[ Page 2379 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Privilege

Standing order 26.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 2379

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Neighbourhood pub licences. Mr. Macdonald –– 2380

Northeastern coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 2380

Day care. Ms. Brown –– 2381

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 2381

Day care. Ms. Brown –– 2381

Asbestos levels on Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2382

Extended-care beds. Hon. Mr. Mair replies 2382

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 2382

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2384

Mr. Mitchell –– 2384

Mr. Stupich –– 2385

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 2385

Mr. Lauk –– 2387

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2388

Mr. King –– 2388

Mr. Davis –– 2389

Mr. Mussallem –– 2390

Mr. Skelly –– 2390

Mr. Nicolson –– 2392

Mr. Barber –– 2392

Mr. Passarell –– 2397

Mr. Barnes –– 2398

Mr. Hall –– 2400

Ms. Brown –– 2401

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2401

Division on second reading –– 2403

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Firstly, this afternoon I would like to introduce to the House Mrs. Gail Tompson, who is in the gallery. Gail is the president of the Skeena Social Credit Party, an association working very hard to bring the truth to Skeena, even though the member sitting does not. I would like the House to make her welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I sincerely regret that on this particular occasion I must ask you to remember the intent of introduction period.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of events over the last couple of weeks, I would like the people of Skeena to decide for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I must ask you at this point to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly withdraw any aspersions which I've thrown the way of that member. Again, I say the people of Skeena will understand.

In the gallery this afternoon as well, representing an industry which adds a great deal to the economy of British Columbia, and which with proper wildlife management and proper and logical predator control will add even more to this province, is Mr. Bob Henderson, executive director of the Western Guide Outfitters. With Bob is Mr. Red Sorensen, Mr. Lynn Ross and Mr. Lee O'Neil. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Visiting the precincts today and later to be in the gallery are 15 biology students from L.V. Rogers Senior Secondary School, where I taught with their teacher, Mr. Fred Young, for some eight years. Also accompanying them is Mr. Allan Auringer. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: In the gallery today we have a Mr. Colym Welsh, secretary manager of the British Columbia Turkey Marketing Board. With Mr. Welsh we have Mr. Norman Cryer, one of the province's old-time turkey producers and a long-time acquaintance of our first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Would the House please welcome these two gentlemen.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a grade 6 and 7 class visiting from Alex Aitken Elementary School in the Cowichan Valley, together with their teacher, Mr. Hoag.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a large group of youngsters from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary School. I also had the pleasure of meeting in my office with a large delegation from the Guildford Park Community School, and with them were 35 young people from Beauport, Quebec. I ask the House to extend them a welcome and wish them a good stay in British Columbia.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are seated two people with whom I had the pleasure of having lunch today and who will be meeting with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I understand, later this afternoon. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Emil Lindahl, who is the labour attaché to the American embassy in Ottawa, and Robert Moore, who is the American consul general in Vancouver.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I had the distinct pleasure on the weekend of visiting our Speaker, Mr. Harvey Schroeder, at his home. I would like to report to the House that he is improving, and he stated that for the last week he felt better than he had for some weeks. He says hello to everybody and said he will be back as soon as he can.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would like the members to welcome three gentlemen in the gallery today: Mr. Norm Cryer, Mr. Colym Welsh and Mr. Jack Howard, from the turkey industry in this province. Would you bid them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to calling for question period, on Thursday I indicated that a further statement would be made relating to standing order 26, which provides: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately."

During question period, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) stated: "My question of privilege is the absolute, blind and stubborn refusal of that Chairman to even acknowledge questions." Having regard to the frequently expressed views of hon. members that the time provided for question period ought not to be infringed upon by other matters, the Chair ruled that the matter of privilege might be raised immediately following question period. Accordingly the Chair later recognized the hon. member for Skeena. Hansard discloses that upon gaining the floor the hon. member stated: "The question of privilege is that for which I attempted to rise during the question period."

I need not again state to the House what matters fall within the ambit of privilege. Suffice it to say that failure in question period to respond to a question or series of questions is patently not a matter of privilege. If the Chair were to rule otherwise, hon. members will readily see that virtually daily the House could well find itself setting aside all its appointed business to embark upon debate arising from the complaint of an hon. member, however aggrieved he may feel, that his question has gone unanswered.

The Chair notes that the hon. member for Skeena also complained that the Chairman of the Committee on Crown Corporations had on three or four occasions summarily cancelled meetings. Hon. members will be aware from the Journals of the House that the House has consistently declined to intervene in those matters which ought to be resolved in the committee concerned.

While not alluding specifically to the matter which the Chair has just reviewed, I must again urge upon all hon. members the responsibility which we all have to observe the rules of the House, which, if abused, can only lead to frustration of the orderly transaction of its business. Hon. members have the most important right, almost at any time,

[ Page 2380 ]

to seek recognition by the Chair on a point of order or a matter of privilege. This prerogative of hon. members, provided for by the rules of the House, imposes a clear obligation on hon. members not to claim the floor to make gratuitous statements under the guise-of stating a point of order or a matter of privilege. In order to dissuade any hon. member who, seeking to press a point, might be tempted to indulge in such a disorderly tactic, the Chair must require that members, immediately upon rising, state the rule which they consider to have been infringed or state the privilege claimed to have been breached, without embarking upon debate or disorderly comment. Failure to do so must call for the immediate intervention of the Chair even although, if allowed to continue in a disorderly manner, the member concerned might eventually arrive at a perfectly valid point of order or matter of privilege.

I would call members' attention to the sixteenth edition of May, page 470:

"On July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a growing practice of interruptions of debate by members who, when the hon. member who was speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way that they can get their word in is by raising a point of order. He stated that in his opinion such interruptions constitute fraudulent points of order and should be stopped. "

It is very far removed from the intention or desire of the Chair to be perceived to be lecturing the House on a procedural matter, but if the Chair is to fulfill the duty imposed upon it by the House, all hon. members must honour and assume their individual responsibilities in the matters to which I have alluded. In so doing, hon. members will greatly assist the Chair in protecting their rights and in furthering the orderly conduct of the business of the House. Thank you.

Oral Questions

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB LICENCES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wrote him with the same questions last April 18, but I happen to notice him sitting over there and, not having had a reply, I would like to put the questions to him.

Following the order-in-council of April 20, 1978, creating marine pub houses — a new category of neighbourhood pub — did the liquor administration issue a pre-clearance letter within four days to a company that became Grandma's Marine Pub, of which the directors were R. Dale Janowski and other members of his family? Did that pre-clearance letter go out and, if so, when?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The information is very specific. If the member has written a letter, I will certainly be supplying him with an answer. It does require specific research; I don't have that information.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to express a little astonishment that my letters are at the bottom of the pile, even on a matter of this sort. It's kind of crushing.

If what I have stated is the case, that the pre-clearance letter went out within four days of the creation of these pubs, did the pre-clearance letter go out before an application for a marine pub house licence could have been received and in fact was received?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm afraid the answer to that question must be like the other. It is specific information that

I would have to have researched, and then I would respond to the member. He has indicated that he has written a letter, dated April 18, with these questions contained in it. Certainly we will have a response for you in written form, presumably answering the questions contained in your letter.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question. Is the minister taking the question I've just asked on notice so that he will come back to the House and give the answer publicly?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you get a letter it will be public.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want a letter; I want an answer now in the House. That's three weeks ago.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I still intend to respond to you in writing if your letter asked for that. I'll be pleased to take your questions today as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: I have one other question. Is it also true that under the old regulations relating to neighbourhood pub licences, this application could not have been granted because the site requested was within one mile of another site of a neighbourhood pub?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll have to look at the specific circumstances of this. I don't know how close or how far it may be from any licensed establishment. I'll take that as notice as well.

NORTHEASTERN COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It concerns the negotiations that have been going on between the two levels of government over support for northeast coal. On Saturday the Prime Minister of Canada stated: "It's a complete and utter lie that we had introduced new elements into discussion of an economic package." He meant tying reduced Alaska gas pipeline compensation to northeast coal assistance from the federal government. Would the minister advise if the Prime Minister was correct in his statement that it was a lie to say the federal government had introduced new elements into the negotiation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly pleased that those on that side of the House are taking some interest in this great economic development that is on the verge of taking place in our great province. I want to inform the member that I certainly was not with our great Premier Bennett when he met with the Prime Minister of Canada, and therefore I'm not privy to what conversations took place.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the minister was privy to negotiation with the federal officials that were here. Would the minister advise whether the federal officials introduced a new element into those negotiations — that new element being reduced compensation for British Columbia in terms of the Alaska pipeline?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to be

[ Page 2381 ]

very careful how I answer this legal question posed to me because it's got a double-edged sword to it. I didn't say we were negotiating, and I don't think anybody in the press or any of the federal or provincial ministers have said anything about reduced compensation. I don't remember it ever being mentioned, but my legal friend from Coquitlam-Moody is trying to put words in my mouth. I am very reluctant to respond to that legal question. However, I did make a statement to the press on Friday morning saying that the subject of the Alcan pipeline was introduced a week from this morning in our negotiations with our federal counterparts.

MR. LEGGATT: Was the introduction of that new element contingent in any way on the discussions that were taking place around federal support for northeast coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should ask the member, in answer to his question, to read the newspaper. I'll state it again in this House: a pipeline is a pipeline is a pipeline, the northeast coal is northeast coal is northeast coal, and a railway is a railway is a railway, and never the three shall meet.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister again. I take it that the answer is no, that there was no contingency. Would the minister also advise whether it was he or his officials that indicated to the press that this new element was introduced into these negotiations?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let me inform the member so that he'll be up to date. We have told our federal counterparts that certainly we're willing at any time, at the drop of a hat — providing that we can get out of the Legislature to carry on the province's business — to respond to Ottawa in the package that we have put before them on the Alcan pipeline. We have on several occasions travelled many miles to Ottawa, met with officials from the federal government and told them that we're ready to negotiate with regard to the Alcan pipeline. We stand ready at a moment's notice and we are ready, willing and able to do that.

But, Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question, what we're waiting for, my dear friend, is some response from Ottawa to the great proposition we put to them for the great province of British Columbia. Let me assure you that we are negotiating, and we may be tough, because we're responsible to the people of British Columbia. We may seem a little tough, but we have to act in accordance with the mandate given to us to do the best possible thing for the citizens of this great province of ours. Let me assure you that we will.

MR. LEGGATT: It's impossible to put words in that minister's mouth because it's constantly completely full of his own.

DAY CARE

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. The Social Services Employees' Union, Local 2, of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees' Union conducted a province-wide survey of day-care centres and discovered that the present-day system is overcrowded and that 97 percent of the centres have a waiting list. Has the minister received a copy of this survey?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It is now about four weeks since the minister informed the House that he was meeting that week to discuss the minimum wage. Were any decisions made at that meeting with respect to the minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A decision was not made at that meeting.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister received recommendations from the Board of Industrial Relations on their review of the minimum wage for each of the last four years?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not received recommendations from the Board of Industrial Relations with respect to each of the last four years. But I do have a recent report and, I might add, I have another report as well.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise what the Board of Industrial Relations recommends with respect to the minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I'm at liberty to make that recommendation. Those documents were conveyed to me in my capacity as minister, and I don't think it would be proper for me to disclose them to the House.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise the House when we can expect some announcement with respect to a change in the minimum wage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a question regarding the future, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not asking what he's going to announce.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In due course I hope to advise the member.

DAY CARE

MS. BROWN: Can the Minister of Human Resources confirm that she had a meeting with Local 2 social service employees of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees' Union?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

MS. BROWN: Is the minister saying she did not have a meeting or that she cannot remember having had such a meeting? I just need that clarified. It's the day-care union.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have met with many day-care groups throughout the province. The one which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is asking about is not familiar. However, they may have asked for a meeting under a different name because they belong to an association, as you and the member may know.

[ Page 2382 ]

MS. BROWN: On April 24 a brief from this union was submitted to the minister. Does the minister recall receiving the brief on April 24?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

ASBESTOS LEVELS ON
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: Will the Minister of Labour table the Workers' Compensation Board report on the levels of asbestos in the air on the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert when it was taken? The tests were made about three weeks ago.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a question which he addressed to me approximately two weeks ago, which I took as notice. I might say that I did receive an answer, but I personally was not satisfied with it and I am seeking further information.

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like, with leave, to reply to a question asked of me in oral question period about a month ago.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: How long ago?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, April 15 — not bad. Mr. Speaker, at that time the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked what steps I had taken to alleviate the waiting lists of "one year or more" in extended care.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that we have made considerable progress in this area, particularly in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I might add that our efforts began many, many months ago and are ongoing now. We began in 1976 in this province with 3, 946 extended-care beds, Today it has reached 5,786. That is an increase of 1,840 beds or 31.8 percent. I should add that 60.5 percent of those new beds were built in the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District. The hospital section of the ministry is actively working with the regional district to ensure that about 300 more beds are built immediately. More will be approved as soon as the regional district study of extended care pinpoints the most appropriate locations. In addition, renovations are underway at the Pearson Hospital to accommodate 38 more extended-care patients. At Royal Columbian Hospital a new temporary unit will provide 40 more extended-care beds this summer. Waiting periods for extended-care beds vary widely, from one to six months in the capital region and from no waiting period to 12 months in the rest of the province, outside greater Vancouver.

Nobody is happy with long waiting periods and we are working to reduce them. I might say that nobody is sitting on their hands doing nothing, but there are inevitable delays between approval and completion. You can't throw up buildings or convert them overnight, and because we insist on high standards of accommodation for people who need extended care, some delay must be tolerated.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE: On Friday last the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) introduced the trade and convention centre bill. At the time, I made a passing remark that we were somewhat surprised that the trade and convention centre bill hadn't been put forward by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). We recognize that the Deputy Premier put forward the bill because of her great interest in trade and conventions centre and her lack of interest in human resources.

There's also something else that comes to my mind. I recognize that the Minister of Tourism at the moment isn't being paid — she's probably on semi-strike — but, at the same time, I would suggest that she probably knows that that Minister of Human Resources has a special smile for her, as she has had for many people in the province. She also seems to have a special smile for the Premier. Every time this bill has been called the Premier has been either out of town or away. I'm just wondering if there's been a bit of an altercation in cabinet around this whole question. B.C. Place is the Premier's baby, and convention centres are the Minister of Human Resources' baby.

I would like to suggest a number of things with respect to this whole question. First and foremost, while it's quite supportable — and we'll support it — I believe that the convention centre concept should have a lot more scope.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you going to support it?

MR. COCKE: Garde, why aren't you down in Montreal with the Premier?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the big promotion that's being done by this government. The First Capital City Development Co. Ltd. put out a book.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the wrong bill.

MR. COCKE: If the minister would have a little patience.... Relax. The boss is out of town, but you can still relax a bit. Wait, and I just might be able to draw a conclusion here with respect to this whole matter.

The government that wrecked the downtown concept in New Westminster could very well now be using some satellite proposals within the bill we are now discussing. You're discussing a convention centre in Victoria, and you're discussing a convention centre in downtown Vancouver; both are supportable. However, the regional town centre concept brought one thing to our attention, and that was the high concentration of business in the downtown Vancouver area. It also brought to our attention that if we didn't pay more attention to other regional centres, one day we would be very sorry.

I view a lot of the material in this book as being just

[ Page 2383 ]

publicity if in fact something material doesn't occur in the downtown New Westminster area. We've moved the college downtown, for all the good that is. The minister who destroyed the concept by not allowing the ICBC head office down there is the minister responsible for congestion. The minister, whose mind is on coal.... I'm wondering how you can mine coal for $75 a ton and sell it for $66. He should be doing a little more thinking about his portfolio and the part his portfolio plays in the downtown centre concept.

When this bill was introduced in the first place — the first capital city bill — we were told that this was going to be a landmark sort of proposition. But then when you bring up accompanying proposals that could very well become very much a part of this proposition, there's no mention, no thought. If there is anything that downtown centre lends itself to it is to some kind of development in small business, including hotels, smaller convention facilities and utilization of property that's already there. For example, you have many, many acres just being deserted by the corrections branch of Canada. The penitentiary property certainly lends itself to some aspects of this proposal. We find the hon. member for Vancouver looking after the interests of Vancouver, and to some extent looking after the interests of the capital here in Victoria, but no thought about the satellite development that could very well enhance the whole proposition. One or two satellites to the proposal, and you develop the whole area as....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want one in Skookumchuck.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing wants one in Skookumchuck. It should be discussed and I'm sure that he'll be up making a speech about it in the House. Let's hope he does it in French.

Incidentally, as an aside, we very much appreciate the fact that you did that. I think a lot of people across the country did.

In this first capital city proposal we see that New Westminster is now ready to become a commercial centre. So what do we do? To enhance the now possibility that they talk about, the commercial centre, we order that a college and the courthouse be moved down there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What did you do?

MR. COCKE: Whatever did we do? I gather, Mr. Speaker, he's not talking about what I, personally, did. But in New Westminster we have a Royal Columbian Hospital, which is super and had been ignored by the Socreds for years. How you have the face to be with that party, I'll never know. We also built a hospital that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) just took credit for, and that's the 300-bed, extended-care hospital there. What did we do for New Westminster? We put ICBC headquarters down there until you came along and wrecked it. That's what we did for New Westminster, Mr. Speaker, in a very short time — three years and four months. That's more than has ever been done for that city, thank heaven.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have an unsettling effect on that group over there. It strikes me that they didn't have a very good weekend. I possibly can understand why they didn't have a very good weekend. After all, Bill was down east and there was nobody to give them any kind of leadership.

We're getting ready, Mr. Speaker, to become a commercial centre. We see nothing about that. We see the minister talking about all the grandiose plans. As I say, our Canadian gateway in Vancouver can be described at best as an eyesore. I suggest — and those are her words — that that government has done more to make New Westminster's downtown area an eyesore than anybody in history. They closed down practically everything on Columbia Street as a result of the work that they have been doing. If they had any seriousness about that area, there would be a satellite convention centre to what they are building in Vancouver and Victoria down there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, while the matters being discussed may be of great personal concern to you, the Chair is having some difficulty in specifically relating this to the bill presently before us. While passing reference of a comparison might be in order, I believe the member is embarking on a rather thorough discussion of something that is not presently before us in the bill. I would ask him to return to the principle of the bill before us.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he'd be doing well if he'd go out and give some advice on gardening this afternoon, because he certainly isn't giving very good advice in the House.

In terms of our discussion of this bill, we're being asked here this afternoon to vote for a bill. We're to raise some arguments as to whether or not we should vote for this bill. I'm saying that it has some shortcomings. I'm saying we're going to vote for it, but there are some shortcomings....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I said that at the outset of my statement this afternoon.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Barney, you were asleep, as you ordinarily are.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested that at the outset of my few words. You know, my few words are such that I just want to raise a couple of arguments. As a matter of fact, by now I'm sure that somebody else would be speaking in this House had it not been for all the interruptions by this very rude rearguard that we have in here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, also included in these arguments is that they're talking about new hotels and locations in that area. But how do you encourage hotels without some kind of assurance that there is going to be business going on? I suggest that that's another reason for our wanting to see some expansion of this whole proposal. I'm not at all that keen on governments packing the whole load, particularly a government that's talking in terms of their free enterprise attitude. There should be some partnership, some arrangement where business gets involved. This government decided that they're going to give business a lift, and if it can work out, okay. But I suggest that there are some areas that need significant help, and I would hope that those areas are going to get help.

[ Page 2384 ]

Just to get to the convention centre itself, the two sites.... I'm particularly familiar with the Vancouver site, and I suggest that it's one of the best sites that could be selected in that city. I think it's as good as the other downtown development, the football field on False Creek, is bad. I can understand why the sparks are likely flying in cabinet. That is a beautiful site in terms of the setting — what you're looking at, the mountains and the waste — the accessibility to cruise ships, the accessibility to the downtown area and the proximity to hotels. I think it's a very, very fine site.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to get the kind of cooperation from the owners of that site that one might hope for; I don't think that the CPR or Marathon Realty, as their real estate arm is called, have ever been the easiest people to deal with, but I do hope that there is a relatively good deal there. If anybody owes Vancouver a good deal, it's Marathon Realty. Remember how CPR came to Port Moody, stopped the tracks there and said, "If you want the tracks to go any further, you have to give us half the city of Vancouver," which is exactly what the government of the day did. They have made an absolute fortune out of that ransom, and it's about time the CPR paid back some of that fortune. This is a very good opportunity for them to get involved to the extent of being far easier to deal with than they have been in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the site in Victoria will be discussed by my colleague for Victoria. But I do want to say that the proposal for Vancouver is a good one, from our standpoint. We only wish there was something a little more imaginative in here in terms of the satellite proposal that I put forward. Hopefully we're going to see some thinking along that line coming forward in the not too distant future.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In support of this bill I'd like to make two or three brief comments in which I would attempt to illustrate the importance of this trade and convention centre as it will relate down the line to our plans to hold Transpo '86 in the city of Vancouver. This is an international exposition with the theme of transportation and on a future occasion will be addressed in a bill which is before the House at this time. I want to state in debating this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, that with the advent and completion of this wonderful centre in Vancouver, a cross-section of conventions of an international nature can be attracted to British Columbia.

Just to single out one particular facet of this and to give you some notion of the opportunities which exist, I have here a list of some 52 international organizations which address themselves to the subject of transportation. I think we can conservatively estimate, when looking forward some six years to the year 1986, when this world's fair on transportation might take place, that we stand a chance of acquiring at least 15 international conventions on the subject of transportation alone in 1986 as a direct result of hosting Transpo '86. These conventions range in delegates from, at the lower end, some 400 to some 3,000 or more. The average number of delegates is approximately 1,800 per convention on this list, and is expected to generate some $10.8 million from the delegates alone to those 15 conventions, not to mention the ongoing funds expended by husbands and wives and family members of delegates. I might say that we also expect to attract, in addition to this, at least five major domestic conventions on the subject of transportation which will generate additional funds into the economy of British Columbia. I just wanted to indicate in one single aspect the importance of this trade and convention centre as it relates to major plans to bring to Vancouver an international exposition or world fair on the subject of transportation.

A number of important transport organizations have expressed interest in holding meetings in Vancouver during this fair. The Canadian Transportation Research Forum has indicated interest in holding its 1986 annual meeting in Vancouver, and invitations will be extended to its United States and Australian counterparts. It is anticipated a number of other important transport groups will be similarly interested in scheduling their meetings in Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that the hon. member is perhaps debating Bill 19, Transpo '86 Corporation Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The member had advised that he was going to show how this related to the bill presently before us. As the Chair has allowed latitude to the previous speaker I would hope that these remarks would be soon to be finalized.

MR. NICOLSON: I accept your decision.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point made by the member. I think it's quite obvious that the trade and convention centre proposed by this bill can attract conventions of the size to which I'm referring. It should be noted that also there might be many international conventions prior to 1986 which will address themselves to the subject of transportation — seminars, symposia — all of which will generate new concepts in transportation which will become themes for this world international show.

I simply wanted to make the point that it is interesting to note that there are upwards of 52 international organizations which address themselves to transportation, many of which are of a size which would require facilities such as the trade and convention centre in Vancouver. It's very important to our move into the eighties in terms of attracting the size of conventions, the number of delegates, to a most attractive area in the world.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to mention before I talk that I hope I get a special smile because I want to announce to everyone over there I am going to vote for this bill. But my main job as part of the opposition is to do what I've been receiving lots of advice from the other side of the House on — to come into this House and give some constructive suggestions on what should be developed in this area, and the reasons why. This bill says that the Provincial Capital Commission is to acquire some land to build a building on. I feel this is important on this ground: although I'm not the member from Victoria, as one of the surrounding ridings that also comes under the Provincial Capital Commission we feel that the development of the waterfront as a people place that has been going on by the capital commission must be continued.

To try and stick a convention centre of the size and magnitude that they are talking about in between Wharf Street and the water and still leave sufficient land that can be used and utilized by the citizens of Victoria is ludicrous. That area was purchased to stop the development of the Reid Centre, to stop the obstruction of the view of the harbour.

[ Page 2385 ]

They say the original Reid Centre was going for 19 storeys and this will be smaller. But it's unimportant if it's ten feet or if it's ten storeys. Once you have stopped the view, the harbour cannot be enjoyed by the public. I would seriously and sincerely ask the minister to give some consideration to developing this centre in an area that is more central to the town, more central to transportation, parking and hotels, for a number of reasons.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think if it's more central it will be more beneficial to those who come to this area for a convention. I think people come to the convention to do convention business, not to sit and view the sea or airplanes coming into the harbour, or to watch the ferries come back and forth. They come there to do business. I feel that when they come, they're going to use the convention centre for that business.

I also feel that the convention centre can be a centre for the greater Victoria population, if it's properly developed. It is something which is needed and can be utilized. I sincerely ask that the minister, through her office, set up some committees so there is some local input from the various organizations of greater Victoria, so the centre can be used for numerous community activities which can be enjoyed not only by tourists coming here on conventions but by those who are going to be asked to subsidize this through their taxes.

I feel that if this area is developed it can be a great benefit to the business community, the construction community and the community at large. I feel that we do need one, but the location being bandied about, right down on the waterfront — in spite of what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) feels; perhaps in Vancouver it would be a good location.... The waterfront should be developed for communities. There was a day when everyone came to Victoria by sailboat and landed on the beach, but today people come to the capital city by ferry or airplane and don't land on the beach. That particular area is the wrong spot to utilize.

I think it's wrong that it's blacktopped over and used as a parking area. One of the plans that has been proposed is for a parking garage for 200 to 300 cars. Actually, to build a garage of that size near a convention centre is not needed. If you are going to have 1,000 or 1,500 coming to a convention and you are going to provide parking, you will want far more than 200 to 300 parking stalls.

I feel that a convention centre should be more central to the city, where it can be developed, expanded and utilized by the greater Victoria community. There is a lot to be gained by it, and it's something long overdue. I sincerely ask the minister, with her special smile, to give some consideration to its location and maybe get away from the waterfront. Let's keep the waterfront for the public.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose the speech which we heard from the minister introducing this bill and the one we heard from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) are very much a repetition of what they said last year in introducing very similar legislation. I haven't checked back in Hansard. I intended to, but it just came on me a little too soon.

Perhaps the one point of difference is that last year there was $10 million for the Vancouver trade and convention centre, and this year it's $20 million; last year it was $2.5 million for the Victoria trade and convention centre and this year it's $5 million. Last year they provided these funds for these programs and did nothing about them, and this year the money is coming back into revenue in the financial year 1980-81, which will increase our revenue this year. The money for this program is coming out of last year's surplus, or whatever, so it's going to make this year's revenue look that much better, but I wonder whether in fact anything more will be spent than was spent last year.

There are other programs which the government is announcing again this year. We've already discussed many of those in the opening speech debate and in the budget debate, and we'll be discussing more of them when we get around to dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I think it's a good idea. In spite of the fact that the government did nothing about it last year, I would like to see something happening. As the member for New Westminster and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) were saying, I'd like to see this kind of thing happening in other communities. Certainly in Nanaimo we could do with some government assistance to provide, for example, a theatre — a civic centre of some kind which would include a theatre.

This is the kind of thing that should be happening around the province. It did start when the NDP was elected. We had a program that enabled communities who were prepared to initiate such projects and finance them to some extent to get such projects off the ground.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Never mind, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't want to listen anyway. But you do, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will agree with me that this would be a good idea if it were picked up not just as a single program in itself, or two single programs — one for Vancouver and one for Victoria, taking care of the surplus of the past, but there is money enough in government pockets right now, with over a billion dollars cash sitting in the bank that they could be initiating projects like this all around the province that would provide very much needed facilities throughout the province, that would provide employment at a time when unemployment is very high, that would generate markets for the kind of building materials that are not being used right now and creating more unemployment in the forest industry.

It is a time when this kind of a program should be picked up, expanded upon, and made available all over the province — rather than simply two programs, one for Vancouver and one for Victoria. It's great public relations, great politics perhaps, for the cabinet member introducing this particular legislation, but it's falling very far short of the needs of the people of British Columbia right now, very far short of the ability of this province right now to do the kinds of things for B.C. and the people of B.C. that could be done, that should be done, but will not be done until that gang of obstructionists is thrown out of office.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I can't help but have a slight smile on my face, as does the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), at the comments just made by the progressive member for Nanaimo who was the Minister of Finance and had the ear of the then-Premier at the time that this province was led into a deficit position for the first time in years and the time that the tourism industry —

[ Page 2386 ]

which is what we are really talking about now — was virtually slaughtered in this province. It was that member who stood in this House by his colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who suddenly left, along with his colleague for Burnaby and the one for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who are sitting now, who virtually told visitors to British Columbia — or the tourists, as they called them — to go home. Yet he stands up in this House today and suggests: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greatest obstructionist of them all?" The member for Nanaimo. We shan't forget that and neither shall the people of this province.

Speaking of his comments, he mentioned that it would be a very good idea for similar developments to take place around the rest of the province in the way of trade and convention centres. I don't know where that member has been in the last year or two. I realize that he realizes that during the NDP time in office conventions did drop off in British Columbia. There was no incentive at that time for hotels and private operators or communities to develop convention centres because, oddly enough, one has to have people and tourists to come to convention centres and one has to have trade in a viable provincial economy to justify the development of the two centres that we are talking about and other centres around the province. Once again, that member will recall, I am sure — to say it kindly — with some embarrassment, that that was not possible under the NDP because of the economic conditions that developed in British Columbia under their tutelage, because of the loss of credibility that this province experienced under their tutelage.

But today, if that member were privileged to move around the province, he would see that in many parts of British Columbia there are new and very exciting facilities developing to take advantage of the major impetus that these two trade and convention centres will bring to British Columbia. My own community of Vernon, where I've lived a good part of my life, is one of the areas in British Columbia which is capable of handling some of the larger conventions in this province and which is looking at the development of a possible trade opportunity. But apart from that, there are many communities that are now looking, in cooperation with the private sector, to develop the type of facilities that we will need and that will be economically viable in all parts of this province to benefit from the impetus that this bill will bring about in the development of the two major trade and convention centres. And in suggesting that perhaps....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'll speak about the hon. Minister of Human Resources in just a moment. She happens to be a very good friend of mine.

It is significant, Mr. Speaker, and that member again becomes very confused in not realizing this, that these two centres will attract conventions and trade seminars and opportunities to this province that we have not possibly been able to compete for or to accommodate in the past. These will be centres of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 people. British Columbia has never before been able to compete in this area. The bookings we have now fall in that classification. The important aspect of this is to recognize the number of preconvention seminars, preparatory seminars or associated seminars that will take place in British Columbia next year and in the following years as a result of having the major international conventions in either one of these centres.

There will also be the post-convention seminars that will result from these two world-attracting catalysts. It may be news to the opposition, because they're not usually up to date, but many communities in this province are today working with the Ministry of Tourism and with the private sector so that next year and in the years after they can take advantage of these pre- and post-convention and trade centre opportunities.

The member mentioned the role of the Ministry of Tourism in this. I would like to say, first of all, that I don't think it's at all unusual that the Minister of Human Resources should be guiding this bill through this House. No one in this province has worked harder than this minister, in whatever capacity she has held within the government, to help bring about this major centre in Vancouver. It is only right and fitting that she should be carrying it through — no one is more conversant with the details of that centre — and this should remain so. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been with her through this at all times, as have the sitting members for Vancouver. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the other members who come from Victoria have all worked with this minister.

There seems to be some idea across the way that it's very simple to put together such an international attraction as is in place with these two programs. That's simply not so. I certainly won't go into the role of the complexities, because they wouldn't be understood, and I wouldn't want to take the time of the House.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), in trying to suggest that this minister shouldn't be playing this role, doesn't seem to understand that the development of such things as trade and convention centres is very much a part of the required knowledge of a Minister of Human Resources. This minister and this government are interested in creating job opportunities and training opportunities that will result from this for people of all ages, not just in the prime of life. There's going to be an opportunity with these centres for senior people to take part in activities and to benefit from the dollar spinoff. So again I would suggest that he doesn't quite understand.

He also pleaded in this House for help to New Westminster: why isn't New Westminster getting one? I would respectfully suggest to that member for New Westminster that he is the person who can help New Westminster benefit from the Vancouver trade and convention centre. He is the one who should help that community recognize how they can go out and attract private capital, as the rest of us are doing in our own constituencies. There are many hotels and motels which must develop and will develop in order to accommodate the visitors who will come with these conventions and trade activities. The private sector will also be capable, without tax assistance, of hosting major conventions in such a way that people will have a variety of experiences around the province. They are doing it in the Peace River, Mr. Member; they're doing it on the north end of Vancouver Island; they're going to be doing it in the Kootenays and the Okanagan. I would respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for New Westminster should not be negative and frightened in his approach. He should go out and speak positively, first, of the economic climate in this province which allows this type of development and, secondly, of the enthusiasm and vigour that there is in this province, which will see these developments do the job with which they are

[ Page 2387 ]

charged — that is, to help make British Columbia an international meeting and activity centre for people in the whole of the world.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this moment. Again, I would speak with great confidence of the Minister of Human Resources. Our ministry is represented by staff on the committee, and we all work together. I'm pleased to support the bill and, furthermore, I'm very pleased with the minister who is introducing the bill.

MR. LAUK: First of all, I want to indicate how pleased I am that the minister has been so relentless in the past few years in pushing this project forward. We all know that, politically as well as in the business community, there are a lot of knockers, people who are not enthusiastic about any change or any big project, and we have to deal with them from time to time.

There are some problems with the way the project may proceed that the minister has to direct her attention to, but on the whole it's a project which is long overdue in the city of Vancouver and in my constituency. It will bring a lot of trade and tourist business to the core of the city, which will increase jobs and wealth for British Columbians. So I'm very pleased it is proceeding and that a form of agreement has been worked out between the various levels of government. I can see also that the appointment of Dr. Shrum is a wise move. We don't want to overwork him. He's the only one in the province who seems to be able to put one of these things together.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? I wouldn't attack Dr. Shrum. He has a way of fending off any such attacks. He uses logic.

Mr. Speaker, there are some problems which should be mentioned. I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) has left. I think the major reason that this project is still in the hands of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is that it takes a person with a lot of intestinal fortitude and, as I say, relentless attention to get a project like this off the ground. It takes a person who is getting paid to do it, too. I mean, people get very discouraged when they take on such a task and don't have any financial reward for it, at least to pay for the expenses. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we now know why the Minister of Tourism isn't getting paid. It's because this minister is doing her job. Therefore, we expect that if we check the accounts, maybe this minister is receiving the Minister of Tourism's paycheque. I wouldn't be opposed to that either, because the work that is involved in getting this project off the ground has been arduous over the years. I do hope — and there was some cross-comment — that we do not have the same bill reintroduced next year and that the construction can start soon.

I want to leave the project and the tremendous effort that the minister has put into this project to get it on the rails and deal with the plan itself, which is not particularly her responsibility. I understand that the minister may be in haste to get the project finally underway and has conceded a number of points with respect to design and planning for the convention centre in the city of Vancouver, that may be, unfortunately, agreed to in haste. I think, first of all, the size of the hotel space on either end of the pier is insupportably high, both from an engineering point of view and from an economic point of view. I think that has to be confronted and dealt with forcefully by the minister with clear instructions to Dr. Shrum, who I'm sure does not agree with the greed that's gone into the planning as far as the size of hotel space.

Secondly, I charge that the government and the minister lack imagination in most projects of this kind. I don't want to appear too harsh, but I think it's a good thing that this government gets behind such a project and pushes for it on a purely salesmanship point of view. But as far as planning, design, environment and liveability the government seems to lack imagination. They seem only to think in dollars and cents and the trade industry and tourism point of view, and not in terms of the people that use the downtown area today and those generations that will use it in the future. If one imagines the proposed project — as it is proposed today — proceeding and completed, it's an added feature to the waterfront that more and more makes the Vancouver waterfront look another Maginot Line, with a blockbusting hotel at one end and another blockbusting hotel at the other end. You know, it's just not a very imaginative design. It takes a good idea and destroys it in design and concept.

I think a lot more has to be said about its structure and design. I understand that the hotels are going to be so large at either end of the pier that they have to re-design the pilings that will have to go underneath it. The original engineering report has the pilings costing so much to support the structures that were designed for the pier. Because of the size of the hotels, I understand that they've got to take all the wood out of the plan and put in some concrete and steel and so on to support these structures. One wonders whether those costs aren't going to be very, very high indeed. We're not too certain whether even that will do the trick.

So these have to be looked at more carefully. I say we have to make the convention centre in Vancouver pay for itself. I think that when one considers the business that will or can be brought to the city by the existence of the centre itself, we have to consider that benefit when we are considering cost-benefit ratios with respect to such a project. But we also have to think that we may be getting greedy with the size of hotel space there, and sacrificing legitimate design and aesthetic values for the space. I think the minister should carefully have a look at that.

I'd like to make another proposal. If this project goes ahead — as I think it might — the Minister of Human Resources should take on the Ministry of Tourism once again as her own portfolio. There are some other projects that are absolutely essential and I think that she should get behind them. I think she should also have the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, because the only thing that's happened.... It's nothing personal; I happen to be very fond of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He's a very fine gentleman indeed, but he doesn't seem to have the wherewithal and the intestinal fortitude that's necessary to get anything done. This project is a magnificent example of how we can have the Minister of Human Resources take over some of these other portfolios and get some projects on the road. After all, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development is the nerve centre of the government. [Laughter.] Everybody's laughing at that, Mr. Minister. I think that a little bit of that salesmanship ability of the Minister of Human Resources should be spread around a little bit. I think she should talk more to her colleagues. She shouldn't be so aloof. She should give them some of her ideas, get them moving. They should

[ Page 2388 ]

send her to Japan, to get some of these deals through, instead of fumbling the ball as soon as they get off the plane.

I think the convention centre has got the goodwill of the opposition and many people in the city of Vancouver. But there are many groups, including this opposition, that have serious questions about the size and the design and the costs that are involved. There should be no fear in discussing those questions openly with the public and with the opposition and so on, so that a cooperative effort can be achieved and the project meet, as best it can, all of the needs and the desires of the people in the area — the business community, people who live there and the tourism industry — as well as the aesthetic problems of the site.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I promise the House that I will be brief, but I do want to add my support to this great bill. It's a very proud moment for the Minister of Human Resources today, I'm sure. When this bill passes this Legislature with unanimous support.... Make no mistake about it, the idea originated with the then Minister of Tourism, and I want this House to be very much aware of the fact that that minister has spent a long number of hours to bring this great moment to fruition. I want to wish her luck.

I want to talk for just a few moments about the fact that this is a trade centre as well as a convention centre. It is well known to the members of this Legislature, and to all the citizens of British Columbia, that British Columbia indeed stands as the gateway, the door, the window — call it what you will — to the great Pacific Rim. The greatest potential for economic development and trade relations that ever existed in the world of today exists in British Columbia, and happens to be logistically situated so that we have the great responsibility to all of Canada to carry out our great and tremendous obligation to see that we take advantage of that great — and fastest growing — market in the entire world.

I brought this up because I want to tell you that, although this is happening in the great cosmopolitan city of Vancouver — which is indeed one of the most cosmopolitan cities in all of Canada and will some day be the greatest financial centre in all of Canada — it is the responsibility of British Columbia to see that this takes place. I want the rest of Canada to know, I want the business interests in Ontario and the business and government interests in Quebec to know, I want the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to know that although this trade and convention centre is going to be good for British Columbia, it is going to be good for them too. When we went to Ottawa with our first proposal, it was brought up by some of the inward-thinking members of that cabinet that all of the cities in Canada would be asking for similar facilities. I want to tell you that this is a facility for all Canadian industry to take advantage of, and certainly it'll be a great step forward.

As I've said in this House before, and will continue to say again, Canada is a trading nation, British Columbia is a trading province, and without that great trade we cannot maintain our economy that feeds the taxes to provide the social services that the people of British Columbia have come to know and expect. Certainly as long as this government is government — and we will be government for a long number of years — the growth in the economy will provide the tax base to provide the services that the people of this great province should indeed have.

But there is one aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that we must never leave untold and that is that with a little bit of government seed money you will see the private sector come in and invest not $10 million, not $100 million, but I predict that the private sector will come forth with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, because this will be the nucleus; this will be the core and they will take advantage. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that money is needed, and the opportunity is there. This great trade and convention centre will just be the little pinpoint to start it all happening.

I want you, Mr. Member from Vancouver Centre, to go back in history with me just a couple or three short years ago when the hotels in Vancouver were running at 60 to 70 percent occupancy because we had had a growth period of new construction of hotels in downtown Vancouver and everybody was crying doom and gloom. I want to tell you that because of the efforts of that great minister, when she was minister of tourism, last year the hotels in downtown Vancouver were running at 110 percent occupancy, if that was possible. What I am trying to say is that they were certainly running at full capacity and when the member for Vancouver Centre says we're building the hotels too big, our eyes are too big, I want to tell you, we don't need just one new hotel in downtown Vancouver; we don't need just two hotels in downtown Vancouver; we need several new multi-million dollar hotels in downtown Vancouver, and it's the private sector which will respond and come forward and build them.

That is all I wanted to say, other than to say that it is the vision and the courage and the guts of this minister — who conceived this great idea and has certainly had many obstacles to overcome — that brought about this great day in this Legislature where we are actually able to vote on this bill. When the member for Vancouver Centre says that this minister has no imagination, I want to tell you that if, when you were government, you had had, in the total cabinet, 1 percent of the imagination of this great minister, you would have done tremendous things. But I want to tell you this is one of the most imaginative ministers not only in the province of British Columbia, not only in the government of British Columbia, but you'd be hard pressed to find her imagination in any cabinet minister in any provincial government in Canada. I am certainly glad to support her and to support this bill.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 42, I wish to correct a reference to my speech made by the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that the hotels could not be filled. I was questioning the design, the aesthetic value and the engineering of such large hotel complexes on that site. Certainly they can build hotels anywhere in the city of Vancouver and fill them up because it is a dynamic city.

MR. KING: I always love listening to the small minister of business — I mean the minister of small business. He always puts on a good performance. I think the most significant thing he said was that he had this little pinpoint in his mind. I thought that was very appropriate.

He also said that with a little government seed money, great things were going to happen by the private sector. That is precisely what Chrysler Corporation has figured out, Mr. Speaker. I just hope we don't have to go to those lengths to get the private sector to find British Columbia an attractive investment climate.

The legislation was brought in, I think, on two previous occasions — a little less money last year than is provided for

[ Page 2389 ]

now — and while we in the opposition agree that improved trade and convention facilities are required in the city of Vancouver.... I'm not going to call it the gateway or the window to the Pacific. That is stealing the Premier's speech and I think that's the only one he knows. Nevertheless, Vancouver is a beautiful area. British Columbia is a beautiful place to visit. Our tourist industry will expand and certainly in the current year with the high interest rates and particularly with the disparity between the Canadian and the American dollar, we can look to an increased flow of tourism from south of the border. With that, in addition to the availability of gasoline in British Columbia, it doesn't take too much imagination to recognize that we are going to have to provide increased facilities to accommodate the tourist flow which will happen because of those economic factors — which do not have anything to do with the best designs of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) or the minister who introduced the bill.

I do, though, want to lend my congratulations to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She is a very vigorous person and I can understand the people on the other side of the House supporting her and looking to her with awe and respect and admiration. You don't have too many symbols on that side, so the competence of that minister and her toughness are certainly something to be revered by the government benches. She's worked long and hard on it, and I hope that when the House passes this bill the minister will make sure that she gets on with the job and does not have to come back again next year with a similar bill. While this one is very good, it is meaningless unless it's undertaken after approval is given.

I want to identify with some of the remarks my colleague from Nanaimo, (Mr. Stupich) made. He said that tourism does not start and end with Vancouver and Victoria. The fact of the matter is that right now there are only two options that I'm aware of for the very large conventions in the province. One is, of course, Vancouver. But if you want to go into the interior, the only facility available to really accommodate the large convention is the Peach Bowl in Penticton. I know for our own party conventions, and undoubtedly the government knows also from similar experiences, we're kind of restricted in that way. I think it's very useful in terms of economic impetus and certainly in terms of fairness to try to ensure that there are options available throughout the province, certainly in the major centres and many of the smaller ones too. Of course, they couldn't justify something of this size and this expenditure but, relatively speaking, I think there is a tremendous need throughout the province to exploit all the natural beauty and natural advantages that many of the interior and northern areas of the province have to offer as alternate sites for conventions.

The other thing is, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't always have to be one enormous facility. In many of these things it can be broken up between two towns so that some economic advantages flow from conventions. At least many people are exposed to different geographic regions of the province.

The former Minister of Small Business said Vancouver is logistically well located. I wanted to observe that yes, and it is also geographically in terms of taking great advantage of the natural flow from offshore. But the majority of our tourism does come from the east and the south. I think the people in the interior and in the northern part of the province get a little bit fed up acting as the supplier of power and resources, basically so that all of the cultural and recreational and other opportunities are developed in the lower mainland. Many of the areas of the province have suffered great disruption, as my particular area has, for the development of hydroelectric power. I don't believe in being provincial and parochial in trying to deny other areas advantages which benefit the whole province to a degree, but at the same time there is one sure way to create alienation, and that's to be less than even-handed in seeing that all areas of the province receive relatively equal consideration in terms of the investment of public dollars to shore up their economies and to provide the amenities which many of the more isolated areas of the province now lack.

While I'm certainly prepared to support the bill, I hope that the minister and the government keep in mind that a great deal of the revenue, power and the resource base which feeds the lower mainland and even Victoria, the breadbasket of this province, comes from those isolated areas. They should not be asked and obliged to remain isolated and deprived of recreational and cultural development and so on for all time — simply as a supplier, rather than as emerging areas which have their own amenities to offer to tourism and to lifestyle too. So that's the main point I wanted to make.

In terms of the Minister of Tourism's performance, I don't know. I can understand her being a bit testy, Mr. Speaker. Apparently she's not getting paid her ministerial salary, and I can understand her being a bit chagrined and a bit disillusioned over that. But I think it is appropriate that the Minister of Human Resources brought this bill in. She's a paid minister. She has proved that she's a good campaigner, both within the cabinet room and without, and perhaps it took her particular kind of vigour to bring this project to the stage it's at now. Although the Minister of Tourism, when she left, pledged her full support to her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, as the sponsor of this bill, I thought I saw a little tear glistening on her cheek as she left the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. I want to focus on two minor or relatively unimportant aspects of the convention centre development in Vancouver, namely the foundations. I want the foundations to be very substantial. On transportation, I don't want SeaBus to terminate in the convention centre; I think the terminal should remain where it is.

I'll dwell on those two points briefly, but I do first want to congratulate the hon. Minister of Human Resources for her fantastic efforts and her success. She has not only brought three levels of government together and ensured their participation financially and in other ways in this magnificent convention centre development in Vancouver and Victoria, but she's also apparently got the unanimous support of this House, which other than voting on Quebec remaining in Canada hasn't been accomplished in recent times here. I congratulate her on the support she has in all comers of this Legislature.

As for the centre in Vancouver, fairly recently I was talking with Dr. Shrum about it. He was describing the piling and saying the wooden piling would be adequate to carry almost any weight. I hope the most substantial of foundations are provided for the convention centre and the wooden piling is removed. This development, I believe, should be the only one that projects out into the harbour proper. It should be built for all time it should be built to stand for a hundred if not a thousand years. And it should contain a substantial

[ Page 2390 ]

hotel element, highrise but imaginatively designed, because it will stand for such a long time and perform such an important function not only for Vancouver but for Canada and indeed the Pacific Northwest of this continent. It should be well built; it should be well designed.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that many people who will come to that convention centre will come back again simply because they had the experience of attending a convention in such a magnificent setting. Not only can they see the North Shore mountains but they can also see one one of the finest harbours in the world at work. It's not just a harbour for tourists, and it's not just a harbour for convention-goers; it's a working harbour with all kinds of traffic and commerce coming and going. It is in large part industrial, and one must expect to see freighters and rusty Russian fish packers coming and going — all kinds of commerce. It is a magnificent sight; it's a great experience. It will be for many, many thousands of people, and they'll come again because of this site. If it's well designed as well as well located, so much the better.

As far as transportation is concerned, I know there will be a link with not only B.C. Place but ultimately a rapid transit system for the whole of greater Vancouver. In that connection, I hope that the southern terminus of SeaBus would remain where it is and not become part of a new trade and convention centre, because that would simply add to congestion in that particular area. In relation to Transpo '86, which is only half a dozen years away from now, I would like to think that some imaginative scheme to carry people in numbers from the convention centre through Gastown and into the area generally described as B.C. Place might be developed as a developmental project — that an experimental link or a first link of some kind relating to urban transit might be installed.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to refer to the general attitude to development relating to the convention centre and indeed the kinds of traffic which it will attract. One of the reasons — perhaps the principal reason — why so many cruise ships call in Vancouver and indeed tend to make Vancouver their base in the summer months is that we don't have the kind of restrictive laws and legislation to do with marine traffic that they have in the United States. The Jones Act in the United States requires that ships not only owned in the United States but built in the United States and manned by United States citizens carry anything and everything between points in the United States. You cannot pick up and lay down in two different United States points unless you use a U.S.–built, U.S.–owned, U.S.–manned vessel. That has driven international carriers to start in one country and terminate in another. Those carriers are starting in Vancouver and terminating, let us say, in Alaska. That is one of the principal reasons why Vancouver, not Seattle, is the point of origin of many of these scenic tours up the west coast. I hope that the government of Canada and certainly the government of British Columbia continue to have in effect an open-door policy relative to shipping and transport of all kinds, so that Vancouver will indeed be a gateway, and a gateway which is receptive to shipping from all over the world. That will be one additional reason why this convention centre will be such a success.

I hope it can initially come close to paying for itself. I know in the longer run it will certainly pay for itself in overall provincial terms. It will attract people to conventions who will come again and again because of their experiences here, particularly at that fine location, and who will tell others about the northwest and British Columbia in particular. The minister and the government are to be congratulated. Now the only thing is to get on with the job and build the convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise in my place to support this bill, of course, but at the same time I thought that it would be a bill on which everybody in the House would want to have a little to say on what a wonderful thing it was for British Columbia, which it is. I thought to myself, how would it be possible for anyone to object to it, until I heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) say the people in the north are fed up with all the good things coming to the lower mainland. Well, I won't tell you that the people of the north are not fed up, because you'll realize that it's just a fact of nature that the southern coast of British Columbia is the part most suitable for this kind of effort. The people of the north are very pleased with what is going on here today, and they're very pleased with what they're doing, because British Columbia is a unit, and British Columbia is a unit working together. All factors of our society are working together.

I said to myself: is it possible to have any negative attitude toward it? It really is not. This is one opportunity that our opposition does not have to be negative.

This is a great bill. I myself compliment the Deputy Premier on what she is doing with a very imaginative bill. It is just impossible to recognize the courage it took a year ago. Although the minister suggested it over a year ago, I said to myself, it's impossible, it's just too costly, it could never be done, and here it is in sight. I think it is a tremendous step forward for British Columbia — and particularly for the lower part of British Columbia — and the benefits will spread out to the province.

Having had a lot to do with several conventions, I know that the people of British Columbia like to come to Vancouver and Victoria. Everybody likes to come to Vancouver and Victoria. On occasion we have tried to have conventions in central British Columbia, and although they were moderately successful, we never had the enthusiasm from the people in the interior, because they want to come to Vancouver. It is just part of the scheme of things.

Again, I congratulate the minister on her effort on this splendid bill which is a great step forward in the great continuing life of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: It is a pleasure for me to rise and to discuss the Trade and Convention Centre Act, and to add my name to those among the members who are supporting this act and supporting the trade and convention centre. I do agree that the minister should be congratulated for bringing forth the proposal in the Legislature, even though this is the second time around.

I would like to talk about some of the confusion of the people in my riding about the whole way that the tourist industry is administered and planned in the province of British Columbia. It seems confusing to my constituents, for example, that this bill is being put forward by the Minister of Human Resources, rather than the Minister of Tourism, even though the trade and convention centres seem to relate more to trade and tourism than they do to human resources or the jurisdiction of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources. However, perhaps this is because of — to use the word coined by the member for Vancouver Centre — her relentless pursuit of this project in cabinet by that minister.

[ Page 2391 ]

I wish the Minister of Human Resources would have as great a relentless drive in relation to the problems concerning her own department — the problems of day care, the problems of bus passes, and all of those other problems that relate to her own department. It is confusing for my constituents, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, that the Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier is presenting this bill rather than the Minister of Tourism.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, great latitude is allowed during second reading, but one must stay within the bill.

MR. SKELLY: I am dealing with the trade and convention centres, Mr. Speaker.

We've just had a report on the tourist industry in the province of British Columbia that was done under the Travel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement. The report expresses some concern about the planning and the confusion in the ministry of travel industry, and the way the industry is being managed in the province of B.C. I think it's no wonder that the ministry and the administration of tourism in British Columbia are in such poor shape. I don't think that the new minister is responsible. In fact, I think that once things get back on the track that minister is going to be a good Minister of Tourism. One of the problems it seems that she is experiencing is the very problem that this bill demonstrates. The industry is being pieced off. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) seems to have some jurisdiction in tourism under the federal-provincial agreements, and, because of her relentless pursuit of this project, the Minister of Human Resources is able to piece off another part of the jurisdiction. As a result there is confusion in the Ministry of Tourism. Some key people are quitting that ministry. It's very difficult to manage the ministry and I think the new minister is having a very difficult job of it.

I suspect that the new minister will be a very good Minister of Tourism, and there's a reason for that. The minister visited my riding recently and she did so on a low-key basis. What she did was go through the ridings and most of the very small communities in the riding to take a look at some of the problems and to listen to what the people in the industry and local government were saying. She talked with those involved in the industry — the motel operators, restaurant operators — and met with them at breakfast meetings, in quiet informal discussions, wine and cheese parties and this kind of thing, on an informal basis. They told her quite a bit and she listened quite a bit — which is a good thing for a Minister of Tourism, as far as I'm concerned.

Two ministers before the present minister, we had a problem in that that minister staged great media events. She showed up in Port Alberni at one time and didn't get a good reception, because we had things imposed on us by that minister. She wasn't willing to come around and listen to the people and find out what their problems were. We had things imposed on us, like the Captain Cook celebration. I believe at that time the Indian people in Port Alberni ran her out of the city. I think the new minister is taking precisely the opposite track. She's going in on a low-key basis — a non-political basis — and taking a look at the problems and conveying the problems to her people in the ministry to see if they can be resolved, and new programs can be implemented.

I think that one of the problems in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the problem that it does piece off a part of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Tourism and give it over to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources. As a result, we're going to continue to experience this disorganization and lack of planning that we've had in the Ministry of Tourism since the Deputy Premier was the minister in that department.

I would also like to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke in that people in my constituency and in other rural constituencies throughout the province — and on Vancouver Island, not simply in the north, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) stated, but people in all rural areas in the province — are watching this government invest millions upon millions of their tax money into grandiose projects in the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria. The Annacis Island bridge, which could cost between $150 million and $250 million of taxpayers' money, being built in the greater Vancouver area; a huge stadium and the B.C. Place complex, which will cost who knows how many hundreds of millions; trade and convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria; improvements to the Crystal Garden — all of those things are great things for those cities, but it doesn't represent an equal distribution of the hard-won taxpayer's money of the citizens of this province.

When you look at roads in the rural areas of Vancouver Island, it's a shame. Out in the rural areas of Vancouver Island they call the present Minister of Transportation and Highways "pot-hole Fraser." And he talks about the previous Minister of Highways. I was talking to an employee in the Highways department in Port Alberni who said: "if a million dollars a year were invested in the two foreman districts in that area, you wouldn't begin to combat the deterioration of roads in that area for another five years; you wouldn't see the impact of the investment of that money, because roads have been allowed to deteriorate so badly." And those roads are the key right now to our tourist industry on rural Vancouver Island. Hundreds of thousands of people come each and every year to visit Pacific Rim National Park in my riding, and yet they drive over some of the worst roads in the province. Yet what is the Ministry of Tourism or this government doing to upgrade those roads to attract tourists to that area, improve their stay in that area and make sure they enjoy the stay in that area? What are they doing? They are dumping it all into Vancouver in projects like this trade and convention centre or into Victoria into the Victoria trade and convention centre project.

I agree that these projects are necessary. What I'm asking the government to do is to take a more equitable approach to the expenditure of tourist funds throughout the province and recognize the needs of rural areas, such as the constituency of Alberni, the North Island area, the Kootenays — where are those members speaking on behalf of their ridings? — and the northern area of the province. Those areas require road, rail and airport infrastructure development in order to accommodate the special needs of the tourist industries in those areas. We support the trade and convention bill but we are asking for a more equitable distribution of the investment of tourism funds throughout the province so that all areas of the province can enjoy the kind of economic, pollution-free development that goes along with the tourist industry and the employment that can be created in that industry.

We support the bill, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, and we just

[ Page 2392 ]

ask that the government take into consideration those other areas of the province and their desperate need for tourist industry development.

MR. NICOLSON: Like others, I rise to support this bill, but I would like, at the same time, to offer some advice and direction and to caution the government that patience, goodwill and a common interest can be imposed upon just so far. I say that as a member from one of the many interior ridings, from part of the Kootenays, particularly representing a town such as Nelson, which is a regional centre and which, I think, has tremendous potential in terms of attracting small, appropriate-sized conventions, and has indeed done so in the past with no help from government, thank you. There are many amenities there which have lent themselves to putting on such things as the BCTF summer workshop and so on.

If the Kootenay region were to have this type of assistance which is being made available to Vancouver and Victoria.... I think as a first step some study could be made of existing facilities, and there are tremendous existing facilities. For instance, in Nelson we can seat 500 persons for a dinner on one floor. There aren't very many dining facilities or convention facilities anywhere in the province that can do that, but it can be done and is done in Nelson. We do put on things like mine rescue safety banquets in conjunction with activities, which are a convention of a sort, where people come from all over the province in competition. It is a learning experience and it is usually capped off with a banquet.

I think that our area could attract many, many more. It is a very beautiful area, as I mentioned. Things such as the BCTF summer workshop at the old Notre Dame campus and now David Thompson University Centre — as I say, we have this huge facility.

I think that some thought should be given to looking into and investigating the things which I see as shortcomings — such things as, for instance, the hotel facilities. In fact, in recent months one of the hotels has been closed through some various business failures, and perhaps it offers an opportunity for redevelopment. I think that in many areas throughout the province we are disturbed when we hear the announcement of something meant to vitalize the tourist industry and find that the lower mainland area or the-Victoria metropolitan area have been given consideration almost before the fact, and then the others must stand in line for whatever crumbs are left.

TIDSA was a splendid example, where $9 million was committed for the Whistler development and then the regulations were passed a few days after that announcement, and people are still standing in line and trying to qualify for those funds; some have been more successful than others. So it is with this sense that we are addressing ourselves to this bill, which really is a re-enactment of a bill passed last year. There are some differences in terms of reporting and accountability and how the funds shall be disbursed, but the main part of this is simply to increase the amounts that this Legislature is committing. So people have been talking about these expenditures for a year. Once again we have recycled this. There has been recent rekindling of interest because of the minister's announcement done in cooperation with the three levels of government.

Really, it is time to consider that if we've been missing out on trade and convention opportunities in the lower mainland for lack of a facility which can house 5,000 persons, we have also been missing out on trade and convention opportunities which fail perhaps for lack of one missing link where most of the other facilities are already existent. I know that that certainly is the case in Nelson. With some well-thought-out program to try to solve some of the problem areas, such as hotel accommodation and the quality of it, and also the transportation problem, which I think is sometimes over-dramatized for some reason or other.... The Castlegar airport enjoys some notoriety, yet I've talked with many pilots who say that it's really more difficult sometimes getting into Prince George because of the amount of fog they have up there. I know that good experienced pilots can land in Castlegar quite easily. So addressing ourselves to some of these problems would, I think, go a long way toward getting a more enthusiastic response for this type of expenditure.

I think it is going to do a lot for downtown Vancouver; it's going to do a lot for Victoria if it's done properly. I mention in passing that in Victoria we enhance the tourist image of the place by having our waterways beautified, while in a place like Salmo or Nelson you can't even get a dollar out of the government to rip-rap a stream bank. Yet you have ornamental ironwork and everything along the Gorge here. It seems that anything done here in the name of tourism is supposed to be fine. I don't want to be a knocker of things, but I would say that there are splendid opportunities in many communities in the interior. Nelson pioneered the idea of a midsummer bonspiel decades ago which has endured and now causes a mass influx into the community. The city has endured because it has a great deal to offer.

If the same consideration, energy and thought given to Bill 23 could be prorated to a smaller community such as Nelson, and many others in the interior, the image of British Columbia as it is seen through its visitors would be very much enhanced, and it would lead to repeated visits. People who might come to this convention centre would then want to go to a smaller conference in some other part of the province and would get into the habit of coming to British Columbia. Organizers would be in the habit of thinking about British Columbia, whether for a 5,000 member convention, a workshop for shop stewards put on by the CLC or some type of educational project of smaller dimension. They would think in terms of British Columbia, because we've got a good climate at all times of the year compared with the rest of Canada. It really doesn't matter what part of the province you're in, at least if you're on this side of the Rocky Mountains.

MR. BARBER: These are my first public comments on this bill since the convention centre in Victoria became a centre of a lot of political conflict. I have eight very specific criticisms that I wish to address to the minister and a number of equally specific remedies that I hope she might consider.

I'm going to support the bill, but I do so now with a few more misgivings than I did a year ago when the predecessor bill was first presented. The misgivings I have are chiefly in the way that this government has turned it into a bit of a botch, at least in the capital city. I'm not in a position to comment on how they've handled it in Vancouver, and I don't propose to do so. But I am intimately aware of the way in which this government has politically mishandled the convention centre issue in my own riding. I propose to direct my own remarks to that, and then, because I favour it in principle, to make some specific proposals that I hope the government will consider in order to retrieve this particular proposal.

[ Page 2393 ]

It has, I think, been mishandled by the provincial government. The convention centre proposal in Victoria has been needlessly thrown into controversy and disrepute, because the government does not seem to recognize what authentic public consultation really means. The government has, I gather, learned a few PR tricks, learned to take out ads in the newspapers from time to time — usually from election time to election time — and to give the appearance of consultation. But in point of fact in my own riding there is tremendous public dissatisfaction with the provincial administration and its handling of the convention centre proposals.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think one of the reasons why, in Victoria as opposed to Vancouver, this government has mishandled the issue is that for some five years now this government has consistently misread the human and the community aspirations of the people of my riding. Were it not so, the people of Victoria might have elected two Socreds last time; but they elected two New Democrats instead. One of the reasons they did this is that the government has consistently misunderstood, misdescribed and misappropriated the ideas and the concerns and the positive analysis offered by the people of the capital city. I think one of the reasons why they've turned the convention centre in the capital city into a bit of a botch can be found in the reasons why they've botched so many other issues that affect the capital city. I think, of course, of the Princess Marguerite; I think of the general disregard in which they hold the public service; and I think of this bill as well.

I want to give eight particular reasons and eight specific criticisms of what the government has done. I want to try and outline briefly where it has gone wrong. I want to try and outline, as specifically and categorically as I can, what in my own opinion are the reasons why this bill has become controversial in the capital city and why a year ago it was not controversial at all. And I think, as a result of that analysis, if any of its parts seem correct to the government, they may well be then able to go on and remedy some of their own actions and take a few new ones in order to retrieve this particular idea.

The first of the eight reasons why this has been mishandled in the capital city is that it was oversold in the first place. The Speaker may recall that a minister previously responsible attempted at one point to turn the Reid Centre site, the proposed venue of the convention centre in Victoria, into a sort of a glorified farmers' market. The Speaker will recall that two and three years ago attempts were made, fundamentally, to oversell the business and mercantile and commercial interests that might focus at that place. The Speaker will recall that on not one but two occasions nationally advertised competitions were held for tenders and bids and proposals for the Reid Centre site. At that time the minister responsible, who is no longer a member of this House, attempted to persuade business to invest at that particular site. Well, two major, advertised competitions later, there were exactly zero proposals. At the consequence of the first advertising, when no proposals whatever came in, that minister and his associates were, I understand, really quite astonished. Therefore, presuming that the fault lay not in the idea but in the advertising, they launched a second advertising campaign to once again attempt to oversell the prospects of that particular site. And once again they blew it. There were literally no business proposals for that site — not a single tender, not a bid, not a single competitive proposal.

It's important, therefore, to understand the first of these eight reasons why the government has mishandled this, to realize that, first of all, they tried to oversell it. And they tried to persuade the business and the human community of Victoria that something or other could take place there. In fact, there is simply at this moment and in the foreseeable future no demand for it. So the government, of course, then attempted quite quickly to scale down its proposals and to turn what was to have been a glorified convention centre, farmers' market, public concourse and cultural centre at the foot of Fort on Wharf into something really very different — tremendously more plain and thereby more disappointing.

The second major error this government has made, I think, is to once again misjudge the popular importance in my riding of the Reid Centre site. Once again, the government seems not to comprehend how tremendously sensitive in the minds of the people of Victoria are any proposals to deal with that site. That particular site created the political career of Mayor Peter Pollen. He understood the popular interest in that site. He fought back an immensely stupid proposal by an immensely stupid developer, who seemed to think it was appropriate to build two highrises at the foot of Fort Street. It was a disgraceful proposal, and to the credit of Mayor Pollen that proposal was killed — and, we trust, for all time will remain silent.

That has been a controversial site for a long time, but the government seems not to understand that it remains controversial. Simply because Peter Pollen isn't the mayor any more doesn't mean that the people have lost interest in the site or in its opportunities, potential or dangers.

Just because Bob Williams had the guts and the foresight to buy that site and turn it into public property for all of us, that doesn't mean the people of British Columbia and Victoria in particular have lost interest in the site. The government does seem to think, though, that because Mr. Bawlf's original farmers' market proposals got nowhere — they were oversold; they were overdescribed; no one would go for it — it was going to therefore be politically acceptable to try to persuade the people that the next best, and only best, thing to put on the site was a convention centre. Well, that may or may not be true, but once again they mishandled and misjudged the popular reaction in Victoria.

The third specific reason why this bill, at least in its specific application to Victoria, has been mishandled is, I think, found within the administration of the Provincial Capital Commission. Because the law we're debating today, Mr. Speaker, refers by name to the Capital Commission, I propose to do so as well.

The Capital Commission has been perceived as functioning like a secret society. It has been heavily criticized by many people in Victoria, including — in recent date — proponents of the convention centre at that or any other site for failing to take the public into its confidence. I was a member of the Capital Commission for a couple of months in 1975, before we were bounced out of office. As a member of the commission, I was, at that brief point, privy to some of its debates. I am astounded that the commission never bothered, and I'm embarrassed that I never suggested — it didn't even occur to me — that its meetings be held in public. If people really knew what went on at those meetings, they would certainly know that there was no reason to keep them secret. It's a perfectly ordinary group doing perfectly ordinary work

[ Page 2394 ]

on behalf of the people of Victoria, specifically the Capital Improvement District. Nonetheless, the third major reason why this has been mishandled in Victoria is because the Capital Commission, one of its principal sponsors, has not seen fit to engage in an authentic way the opinions and the ideas of the people of Victoria, but rather it has seen fit, in an apparently secretive way and certainly in a very closed way, to try to do its own business as if the only proper role for the people was to rubberstamp whatever it was they proposed at the end of their deliberations. This is a very serious error, and it's one of the reasons why it has been botched just a bit in Victoria. The Capital Commission has not been sensitive to authentic public criticism. The Capital Commission has not provided a real public voice.

The Capital Commission has become a significant force in planning matters in greater Victoria because, for the first time now, it has its own revenue, whereas previously it had none save that which the government granted. Now it has revenue for the first time in its corporate history. It will have further revenue if it is in any fashion involved with the convention centre. Therefore, all the more necessarily, the Capital Commission must become accountable in new ways to the people of Victoria. If it doesn't, I predict that the same needless controversy and conflict will continue. As long as the Capital Commission continues to try to do its business behind closed doors, there will be people in Victoria knocking on those doors and demanding they be opened to them and to everyone else. The government has not recognized the sensitive position of the commission itself, and has not done what it could and should within the law and by amending the law to make important corrections.

The powers of the Capital Commission will be enhanced by this act. Logically, therefore, if the government is sensitive about the way the Capital Commission is perceived in the capital city, they should take it upon themselves to amend the Capital Commission Act at the same time. Unless they do that, these same problems will continue on and on and on into the future. Secret, closed-door meetings are not satisfactory or acceptable. They are, in fact, specifically and legitimately unacceptable to the people of Victoria. The Capital Commission has become a powerful body. All the more important, therefore, is the necessity to open it up, which this act could in part provide for, and which this government could insist on, if it were so inclined. We need a major review of the Capital Commission Act, and we need amendments to it. The commission has not been authentically sensitive to the public voice, and neither has the minister.

Today, as the result of tremendous public pressure in the last three weeks — much too late, much too little but nonetheless here it is — the Capital Commission is sponsoring a public exhibition of its plans and its drawings and its proposals for the Reid Centre site. It may or may not be too late for real public criticism. I use the word "criticism" in the academic and positive sense. The word "criticism" does not mean negative, carping comment. It means "disinterested, scientific and logical examination of a point of view." I use "criticism" in that sense. There has not been an opportunity afforded by the Capital Commission, nor by this minister, for competent public evaluation and criticism of these proposals at any of the key points. Rather, once again, the government has presumed that the only role for the people is to look at the drawings after they've been published, to go I look and "ah, " to be grateful for a handout, and to say yes to the scheme. Well, that's not good enough; that is not acceptable to the people of my riding; and, indeed, it is increasingly unacceptable to a number of political representatives in my riding as well.

Today, for three days, we have opened at the McPherson Playhouse an exhibit of the drawings and models associated with the convention centre at the Reid Centre site. It's too little and too late, but better than nothing, and I suppose we should be grateful for however little and however late such a recognition occurs of the public interest. Nonetheless, the government has been neglectful The government has failed utterly to persuade people in my riding that they are welcome from the beginning to say and shape and determine the quality, the site, the design and the governance of their convention centre in their community, which is Victoria. That's the third major criticism I have.

The fourth is of the Pan-Pacific Society. The businessmen who compose this society, which is also perceived as another secret society, are, by themselves, good, honourable, tough-minded guys. I have no individual or personal criticism of any of them. They do what they want to do very well, which is run this like any other business. But the problem is that this convention centre cannot be managed or operated like any other business. There is a public interest here which must be represented by a public voice. The Pan-Pacific Society is not inherently competent to represent anyone other than its own members, every one of whom is a business person. Business has a right to be represented in the councils of those who determine what the convention centre should look like and where it should be located. They have a right. However, they do not have the only right. They do not have the only voice. They must not have the only say. The Pan-Pacific Society is the group that Mr. Bawlf created, in private, to meet, in private, in order to decide, in private, the disposition of these public funds for a convention centre. This was a serious mistake, and I know that the government of the day was warned by its own public servants of the consequence of that error. I am also led to believe that the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) fought with those proponents of that approach in that day. I wish he had won. Unfortunately he lost.

But I think the Pan-Pacific Society — the group which the government apparently still proposes to use to administer the place — has outlived its usefulness. The business people in it deserve credit for what they have done to date because, from their own point of view, they have represented the position of business in a very credible way. What they have not done is represent the position of the whole community. This they cannot do. This they cannot do because they do not represent the whole community; they only represent themselves. That's fair; it's reasonable that they represent themselves. I don't object to that at all. But it is incumbent upon this government to find other people who represent other points of view.

In my own opinion, Pan-Pacific, which is perceived, like the Capital Commission, as another secret society, has outlived its effectiveness. I believe that the members of PanPacific should be thanked for their work, which has been very considerable, and should be asked to step down in favour of another body administering the centre in another way.

As far as being a credible public operating authority goes, Pan-Pacific no longer is. They have lost, through no fault of their own, considerable credibility. They are viewed as a group of businessmen looking after business interests only.

[ Page 2395 ]

They are not viewed by, I think, many — probably the majority — of the people in my riding as being authentically representative of the whole community. Again, they represent themselves and they do it very well. I don't object to that. But they can no longer purport to represent the whole point of view of the people of Victoria.

Other voices must be heard in the governance of the trade and convention centre in Victoria. I suspect that Pan-Pacific is no longer the best instrument for credible public governance of the trade and convention centre.

The fifth specific criticism I have is in the question of sites. To the best of my knowledge, the Capital Commission has considered at least four primary sites for the convention centre. There are numerous and conflicting reports about where the convention centre should best be located. For my own purpose, I want to try and keep an open mind. I do not personally object to a convention centre being located at an inner harbour, if the design is right, if the site is right, and if that's what the people want. I have some criticisms of the first two proposals, and a major one about the third, whether or not the people want it there.

Nonetheless, the fifth major failure of this whole proposal has been to recognize that the people of Victoria just might be interested in hearing wide-open reports, ideas and notions from the beginning about alternative sites to the one at the foot of Fort Street at Wharf in Victoria. That may or may not be the best site. But the point is that the public was not, from the beginning — two, three and four years ago — taken into the confidence of the Capital Commission or later PanPacific, because this government has done nothing at all in a direct or bright way to involve the people.

Then once again we hear over and over that there are secret reports that say that some other site is better for some other purpose, but because of the coalition cabal with business they have made a deal which has to stick, because the Socreds have made a deal with Socreds. Those are the rumours in the capital city, and the minister knows full well that those are the criticisms. Because there was not adequate public consultation about alternative sites in order that.....Should this be the best one, everyone would agree that it was. What remains, to the damage and detriment of the convention centre, is the idea held in the minds of many people that maybe there is a site somewhere else but the government won't let us have it. The people responsible for this have got to be aware that if there are alternative sites that have merits or demerits, that has got to be made known.

The current site has merit and demerit; that is well known. But the alternative sites have never been discussed in a genuinely forthright way by this government. That is a shame because it has tended to undermine their own position, at least as far as the people of Victoria are concerned.

From the beginning the study of alternative sites should have been more thorough and should have been vividly public, but it's not been that at all. In consequence, the public of Victoria lacks confidence that the Reid Centre site is the best possible site for the convention centre. That is the fifth error.

The sixth problem is the financing of the operating deficits. There is an unfortunate double standard here in this bill. The minister did not refer to it for obvious reasons, but I will. The Vancouver convention centre is being offered a $300,000-a-year deficit subsidy. The government said in the budget speech, as I recall, that they will provide $300,000 a year for a certain period of time to subsidize the operating losses of the Vancouver centre. That is good; that is fair; that is reasonable. I support it. But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how much they've offered to subsidize the operating losses of the Victoria convention centre? Precisely nothing. Zero. No dollars. No nothing. It's a double standard. If a case can be made that the province is responsible for sharing in the start-up operating losses of the Vancouver convention centre, the same case can and must be made in Victoria because the same logic applies, the same circumstances prevail, the same need is present. It is a double standard. It's not reasonable or fair, and that is the sixth major criticism of how the government has handled this issue in my riding.

No one objects to the operating grant being made in Vancouver. It is, however, resented by people, including public officials, in Victoria that Vancouver, which happens to be the political headquarters of the minister responsible for this bill, gets $300,000 a year and Victoria gets zip. It's not fair. It is a double standard. If there is a rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If there isn't, then I suspect it's simply a double standard and one to which I take considerable objection.

We need to know — and I hope the minister may today give us some information, or if she doesn't have it at hand, which is fair, she should bring it back during debate on committee stage of this bill — what the operating losses are going to be in Victoria. We need to know whether the government is prepared to reconsider. We need to know whether or not the government is willing to share, for the start-up period when the losses are greater because the facility is just getting going, in the actual operating deficits of the capital city's trade and convention centre.

I would like specifically a commitment from this government that they will share in the operating losses of the Victoria convention centre proportionately in the very same way they are going to do for the Vancouver centre. I appreciate that the populations differ, I appreciate that the capital costs differ, and that is why I emphasize that my request is for proportionate sharing on the same formula that Vancouver quite properly enjoys.

My seventh specific criticism is in regard to the design of the Reid Centre site itself. Let me restate. I don't personally object to building a convention centre at a harbour site; not at all. There is a lot of argument in favour of that. But let's talk specifics about this design at this site. I would appreciate the minister's comments in reply.

I have had a chance to examine the design — at least in the preliminary form that I received it some time ago. I will be going either later today or tomorrow to the foyer at the McPherson theatre to take a look at what I understand are the latest revisions. But for what it is worth, I myself am disappointed in the design. For what it's worth, as just one layperson, I think that the design we have at this site is not adequate to its potential. In my opinion, for what it's worth, it is not architecturally sympathetic to its site, to its surroundings and to the dominant architecture of Wharf Street, which is turn of the century, which is brick, which is cast iron, which is arches and balustrades, low sidewalks and a low profile. In my opinion, for what it may or may not be worth to the government, the design they have is simply not good enough. It's not the worst design in the world by any means; certainly in comparison with the original Reid Centre proposal, it is much improved. That was a horror. But nonetheless this particular design is just barely adequate, at least according to the designs that I've been permitted to see to date.

[ Page 2396 ]

Let me be more specific about the lack of architectural sympathy or sensitivity to this particular site. The designer would have the people in Bastion Square, say, look out onto a flat, ugly, unadorned, unused roof for a convention centre. That would be the sight that they'd gaze on — a concrete roof, which may or may not have pebbles to make it somehow look more interesting. Well, what's happening thereby, Mr. Speaker, is that one of the most significant aspects of the Inner Harbour, one of the most significant viewpoints of the whole of the Sooke Hills and the western community in my riding, is given visual entrée by a totally boring, architecturally unimportant statement.

Surely this government recognizes that any public architecture in a place like the Inner Harbour must be of the highest standards and not simply of adequate standards. A design that offers to all of the people who stand on the other side of the street and sit in the buildings or ride by in the buses and look around Bastion Square nothing but a flat, ugly, unadorned, unused roof is a very foolish and a very unimaginative way to take advantage of an extraordinarily beautiful setting. If that building is built next year, it will be there for another 50 or 80 or 100 years, and for all of those years people will curse and kick and regret that we ever permitted a government to proceed with such an unimaginative aspect, which is what will be visually presented there in that part of the harbour.

Another criticism. At the Wharf Street profile, according to the current design, the building will rise starkly some 35 feet above the sidewalk. Again, you can still see it from further up Fort Street and you can still see the rooftop clearly from Bastion Square, but at Wharf Street itself the building simply stands there, massively, 35 feet up in the air. Now I realize it may be difficult to imagine this because of the peculiarities of the site — there is a very considerable drop between the sidewalk and the effective sea level, where, on piers, the building will be built in the first place. Nonetheless, one of the major reasons why the building simply imposes itself 35 feet up on a sidewalk is that the government has decided that there should be a parkade present. For what it's worth, I personally think that there should be no parkade at the site. The advantage of removing the parkade would be to allow the design to be removed below the profile of the Wharf Street sidewalk and all of the heritage buildings which it would otherwise obscure.

The Kingdome in Seattle which, I understand, seats variously, according to the function, 15,000 to 18,000 people, has parking for fewer than 200 cars. The Kingdome in Seattle was specifically built with public transit in mind. In Seattle they were enlightened enough to realize that if they continued to cater to the public demand for private automobile parking, the city would ruin itself. In Seattle, to their eternal credit, they finally said that they would refuse to prostitute public planning to the private automobile. They said instead: for the Kingdome we will provide the best public transit you ever had, and by the way, you shouldn't bother bringing your car, because we're not going to give you any parking.

Why, for instance, mightn't we do the same at the convention centre in Victoria? Wharf Street, which is at best a three-lane street — effectively two most hours of the day — will be enormously congested by a convention centre at the foot of Fort. When 1,000 realtors show up in their Cadillacs from Vancouver, having been told in advance there was ample parking and having discovered there were only 240 or 260 spaces, where are they going to park? When the businessmen in downtown Victoria tell their customers to use the same parkade for their purposes, where are the conventioneers going to park? When the businessmen themselves use the spaces day in and day out, where are the conventioneers going to park? You couldn't build a parkade at the site big enough to take care of the demand. If you propose to seat 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000 people at the Victoria convention centre, you cannot possibly provide parking for the private automobile if you invite the private automobile to come in the first place.

So I have a specific proposal for the government, which is that they consider doing their best to create a first-class public transit system to serve the convention centre and forget about the private automobile altogether. Have no parking at all, except a loading zone for trucks and caterers and all of that kind of stuff at the Wharf Street entrance. That would be acceptable. It would, first, serve the purpose, I understand, of reducing the profile, which currently is 35 feet above Wharf Street, to below the Wharf Street sidewalk level. Additionally, you would save the city of Victoria a couple of million dollars, which is no small matter in my riding. But it would also serve an important planning purpose, and that purpose is this: the committal of major public facilities to part of a design for public transit, instead of this endless, ceaseless prostitution of public design needs to the private automobile. I think the government should be prepared to consider abandoning parking at the site altogether, as they highly successfully did at the Kingdome in Seattle, and reconsider certain other aspects of the design there.

The eighth and final criticism that I want to offer is of the notion of community use of the facility. I believe the government should be prepared to establish two rates for use of the facility: a commercial rate and a community rate, and the community rate would be the lower. It will not be possible, certainly in the immediate future, for the convention centre to be occupied by convention functions every day of the year. No one expects it and no one will criticize the convention centre for not being operated on that basis. But during the many, many days of the year when it is not being used by conventions, it should be available to the community. I want the government to enter into a covenant with the people of my riding that it will be available for community purposes at a reduced rate.

At the moment, the perception is that the taxpayers are giving the tourist industry millions of bucks and in return will get nothing from the facility. They will have no use of it and no access to it, and certainly at the moment they have no control of it either. I urge the government to enter into an agreement with the people of Victoria that they will also have an opportunity to use this building, wherever and however it is built, and that they will be afforded a reduced rate for the community, ethnic, religious and cultural purposes to which the building can be put in the off-hours and off-season. I think that too would go a long way to reducing the public criticism that's centred around the current site.

I want to conclude by offering some specific remedies to these eight criticisms. I want to remind the minister that I support the convention centre. It will be good for our economy, our job status and the tourist industry. But it has, I think, been mishandled because of the government's consistent misreading of the political and human aspirations of the people of the capital city.

The first remedy must be made in the make-up of the

[ Page 2397 ]

Capital Commission itself. I think the commission must have its act amended. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the amendments must include a requirement that they publish all of their reports and all of their minutes. The commission must be required to go to tender for any project in excess of $5,000 which will not be handled by a municipal authority.

I should point out that there was no architectural competition for this building. There was no competition at all for the plumbing, fitting or the electrical design. Everything that has so far gone into the design has been given away with no public tender, no public bid process. Once again, there has been criticism from within the building industry that the government has not been open. Once again, the remedy at hand is an amendment to the Capital Commission Act, which would require that the government go to tender for any project in excess of, say, $5,000 that is not otherwise being handled by a municipal authority. Tenders should also, I think, for the same reasons, be required by law where a project has value in excess of $5,000 and where architectural services are required. Once again, an architectural competition would have gone a long way to persuade the people of Victoria that we were getting the best possible design at the best possible site.

Further remedies to the Capital Commission Act include the requirement that the commission hold its meetings in public, except when it deals with personnel matters or the acquisition of property. I understand why the commission has to operate in camera for those purposes and I don't object. That makes good sense. If they're having a personnel problem, it's none of the business of the Times or the Colonist how they resolve it internally. With those two exceptions only and uniquely, the commission should be required by law to open its meetings to the public. That too would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the Capital Commission itself.

Let me point out again — and the logic is self-evident that there is only one Capital Commission in the province. We don't have this situation in any other community in British Columbia. It's a unique instrument that serves a unique purpose here in the capital. Therefore I think unique remedies are required, because an unfortunate situation has arisen wherein it has been the outcome that people lack confidence in the Capital Commission because of its unnecessary secrecy. It's a simple matter to open the meetings to the public. It's a simple request and it would do the government a heck of a lot of good to do it. I think the people would have a lot more confidence in this government and its Capital Commission if the meetings were open. It's a small matter.

I would point out that to the tremendous credit of the mayor of Victoria, William Tindall, against much opposition from the business and developer and speculator community, he required that the Advisory Planning Commission in Victoria be opened to the public, that its minutes be published, and that its agenda be advertised in advance. To the credit of Mayor Tindall, the Advisory Planning Commission is now open to the public. And lo and behold, the public is increasing in its confidence that the Advisory Planning Commission is doing a good job. I predict the same positive outcome for the Capital Commission, were this government so inclined as to open its meetings to public scrutiny.

There are further remedies. As with the Advisory Planning Commission, so too should the agenda of the Capital Commission be published in advance. Additionally, I would propose that the Capital Commission be required to hold at least one public meeting a year to which everyone would be invited, at which questions may be entertained, during which a free debate could occur between the commissioners and the public at large. Such a town hall meeting sponsored by the Capital Commission would enhance the stature of the commission tremendously. The commission has got to be made genuinely accountable, and apparently it isn't.

I have two more proposals in conclusion. Some better instrument has got to be obtained to determine public preference for the site and for the design. At the moment the government cannot honestly claim that the people of Victoria want the convention centre located at the Reid site. They can't do that, because they don't know. There has been no test of public preference and public choice; none whatsoever. Because of the sensitive nature of this site, and because of the pre-eminent role of the provincial government, they should be prepared to commit themselves immediately to determining whether or not the people of Victoria want it there. There are all sorts of techniques for doing that; there are all sorts of ways of finding that out. But they haven't done it so far.

The government has to make a commitment to community use of that facility. The government, I think, would be well advised to abandon any commitment to the private automobile and to instead enhance tremendously the usefulness of public transit at that site.

The third and final proposal is that the government be prepared to consider the creation of a new body to establish authentic public governance of the convention centre — a body that includes the business community but does not exclude everyone else; a body that includes neighbourhood groups, representatives of the Capital Commission and representatives of the city of Victoria; and a body that includes just ordinary taxpayers in the city, who are interested in this because it's a tremendous public resource, or at least it could be if it were handled correctly. With all respect to the businessmen who have worked darned hard in Pan Pacific, I suspect that instrument is no longer useful. A new instrument with greater public participation, greater public control, and final public say has got to be created. This current arrangement is simply not satisfactory to many people in my riding. I doubt that it is to the government as well, because it's been a political embarrassment. They've had no such embarrassment in Vancouver; it's gone very nicely there. But in Victoria, where they've misread the public mood, they seem to think that Pan Pacific is incorporated in such a way as to be able to take the people into its confidence. They seem to think the Capital Commission can too. With all respect, that opinion is wrong. Were it not so, the conflict we've seen in the last three weeks in Victoria would never have materialized.

I’m going to support the bill. I do so with those eight specific criticisms and with those three general remedies. I hope the government will consider them. Amending the Capital Commission Act would be a good thing. Determining accurately the public preferences for the design and the site would be a good thing. And establishing a new board to obtain authentic public governance would be an even better thing. I invite the government's reply and look forward to their response.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this bill, but I offer the following suggestions — positive, I hope.

The bill itself is an expenditure of $20 million for a trade

[ Page 2398 ]

and convention centre in Vancouver, while in many parts of this province rural residents go without in the realm of social services, health care and transportation, and while northern residents lack proper facilities because at times the official position is that there is not enough funding available to put these programs into the north. Mr. Speaker, quite often northern residents wonder, why Vancouver all the time? Why Vancouver when they have to go without? Northern residents are not opposed to new jobs in the construction field, but they are opposed when their taxes constantly go for another monument in Vancouver when they go without. People of the north would like a fair shake, since their taxes go to build this Pacific convention centre.

The government today, through their member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), stated that the facility is good for Vancouver. But what's the problem with having the convention centre built in Fort St. John, or improving the facility in Penticton, or even building a new facility in Stewart? The investment of taxpayers' dollars could be spent in an area that would benefit positively from a trade and convention centre if it was built in a rural area. The member also spoke of the need for hotel construction. Well, why couldn't you have hotel construction taking place in rural areas in this province that need the capital growth, like Cranbrook, Fort St. John, Smithers, or Prince George, areas that are accessible by daily air service?

Tourist increase could happen in rural areas with the construction of a trade centre in their area. By building a trade centre in Prince George, for instance, private enterprise would construct hotel and motel units. Food services would be developed in those specific areas, and all the supply industries that go along with them. The economic growth in a rural area would have a positive aspect from the construction of the centre. The advantage of constructing the centre in Prince George or Fort St. John would be its tremendous growth potential for northern areas and the renewal development of transportation services into those areas. I oppose the allocation of $20 million to Vancouver when rural areas of this province, specifically the north, go without.

Another good example is that by constructing this facility in the Atlin constituency, we could call it the Ice Bowl, and this would be a very positive approach to helping provide some of the social services that are lacking in the specific area of Atlin constituency. By building the trade centre in the constituency of Atlin we'd be having construction jobs for northern residents. Secondly, we'd have development of health facilities to handle the influx of tourists that would come up to the Ice Bowl.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour spoke of a harbour. By building this facility in Stewart, for instance, we would develop ferry service and development programs into that specific area — hotels, motels and also the opportunity to be tied into the provincial power grid. That member also spoke of transportation up the west coast to Alaska. Stewart is right on that route. It would be of benefit to the north as well as to the entire province to have the centre built in Stewart.

In conclusion, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) stated: "Everyone wants to go to Vancouver, and the people in the north are proud to have their taxes go to build another goodie in the mainland." That member was mistaken when he believed that northern residents view the spending of their taxes that way. The north wants its fair shake, nothing special. Residents of the north go without, while billion-dollar projects — for instance, the football stadium, bridges in Vancouver, B.C. Place, a million dollars for studies of an ocean tunnel...while residents of the north go without.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, we've had such a good day today — you've been able to get some rest for your eyes and the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) comes in and starts interrupting and being rude. Could you draw him to his seat there?

Thank you for the protection offered, Mr. Speaker; I know the member for Columbia River is quiet now.

Vancouver has the development in place. Let's give the residents of the north a slice of the pie here. We're all residents of the same province, and let's start treating the rural residents of this province the same as the mainland residents by constructing the facility in the community of Stewart.

MR. BARNES: I have just one comment to clear up for those people who may read Hansard later. We should be addressing the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) on this particular bill. However — I suppose because Bill is out of town — they're doing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) instead. She is hanging on to what she conceives to be a popular piece of legislation, and wants to keep it. Customarily what happens with ministers when they change portfolios is that they change their responsibilities. At least that's the impression that I've had in making inquiries. I think the House has learned, in making inquiries of ministers who are answering questions during question period, that they are not hesitant in advising us out of the House that they no longer have that responsibility and therefore we should be talking to the responsible minister. In this case, however, we have the Minister of Human Resources still involved in tourism and piloting a project which, I suppose, will give her an opportunity to blow her home and hang on to her reputation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to say, first of all, that I think the idea of a convention centre for Vancouver is an idea of potential good fortune. It could provide a stimulus for the construction industry, the various associated trades and professions, and could, potentially, provide a considerable number of new employment opportunities for the residents. These are the pluses. Of course, Vancouver is situated in a place that is unique under the sun, being described as the gateway to the Pacific Rim and offering a unique and exceptional opportunity for new and different trade experiences — not only in business but in socializing as well. There is a lot to be said for Vancouver coming of age in this respect.

However, I think the concern of this side of the House, so eloquently stated by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) in his presentation describing the impact of the convention centre in the capital region of Victoria, is that the government again has demonstrated its apparent lack of consideration for the opinion of those people who are most likely to be affected by the major decisions it decides to impose upon the community. The concept of a convention centre, like so many other interesting concepts, including

[ Page 2399 ]

tunnels across the Strait of Georgia and the development of the False Creek district, is only the first impression. What the government intends to do is invariably to make pronouncements, as it did with the trade and convention centre, and then to proceed to try to get financing, to proceed to try to influence the people who are involved that it is a good idea. To my knowledge, at no time have they attempted to involve the public before making their decision and to nail down, so to speak, some of the more major requirements to carry out the particular project, before making an announcement.

So I have some concerns about the creation of the convention centre. Certainly the one that practically every member before me has indicated is the fear that carrying out the project as it is presently planned will result in it becoming a reality before the completion of the rapid transit system and associated routes that would ease the pressure which the automobile is creating on the downtown core at the present time. I think that that one area could be developed to pretty frightening proportions.

Certainly a trade and convention centre of the magnitude suggested will have a major impact, perhaps doubling the amount of vehicular traffic in the downtown area, and conceivably causing considerable hardship for existing businesses, notwithstanding the implication that it would stimulate and generate new business and new activities. This isn't necessarily a result of such a project as this, especially when you consider the new cost to taxpayers, the new amount of support facilities that is required. All of these things are unknown. There has been no significant effort to do feasibility studies, impact studies, on the community to ensure that the project will develop rationally and with the least bit of inconvenience for the existing situation.

I think it was the member for Columbia River — I was not in the chamber at the time; perhaps it was the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — who this afternoon suggested that we need more and more hotels in the downtown Vancouver area. Someone on the government side indicated that we need as many hotels as we can get. Well, that's fine for a member from some other district to indicate that he knows what's best for an area which he does not assume direct responsibility for, even though he is a minister of the Crown. The thing is, what has he done to inquire about the need for more hotels in the downtown area? Certainly we know what happened when this government, prior to 1972, attempted to create the W.A.C. monument, which would have been a tower of probably about 100 storeys up in the air, where we now have the courthouses. Fortunately, the election saved us from that shadow over the whole downtown area. There was no attempt at that time to involve the public, to find out what the impact would be.

There is a possibility that the trade and convention centre, despite its apparent good value as far as the community is concerned and its potential for resolving many of our economic problems, could bring with it considerable inconvenience and a considerable amount of new problems. I think that these are the things we should be asking about, not just the high and mighty platitudes about how things are going to look up — just follow Social Credit and we'll get everything rolling again.

What we're looking at now is an indirect form of taxation that could obliterate many small businesses, meaning only that those who could afford a new level of real estate values will be able to compete in the downtown area. Certainly the real estate values will go up. In fact, I wonder if the government would be prepared to indicate to this House what information it has regarding the impact of this new facility on the residential area of the West End, where people have lived in peace and tranquillity for many generations — senior citizens, singles, multiple families, although they are slowly fading away as a result of initiatives to describe that area as an expensive paradise no longer to be afforded by ordinary people. But are we looking at the West End as a future spectre of what it used to be? Are we looking at a situation where, say in ten years, as a result of this so-called new initiative, economic wisdom, and the creating of a new thrust on the west coast, we will lose one of the most beautiful communities and the most enjoyable, pleasant surroundings on the west coast? What will happen to the West End as a result? Will it remain a residential area?

I think the idea of a convention centre has to be compatible with the existing surroundings. It need not mean, as the first member for Victoria pointed out, the introduction of more automobiles, more parking and obliteration of existing facilities to accommodate the traffic that is anticipated from the trade and convention centre activities.

As I said initially, I'm not opposed to ideas that will help ordinary people involve themselves in the economy and give the necessary stimulation for the downtown area, which has been needing new ideas and innovative opportunities for people who obviously need the activity in order to survive. So I'm not suggesting that the trade and convention centre has no place. I'm questioning its scale, and I'm questioning the safeguards against porkbarrelling, for instance. Will the government be at arm's length from the final influence on who gets what and who does what? Who will get the contracts? What assurances will the public have that contractual arrangements and information on an ongoing basis will be available so that they can scrutinize the development as it goes along? What guarantees do we have that the project will not become another Olympic Stadium of the type we had in Montreal, where people are still paying for an idea by a politician that was not compatible with their abilities to pay? Are we going to find ourselves strapped with a project analogous to the deal made by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, in the Columbia River Treaty, for instance? When will it end? Will it be something that is under control and within the scope of the taxpayers?

These are criticisms in advance, criticisms that perhaps would not have been necessary had the government been sincere in giving the public an opportunity to ask such questions in advance. But as it stands now, it looks as though the project is going along. Most people, I'm sure, haven't got a clue, really, about what the trade and convention centre is all about. It's a government thing. The opposition recognizes the potential value and the potential benefit to the community, and therefore we would like to support any opportunity to improve the lot of the community. But at the same time, we have fears. I think the fears are legitimate and are reflected in the comments we receive from other people in the community.

We are asking that the government's representative — in this case, strange as it may seem, the Minister of Human Resources — stand up and speak on this serious economic endeavour and clarify to the House exactly what the final result will be.

In conclusion, I would like to use perhaps the terms of a social worker. It may come as a surprise to the government,

[ Page 2400 ]

but the community realizes that the city is like an individual. It has feelings, and its feelings are its people. Good care and attention give it good health, and it suffers either depression or stimulation depending on social or economic activities. That's a kind of analogy that I think any government should recognize, no matter how ambitious the scheme may be. It must be believable — not just seeming to be believable — when it refers to the ordinary people, not just the experts in the community. What do they think? How do they feel? I can assure you that there is considerable fear and concern by people in the community and downtown Vancouver, small businesses particularly, because small businesses know that this government is not oriented toward their survival. It thinks in terms of big, big bucks, corporate bucks — not in terms of small businesses that usually operate with a $100,000 gross a year or less. Many of these businesses will find themselves being squeezed out. They know that their rental per square foot on their small facilities will go up — if they're not wiped out altogether. Many of them are already paying as much as $15 to $20 a square foot, Mr. Speaker, for front-footage space downtown, and most of them with barely enough gross to pay the rent, let alone try to survive. I think the government has a responsibility to ensure that they can participate in the future rather than become spectres of the past.

I would say in conclusion that I, along with my colleagues, support the concept. We'd like to wish the government well, in fact, because we're anxious to see this project succeed and remain relevant. We would like to feel that before we see a convention centre we will be seeing the completion of a light-rapid-transit system, that we will see some sanity put into the concept of where the automobile belongs, that there will be some attempt to involve small businesses. Rather than assume that you need more hotels, why not canvass the existing small hotels downtown and ask them how they feel about a huge, new, 50-storey hotel down on Pier B-C that obviously will generally drain those who are on marginal returns.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for giving me an opportunity to make these brief observations. I will go on record as being in support of the convention centre but with very definite concerns in anticipation of a government moving faster than the taxpayers are prepared to go.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we're discussing represents two-thirds of three bills that we discussed a year ago. A year ago, when those three bills came in — each one separately, if my memory serves me correctly — they were introduced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who carried them through the House. On each and every separate occasion when we came to a vote, the opposition supported those bills on the basis that they all provided employment opportunities as well as did some of the things that the members have discussed on both sides of the House. That was nearly a year ago. We asked questions of the Minister of Finance at the time and we received some answers — not altogether a fulsome performance by the Minister of Finance of the day, but certainly we received some answers either when he answered in second reading debate or when he dealt with them in committee.

Shortly after the Minister of Finance got royal assent to the bills or perhaps even during the debate, he did indicate that his colleague, the other member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, would be indeed the minister who would carry a great deal of the work to do with this convention centre, and the member for Saanich and the Islands, who at that time, I think, was the Provincial Secretary, would carry equal responsibilities for the Victoria centre. Since those days, Mr. Speaker, we've seen, for instance, the member for Vancouver South given responsibility for B.C. Place and other things, so it's no strange happening that ministers pick up specific responsibilities.

I'm not going to lend my voice to wondering why the Minister of Human Resources is carrying this bill. I think it's pretty obvious why she's carrying the bill. She's done a tremendous amount of work on it. Frankly, I hope that she has a great deal of success with it and I want her to keep on with the bill. For instance, I think the Minister of Tourism is going to have enough to do to repair the morale situation in the Ministry of Tourism without getting involved in learning all there is to know about the downtown trade and convention centre, because of the fact that that ministry has been without a leader, has been totally ignored since the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain left and since the member for Okanagan North took over. That's a role and a job that the minister for the Okanagan has got to look forward to. So she certainly needs all of her time to look after that without getting involved in a trade and convention centre.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance when this bill went through — before we recycled this bill, as it were, this year — whether or not we were going to see built into regulations, built into the agreements that were then mentioned in the bill, some kind of protection for making sure that this convention centre would be truly made in B.C. Since that date, since 1979, we've had an opportunity and we've seen various statements made by the minister. She has erected her committee and she's put people in charge. There must have been a great deal of discussion about the trade and convention centre. I'd like now for the minister — either in committee stage if she hasn't got the information with her but certainly when she winds up second reading — if she would like to detail for us the kinds of built-in safeguards that this project is going to have, to make sure it is indeed made in B.C.

I would like them to tell us, indeed, that we can rest assured that B.C. products, B.C. labour, are going to be used exclusively where possible. I realize that there may be some particular kinds of machinery which might not be available in British Columbia, but I certainly want to rest assured that we are going to do that at the very least, so that the kind of support she's going to get from all sectors of the community of British Columbia — and, indeed, of Victoria — is rightfully placed; so that this project, using millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and obviously more money from other sources, is going to see, indeed, good and ameliorating effects on unemployment, mitigating effects on some of the problems that are besetting the province today.

Have, indeed, there been any discussions on the committees that are meeting about the projects about what sort of percentage preference we can expect to see for B.C. labour, for B.C. products? Are we going to see the Fair Employment Practices Act of yesteryear operated? Are we going to see preference given to organized labour? Are we going to operate under fair and proper working conditions, or at least the equivalent thereto? When this government in 1977 did away with some of the acts of this Legislature that dealt with fair employment practices, then I think we have to be assured by the minister that when we see public moneys expended in this

[ Page 2401 ]

way we do make sure that public moneys are expended to those companies who do, indeed, conform to the normal business practices and provide fair, good, clean working conditions.

Those are some of the questions that we asked in 1979. Almost a year has gone past; a great deal of work has gone on. This particular minister, who has a much more intimate knowledge of the project than the Minister of Finance who carried the bill last time, should be able to provide those answers. I wish the project well and assure the minister of our support. Frankly, I am looking forward to the project being completed, at which time I hope there will have been an election. When we open it we will give that minister a lot of credit for it.

MS. BROWN: Speaking in support of this piece of legislation, I would certainly like to associate myself with the comments of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) in his statement that the minister has put a tremendous amount of time and effort into seeing to it that this Vancouver trade and convention centre gets off the ground. Certainly my hope is that with the passage of this bill, with its successfully being passed through the House, because it sounds as though everyone is more or less in support of it, the minister will be able to turn her attention to the Ministry of Human Resources and the kind of real crises which people who are dependent on her ministry are going through at the present time.

I agree with the member for Vancouver Centre that the minister has really pursued the putting together of this project relentlessly, that she has a vested interest in it. I can understand that because, of course, her riding is affected by it. I certainly agree that Vancouver is a place which entices conventions because of its beautiful setting, its reasonably warm, though sometimes wet, weather. I also recognize that there probably is a need for a convention centre of this size. My only regret, as I said before, is that it has drained so much of the minister's energies, taken away so much of her time and her interest from the Ministry of Human Resources.

I am sorry, for example, that 28,000 senior citizens and disabled people in Vancouver are going to find their travel curtailed on June 1 unless the minister can get this thing off the ground, get this bill through the House very quickly and get on to the negotiations with the GVRD to see to it that they have their bus passes on that particular day.

On the CBC today I think it was Joan Anderson who talked about the edifice complex which this government is going through. There was some question about all these buildings going up at the same time and what that was going to do to the whole Vancouver area. However, this certainly is one particular project that has merit and certainly is worthy of our support. We are all going to support it and do it as quickly as we possibly can because, as I said before, I would like to see the minister relinquish the Tourism portfolio and turn it over to the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). As tedious as the Ministry of Human Resources may be to her, I would like to see her giving some of her undivided attention to that ministry.

For example, I regret that she did not somehow have access to that day care report which was released by Local 2 of the Social Services Employees. I am going to see to it that she has a copy, because the information in it is something that she has to start addressing herself to very quickly because there is a crisis in day care in this province.

In supporting this legislation, and saying thank you to the minister for the good job that she has done in putting this convention centre together, I am saying to her at the same time, please relinquish the Tourism ministry to the new Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and give some of this energy, drive and enthusiasm which you have to the Ministry of Human Resources. It needs a minister; it obviously doesn't have one at this time. There are people suffering in a very real way as a result of your preoccupation with the Tourism portfolio. So we're supporting this bill. I am specifically supporting it because I am hoping it means that once and for all, the Minister of Human Resources will put her attention to her own portfolio and leave the Minister of Tourism, a very able minister, to take care of the tourism problems of this province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There are two or three members who have raised specific questions to which I would just like to refer. I will not take too long in order to let the House get on with the rest of the business.

First of all, let me just refer to remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He was very concerned about what was going to be imposed, as he said, on the city of Vancouver. He talked about a building being unsupportably high. He talked about the building in Vancouver lacking imagination. He hoped that we would take a second look and have a more aesthetic design. He talked about questioning the scale of the development.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I wonder if I could just inform that member that the Pier B-C Development Board Ltd., which is the organization which is charged by the different levels of government to build the centre on behalf of all of the taxpayers, whether they be civic or provincial or federal, have as yet not put forward a design. There is no design, so please don't attack it as being too high, too low, too wide, or not the right colour. It actually has not even been passed by the city of Vancouver. There has not been a design put forward as yet. It is a reflection on those great architects — the joint venture of the great architects, Barry Downs and Frank Mussen — to say that it is out of place, because it is not. I just want the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, in whose constituency this trade and convention centre will be, to really know that. I have to laugh at some of the remarks that have been made here today. It's not just a year or two years. This project and the Victoria project have not only been on the drawing boards with this government for some years — certainly the Vancouver one for at least four — but for many, many years preceding that both cities indicated their tremendous and strong support for a trade and convention centre.

The two members have mentioned the lack of public input, and please let me assure you that the public input has been tremendous in these centres. I'd like to pay tribute to the boards of trade, the B.C. Association of Chefs, the Greater Victoria Tourist and Convention Bureau, the Greater Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau, the building trades unions, the Vancouver AM, the city councils, the parks board, the British Columbia Federation of Labour, the bartenders', culinary workers' and taxi associations. The various members of the public, both individually and in groups, in the various community associations which have given support to the trade and convention centre in Vancouver, would alone make a list far longer than what I could relate

[ Page 2402 ]

today. So it has had good public input. I must say I am pleased indeed that that public input has come to the realization of this bill which we are putting before the House today.

I am very pleased to note that we have unanimous support of the House. I think it is a unique day in this House in this session to see this spirit of cooperation. I am very pleased to acknowledge the members' positive contribution in debate today. I think that is very good, and I have certainly noted some of the comments that have been put forward,

I would like to make one point. I was very interested that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) told us that it was his very first public statement on the trade and convention centre for Victoria. I am surprised that the member for Victoria would say this is his very first public statement. I imagine that he waited until he could see just which way the public in Victoria was going to go before he rushed in and approved. But I am pleased to know that we are going to have his support today, and that of the NDP.

I was also interested that he made some comments about lack of public awareness. I think that is quite a reflection on the city council of Victoria, because they certainly have had a tremendous amount of committee meetings and a tremendous amount of input. As recently as last week, city council members told me that the kind of public input and public knowledge that there has been has not, as a matter of fact, earned the kind of derision which has come from a defeated federal NDP candidate, who was really critical of that kind of input. But there has been a lot.

I recall when Sam Bawlf, a former member of this House, put forward the idea of a trade and convention centre for Victoria. I'd like to give him credit, as I do the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who has been working diligently on the capital region's program and plan for this convention centre. I recall when he placed that idea before the public of Victoria; the headline in the local paper was "Convention Centre at Last." It took even the imagination of the press to say that at long last it was coming to pass in this city. Certainly in the city of Vancouver we feel quite the same.

Could I just say that the city of Victoria is represented well by its council, who definitely represent the people and very definitely have gone along with the Victoria convention centre in spite of the words that have been said by the member for Victoria. I'm surprised that the member would attack that kind of cooperation, because I think they've done a good job of it.

The resolution of the Vancouver trade and convention centre involved so many negotiations that I don't think the members of the House have realized, perhaps. I can certainly appreciate why they would not understand why I would be presenting this bill to the House, but as Deputy Premier I'm pleased and proud to do so. It has involved very difficult, sometimes very sensitive, negotiations. They were important negotiations to the people of our province. They involved the federal government, and I'd like to pay tribute to Senator Ray Perrault and to the new Minister of State for Trade in the federal administration, Ed Lumley. They have involved the city of Vancouver, and I'd like to pay tribute to the mayor of Vancouver in that regard. They've involved a Crown corporation, the National Harbours Board, and the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was deemed appropriate that the Deputy Premier carry on these negotiations. But let me just say that it has been a complete team effort on our side of the House in order to bring these two trade and convention centres to fruition for our people of British Columbia. It has involved the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Finance. Particularly it has involved the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I would like to say that that team have all been part of a great teamwork proposal which has been put forward, and we see the results of the work today. With several levels of government working together, the private sector with input and with their imaginative force behind it, I must say that it is one of the projects that in my public life I've been proud to be associated with, because of the teamwork involved.

I will ignore the remarks made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) regarding my work in Human Resources in terms of sapping my energy. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that nobody has ever accused me of not having enough energy to do two, three or four jobs at a time, and I'll continue to do that.

There was another point that should be made very clear on the floor of the House; that is the preoccupation that has shown itself in members of the opposition in terms of the areas which the centres will serve. I don't believe there has really been an understanding by the opposition of what a trade and convention centre is all about. It shows, you see, how little they understand the tourist industry in this province. To suggest, for example, that the trade centre should be built in Fort St. John or in Stewart.... Mr. Speaker, they are very attractive places. But let me tell you, when international conventions are bidding for a site in which to hold their conferences and their scientific meetings, where people are coming for business meetings, they look to the major cities of Canada and the United States. All of those other cities and beautiful communities that make up our British Columbia family will have post- and pre-convention tours. They will benefit from the trade and convention centre in Vancouver, as I said in introducing this bill. But it would be foolish indeed to expect that an international organization travelling from Europe, 9,500 strong, is going to settle themselves in northern British Columbia.

Now some of them may go on a post-convention or pre-convention tour. May I suggest to all those members who have made those suggestions that they go back to their communities and inspire — as the Ministry of Tourism has been doing for these past four and a half years — those people to get busy on tourist promotion in their particular area, and bring those tours there. There is a tremendous amount of money to be had. But more than that, there's also a great association to be had with people from all over the world. They would love to see Atlin, and they would love to see the Cariboo. They have missed something if they haven't seen those other areas of our province. But it is unrealistic to expect that they are going to take transportation all the way to the international crossroads of our particular transportation hub in the city of Vancouver, and then take other transportation, especially in large groups that are 9,500, 8,500 and 5,000 strong.

So let the opposition please note that about the industry.

They really completely missed the point of international conferences for this province. Each and every community has had a marketing plan for the last four years and the Ministry of Tourism has shared in the promotional plans of the province of British Columbia this year, last year, the year before and the year before that. Opportunities for creating more tourism business have been created in a very real way by that ministry. Interior communities do not go out and promote international conferences to house 10,000 people,

[ Page 2403 ]

but the people in the hotels can promote, house and invite. And they do, with the help of that marketing program that I mention. The opposition seems to think that if they can't build one in every community.... They're saying: "Don't build any at all." That's a funny way to look at an economic plan for the province of British Columbia. It's a strange way and I would suggest it's a questionable attitude.

As part of the economic blueprint of this government, we have put an emphasis on the private sector to respond, and in our emphasis to them we have suggested that international visitors can go on package tours throughout this province. Also, the various members that have spoken have forgotten that there have been, through this government's efforts and through the taxpayers of this province.... Through the Recreational Facilities Assistance Program we have many community halls that are able to host conventions and they have been built. We have had theatres built and this government has built them. No other jurisdiction in Canada will have the kind of facilities that we are proposing in this bill. In fact, there is no other jurisdiction that has the capability, now that we have an AAA rating in the province of British Columbia, through the good financial management of this government.

I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Gordon Shrum, who has been an outstanding citizen of this province. Dr. Gordon Shrum, as many of those in this chamber will remember, was responsible for putting together in a very short time what everybody said was the impossible — the building of Simon Fraser University. He was also responsible for tidying up a very difficult financial situation when we first became government, in terms of bringing together the financial program for Robson Square so that we could, at last, complete the building and get it together. He has done that in a very capable way, and saved millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia.

Talking about a competitive bid system, and that kind of accountability, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that any expenditures that have been made heretofore have had at least a three-bid competitive system; and that B.C. products are part of our government's commitment, let alone each of these project commitments, and that has been enshrined in the Ministry of Finance, under my colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who put that forward some three years ago — that's been our policy in purchasing.

I'd like to just refer, in closing my remarks on this bill today, to today's newspaper, which talks about tourists this year in British Columbia. It says: "There could well be no room at the inn this summer for people planning to tour B.C. without reservations." Then it goes on to say: "Leaders of British Columbia's tourism businesses are confident that ever-increasing fuel prices will not deter foreign visitors to beautiful British Columbia. Tourism Minister Pat Jordan is anticipating that this year's influx of visitors will be up 15 to 20 percent over 1979." It has been this government's tourism plan, Mr. Speaker, which has resulted in jobs and security for the hospitality industry. Both centres will create employment. Both centres will create a vehicle which will join international buyers and sellers. It is part of an economic blueprint for British Columbia which will generate billions of dollars. They will provide a meeting place for the world. The convention and trade centres have long been discussed, have long been dreamed of. The time for action is now. We're ready to begin.

I'm pleased that all members of the House share in the enthusiasm and belief that this is a time to be positive, a time to implement plans and cooperate in areas of common interest. Together we can create a vibrant impetus for employment, for investment, for redevelopment, and ongoing revenue resulting in benefits to the citizens whom we all serve.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 23, Trade and Convention Centre Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order to ask the question: how many members are required to ask for a recording?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three.

MR. COCKE: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.