver area — and the whole province, because I can tell you many residents of my area very much enjoy coming down to see the B.C. Lions or the Whitecaps play in the stadium, and I'm sure they will continue to do so.... We have to provide a facility which meets the demands of the public and allows ample space and ample opportunity to attract the top-notch teams for the pleasure of our people.

Part 7: the North East Coal Development Fund. If ever there was a fund set up which would be contrary to the statements made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who said this particular bill had no consideration for people, this is it. This northeast coal development will create jobs for the people of this province. It will create revenue for the government, enabling it to continue to provide the best social programs in all of Canada. No government can provide funds for social programs — be it medicare, GAIN or a dental program — if it doesn't have the economy which provides the dollars in revenue for those programs. This northeast coal development will give us economic expansion in this province. It will open up a new area in this province. It will provide us with job opportunities for our young people. It will provide us with revenue as a government. Consideration for the people of this province is most certainly a very important part of this bill.

I think it important that all members recognize these funds are set up out of surpluses provided from the economy and not from overtaxation of people.

The Provincial Computerization of Libraries Fund. Although many people may not recognize the importance of ensuring proper cataloguing and circulation systems in public libraries, it is most important, with the volumes of editions the libraries have, for ease of availability of books to the people who wish to read them — be they fiction, technical books or educational books. The whole concept is providing service to people.

The computerization of this cataloguing system, I think, will assist a great deal in the education of our young people. And it will assist our people who wish to be retrained in this province, who have to go to the libraries to read up in the evenings after working all day, to gain additional knowledge to be able to compete with the younger people coming up who may have had the opportunity of better education in our school system.

These people are able to upgrade themselves by working long hours, by having available to them libraries that have proper cataloguing and can get the books, the materials and the papers to them readily, so they can make the best use of their time. That's a most important people service in this bill. Again I comment on the statement that was made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who says this bill has no consideration for people. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, he was totally wrong.

In regard to the Urban Transit Fund, I believe $55 million is to be set up to establish the Urban Transit Fund for the sharing of capital expenditures pursuant to the Urban Transit Authority Act. These funds will be set up to upgrade our buses in our communities. I believe the member for Vancouver Centre was concerned about the buses and the emissions from those buses — he made that statement in the House a week or so ago. Here we are providing funds which would assist in upgrading our buses, and yet the opposition has suggested that this bill does not do anything, doesn't accomplish anything and doesn't provide for people. The member for Vancouver Centre a week or so ago was saying our buses were terrible and the emissions from the buses were terrible, and here we are trying to use these funds — in concert with the municipalities — to upgrade the bus systems to first-class systems in this province. It provides a service for the people.

In providing those new buses with new equipment, I think we can also recognize that that is an energy conservation concept as well. If we have good buses, adequate numbers of buses, good urban transit systems, well serviced and with proper scheduling, then more of our commuters, rather than taking a car with one motorist behind the wheel and driving through our city streets, will say: "It's cheaper for me to ride that first-class bus system than it is to take my car and drive it through crowded city streets and park it all day in a parking lot for which I pay X number of dollars for a month." So he will conserve energy and the pollution aspect will be reduced. Because of funds such as this that are set up to assist in upgrading the system, again it is something that is in consideration of people — not just the motorist who drives, but for the people who live in the downtown core. Less traffic on the streets, of course, makes ease for vehicles to move about which are providing services to people such as deliveries, and, of course, police, fire and ambulance vehicles can move about the city rather than be faced with continual traffic jams at certain times of the day.

Those are the nine sections that deal with all the funds set up in Bill 7. A total of $188 million deals with those several funds that I've mentioned, but those dollars that are provided for those funds don't come out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia through excessive taxation, but come because in the last year the economy of this province has grown and has prospered and has generated the revenues in order for this government to take those revenues and direct them to areas of endeavour that will benefit the people of this province.

[ Page 1939 ]

The heritage aspect of the bill is the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. B.C. Place Fund will establish a very modern complex which, I think, will be the showplace of Canada in Vancouver.

The Downtown Revitalization Fund, as I mentioned the other day, deals with improving or revitalizing or maintaining the viability of downtown cores throughout this province. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of communities that have grown over the past years only to find that now they have a shopping mall at one end of town and another shopping mall at the other end of town. In between, in the downtown core of that city, which was the hub of commerce at one time, needs to be revitalized. The proper use of this fund will allow a lot of small businessmen to be able to compete with the shopping centre complexes in the outlying areas. Mr. Speaker, it also means that in many cases people will be drawn back to those downtown cores as opposed to hopping in their cars and driving three or four miles, using up fossil fuels which are of concern to us all and creating, you might say, to a certain extent some pollution. So those are two pluses that downtown revitalization has for the people of this province.

I can only say that a fund such as the Energy Development Fund is a forward look into how we resolve the issue of a decreasing resource such as fossil fuels.

It's a small start. We're only putting $10 million into that fund, but I would hope that the allocation to that fund over the years will constantly be increased so that we can look forward to the future to develop new ideas, concepts and technology in the matter of energy.

I would only say that I support this bill. I think the allocation of these dollars into these particular funds is another indication that this government is looking at the surpluses that are created from an economy that is prospering and directing those funds into areas which will benefit the people of the province of British Columbia. I give it my full support, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LORIMER: We wouldn't be debating this bill this morning if we had a Premier who would answer questions, a Premier who would sit in the House prepared to answer questions. But we have a Premier who avoids the issues in the hope that they are going to go away.

This bill is not a bill which one can get too excited about. It creates nine piggy banks. Some of them are of some value, others are a disaster, and in others the money will probably never be used. These are moneys going into special funds. We know at least three people on the government side who will be voting against this bill. Remember the ex-Liberals, who are the born-again Socreds? They used to speak for hours in this chamber about special funds. They used to berate the government of the day for setting up such funds. I want to quote at random a few little passages. These are statements made by these members over the years. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on one of those days said:

I want to talk about some of the broader principles which are involved in this legislation, because we're setting up perpetual funds here in the amount in this bill of $50 million from tax surplus, moneys we have already paid to the government in our taxes, but where we have not yet had the direct benefit of those taxes if these moneys are to be used.

Then he suggested that we would take the tax surplus and make it available for loans to local boards to build schools and hospitals:

Then we're entering into a principle which I cannot accept, and which we, in the provincial Liberal Party, will not accept. What we're doing is taking the people's own money and lending it back to them at interest.

Now that was pretty clear on what his position was on these types of funds.

Later, during another debate, he said:

Every budget that's been brought down in my memory has been out of a full year's financial growth.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that our revenues in this province have been growing at a rate, compounded annually, of 17 percent per year. So every year the budget is out by 17 percent.

Then he went on to say:

I don't see why we can't bring down true budgets in British Columbia. Is that a strange thing for a member to suggest? It wouldn't be strange if we made that suggestion in the national government. I don't think it would be strange if we made that suggestion in the House of Commons in Britain. It wouldn’t be strange if we made that suggestion in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or any other province of Canada. It's only strange if one makes that suggestion in British Columbia.

I'm sure that with the budgeting we've seen this year, that member, at least, will be voting against this bill.

Then the other member, the former Attorney-General, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), used to speak on the same subject. In one of his speeches he said:

Bill 7 is demonstrative evidence of the fact that we're abdicating the functions and the powers of this assembly.

Those are pretty good words, Mr. Speaker. We don't find any sunshine here at all. There is no capacity for full disclosure of any matter, and still we find the government bringing in a measure such as this, authorizing the expenditures of up to $140 million.

The other former Liberal, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), in discussing similar bills said:

This is why we oppose this kind of revenue surplus appropriation legislation. It places in the hands of cabinet ministers, and committees appointed by those cabinet ministers, the powers to select — whether or not any particular group or groups in our community are going to receive benefits or not — without any obligation to account or disclose the reason for either the allowance of an application or for the rejection.

The opposition is merely to the method in which these tens of millions of dollars are placed under the control of the individuals who are not accountable on the floor of this House. This is no way of making them account on the floor of the House for the decisions they make in respect to the recommendations of this kind of expenditure.

So I feel quite confident, Mr. Speaker, that three members of the government will be voting against this bill.

What the bill amounts to is an overtaxation of the public of British Columbia. This is a high-spending government, a government that's increased its budget substantially each year it's been in office. They have to find some way now to set up funds to look after the overtaxation. They have determined that they are the ones most able to spend the people's money and that it's not safe to allow a reduction in taxation to allow the general public to spend their own money. It's better to have higher taxation and surpluses and to spend the money in the little toys and wishes that the government may want to advance.

The Urban Transit Fund is a good fund. It's something that's needed — some action in transit. But we have to look at what has happened in regard to this. Planning of transit was advancing during the NDP term under the Bureau of Transit

[ Page 1940 ]

Services, until this government took power. At the present time the bureau has basically been dismantled; the senior bureau people are all gone, and the bureau is doing very little in the planning of transit in the province. The transit planning was very well advanced and was starting the advanced planning on a light rail system. There's no question that if there hadn't been a change of government, the lower mainland and the Victoria region would have had a light rail transit system by this time. I can assure you that planning didn't include a service over Annacis Island over to Burns Bog.

The bridge proposal, of course, is disastrous as far as the northern communities of the Fraser River are concerned, and there is no help here for those who reside south of the river. The proposal, as I understand it, still relies on the Queensborough Bridge for the transfer of vehicles across the river. The people who are using the service will be crossing a multilane bridge to Annacis Island but will still be bound by the Queensborough Bridge, which is two-lane traffic each way. That's where they'll hit the first bottleneck; a number of cars will be tunnelled into a two-lane road. And then, as you know, on the northern end of Queensborough, one lane goes toward New Westminster and the other goes toward Marine Drive. So there you have the second bottleneck. Then when they get into New Westminster where the roads are plugged full of cars at the present time in peak hours, they'll have to get off the main streets, because they're tied up and they'll be going through the neighbourhoods trying to find a quick way to Kingsway, Rumble and 49th Avenue or possibly to the Lougheed Highway to wind their way down to downtown Vancouver.

If they take the Marine Drive route they have the same problem; they'll be looking for exits from there because at the present time that road also is plugged full of traffic at peak periods. Now what will happen, of course, will be exactly the same thing on that route: the automobiles will be looking for Gilley Avenue, Nelson, Boundary Road and Patterson, all looking to avoid the congestion and going through local neighbourhoods in order to find a quick route to the centre of town. Then, when they get beyond Boundary Road, they'll be going through Vancouver South, still looking for some areas in which they can get through and get away from the traffic bottlenecks that they've experienced along Marine Drive.

The neighbourhoods in New Westminster, Burnaby and South Vancouver will find their streets being used as commuter connectors. The result will be dangerous to the local residents, school children and others, who, after being used to quiet streets for many years, will now find those streets turned into commuter freeways. The thing is that the expenditure of these funds and the construction of the bridge will not benefit those south of the river. They will merely exchange their bottlenecks from the Deas Tunnel and so on to the areas that I have described. They will find that, certainly in rush periods, there will be no speedy way to get to Vancouver. They will find that the only method of getting there will be the Deas Tunnel or the new bridge and both will be very difficult to use with any great efficiency.

The only answer to the movement of a vast number of people in an urban area is by way of a sophisticated transit system. I'm glad to see that there are funds here for the Urban Transit Fund, which might help, and will help — if it's ever used — the movement of people, the reduction of automobiles on the road, which will then resolve the problems that are presently being faced by the Deas Island tunnel.

We know that this bridge was suggested in haste by the Premier, who was at that time knee-deep in dirty tricks. This was basically the first decision made by the Premier since the last election....

MR. KEMPF: Go ride your streetcar.

MR. LORIMER: Well, we have a report from the man from the cave here. Streetcars are the answer. There is no question about that.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: I'll be speaking about that a little later, speaking about the general ignorance of the government with regard to what's needed in transit, how to plan for and operate a transit system.

In this case the new bridge that's recommended would carry a transit system due to the fact that there are no facilities on the Queensborough Bridge for transit; the bridge would be a system from Burns Bog, south of the river, to Annacis Island. What do we do with it then? It won't serve too many people; not too many residents are there.

The member for Vancouver South spoke quite eloquently about the bridge, but I would suggest to that member that if that bridge is built he will not be back in the next parliament. The influence of the traffic going through the local neighbourhoods in Vancouver South is a very real problem. The people in that area have recognized it as such and know what will happen with additional traffic on Marine Drive.

What's happened in transit over the last four and a half years? The answer is simple: nothing. Nothing has happened except a five-year decline in services and equipment and everything else with reference to transit. There has been a complete decline.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said that what is required is an effective bus system before a rail system can be put into place. Now he's absolutely right. That's exactly what is required. That's what was being done when we increased the vehicles from some 350 vehicles in 1972 to around 800 to 850 vehicles in 1976. We are building the fleet of buses in order to feed the light rail system. But how many vehicles have been bought since that time? I don't know how many; there were less than 15. I'm not sure if there are that many; there were very few. If this government starts today it'll take two years before the replacement vehicles will be on the roads in British Columbia. Even if they start today, there will be no improvement in the transit system for at least two years. What a record!

There were other vehicles ordered in 1975. They weren't ordered but tenders went out for them, for articulated vehicles as well as electric and diesel vehicles. These were cancelled. This government cancelled them. That's their commitment to transit. They get up here and talk about how great they are and how committed they are to a transit solution in the urban areas of this province. It's just a joke.

Maybe I should reply to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

I'm sorry he's not here — who said that the government in the 1972-75 period had advised the people in Surrey to run the buses down the street and let them stop on the street to hold up automobile traffic. Now that's a ridiculous suggestion and it's one that's hardly worthwhile to repeat, but he has said that on two occasions. I want to tell you a little bit about this. The municipalities, unlike today, were not asked to pay

[ Page 1941 ]

for anything with reference to transit. The provincial government was financing transit in the regional districts of Vancouver and the capital regional district. When we went to the communities — they had no service, and if we hadn't put it in they would still have no service — we asked them to supply the bays for the buses to pull off the streets and to supply the shelters. That would be their financial commitment to the transit systems. In most areas the bays were built and in busy sections shelters were built.

But do you know who the mayor of Surrey was at that time? He was the now Minister of Municipal Affairs. There were no bays built in Surrey; there were no shelters in Surrey; nothing was done in Surrey. Now he comes here and makes these silly allegations when he knows full well they are false — at least let's say that the statement is false and that he was careless with the truth when he made these silly allegations. But the vehicles that were ordered in 1975 were all cancelled. We would have had articulated vehicles in this province, which is one of the better ways of moving people on a bus system. But no, this brave government that's talking transit regularly.... You see something in the paper every other week about some new suggestion. There was one last night. Now the minister in charge of transit doesn't know if they want a light rail system, a bus system or a monorail system. This is five years down the road, and they haven't done any planning.

There has been no planning done by this government for a transit system. The only reason the ferries are running across Burrard Inlet is because the construction was almost completed at the time this government took over. The manufacturers, the shipbuilders, were told to stop, hold up. They had to decide whether they were going to go ahead with it. This is the government that's committed to transit. Then they delayed the building of the dock so long that the cost of the docks probably came up double.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. LORIMER: It's true. You're going to blame the strike for it but that's not correct. The contract could have been levied before the strike occurred. It's true.

But now what do they want? They want to saddle the municipalities with a large percentage of the costs of the transit system. Now what are the plans of this government for transit?

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: That's correct, Mr. Member. They have no plans. They never have had and I don't think they ever will. They've levied a major financial burden on the municipalities. They've got a fund here of $55 million set aside for capital expenditures, knowing that the municipalities.... This $55 million is a sharing program in which they'll put up so much money if the Urban Transit Authority does likewise. They'll go into their piggy bank and take out some money. But the fact is that the Urban Transit Authority, the regional districts, local municipalities, haven't got the wherewithal to budget for large substantial funds in order to finance the capital expenditures required for a proper transit system.

There have been some remarks about buying junk transit vehicles, and that is correct. A number of old trolleys were purchased from Saskatoon and, I think, Brantford. The purpose was to cannibalize these vehicles, taking out the motors and the working parts of the trolleys, which were sent back to the factory and placed in the new vehicles ordered. The life of a transit vehicle is roughly estimated at 20 years, but in a trolley vehicle the working parts in some cases have gone over 60 years in usage. They're still going, and we won't know how long they last. We bought those junk vehicles, if my memory serves me correctly, for $1,000 apiece. As a result there was a saving, I believe, of around $20,000 in the purchase price of each new vehicle, so there was a saving to the transit program of close to $19,000 per unit.

That is the purpose of buying those junk vehicles which we hear about across the floor. But, you see, the people over there wouldn't understand that, because they've never taken any interest in transit. They've never studied transit at all. The Minister of Finance used to be the man in charge of transit; he started the decline, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is completing the deal. When it comes to transit this government is very long on talk and very short on action.

Then they have this other matter here, the B.C. Place Fund, which is another matter brought out by the Premier in some haste. He had his staff prepare some drawings, said he wanted it a week from now, and made another announcement. He never discussed this with Vancouver; he never discussed it with anybody. That's the history of B.C. Place. They never discussed the question of where they would build the Annacis bridge. They never discussed that with the regional district.

AN HON. MEMBER: They discussed it with Walter Davidson.

MR. LORIMER: They're going to retain their member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), but they're going to lose their two members for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Hyndman). I don't know the gentlemen referred to that well. It may be a good deal. But certainly in numbers that's what's going to happen.

There was no communication with the city of Vancouver, none with the CPR, and none with Marathon Realty. They have to deal with these people before there is a B.C. Place. Marathon Realty knows they want it badly. What price will Marathon Realty want in the way of trade for the use of that land, if it ever proceeds?

What about the bridge? There was no communication with the regional district. The chairman and a number of members of the regional district said they were very disappointed about the location of this bridge. After they had spent half a million dollars on researching where they want transit, where they want their highways, suddenly a bridge is proposed by the Premier in an area not requested or desired by the regional district. There has been no communication by this government; no communication with other levels of government. No communication at all.

As I mentioned to start with, this bill is not something to get too excited about. Some of the moneys will be spent and some are for good purposes. A lot of the money will not be spent; a lot will stay in the bank collecting interest, and can be loaned out to other areas of government. I can see not too much in this bill at second reading that should be supportable. We know, though, that three members of the government will be voting against this bill, because they're consistent. They're going to follow up the brave statements they made a few years back and carry them out now that they're in

[ Page 1942 ]

power. They're going to stand up and say: "No, this bill is not good enough."

MR. MUSSALLEM: First, I have to remark with some concern on the statements made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) and his discourse on the buses they purchased — somewhere in the hundreds.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, they did. But he didn't mention to you about the 22 — or maybe 30 — second-hand buses purchased from Saskatchewan; they're still rusting in the yard. Now that's all right. We don't want to go over that again. And he did not mention that tandem unit that was supposed to run on tracks; but when it got here the wheels were the wrong size to fit the tracks. That unit is still in mothballs somewhere; I don't know where it is. You forgot about that. However, we don't want to bring that up again; we've been bringing that up for years. They brought in a new experimental train that was supposed to be tried out for rapid transit in the city of Vancouver. When it arrived the wheels wouldn't fit the tracks — they were six inches too wide — and the thing had to be mothballed. It only cost a quarter of a million dollars. He didn't mention that. We still have it in mothballs, and it can't be used and never can be used; but we don't bring that up. That's their lack of management. Now the buses they ordered.... I don't want to bring these things up; but the member for Burnaby-Willingdon....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They brought these buses in, it's true. They sent an order to General Motors for 200 buses, and when they arrived they didn't have drivers and they didn't have routes; they didn't know where they were going to go. The drivers were complaining that there were no routes. There was no plan. That's the total problem with the socialist system. The whole thing was debt. It was a downhill slide into debt.

He further brought out that we shouldn't have built this bridge at Annacis Island. I can't understand this party — how negative everything is. It's all negative: you shouldn't, you shouldn't, you mustn't. But what would you do in place of the bridge? There's no other way. We should recognize this very important fact. There are very extensive studies now being done which prove conclusively that rapid transit is not the answer. The automobile transports more people, and cheaper, than the rapid transit system. They are both necessary. But when anyone gets up in this House and says that the answer is total rapid transit.... This province, this area, does not have enough people to put in the system that they require. We're a long way from it yet; we're a million people short. But the time will come. In the meantime, good business practise must be to go on with the proper plan for the lower mainland and the rest of British Columbia. It's quite obvious to anyone here that this government does not fly into a plan and then see what happens later. Everything is planned, such as this Bill 7, which is a new plateau for the future of British Columbia.

They say the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund doesn't deal with people. The whole thing deals with people.

B.C. Place. It will not only give employment, it will give a boost to the province of British Columbia. It's a place where the people here can be proud of their province and of the things that are going on — the industry and all the various things developed to create a place for people to go to and to be proud of.

The Energy Development Fund. This is a very exceptional fund. I do not believe that anyone has seen the full importance of this fund. When this fund is being dispensed, I hope we look into the future to see what it can do in experimentation. This province has an unusual situation which does not apply anywhere else in Canada. We have a lot of mountains, a lot of glaciers and a lot of water; this can produce power in small quantities. What I would like to see happen — and I've been talking to engineers and to people who know — is experimentation on the possibility of using this power source in small power developments — 50 to 100 kilowatts — for the purpose of agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're charging at windmills.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Windmills are all right where necessary. But this is what is useable for British Columbia. What is it for? It's for growing the year round. We're importing tomatoes from the United States; we're importing citrus fruit from the United States. But if we could have nearly free power and energy, we could develop and grow all that material right here in British Columbia. That's possible; that can be done. But it needs forward thinking and it needs someone to give it encouragement.

I hope that when this fund is being dispensed, consideration will be given to taking a chance with experimentation. Try a pilot project. If you could have almost free power for the purpose of agriculture, we could grow the things in the valleys of British Columbia, close to the lower mainland, or even in the Chilcotin, that could supply us with the needs that we are importing from the United States. That can be done. The reason we don't do it now is that you have to buy gas for the heating of greenhouses and it's uneconomical. If you have to buy power it is uneconomical. But if we could develop more power, an individual could have a small power generator, which used to be done here and which can be done again. I hope that will be considered. It's a novel idea. Instead of British Columbia growing 45 percent of its agricultural requirements, we may raise it by 5 or 10 percent just simply by that idea alone. I compliment the government on using this principle of this experimental fund.

The whole bill raises British Columbia to a new plateau of looking into the future, of doing bigger things. It's not the total amount of money that is being put out here — the $188 million. It is the idea of giving the impetus to people with imagination and thinking who can proceed and do a better job of British Columbia by creating innovative ideas.

The North East Coal Development Fund is exceptional. You just get excited with the idea that it can create so much. One of our greater resources is coal and gas. We have all that coal. What are we going to do with it? Leave it in the ground? There's enough there for a thousand years. We've got to use it. We've got to find ways of using it economically and properly. This bill gives the entrepreneur — not government, the individual — the open door to come up with an idea to create something new.

We come to the stadium fund. What a great thing that is for all of British Columbia. Well, you have to see the negative attitude, but I'm telling you it's one of the greatest steps

[ Page 1943 ]

forward we have made in British Columbia. Here is a stadium that's put into the centre of Vancouver, where automobiles won't be necessary.

MR. LEGGATT: It's an amphitheatre.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't care what you call it. You can call it anything you want. But here it is for all of British Columbia. People can fly in from all over the province and there they are: the hotels and the people to get involved with the province of British Columbia. Now where else would you have it? You couldn't have it in Delta or Dewdney. You've got to have it in the big city of Vancouver — that's where it should be and that's where it is.

They say to us: "How are you going to get the people there?" Well, I'm going to tell you. There's a simple way of getting them there — the same way they do in Seattle, Minneapolis and St. Louis. They have stadiums in the centre of those cities.

MR. LEA: Freeways through the centre of the city — terrific!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, freeways are essential with transit. And we cannot count out the necessity of people having their own vehicles. In this country, with the Energy Development Fund I just mentioned, for example, our automobiles can very soon be running on natural gas. Service stations, instead of having only gasoline, will have natural gas. Anybody's automobile can be converted in half a day's work by a proper, knowledgeable mechanic to burn natural gas. They can be switched over from gasoline to natural gas by the turning of a valve. That's happening today right now in Vancouver. The only problem there is distribution. We don't have good distribution, but we have to have outlets in every municipality. Perhaps one of the large oil companies could take it on and every one of the service stations do it. We could have natural gas in our cars at half the price.

The automobile is necessary due to the large size of our province. Transit is all right for the heavily populated Fraser Valley, but when you get out of the Fraser Valley there is no other way. You can't get past Maple Ridge, Mission and Chilliwack. There is no rapid transit. The automobile is the only way to build up this province. The automobile has been the key to building up this province to the status it has today. The fact that I'm in the automobile business is not the reason I'm saying this. I'm in the automobile business because of it, you see. It's just the reverse of what you think. I'm in there because of it, because it's an essential part of the system that we need to move our people. There is no other way. Never count trucks and automobiles out.

But the beautiful part is the energy that we have stored in British Columbia for 500 years. Shut the gasoline off if you want to. If we get the other system going — and it can go — you can have a car that has its gasoline tank full, but in British Columbia you use natural gas. When you take a drive somewhere else — south of the line — you turn on the gasoline. That's all there is to it. It's as simple as that. You think it's funny? It's a fact. It's happening today.

I know of a friend who has a camper that has two large propane tanks. He uses the propane at all times and has gasoline there as a reserve. He can travel for 600 miles in that vehicle without a refill. That is what we are coming to in British Columbia. That is why we're not short of energy.

That is why we have a great future. Our future is in the resources we have, but we must use them wisely. We must plan, and this bill plans for the future. This bill plans for coal, for libraries, for transit, and it plans for the revitalization of the downtown areas.

Maple Ridge in my constituency was one of the first to get involved with this revitalization fund. Why? What's happening in our small town? A shopping centre here, a shopping centre there, and we start to decimate the downtown area. The government sees the wisdom of not allowing further decimation. Certainly, let the shopping centres continue, but in the middle there must be a downtown core. That's what the government has seen. That is the difference between our thinking government and the socialist idea. The socialist idea is: ''We take over everything." We say: "We'll make everything available to everybody and build up to a new plateau." This is forward thinking. These are the ideas that make for a great province.

You heard the Premier this morning expressing his dissatisfaction with central Canada making unilateral decisions. That is another problem we have to face. We've got to recognize that in the west all of us here are together and to make a greater Canada and to make greater towns we must work together. But when we find the federal government making unilateral decisions that affect us all, hampering and hobbling us, we must rise up and rebel a little. I hope the Premier makes that clear — and I know he will — not only for the towns but for the province alone and the provinces together. That's why we must consider that, yes, we need a great Canada, a federal Canada, but we mustn’t be pushed around any longer. This bill has impetus but the whole thing can be torpedoed by an unthinking federal government. The time may come when we find our plans frustrated; I hope it never does. This bill assumes that we will have the opportunity to continue with all of this great development.

I was talking only yesterday with the mayors of Maple Ridge and Mission. They have such great plans for that area. The municipality of Mission has a tree farm. They have a special problem. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is looking after the problem; he is trying to help them. The municipality of Maple Ridge wants to revitalize the central core. This bill enables them to do that.

What I am saying is that the procedure of our thinking, caring government is to look at the municipalities and the people and do it all for the people. That is why we represent the people of British Columbia. That is why this government will be here for many years.

MR. COCKE: How many, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The next 20 years or so. I don't like this business of establishing years, but it will be here for a long time. After all, I cannot see the future. If I could, I'd tell you. With the good work that is being done with this bill....

MR. COCKE: What are you going to do in retirement, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I want to tell the hon. member what I will do in retirement. I'll never retire. They keep asking me: "George, when are you going to retire?" I say: "I'm not retiring until I have at least matched Mr. Diefenbaker." I have a long way to go yet. May God rest his soul; he was a

[ Page 1944 ]

great man. I have a long way to go and you'll have to tolerate me for a long time yet. So don't get excited; there's no retirement.

This bill is a new plateau in the province of British Columbia, a new standard, a new way, a new direction. What does it do? It doesn't say: "Right now you shall do this and this." This bill merely points a direction. This bill gives encouragement. This bill gives a private entrepreneur the right to proceed and the incentive to proceed. That is what we stand for. This bill epitomizes this government and the idea of being creative, not negative.

We've been debating the Premier's estimates for ten days now. I have not heard anything yet except negative input — not one constructive suggestion, not one idea. The Premier had to bring up the matter of interest rates himself today. There was not one thought of it; there was not one thought of energy. What are we going to do with energy? Not one question. I'm sure if the opposition would ask some questions they would get some answers. Every question they have asked so far has been answered fully but they want them answered again. You can't blame the Premier.

The trouble is that they don't see the future, and they don't understand encouragement. They just want to be negative. Of course, that's socialism. Socialism is like the hills and the valleys, and a socialist is never satisfied until he has squashed the hills down and everything is flat. That's the socialist system. That's what it is. That's all. You squash the hills and raise the valleys a little, but everybody's squashed. And that's what happened to.... Oh, this great opposition wanted a rapid transit system when they were in government. They wanted the rapid transit system so badly they were so rapid in ordering everything they could get their hands on, and they had to beg General Motors to give them a hundred buses. Everybody wants buses, but they wanted them first, so they got them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they have you to help them?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I didn't help them, but they got the buses with no provisions and no planning. That's the problem. Imagine, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon didn't say one word about the double-articulated bus that came here from Czechoslovakia or Germany. But they forgot to mention the width of the wheels, so the wheels came the same width as the Czechoslovakian or German railway. It won't fit our rails, and the bus is still in mothballs.

There are also the 22 buses.... I don't like hammering them with this. I'm not saying they're not trying, but they have no planning no matter where you go. But this bill has planning, Mr. Chairman. This bill gives direction, shows the way, and gives opportunity to the public, the individual and the entrepreneur. This bill is what this government stands for — its ideas and its thinking.

One thing I've mentioned here a few moments ago and you've forgotten already is that the power development potential here for producing agriculture products which we have to import to the United States alone justifies this bill. But the people with a small brain don't see that. They say: "Oh, well, how can you do it?"

Well, people over here can do it, entrepreneurs can do it, and we will do it. Within 25 miles from here there is a sight that can produce 5,000 kilowatts of energy by a very small expenditure, and that could supply all the energy needed to run a small farm under glass or plastic. Those are the things we're talking about. These are the ideas we have in mind. But, of course, they laughed at Edison. They laughed at him and said it was impossible to have light except for the candle. Those are the people who said that. Now they say: "Well, anybody knows about electric lights." It takes time.

Edison said that nothing's impossible. They laughed at Henry Ford when he said — and I shouldn't be mentioning Henry Ford, but he was the first at mass production — "We can make a car for the masses. We can make a car so everybody in the United States can have a car." And who laughed? Everybody, particularly the socialists. "Oh, you can't have a car." Imagine that crazy nut! Socialists don't like it. "No, no. We can't have it." They all said: "You can't beat a horse. After all, a horse doesn't break down."

So they laughed at Henry Ford, but he built his cars and he built them by the first mass production. And here we are today decrying the automobile when the automobile is the basis of the North American economy. You can't escape it. The automobile and the truck are the basis of the North American continent. If you didn't have them you'd have no economy. That's the difference between us and Europe. Eventually, the mass production principle went back to Europe, and they're doing it now. But it started here in North America, and that's the system of the entrepreneur: the action and the ideas that this bill gives.

Of course, you can knock down any bill. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon started to knock down the transit system. He said nothing. What they did, certainly, is they bought all these buses. Did they ask anybody? They asked the banker if they had any money in the bank, and there was not one word; they were out of money. As a matter of fact, you heard, during the last days of the fall of Rome, if I may use the analogy — I was told this, and I'm not sure it's true, and I won't make the charge — they had trouble with the bank in getting their cheques cashed. I knew that. They can give a lot of reasons. "We hadn't put the money in...." But there was trouble in the camp. Well, we knew there was trouble in the camp. We're not saying.... The province of British Columbia will always pay its cheques. But the planning: they forgot to put the deposit in the bank. That was very embarrassing, I'm telling you.

But here we have a bill that represents the ideas and the thinking of thinking people. In every single part of its nine paragraphs is an idea for the future — where people have thought and used imagination which can build a new plateau, a new thought for the future.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to thank the previous member for his contribution to this debate. If there's one thing the member for Dewdney does, it's always to clarify the government's intentions in presenting a bill like this. But I must admit that after listening to his speech I'm more confused than ever about the government's intentions, Possibly he doesn't share them with the government.

But I'm speaking against this bill, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons. I don't like to be negative and I'll get down to that later, because I....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, there are certain negative aspects to the bill that I think should be covered. You know, this was the tactic used by your members during the last election, Mr. Speaker — and a number of your people seem to be recyling

[ Page 1945 ]

their speeches over and over again. They would come into a New Democratic Party riding, and against the NDP candidate they would say: "What has your member ever done for you? What has he got for your riding? Has he got you new highways? Has he got you new bridges? Has he got you a new stadium? What has he ever done for you? All he does is go down to Victoria and oppose. He's totally negative." Based on that kind of argument and also on the people's experience of what Social Credit was doing and what they thought was a positive way, they threw out more Social Credit members last time and elected more negative members, because they wanted us to stop doing some of the things that you people had been doing up to that point. They thought it was a positive statement to send people to Victoria who would challenge the stupid things that Social Credit was doing to the economy, to employment and to the administration of British Columbia in general. They thought it was a negative statement to leave that government in power.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose this bill for a number of reasons, as I said. First of all, there has been an inadequate explanation of the various programs outlined in this bill. Take the downtown development proposal for an example. The first thing the government should have done was to present a bill on downtown development. You're asking us to vote money before we know what you're presenting. I'm against that; that's irresponsible. It's irresponsible to ask the Legislature to vote money for a program before they know what the content of the program is going to be. That's the kind of irresponsibility we've had from Social Credit all the time since 1976. That's negative government, and that's what we're opposed to. It's a positive statement on the part of the opposition to demand, before we vote $25 million for this Downtown Revitalization Fund, what the content of the program is.

I'm in favour of downtown development. There are serious problems in the cities, towns and villages of British Columbia. We've been developing in the outskirts, based on what the member for Dewdney was talking about, the use of the private car by citizens. We've been wasting tremendous amounts of energy; we've been planning poorly in our communities and causing serious problems with decay in downtown areas. So, definitely, we need some expenditure of government money to overcome the mistakes of the past. But what is the program going to be like? We haven't been told what the program is going to be like, Mr. Speaker, and there is no way we can vote $25 million of the taxpayers' money to a program that hasn't been explained to us in detail. We're not sure that it's even going to do the job.

It was interesting to listen to the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) talking about the amount of money that was going to be spent on the the Annacis Island crossing as opposed to the amount that was going to be spent on urban transit. He said twice as much money is going to be spent out of this bill on urban transit; only $30 million is going to be spent on the Annacis Island crossing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, those members haven't read the budget speech in conjunction with this bill, because the budget speech says that nothing is going to be spent on urban transit. Everything that's put in the Annacis crossing fund this year will be spent this year; nothing will be spent, out of this bill, on urban transit in fiscal year 1980-81.

We're not voting for a $55 million expenditure on urban transit in this bill; we're voting for nothing for urban transit and what's why we're opposed to it. All he is doing is stuffing $55 million in a piggy bank and putting a label on it that says "Urban Transit Fund." He's not going to spend a nickel of that fund on urban transit in the coming year. He's taken the taxpayers' money, socked it into a piggy bank, deprived them of that money which could be placed in the economy to cause a growth in jobs and development of the province. He has taken it out of the economy and deprived the taxpayers of the use of their money for an additional year at least. That's the principle we're going to be voting against. Out of this bill which purports to spend $188 million, Mr. Speaker, we're going to spend about $32 million or $33 million. Most of that money will go unspent.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), the former Minister of Energy and also the former Minister of Agriculture, talked about money for northeast coal development, $20 million to be placed into the northeast sector to develop coal — coal that would stay in the ground for thousands of years unless we put this money there.

There is sufficient coal for a thousand years, said the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). We have to take this government money, the taxpayers' money, and go up there and spend it in that coal sector in order to create jobs and export commodities to improve the economy of British Columbia. Look at what the budget speech says on page 61: "Forecast of transactions and balances: North East Coal Development Fund — forecast credits, $20 million; forecast expenditures, nothing; balance at the end of the year, $20 million."

How many jobs in the northeast coal sector are you going to create by leaving $20 million in the bank? Not a single job. How many jobs are you depriving British Columbia people of by leaving that money in the bank? Hundreds of jobs. By putting this money into a separate account you're depriving the people of this province of the right to work in the coal mining industry, because no coal will be mined in the northeast sector based on the expenditure of this $20 million to a fund. There is nothing there in terms of employment, in terms of improving the economy, in terms of improving the quality of life in British Columbia. There is nothing in this bill which will assist in developing the northeast coal sector and creating jobs in that area. This bill, in its very essence, is a negative bill, because it takes money away from the people of British Columbia — money that was gleaned from taxpayers by overtaxation. It takes money away from people and it doesn't return that money to the people in the form of increased economic programs which will generate employment and improve the quality of life.

Take a look at the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund. The minister is now placing an additional $25 million into this fund to build a sports stadium in Vancouver. Most of the people in the province will not have the benefit of using that sports stadium. The vast majority of the people will not have convenient access to that stadium.

When the NDP was in office we took a look at the possibility of attracting the Winter Olympics to British Columbia. We took a look at what the cost was going to be and what the benefits might be to the citizens of British Columbia. We determined that the best expenditure of that money would be by creating recreation facilities throughout the province to improve the general fitness of the people in this province. And that's precisely what we did, Mr. Speaker. We spent tens of millions of dollars around the province. In the riding of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), we spent tens of thousands of dollars on recrea-

[ Page 1946 ]

tion facilities under the Provincial Recreation Facilities Fund. We even invited the former member for North Peace River, now an employee of the government "jobs for the boys," to open one of those facilities, when our minister went up there to open one of the recreation facilities in your riding. We spent thousands upon thousands of dollars in recreation facilities throughout the province rather than concentrating the expenditure in Vancouver, for the benefit of professional football or baseball teams, who spend most of their time and income, generated from B.C. taxpayers, in California or Florida, in the United States, where they come from originally. They're just up here to collect their salaries from Canadian ticket buyers. There is going to be no benefit coming from that sports stadium in terms of improvement of recreation opportunities for the people of the province. The only benefit is going to go to those American football and baseball players who will be using that stadium and spending the money outside the country, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot satisfactorily represent my riding by supporting this bill. I can't go and tell the people of Alberni that I supported taking their tax money for this bill. Alberni provincial constituency, through the labour of thousands of woodworkers and millworkers, sends tens of millions of dollars in taxes to the provincial coffers every year. In terms of the resource revenues generated from my riding of Alberni, it has something like 23 percent of the investment of MacMillan Bloedel located right in that riding. They have sent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years into provincial coffers in resource rents, and you're telling the people of Alberni provincial constituency: "Thanks for all your income tax; thanks for all your resource rents. We're going to take that money and spend it in Vancouver on a stadium so a bunch of American football players can ram their heads together." That is ridiculous, and I have no intention of supporting the bill. I think that my statement against this section of the bill is a positive statement on behalf of the people of Port Alberni.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the stadium?

MR. SKELLY: Can't you listen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying that you're against downtown revitalization?

MR. SKELLY: I didn't say that and you're not listening. Why don't you sit in the House, Mr. Minister, and listen for a change. Why don't you go around the province and talk to municipalities and find out what those municipalities want. Why sit down here in the ivory tower, taking money from rural areas like Alberni provincial constituency and spending it in downtown Vancouver on a sports palace for the benefit of American sports teams.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's on the record, Mr. Member, because when we were in office.... If you want to talk about accountability, when Social Credit was in office there was no Hansard in this Legislature; now it's on the record and you know exactly where I stand. There was no accountability beforehand. You could say one thing in the Legislature here, and you could go outside and say something entirely different. So we brought in a Hansard, Mr. Speaker, to prevent those members from twisting what went on in this Legislative Assembly. And that's accountability.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Now that member over there, Mr. Speaker, says he does things on the inside, so we don't know what his position is. We don't know what his position on the Site C dam is, because he's never chosen to get on the record in this Legislature and tell the people of his riding what his position is on the Site C dam.

MR. BRUMMET: I did it during the election, and I still won.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: Let him say it on the record, Mr. Speaker. Let him be accountable through the record of this Legislative Assembly. Let him be accountable through a system of accountability that was put in this Legislature by the New Democratic Party government in 1972.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I just made a statement that the minister didn't hear. I just compared the method of Social Credit expenditure with what we did with the Winter Olympics proposal. We took the money that would have been expended on the Winter Olympics and we said all of the taxpayers of British Columbia should have the advantage of those funds. Rather than spending them on one particular place in the province close to Vancouver, we would take those funds and we would create a recreation facilities fund to develop facilities all over the province. Hundreds of millions of dollars were expended around the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds of millions?

MR. SKELLY: Hundreds of millions. And it's documented. If you haven't read the record, Mr. Member, that's your problem. Get somebody to do it for you. If you don't have the stamina or the concern.... I'm not going to say you're lazy, but read the records — a hundred million dollars expended on recreation facilities around this province. The member for Prince George knows the recreation facilities that were developed in his riding between 1972 and 1975. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) should know. The member for Kelowna knows.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, may I have your attention, please. Could I have some order in the House. Is this open committee debate detracting from my time?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the Energy Development Fund. It says here in the budget speech that they're going to put $10 million into a fund, and at the end of the year they're going to have $10 million left. You're spending nothing on energy. You're just creating a fund; you're putting together another piggy bank; you're taking that money you squeezed out of the taxpayers as surplus to your requirements and you're stuffing it in a piggy bank; you're not even going to spend it, according to your own budget speech.

[ Page 1947 ]

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: What are we to believe? Are we to believe the speech from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), that we're going to go around the province building greenhouses? How can you take $10 million in this Energy Development Fund, go around the province building greenhouses, and then have $10 million left? I thought A plus B was dead. [Laughter.]

The member asked me, Mr. Speaker: "What about this downtown development fund?" Am I against it? Well, I don't know what it's all about, because it's never been explained adequately to the people of this Legislature. Yet everybody on that side blindly votes for it, without asking a single question as to what the program is about. How much money is going to be expended out of that fund this year? To the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), Mr. Speaker: does he know how much money is going to be spent out of that fund this year? I'll give you a multiple choice question. Is it going to be $15 million, $20 million, $25 million, or none of the above? This year, out of this so-called $25 million fund, they are going to be spending $5 million.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How do you know?

MR. SKELLY: This is from what is known as the budget speech, Mr. Accountant. We know that Socred budget speeches are a piece of fiction; but at least make your fiction consistent, so that the bill is the same as the speech. If we had a consistent approach from the government, then maybe we'd be willing to debate this in a more positive way.

They tell us, on the one hand, that they are going to be spending $25 million on downtown development, and they turn around in the budget speech and say: "The forecast of transactions and balances for fiscal year ending March 31, 1981...." That's what we're supposed to be talking about. They're going to put $25 million in the piggy bank — $25 million that they squeezed out of the taxpayers surplus to their requirements. And it says here: "Forecast expenditure, $5 million." You'll have $20 million left that isn't going to be put to work developing downtown areas in the province, that isn't going to be used. It was taken from the taxpayers of this province under false pretences because last year you said you needed every nickel of it. If you didn't, you should have come to the House and told us so. You told the taxpayers last year that you had to have this tax requisition in order to operate the province for the fiscal year 1979-80. Then halfway through the year you decided that you were squeezing a heck of a lot more from them than you told them you were going to; you didn't need the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: You set up dummy funds.

MR. SKELLY: As the member says, now you're setting up dummy funds. You're calling them expenditures, but nothing is going to be spent out of them. What impact has $5 million on all the communities and cities in this province? What impact is $5 million going to have? It's just about nothing.

If you guys stand up in the House and say you're going to be spending $25 million on downtown development, then be honest about it for a change and spend the money. Be honest about it and bring the program to the House. Don't ask the legislators of this province or of this party to vote for money that is not even going to be spent, and then call it negative when we're against that kind of socking away of the funds of the people of this province. I'm voting against it. I'm voting against it because it is nothing more than a method of deceiving the people of British Columbia into believing that you are doing something, when in fact you're doing nothing but putting money in the bank with labels on the various funds; that's all you're doing. The only money that's going to be spent out of this bill is $30 million.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your direction. There is an imputation here of deceitful action by a member of this government with respect.... I would quite seriously ask the member to withdraw after you have ruled on whether that is in fact appropriate.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there was no such imputation against any particular member of the government. The charge was against the government's action, which is completely consistent with parliamentary.... I listened very intently and the charge was against the government conduct; and that is permissible by the rules of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again I would caution all members when addressing the House that the words they choose would be parliamentary. To the member for Alberni, I would ask that if any imputation was made, as referred to by the Minister of Finance, he would withdraw any such imputation that might have been made mistakenly or....

MR. SKELLY: I made no such imputation, Mr. Speaker. If the minister misunderstood my intent, then I do withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. It always helps decorum in the House when withdrawals of that nature are made. Then members on both sides are satisfied. And so, hopefully, we carry on.

MR. SKELLY: I think we were discussing the Downtown Revitalization Fund — the so-called $25 million fund, Mr. Speaker, out of which only $5 million will be spent. The impact on communities around the province will be negligible. The way this government has allowed those communities to run down in their central cores as a result of lack of planning — including a tax on planning — we need a tremendous amount more than $5 million in this coming fiscal year. I am strongly in support of a downtown development program.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I don't know what the minister has in mind for the program. Has he brought it to this Legislature? Is he expecting us to give him $25 million of the taxpayers' money, and then tell us later what he plans to do with it? That sounds like Social Credit to me. But I'm not going along with that kind of nonsense, and that's why I'm voting against this bill.

[ Page 1948 ]

The Urban Transit Fund — $55 million socked into a piggy bank. And what is the expected expenditure according to the budget speech? We're going to put $55 million in. And at the end of the year how much are we going to have left? Fifty-five million dollars. How many buses is nothing going to buy, George? [Laughter.] I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I should have referred to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) through the Speaker.

There will be no money spent on buses through the Urban Transit Fund. It'll be socked away in a piggy bank with a label that says "Urban Transit" on it, and anybody looking for transportation from Maple Ridge into Vancouver is going to have to stop at Mussallem Motors and buy a Chev.

AN BON. MEMBER: Would you buy a used province from that man?

MR. SKELLY: It's funny, Mr. Speaker, that I had a brother-in-law who used to work for the member for Dewdney. He sold cars for him and made him the man he is today — before he started drinking that Fraser River water. My brother-in-law decided that economic union with the States was better, and he moved to California. That was when the minimum wage was a lot lower. You paid him about as much as you are going to pay out of this Urban Transit Fund.

It is time to get serious here and talk about energy development. It says here that for energy development we are going to put $10 million in the bank this year. That's the limit. We're not even going to buy a single greenhouse. We're putting it in the bank and at the end of the year we're going to have $10 million left. What kind of energy development is that?

If you want to develop energy resources, if you want to improve conservation, if you want to make B.C. more energy self-sufficient, sure, set aside $10 million and then spend it so that it has some energy impact. Don't just take it from the taxpayers — squeeze it out of them — put it in the bank and not do anything with it. That's not going to improve our energy utilization and efficiency in the province of B.C. It's not going to buy a single greenhouse. It's not going to do anything for anybody but the banks. And to whom are you providing the energy, anyway? You're supposed to be responsible to the taxpayers of this province. You're supposed to be providing them with the most efficient energy regime possible in the province of British Columbia. If you are, as you purport to be, good stewards of the resource, that's what you should be doing. The government isn't doing that. They're simply socking money away, to no useful purpose whatsoever. That's why we are opposed to this bill.

Look at the government's priorities. In presenting this bill they set aside $10 million for energy that they're not going to spend. And we're going to be considering a borrowing authority act.... I know I can't discuss that act because it hasn't been brought onto the floor yet. We're going to give Hydro the authority to borrow $750 million this year. In their most recent borrowings they have been paying 16 percent, 15 percent. It's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to pay the interest on that debt.

We should be concerned about this government that says it's a pay-as-you-go government. It's borrowed more than any single government in British Columbia and probably any single government in the Dominion of Canada. This is not pay-as-you-go government. They've run this province into debt like a teenager with a credit card. You listened to the statements of that Premier this morning talking about fiscal responsibility; you don't even know the meaning of the word. If you want to know anything about deception, it's deception for a Premier to stand up in the House, as he does, and talk about government spending and government borrowing, when he is one of the most flagrant abusers in the Dominion. And he talks about accountability!

MR. LEA: A lazy spendthrift.

MR. SKELLY: A lazy spendthrift is right.

Mr. Speaker, I've covered a number of things in this bill. I don't feel it's negative for a member of the opposition to analyze this bill, to find out where it's defective and to say, with all honesty, without having any of these programs explained, and comparing this bill with the budget speech, which says hardly any of this money will be spent for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, it would be irresponsible to do anything other than to vote against it. And I intend to vote against it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: What say you on Annacis, Mr. Member for Vancouver South?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member asked what I say about Annacis. I'll tell you, that's an interesting thing. I wish sometimes the radio reporters in Vancouver, who every morning report on the holocaust of traffic trying to get through the tunnel, would replay just a little bit of the remarks made by the member opposite. If all those people who are so utterly frustrated with the problems of inadequate transportation or routes to cross the Fraser River would all write you a little letter, then you'd have as much mail as some of us receive.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm certainly for it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, there are so many things in Bill 7 that I support and am excited about, starting right off the top with the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund. I've been to Barkerville and Wells on several occasions, and it's.... Well, who hasn't been to Barkerville?

AN. HON. MEMBER: Gary Lauk hasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about B.C. Place.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I'm going to save B.C. Place and talk about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Les Bewley was there in the 1800s.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's not a bad line.

Mr. Speaker, the other day when the first member for Vancouver....

Interjections.

[ Page 1949 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, could I have some assistance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SKELLY: I just recognized my wife in the gallery, and as I got up to ask permission to introduce her she left. She thought the member for Vancouver South was going to make a speech. It is her birthday today, and I hope the members of the Legislature will join me in wishing her a happy thirty-fifth birthday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) rose under standing order 35. I have given consideration to the proposal by the hon. member for an emergency debate under standing order 35. The hon. member undoubtedly raises a matter of importance and concern. It is my duty to determine if in doing so the hon. member is within the scope of standing order 35.

In the sixteenth edition May sets out the rules with regard to such debate, with numerous examples at pages 368-374: "It is evident that very few matters qualify as being so important and emergent that it is rendered imperative for all other business of the House to be put aside. However, the Chair seldom disallows the motion solely on the ground that such a matter has not been raised, but leaves that question for the decision of the House."

Also, May very clearly states: "And previous rulings by Speakers of this House have held that the matter must not import any argument."

On its face, the statement by the hon. member runs contrary to this rule, and consequently I am unable to find that the hon. member may invoke the provisions of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

APPENDIX

15 Mr. Lorimer asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs the following questions:

1. Have any transit vehicles been ordered by the Government of British Columbia or its Crown Corporations or the Urban Transit Authority since January 1, 1976?

2. If the answer is "yes," how many vehicles were ordered; what types of vehicles have been ordered; how many vehicles have been delivered?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"With respect to vehicles ordered by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority only, the answer is yes.

(a) 30 vehicles requisitioned; (b) GMC Model T6H-5307N diesel buses; and (c) 30 vehicles leased through IAC Ltd. In November 1977."