[ Page 2993 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Nechako River fisheries.

Mr. Howard –– 2993

Water pollution in Campbell River area.

Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2993

B.C. Housing Corporation assets.

Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 2994

Nechako River fisheries.

Mr. Howard –– 2994

Downtown Vancouver open-space agreement.

Mr. Barnes –– 2994

Use of American tradesmen on B.C. Jobs.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 2994

Timber supply at Pemberton.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2995

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Potential danger at Long Lake dam.

Mr. Passarell –– 2996

Ministerial Statements

Knowledge Network Communications Authority.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2996

Mr. Howard –– 2996

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Acute-care hospital at UBC.

Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 2996

Alcohol and drug dependence of juveniles.

Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 2997

Special Funds Act, 1980 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 2997

On section 7.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2998

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2998

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2999

Mr. Macdonald –– 2999

Mr. Nicolson –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Mr. Macdonald –– 3000

Mr. Hanson –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Mr. Howard –– 3000

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Division on section 7 –– 3000

On section 10.

Mr. Barber –– 3001

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3001

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3002

Mr. Hyndman –– 3002

Mr. Lorimer –– 3002

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3002

Mr. Howard –– 3003

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3004

Mr. Cocke –– 3004

Mr. Nicolson –– 3004

On section 15.

Mr. Cocke –– 3004

Mr. Hall –– 3005

Mr. Lorimer –– 3006

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3006

Ms. Brown –– 3008

Mr. Cocke –– 3009

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3010

Mr. Lorimer –– 3010

Mr. Barber –– 3011

Division on section 15 –– 3014

On section 16.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3015

On section 19.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3016

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3016

Erratum –– 3017

Appendix –– 3017

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On behalf of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who as we know is ill, I would like to welcome Rev. C. W. Bryce of Abbotsford, who led us in prayers today. I understand that this is his first such attendance in the assembly.

MR. BARBER: A friend of two friends of mine is in the gallery today. Her name is Mrs. Mary Zielonka. I ask the House to make her welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: One of Canada's premier guinea pig breeders is with us today in the gallery. Would the House please welcome Mr. David Young.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the Legislature this afternoon from the constituency of Saanich are good friends of ours, Mr. and Mrs. Mountain. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are Dr. and Mrs. Donald Rix of Vancouver. Although Dr. Rix is a medical doctor and pathologist by training, he is one of the senior community leaders in the city of Vancouver, a vice-chairman of BCIT, and a member of the board of Crofton House School. He has been extremely active over the years with the executive committees of the B.C. Medical Association and is chairman this year of its finance committee; he is active also with the Canadian Medical Association and he is the Deputy Speaker of the Canadian Medical Association. Would members join me in welcoming Dr. and Mrs. Donald Rix.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon is a friend of mine from Victoria, Mr. B.J. "Box" Johnson. I'd like to have the House welcome him this afternoon.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon from Sparwood, the coal capital of Canada, are Mayor Frank Fairclough and his wife Anna, and Aldermen Molly Doratty and Gordon McDonnell. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. In light of the negotiations that are currently taking place between the federal Department of Fisheries and the Aluminum Company of Canada with respect to the flow of water in the Nechako River, can the minister advise the House if he or his department has made a decision to lend its support to the federal Department of Fisheries to help ensure that an adequate flow of water in the Nechako River is maintained?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. We have made inquiries under the Water Act, and I understand that legal opinion indicates that we have no authority to do anything other than lend moral support, which we have done in this particular situation.

MR. HOWARD: Do I understand the minister to say that there is no obligation on the part of the provincial government relating to the protection of fisheries? Can the minister advise me about that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not what I said. What I said was that we checked the Water Act, and the licence under which Alcan is operating — and operates a spillway — and we do not have the legislative authority to order them to spill water.

MR. HOWARD: I see. I wonder if I could ask the minister if he is aware of section 1(3) of the Industrial Development Act, which says — and this is the act under which Alcan got that original agreement — "An agreement entered into under this act shall provide for the protection that may be considered advisable by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of fisheries that would be injuriously affected."

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I thank the member for the information, but that's not an area under which I have authority. I believe you'd find that that particular act is certainly not under the Ministry of Environment.

MR. HOWARD: It's interesting to note that the minister has nothing whatever to do with fisheries within his department.

I wonder if the minister is also aware that section 2 of the Industrial Development Act provides that "an agreement made under this act may be amended or extended if considered advisable by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, if the subject matter of the amendment or extension could lawfully have been incorporated in the original agreement at the time it was made." Is the minister aware of that provision?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We're getting into too many details. I'll have to take the question as notice and get an answer for the member.

WATER POLLUTION IN CAMPBELL RIVER AREA

While I'm on my feet I'd like, if I may, to add to an answer asked of me by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He asked me about the water supply for the Campbell River area. The note that I have says: "The minister answered correctly; however, the following might be added. No immediate action is considered necessary, because the quality of water for the Campbell River water supply is well within the drinking water standards."

The other question you asked was about the pollution control branch, and I'll quote you: "Has the minister decided to advance the deadline set to end the obvious poisoning of that lake? Some time ago there was a deadline set — in 1983, I believe — to have the lake cleaned up. In view of the obvious urgent problems in the Campbell River area now, has the minister decided to advance that deadline?" A review

[ Page 2994 ]

of the pollution control branch files did not indicate any commitment to remove the tailings from Buttle Lake by 1983. There was a proposal to use an open-pit part of the mine for tailings disposal in 1972, but this was vetoed by the mines branch because it might endanger the underground workings. The parks branch has been queried regarding any commitment by the mine. The parks branch permit to operate the mine tailings line expires in 1987.

As to your question on Port Hardy, I'm still trying to get the answer back for you on acid rain.

B.C. HOUSING CORPORATION ASSETS

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on March 31 the member for North Island asked as follows:

"Mr. Tom Toynbee, the former president and former chief executive officer of the B.C. Housing Corporation, announced in January that the disposal of the corporation's assets was then complete. Can the minister now inform this House of the breakdown of these assets and disclose to whom these assets were sold?"

The minister replied:

"That's a question that would be more appropriately put on the order paper. He's asking for specific dispositions and dollar figures of a great variety of lands and housing complexes in the province. I'll be glad to take the question as notice. The figure is substantial, and the answer will be fairly lengthy. I would have hoped you would have put it on the order paper so that I wouldn't be preempting the members' opportunities to ask more urgent and pressing questions."

Now I have the answer, and I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether he wants to put the question on the order paper and I'll give the member an opportunity — or whether he wants me answer it in the oral question period. Hearing nothing further from that member, I'll give him the answer right now.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has risen on a point of order — which, I might add, hon. member, is somewhat out of place in question period. Nevertheless....

MR. LEA: Well, it's on question period and the directions that the Chair gave to all members of the House, and also the directions that the Chair gave to the members of the government, asking them, if they had lengthy answers, to provide them after question period. The Chair requested the government do that, and I wonder why the government is not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. In response to the point of order raised, the Chair did undertake — for the guidance of members, and particularly if answers are lengthy, written answers — to protect the value and use and intention of question period. They are best given at the conclusion of question period if they are that lengthy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my response, taking the question, as notice, I indicated to the member that it would be more appropriate to put the question on the order paper. He hasn't seen fit to do so, and I have a personal ruling according to which all oral questions that I receive are answered in the oral question period. So if you are going to deny me the opportunity of responding in the oral question period, where the question was put, then I have no alternative but to await a question on the order paper from that member. Unless he's prepared to do so, I won't answer the question. I'm prepared to answer it in the oral question period if that's where he wants me to do it, but I won't file a document afterwards.

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. HOWARD: After those diversionary tactics seeking to extricate the Minister of Environment from a difficult situation, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Environment a final question. Would the minister agree that by the government and himself not pursuing its obligations and responsibilities with respect to the protection of fisheries in the Nechako River it is, in fact, siding with the Aluminum Company of Canada?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER OPEN-SPACE AGREEMENT

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Can the minister explain why on May 6 of this year she cancelled a 1974 agreement with the city of Vancouver requiring that the city use funds paid by the province for the site of the new courthouse for the acquisition of downtown open space for the people of Vancouver?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have no knowledge of the subject which the questioner puts before me, but I would be pleased to take it as notice and perhaps ask him what his concern is.

MR. BARNES: I do have another question, but I'd like to bring the minister's attention to the fact that I have a document with her signature on it that was dated May 5, indicating that she had released the city of Vancouver from an agreement to provide open space to downtown Vancouver for $2.1 million...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was taken as notice, hon. member.

MR. BARNES:...which, incidentally, was to be used for the trade and convention centre.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: I'd like her to explain to the House the reason for doing that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was taken as notice, hon. member.

USE OF AMERICAN TRADESMEN ON B.C. JOBS

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) threw a couple of questions over this

[ Page 2995 ]

way involving people working at two sites in the province of British Columbia, one in Winfield and the other in Whistler. I have answers to these two questions, which I believe to be satisfactory. I accept them as being satisfactory; the member may not like them.

I might tell you it involved the Vernon Fruit Union, which the member probably read about in the press, and a company called Van Doran from Yakima, Washington. Ten work visas were issued to the employer, Van Doran, by immigration officials in Seattle; the reason for this was that the company maintained that special skills were needed to install the equipment. There were some objections filed by the pipefitters and the IBEW about using foreign workers to do work which it was felt could be done by Canadians. I might say that that was a fair request on their behalf. I can advise you that there was discussion between the employment and immigration commission official, the fruit union, the pipefitters and the IBEW. I was advised about one hour ago that an agreement has been made. The project will be under the supervision of an American project manager and two supervisors; three Canadians have been hired. This is satisfactory to all the parties involved.

With respect to the Whistler project, in this case I think they were well ahead of both of us, Mr. Member. The five people who landed on site were given notice, and they ended up in custody. None of them had visas. In fact, there may have been a violation of immigration regulations. The workers were arrested and issued with departure notices. I hope that satisfies the inquiry made.

TIMBER SUPPLY AT PEMBERTON

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the Minister of Forests. A Mr. J. Tsuida of a firm known as Western Log Exchange Ltd. Is trying to establish a sawmill and manufacturing plant at Pemberton. Evans Products Co. Ltd. closed their mill in that town, and they now ship their timber to a mill at Lillooet. Will the minister now take action to guarantee a minimum supply of timber to Tsuida's firm to guarantee local utilization of the lumber and the employment created at Pemberton?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer is, most emphatically, no. I will not make any special provision for Mr. Tsuida or anyone else. Any timber that may be available in the forests of British Columbia can be disposed of through those means laid down in the Forest Act. I'm not about to violate the Forest Act to look after any individual who may require timber.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question. Since Evans received 90,000 cunits of allowable annual cut from the Soo and Yalakom PSYU for utilization at the mill at Pemberton, why is the minister not prepared to reduce their supply and grant at least 25,000 cunits to any prospective mill at Pemberton?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've already answered the member. Evans Products had a timber allocation of some 190,000 cunits of wood on an annual basis. They were cut back substantially when they shut down their plant in Pemberton. They have since built a $10 million veneer plant in Lillooet, and the wood that is going to their plant is that wood that is economically tributary to Lillooet under the terms of agreements made under the Forest Act of the time.

I shall not violate the principles of the Forest Act and make any direct allocations of timber to anyone. The competitive route exists. Timber supplies are potentially available through those who already have licences in the area. When our timber supply area analysis is completed for the area, then we will know exactly what additional unallocated cut exists. If he wishes to acquire that, Mr. Tsuida will have to do it under the terms and conditions laid down in the Forest Act.

MR. HOWARD: I have a point of order that relates to the discussion that took place earlier between the Chair and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) with respect to an attempt on the part of the minister to deal with a question. I draw the attention of the Chair not to a guideline but to a ruling, as I believe it would be identified, which Mr. Speaker Schroeder made in this House on March 26, 1980, in which he said: "If the question is of such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a return is to have the answer" — the answer, not the question — "on the order paper itself, as though the question had been a written question." And that's the course of action that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing should have followed, instead of that diversionary tactic that he employed earlier.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think I outlined how clearly I indicated to the member that the question belonged more appropriately on the order paper, rather than in oral question period. I invited him to put the question on the order paper, which he's refused to do. So, as I said before, I have a personal rule that all questions asked in the oral question period are answered in the oral question period.

Now I'd like to answer a question put to me on the order paper by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not at this point, hon. member. You rose on a point of order. Are you tabling the document at this time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not tabling the document. I'm answering a question put to me on the order paper by the member for Skeena.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. For the benefit of all members, I think it's possibly appropriate to refer to the fifth edition of Beauchesne, and to a section that should be widely read by all members. I would refresh members' memories of page 132, section 359, where the Speaker expressed some general principles in order to clarify the regulations which have traditionally guided question period. Subsection 2 says: "The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no preamble." Hon, members, if members were to take this into consideration it would greatly aid in the business of question period.

[ Page 2996 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is, hon. member?

MR. PASSARELL: A dam at Long Lake, north of Stewart, which is in danger of collapse. The owners, Cominco Ltd., had planned to blow it up earlier this spring, expecting the water level to be low. The water level has unexpectedly risen, creating a clear and present danger that the dam may give way. Alternatively, if they blow the dam up now they could send a large column of water down the valley, destroying the Granduc road, and into the inhabited areas of Alaska.

I move that the House do now adjourn to discuss this matter, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I have the motion before me, and without prejudicing the matter of urgency, I will take the matter under advisement and report back on the issue.

For the information of all members, standing order 35 has precedence, and I thank the member for the prior notification.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file detailed answers to a question posed to me on the order paper.

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table with the House the constitution and bylaws of the Knowledge Network of the West Communications Authority. The Knowledge Network has been incorporated as a non-profit society under the Societies Act of B.C. I would just like to set out very briefly for the House the purposes set out in the constitution.

They are: to operate without profit to its members as a charitable institution for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, in cooperation with the universities, colleges and provincial institutes, school districts, and other institutions and agencies concerned with education; to receive funds and other assets from the government of Canada, the government of British Columbia, and from any other source, and to use and apply all or part of such funds and assets in such manner as the directors deem appropriate for any purpose which in the opinion of the directors will further the objective to assist, and collaborate with, universities, colleges, provincial institutes, school districts, ministries, and other agencies of the province in the development, coordination and delivery of educational programs and materials; to establish, maintain and operate a telecommunications network, including cable, microwave, satellite and broadcast elements; to operate one or more broadcasting undertakings primarily devoted to the field of educational broadcasting; to foster, stimulate and participate in the development and production of high quality educational programs and material; to provide assistance by way of policy and technical advice to the provincial body created pursuant to the Broadcasting Act of Canada; to acquire, establish, maintain and operate for the purposes of production, generation, distribution and transmission of learning materials and to acquire, hold, improve and maintain real property; to enter into any contracts or arrangements with any authority for the production, acquisition or sale of educational programs and materials.

As the former Attorney-General has well recognized, there's some legal wording in those objectives, and I paraphrased them and tried to make it a little simpler for the lay people of the Legislative Assembly. But through all of that verbiage, what we have done today is to announce via satellite the educational television network of British Columbia, to be known as the Knowledge Network of the West. It will consist of three elements: first of all, a closed-circuit interinstitutional system among the universities, teaching hospitals, law courts, BCIT and the Blanshard Building in Victoria; secondly, a closed-circuit television system using low-power broadcast and satellite connection to off-campus interior and northern locations; and, thirdly, access to an educational channel on community cablevision systems.

Mr. Speaker, we've been working for some years to lay the groundwork for distance education in British Columbia, so that all the citizens of our province, regardless of their educational background, financial circumstances, or where they live in British Columbia, will have opportunities to receive educational programming at the university, college, institute and high school level. A giant step forward was taken today with the formation of this network, the directors of whom will be Dr. Walter Hardwick, Deputy Minister of Education; Mr. Gerry Cross, Deputy Provincial Secretary; Mr. Jack Fleming, Assistant Deputy Minister of Education; Mr. Harold Page, Assistant Deputy Minister of Communications; Dr. Robert Stewart, chief executive officer of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications; Mr. Don Hamilton as a broadcast consultant; and Mr. Ron Jeffels, principal of the Open Learning Institute.

We resisted the temptation to add other names at this time, but the network which has been established will be a vehicle through which all our educational institutions will be able to bring to people everywhere in British Columbia the richness of their offerings, which, until this time, had been largely limited to the classrooms of their own institutions. So we've taken a great step forward, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Education and I are very proud of the advances that have been made.

MR. HOWARD: Just a brief and laudatory comment in response thereto, to express our appreciation to the minister for advising the House of this move and to wish the program itself every success. It's one of those items that's long overdue. We applaud the minister for doing it.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to give answers to questions asked in oral question period.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I'm taking the time that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would want in order to apologize to you and the House for giving the wrong answers as to why he was thrown out yesterday, but I know he'll be up right after me.

ACUTE-CARE HOSPITAL AT UBC

On May 21 last, I was asked the following question by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). He asked

[ Page 2997 ]

three questions and I have four answers. The three questions he asked were:

1) Has the minister approved the operating budget of the new acute-care community hospital of UBC?

2) Was it not unusual to have no decision reached on a budget so soon before opening?

3) Will the minister advise the House when the battle will be resolved between the Miniter of Universities, Science and Communications and the Ministry of Health over the $600 per patient-day, which is the proposed budget of that hospital?

1) In 1978 the Ministry of Health and the University of British Columbia agreed on a preconstruction operating budget for the proposed acute-care hospital.

2) The Ministry of Health anticipates that the university will submit a 1980-81 operating budget before the hospital admits its first patient on or before September 1, 1980.

3) As the university has not submitted an estimate of operating expenditures to the Ministry of Health, how can anyone say the per diem rate will be $600 or any other amount?

4) There is no dispute between the Ministries of Health and Universities, Science and Communications, for, among other reasons, the key committee recommendations established the responsibility for funding operating costs.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE OF JUVENILES

On June 5 the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked me a question concerning family and youth counsellors in alcohol problems for young people. I think the member will remember the question. I can read it if the member wishes, but I'm sure she can refer to it.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission has had a small youth-family counselling service in Vancouver for many years. It was decided some years ago to make the experienced counsellors from this service available to other programs in order to give the staff of those programs expertise in dealing with youth. These assignments were not intended to be permanent. Such a counsellor was assigned to the commission's Burnaby outpatient-counselling service. He was there for a year and a half on a part-time basis but has since resigned.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission has done a study of the need for treatment services for youth. It did not mention Burnaby specifically but pointed out problems in the lower Fraser Valley generally. The commission has a pilot project underway to assist the effectiveness of drug and alcohol counsellors working in the school system. The programs of the commission are under review, and the need for services for youth will be taken into account in the commission's planning. I expect a report on the commission late next month.

MR. HOWARD: I earlier raised a point of order in respect to an earlier exchange between the Chair and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and quoted the decision of Mr. Speaker Schroeder with respect to that matter. I wondered whether the Chair might not draw that to the attention of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing so that he can follow the commendable practice just followed by the Minister of Health.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the order of business I would like to mention to hon. members that considerable interest has been expressed by all members of the House on both sides, by support staff and by members of the fourth estate as to whether or not the House will be closed on Monday. I would like to announce that it will be closed Monday, subject of course to any intervening exigencies.

With leave, I would like to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7, Special Funds Act, 1980.

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

Mr. Howard requested that leave to asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: I'd just like to make a couple of comments. I have no problem in voting for the Barkerville appropriation or money for Ford steel, but it would make me a lot happier if there were a companion piece of legislation appropriation for the Indian people and the Indian culture of this province. There are probably many members of this House who are not aware of the fact that the majority of Indian languages in Canada are in British Columbia. A couple of the interesting facts about this....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I'm speaking on this appropriation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is speaking about things that are not in the section. We're supposed to be discussing things that are in it, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made, hon. member. We are now restricted specifically to what is in section 3 and strictly relevant to the section. Bearing that in mind, the member continues.

MR. HANSON: I take your guidance. I'm pointing out to the House that the reservation I do have in voting for this appropriation is that there is not a companion amount of money for Indian culture as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The principle could have been discussed in second reading but

[ Page 2998 ]

now that we are in committee we must be strictly relevant. What is not in the bill is certainly out of order. We must deal only with what lies before us in the specific section.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 20

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I wonder if you could check the bells. I know a division was called. I know the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was here, but apparently he didn't hear the bell. I know he would want to vote on something that took place in his constituency, and it would not do for the very famous and fearless member for Vancouver Centre to chicken out on a vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, hon. member, the point of order raised was not a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would just like you to clarify a point for me. I understand by the Orders of the Day that any members in the precincts are required to vote on a section of a bill when it comes up. The second member for Vancouver Centre is not here, and I just wonder if he perhaps doesn't understand these rules.

Oh, here he is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we can only entertain one point of order at a time. The member for New Westminster….

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests obviously couldn't see, but this House agreed to an early division. You asked for agreement; we agreed. The member for Vancouver Centre was stuck at the door — I saw him.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to have you verify whether or not a proper time lapse occurred between the time of the last vote and the time I left the chamber, because I understand that it was only a couple of minutes, and we normally get considerably more time. In any event, I would like to request that the vote on section 6 be repeated in order that I have an opportunity to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. There is no such provision for the recall of a vote. The subject, I feel, has been well canvassed and now is exhausted. The members of this House should be familiar with the rules and regulations that guide us. Certainly the division bells have between two and five minutes to go between being sounded and having the division taken. If agreement is reached, it is the consensus of the. House that the division can be taken earlier. It is also the responsibility of members to take it upon themselves to be present for the votes taken in the House. On section 7.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question of the minister in charge, if that minister would put up his hand. Is it the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)? The purpose of the fund is to provide for the establishment of B.C. Place. Would the purpose of the fund also include land acquisition?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, this is the first allocation for what will be known as British Columbia Place. Therefore it's not possible to answer yes or no in terms of the specific question you put. I think the member is aware that negotiations are underway with respect to the owners of the land now. This money, in all likelihood, would not be used for that purpose. As you know, we are in the middle of very detailed and complex negotiations.

MR. MACDONALD: On behalf of the government, has the minister committed himself to the purchase of this site of land? I think it is owned by the CPR, perhaps through their Marathon Realty.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I answered the question with respect to the financial matter. I would now refer the member to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who, along with other ministers in other sections of this bill, is seized with more detailed knowledge of the specifics.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to know if the government of the province of British Columbia has committed itself to purchase or acquire the lands now presently held by the CPR or Marathon Realty for the purpose of establishing thereon a B.C. Place.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2999 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, that leads to another question. When you made that commitment on behalf of the people of British Columbia to acquire lands, did you have any idea of the price you would have to pay for the acquisition of said lands?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is an agreement in principle between the owners of the property and the government of the province of British Columbia. The price is to be negotiated, and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's right. The price is to be negotiated. Well, obviously other members want to ask questions; I've answered yours.

MR. MACDONALD: I bought a house once. Do you know what I paid? I paid $10,600. And you rotten guys have assessed it at $166,000 today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's certainly not in Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: No way!

AN HON. MEMBER: No way. You wouldn't want to live there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in Point Grey.

MR. MACDONALD: That's very bad political advice you're trying to give me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't want to live there.

MR. MACDONALD: I bought a house. But, you know, I did a funny thing. Before I committed myself to buy the house, I got the other guy to state the price, because I figured, as a prudent young lawyer coming along and knowing a little bit about business, that if I didn't know the price before I committed myself to buy, I might lose my shirt.

Now we have it from the Minister of Environment…. The Minister of Finance didn't want to answer that question. He kind of thought it might show that the government of businessmen, whom we see over there, are the most incompetent burnblers that this province has ever seen.

Tell me this, Mr. Minister of Environment — the Minister of Finance has ducked a little bit on this thing; the Minister of Human Resources is silent because she has the convention centre, and she has her own problems — if you can't get a negotiated price from the CPR that's satisfactory, is there any way that you can take a federal company and federal lands to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, or are you stuck with their figure? In other words, can they ask what the market will pay, and set that price themselves? Can you take them to arbitration?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Member, I don't think that will be necessary, because we have an agreement in principle between the two. We have jointly agreed to trade appraised-value properties for appraised-value properties.

Interestingly enough, in some cases the appraisal done on some of the properties put up for exchange by the Crown was higher by Marathon than it was by the Crown, and vice versa. Yes, we have an agreement in principle. I can't answer your legal questions. Perhaps you could consult a lawyer and find out what the answer is as to whether or not a federal Crown-owned company can do it.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the minister could give us some of the asking demands of the CPR to exchange the False Creek lands, which, having been rezoned, are pretty expensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are getting a little beyond the scope of section 7.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that section establishes a fund. I'm asking about the purpose of the fund. I don't see how you can have a B.C. Place on False Creek lands owned by the CPR if you don't own the land or get a lease agreement or something.

I have a further question for the Minister of Environment. You talk about an agreement in principle. Is there anything in writing that has been signed by the two parties — that is, by the people of B.C. and Marathon Realty or the CPR — setting out the procedure whereby appraised lands will be exchanged for appraised lands, and how the value of those lands will be set on either side? Is that in writing? If so, will you table it with the House?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, no, Mr. Member, it's not in writing. But it is a very common business practice.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come!

AN HON. MEMBER: There must be a lot of broke businesses.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if you'll do a little research, you'll find that it is quite a common business practice. It would be a little difficult for the province of British Columbia to buy 196 acres in the middle of downtown Vancouver from the Canadian Pacific Railway without telling them what we were going to do with it. We've been frank with them and they've been frank with us. I think when the final analysis comes in you'll find that we have done a good deal. It is still not within the section, however.

MR. MACDONALD: There is nothing common in business about committing yourself to the purchase of land without something in writing regarding the price of that land that you're going to have to pay. Don't tell me that's common business practice. There isn't a company or an individual anywhere in Canada who would commit themselves to purchase some land without any kind of contract as to what they're going to have to pay. There are no powers of expropriation, I wouldn't think, because I don't suppose you can expropriate CPR land. Maybe you can. The Attorney-General might be able to…. Maybe you can take them into expropriation court, but I doubt it.

Here you have committed the people to pay something. Isn't it perfectly obvious that they're going to get more out of this deal than they would be entitled to if you hadn't committed yourself to buy it? They can set their own price, surely.

[ Page 3000 ]

They've got you in a box. You've got to go ahead with the deal, and they'll just say: "We want this." They'll start a shopping list. They'll say: "Well, give us the Peace River country as number one. Then number two on our shopping list: we've had a little trouble with our Fording Coal seams up there. They're beginning to run a little threadbare, and we'd like a little more Kootenay coal." Then they want a site for an office building somewhere else in Penticton.

They have three things there on their list. Their shopping list is in their hands and you have made an incredible blunder in terms of any kind of business sense whatsoever.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister said that they have agreed to property for property on appraised value. Are some of the properties the government is willing to exchange outside the lower mainland?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I discussed this earlier in second reading of the bill, but put up were a number of properties throughout the province, the majority of which are in the lower mainland, some of which Marathon had no interest in, some of which they did have interest in. But we are still in the negotiation stage. We're not over a barrel, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll have the last laugh.

MR. MACDONALD: I have one further short point. When you say you have with the CPR an agreement in principle, there is a statute of frauds in all provinces that says that any agreements relating to land have to be in writing. Your lawyer friends will tell you that. You have no agreement at all relating to lands. Anybody would tell you that. You may not be in the barrel, Mr. Minister, but you and the government are going over the falls on this one. The people of British Columbia are obviously going to pay far more dearly to acquire those False Creek lands than if you had been prudent businessmen in your management of the conduct of this province.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the Minister of Environment how much of that $15 million would be appropriated for environmental impact studies in the False Creek area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I am having some difficulty in relating some of the specifics to the section.

MR. HANSON: What I am trying to get at here is in the preamble, section 7(1): "The purpose of the fund is to provide for the establishment, planning and development of the B.C. Place site." The minister appears to have principal responsibility for coordinating this massive project, and his primary responsibility as Minister of Environment is advocacy for the environment. I am just wondering how much of that $15 million, if any, is going into the impact assessments on those Marathon lands.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't think it would be possible to give you a specific figure at this time, if any at all. I am sure your colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) can inform you that the proposal there is a substantial environmental improvement over the existing situation.

MR. HOWARD: Before you call the question I think it is worthwhile to point out that earlier — if I need to do it by point of order then that's the process I'll follow — an accusation was made by the Premier against the second member for Vancouver Centre to the point that he was a chicken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That is an improper accusation; it is wrong. You can call the member for Vancouver Centre a lot of things but, man, you sure can't call him chicken. Only a turkey would do something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the point raised was certainly not on section 7, and as such could have — and should have-been raised as a point of order, notwithstanding the fact that the point of order could more appropriately have been taken when it was made, and would have been out of order when it was subsequently made.

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the inability of the city of Vancouver to provide very much new land for housing, how much of this land will be set aside for medium- and low-income housing?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's too early to answer that question, although land will be set aside for housing. However, in 1986 there will be a world's fair on the site, so part of the planning at the early stage is to decide — and this is something that's going on right now — what percentage of the land will eventually be made into housing and what percentage of it can possibly be converted into housing ahead of time. Whether or not it's low-income housing will be largely the determination of those agencies which are involved in housing.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

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

[ Page 3001 ]

Section 8 approved.

Section 9 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 10.

MR. BARBER: During second reading I served notice of a number of questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in regard to the standards, criteria and tests that would be applied when proposing expenditures under this fund. If the minister wishes I could restate them all now, but I recall that notes were taken and I wonder if he would care to simply answer those questions at this point. I thought it was fair to give warning, because the questions were of some detail. Some weeks have gone by, and hopefully he has detailed answers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The details of the program will be spelled out in the legislation, which should be before the House shortly.

MR. BARBER: Well, that's not a very helpful reply. What the government proposes to do — perhaps having its usual problem of carts and horses — is ask for the money before they tell us what they're going to do with it; to ask for the funds before they tell us precisely how they will be allocated. Ordinarily prudent governments do it the other way around, but apparently this government has chosen not to be prudent. I wonder if the minister could give in some explanatory detail, before the legislation comes in and before we pass this section, an indication of what his government proposes to do.

I would observe that as usual there's a bit of a double standard here. We anticipate that the consequence of this bill — a useful one — will be to make moneys available to private enterprise in the otherwise decaying cores of certain urban communities in British Columbia to allow them to rebuild their facilities and to allow the community to rebuild the business core of its downtown. That's a good thing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The double standard is the usual one. In British Columbia, when we give money to human beings we call it welfare and people who receive it are sneered at. When we give money to business we never, ever call it welfare. Instead we call it non-interest-bearing forgivable loans, or we perhaps call it the downtown revitalization plan. What I'm concerned about is that through this measure and many others we put an end to that sneering and basically contemptuous double standard. Many people recognize that it is a worthwhile thing that from time to time the public make investments in private enterprise via non-interest-bearing forgivable loans, say. That's fair; when there's a good reason and a good cause we don't object. What we do observe, though, is that here, as on many other occasions, the government appears to be creating an instrument whereby the Crown will make moneys available to private business for free.

When we do that for human beings we call it welfare, and people don't like that. I remember some people opposite attacking previous administrations for making investments in human beings — which is called welfare — and thumbing their noses at it. Well, if it's good enough for human beings and good enough for businesses, why don't we stop calling it welfare and start describing it as we should, which is legitimate public investment in individuals personal and corporate?

This section proposes, it would appear, to make public investments in individuals corporate — that's private business — in the downtown sections of decaying urban communities. That's a good thing, or at least so it appears, although the detail, to say the least, is sparse, scanty and spare. It's not a good thing that the minister is unable to answer these questions at this time. It would be a better thing, were the government's house in better order, that we had that legislation first and the expending authority second. It would be, I think, a lot more appropriate a course for this Legislature to be told the details first and to be asked for the money second. Social Credit chooses to do it the other way around: they want the money first and they'll give us the details second — maybe.

We haven't seen the bill yet, or at least the drafts of it we may have seen might not be what's coming down. However, we continue to rely on brown envelopes, as usual, to tell us what the government won't tell us. As far as I can tell from the information we have received, the government proposes to make public investments in the private sector here.

Let me say again we support the bill at hand and just called a division in order to demonstrate our support. But under section 10 the government wants us to commit moneys to a program which so far they will not detail in its execution or in its application. This is precisely the wrong way round. It is precisely the incorrect way to do the public's business.

There is as well that question of the usual double standard which applies. We give money away to business and we think it's good business to do so. No one would ever dare suggest that was welfare for business, but it is in fact, or at least it is to the same extent as when we give money to human beings, and we call that welfare. I resent the double standard, and I ask the government to take this opportunity to begin to correct that double standard.

As well, I ask the government when they are prepared to bring this legislation down in order that we can have the questions we asked a long time ago answered at the earliest opportunity.

For the sake of the record — because apparently the minister won't answer — let me briefly restate what they were. We want to know what tests, standards and criteria will be applied when applications are made for funds under this. We want to know whether or not private corporations are entitled — as it would appear they would be — to make requests for moneys from this fund. The specific language here in section 10 says: "The purpose of the fund is to grant aid to municipalities and the business community to revitalize downtown areas." Does that mean that individual grants will be made to individual businesses, or rather will general grants be made to associations of businesses that, say, propose jointly, in collaboration with the municipality, to build a mall?

One thinks, for instance, of the outstanding work done in the community of Kimberley, where they established, by virtue of local initiative and with local moneys, a Bavarian theme now reflected in local architecture in downtown Kimberley. They did a good job.

[ Page 3002 ]

If it is the government's intention to award grants — which some might call welfare — to business for these purposes, will these grants be made available to individual businesses or, instead, to new corporations that might be created to assist all of the businesses generally, via malls or other enterprises, to clean up a downtown area and make it attractive again for shoppers and tourists alike and successful for small businesses?

It would be better if you could tell us that now before you ask for the money. If we tried to do it this way, this Social Credit opposition would have screamed blue murder about it. If we ever brought in a bill that said, "Give us the money first and we'll tell you about the spending second," they would have ranted and roared from the rooftops, as was their wont. But now they're the government and not the opposition, so they think it's okay. There's one more double standard from the coalition opposite. Apparently where they sit now tells us where they really stood all along. They want to do it their way no matter what. That's not good enough for the public business. It doesn't represent the correct public interest and it doesn't help the public of British Columbia determine whether or not the moneys that we propose to vote through this Legislature will be spent properly without the influence of party politics, pork-barrelling and all of the other things that have been traditionally associated with Social Credit in this province.

If there are protections against that, let's hear what they are. If there are provisions in legislation, let's know them now. If you have a bill, bring it down now. If you want to ask leave to introduce it now, we'll grant leave. But if you're not prepared — if your legislative house is not in order, if your business is not ready to go — at least tell us that plainly. And tell us, as well, why it is you want this money before you're prepared to indicate precisely how you propose to spend it. What the opposition wants to know are the tests, standards, criteria, guidelines and all of the other things that we have a right to know and you have an obligation to tell us, which would advise business and local government alike what the application procedure will be in every practical detail. These are reasonable questions. We served notice last month that we felt it necessary to have these questions answered. Last month the government knew we had these questions and this month they still have no answers; this month we're now told they're going to have a special bill.

Your house is not in order legislatively. If it were, you wouldn't bring this procedure in following this order. If the government's now prepared to reconsider, we'd like to hear it. How will the money be spent, by whom, with what guidelines attached and with what standards to be met? Those are fair questions. If we had done it this way in government, you would now be legitimately asking these same questions of us and be similarly discontent — as we are with you in regard to this whole procedure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, occasionally the member opposite, the first member for Victoria, gets a little carried away. This is an appropriation bill. It is not unusual — and it was not unusual in the years 1972-75 — for specific sums to be allocated for specific purposes and legislation to follow later. The government's house is in order, Mr. Member — your speech to the contrary notwithstanding. The bill will appear in due course. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated that. There is ample evidence over the years that at the beginning of a session — and every member of this House knows when this bill was introduced; it's been here for quite some time — the money is appropriated. The spending authority, however, will flow in many instances — and this is one of those cases — from legislation that comes to this House for debate. I do suggest that we are allocating here, and I think that the debate should be restricted to that allocation rather than to many of the points raised by the member who took his seat.

MR. HYNDMAN: Very briefly, since the Minister of Municipal Affairs is referred to in this section, I would like to take this chance to flag for his attention and for the attention of his ministry a point of view on this most worthwhile section, which affects a significant portion of the city of Vancouver. My concern is that in planning for the framework for carrying out the program this area of the city of Vancouver may inadvertently be overlooked. The section refers to downtown revitalization. Most certainly the absolute downtown core of Vancouver has been revitalized, but the peripheral core of the city of Vancouver and small business in that area have suffered much in the same way as the smaller communities around the province from the competition from the development of suburban shopping centres. I refer, for example, to the small businesses located along Victoria Drive, Fraser Street, Main Street, Commercial Drive and in the Marpole area of Vancouver. These are areas which classically exemplify the same kind of problem which the bill seeks to address. I therefore urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as the framework is planned to put this section 1nto operation, to please bear in mind these parts of the city of Vancouver and hopefully provide that they may qualify for application and for assistance.

For example, the Victoria Drive Merchants' Association has just been formed by a committee of small businesses and merchants along Victoria Drive who hope to revitalize that part of Victoria Drive along which their businesses and shops are located. They are going to need help. They have suffered from the same kind of difficulty as smaller communities around the province. I think the spirit of the legislation is well met by, their needs, and I hope their needs will be borne in mind so that in principle small business and the peripheral core of the city of Vancouver may qualify for the program.

MR. LORIMER: The Minister of Finance stated that during the period of the New Democratic Party government this was a common practice — expropriating money and then bringing out money to decide what the authority and purpose of those performances were to be. I would certainly like the minister to give me one example of such an appropriation with the act following. It would seem to me that sections 8, 9 and 10 of the bill under discussion at the moment are not necessary if there is further legislation to come forward. Those matters should be in that bill so that everyone in the House will know what the purpose of the funds is, with some detail. If there is an example of such an appropriation I would certainly like to hear it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to answer some of the questions in order. Speaking to the point raised by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I think it should be remembered that the moneys appropriated here are moneys that have accumulated to the people of British Columbia because of good management, moneys that were left to

[ Page 3003 ]

government because we had a surplus. To ask for examples from a time during which a government had nothing but deficits is certainly rather difficult. Unlike this government, which has a surplus, they ran up major deficits which we still, of course, have to pay off, which is still a burden to the people of British Columbia.

Also now speaking to the points raised by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), yes, we will be considering applications from all areas of the province, though it is the intent that this program be there to assist as much as possible the downtown cores in the smaller communities. It does not preclude such areas as suggested worthy of consideration by the member for Vancouver South.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) constantly mentioned welfare. Frankly I think he should be told, if he doesn't already know, that the people of British Columbia do not object to the word "welfare." They object to the abuse of welfare. You constantly repeated the word "welfare" as if the word itself was objectionable to people. It is the abuse of it. This is not a welfare program. The people in these downtown core areas are, by and large, the small business people who were the first to settle there; those who came and pioneered, who built when the area was only just developing, who stuck it out through thick and thin. When the shopping centres began to develop on the outside, on the fringes — sometimes a mile or several miles from the downtown core — it became tougher and tougher for them. These people who had pioneered, who had started the business in that community, were finding it more and more difficult to compete with those shopping centres, and this is where we want to assist; this is intent of the program, to assist the small business community.

I'm very pleased that though perhaps the members opposite, while they were in government — a number of them — weren't able to introduce any such program or to show any leadership in attempting to provide assists to the small business community, they are now at least prepared to support the appropriation of these funds to make this downtown revitalization program a reality. I commend them for that; I'm pleased that they are supportive of appropriating these funds for that purpose.

I think they should be made aware as well that people throughout British Columbia — and I have visited a number of these communities.... I'm glad to see the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) coming to the House, because I think he, of all people, should be grateful to this government in British Columbia for having introduced a tremendous program of a similar nature for the city of New Westminster, a program which is being hailed by all people in New Westminster as a tremendous move forward in revitalizing a town, our first capital city, which definitely was in need of this sort of effort. We as a government have made it possible; we met with the business community only a week ago and they all — one after another — expressed their appreciation for the progress which is being made in the city of New Westminster. I was sorry that I did not see the member for New Westminster there at that time, but I guess perhaps his place of residence may be here. However, I'm sure that he would have to be supportive of that program for the city that he represents.

We've had tremendous response from the people in North Vancouver for having introduced a revitalization program in North Vancouver through the Lonsdale Quay — a program which has been tremendously well received and which once more will provide a tremendous lift to an otherwise old downtown area which needs that type of assistance. Just a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Whistler, and Whistler is a thriving area once again because we were prepared to introduce unique legislation which would make things happen for a destination resort.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, we've seen ample evidence of this government wanting to move in a variety of directions to assist the small business community. I think what we have here in the downtown revitalization program is an exciting program. It's not a welfare program; it's one of helping people to help themselves, of providing the tools to the small business community in that downtown centre so they can make the place vibrant, alive and attractive for all the people in that community. We will be assisting in that way those small businesses; we will similarly assist the municipalities. Naturally the municipalities will need the assistance because there will be some changes required to public facilities, to streets, to sidewalks, to various small park areas — all of this to make the downtown core a more attractive area.

We will set forth the details of it in the legislation; we definitely and obviously require this appropriation. I as the Minister of Municipal Affairs am grateful that past Social Credit governments during the last number of years have been able to make this possible. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the details will be provided in the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Mr, Chairman, I think we should point out that the matter of practice with respect to the appropriation bill was raised by the Minister of Finance, who said that it was the practice when the NDP were government to bring in legislation to appropriate and then follow it up afterwards with the details of the legislation. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs asked him to cite an instance of that. He said, "Give us an example," which prompted the current Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to take off on this mythological declaration about deficits. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the NDP did nothing but run up deficits. That is not a true statement. There were no deficits created when the NDP were government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, so long as that government insists on putting forward that blatant distortion of fact, other people have got to rise and put the record straight. The deficit that existed existed as a result of manipulation of finances by this government and by the former Minister of Finance. The former Minister of Finance created a fictitious situation, and then he labelled it as debt created....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The only person who is broke is you, and you're mentally broke.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I'll have to ask you to withdraw that last remark.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly I'll withdraw it. I wish you would also ask the former Attorney-General to pay attention to the rules as well.

[ Page 3004 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask all members to maintain dignity and courtesy in debate. The Table is aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs did make some comments that didn't really relate to section 10, but the minister did quickly return to the debate. With that said, I would ask the member for Skeena, if he wishes to debate further, to get back to section 10.

MR. HOWARD: All we're trying to do is to make sure that the record is balanced and that the myth created and perpetuated by the Social Credit government is answered in a factual way. As long as it's raised, it will have to be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 10, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Under section 10, I wonder if the minister could tell me whether a population limit is considered in the availability of funds with respect to municipalities. If there is one, what is that population limit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it's the intent of the ministry to devise a means whereby we would assist, firstly, the smaller communities. We obviously have no limit in mind as to how large a number or how small a number. We would receive applications from all municipalities. But we would hope to assist wherever possible, firstly, the smaller communities. It should be recognized as well that a city like Vancouver or Victoria could soon take up the whole of the amount if they were the first in line. So we would want to make it available firstly to the smaller communities. The member who asked the question has a number of those communities in his constituency, one of which received assistance by other means in upgrading the downtown street. So it's those types of communities that we would hope to assist first.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the Minister of Municipal Affairs' discussion with respect to New Westminster as it refers to this particular section. The minister said we should be grateful, I should be grateful and everybody should be grateful for all of this fine work that's going on in the downtown section of New Westminster. I would just like to draw to his attention the fact that ICBC was moving into the downtown section of New Westminster, which would have been the catalyst for the downtown regeneration, and that government stopped it. Five years later, with a little deathbed repentance and a good deal of hypocrisy, we hear these kinds of statements coming out. The fact of the matter is that the announcement last week from the minister was about development.... It's still hypothetical; it's still at the drawing-board stage. We were ready to go with that. There was only one reason that was stopped.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You ran out of money.

MR. COCKE: We didn't run out of money at all; he knows that. It was an ICBC development. Now they're moving it over to North Vancouver. They didn't want it down there because it was an NDP suggestion. But let me draw to the attention of that person, who was on the GVRD at one time and closely associated with the municipal governments in the lower mainland, that there was 100 percent support for that as the catalyst for the downtown development. That, along with the courthouse and the B.C. building, which I haven't heard anything about since, would have been the absolute regeneration incarnate right there, as far as I'm concerned. Now we get this, which is still taking place. Sure, I suggest it's better than nothing, and I'm going to vote for it — I've already voted for the appropriation. But I don't like to listen to the kind of discussion in this House that doesn't lead us anywhere.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to say that I support the principle of this. I think it is disappointing that, with all the time and with the experience in other provinces to go by in terms of programs, things are not really ready right now.

I would urge the minister who will be implementing the expenditure of these funds to consider, as one of the highest priorities, areas which have recently had a monkey-wrench thrown into the economic welfare of the retail industry by acquiring a new shopping centre. I'm thinking of Nelson, Creston, and perhaps Nanaimo — other places where shopping centres have created a real threat to the downtown areas. That's why I support this bill, but I would urge the minister to give communities such as those the absolutely highest priority — ones that are going to be going through this shock. The shopping centre in Nelson is not yet open, nor the one in Creston, for instance, in my area, nor in many other parts of the province. I think we have to move as rapidly as possible.

If it could assist the minister, I would send him my one and only copy of the guide to the Saskatchewan Main Street Development Program. The act in Saskatchewan was assented to on May 26, 1978, and they've been underway with this program. I would hope that the minister's people are in contact with them so that they can benefit by the experience of two years in Saskatchewan. There is also the pamphlet put out under the same program, "Facts For Business People." There's also a pamphlet which promotes and explains the program in more detail. If the minister is interested, I would certainly be willing to lend him my only copy of this.

I would hope that it would assist in really getting something going, because the thing should be happening this summer. There has been a sudden explosion of shopping centres in villages, towns and cities. It is creating a very urgent need for downtown revitalization programs that will enable us to adjust and rehabilitate downtowns so that they will be at least truly competitive with the shopping centres, which enjoy certain other advantages and, I think, actually just tend to skim the economic lifeblood of a small community.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 12 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 13 and 14 approved. On section 15.

MR. COCKE: This is the section that provides some funding for the Fraser River crossing that was one of the planks in the platform of the Chairman and Deputy Speaker

[ Page 3005 ]

of the House. I'm not going to make any value judgments with respect to his position.

This Fraser River crossing comes into New Westminster at the extreme west end of our town. It has now, I believe, successfully strangled our town, in prospect. The east end of our town is ganged up on by the Port Mann Bridge, the central part of our town is destroyed by the Pattullo Bridge in terms of traffic, and now we're going to have the same thing on the west side of our town, as the appropriation would indicate. I am very sad.

I have noticed that there have been some minor changes with respect to the way they're approaching Queensborough. I still say that while they can possibly come up with some repair there, it is very difficult for me to see how they can get beyond Queensborough to the west end of our town and create anything but havoc. Havoc we will have as a result of that Annacis Island crossing.

MR. HALL: I have been looking at this particular part of this bill for a long time — as I'm sure many members in the House would appreciate — coming from the largest riding in terms of numbers in the province and a riding which has got as many traffic problems as any and more than most.

It is a measure that on the face of it has some easement and some relief for the good citizens who sent both the first and second members for Surrey here. When it was first introduced and when it was debated, as it has been debated on and off for weeks, two members and three members at a time, I was always about to be the next speaker. Then the bill was adjourned for further debate on second reading until some time in the future, and I found upon my late arrival yesterday, having been delayed in my own riding in Surrey — not, I should add, on a bridge or in a tunnel, but delayed by constituency work — that the second reading had taken place. As I mentioned, I think, probably in an out-of-order fashion, had I been here yesterday I would have voted against the principle of the bill.

I have been asked by members opposite in, I think, more than joking style where I stood on this bill. My colleague the first member for Surrey has seen fit to remark not once but twice or three times that he's waiting to hear what I've got to say about the bill. I wish I could be as interested in what other people have got to say about the bill as he is about what I've got to say about it. But be that as it may, I'm going to tell people that I am going to vote against this section, because I don't think that the design for traffic relief in my riding that is contemplated by the government is going to seize the success the government wants it to seize.

It was brought to my attention that the first member for Surrey, in his speech in the House, said that he was curious to know what I was going to say and then he went on to answer his own curiosity by making up what I had to say. That seems to me to be a little unfair. I can make my own mistakes without anybody else making them for me.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: You've noticed that? I'll tell you, the member should be more careful, otherwise he's going to get hit in the pocket-book like he does so frequently when he does those kinds of things.

He said, in fact — I've got the Blues here — that I hadn't said a great deal about the Annacis Island bridge, although recently I'd put forward an article which I'd mailed to a number of people, and in it I stated I was not in support of the Annacis Island bridge but on the other hand I was not against it either. The article I mailed out was my constituency report. I said that local issues of overcrowding and properly planned LRT involvement in third-crossing designs, etc.... That's the only reference I've got to the Annacis Island in my article, so my colleague the first member really doesn't put accuracy on the record when he talks like that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that your high school graduation picture there on the cover of that?

MR. HALL: No, no, that was taken just a few years ago — about 1975, to be exact. That's not bad going for most politicians. I think yours is about 1972; I think it was on your eighth trip to the U.K. or something like that.

I would like to go on about this crossing and tell you that if the crossing had been received with more favour by those who have to deal with the day-to-day problems of traffic, planning and development in the Surrey-Delta area I might have been persuaded to have considered supporting the proposal more strongly than I did when it was first put forward. The receipt of the proposal was marked, I thought rather interestingly enough, by wonderment from the Greater Vancouver Regional District; both the board chairman and the mayor of Vancouver said that it would have been fine had there been more cooperation. It seems to me that to start off a project of this magnitude, to start off a project that is supposed to solve the transportation and transit difficulties of that area, the fastest-growing area in the lower mainland, damning it with the kind of faint praise and non-cooperative stigma that both Alan Emmett and Mayor Volrich have already attached to the proposal is hardly an auspicious launching of such a project.

The second thing is that there appears to be an intransigence on the part of the government to move that third crossing anywhere other than where they're going to put it: that is at Annacis Island. Had they been flexible, had the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or other influential members of the government — the really influential members of the government like the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) — been able to suggest that that crossing be anywhere else but where it is, I might have gone along with the proposal. Had, in fact, the wording of section 6 had some escape clause that that crossing could have been anywhere in the lower Fraser River area from, say, the Port Mann Bridge to the far western shores of Annacis Island, I might have been able to support it. But to anchor it once and for all on that particular area is the worst possible choice of all.

It's because of that intransigence, and the impact and the power of the people who've chosen that particular site, that I can't support that particular third crossing. I happen to be one member who believes there's got to be a third crossing of the Fraser River, which has got to take place at the location recommended by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, with priority for light rapid public transportation first of all. But the bridge designed to calm political waters, to save political careers, to serve 30,000 people instead of 130,000 people and to serve rubber-tired traffic is not going to solve the situation.

What's happened since that announcement of Annacis Island? We've had every single municipal council — New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta and Surrey — all

[ Page 3006 ]

split right down the middle on that proposal. Not one municipal council is unanimous in its support of that proposal. Already the liaison committee is trying to deal with access routes. North and south ends of that proposal are now bedevilled by citizens' groups and their own inability to deal with where those access routes should go. For instance, in my riding and your riding, Mr. Chairman, if you take the east-west feeder routes of 60th, 64th, 80th, 84th, 88th, 90th and 96th, we know that every single one of those has gots its proponents and its opponents. It doesn't make any sense at all to make some of them feeder routes for that bridge. The ones that Delta wants are the ones that Surrey doesn't want. The ones that Surrey wants are the ones that Delta doesn't want.

The ones that Surrey doesn't want are the ones that have Surrey schools. One, indeed, Mr. Chairman, you will remember from your representation of this part of town. There are four schools that you and I share on 88th Avenue on the east and west sides of Scott Road. One of the largest recreational complexes in British Columbia is on one of the suggested feeder routes. I've seen you officiate there at ribbon-cutting ceremonies. I've seen you munch the odd hot dog with a beauty queen or two. I've managed sometimes to get to present a trophy before you got there, and I've oftentimes beaten out the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in a tug of war, which is not too difficult when you're my size.

You and I, being familiar with the area south of the river, know that some of those access routes are going to be the death of some politicians down there. You think that you've escaped that death by insisting it be on Annacis Island, and I want to suggest to the member for Delta — if I may now start using that personal way of addressing you — that I think you've made a grievous error. Look at the recent liaison meeting between Surrey and Delta, in which no agreement could be made about feeder routes and schools on 88th Avenue.

The trouble is seeking to understand the concept behind the announcement. The constituents who write to me are all pointing out — and I speak now to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, through you — that all my colleagues and constituents would love the bridge where it is if they could be assured that nobody from Surrey would drive over that bridge. My constituents would love it if everybody from Delta would promise not to go over it first. My friends on these benches from Burnaby and New Westminster would love the bridge, provided nobody from the south side went over it and they could use it to get out on weekends — southwards only.

That's the whole point: it isn't serving any one of those functions properly. All it's going to do to my good friends of the IWA who work in the mills along the Fraser River, on shift work and so on, is just make them sit in gas-consuming, fuming traffic jams in a place slightly different from where they're sitting, gas-consuming and fuming in traffic jams now. That's the trouble. That's why I can't support this section. I know that there are going to be people who are going to be writing to me saying: "What on earth are you doing? Have you ever driven from White Rock through the Deas Island Tunnel at such-and-such a time?" And the answer is: "No, I haven't. " But I've driven through the Deas Island Tunnel every single conceivable time of the day and night. Last Friday afternoon I got caught up in traffic jams on the 401. I've been in traffic jams going to the airport; I've been in traffic jams coming from Surrey, from South Delta, from North Delta. I know what the traffic jams are like, but putting up another vehicular-serving bridge isn't going to do those traffic jams one little bit of good. That's why I'm opposing it.

I don't think it's a plot by the other side; I think it's a piece of stupidity on the other side to put cars in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's just that I don't think you thought this out, and it won't work. It simply won't work. Anything that is going to be that unsuccessful and anything that sets back the rapid onset of our total commitment to light rapid transit, to a fully integrated transit plan, to getting on with completing the work started by my colleague for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs and putting buses on the roads.... I remember that well, as the member for Surrey and many other members remember, that there was nothing in Surrey at all before 1972 in the way of buses. Anything that stops that happening is going to stop the progress in these communities of Surrey, Delta and Richmond and along the Fraser Valley, and then, of course, on the other side of the Fraser River too. And that's why I can't support this section.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at some length regarding these particular sections during second reading some weeks ago, and I gave some solutions to the minister as to the way to solve the serious problem that is there with stranded vehicles and so on. I'm surprised that the minister hasn't taken my advice and has not proceeded with these particular sections. The big problem here is that the solution proposed is not going to work, as my colleague has said. It can't work; all it will do is move the bottlenecks in the vehicle traffic from one area to another. As far as people from Delta or Surrey getting downtown or home again in the busy hours, this will make, in my opinion, no difference or very, very little difference — certainly not enough difference to warrant the expenditures of the funds that are being allocated.

The only solution, in my opinion, is to have a sophisticated transit system to serve the people in the lower mainland in order to move the people quickly and efficiently. You can build as many bridges as you want, but unless you have a street network to look after the automobiles when they cross those bridges, then the bridge itself is of no value. There have to be systems. If you're going to take an automobile or a freeway solution, which I don't support in any way.... But what you're doing here, it seems to me, is supporting it halfway. You're building bridges, but there are no networks. As a result the tie-up of traffic will be removed — to a degree, not to any great extent, but some of it will come out of the Deas Tunnel — into Westminster, into Burnaby, into South Vancouver. There will be bottlenecks throughout and certainly that will be no solution and, in my opinion, will not solve the problems that the minister is trying to solve.

It's my opinion that this bridge, if it's ever built — and I hope it isn't — will be known as "Fraser's Folly," the reason being that after the cutting of ribbons — that will be the last cheer — there will be no benefits at all to those people in Delta and Surrey, those who are anticipating great improvement in their transit services.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to now try to attempt to answer the questions and concerns of the members and give Highways' side of Annacis. I'll have to capsule it, because it's a long story. I believe that when the present member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was the minister

[ Page 3007 ]

in the prior government, he commissioned a detailed study of what to do about the bottleneck in the lower mainland. They came up with what we're talking about today, the Annacis Island crossing, to relieve the bottleneck. We have on the lower mainland three major structures in this area of the Fraser River: the Port Mann Bridge, the Pattullo Bridge and the Massey Tunnel. They're all at or over capacity now and expanding fast. But anyway, we dusted the consultants' report off and we had the present engineers in the ministry — along with the ones who were there then — make revisions and updates of the consultants' report. The government wanted to do something about solving the bottleneck where the great majority of the citizens of British Columbia live. We accepted their advice and that is what we have in the bill here — to start doing something about it.

First of all, regarding transit, I would like to inform the House that the structure part of the Annacis crossing is a four-lane structure expandable to six lanes. When that time comes, following the construction of the bridge, the people can then decide whether they want to put transit on there or expand it for vehicles. My personal opinion is that they'll come to the conclusion that we have six lanes for vehicles. I am saying that I don't think transit will go on the expandable bridge, for the simple reason that some of the members over there have mentioned: you have to have feeder lines for transit as well and the bridge wouldn't fit into that. This is my opinion.

What we think we can do for that general area is put transit on the existing Pattullo Bridge. The engineers looked at that once. They got the wrong advice from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, because it told them it wanted expandable lanes on the bridge plus transit. They went along on that study and found out that wasn't feasible. In other words, what I am saying is that they should never have looked in the first feasibility study at doing that to the old Pattullo Bridge. It is a different type of concrete in the piers, that can't be worked on today. But the senior engineers did come up and say: "While we probably can't accommodate extra lanes for automobiles and transit, we think we can put transit on the Pattullo Bridge." That's where that is at. I expect to hear any time that it's feasible to get transit across the river on the existing Pattullo Bridge.

I want to deal just for a minute with all the gossip that's been flying around — not from MLAs of any party, but from planners in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and not even elected people — about the day the Premier announced that we would go ahead with this large project. They structured the press the day before; they wanted a crossing for transit upstream from the Pattullo Bridge in the area of the existing penitentiary site. Of all the ridiculous things that any engineer has ever heard, that is the one.... But it made a front-page story in the Vancouver Sun, the Province, the television and the whole works. We were quite concerned. We checked back with the elected people of Greater Vancouver Regional District to see if this was their suggestion to get across the Fraser River, and of course it wasn't at all. It was one of their planners. They had no part of it.

Why was that upsetting? Well, it's not feasible at all for the simple reason that you will destroy both sides of the river for rapid transit access to that bridge. I am well aware, just as you, Mr. Chairman, and all other members here are, that we can't build a structure without getting proper access to that structure. Getting access to the structure is a bigger problem than building it in compounded areas of the lower mainland — wherever you have a dense population. A lot of us try to conveniently forget that, but the fact is, we have to build the access to structures on ground. If it happens to be that there are houses in the way and commercial enterprises and that, then we have to make some decisions in the public interest. That is what has happened here, and this Annacis has been taken with a lot of this thought in mind — to impact on the fewest number of citizens in the lower mainland, whether it be on the north or the south side of the Fraser River. All the experts we could get our hands on — planners, engineers, and so on and so forth....

I hope I have stated the government's position to a degree, regarding rapid transit to get across the Fraser River. I want to emphasize that. I suggest that rather than all the debate that's going on locally, they'd better sit down and decide to start building rapid transit. The government isn't holding them up. They're just sitting around and arguing with each other, the north and the south of the river. It is about time they made some decisions. We've got money in this bill to help fund it. Where are all the decisions being made?

Now I'd like to deal with the municipalities that are affected by the Annacis crossing. I want to make one thing very clear that has not been said. The Greater Vancouver Regional District have a plan for transportation corridors, and the Annacis crossing was in that plan. Don't forget that. You can talk all you like about discussion, but it was in their own plan. That's where they wanted it and that's where it's going.

Now we are getting into the arguments from the individual municipalities, how it's going to impact on them. I accept that; the government accepts that. We've got meetings going on night and day with them all to try to rationalize that point: That is, how it impacts when our engineers say this is where the right-of-way has got to be; we have to locate the structure of the bridge and therefore the approaches to it, and this is how it will impact on Surrey, Delta, Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and you name it. Discussions are going on at staff level and at council level; and you're right, the councils are split. Maybe that's a healthy sign. I don't think that the government will ever get unanimous votes from the councils, but I will certainly hope for, and I'm sure we will get, a majority vote. But to make a point about a unanimous vote I think is stretching it a bit.

Anyway, that's where we are regarding that and the discussions that are going on. I want now to address a few things that were brought up.

The first thing in the overall discussion is that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is trying to make a point that the Annacis crossing is going to destroy the fine old city of New Westminster. Well, that's absolute rubbish. The city of New Westminster is now destroyed. That's what he should be saying, because you go there now and see the traffic that's backed up on their main streets to try to get back and forth across the Pattullo Bridge. Just take a look at it. Go there today. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs. He should go over there and see what traffic problems are. They haven't got any like that over here, I'll tell you. Go and have a look. And don't ride a bicycle; drive a car. Find out.

What I want to say in answer to the member for New Westminster is that the Annacis crossing will assist the city of New Westminster to relieve the mess they're in right now. It'll take 25 percent of the traffic off the Pattullo Bridge and put it on the Annacis. To connect with that side we are

[ Page 3008 ]

building the Marine Way, which nobody mentions. We're making that four lanes right through from New Westminster right back to where the great city of Vancouver's had it four-lane. In other words, the Mickey Mouse setup you've had there for 100 years and nobody's done anything about it — we're going to make it, and the road is half built at the present time. So that's the connection we're going to make there.

Regarding that part and into Burnaby, the Burnaby people and the Vancouver council are now building Boundary Road with our money — not their money, with provincial government money. They're building that so it will tie into Kingsway and so on. So the overall pattern is there. I got onto the subject because of the questions from the member for New Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) are quite amazing. If there's any riding that the Annacis structure will help, it is the riding that he has the honour to represent. He's going to stand here and oppose it, and vote against it; I don't know how. Everyone's entitled to arrive at his own decisions, but I'm sure he'll regret that decision.

He makes the point that he knows better where to locate this large structure than the specialists do. That's really what he said.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm talking specialists — engineers. There have been hundreds of them. They're the ones that decided where to cross the river to have the least impact on the communities involved and the biggest assistance. So that's my answer to the second member for Surrey. I appreciate his observations, but they're contrary to all the engineering facts that have been made about the crossing.

Regarding the feeder routes, I would like to just expand a little on those planned. None of those feeder routes on the south side of the river have been definitely established. But we're dealing with all the affected municipalities: Delta — Mr. Chairman, I think you know something about that area — and Surrey.

Going right back again to what I said earlier, we can't build a major structure without having access to it and having everybody bottlenecked into it. I personally certainly want to see as much access as possible, with the minimum impact on the area. But I want to tell the Legislature that it's not possible to access a large facility like this without impacting on somebody. What I'm saying is that we're doing our utmost with our engineers in dealing with the councils to lessen the impact on the greatest number of people; we're working on that. I think it's going to take all the balance of this year before firm decisions are made. There's no argument about some of the accesses; some are very argumentive. That's where we are there.

I think so far I'm enjoying this debate. I've answered some of the questions about it. I've cleared up some misconceptions. I wish you'd just stay to the facts of whom you are quoting and so on; that would help a lot. Thank you for listening.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just informed us that he is giving serious consideration to putting a transit route on the Pattullo Bridge. All we're saying to the minister is: do that first. What we're asking for is that a commitment to transit be honoured first. It is quite possible, having done that, that the folly of the Annacis crossing will become evident, and that the minister will then be prepared to reconsider his decision on that Annacis crossing, and that even the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) will agree to withdraw his threat to resign unless the Annacis crossing goes through. If the minister is doing a feasibility study on putting transit onto the Pattullo Bridge...

HON. MR. FRASER: That's been public knowledge for a year.

MS. BROWN: ...and if the engineers are saying it can be done, then do it. All we're saying is that the first commitment should be to transit, not to the automobile. This is not going to solve the congestion which the minister is describing and which all of us are very well aware of. It's not going to solve it. If there was any idea that expending this $30 million would result in a solution to that kind of congestion, the response of all the municipal governments, as well as their representatives sitting here, would be quite different, but it's going to exacerbate the problem; it's going to make it worse. On top of that, it's going to be destroying neighbourhoods, and it's going to be affecting the lives of people who live where these feeder routes are that the minister is talking about.

So if there is a study being done.... The minister said that it's been public knowledge for a long time. If now the engineers have said that it can be put onto the Pattullo Bridge if you don't want the expanded roadways for cars as well, do that. It's not too late to amend this piece of legislation, to have that $30 million go into the development of that transit route on the Pattullo Bridge instead of at the Annacis crossing. It's your priorities, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that are at issue here — this government's continual priority to the automobile.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a 1950s government, Rosemary. They're in the wrong century.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Everywhere else in the world people are beginning to recognize that the commitment to the automobile is a suicidal one in terms of its use of energy, its polluting of the environment, and the fact that it's not solving the problem of moving people from one place to another. By the time this government finds out that this is what's happening, we will already have destroyed one more area of the province by putting up this bridge, which is simply going to be moving the congestion from point A to point B.

The minister stands up and brags about Marine Way; he's so proud of it. That little Mickey Mouse road — he says it's going to be a marvellous four-lane road going from New Westminster to Vancouver. But you forgot to add that it's going across some of the best and most arable land in this province; it's some of the last remaining arable land. So you can brag about a four-lane highway. Once again there's your commitment to the automobile. The minister said that's where it's going to go, and that's where it's going to go. If there happen to be houses and people in the way, it's too bad about them; they're just going to have to move.

There was no consultation with the people living in that area — none whatsoever. Letters were written to the minister's department — no response. They were told: "It's under advisement; it's going to be studied."

[ Page 3009 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Careful now, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: "It's under advisement; it's under study." That's what the response that came from your department said. But there was no meeting with those people. There was no discussion with those people who live in the areas of South Burnaby and East Burnaby. There was no meeting with them, no discussion with them. Even the GVRD, who you claim already had it in their transit plans, were not even allowed the courtesy of sitting down and discussing it with you. The GVRD says that there was no discussion with you on that decision. A unilateral decision was made.

The minister said that it's never going to be possible to get a unanimous decision from a council on this. If the commitment is to transit first, there will be a unanimous decision on that. That's what the councils are saying: let's have a commitment to transit first. The councils are light years ahead of this government. The councils recognize what the automobile is doing to their municipalities. They've been trying to get the government to move into the twenty-first century and to recognize that.

It's going to destroy those neighbourhoods. The traffic coming off that crossing where the bottlenecks are destroys their neighbourhoods. The councils recognize that and the councils are asking for a commitment to transit first. Try transit for a change. Give it a chance. Get going on transit. Take this $30 million out of here and commit it to getting that transit route built onto the Pattullo Bridge. It's not too late to move an amendment. I'll second it and vote for it, too. That is what they are asking for — the people living in those areas as well as the councils, the elected representatives and the so-called planners who the minister says are gossiping. When planners talk about planning, that is gossiping. You said gossiping. You wanted to put an end to the gossip the planners are spreading. Make the commitment to transit first.

Amend this piece of legislation. It's not too late to do that. At least sit down before any final decisions are made and speak to some of the people whose neighbourhoods are going to be destroyed as a result of this unilateral decision by you and your government. Those people in east and south Burnaby are entitled to some kind of courtesy from this government. They have made their views known to the minister and the least the minister should be able to do is to sit down and speak with them. The view they have made known to the minister is that they want a commitment to transit rather than to the automobile because they recognize that building more roads, more freeways and more bridges is not going to solve the problem of transportation. We've got to start looking at different alternatives.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you ride the bus?

MS. BROWN: Of course I ride the bus, and I walk and I ride a bicycle too. I don't sell cars either, and that's why I have no commitment to automobiles. I'm not in the business of selling cars. Why don't you think about something besides the sale of cars for a change? All you think about is selling cars, and you're not even a good salesman either. You weren't salesman of the year last year.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order. I would ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to come to order now.

MS. BROWN: He was such a disaster at selling cars that he went into politics, and he is a disaster at that too.

As I was saying before I was interrupted by that failed General Motors salesman.... That member over there is probably the reason Chrysler is going bankrupt.

If I could bring some reason to this debate, I suggest to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that it's not too late to amend this particular section and divert that $30 million to the development of the transit route on the Pattullo Bridge rather than to the Annacis crossing. We would be very willing to vote in support of that, but certainly not to support the going ahead of the Annacis crossing at this time.

MR. COCKE: This is a joyful day for New Westminster. We have two ministers of the Crown that are saving our city.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, when I go up to my property in the Okanagan, Mr. Minister, all I hear is: "When is that guy going to resign? When is that MLA of ours going to get out of here?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we are currently debating Bill 7, section 15.

MR. COCKE: Under section 15, I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that we are delighted in New Westminster. We have two prominent members of the Crown who are going to save our city. We have the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is going to save us with the Annacis crossing and then we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is going to save us with his city regeneration.

MR. BARBER: What about Ray Loewen?

MR. COCKE: He is departing. You know, Ray Loewen once said: "Not one of those guys could work for me."

I would like to go on to say about the reduction of Pattullo traffic by virtue of the Annacis crossing that what the minister didn't mention was the influx of traffic from the other side. We'll get Delta traffic, which we've never seen before. This is put in to alleviate the problem of the Deas Island Tunnel. That's what it's there for. Oh yes, it'll help for a few years, and as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said, it'll help for a little while, possibly, but all it will do is generate more traffic. The only solution in the lower mainland is the same solution that all major cities have to go for eventually, and that is rapid transit. For heaven's sake, to motivate people to cross the river by bridge in cars.... This is not in any way a crossing that will assist transit, because there's no question that transit will not be part of that crossing.

HON. MR. FRASER: I said that.

[ Page 3010 ]

MR. COCKE: Okay, fair enough, you've said that. But in any event, the reduction of the Pattullo traffic, I would suggest, will be minuscule. It will be increased proportionately from the other side, and I predict that the west end of New Westminster is going to be really, really congested as a result of this crossing. Of course, the traffic then goes on into Burnaby, where you've got your four-lane highway going down through that rich land — and I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) laughing and snorting a few minutes ago at what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said about the loss of this very rich farmland down there. Those of us who can remember the beautiful truck gardens in Delta and on the Burnaby side of the river....

HON. MR. FRASER: They're still there.

MR. COCKE: They're still there, my foot! They've been built on, because of the Social Credit governments over the years. This will be encroached upon now. A four-lane highway along that Marine Way is going to cost us a lot of farmland.

I don't think that the government has really dealt with this in a thoughtful way or has been planning the way they should. They've reacted to the member for Delta and he reacted to some of his frustrated voters, no doubt; but those frustrated voters would be very pleased, I'm sure, to see some progressive changes in the way we move people around in major metropolitan areas. I believe that the only real long-term answer is recourse to transit as quickly as possible. We're not going to educate people to transit if we continue to build bridges. They call that the third crossing. I can think of five, six or seven crossings across that Fraser River, or under it, and you'll go on putting them across. Pretty soon you'll have wall-to-wall crossings. But you still can't convince me that you're going to create anything but chaos in the metropolitan centres, because traffic....

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) shakes his head. If I had a car dealership the size of his I'd shake my head too. Eventually, Mr. Member for Dewdney, you're not going to be able to sell cars to people, because they're going to be sick and tired of standing on the side of the road while their cars are idling, wondering when they might get into the city of Vancouver. That's what we're looking at — total congestion. When the old artery is full there'll be myocardial-infarction — and the Minister of Health will know all about that. When the highway is full, it's dead stop.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to just respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) didn't say anything, so I don't have to worry about responding to him.

First of all, I would like to respond about light rapid transit. In my notes here it says that in the GVRD proposal for light rapid transit in this area.... As a matter of fact, daily crossings of the Fraser River now are 280,000 person-trips. The GVRD-proposed LRT system is estimated by themselves to carry at most 5 percent of these daily trips across the river — if they had it. So I think you should start looking at the facts of life. Even if it does come-and it will come-it accommodates only 5 percent of the problem. The other thing is, when you are in LRT — and it's a great thing; yes, people-mover.... But we still have a lot of other things that affect people that have to be moved, such as the economic life of our province every day. I would like to ask you: what does LRT do for that? So we still have to accommodate something that moves.

I am told now that the amount of fuel that's being wasted in the lower mainland by delivering parcels from one community to the other is an absolute scandal, because there are no proper routes to travel on. LRT is not going to relieve that one iota. You don't want to mention that, but I want to bring that point out, and I want to remind the members that the government is committed to light rapid transit.

When those councils get together and get their act together.... I don't see them making any progress, because every time they show a plan where they want to go with LRT the neighbourhood gets up in arms and says: "You can't bring it through my area." These are their problems. So let's face just where we're at here regarding LRT. Why don't they decide something and get on with it? Our government is committed to support it.

The last thing that I want to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is that we are destroying ALR land. I happen to have gone all over this territory that you make that charge on. As a matter of fact there's still farming there; it is good land. I want to tell you, though, that the Minister of Transportation and Highways can't go anywhere, any more than you can, without the permission of the Land Commission. We have to negotiate with them, and we get their approval for release all over this province or we can't move. We get their permission; we have to do it the same as any other citizen. They release land out of the ALR for the benefit of the public interest. We don't go roughshod; we can't. We have to abide by the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and they help us set the route.

While I'm on the problem, they definitely helped determine the route on the south side of the Fraser River. They asked us to go where we're presently located. In the original stance they thought we had gone too far into ALR class land, and they brought us back to where it is now. That's fine with us. But I want to make it abundantly clear that in the public interest, and dealing with all the authorities, including the Land Commission, that's how these things are arrived at. There was a lot of consultation over the last four or five years.

MR. LORIMER: I was somewhat surprised at the minister when he mentioned the Pattullo Bridge. He finds out now that the Pattullo Bridge can support light rail transit. I would remind him that an engineering report was made back in 1975 which made it public that the Pattullo was capable of handling transit, on the side or underneath, and that the strength and so on of the bridge was quite adequate to look after transit. So it hasn't been just a recent thing that we know that the bridge is capable; it's been known for five years. Five years down the road there's been no action to put transit on that bridge, but we're still discussing putting more money into a bridge that we know will not answer the problems that the minister is facing.

He goes on to say that they would move on transit if the municipalities would get together and do something here and there. There's no question in my mind that public transit is a provincial responsibility, and you can't hide your responsibilities by passing statutes in this House trying to transfer responsibility to another area of government. The whole thing is a provincial responsibility and not a municipal responsibility.

He mentioned also that only 5 percent, I think he said, of the people going into Vancouver rode on transit services. I question that figure.

[ Page 3011 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I thought you would.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, but if the figure is correct…. I agree that the figure is low, but the reason for that is that the service has been kept down and the prices have been increased. The transit in this province has deteriorated for a period of five years, and it's continuing to do so. This government — I think we might as well face the fact — has no commitment whatever to public transit. Why don't you get up and say it? Give your solution to the movement of people — which is a freeway system — and then we can get on with the job; the people can decide whether they want to have a system of transit or whether they want to have freeways criss-crossing their neighbourhoods.

MR. BARBER: The fundamental debate here is over land use and development. Access to land reflects or controls development of land. The planned access to land through bridges, tunnels and roads determines the use to which people may put the land connected by the tunnels, bridges or roads. The fundamental debate at issue is the governance of urban communities as reflected in this case by the particular instrument of policy called Annacis bridge. This debate takes a lot of other forms and has a lot of other characteristics. It'll be raised again and again in other places, but the original debate here is the use of land for private or public transportation purposes or for any other.

Now let's talk about the bill, Annacis crossing itself. Let's talk about the use of land that it implies and the characteristics of the proposed use that we'll see 10 and 20 years from now. It's simply not good enough to talk about the allocation of $30 million for a bridge. We have to talk about the way in which that money....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we can only talk about what is in the particular section, and in this case the ALR or land acquisition is certainly not a direct indication in section 15.

MR. BARBER: I haven't referred to land acquisition or the ALR either. That was the previous speaker, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I say, we can only discuss what is specifically in the section.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I agree; that's why I'm mystified by your comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: We're talking about, in this case, a commitment to an aspect of public policy — the construction of a crossing at Annacis Island. We have to talk about the impact that this commitment will have 10 and 20 years hence, if we're to discuss it in a rational way. That's important. I think the Legislature of British Columbia, when it determines whether or not to expend $30 million — it will be, finally, four times that figure on the Annacis crossing; we're only talking about a minor share of the total cost in this particular appropriation — has to examine, at least to some rational extent, what other communities have said when faced with the same prospect and what decisions other governments have made when faced with the same problems.

It's important that this Legislature ask why the people of Toronto, for instance, finally said no to the Spadina Expressway. It's important to ask why the people of Vancouver and the government of British Columbia finally said no to a third crossing on the Burrard Inlet and instead said yes to the SeaBus. It's important to ask why the people of Vancouver finally said no to the Georgia Street freeway proposal, which would have ruined the heart of Chinatown and the Strathcona district. It's important to ask why the people of New York City said no to Robert Moses and the Midtown-Manhattan expressway proposal, after, tragically, they ended up saying yes to his other 12 expressway proposals. They finally said no to that one, and that has — to say the least — been one of the reasons why the Midtown-Manhattan district has had a chance to come back in the last few years. It's important as well to ask why the people of San Francisco finally said no to the Embarcadero Expressway. They said no to all of these things for the same reasons that this Legislature should say no to the Annacis Island crossing. They said no in those other communities, because they finally realized the price they would have to pay in the safety, security and livability of urban neighbourhoods. The people of Vancouver said no to the third crossing and no to the Georgia Street Freeway; the people of New York City said no to the Midtown-Manhattan Expressway; the people of San Francisco said no to the Embarcadero Expressway; and the people of Toronto said no to Spadina for the same reasons. And they were these.

First, the private automobile in the heart of great urban communities is antithetical to the success of urban life. Second, it is vastly expensive, and there are cheaper alternatives. Third, it is a committal of vast public funds to an obsolete technology. Fourth, it doesn't work.

How many studies must be published before someone over there reads them? Those studies conclude again and again that every time you build a new bridge, expressway or throughway in an urban community it fills up, usually within 18 months of its opening date, and beyond that point no longer deals with the original traffic problems. Traffic grows to meet the capacity of the roads to handle traffic. That's one of the rules that honest engineers will tell you. Now there may be a few self-serving engineers who would rather you didn't know that; maybe you've even listened to one or two of them. But honest engineers know the experience of expressways and freeways and throughways in urban North America, and they know that after a very short while, once you've built them, they're full again. As soon as people see an open stretch of road, instead of taking transit, which they should, instead of car-pooling, which they could, instead of using the alternative means of transport, which they must, they will instead do what all of us — including myself, I freely admit — will do whenever we can: we'll be selfish and we'll take the private automobile. Why? Because we think we can get away with it. Why? Because someone told us there is a new bridge.

Every time you build a new bridge or a new freeway in an urban community, you encourage people to use it. That's one of the fundamental paradoxes of public construction in urban America; it's one of the fundamental contradictions which has been examined again and again and again by competent, disinterested and scientific authorities in North America. That's why the Spadina Expressway was stopped; that's why the Embarcadero Expressway was stopped; that's why Georgia Street Freeway was stopped; that's why all of these things

[ Page 3012 ]

were stopped. Finally, common sense succeeded; and those who are wedded to the private automobile at all costs failed. We're not just talking about $30 million, which is only 20 or 25 percent of the total cost; we're talking about the human impact in the neighbourhoods which will be served or disserved by this proposal; we're talking about the human values at stake when you push an unwelcome and unnecessary great road through a formerly successful neighbourhood.

Why is it that this government is not prepared to ask — even rhetorically — why Los Angeles has failed? Los Angeles has failed because the private automobile succeeded. Los Angeles is a mess in terms of human quality of life, planning, any coherent downtown centre or any legitimate, authentic, urban vitality. Los Angeles is a failure. There is no density in downtown Los Angeles, because they prostituted planning for the private automobile and allowed the unchecked growth of suburbs to be served by the unchecked growth of expressways. Urban communities, to succeed, must be densely, thickly, animatedly populated by human beings. That is how and why they work. To serve them, the only solution is the public sector and not the private. Los Angeles failed because the private automobile won.

When you look at the other great communities of North America where urban density and vitality and success can be demonstrated, you find in every one of them that transit works. Instead of saying yes to the automobile they said yes to transit at every key juncture. This debate is another of those key junctures. If you say yes to the private automobile again here at Annacis Island, once more you are postponing public transit that can succeed.

The minister told us himself that even the GVRD's most optimistic estimate says that no more than 5 percent of the total private transport needs can be met by public transit in this area. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know this: it will remain true as long as you continue to allow and encourage the unchecked growth of the private automobile. Transit will always fail. Transit can never establish itself. Transit will never be a successful alternative to the automobile if you make the great proportion of your investment in the automobile itself through roads and bridges and expressways. There isn't any longer — to raise another problem with this debate — an adequate pool of social capital to provide for both. When Robert Moses was doing his great public works….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the member is now straying from section 15 and is now canvassing matters that were canvassed quite thoroughly and more appropriately in second reading. I must now ask the member to return to section 15 of the bill before us.

MR. BARBER: I am on section 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am advising you that you are now straying from section 15, which is clearly not to recanvass second reading.

MR. BARBER: I know that you felt it was a wonderful, well-led debate in second reading. Whether or not you care to hear it again is hardly the point. I am debating section 15, which would have this Legislature commit $30 million for a foolish purpose. I am trying to persuade them not to spend the money for this foolish purpose. It is, I think, fair, legitimate and appropriate to tell them why it was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the House has already decided on second reading. We are now into third reading, section by section. Section 15 is presently before the House.

MR. BARBER: If you like I could argue why they should only spend a dollar. That will meet the most technical, narrow reading of the section. If you wish I will do that for you. But I am trying to raise a philosophical point, not in a partisan way, about the direction of urban growth as reflected by this proposed commitment of $30 million for the private automobile. That is what I am trying to do; I think that is fair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it may very well be fair in second reading where we cover a broad scope and the principle. When we are in third reading, in committee, then we must stick specifically to what is outlined in section 15. A wide scope has already been allowed by the Chair to the member to this stage and I must now ask the member to return to the confines of section 15.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I believe there is a well-established precedent in this House in terms of.... We might have an argument as to which section this debate should occur on, maybe this section or the next, but one can preamble a question in committee with a thirty-minute preamble and a ten-second question. The member is establishing opposition to this particular section, which is an appropriation section. If the purpose of the fund and expenditure from it is the section and he can make this kind of attack on the proposal, I am sure the member would be quite satisfied. When the bill was debated in second reading.... This is an omnibus type bill and, of course, there are all sorts of sections that are not related at all. This member now is zeroing in on this particular section and I believe that either this section or the next should allow him this kind of latitude, with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, I must point out, however, that the Chair also has a responsibility to ensure that matters which have already been thoroughly canvassed, particularly matters which have been canvassed in second reading, under which we discuss the principle of the bill, certainly arc not in order to be discussed in committee. That is what I am advising the member at this stage, and I thank the member for his comments.

MR. BARBER: What I propose to do is offer specific reasons — new reasons — thematically connected with, but in point of material fact different from, those which I offered in second reading. I will send the member my speech from second reading in order that he can satisfy himself that it's new material.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Provided, however, that the hon. member follows the section that is outlined and not discuss the principle of the bill, which the member had been doing prior to being called to order by the Chair.

MR. BARBER: Okay, but with respect, this bill, itself, has no principle at all. It has eight totally different sections. The bill has Barkerville, an energy fund, Annacis Crossing etc.

[ Page 3013 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, all of which were debated, though, in second reading. We are now in committee.

MR. BARBER: Some parts with more emphasis than others.

In order to persuade the government not to spend the $30 million provided for in this specific section which we are now debating, I offer all of those arguments I just stated, and a couple more, and then I'm done. However, observing the requirements of the Chair, all of this is offered to persuade the government not to spend the $30 million. Okay? Good.

I ask the government whether or not they have given any intellectually honest consideration as to why other urban communities in North America have succeeded and why a few have failed. I ask the government — in order to persuade them not to spend the $30 million on this mistake — whether or not it has occurred to them that the reason Los Angeles fails and Toronto succeeds is because Los Angeles was prostituted by the private automobile and Toronto, instead, has made a significant capital investment — and planning investment — in successful public transit.

In order to persuade the government not to foolishly waste this $30 million on an obsolete technology called the private automobile — inherently inefficient — I ask the government to consider whether or not it is possible that they are mistaken and that the better remedy and solution can be found in a far more bold investment in public transit.

In order to persuade the government not to spend these $30 million, I ask them to consider that perhaps it would be better to commit $300 million to transit in greater Vancouver in order that the 5 percent figure could be raised to 15 percent within a decade. Were they to do so, that would be a tremendous achievement. Were they able to anticipate the likely population growth in greater Vancouver in 10 and 20 years, and they can — much of that evidence and many of those projections are commonly available, and probably pretty reputable and have a good scientific basis — they could surely see that if they continue the pattern that they've always followed, they will never be able to build enough bridges or enough highways for enough private automobiles, because there will always be far more private automobiles than ever will be used for bridges.

Every legitimate scientific study demonstrates that when you build a new highway in an urban community it fills up. It fills up quickly, easily, and inevitably. Of course it's only 5 percent, because you are effectively discouraging public transit by building the Annacis Crossing. The longer you postpone — via artificial respiration — the private automobile finally doing what it has to do, which is to recognize that in downtown cores it is no longer useful, the more expensive the day will be when finally you decide to invest in public transit as you should have all along.

In order to persuade you not to spend the $30 million which we are debating, let me offer a few other arguments. This has now become a political issue more unpopular than the government expected. Mr. Chairman, I have it on good authority that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has decided not to attend certain council meetings in Delta. However....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, hon. member, by no stretch of the imagination can these comments at all be related to this section.

MR. BARBER: I just wanted to know if you were paying attention. I thought you were listening to the Clerk and not to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I'd be very happy to relate some of that conversation if the member so wishes, but again, I must call to the attention of the member that having gone through second reading, the House is now agreed that there will be a crossing, and a reflection at this stage….

MR. BARBER: Oh, now just a minute. I'm sure the Clerk didn't tell you that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a decision of the House, hon. member. We are now in the committee stage to analyze, point by point, what is crystallized in each of these sections. When the member strays from what is before us in this section, he is out of order as far as the debate is concerned.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman would know that if that were applied too narrowly, there would be no point in committee stage for anything. That's hardly the intention, I'm sure, of the Chairman's suggestion, nor of British parliamentary tradition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again if we go back to our standing orders, and we take a look at the the two words which we seem to very often forget in this House "strictly relevant," if that too were enforced to the letter, it would not allow the scope of debate that has been continuing.

MR. BARBER: Well, if that rule were ever literally enforced, this whole Legislature wouldn't be able to speak for more than an hour. In order to make the point further, it may be necessary to move an amendment to the section, so as to reduce the commitment of the Legislature from $30 million to $1. If it becomes necessary, we'll certainly do that. But I hope it's not necessary to move that amendment in order to make the fundamental point, which I've almost concluded making.

The reason we should not spend this $30 million is because it represents, if I may say it again, a commitment to a fundamentally obsolete technology. The internal combustion engine is fundamentally inefficient. There arc more efficient technologies. This $30 million will continue artificially to extend the life of that technology. That's not appropriate, reasonable, nor necessary.

Another significant problem with this $30 million investment is the impact on the human, living and social values that neighbourhoods represent. It is a certain fact that the feeder routes that will be required on either side of the river will have a deleterious impact on those communities, especially in Burnaby and New Westminster.

I would point out that we have recognized the significance of section 7 of Bill 34, an amendment to the Highways Act. We do understand what the government's up to, but we'll be getting to that shortly. The minister would tell us that he doesn't propose to go roughshod over local groups. However, section 7 of Bill 34 gives him just that power, but we'll get to that in a moment.

[ Page 3014 ]

There is no way that the 5 percent usership figure for transit in relation to the private automobile will ever be increased if you continue to do everything that the private automobile wants you to do. You can't compete — may I say it again — with the private automobile if you continue to make it as easy as possible for people to use and to waste the resources that the private automobile represents. The fundamental reason why this $30 million should not be expended, and why, if necessary, we will move an amendment to reduce it to $1, is because this government, for whatever reasons — probably blindness — fundamentally misjudges the nature of urban life, fundamentally does not recognize the quality of urban life.

The private automobile no longer serves the basic requirements of successful urban communities in North America. It can't do that, because the space and the energy, the safety and the planning requirements of the private automobile contradict the space and the planning and the safety requirements of human beings in urban communities; that's the nature of it. That's the problem with density in urban life in North America. Sixty years ago — or 40 or even 20 — it might have been possible to find some compatible common ground between the two interests.

The problem represented by this bill is that the government appears to recognize that there is no compatible common ground and instead has chosen in favour of the automobile. It's a wrong choice; it's a foolish choice. It's a choice which will not serve and cannot serve. It's a choice which will waste minimally $120 million by the time it's built, and which, five years from now, to anyone's satisfaction, will be demonstrated to have failed. Because five years from now, if this group is still in power, they will come back, I predict, with another proposal for another bridge and more feeder routes and another crossing. Why? Because they will not have answered the fundamental problem, and because they do not recognize that that problem cannot be ever again answered by the automobile, neither here or anywhere else in North America. It just can't be done.

There isn't the space any longer to provide for the automobile. There isn't the room to build its roads. We don't have the liberty of building its bridges any longer. We can't afford its fuel, and we can no longer abide its obsolete technology. That's why the private automobile no longer and never again can answer the problems of transit in a great urban community like Vancouver. That's why. No matter how many bridges you build and no matter how may roads you build to them, it will never work. The alternatives lie elsewhere. We shouldn't be spending the $30 million on this. I'd point out that you could, if you wished, provide free buses across the existing bridges and connect them with park-and-ride on either side. You could do that for 40 years and still not spend as much as you propose to spend in four years on the Annacis Crossing. If you were looking at prudent investments and if you were genuinely interested in conserving the taxpayers' money, you would find it cheaper to make all of the buses free, to connect them with park and ride at either end and to allow people to go nowhere. Instead you want to spend the $30 million. Why? With all respect, Mr. Chairman, it's because the government ain't very bright. Why? Because the government hasn't examined the literature. Why? Because the government has been sucked in by a few engineers who like to do what engineers do best, which is build things, no matter where, for how much or at what human cost.

Engineers ruined Los Angeles by persuading them that the private automobile could work. Engineers almost ruined Chinatown in Vancouver by persuading them that the Georgia Street freeway would be a success. Thank God they were defeated. Engineers would have built a third crossing across Burrard Inlet today, but thank God we had the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) instead and today we have SeaBus. SeaBus does work. SeaBus is an appropriate technology, is affordable and, to say the least, has enhanced the quality of urban life in Vancouver and not destroyed it, as would have been the further case with a third crossing and all its ramps, access and destruction of neighbourhoods at either end.

There are alternatives. We don't need to spend the $30 million on a technology which is originally and inherently inefficient. That's what it's all about. Why this government remains wedded to the technology of the past is beyond us. Why they refuse to learn the lessons of urban success and urban failures in other communities is also beyond us. Why they might respond to political pressure from certain quarters is comprehensible, I suppose. It's regrettable and in a few years from now it will be embarrassing, even for that group, when the people of Delta, Surrey, White Rock and Richmond stand up and say: "Folks, we need another bridge. Friends, we need another tunnel. Pals, we need more room for the private automobile. It turned out we were wrong after all and Annacis is now full. We can't use it any more."

During a period in which increasingly social capital will be limited, it will no longer be affordable to try and finance public and private transit both; there won't be enough money. Thirty million dollars won't be enough for this bridge; $120 million might be enough in the long run, but even so that will be no basic remedy to the basic problem. The final answer to move people around in urban communities is mass transit. We don't have the space, the money or the technology any longer to do it any other way. Also, we can no longer afford to sacrifice the human, family and neighbourly values at stake when you smash unwelcome roads through neighbourhoods. That's another reason, surely, why the $30 million shouldn't be spent.

I urge the government to reconsider. I urge you instead to make not just a $30 million commitment to public transit, but maybe a $300 million commitment to public transit in order that Annacis, even as reflected by the most ardent and selfish private automobile user, will simply not be necessary. They do it in other places in the world very successfully. They do it in other jurisdictions all the time. They've been doing it in western Europe for 40 years. They've been doing it because there they realized long before we have yet to realize that we can't afford the private automobile in its current form any longer. Because we can't afford it we should be prepared instead to look elsewhere. The elsewheres exist. The public transit forms and formats exist. SeaBus works. The third crossing never would have. The Annacis crossing will not work for much more than a year and a half after it's built and then it will be full. It's not too late for the government to reconsider, and we respectfully urge that they do so.

Section 15 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 3015 ]

NAYS — 19

An hon. member requested that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 16.

MR. LEGGATT: I can't add too much to the subject of the Annacis crossing, because the member for Victoria is probably the most eloquent member of any Legislature on the subject of the automobile and the effect of bridges.

One thing not mentioned during this particular debate is the problem of corridors in the lower mainland. What this government is doing with this crossing is creating another unnecessary corridor through the heartland of the most populous part of the province of British Columbia. That's where the real tragedy occurs, because it's a corridor that does not have to be built. I can list all the corridors that are there; there are the CN rail corridor, the CP rail corridor, the old BCR rail corridor. There are corridors all over, and here we have a government that doesn't have the wit or the imagination to stay away from creating another, unnecessary corridor. I'm not saying this is Neanderthal thinking; it's just not modern thinking.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is Neanderthal.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, if it's Neanderthal they're still here. I'm thinking of the Neanderthal man, which is probably something....

AN HON. MEMBER: Precambrian.

MR. LEGGATT: Precambrian? No, no.

However, on the needs of transportation for the lower mainland, the minister who is talking about monorail is here — the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). That shows a little imagination. I don't think we should buy it, I don't think it'll wash, but it shows some imagination. This proposal shows no imagination whatsoever. I'm surprised he is supporting it with his imagination around monorail. I've heard him speak on the radio many times about corridors and keeping those corridors we have and not creating new ones. There is no need to create new ones.

At this point I would like to throw into the record a very recent study by the UTA into the subject of heavy rail transit — not light rail transit — on the CPR right-of-way down the northeast corridor of the lower mainland, an area that affects me very much and affects my colleague from Dewdney. It is a very interesting study.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you, Brian, it's a total disaster.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm glad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) agrees that this bridge is a total disaster. I am delighted that he's over on this side of the House.

I would like to quote from the heavy rail study, because it is something that has been studied by UTA and recommended by UTA as the most cost-efficient. It is the most comfortable. It is the way of the future, of all things. That is heavy rail, not just light rail. Listen to what they had to say: "It is concluded that a peak-period commuter rail service operating on the CP tracks is viable and offers the least-cost solution to the needs of the northeast sector residents. A rail service must be viewed as a medium- to long-term investment."

That right-of-way has been sitting there since the turn of the century and before, and we've never had the imagination to use that corridor to move our commuters in and out of the city of Vancouver.

The rolling stock is available with federal money. That is one thing these fellows don't seem to understand: that federal money is available if they'll only go to the right place. Federal money is available for the rolling stock on the CP right-of-way right now, and the city of Toronto is using up that money on their heavy rail commuter service. What is the matter with this government? Why aren't they on the ball? Why aren't they back there? Instead of nattering about who's going to build the Anzac line, they could help the constituents of my riding by getting some federal money and putting on a decent commuter service into the city of Vancouver and servicing the many residents of that area, including, I might say, the residents who live there and are represented so ably by the MLA for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). I know he supports the concept.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is simply.... Oh, I can see you're looking askance, that somehow I've strayed from the crossing. But the crossing is inherent in the corridor, and what I'm saying is that you're wasting $30 million on an unnecessary corridor into Vancouver when you've got perfectly good corridors already bought and paid for by the public. In fact, the public paid for that CP corridor over and over, and they're about to pay a hell of a lot more once they go through this deal with B.C. Place. Once they pay Marathon off, they're going to be paying again. Mr. Chairman, $30 million is a complete and total waste of money. It lacks imagination. It lacks wit. And it's out of the wrong decade — I should say century.

Section 16 approved.

Section 17 approved unanimously on a division. Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Section 18 approved.

[ Page 3016 ]

On section 19.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) a couple of questions around section 19, which is a provision for some $20 million for the construction of the initial provincial development phase of the coal development in northeastern British Columbia.

I just wondered if the minister could be somewhat more specific in terms of the use of the $20 million. We recognize that this is an amount that can only be allocated under this section by the comptroller-general in an appropriate way, but I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House what the specific uses will be for this $20 million. What are you going to use it for?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We may not get a chance to use it at all if that group over there continues to be so negative and to work against northeast coal. In their endeavour to kill the project it may be that this money is not expended at all. However, because of the positive attitude of this government and the work we have done, this money will be used to start the infrastructure, depending on at what time the coal contracts are signed by the coal companies who are now dealing with the steel companies. We anticipate that if those contracts are signed within the next two months, we will have to let contracts to start building highways, to do work in the townsite and possibly some preliminary work on the power line.

MR. LEGGATT: Could the minister also advise whether it's intended that the money will be expended regardless of whether the present negotiations with the Japanese are consummated?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just stated, Mr. Chairman, that I can't spend any money until it goes through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have to request it, and certainly the money will not be expended until the deal is finalized — with the exception that we are continuing.... Now that the coal companies have the figures and are negotiating — it may take two months before the actual contracts are signed — we may be spending some minor dollars to continue our planning. I can't sit still and say that it's not going to happen, and then when it's signed all of a sudden say: "Well, we've got a couple months of pre-planning to do." So I have had meetings and I am putting together.... In other words, I'm continuing as though the contracts are going to be signed. I'm not sure that we'll make the deal, but I can't sit still.

When the contracts are signed, hopefully because of the time period and the delivery.... When that great moment arrives in British Columbia, my friends, I want to tell you what a great moment it will be. I do hope that these negative people over here will not kill the contract, Mr. Chairman. Oh, when that great day arrives, I want to tell you, we're going to be ready to roll; we're going to be ready to let contracts; we're going to be ready to put people to work. It's the greatest economic development project in all of the history of British Columbia — in all of the history of Canada! It's the only project today that has courage and guts and shows the people of this great nation of ours that indeed British Columbia will once again lead the way for all of Canada.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister would clarify the answer a little, because I think he left us in doubt. Would he confirm that he does not intend to spend the majority of this money until there is a signed contract for the sale of that product?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can confirm that. Let me clarify something for the member's edification. If the member is referring to the construction of that great road from Chetwynd down to Tumbler Ridge which, as long as I am MLA for that area, is going to happen anyway.... Just to be good we've included it in the infrastructure for northeast coal. I want to tell you, my friends, that great riding of South Peace River and all those riches that are trapped in that area have to be tapped by roads. The great Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and this great government will build that road whether there's ever a ton of coal mined in that area or not, as long as I'm representing that area. To be graceful and good we've included it in the estimates for northeast coal, but that road will be built anyway, my friends, and that's why we're calling tenders.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister advise whether that road will be built anyway regardless of whether he has a contract for the sale of coal and whether these funds will be used for that purpose?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, my friend, as the MLA for the great South Peace riding, we will be building a road from Chetwynd into Tumbler Ridge. I am not going to say that that would happen immediately, my friend, but it will be built. That great area, so rich in natural resources, untapped stands of lumber, natural petroleum products that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet, great tourism potential on the Murray River.... Yes, we have to open up the country; we have to build that road anyway, so we'll do it. It might not be built as fast, the Minister of Highways tells me, but indeed we do have to build that road anyway. We've included that highway in this infrastructure, but I'm telling you the road will have to be built anyway because the country has to be opened up.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wonder if the minister would clarify whether he means he's going to build the road under the highway estimates or whether he's going to use these funds to build the road he is talking about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That depends on whether the coal contract is signed or not.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the minister advise the House whether he intends to recover the $20 million that is going to be expended in the event this is approved and how he intends to recover it, if he intends to recover it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Which scene are you talking about? Are you talking about opening up that great northeastern part of the province by building highways, which this government has done? When you were in government there were no roads and no money was spent in there, and all the results of that great development in the petroleum fields in that area went to the province of Alberta. When I was in opposition over there, I pleaded and pleaded for some roads

[ Page 3017 ]

to be built into that area so the results of our own natural resource development would flow to British Columbians. But it wasn't until this great government came to power that we started building some roads into that area so the development of the great natural resources in that area would flow to British Columbians — and create jobs for British Columbians, my friend.

Now what was your question? [Laughter.]

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

ERRATUM

Issue of Thursday, June 19, 1980
Volume 5 Number 25

At page 2940, first column, a paragraph of text was wrongly ascribed to Mr. Lauk. The paragraph should read:

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wait until the members opposite have asked more questions and then try to respond to them in my closing remarks. I've got a number of them here I'm going to respond to; I'm not going to just leave all these things. I've got notes coming out of ears to respond to.

APPENDIX

14 Mr. Hall asked the Hon. the Premier the following questions:

1. Which members of Executive Council travelled outside Canada during 1979?

2. For each member listed in reply to (1), what destinations were visited, for what purpose, and what was the cost to the Government?

3. For each trip listed in reply to (2), who accompanied the member and at what cost to the Government?

The Hon. W. R. Bennett replied as follows:

"1. Hon. W. R. Bennett, Hon. J. R. Chabot, Hon. H. A. Curtis, Hon. J. J. Hewitt, Hon. G. M. McCarthy, Hon. R. H. McClelland, Hon. P. L. McGeer, Hon. K. R. Mair, Hon. J. A. Nielsen, Hon. D. M. Phillips, Hon. E. M. Veitch, and Hon. T. M. Waterland.

"2. (a) Bennett: Los Angeles, Seoul, and Japan; Chabot: Australia and New Zealand; Curtis: London (twice) and Paris; Hewitt: London; McCarthy: San Diego; McClelland: London; McGeer: London and Dusseldorf, Atlanta and California; Mair: United Kingdom and Sweden, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong; Nielsen: San Francisco; Phillips: Tokyo and Hakane (Japan), Seoul (South Korea), Peking (China), and Hong Kong; Veitch: Portland; Waterland: Finland, Sweden, and Norway.

"2. (b) Bennett: both trips were trade missions; Chabot: tour of Australia's Crown lands and investigation of policies and procedures in that regard; Curtis: all three trips concerned Transpo '86; Hewitt: Coal Energy Conference; McCarthy: to study program on welfare recipient to locate jobs on their own; McClelland: Health Educators Conference; McGeer: London, Dusseldorf and Atlanta, coal, liquefaction possibilities, and California, meeting re "Discovery Park" in B.C.; Mair: United Kingdom and Sweden, to consult with officials and gain firsthand information on wildlife programs in connection with the B.C. Wildlife Management Plan; and Japan, Korea and Hong Kong, to consult with officials, industry and other agencies prior to the development and release of the B.C. Commercial Fisheries and Mariculture Policy; Nielsen: liquor policy matters; Phillips: Japan, to discuss with Government leaders the opportunities for increasing economic cooperation between B.C. and Japan and to promote increased trade between Canada and

[ Page 3018 ]

Japan; Korea, to discuss with Government leaders the opportunities for increasing economic cooperation between B.C. and Korea and to promote increased trade; and China, to discuss how economic relations between China and B.C. can be further enhanced; Veitch: tourist promotion; and Waterland: review of intensive forest practices.

"2. (c)

"3.

[ Page 3019 ]

30 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing the following questions:

With respect to the subdivision at Kitimat called "Cablecar" —

1. What was the total cost of preparing it?

2. What number of lots were made available?

3. With respect to each lot, by number thereof, what was (a) the date or dates upon which it was offered for sale or lease; (b) the date upon which it was sold or leased; and (c) the selling or lease price?

4. Are any of the lots currently unsold or unleased and, if so, how many, by number thereof are so unsold or unleased, and what is the sale or lease price of each?

The Honourable J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

"1. $904,986.

"2. 121 in total — 118 lots were offered in 1975, 21 lots were offered in 1977, and 15 lots were offered in 1979.

"3. (a) The lots in the "Cablecar" subdivision were offered at auction for lease on September 24, 1975. A further offering was made on August 18, 1977. Following each auction some of the remaining lots were disposed of on an individual application basis. A final offering was made by public lot draw on October 16, 1979.

"(b) and (c) Schedule details as follows:

[ Page 3020 ]

Subdivision of Lots 6188, 6189, 6190, 6192, 6194, 6195, Range 5, Coast District. Plan 8007 — "Cablecar''

The following lots in Plan 8007 were sold by public lot draw on October 16, 1979:

[ Page 3021 ]

"4. Unsold and not leased-15 lots. Details as follows:

Offered for Sale

To be disposed of by public tender — June 1980 (commercially zoned)

Reverted to the Crown through lease cancellation
To be offered for sale in August, 1980

*Selling prices for these lots are in process of being established by appraisal."