[ Page 3513 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Health annual report 1979.  Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3513

Ministerial Statements

Resignation of Deputy Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3513

Mrs. Dailly –– 3513

Terry Fox cross-Canada run for cancer research.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3513

Mr. Barrett –– 3513

Motion 11. Mr. Barnes –– 3514

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code, of British Columbia (Bill M 212). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 3514

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3514

Mr. Lorimer –– 3516

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3517

Mr. Passarell –– 3518

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3518

Mr. Barnes –– 3519

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3520

Mrs. Dailly –– 3521

Mr. Cocke –– 3521

Mr. Levi –– 3522

Mr. Barber –– 3524

Mr. Mussallem –– 3526

Ms. Brown –– 3527

Mr. Davis –– 3528

Mr. Lockstead –– 3528

Mr. Mitchell –– 3529

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3530

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's a great pleasure for me today to welcome to the House and introduce to you a most important visitor to British Columbia who is in the visitors' gallery, the Hon. Ron Dawe and Mrs. Dawe, from Newfoundland. Mr. Dawe is the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture for Newfoundland and Labrador, It's his first visit to British Columbia and he's been here for two days meeting with members of our government and other people in British Columbia. He's here for the purpose of the tire-dipping ceremony for the Cross-Canada Vintage Car Rally which left this morning and will arrive and be welcomed at a tire-dipping ceremony in St. John's on August 22.

Mr. Dawe has another distinction which may be challenged by members of this House, and that is that he's a close friend of and went to school with the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I would ask all members to join with me in extending a very warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Dawe.

MR. BARRETT: We have in the gallery this morning some 18 young people from the city of Montreal who are on a tour through the western part of Canada. They are with the organization YMHA of Montreal. That was the home of the famous YMHA Blues at one time, when Canada had international fame in the basketball field. I ask the House to welcome them.

Hon. Mr. Mair tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1979.

RESIGNATION OF
DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to make a ministerial statement. Effective August 31, 1980, the Deputy Minister of Education, Walter Hardwick, has announced his resignation. With regret, I am accepting that and announcing it today,

He was a professor from the geography department at UBC, as I think the House knows, who came and joined the government in 1976. His leave provisions at UBC made it necessary for him to make a judgment as to whether to return and retain his tenure or to stay. He has decided that he should return to UBC to resume teaching, but he also intends to continue with government work. He will be assisting Dr. McGeer and me in operating the Knowledge Network to develop and deliver high-quality education. He has also accepted my invitation to remain as a special consultant to me during the month of September and to assist me in the future in a consulting capacity where necessary. I will have need of his qualities and his great knowledge of education.

I should just say that during his period as deputy minister there has been a revitalization in the direction of education in the province. In my view, he is responsible for the recruitment of many very excellent officials and the establishment of a modern management system. He has a strong sense of the future; he is a dynamic, energetic man with a keen mind.

His friendly approach and sense of duty will be missed by all of us.

MRS. DAILLY: On behalf of the official opposition, may I'say that we too regret the fact that Mr. Hardwick is leaving. I think we all found him — in the opposition also, may I say — very cooperative and always in good humour. We wish him all the best in his new work.

TERRY FOX CROSS-CANADA
RUN FOR CANCER RESEARCH

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, all British Columbians and members of this House have been following the journey of young Terry Fox for some weeks now. He is attempting to run across Canada in an extremely worthwhile effort to raise funds for Canadian cancer research. I think that it should be said that Terry Fox, being a British Columbian, exemplifies the very best that we look for in citizens of this province. In attempting a very courageous effort, suffering from a tremendous handicap, and in deriving the returns for a worthwhile effort like cancer research, he is certainly to be commended by all Canadians.

I just want to say at this time that the province, through the lotteries fund, will be turning over a cheque in the amount of $30,000 this coming Monday towards Canadian cancer research on behalf of the Terry Fox journey. We want to wish him the very best of success on behalf of all members of this House in his continued journey, and hope to welcome him on his arrival in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the excellent statement made by the Provincial Secretary, let me say that we congratulate this decision on behalf of all the people of British Columbia to recognize what this fine young man has done to stir the hearts and minds of all Canadians. I regret that the motion of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — Motion 11 standing in his name on the order paper — is not being called, although I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on his behalf in response to this announcement, since the member was busy on the phone arranging more activities for Mr. Fox. I want to say that Mr. Barnes and others in this province were a great encouragement to Mr. Fox when he initially announced this decision. I am glad that everybody is beginning to recognize what a great event and a great sacrifice this young man is making.

I'd like one caution: he's made a commitment to complete his journey across Canada but he should not endanger his health. Everybody in this country now recognizes his achievement to this point. If his doctors counsel him to slow down or stop because of his health that will be completely understood by every Canadian. Perseverance should not lead to self-punishment. The point has been made and we are all proud of Terry Fox.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave at this time, in light of….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARNES: Let me finish my statement, please. I believe that when the government wants to cooperate it is for tactical reasons.

[ Page 3514 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: They are trying to muzzle me, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Notwithstanding the generosity on behalf of the government, I would like to explain that I am quite appreciative of the remarks made by the Provincial Secretary on behalf of the efforts of Terry Fox, and at this time I would like to move Motion 11 standing in my name on the order paper, which has been there for quite a few months — since April 12. I'm pleased that the government has given me an opportunity to read the resolution:

"That this House join the Canadian Cancer Society and members of the public who are supporting 21-year-old Simon Fraser University student and former athletic team player Terry Fox of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, who started an 8,000-kilometre run from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver the morning of April 12 — a journey he estimates will require running an average of 30 to 40 kilometres per day up to late September or early October of 1980.

"That this House recognize and commend the bravery and courage of this young amputee-athlete who lost his right leg to cancer, but who seeks to inspire others by taking this action, many of whom may have varying handicaps or disabilities themselves.

"That the Clerk convey this message of encouragement and good luck to Terry Fox, who has said, 'I am not disabled; I happen to be a person with one leg,' on this extremely difficult and hazardous journey."

I believe the contents of that resolution are so complete that very few other remarks are needed from me. Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, before putting the motion I must have leave. Shall leave be granted'?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN RIGHTS
CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 212, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to move second reading of this bill and would like to make a few remarks in terms of background of the development of this project for Vancouver. Through the good offices of the federal government and with the active support of the mayor of Vancouver and the majority of council, the province of British Columbia has been virtually assured by the International Bureau of Expositions in Paris of hosting a world's fair on transportation in Vancouver in 1986.

In opening the debate on the bill before us, I would like briefly to highlight the orderly progress we have made in preparations to date for this great event, while also trying to clear away some misconceptions that may exist. The world exposition is to be called Transpo '86. Why transportation as a theme for world exposition? Vancouver will be celebrating its hundredth anniversary in 1986. Vancouver was founded as a transportation centre. The city owes its position to one of the giants in the history of Canadian transportation, Sir William Van Horne. I am told there was every reason to believe that Van Home even gave the city its name. Nineteen eighty-six also celebrates the hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the railroad in Vancouver, completing the link from the east coast to the west coast of Canada. Vancouver today becomes more and more an important transportation centre. In fact it is the second-largest port in the western hemisphere. It is Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim. So why transportation? Because it is a subject of fundamental and growing importance to the continued economic growth and well-being of British Columbia.

Transportation is important to the whole world. I can tell you that other nations in the east and west have already told us they think transportation is a very important and timely topic for a world exposition. What will the exposition be? It is an opportunity for countries to share their experience and knowledge of transportation by demonstrating how they have dealt with problems of moving people and goods. It will be a great gathering of the most advanced designs and concepts in transportation. It will be an event people will want to personally experience. The exposition itself will host many countries which will exhibit and engage in all the other activities in addition to transportation exhibitry and futuristic demonstration projects which contribute to the success of a world exposition — for instance, the national foods, the cultural and sporting events, the excitement of being with people from many countries and sharing in an exhibition that is a worldwide attraction.

But there is another important dimension to our proposal. Transpo '86 will be designed to increase the level of man's knowledge and achievement in transportation and communications. The International Bureau of Expositions in Paris has asked us to try and achieve this growth in knowledge by inviting the many international transportation orga-

[ Page 3515 ]

nizations — and there are hundreds of them — to come to British Columbia in the years before Transpo. Each of these international organizations will be invited to hold at least one annual meeting in our province during the period between now and Transpo '86. Each will be asked to make recommendations on the problems in transportation faced by its particular speciality. We would like to believe all these recommendations could be considered by a congress of the world's leading transportation experts in 1986 — a world congress on transportation in Vancouver as part of Transpo '86.

Transpo '86 is to open six years from now on a site of some 140 acres being secured by the provincial government on the north shore of False Creek in downtown Vancouver. This transportation exposition is a priority commitment of the provincial government. We already have had the full support of the federal government and their assistance in advancing our proposal in Paris. The participation of the federal government is of paramount importance to us, and we are continuing our work to define this participation now. While Transpo '86 is a provincially inspired enterprise, the host nation is Canada. We intend to make full use of the six-year preparatory period to ensure the most imaginative and best-planned world fair possible, with the full support and input of the Canadian government.

You may recall that during our recent meetings with federal ministers we pressed the importance of Transpo '86 to this province. We believe that the federal government will take a full part in Transpo. Indeed, to quote Senator Ray Perrault, the leader of the government in the Senate and the senior political minister for British Columbia, in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade on May 30 of this year — referring to Transpo '86: "The federal government had a major financial involvement in Expo '67 and it is expected our government will play a major role in supporting and promoting this stirring event."

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia have every reason to be encouraged and, indeed, proud of our progress to date. This great undertaking on behalf of our province began some 18 months ago under the guidance of my colleague, the then Provincial Secretary, the Hon. Hugh Curtis. This initiative has allowed us to get ahead in our planning and get ahead of those other member nations of the International Bureau of Expositions that were said to be eyeing 1986 as a year in which their countries might like to host a world exposition.

The pre-inquiry team from the International Bureau of Expositions, which visited Vancouver for one week in early May to investigate our preliminary plans, in private conversations as well as in published reports pronounced Transpo's bid as the "best prepared and most comprehensive presentation in the bureau's experience." The team made a very positive and complimentary report to the executive committee meeting of the International Bureau of Expositions in Paris on June 6, after which that committee unanimously recommended that the team support recommending that 1986 be set aside for Canada to act as host nation for a world exposition on transportation to take place in Vancouver.

That recommendation from the June 6 meeting was taken before the full BIE general assembly meeting on June 13. The Transpo '86 board includes myself as the minister associated, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), and the mayor of the city of Vancouver. We were in Paris to participate in the general assembly of the BIE, at which time the whole 36-nation assembly recommended without any qualification or condition that 1986 be given over to the Vancouver world's fair. I can tell you that it was with great pride on behalf of British Columbia and of the work that has gone into our preparations that we took part in that meeting.

The chairman of the pre-inquiry team that visited Vancouver, Dr. Cort Van der Linden, told the general assembly that he was very much impressed by the site and the appropriateness of the theme of transportation, and the effort made by everyone involved in Transpo '86. He added — I am sure we will all agree — that Vancouver is a truly marvellous city in which to host a world exposition. As well, the executive vice-president of the BIE, Nicolai Filipov, in moving acceptance of the pre-inquiry team's endorsement of Transpo '86, commented: "Our preliminary inquiry team was highly satisfied that at this stage of preparation, six years before the exposition, the organizers' plans are so well advanced."

While we must wait out the customary four-month moratorium before final approval is given at the BIE meetings on November 23, there is no doubt in my mind that British Columbia now has what we all worked so hard to secure, a world's fair on transportation for Vancouver in 1986. With this in mind, the organizers, and thus the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, must proceed with preparations in order that Transpo will indeed open in Vancouver six years from now. The bill we are discussing, which will create an organization to be responsible for Transpo on proclamation, is an important part of this early preparation.

The government of British Columbia has undertaken primary responsibility in the preparations for Transpo '86. The province has undertaken to provide the site and funded the organizing society which has prepared the preliminary briefing and bid materials. The province believes that Transpo is a viable enterprise on a subject of great relevance to all Canadians and to people everywhere. There is ample precedent for cooperation between Ottawa and British Columbia on an undertaking in western Canada of this significance at this time, particularly with the recent precedent of a substantial federal involvement in the hosting of the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton and Expo '67 in Montreal.

We must remember at all times that Transpo is in fact a viable proposition on its own merits. Excluding costs of the amphitheatre planned as the centrepiece for the exposition, for which we continue to anticipate some federal assistance, a preliminary projection of direct costs versus direct revenues has been undertaken. Calculating anticipated operational and capital expenditures against revenues from participants' fees and from 13 million forecasted visitors, a direct expenditure of $150 million and a direct recovery of $138 million would leave a shortfall of some $12 million in current dollars.

This requires a further word of explanation. Firstly, the revenue figure includes only such things as admissions and exhibitors' fees. It does not cover such potential money earners as official stamps, coins and medals. These sales alone could wipe out the projected deficit. Secondly, the revenue figure does not include indirect revenues from such things as visitor spending. Thirdly, the above figures do not include the capital cost of the amphitheatre for which the provincial government has set aside some $50 million at this time.

There are more than the financial benefits mentioned above. There will be business opportunities and jobs for British Columbians. There will be a bonanza for tourist and

[ Page 3516 ]

hospitality industries. Jobs will be generated by the construction of British Columbia Place, the amphitheatre and all civic works; jobs on the transit systems, in the pavilion, the exhibits and the concessions; jobs in the dismantling and removing of temporary exhibits and jobs in the ultimate construction of residential, recreational, commercial buildings and open space that will become British Columbia Place.

Then there are the residual benefits: Vancouver's enhanced status as a convention and tourist city, the attraction of a covered amphitheatre which can handle major sports and a variety of other events, the permanent exhibits such as the planned forest and foundation centre, and the possibility of improved transportation systems. An industrial eyesore will be gone. The north shore of False Creek will be opened up to all British Columbians and transformed into a pleasing urban development for the public.

We have asked the federal government, at our joint meetings in Victoria on May 5 and in follow-up correspondence to the Hon. Mark McGuigan, to join us in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of these ancillary matters covering Transpo '86. While our preliminary projects are most encouraging, we intend to approach this exposition in a sound and responsible manner. We intend to host an exciting and worthwhile world exposition but to do so in a businesslike fashion that brings the maximum possible benefits to the people of British Columbia.

The federal government has been very helpful to date, through the Department of External Affairs and through Ottawa's general agreement to those things inherent for Canada in playing host to such an exposition, including such things as the provision of a commissioner-general and staff, special customs, security and immigration arrangements and so on.

British Columbia has not undertaken this enormous project simply to bring tourist dollars to Vancouver and British Columbia. Our purpose is to help Vancouver mark its centennial in a way that will put that city and our great province on the international map. Transportation is important to the whole world; nowhere is it more important than in Vancouver. We believe that a world exposition on transportation will be a fitting mark of Vancouver's coming-of-age. Equally important, this exposition will act as a catalyst for needed transportation improvements within Vancouver and throughout the lower mainland. Vancouver's model might well apply to our province. By land, sea and air we prosper. This transportation exposition can be the catalyst by which our natural advantages of land, sea and air lead to greater prosperity and lasting benefits.

The purpose of the bill before you is to create a non-profit Crown corporation which will be charged with the responsibility of the planning, organizing, administration and production of Transpo '86. There will be a board of directors headed by a president who will also be the commissioner-general, appointed by the government of Canada. There will be a vice-president who will be the deputy commissioner-general, appointed by the province of British Columbia. The corporation will have 13 director-members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and these will include nominees of the city of Vancouver, the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. The financial affairs of the corporation will be reported to this assembly once a year by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. As well, the auditor-general will complete an audit of the corporation at least once in each year.

The Minister of Finance will be the fiscal agent of the corporation, and the corporation is given in this bill the power of borrowing for its purposes. When the purposes of the corporation have been served, it may be dissolved under this bill by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Every effort has been made, and will be made, by those who are working on Transpo '86 to make this an exposition worthy of British Columbians. The Crown corporation will be empowered to organize this exposition, and in doing so to promote Vancouver, on its centennial, as one of the world's great cities, to promote British Columbia as a vital, beautiful and prosperous province, and to promote Canada as an exciting, vast and flourishing nation, while playing host to the world.

I have pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 19.

MR. LORIMER: This is a bill to allow the province to create a corporation for the purpose of putting on an exposition in 1986. It suggests the membership of the corporation will be three representatives from Vancouver, two from the federal government and up to eight from the province of British Columbia. It's obviously strictly a provincial show. Vancouver, I suggest, was brought in by the province as the likely city — the largest city in the province — to make the application for Transpo. In fact, this is not a city-of-Vancouver operation at all; it's strictly a provincial effort.

There are not too many facts known about Transpo '86. We know that no other city in the world applied for the hosting of this convention. Vancouver was the only city that applied, and as a result was successful. No one knows the costs of the operation — what the costs of Transpo '86 are likely to be. The Provincial Secretary, in introducing the bill, said that they are now doing a cost-benefit analysis to see what is going to happen — the likely costs of holding Transpo, the likely revenues, and the likely deficits at the end of this exposition.

The Vancouver city council is not in agreement with the holding of this exposition. There is a great debate going on in the city as to what the costs are going to be, what the city of Vancouver is likely to be owing at the end of 1986. We also know that up to this date the federal government has certainly made no announcement as to what federal aid might be forthcoming.

The reason this bill is before us, the reason the application was made for Transpo '86…. These announcements were made in the fall — the Christmas announcements. The reason for these announcements, of course, was to get the people who were drinking coffee in the coffee shops off the subject of dirty tricks and onto another subject. Transpo '86 was a likely candidate. There were other announcements at the time.

MR. KEMPF: Is that the best you can do this morning, Jim?

MR. LORIMER: This man from Omineca who talks a lot across the floor but never gets to his feet to speak doesn't like the suggestion that the major reason this was done was to get the people of the community to stop talking about dirty tricks and start talking about the great function that was going to come off in 1986. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. The announcement on B.C. Place was made at approximately the same time, as well as the fixed-link/tunnel announcement and so on.

[ Page 3517 ]

So this was one of the Christmas announcements made by this government to get the people of this province discussing other matters; but no studies were made as to what could well happen, what the costs would be and what the terrific losses might be. No effort was made either by the city of Vancouver…. The reason, of course, that they had no idea what the costs or benefits might be is that this was a very quick surprise and they had no time whatsoever to determine the likely costs or benefits of this exposition.

I was amused by the minister's classing Transpo '86 in the same words as if he were discussing the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games. I might say that these things are not in the same ball park. If you are expecting to get people coming from around the world, that just isn't going to happen to the same degree or any like degree as for the Commonwealth Games or the Olympics.

The announcement was made. There was obviously very little consultation with the Vancouver regional district, the city of Vancouver or the neighbouring municipalities who would have to be doing a lot of the work with regard to the hosting of this operation.

The real problem with this fiasco, I might say, is that the announcements were made without any pre-study about what the results might be. No leg work was done ahead of time. Announcements were made. I would anticipate and forecast, along with many other people, of course, that the losses that will be borne by this province and the city of Vancouver will be quite extreme. They are talking about a financial plus. I think it will end up as a financial minus.

If Transpo '86 were to benefit transit or transportation in any way in the city of Vancouver where the exposition is being held, I would support this bill very heartily; but there is no indication whatsoever that the transit situation in Vancouver is going to be improved, with or without the exposition. If it isn't improved, the nations coming from around the world to this exposition will look to see what we have in transportation and, unless something is done in a great hurry, we will be the laughing stock of the world as far as our transportation system in the city of Vancouver is concerned. There are only two things in transportation in the Vancouver area that might be shown with pride. One is the Royal Hudson, a novel operation, tourist train; and the other, of course, is SeaBus. Apart from that Vancouver lags far behind other cities of the world in the modes of transportation.

As I said, if there were any suggestion or hope that transportation would be improved as a result of this exposition, we would fully support this bill, but there's no indication here that anything will be done in transportation. It's mainly a method to get funds from the federal government to help in financing B.C. Place. This opposition cannot find its way clear to support this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in this debate in second reading of the bill to establish the Transpo 86 Corporation and certainly to offer it my enthusiastic and wholehearted support in every respect.

I think there may be a couple of misunderstandings on the part of the last speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who early in his remarks referred to it as a convention. I say kindly that it is not a convention or a conference on transit or urban transportation; it is a world exposition. I believe that most members opposite, whether they agree with or not, recognize it as such — a proposal for a world-class exposition sanctioned under the International Bureau of Expositions, which maintains very tight control as to when, how often, and where an exposition may be held.

The fact that there has been no proposal for another exposition in 1986 does not suggest that the field of international world fairs is empty. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there's considerable activity around the world with respect to the next decade in world expositions. Some of these proposals will fail and some will succeed; certainly Vancouver, the Canadian proposal, is in the latter category. There are proposals now for Australia in 1988; there has been from time to time the suggestion that one would be held in Alaska, but I think that one is somewhat in doubt; and members of this House will be interested to know that one is proposed in very early stages for London, in the United Kingdom, in 1990.

I cannot let pass some other remarks by the first speaker for the official opposition, who described this as one of the Christmas announcements, because the record of statements made in this House last year and statements made to the press, a variety, of material which is readily available to individuals in this House and outside, would show that the announcement with respect to seeking classification for 1986 was made very early in 1979 and worked on in May 1979, with an announcement to the effect that, as minister responsible at that time, I was to be in London to do some preliminary work. Certainly, virtually immediately after the provincial general election a delegation comprising senior public servants in British Columbia attended a semi-annual meeting in Paris in June — not last fall, last summer or last winter, but in June 1979.

The reason is that the International Bureau of Expositions, the assembly which says that you may or may not undertake a world exposition, through an international accord signed in 1928 — I believe I'm correct when I say 1928; certainly it's been in place for a number of years — meets twice annually. It meets in Paris, which is its headquarters, in June and November.

Therefore the record is quite clear for the member to carry on just a little further research. If he is not too excited about Transpo, so be it. That's fair. But, please, the record should not show unanswered the suggestion that this was something suddenly dreamed up in August, September or October of last year. We already have 18 months of very careful detailed work by a number of people, federally, provincially and in the city of Vancouver, with respect to this exposition in 1986.

I said earlier that it is not a convention; it is not a conference on one single or particular aspect of transportation. Transpo '86, by its very nature, will bring people together from around the world, particularly from the participating nations. There are 38 nations, I think — possibly 39. I understand that mainland China is very interested in joining that particular organization just as soon as possible and I had an opportunity to discuss that fact a few weeks ago with a representative of that country. We will see demonstrations of past, present and future transportation on the land, in the sea, in the air and in space. We will see involvement by the countries, of course, and by major corporations and small business firms. Some of them perhaps have developed a particular type of technology. which will be of interest to other participants and to the visitors.

We could not have got this far without the endorsement of the majority of members of the Vancouver city council, without the endorsement of the federal Conservative government and the newly re-elected Liberal government in Otta-

[ Page 3518 ]

wa. No province has the opportunity or authority to move on the international scene when dealing with an assembly of this kind. Therefore we really went at the invitation…. Admittedly the initiative came from British Columbia and Vancouver, but when we appear before the assembly when it meets every six months in Paris, we are introduced and are under the guidance, if you will, of the Canadian delegate representing this country as we deal with further developments regarding Transpo.

I must confess that very earlier on I wondered if we had all the capability — I speak now of early 1979 — to host a world-class exposition. That fear, concern or doubt, slight as it may have been, vanished quickly when I saw the individuals who were ready and willing to participate and those who will be attracted from other parts of Canada to participate as time goes on. Any possible residual concern was wiped away when the pre-inquiry team arrived here in late April of this year for a one-week visit in Vancouver, essentially, but also in Victoria briefly, to discuss and examine the capability of the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver to host this exposition.

My colleague the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has already identified that pre-inquiry team. Their report, Mr. Speaker, is most illuminating if one cares to read it. Certainly in the language of the International Bureau of Expositions it has been described to me as extremely enthusiastic with regard to, firstly, the magnificent natural beauty of Vancouver and the lower mainland area; secondly, the site; and thirdly, the arrangements which have been carried on this far.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we started early on in 1979 and the reason that we worked very hard through the balance of that year is that while we have still good lead time, there is much to be done. I think that there are examples of great success in world expositions in the last 10 to 20 years, but the success is particularly noticeable when the work has commenced well in advance. I think that it's correct to say that at this moment in time we are perhaps one year ahead of schedule. We're one year ahead of the tightest time constraints that will be placed on us for the preparation and development of the site and for the hosting of this exposition.

That pretty well concludes my remarks. We've had great support from the government of Canada in 1979 and thus far. We have had great support from the city of Vancouver. As more British Columbians come to examine and understand what a world-class exposition is all about, they recognize that it will have great benefits for this province, for western Canada and, indeed, for all of the country.

There is one other point I would make. I had the opportunity to visit what was to be the site of Expo '67 in Montreal in 1965. It was an empty site. Some work was underway. To the best of my recollection no buildings were under construction at that particular point in time. But within a two-year span of time all Canadians saw what happened successfully in that great year of 1967. This is not something which can be developed in just a very short space of time. It is certainly not something which can be developed without the support of a provincial government, a city council and the national government. But I'm satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that in every respect at this very early stage we can have and will have an exciting and immensely successful world exposition with the theme "Transportation in All Its Forms" six years hence.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments in regard to the Minister of Finance's statements. First, he said the competition was very strictly regulated. How closely must it be regulated when Vancouver, B.C., was the only applicant? It's a definite landslide victory for this present government. Secondly, the minister talked about space transportation being included in this $150-million country fair. I wonder why the government speaks about space travel when there are enough definite problems of travelling around this province on some of the highways now.

The Provincial Secretary in his opening remarks this morning spoke about the government wanting to run this country fair as a business venture, and then he went on to say that the anticipated loss would be almost $12 million. I wonder what type of business venture this is when you lose $12 million before you even start building the fair. The anticipated cost six years before the completion is $150 million, using some figures from other exhibitions and transportation conventions. So this $150 million would probably increase by at least 12 percent, looking at the inflation level of the economy at the present time.

Instead of the government stating that a country fair in 1986 will cost $150 million plus and lose at least $12 million, that $12 million could go directly to help people in this province, specifically in the north, with some of the problems that we're facing: lack of first-aid stations, bridges for children to get across to school, playfields…. I would just make a suggestion to this government that instead of $12 million being wasted from a loss on a country fair, I'd rather see that $12 million go into helping people in this province this year by building first-aid stations and bridges, so children don't have to walk across the ice to get to school.

Secondly, I suggest taking the $150 million that's anticipated to be paid for the cost of this fair and putting this right across the province, not just to help the people of the north with first-aid stations and some social services, but to help with problems that people right across this province are facing. You should cut out spending for a country fair of $150 million plus, when Vancouver was the only applicant to make a submission for this trade and convention fair.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'll be voting against this, because I believe that $150 million with a $12 million loss could go to better advantage for the people of this province by alleviating some of the social problems people in the north are facing today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think we should respond to the comments just made about a "country fair." Certainly this is a fair in a very beautiful part of the country, the downtown part of Vancouver, but a country fair it certainly is not. It's to be a great exposition of which all British Columbians can be extremely proud; a window for the world, to show what we can provide in transit services for the Vancouver area region generally over the next six years. I'm very enthusiastic about what will be done between now and then and what people from all over the world will see when they participate in Transpo '86.

There is a great deal said by the opposition, and generally it's all negative. There is very little positive said about anything, and that's to be expected from a group of socialists — they're very negative by nature — but really let's consider as well that Transpo '86 will bring many, many thousands of

[ Page 3519 ]

jobs, particularly in the tourist area. I guess that's the difference between the free-enterprisers on this side and the socialists on the other side: we plan and prepare for people, and if we were to simply take the attitude that "let things happen as they may," then we would not have the jobs available and would not provide for a sound economy in British Columbia.

All the things the member speaks of, for the north — for all parts of the province, for our children, for those in need of social programs, for our seniors — come about only if we have a prospering province, a province that provides jobs and opportunities for people, that shows people everywhere that we can and will be innovative and that we will provide opportunities for all people. For many of those youngsters who are presently in our educational system it is these sorts of things that show them that British Columbia is the movingest province in the whole of Canada and that here is where the opportunities lie.

MR. BARNES: The previous speaker made so many ridiculous remarks, things that I don't think we can give him any credit for by responding. This side of the House is certainly not opposed to exhibiting good work that is constructive and useful to the community.

A transportation exhibition could be a good thing if it was referred to the public, in the same way the Premier appeared to indicate he would do on the constitution talks. However, he was playing politics and was not serious. We would like to refer this whole issue to the public. For instance, you are talking about a trade and convention centre downtown — not necessarily rationalized as far as the transportation exhibition is concerned; and the same thing with B.C. Place. Both of those are separate, politically conceived ideas that are not related to a scheme that will actually benefit the residents in the lower mainland. They are separate, isolated, independent operations. This is the problem and this is the complaint. The Premier got an idea, went out and made an announcement and then decided to go and negotiate for the space he needed with Marathon Realty. You talk about business acumen. I'll tell you, if we ran peanut stands as badly as you are running the government we would all be in very serious trouble. What kind of management is that?

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) challenged this side of the House to be constructive, and I certainly don't intend to spend any more time describing their ineptness and inability to manage the affairs of the people. I would like to suggest, however, that in managing these affairs in their fumbling manner, they consider the following: the incorporation of the use of cycling along with transportation systems. I have made this recommendation in the past, and I submit again today that there are many people who would….

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, could we have order? The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) seems to have a great deal of difficulty speaking on his feet, but he does very well when he is sitting down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair will maintain order, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I think the idea of a transportation exhibition is to show the world something you can be proud of. The idea is to be able to have innovative ideas, to have something new and different, to show some foresight, to have it relate to the needs of the future generations. I see none of these elements. criteria or characteristics involved in what this government is doing right now. I'm not sure what the benefits will be, except that we will have a much heavier tax burden when we realize, halfway through it, that it is another infeasible idea that is not going to materialize economically.

The use of the cycle is really something that is potentially effective and can be demonstrated during the exhibition period in 1986 — if this scheme continues. I would like to see buses with racks on them that carry cycles. I would like to see the use of parking facilities for cyclists, for instance, at terminals where transfers take place in a rapid transit system, so that people can drive their automobiles, if they will, to a point where automobile congestion builds up and park their cars, they would be able to mount a bicycle and ride the last five miles much faster than they could drive their automobiles and accomplish several things: physical conditioning, getting a little fresh air, working up a sweat. When they get to work, find a shower for them and a place to secure their bicycles until they are off-duty.

These kinds of concepts are the things that I think would be impressive as far as a transportation system is concerned in a metropolitan area as large as Vancouver. The same thing should apply in the construction of all new roadways. There is no need to repeat the problem we had with the Massey Tunnel, in not providing for pedestrians or cyclists, We have a difficulty right now in having to provide the capital operating cost on an annual basis for that very ineffective shuttle system which operates only in the summer months. If we had designed that tunnel with the idea of people being able to walk or pedal through. I am sure many people would be using it, because, as you know, more and more people are residing in the Delta area around the Fraser River.

MR. KEMPF: What's it cost?

MR. BARNES: The member is concerned about cost, but this is the short-sighted attitude of the government. They only see myopically; they can only see one thing at a time; they cannot see into the future. Obviously they should have learned something from the negotiations they had in the Columbia River Treaty. but it seems as though they never, ever learn. We're talking about future costs, not about the present.

In the future, if we give the right leadership, we could encourage people to be more efficient in the use of their resources, including the energy within their own bodies. Many people are having great difficulty expending the energy they accumulate by sitting at the dinner table too long and not having any way to get rid of it. I'm suggesting to you that if you were to allow people an opportunity, with some kind of initiative, incentive or comprehensive plan that would permit them to be able to go full circle, I'm sure they would take some chances on getting out on the streets on their bicycles. I'm positive of it.

Another example was the SeaBus. When we were government we introduced the SeaBus and made specifications to the engineers to change that SeaBus design in order that cycles would be accommodated. As soon as your govern-

[ Page 3520 ]

ment came in you cancelled the orders, and we now have a SeaBus that will not permit cycles to be carried across. Obviously that would be a perfect demonstration of transportation concepts, where people would ride their bikes from West Vancouver and North Vancouver down to the terminal, ride across, and leave their cars at home. We could have four or five times as many SeaBuses as we have. These are the kinds of practical things you can do that accomplish not just moving people, but keeping people in shape.

Imagine a people-mover: we're talking about getting into shape, being able to cut down on medical costs and health costs, and you're going to put people on a treadmill and have them ride around without moving. When are we going to learn? That may be a good idea, but surely we can do better than come up with concepts that put people on treadmills; they're getting too much of that now. They're looking for some options, some real imagination.

Those ideas are all worn out, ineffective and expensive. I'm saying that we don't need to go big, we need to go imaginative. Big is not necessarily better. Going into debt is not necessarily the objective of these projects and schemes. They should relate somehow to something that's going to be useful to the community.

In closing, I would suggest that the Highway Act should be amended — that would be a good move for the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — so that when you're constructing roadways, tunnels and bridges, your engineers are cognizant of the total potential options that people may use to move themselves from point A to point B. Some may want to walk or ride tricycles, bicycles or mopeds; there's no telling what they may want to do. But we should be thinking about all these options and cutting down on the locked-in situation we have with the internal combustion engine, the automobile, which is obviously a major vested interest on that side of the House. I can appreciate their inability to be objective on a matter such as this because of their conflict of interest. However, they should attempt to rise above that and think in terms of the majority of the people in the community who are not locked in to partisan politics and are able to look at things more objectively.

I'm not opposed to the concept of showing off some of the innovative things that we're doing in British Columbia in transportation, but I cannot see any relationship to anything innovative. This is redundant, in fact. This bill is just another example of expenditures in blindness. They're not related to any real studies or efforts; it's sort of like McGeer talking about a fixed link from the mainland to the islands. It is just rhetoric; it's words, and it costs us a lot of money on feasibility studies that are used indirectly in a porkbarrelling way of paying off friends who are doing studies and nothing ever comes back. That's the thing that upsets me most about most announcements made by the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I find that last remark most unparliamentary.

MR. BARNES: What was that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Number one, the reference to a minister's name, and I would ask the member….

MR. BARNES: Whose name was that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You named a member, and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

MR. BARNES: Pat McGeer — oh, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind you that in this House we refer to members by the riding they come from or the ministry that they hold. I would also ask the hon. member to withdraw personal allusions to members with respect to the term "porkbarrel." The Chair finds that unparliamentary.

MR. BARNES: I would be more than pleased to withdraw any remarks that appear offensive to the Chair or to any hon. member in the chamber.

However, I think it should be pointed out that perhaps other words can be used in place of "porkbarrel" that would indicate that it is an opportunity for the government to selectively give contracts to supporters, or whatever you want to call them, who could do studies that never produce anything other than pictures, ideas and large debts for the taxpayers. We aren't able to relate those to any kind of constructive progress in construction or anything that we're going to get out of it. I suggest that that should stop. These announcements should not be made until they have been thoroughly reviewed, investigated, studied and done in such a way as to not jack up the price of whatever it is we intend to get before we have decided whether we want it or not. We should learn that lesson. That's one of the things that I don't understand about the business people over there, not knowing those fundamentals. In any event, as I said, I'm not opposed to the concept but I am opposed to the methods and the manner by which this bill has come before this Legislature. I intend to vote against it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't really planned on joining this debate. I thought it was rather evident that this is a very positive move. It is a move that has been brought forward through the encouragement of some people with a bit of vision for British Columbia — our Premier; the former Provincial Secretary, now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — and carried on by our present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

I'm glad to see that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has a real vision for the future of transportation in British Columbia in that he has discovered the bicycle. That's really a futuristic transportation system. I hope that when the exposition comes he will take his bicycle down to the exposition centre and show the world his vision of the future. His vision of the future in transportation in British Columbia and Vancouver is to put bicycle racks on the buses — tremendously forward thinking.

When we look at transportation in British Columbia, I can think of no area in the world which owes more for its development, modern lifestyle and standard of living than we do to developments in the transportation systems. We can just look back briefly at the development of this province, beginning with the coast, water transportation and coastal steamers. I can remember as a boy growing up on the coast of British Columbia the old Union Steamship line and the coastal steamers which really did a great deal to develop our province. Coastal transportation, of course, followed on to modern light aircraft for float operations.

The vision of our former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, led to the development of the very modern, efficient ferry systems we now have on this coast. Although they are criticized by many members here, they are praised by visitors to this province as probably the most efficient, modern and com-

[ Page 3521 ]

fortable ferry systems anywhere in the world. Yet they are constantly criticized by the enthusiastic negativism shown by our socialist friends opposite.

Transportation systems developed over the rest of the province. Again, former Premier W.A.C. Bennett had a vision for this province which required transportation systems in road, rail, water and air. Our present Premier, a man of vision who is looking ahead, is developing an airport program for this province so that air transportation can continue to play a vital role in the whole transportation system of this province.

These people opposite who smile and sit in their cozy places in the southern part of the province think the province is developed. This province is not half developed. When we get up to the north…. As some of our members proudly say, their north is partway up this province. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was criticizing transportation. No area in the province needs innovative and futuristic transportation more than that part of the province.

The opportunity of having a world-scale exposition on transportation in British Columbia is an opportunity that we should not forgo. The member for Atlin said nobody else wanted it. Indeed, other countries in the world did want it but our province had the foresight to be first off the mark to grab this opportunity, not necessarily so that we can show the world what we're doing but so that many countries in the world can show each other what has happened, what is happening and what will happen in the future. It does require some vision to put a thing like this together. Of course our negative socialists are against it, as they are against all positive things.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly support this bill. I think it will be a tremendous benefit to British Columbia not only in enhancing our transportation systems, but in learning from others so that we can develop better systems for the future and others can come to British Columbia and learn what we have done. We have indeed made some large strides in the development of transportation in the very difficult country that we have in British Columbia.

The attitude of the negative socialists opposite reminds me of a thing that Jonathan Swift said when he wrote Gulliver's Travels. He said: "You will know men of vision by the fact that all the nincompoops in the world will be united against them. " Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition intends to completely reject this bill in every form, and we're going to vote against it. The major reason is that we consider the Social Credit government absolutely irresponsible to bring in a bill like this and be ready to commit the citizens of British Columbia to a debt at a time of recession, when people need housing, more health care, denticare, and you name it. You know the situation we're in in this province today. We're at a time when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has announced a freeze, and yet we're asked to support an exhibition on transportation. We're not asked to support money for a transportation network around this province. We're not asked in this bill to support light rapid transit; we're asked to support a fair that's going to last for five and a half months.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why all these moneys should be committed to a fair at this time in this province's economy, when all ministers are going to have to curtail their budgets. I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) stand up and say: "This is going to bring jobs. Why are you so negative?"' If that member for Surrey, that minister, would like to increase the number of jobs in this province and at the same time help many of our citizens, why is he not in cabinet demanding that the Social Credit government take their responsibility and enter into the field of housing in this province? If you want to make jobs in this province and help people, why don't you put massive sums of money, which you're ready to commit to stadiums and fairs, into housing instead?

The people of B.C. must be wondering what is going on with this government. Are they in so much trouble politically that they have to keep bringing before us these irresponsible projects that are going to drain the people of British Columbia? Aside from our general objections to this bill, which we consider absolutely unnecessary at this time in our province's history, I am very concerned that the minister who introduced the bill simply did not reassure anyone on this side of the House in his opening remarks that the figures that he's presenting are going to be accurate.

I have a number of questions that I want to ask the minister which I hope he will reply to in closing or later in committee. Perhaps I should reserve those detailed questions for committee, but I just want to ask one now. That is: when the minister talks about expenses, is he including what we understand is to be a new covered football stadium connected with this? Is he including the installation of sewers, pavement, water, hydro and gas lines? Is he including the cost that Marathon Realty may be imposing for the land that is needed? None of these answers have come forward, yet the minister is trying to tell us that the deficit after the fair is over is going to be very short. We have many more questions in detail. I'll leave them for committee.

Our basic concern is that at a time when we're desperately in need of housing these acres are going to be bought for a fair. There's no guarantee when that fair is over — and I know the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is listening, because he made a statement with reference to what would happen to that land after and something about housing…. Our question is: with the cost of the land there, are average persons really going to be able to involve themselves in housing in that area? The minister is nodding his head and we certainly hope that when the minister nods his head he's going to really be able to assure us that the lower middle-class — I don't like to say class, so I'll say the lower middle-income people of this province — would be able to buy lots there. As far as we're concerned that money — and I cannot emphasize it more — should not be going into an expo at this time. It should be going into the direct needs of the people, particularly in the area of housing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think if this weren't so serious it would be laughable — it would be a joke. When the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) spoke of nincompoops he was certainly speaking of the group that we have called the government in British Columbia, led by Drapeau of the West. The first minister will be called "Drapeau of the West." He's going about this thing exactly the way Drapeau went after Expo. This is just another monument set up by a government that cannot afford to maintain its staff level, puts on a staff freeze and then gets up and gives us the sort of aggrandizement treatment. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) tells us we can well afford it.

How can we well afford it when that same minister stood

[ Page 3522 ]

up in this House a couple of weeks ago and said that he had to have a staff freeze because we were going broke? And we will go broke just because of the way this government messes around with the taxpayers' funds in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister of waste, highways, potholes and everything else he can get under his purview should not be talking about anything at this point. What he should be doing is going to the remainder of the cabinet and saying: "Look here, let's do some of that building up in the north. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is quite right that they have been neglected up there."

No, instead of that we are going to make a deal with Marathon Realty, now that we are forced into it. They know they've got us right where they want us, in the palm of their hand. This government is going to have to go and negotiate with Marathon and the CPR. They are going to come out of there with one great, smashing deal from that outfit. No government has ever come out on the right side of a financial deal with Marathon or with the CPR, and I predict that it is going to be exactly the same situation here. It is a monument government. That is the only thing they understand.

The whole question is so infuriating. When I hear all this talk about how lucky and fortunate we are to be recognized by the world body of expositions…. They have chosen us to be the site for this monumental waste of money. They have chosen us because nobody else asked. Did Rio de Janeiro ask? Did New York ask? No. Hong Kong? No. I don't know anybody who asked. As a matter of fact, even Drapeau failed to ask for this one. If that doesn't tell us something, I would like to know what does.

I would just like to comment with one or two words on the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland's) talk about these terrible socialists over here. Then he talked about the ferry system. There have been only two corporations nationalized in this province, both by the W.A.C. Bennett Socred government. One was B.C. Electric and the other was Black Ball ferries. That speaks for itself. I don't know why he is talking about socialists.

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you against that too?

MR. COCKE: What am I against?

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to know what you're for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Minister of Transportation and Highways come to order, please?

MR. COCKE: I think nationalization is shameful; negotiations are far, far better. Anyway, that is neither here nor there.

Mr. Speaker, it is a monument government. They have not made proper plans. They have not yet got the site in their hands. When the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) tells us by nodding and smiling that all is in hand and all is well in terms of this land being used for housing afterward or whatever, I don't think he has a clue how much he is going to pay for the land. I suggest the $12 million deficit is probably a very small fraction of what this monumental disaster is going to cost. It is going to cost plenty. I suggest that when they are dealing with all these different systems of transportation — we are informed they are going to be dealing also with transportation in space — we will find out that the biggest space in this province is the space between the cabinet's ears. It is all empty space and they are proving it every day, particularly with Bill 19, Transpo. We are totally opposed to this bill.

MR. LEVI: What if we gave an exposition and nobody came? Nobody really wanted to host it except us. The minister issued two documents, one a very impressive, colourful document which presumably made up the bulk of the presentation in Paris. That is this one here: "International Exposition on Progress in Transportation." I was interested in trying to get from this particular document the policy of the government in terms of transportation.

They have a number of sub-themes in here, and I really want to just read one theme, because it's the theme on water. That is a very good one, because the only transportation policy we've had from that government since they've been in is that they sold some ferries and they cut off the coastal services. We've had the ridiculous situation where people couldn't even get out of Ocean Falls, because there was no policy.

MR. BARBER: And the Marguerite.

MR. LEVI: And the Marguerite. Now we've got some minister who wants to build a tunnel underground.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Tutankhamen, the former Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), is talking. We're going to put you into a mausoleum one of these days.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What else would we build? Well, we'll take the $14 million you blew on the heroin plan and we could probably put people to work.

But back to the main motion, Mr. Chairman, and I want to quote from this fantastic document. It was written, I believe, by Jean Drapeau. I think he was hired as a consultant, because it says here: "Man in motion" — and if there was ever a guy in motion, it's Jean Drapeau — "on water — sur 1'eau…." You've got to listen to this, because I think this really encapsulates all of the transportation policy, particularly related to water, of the present government. It says: "This sub-theme originates with man's first ventures onto the water. Today, slender dug-out racing canoes race weekly in the coastal bays and inlets, crews chanting as they stroke. The annual race on Vancouver's English Bay could easily become an integral part of the exposition." That's the integral part: dug-out canoes….

MR. COCKE: Bicycles.

MR. LEVI: No, no bicycles.

We carry on, however. The writer, in his effort to enunciate the theme, pulls us into the twenty-first century. He says: "Besides paddle propulsion" — which would make the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) very happy, because it's a kind of preventative health measure — boats and ships of B.C.'s coastal and inland waters have used

[ Page 3523 ]

sail." I can see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), in order to replace the Marguerite, isn't going to rebuild the Marguerite; he's going to hire one of those wheat barques lying down in Chile that they're not using; that will become part of our transportation.

Then he goes on to say: "Paddle-wheel and screw to move people and material…." Well, we can't comment too much on that paragraph, Mr. Chairman.

"Much of the maritime history is still afloat and available to illustrate the theme. The importance of canals to Canada's development will be stressed as well." Now where is the canal going to be? One has to really think about that. I would suggest that there is going to be a canal from the corner of Willingdon and Hastings all the way down to connect up with Annacis Island. I think that's probably a very appropriate place to put the canal.

"On the other hand, Hovercraft, experimental submersible craft and an operational jetfoil craft will be available for viewing.'' Well, we're viewing that almost every day. It's so high out of the water because it doesn't have any passengers that I don't think we really get a very good idea what it does.

"Nuclear-powered merchant ships will be discussed. Modern navigation aids, including computer weather prediction models, will be discussed and demonstrated."

Now there is nothing wrong in that kind of thing. We've had two large expositions in Canada in the past six years. We had the Olympic Games, which is an exposition; it is an exposition of muscle and physical competence. We had Habitat in 1976. There was a lot of talking at Habitat. It was not, by and large, a very successful conference. What came out of it were a number of resolutions about how we might deal with making housing available to low-income people; there was a thrust there. They walked away, and nobody paid any attention to it and it sits there, mouldering on the shelves out at UBC. There is still a little Habitat office that, I understand, is run by Peter Oberlander; but nothing ever happens.

Now you've got this transportation system. If the government had a policy, if they talked about a transportation policy as a government, then, I think, they would be able to justify it — that they want to build on the ideas they have about transportation. Nobody on that side of the House has ever got up and told us what their transportation policy is — whether it's on land or on sea or in the air. They've not come out with a conference. The only member over there who talks about any kind of transportation is the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — and he's not in the cabinet. He talks about it, but nobody else on that side talks about it. Now how can you sit down without people wondering just what it is you're about, when you really don't have a transportation policy?

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said that it wasn't something they dreamed up; they had the idea 18 months ago. Well, what did they have 18 months ago? I guess the Premier was walking around, and somebody suggested: "We've got to get the heat off us, so let's talk about an exposition of transportation." Now that wasn't 18 months ago, because 18 months ago he wasn't in that kind of trouble.

What amazes me is the second document that was issued. The second document was a very large press release issued on May 20, and it's put together. Actually the contact person is Paul Manning of stadium fame; he's the man who now belongs to the committee for Transpo. He says in the introduction…. Now they talk about planning; they figured out what it's going to cost. Let me read the second-last paragraph:

"Since the nature of the concept is unique and there is no exact parallel upon which to draw, the methodology used in developing each of the various figures is described in detail later. But it should be noted that they are intended only as a starting point for the financial control effort. It is of the greatest importance that they be tested and modified as more information becomes available."

It is this next paragraph.

"All figures set out in the report are in 1980 dollars. It is expected that while the absolute values of the numbers will increase as a result of the inflation, their relative values will remain substantially unchanged.''

I am going to have to call Paul Manning to find out what he means by that. If he is suggesting that the proportion of money expended on capital costs will not vary in terms of proportion vis-à-vis the operational costs…. Is that what he is saying? That is the only thing I can get out of it. It is amazing to me that you can embark on a project like this. Yet nobody has sat down to do any projection into 1986 and 1987, unless the government is trying to pick it up. We already had one good example of what a terrible mess the government got into. In fact, the whole fiasco of the Montreal games affected every taxpayer in this country, not just in Quebec. Every taxpayer in the country had to pick up the deficit for that.

The minister tells us it is going to cost about $150 million or $160 million and they are $12 million behind. The individual who is coordinating the program indicates that they have done no projections past 1980. In another forum we have had an opportunity to try to understand. The public knows, for instance, in respect to some of the minister's negotiations about coal that nobody seems to be able to understand or tell anybody what it costs to ship so much coal and how much it will be. Nobody wants to talk about that. Nobody can talk about anything but 1980 dollars or 1979 dollars. With all the machinery and all the so-called financial expertise that government has got, do you mean to tell me they can't sit down and tell us, within reason, what this is going to cost? All they have to tell us is that they can only give it in 1980 dollars.

We are talking about a 1986 project. That kind of information is extremely misleading. If we are attempting to understand what it will cost, then they should do a lot more work than just coming in here and suggesting to us that this is something that is going to be reasonable. There is no indication whatsoever that this thing will be anything less than a loss of $70 million or $80 million, based on the inflation over the next five or six years. We have been having some discussions in another forum about this, how you might calculate what costs will be five or six years down the road. It was suggested to me that in the first instance you can double them. That is really what you are talking about. You are talking about the capital cost in paying off the money and the interest, also adding for the inflation.

The minister omitted from his statement that these costs he gave us this morning are in 1980 dollars. The project will not be operating until 1986. It was a complete lack of candour on the part of that minister in respect to telling us just what it is going to cost. He has not told us, for instance, what the role

[ Page 3524 ]

of the federal government is. It is my understanding that the federal government made it very clear that they are not participating. They did not, for instance, accept the argument the minister used that somehow it is similar to the effort that was made in the Commonwealth Games. It does not fall under the criteria of that kind of operation at all. They were not prepared at all to be involved in it. Had the federal government been prepared to be involved in it, I doubt very much that they would do too much out in the west. He hasn't told us that.

What negotiations are going on? We understand from statements in the press that there are no negotiations. The federal government has been very clear about it. They are not going to share in it. The major burden will fall on the taxpayers in the province, and probably an extra burden — as much as the mayor of Vancouver won't say it — on the local taxpayers there.

It is an ill-conceived program based, they say, on a transportation theme from a government that has no transportation policy whatsoever. You can't justify that to the world. Are you going to justify what you've done to transportation in this province since you've been government? We have had statements of policy coming from that government about energy, transportation, coal, oil. We are still waiting. You know what happens. They are all up there working in their little smoke factories and nothing really comes out.

In relation to this project, it is not easy, as a citizen of this province, to look at the possibility of the province having an exposition on transportation and say you have to reject it. You have to put some thought into the idea. But we do it on several grounds. The key question is their failure — although they campaigned and they constantly talked for five years — on the issue of solving the transit problem. Their solution was simply to dump it on the provinces. We saw what a mess they made of sea transportation. Without that kind of policy that is the principle we use to vote against it.

We don't think they are capable of pulling off this project. This could wind up to be a great embarrassment, not only to the province of British Columbia but to Canada as a whole. It is an ill-conceived idea based on a whim. It is all part and parcel of that whole Pharaoh apparatus they are intending to construct. The last major idea the Social Credit government had — I am not talking about this one — was back in 1970 when they conceived the idea of having a 57-storey office building. Do you remember? Since that time they have never come forward with one practical idea.

They're talking about building a stadium down in False Creek in the middle of the busiest intersection, with no transportation at all. They have no ideas; they are simply grasping at straws in order to advance their political situation. This is not going to advance their political situation, and it's certainly not going to advance the prestige of this province. I have no trouble in going along with my colleagues and voting against this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: First of all, I would like to make a sincere introduction of one of my fellow ice-hockey players.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: His name is John Way. Incredible as it may seem, he's almost as incompetent a defenseman as I am on our phony-baloney hockey team, which last night beat the opponents. I ask the House to make him welcome, more or less.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, I've been trying for two years. I'm no better, and neither is he, unfortunately.

One of the reasons why this bill is so objectionable is that it betrays, more than the government might ever admit, the true priorities of Social Credit. It betrays their real interests and their real point of view. It admits more by this description than they would ever do by their own language where their hearts really lie and where their social priorities are really to be found.

If ever a bill demonstrated that a government prefers image over real achievement, it's this bill. If ever a bill could demonstrate that a government prefers circuses and country fairs over the substance of a successful social and economic policy, it's this bill. If ever a bill provided evidence that this government is in desperate political trouble, and is desperate to regain lost popularity by spending any amount of money to reverse the political polls, it's this bill.

Have we heard, Mr. Speaker, from any significant consumer or interest or social group in the province that wanted Transpo '86? Was there a single constituency in the whole of British Columbia speaking in favour of this notion before the government adopted it? I'm not aware of a single group of business People, neighbourhood interests, transportation planners, or persons concerned with the issue, who asked the government to put together this international country fair so aptly described by my colleague for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). This bill does not represent any interest group, any legitimate concern on the part of business or trade unions or professional people in the province. It is a typical Socred scheme to try and reverse the predictable Socred unpopularity since "Bungling Bill," as he's come to be known, took over the leadership of this province. It's a typical Socred scheme which proves beyond question and doubt and challenge where the real interests of Social Credit lie.

This government has asked us to take pride in some very curious things. They ask us to be proud of the fact that we won an international competition which no one else entered. Why should we be proud of that? What kind of game is that that we should take pride in winning? But apparently, by the standards of Social Credit, this is something we should be proud of.

They ask us to believe — or at least the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) did — that British Columbia has something to be proud of in the field of transport. They ask us to believe that we will not be mocked, ridiculed and laughed at by the international community that comes to this province and discovers how obsolete, incompetent and inept the transportation policies of the host province are. They ask us to be proud of the British Columbia achievements which apparently will be pointed to, no doubt with sniggering, by the international transportation community that wonders how on earth any province would have the gall to put on an international exposition when its own transportation policies are in such a mess.

Now what are we going to point to with this great pride of Social Credit? What will British Columbia have to show at this international country fair? Apparently we can show the

[ Page 3525 ]

jetfoil, which will be out of service by that time. We might be able to show the Princess Marguerite, which will be in mothballs at that time. We might be able to tell them the story of what happens when a government doubles the ferry rates and drives away all the tourists. That would be a proud point to exhibit internationally, wouldn't it, Mr. Speaker? We might be able to demonstrate the chaos of northern marine transportation in this province, and tell them the happy story of the people of Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Bella Coola. That would also be something to be proud of, would it not, Mr. Speaker? All of these tremendous achievements of Social Credit are going to be shown to the world.

I suppose we can hope one thing: that by 1986 they will be out of power. We might ask the other question: what will happen to the exhibition if, one or two years from now, they are defeated, as they surely will be, and another government is in office? Will a successful government honour this ludicrous commitment and spend these moneys so wastefully and purposelessly? One might ask whether or not a successor government will be prepared to honour the commitment to this ridiculous waste of money. It's just possible that a successor government will not be prepared to do that. The International Bureau of Expositions might, perhaps, take some cognizance of that possibility, the current fortunes of Social Credit being what they are.

This Transpo is going to be a vast embarrassment to the people of British Columbia. When the international engineering and transportation community comes here and looks at our obsolete bus system and chaotic marine transportation system, and hears the stories of the Princess Marguerite, the jetfoil and the marine transportation mess in the northern part of this province, they are going to laugh and laugh and laugh again at any province that would have the nerve to invite the international transportation community to come here and see this chaos in our own policies.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Maybe there will be a British Columbia booth. I urge the government to make it as small and obscure as possible. Thus we may be able to diminish the embarrassment that will be suffered by the people of this province, Maybe it would be better if we didn't have any booth at all, because we have nothing to be proud of, nothing to show and nothing to exhibit.

However, it is possible that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will be able to show up with a few models of vast cross-water bridges which have collapsed in other parts of the world and which he proposes to build here. He may be able to show us pictures of the Hood Bridge collapsing or of the bridge in Florida collapsing. He may be able to show us pictures of the proposed similar bridge from the mainland to Vancouver Island. That would make an interesting exhibition. He may, on the other hand, show us pictures of tunnels collapsing and then talk about his plans for tunnels to Vancouver Island. He may, as well, show pictures of the Princess Marguerite that was, the jetfoil that never worked, the Queen of Prince Rupert that wasn't and all of the other wonderful achievements of Social Credit.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) may, for instance, want to show us models of his monorail scheme that no one has asked for, that cannot be afforded, that no one wants and that will cost far more than it ever should. If he gets ahead with that particular scheme, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may show up with his monorail models in some small room.

That's all we've got to show. That's all we have to demonstrate. That's all there is to argue. How about the Trident? Well, we can't take any credit for that. Mr. Vavarek can take credit for that, but not us. However, the problem remains that if this international fair comes to British Columbia we will be embarrassed. Our participation, our booth, our exhibition will consist of nothing but failures and flops and chaos because that's what the transportation policy is under Social Credit — the Princess Marguerite, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, the jetfoil, the Prince Rupert, the doubling of the ferry rates and all of those other spectacular achievements of Social Credit.

After five years we have no LRT in British Columbia. After five years of Social Credit all of the negotiations that were commenced under the New Democrat administration with the national railways to use their track and with B.C. Hydro to use its track have failed, been stopped and achieved nothing. So we might also have a British Columbia booth that presents all of the contracts that were never signed, all of the leases that were never arranged, all of the arrangements that never occurred for LRT because of the incompetence of Social Credit.

There is one thing, however, that British Columbia could exhibit at Transpo '86. Unfortunately for Social Credit, it is the only achievement of government in this province in the last decade, but it wasn't theirs. I suspect that is why we may never hear about it. You see, the only new, modern, sophisticated, imaginative and workable transportation scheme introduced in this province in the last decade was introduced by the Barrett administration. It is called, of course, SeaBus.

SeaBus works. SeaBus is an international symbol of Canadian excellence in technology and engineering. SeaBus is far cheaper than would have been a ridiculous third crossing over the Burrard Inlet with all of the costs of the bridge, the access roads, smashing through neighbourhoods and expropriating properties and the social and human costs that would have resulted if that ridiculous Social Credit proposal of the sixties had been allowed to proceed. It costs far less to the taxpayers than would a third crossing. The SeaBus is a marvel of technology, achievement and modern transportation. It is the only achievement of government in the last decade that deserves to be exhibited at Transpo. Will it be? Not likely, because much to the embarrassment of these incompetents opposite it was, of course, an achievement of the best government British Columbia has ever had, and that was the New Democrat government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're biased, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: You bet I'm biased. I'm proud too. Comparing it with the incompetence of your government, I'm doubly proud.

There is another aspect to all of this which was raised by my colleague, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Legitimate criticism can be raised about the competence of this administration to run a world's fair. This is the government, after all, responsible for the Seaboard Assurance fiasco. This is the government responsible for the fiasco at Ocean Falls, where we will shortly be sued by the Los

[ Page 3526 ]

Angeles Times because of the ineptness of Social Credit. This is the party responsible for the Columbia River Treaty. one of the most ridiculous international agreements ever signed, an agreement which has cost us $1 billion so far to export power to our American cousins. This is the party which is not competent enough to do Transpo '86 because they were not competent enough to realize the problems of signing the High Ross Dam agreement. This party and this government are simply not competent to make any international deal. The Columbia River Treaty was an international deal which they blew. The Ross Dam Treaty was an international deal which they blew.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member to return to the principle of the bill presently before us.

MR. BARBER: The principle is to establish a corporation which will sign an international agreement on behalf of the people of this province and this country. We have some reason to doubt the ability of Social Credit to sign any competent international agreement, because every prior one they've signed has been a loser for the people of British Columbia.

So not only does this bill reveal the fact that Social Credit, in the field of transportation as in every other field, is more concerned with image than substance, not only does this bill further indicate the mistaken and misplaced priorities of Social Credit in a time of recession and great human need, but this bill also causes reasonable people to ask whether or not these incompetents opposite are able to handle the obligations. We doubt that they are, because every other thing they've tried to pull off internationally has been a flop, a fiasco and a waste of money. I won't mention the Columbia River Treaty again; I won't mention the Ross Dam treaty again. It's not necessary. The point is well known and the evidence is overwhelming.

The Socreds get hosed, and we get hosed, every time they go shopping abroad. They ask us to be proud of winning a competition that no one else entered — that is a joke. They ask us to be proud of the fact that they cannot calculate the costs of the exposition — that is a joke. They ask us to believe that British Columbia's booth at this country fair will be something we can take pride in, and that is another joke, with the solitary exception of SeaBus. But it wasn't their government that did it, it was ours, so we don't expect to see much in the way of praise for SeaBus. They ask us to take pride in the fact that British Columbia's magnificent achievements in transit will be on display for all the world to snicker at. Well, there's nothing to be proud of there. Let me say it again; after five years of Social Credit all we can show are contracts that were never signed, leases that were never entered into, railways that were never exploited, light rapid transit that was never built and achievements that amount to precisely nothing.

I suppose, though, there is another thing that British Columbia could display, and that is a picture of the lots of all the car dealers who form the coalition government of this province. We could show pictures of Mussallem Motors, and pictures of the Ford dealership of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and pictures of the GM dealership of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). We could show pictures of all the used-car dealers and used-car lots run by Social Credit. This might be British Columbia's unique contribution to Transpo '86. At least we have something to show there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will instruct the member, for the second and last time, to return to the theme of the bill or discontinue speaking.

MR. BARBER: I am on the theme of the bill, and I appreciate your advice. The theme of the bill is to commit this province to participate in Transpo '86. The question l am asking is: what participation will we have, except to lose money? We have nothing else to show. Is this not a reasonable question, Mr. Speaker? Of course it is.

I suppose we could also show pictures of the money that will be wasted on the Annacis crossing. Maybe British Columbia's exhibition at Transpo could also be included in that field, but I doubt that they'll talk about that either once the people become clear in their own minds — as they are rapidly doing — of what a waste that is. So we're not going to talk about that at Transpo '86 either.

The government asks us to take pride in British Columbia's achievements and to be prepared to show them to the world at Transpo '86. What we're asking the government to do is to reconsider, and save us the embarrassment of being attacked by the international transportation community for putting on such a joke at the taxpayers' expense. If there was anything for British Columbia to boast about we might support this bill. If there was any reason to spend money on this project instead of on housing and health, we might support the bill. If it was possible for the government to demonstrate a federal commitment that would help bail out the British Columbia taxpaying losers who will support this loser, we might consider supporting the bill. If anyone in British Columbia other than the political leadership of a failing political party had even wanted Transpo '86 we might support the bill, but the government can offer no such evidence, no such argument; the government can provide none of those answers. Why is that? Because Transpo '86 is not needed, wanted or welcome. That's why we don't support the bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place just for a few moments to say very little, because we shouldn't be wasting so much time with such an excellent bill.

I am amazed. What has the hon. member who just spoke got against used car dealers? They are honourable people making an honourable living. I want to tell them; I am entitled to reply. If I was a used-car dealer I could say so, but I am not, and neither is the hon. member for Vancouver South. What is the point of degrading honourable people? If I was a used-car dealer I think I'd just as soon be a used-car dealer as a professional gadfly and dilettante.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not calling anybody names. At least we have an honourable job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you, as I asked the previous speaker, to return to the principle of the bill before us, which is the Transpo '86 Corporation Act.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with you, and I return now to the act.

The fact is that this act tells very clearly a different philosophy between this party and that negative opposition.

[ Page 3527 ]

If you ever heard more negativism, more tearing down, not a single suggestion of building anything…. They talk about the great thing they did, the greatest thing ever done, the only thing they can talk about with pride — the SeaBus. Very well, it's a nice thing — beautiful. I appreciate and admire it, but certainly I'm glad that we're a wealthy province to be able to afford it. It is nice.

With this bill, what we are saying is that it is a self-generating income for the people of British Columbia. It is a matter of dignity and honour. A new business is established to create more action in the province. We know that during their term of office they tore things down and mining stopped, building stopped and everybody stopped. They had to call the parliament back to get things going again — to put everybody back to work. Everybody quit working in British Columbia. Mines left. Do they remember that? They called them back in the last of their dying days in 1975. The whole country stopped. But when we're back, mining is back, business is back and we're prosperous and can afford SeaBus. If they had still been in office, heaven forbid, SeaBus would have been taken off long ago. They couldn't have afforded the gas for it.

However, Mr. Speaker, I tell you the whole thing is a different philosophy. We believe in building up and creating. This Transpo '86 will be a monument to British Columbia and to the future, and it will be an area now in slum condition that will be built up beautifully for people. It'll bring much tourism, housing and business of all kinds. This is the building-up principle of our government. Our philosophy is to build, where theirs has been negative and knock-down. That's the difference. That's what this bill says: we are builders. They are negative and knock them down. We can expect the arguments from them. Knock everything down and tear it apart — that's all you've heard this morning, Mr. Speaker. Transpo '86 will be a monument not only to this government, but also to the foresight of the people of British Columbia who put us in government. And believe me, we re going to stay there.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the government keeps telling us that the whole world will be talking about British Columbia once Transpo '86 is concluded, and they will. There isn't any question about it. The whole world is going to be talking about British Columbia, because they are going to be witnessing in British Columbia, if they visit the twenty-first floor of the Scotia Tower, where the offices of Transpo are, one of the most luxuriously appointed suites of offices anywhere in the world.

A very sensitive, perceptive British Columbian stumbled into these offices and was so stunned that she came to me and reported that the pile of the carpeting was so thick that she was gasping for air. She almost drowned. She placed one foot on the rug and sank. That's right. This very sensitive, perceptive British Columbian is about five foot seven or eight, so we're not speaking about a tiny British Columbian; we're talking about a giant British Columbian who just about drowned in the carpeting in that suite of offices.

AN HON. MEMBER: More patronage.

MS. BROWN: That's right. This British Columbian reported to me that indeed the office of Mr. Paul Manning is more plush, she suspects, than the offices of any of the Rockefellers who ever had offices anywhere in the world.

The world will be talking about British Columbia when this is over. They will be talking about the model of False Creek. I would like the government members to take a tour of those buildings. I am certainly going to take a tour of them and come back and compare it with my own office, believe me, If I want to change my mind in my office I have to step outside and then go back in again. That is how small our offices are. The world, when it comes to Transpo '86, should not only visit the offices on the twenty-first floor of the Scotia building but they should visit the offices of some of the Opposition members too.

However, in these offices there is a scale model of False Creek. What happens is that you end up with a sort of mirror vision. When you look in the office, on the entire wall you see exactly the same thing you would if you looked out the window. Somewhere along the line somebody spent a lot of money to have a model constructed which was an exact replica of what you see when you look through the window of the twenty-first floor of the Scotia building.

MR. BARBER: Why didn't they just take a picture?

MS. BROWN: Right. And I would like to know, first of all, when the minister rises to close debate, what it cost the people of British Columbia to have that model constructed. I would like to have that figure broken down into just how many child-care workers could have been hired for the infant development program which, as you heard earlier in the week when we were discussing it with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), is going short-staffed. It is not just the money that is spent to bring that exposition here which is an insult to the people of British Columbia but the money which has been spent to appoint the very offices which the so-called workers of the government are sitting in as they prepare for this exposition.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who has left his seat, stated earlier: "The Transpo '86 is a perfect example of the difference in philosophy between the government and the opposition." He was quite right, because this opposition would not have established, as a priority, the building and the appointments of a suite of offices as a priority over the hiring of child-care workers for an infant development program established to work with small children with disabilities and handicaps who are trying to adjust themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are having some difficulty in seeing how this fits in with the principle of the bill, but in fact it does because I am doing a comparison in terms of the reason why it is not possible for the opposition to support this particular piece of legislation, to spend this amount of money on what the member for Dewdney again says will be a monument to the government for years. The only monument we in the opposition want is healthy children. That's the monument that we want. If this piece of legislation….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. By the greatest stretch of the imagination the Chair is unable to relate the remarks of the member to the bill presently before us. I would ask that while casual and glancing references are acceptable to a degree, the prolonged discussion the member is now engaged in is really out of order under this particular debate. I would ask the member please to return to the principle of the bill before us.

MS. BROWN: I would like the record to show that it is

[ Page 3528 ]

not just the members of the opposition who are opposed to this bill. In fact, the mayor of that marvellous royal city of New Westminster is quoted as having said how grateful he is to Vancouver for accepting this travesty, and how happy he is that New Westminster was not saddled with it, because the end result is going to be a remarkable deficit. New Westminster certainly is not interested in winning a competition in which it is the only contestant. New Westminster wasn't interested, but apparently Vancouver was.

I just want to say, very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition is going to oppose this bill and go on record as being opposed to it, and not in a negative sense. The opposition is a positive opposition. It is a very positive opposition. It is an opposition that says that we will not support a government that puts monuments and things before people. That's a positive opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to make a few comments, essentially in a positive vein, and certainly emphasizing the fact that Transpo '86 can bring blessings not only to the people of B.C. but to Canada and, I think, to the world.

First, to be quite specific, the Ontario government has put a large amount of money — some $70 million — into a new light rapid transit design. A great deal of work has been done on that development. The Ontario government now sees Transpo '86 as an opportunity to market that development, not just in British Columbia but around the world. The Ontario government is prepared to not only sell a system for rapid transit use in British Columbia, but to manufacture cars and other components of that system in British Columbia not only for our use in British Columbia but for the export market around the world. This is the kind of development that can come to this province as a result of the kind of initiatives that this government has shown in landing Transpo '86 for British Columbia, and particularly Vancouver, in the mid-1980s.

This automated light rapid transit system is unique. There is considerable interest in it already in the United States and the United Kingdom. It's interesting because it's relatively low in capital cost and it's the kind of development that would fit into our Urban Transit Authority plan for the greater Vancouver area. It's light in weight. It's propelled by a unique magnetic system that pulls on a rail; it doesn't drive the wheels, and is therefore virtually noiseless. It uses less energy than other systems. It can go up steeper slopes than other systems. It is therefore lower in cost insofar as separating grades or street crossings from the rapid transit system than it would be under any other known system. I believe it is a highly marketable one. It's one that the Ontario government has invested a great deal of money in. It's one that will probably be installed in Hamilton, Ontario, in the next few years. It's one in which the federal government is prepared to put up a third of the cost in Hamilton and a third of the cost in any other province which will use this system in the next few years. So here is an opportunity for federal money as well as capitalizing on the initiative of Canadian engineers in another province. It looks as if it is going to be proving up perhaps one of the best light rapid transit systems in the world.

Vancouver, with Transpo '86, has an opportunity to install this system, not on an experimental scale of two or three miles in length such as exists now in Kingston, Ontario, but on a city-wide scale. Ours may be the first system using the automated light rapid transit vehicle which has been developed in central Canada, which can be manufactured here if we adopt the system and, if it is adopted by our Urban Transit Authority as the system, will be a showplace for that system for sale around the world. I think that this is the kind of development which the opposition should welcome, rather than deprecate the kinds of developments which we may well have to show the rest of the world.

There are many other transportation developments that have occurred in this province, are occurring or may well occur in the next few years. The Pacific Northwest and British Columbia is the area in which helicopter logging is being developed. Hopefully it will be successful and we'll be able to demonstrate this kind of transportation development at Transpo '86. Float planes — British Columbia uses them more than any other province. Canada uses float planes more than any other country in the world. Float planes are virtually unknown in most other parts of the world. There is a kind of development that is native to British Columbia and the pacific northwest.

We have the little Pisces submarine that was developed exclusively in North Vancouver. It is selling around the world for survey and other purposes. It is continuing to sell well. It has been sold even to the Russians. They want more. This kind of development may still be in the forefront in 1986. Why not boast about it? Hopefully the Trident is going to be a success. Hopefully the member for Victoria by then will recognize it as a success and be happy to see it being shown off as one of the kinds of things we can develop in this province.

Yes, we will have a few carry-overs from the past, like the Marguerite, or perhaps the Royal Hudson. These are the kinds of developments that are heritage kinds of things. It always intrigues me that the NDP really like to put in the showcase of British Columbia the old cast-offs of the CPR. The Marguerite still perhaps has a role to play, but the Marguerite was developed, built and operated by the CPR. So was the Royal Hudson. Once they pass out of economic viability then the NDP becomes interested in them, buys them up and wants to run them forever. They still denigrate the CPR. The CPR is terrible, but if the CPR doesn't need it anymore, they want it and the people of British Columbia should pay for it. All right, let's parade the Marguerite and the Royal Hudson also at Transpo '86. That is fine. These are just two more examples of the kinds of things we could show off. We have a fantastic highway system in some of the most difficult terrain in the world. Let's boast about it. These are the kinds of things we can talk about and can demonstrate, in effect, at Transpo '86.

I am all for this bill. I think it is good legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a few brief notes, but I might remind the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour that British Columbia did not land Transpo '86. We were apparently the only city and province in the world bidding for it. How can you land something nobody else wanted?

I will, by the way, be voting against this. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, but before I do, I'd just like to address myself briefly to one or two of the remarks from the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour. For example, he referred to the Royal Hudson and the Marguerite as CPR cast-offs. I'd like to tell you that those ventures made money. It was the Social Credit government that jumped on the bandwagon on those two issues. It is the former Provincial

[ Page 3529 ]

Secretary and the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who are taking full advantage of the Royal Hudson, advertising the Royal Hudson all over this province. I'm not knocking it; it was a good venture. But I might remind the House that that was an NDP venture, Mr. Speaker.

So was the Marguerite, which happened to be a moneymaker, and would have made in excess of $1 million this year had it been left on that route. It was that government that withdrew that vessel from service. It is that government that is now taking my suggestion and is possibly going to put that vessel back into service next year. I'm pleased to see that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is with me on that particular issue.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He agrees with me on that one, at least.

The reason I got up, representing a rural area, is that we do have many transportation problems. I'm not talking about coastal transportation at the moment. What I am trying to discuss is that in most of these rural areas we have no reasonable type of transportation service other than the automobile. Where we do have bus service it is irregular. In most places it is nonexistent. Where we do have it, fares are being increased again this year. There is no proper routing or scheduling. What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, is that those funds that are going to be diverted to Transpo '86 could perhaps be better used in upgrading public transportation systems in rural areas.

I can give you numerous examples in my own riding and in other parts of the province that perhaps the government should be considering. What have we got, for example, from Powell River to the small community of Lund? Absolutely nothing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that we're debating Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, rather than transportation in the Powell River area and other things. I wonder if the member would address the bill.

MS. BROWN: Are you the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the member, no doubt, will be well taken by the member for Mackenzie as he continues the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes. I understand very well. The fact is that that member doesn't want to listen to what I'm discussing here, because the same thing applies in his area. Where bus service exists in some of these rural areas, 20- and 30-year-old buses are broken down half the time. There's no public transportation, and here we have a government that's going to waste millions of dollars on this big venture in the lower mainland.

I might point out to you that we often hear about federal funding participation in this Transpo '86 venture. I should point out to the House that that federal funding is not necessarily guaranteed. With this government's continued Canada-bashing policies that it has undertaken, why wouldn't Mr. Trudeau and company say: "Why should we fund your programs in British Columbia if you're going to kick us all over the ball park every day of the week? Why should we?"

So those federal funds for this program are not necessarily forthcoming.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I take offence at the reference of the member to Canada-bashing. I assume that he feels that because British Columbia is defending the rights of British Columbians it is Canada-bashing. I ask the member to withdraw that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the member for Mackenzie, the Minister of Forests has asked for a withdrawal of a remark which the minister finds offensive in manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know what remark he finds offensive. because the government is clearly on record as Canada-bashing and Ottawa-bashing. If he finds that remark offensive, I suggest to him that they change their policy over there. In any event, I do withdraw.

There are other areas of transportation that the funds could be used for. Never in the history of this province has coast transportation been in such a shambles.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I hear the Minister of Forests yelling "order" again. I thought he would be out killing little spruce buds instead of wasting his time here in the House.

I have pretty well concluded my remarks except to say that I feel these funds would be better spent — instead of being wasted on this extravagant program that this government has now embarked upon, Transpo '86 — to upgrade transportation all over the province. I do realize that the light rapid transit. or whatever transportation system the lower mainland requires. has been kicking around for 25 years or more. My colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), has on a number of occasions in this House expressed our party's policy and view on this subject. I think they are good policies. I would think that the government should take these suggestions and this positive approach seriously.

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order. I would like to have clarified for me the Speaker's judgment with respect to a statement of Canada-bashing that was on this side of the House. It was found to be unparliamentary. I would just like to know on what basis that was found to be unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point raised by the member is well taken. The procedure of the Chair is that when an hon. member rises and asks another hon. member to withdraw a remark, the Chair has not indicated an offence but has merely asked for a member to withdraw what another member finds offensive. I was merely conveying the request of one hon. member to that of another member, no decision by the Chair was reached. That is in the tradition of this House.

MR. COCKE: I certainly understand that. I would like further clarification. Had the member not withdrawn, what then would have happened?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is hypothetical, and questions directed to the Chair are not in order.

MR. MITCHELL: I was a little worried that if I got up

[ Page 3530 ]

and did accuse anyone of Canada-bashing you might rule me out. I won't do that.

I rise honestly and sincerely. My worry is that we are going to get ourselves involved in another large debt that my good friend from Saanich has told us over and over again we cannot afford. We are going to find ourselves running lotteries all across Canada to pay for a debt that, as predicted today, is going to be an albatross around our neck.

If I had the $100 million overrun that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has that he spends in his riding, maybe I wouldn't worry, but in my own riding the transportation was saddled on the people of the greater Victoria area under the urban transit system. It's a bill that has been tacked on to every one of our light bills. I have businesses who have two and three meters in there.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm talking about the financing of this bill, Mr. Minister; I'm talking about the debt that we, the province of British Columbia, will have to be paying. I'm serious, Mr. Minister. I'm not Canada-bashing, as certain members over there do, but trying to protect the people of my riding, because we don't want any more bills tacked onto our meters. Right now we don't even have a transit system out in the Western Community. We're paying $90 a year for meters. Many businesses have two and three meters in a store. Can you imagine, if we're paying that for a transit system that we don't have, what we will have to be paying if this bill is allowed to go through?

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about transportation. As my good friend and fellow traveler from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) stated, we're talking about transportation; we're talking about float planes; we're talking about the Trident air system; we're talking about a business that is being promoted from Ontario. We in British Columbia have to finance a sales pitch so that that business from Ontario can come out and make the profits. We're going to go to a minimum of $12 million into debt.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to say that this offensive man from Omineca was interrupting the House, violating the decorum and deportment. I was hoping that you would shut him up.

But I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, to say that we cannot afford this $12 million waste. We cannot afford this to be tacked onto our taxes. We need hospitals and rapid transit. In British Columbia, we need this money utilized to benefit the people, not wasted on some grandiose pyramid or fancy monument to this government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I never cease to marvel at the ways in which the socialist opposition can find a way to oppose any measure. It must purely exhaust them. But they inevitably find a way. I will not attempt to allude to all of the remarks made across the way, but perhaps just two or three.

The first speaker for the opposition was the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer). A couple of his opening remarks could only be described as beautiful. He stated at the outset that the city of Vancouver is not in agreement with the holding of Transpo '86. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's categorically untrue. On two previous occasions resolutions have been passed in the city of Vancouver endorsing this proposal. On December 4, 1979, city council approved a recommendation which, generally speaking, embodies approval in principle. It establishes their city engineer to investigate and report on the transportation committee, etc. That resolution on December 4, 1979, with four points, was passed unanimously by the Vancouver city council. All aldermen were present.

Subsequently, on May 22, 1980, in a city manager's report to city council, endorsement of Transpo '86 was recommended, once again, instructing staff to continue participation in detailed planning. On this occasion, another vote was passed by a substantial majority in favour of that resolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, the intimation by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon is categorically untrue. It almost sounds as though they're trying to fight the next civic election here in the provincial Legislature. The same member referred to the fact that no comprehensive studies have been made. I only have to show you a study by Hanscomb Roy Associates, the preliminary master budget. This comprehensive document, — "Transpo '86: Preliminary Briefing to the International Bureau of Expositions" — was the core of our presentation to the BIE in Paris.

I would only refer to a comment of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). She is concerned at these expenditures during a period of restraint. I heard this from other members across the way. What doesn't seem to be clear to them is that fundamentally these expenditures — 95 percent of them — do not really take place now or next year. These expenditures will take place in 1985 and 1986. We're talking about a proposal which is six years down the line. They are major expenditures, but they don't take place now; preliminary expenditures yes, but they are not the major core of these expenditures. So one cannot view these in terms of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and his current measures on restraint.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) referred to an incorrect briefing book which he said was a bit of a mockery in terms of our presentation to BIE. He's evidently not made himself aware of the preliminary briefing book actually used on that occasion by the staff members and the ministers who made the presentation to the BIE before their annual assembly.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we have the usual negative approach to a positive, imaginative measure. As I say, the majority of these funds, which were incorporated in the approval for this bill only in terms of some of the borrowings, are not needed for some years hence. It should be said that in Transpo '86, British Columbia Place — which will flow from Transpo '86 — the amphitheatre proposal for Vancouver and the downtown convention centre, we have four positive measures, all of which are interrelated. One depends on the other. The world exposition on transportation will be very important to Vancouver, but from it will flow the development of a very desirable area in terms of British Columbia Place. All of these activities are interrelated and will depend upon each other.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, once again it takes some imagination to view what can arise from this. Every so often in the history of a major city an opportunity like this presents itself.

[ Page 3531 ]

One has to grasp some vision and realize what can be accomplished. In terms of Vancouver's history it'll be a milestone — what can be developed from this in terms of recovering an area which needs some attention and in terms of the ongoing benefits which will be widespread to Vancouver. As I say, it just comes once every so many years. It's an opportunity for Vancouver to move ahead. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 16

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

Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.