[ Page 3533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Factory Act (Bill M 213). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 3533

Oral Questions.

Resignation of comptroller-general. Mr. Hall 3533

Disposal of PCP. Mr. Hanson –– 3533

Appointment to Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Ms. Sanford –– 3533

Mr. King –– 3534

Refit of ferry Queen of the North. Mr. Lockstead –– 3534

Revenue loss on Victoria-Seattle ferry run. Mr. Barber 3534

Fire standards in rest homes. Mr. Cocke –– 3535

Mr. Nicolson –– 3535

Fire at native carving longhouse. Mr. Hanson –– 3535

Long-term care review. Hon. Mr. Mair replies — 3535

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On section 4 — 3536

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Mr. Barber

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 3547

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Mussallem

Division on section 4 –– 3559

On section 12 –– 3559

Mr. Nicolson

Division on section 12 –– 3560

Appendix –– 3561

MONDAY, JULY 28, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are visitors from the great constituency of Delta. I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Harley Jensen and his wife Marion. Harley is with Foremost Foods and is a member of the B.C. Dairy Council. With Mr. and Mrs. Jensen are their sons Derek and Drew. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. LORIMER: I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. James Graham of Burnaby.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It gives me special pleasure to introduce a guest and a friend of all of us — at least on this side of the House — who is in the gallery visiting the Legislature today, the president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Bernie Smith. I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. COCKE: Sitting beside Bernie is a friend of everyone on this side of the House. I'd like to introduce Garth Brown.

MS. SANFORD: I have two introductions I'd like to make today. One is Mr. Dave Talbot, who is a constituent and also the son of one of the attendants here in the precincts. He is visiting British Columbia on leave from his teaching duties in Kenya. I hope the House will make him welcome.

The second introduction is a cousin. I'd like to introduce Valerie Mikota and her husband Lorne from Coquitlam, and their two children D'Arcy and Audrey.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We also have a friend of this side of the House sitting next to Mr. Brown in the gallery — from the beautiful community of Lund, British Columbia, Miss Jan Lovewell. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. HYNDMAN: On behalf of both the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself I would like the House to pay a special welcome to a British Columbia family who've taken part of their holiday to be in the gallery today observing the Legislature. Would members join me in welcoming Jonathan and Marilyn Chilvers, Sarah Chilvers and Patrick Chilvers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FACTORY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 213, intituled An Act to Amend the Factory Act, 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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, since the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was not on the list, leave will be required again.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF COMPTROLLER-GENERAL

MR. HALL: My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Has the comptroller-general, Mr. Lionel Bonnell, left the government service today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. second member for Surrey, yes.

MR. HALL: I have a supplementary. Under what circumstances has Mr. Bonnell left?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The circumstances are, very simply, that at approximately twenty minutes before noon or a quarter to noon I received a letter of resignation.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that Mr. Bonnell has resigned and has not been dismissed? In short, has he been pushed and not jumped, or vice versa?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in person nor by message, did I suggest that Mr. Bonnell should resign. I was quite surprised to receive his letter today.

DISPOSAL OF PCP

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Last Thursday I asked the minister whether a wood preservative, PCP, was being disposed of in the Hartland Road dump by Plumper Bay Sawmills and at the B.C. Forest Products plant on Gorge Road, and whether their disposal was consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment. He took that question as notice. In view of new evidence that PCP contains residual dioxin, which is one of the most potent compounds known to man, I wonder if the minister has decided to expedite his inquiry or exactly what he's doing. It can't involve any foot-dragging; it's an important issue.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I appreciate the member's concern, and the matter is receiving an urgent request from me to the ministry, but I haven't yet received an answer for the member. However, I will see that the further information he brought up today goes to the people in the waste management branch who will be making the decision.

APPOINTMENT TO WORKERS'
COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister has now announced the appointment of a new board of review for the WCB appeals. Mr. Tom Hutchison, a former WCB adjudicator, is the employers' representative on that board of review, as I understand it. Is it

[ Page 3534 ]

the minister's intention to use the adjudication services department of the WCB as a training ground for employers' representatives on the boards of review?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there were three appointments: one representing employers, one representing trade unions and the third a new chairman. I might add that Mr. Hutchison, I'm advised, was in fact going to leave; like most young men, he was looking for promotion and a new challenge. He's a very capable advocate, and I thought it would be an excellent step, if there was a vacancy for an employers' representative on a panel, that he would be a logical candidate.

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the independence of the boards of review for Workers' Compensation Board appeals, surely the minister must recognize that the independence cannot be maintained when a former WCB adjudicator is appointed to the independent board of review. Can the minister explain that action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to draw any separation from someone who has been acting as an advocate for an employer and someone who has been acting as an advocate for an employee, whether or not they're acting as compensation consultants on behalf of employees' or employers' advocates on behalf of the corporation in whose interest they have been employed. It doesn't make any difference, but it seems to me that someone who has been appealing on behalf of employees and trade unions — that they are going to think any differently. I think you might draw a comparison to the Labour Relations Board. It's acknowledged beforehand that you know what the general persuasions are — and were — of the people who are involved.

MR. HANSON: You don't understand.

MRS. WALLACE: You don't understand at all.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, yes, I do.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour would think it was appropriate to have Mr. Hutchison, who has been an independent adjudicator of the board, now placed in a position on an appeal panel examining a decision which he himself had rendered as an adjudicator? As a lawyer, does the minister believe that that kind of an appeal system is fair and impartial?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a very valid point — a point which had not gone by me. As a matter of fact, it is my wish that when he does take his place he should be precluded, of course, from sitting on any panel involving any appeal of a case in which he has been previously involved.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if the member sees nothing wrong with transforming the adjudicative process, which is supposed to be fair and impartial, into an advocate for employers, is it now his intention to use mediation officers as employers' advocates on the Labour Relations Board as well? Would he not perceive that that might compromise the perceived independence of that agency?

REFIT OF FERRY
QUEEN OF THE NORTH

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister might answer that question.

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Queen of the North has had some serious problems which include an inoperative fire detection system, inadequate navigation radar, hard-to-read compass cards, shortage of passenger accommodation, unsuitable crew quarters, faulty refrigeration equipment, possible fire hazards, and the list goes on. Can the minister explain to the House how these problems exist when we were assured by him in this House of a satisfactory refit of the Queen of the North?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think the member for Mackenzie is getting carried away with a press report. While we have had our problems, hardly any of them remain; they've all been corrected.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister is well aware that these matters were raised in this Legislature on many occasions, and we did not receive satisfactory replies from the minister.

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister now tell the House how much money has been wasted on the refit of the Queen of the North?

HON. MR. FRASER: We haven't wasted any money. That vessel which you are referring to was parked, not doing anything. It's value is probably $30 million. We've put it to great use. It's a very popular run and business is excellent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I contend that the government wasted at least $10.2 million on that refit, because they did not put it on the route where it should have been.

I have a supplementary question. Has the minister decided to admit that it was the government's failure to make a decision soon enough that led to the botched refit?

HON. MR. FRASER: We haven't wasted any money and the refit was not botched at all.

REVENUE LOSS ON
VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY RUN

MR. BARBER: I have another question for the Minister of Finance concerning further losses in provincial revenues. Can the minister confirm the estimate published by the former Social Credit chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the current member of the Legislature for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) that the retirement of the vessel Princess Marguerite and its replacement by the former Queen of Prince Rupert and the Flying Princess will "cost the government a minimum of $5 million this summer"?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can neither confirm nor deny it. The quarterly financial report will be available within a very few days, before the end of this week.

I assume the member asked the question with all seriousness, but he finds the answer unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, this government files reports every three months on the financial

[ Page 3535 ]

affairs of the province and its Crown corporations — this is a first — and I think the member will have some indication of the state of the province's economy at that time.

MR. BARBER: I asked a serious question and I was hoping for a serious answer. What I've asked the minister is whether or not he has advice as to the validity of the estimate of a loss in the order of $5 million prepared by his own colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He declined to answer that. Has he received any estimate from any source as to the likely loss to be suffered this year on the Victoria to Seattle run?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I have no indication as to likely loss. I do refer the member again to the fact that the quarterly report is due in just a very few days.

FIRE STANDARDS IN REST HOMES

MR. COCKE: Last Thursday I asked the Attorney-General about emergency procedures in nursing homes, with an eye to preventing a repeat in British Columbia of the serious tragedy which occurred in Mississauga. The Attorney-General, I think, misunderstood my question and indicated that the Mississauga tragedy occurred not because of defective fire standards but because of careless smoking. The issue is not of fire prevention but rather of what procedures are used to evacuate residents in the event of serious fire. Has he decided to implement the recommendations of the Hospital Employees Union brought forward to the provincial fire commissioner for improved emergency evacuation procedures in B.C. nursing homes? It is a very simple question.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Following last Thursday's question period I looked at the Blues and realized the implications of the member's question. I have asked the fire commissioner if he would provide me with his views as to the appropriateness of the suggestions which have been made by the Hospital Employees Union.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister also ask the fire commissioner to provide him with information on how many intermediate-care homes and private hospitals lie beyond the boundaries of any fire improvement district. I can name one: the Willowhaven Private Hospital, six miles out of Nelson and six miles beyond fire improvement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have not asked the fire commissioner for that information, but I'd be happy to do so and provide the member with a response.

FIRE AT NATIVE CARVING LONGHOUSE

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Unfortunately, this morning there was a very serious fire which destroyed the native carving longhouse adjacent to the Provincial Museum here in Victoria. In view of the fact that $200,000 has been cut from the Provincial Museum's budget, I would just like the minister to assure the House that the native carving program will proceed and money will be made available to restore the building and encourage the program to continue.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As the members will realize, this fire took place just this morning, and I will be happy to report the following to the House. At about 10 a.m. this date, the fire broke out in the museum's cedar-plank carving shed in Thunderbird Park. I might say that within five minutes the structure was engulfed in flames. Wind direction and the prompt arrival of firemen saved the almost adjacent Mungo Martin House. The carving shed is a total loss, along with one attached totem pole and two small poles in the process of being carved. Presumably tools and a small amount of supplies and furniture were also lost.

A pole in front of the shed, but some yards from it, was damaged but can, perhaps, be repaired. All poles are modern, and the destroyed pole is a copy of an older pole still available for copying.

Apparently the intensity of the fire was enhanced by a recent application of preservative to the building.

I've just received this report, and no assessment has been made of the cost or what action may be taken resulting therefrom.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to answer a question asked of me.

Leave granted.

LONG-TERM CARE REVIEW

HON. MR. MAIR: On July 21 the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) questioned me concerning long-term care facility reviews. I would like the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am now in receipt of the report of the financial review from Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. This review covered a representative sample of the proprietary care facilities in private hospitals. I'm satisfied now that I have information upon which to base my decision regarding rates, and that there is a sufficient margin of profitability to ensure an adequate level of care. I'll be making a decision on rates prior to July 31, 1980. I'm also considering a new approach to rate-setting which will ensure that residents receive the care that we pay for.

With regard to the long-term care review, I'd like to make it clear that this review is planned in a number of phases. The first two — the financial review, which I just mentioned, and the independent quality-of-care review — are now complete. I anticipate a report on the latter within two weeks from Mr. Paul Hanbury, who is, as I stated earlier in this House, completing his report at home.

The ongoing aspect of the review is a detailed survey of the major components of care, such as program content, staffing standards, nutrition, physical plant, safety standards, clients' records, and so on. The steering committee continues to monitor the progress of the review and to provide overall direction.

The nutritionist, about which the member asked specifically, Mrs. Jane Thibedeau, will become involved when we reach that aspect of the review.

With regard to the Hospital Employees Union request to participate, I'm instructed that we declined their offer to sit on the steering committee on the grounds that we could not invite every interested party and still have a workable committee. We did, however, specifically invite them and others to present their views in writing to the committee and assured them that this information would be considered.

[ Page 3536 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. MACDONALD: Transpo will be sitting upon land on False Creek. We presume it's going to be touching ground, and not just another airy-fairy dream of the Social Credit, so I'd ask the minister: have you got an agreement with respect to the land, its acquisition and what you're going to pay for it? I know some of the transportation will be aerial, but no doubt there'll be some use for the ground too. Who owns that land?

HON. MR. WOLFE: At this stage we're proceeding on the basis that the landlord for the properties to be occupied by Transpo '86 will be B.C. Place, the one involved in the acquisition of those properties. Transpo, of course, would become a tenant of the landlord.

MR. MACDONALD: That leads to a second question. Are you leasing from a landlord who owns the land or can get the land? What's the situation there?

HON. MR. WOLFE: We're proceeding on the assumption that the land will be available and, as you know, events are taking place in that direction. What we're talking about here, at this stage, is developing the approval for the bid from the International Bureau of Expositions, which has still not occurred, and which we hope will occur later this year. The bill before us simply sets up the framework for that corporation to exist after we acquire the bid.

MR. MACDONALD: Before any more trips to Paris are made without taking the opposition along, it would be nice to know that you had some kind of agreement and that this government of businessmen — though perhaps that's the wanting element in the government — has some means of acquiring that land. I put it to you, Mr. Minister, that you've got nothing whatsoever in writing from the CPR in terms of acquiring the land. I suggest to the minister that the CPR is not a philanthropic or eleemosynary society, and that they've been known, on occasion, to demand their price. I think they want $82,000 per mile for the rails of the Kettle Valley, which is pretty good for rails which have been used for 20 or 30 years. You're dealing with a pretty sharp operator, Mr. Minister. You're spending a lot of public money and you've got no land to settle your enterprise upon. Then, when you're locked into the deal, and you go to the CPR and say, "Let's have an agreement about this land," how in the world are you going to get it at a fair price?

The minister's receiving very competent legal advice so he can answer that question.

You've got us worried, Mr. Minister. It looks like the most incredible blunder that any government's ever committed: to go ahead with plans for both B.C. Place and Transpo on land that you don't own, that's owned by the CPR. The CPR has recently had it rezoned by the city of Vancouver, so that for what was once False Creek land — pretty valuable — with rezoning they're going to ask $500,000 or $600,000 per acre. Didn't they get that rezoning from the city of Vancouver? So they're away up there in the clouds as a result of a public stroke of a pen on their rezoning, and here you're dealing with them in the expectation that Ian Sinclair is going to be kind, good and solicitous so far as this government is concerned, and save them from this situation.

Have you got any kind of written agreement with the CPR which entitles you to arbitrate the cost, or what? I think we're running into something that's going to cost us a fortune.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member appears to have certain forebodings about disaster, which I presume arise from his tenure of office between 1972 and 1975. It seems quite natural he would expect "bungling," which is the word I hear arise quite often. In any event, we have a bill before the House having to do with B.C. Place which is intended to flow from the operation of Transpo to provide an acceptable use of that site after this world exposition. As the member well knows, the type of question he is addressing at this moment can best be handled in debate on the B.C. Place bill.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no doubt the minister's got a perfectly valid point of order, and all I can ask him is: why are you dealing with a landlord who has no title to the land? B.C. Place doesn't have it. Should you not question your landlord and say: "If you're going to give us a lease...." Have you got any idea what you're going to pay B.C. Place for it, by the way? So much an acre? So much for six months? Any idea? That's question number one.

Question number two is: what are you going to do about dealing with a landlord who doesn't have any claim on that land at all in law, and is dealing, as I say, with a very sharp operator, the CPR, who are going to get the last dollar out of it? Don't you feel that you're on rather shaky ground, or maybe no ground at all, Mr. Minister?

Has there been a lease drawn up with B.C. Place so that Transpo will have the land to go ahead with this exposition? Have you got anything in writing from B.C. Place?

MR. COCKE: What we are noting at this point is that the minister has been struck dumb. What has caused this tragic situation has been that the member for Vancouver East has pointed out that he is going to be indirectly dealing with Big Julie. Big Julie happens to be a very tough entrepreneur making some $400,000 or $500,000 a year to be the chief executive officer for the CPR. They own all the land at the moment and they've never been noted for their altruism. You see, Transpo is going to have to deal indirectly. Transpo is counting on B.C. Place to acquire the land and vest on Transpo the right to use the land for a short period, at which time we're going to have just the most amazing world class exposition, we're informed. We're all to be very thrilled with this world class exposition. Has he any idea what we're going to pay for the land that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) indicates will be good, cheap housing land thereafter?

[ Page 3537 ]

MR. KING: I don't think the bill should pass yet without a bit more information from the minister. One of the things that has been criticized in this Legislature over the years is the bringing in of legislation which is not adequately explained and expanded on. Then for the minister to ask the House to accept on trust that everything is in good order.... I suggest that for the kind of financial commitment the taxpayers of the province are being asked to put forward for this project, the minister has a real duty and obligation to come before the Legislature better equipped to answer for the economics and details of the project than he is prepared to do at the moment. I start to wonder when he responds to my colleague and says: "Everything will be all right. I have a good relationship with Mr. Sinclair of CP Rail." I wonder if he is the originator of the phrase, "Hope springs eternal from the human breast," because hope is what he seems to be proceeding on — hope that there will be an agreement and the land acquisition will take place at some reasonable cost. We as an opposition have an obligation to ensure the taxpayers' moneys are expended wisely. That cannot be done adequately until we know what the economics of this proposed deal are. If the minister doesn't know the economics or the financial arrangements in terms of the acquisition of land, then perhaps the bill is premature. Perhaps you should withdraw the bill and, after you've gained your education regarding the details of it, reintroduce it and come back to this House so you can answer some questions on it.

Asking the Legislative Assembly to accept that some amicable and reasonable deal is going to be struck with CP Rail at this point in time is asking a little bit much. Remember it was Mr. Sinclair and CP Rail as a corporation that were interested in acquiring control of MacMillan Bloedel. The Premier of the province in effect told them they weren't welcome in British Columbia. He intervened personally to forestall the acquisition of MacMillan Bloedel shares by CP Rail. Is it not reasonable now to think that Mr. Sinclair will look with a bit of a jaundiced eye on some pallid appeal by our little Provincial Secretary for cooperation and corporate good citizenship in terms of striking a deal for land they now hold and which the provincial government is interested in acquiring? We are afraid that this incompetent government, who have already destroyed one private insurance company because of blundering ahead with legislation that wasn't carefully developed, is going to be skinned alive. In the final analysis, when any government is skinned alive it is the taxpayers of the province who pay for it. That minister has an obligation to come forward and give us a more complete and detailed accounting than he is prepared to do now. This legislation is premature unless the minister can spell out precisely what stage the negotiations are at. Do you have any written commitments? Do you have an agreement in principle? What do you have, Mr. Minister? Those questions must he answered.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As the member quite correctly states, we all have a responsibility to protect the taxpayer in these costs and matters. What should be said here is that once again we're six years away from the event that is being planned — six years. What we're asking for here is authority for a corporation which will do these negotiations to which you now refer. This would be the structure under which the negotiations would take place and all the rest that is associated with the development of a world's fair.

So this is simply the structure under which those and many other negotiations would take place — the Crown corporation — and the formation of their board of directors, the appointments of a commissioner-general and all the rest of it that is required by the International Bureau of Expositions. It's a very straightforward matter, but in terms of acquisition of the property, the proper rental to be charged and that kind of thing, this would be the subject of responsibility of the Transpo 86 Corporation. We're here today debating the formation of the corporation only.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what we're concerned about. You see, the first hint — our first hint in this particular area — about this government's ability to absolutely waste has been the way they've set up their organization. The minister should take the time to go to Vancouver, up to the twenty-first floor of the Scotia Tower building, and take a look at opulence the like of which the Brontmans, I'm sure, would be green with envy over; as a matter of fact, it's been brought to my attention that it might even drive them to drink.

Mr. Chairman, they're spending money now like drunken sailors developing that property, and we're suggesting that it's out of control; we're suggesting that they're making deals, Mr. Chairman, without even any idea of what it's going to cost — and I don't think they care. Because when that government goes out and builds monuments to itself, cost is absolutely no object whatsoever. That's precisely what we're looking at now and we've seen that procedure before, so we're extremely concerned.

For an example, in this same section there is a little item on emblems. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what just the emblems for Transpo '86 are going to cost us, because we've seen this government with their emblems. You're going to plaster the whole countryside with the "Transpo '86." We'd like to know what that's going to cost us poor old taxpayers.

MR. BARBER: And whether or not it will have a smile face.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and whether or not there will be a smile this way or whether it will by that time in '86 go down this way.

MR. KING: A smile by the politicians, a grimace by the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think this whole question is one that deserves just a bit more candour from this government. The minister sits there and says: "Oh, well, this isn't going to take place until 1986." Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is making decisions about taxpayers' expenditures between now and 1986, and if we get any returns.... I charged the other day that what we're really doing here is backing up the first minister of this province, who has some kind of a desire to be the Jean Drapeau of the west. Can we have a couple of answers? How much are we paying for the property? How much are we paying for the emblems? And how come we're spending money in the Scotia building the way we are?

[ Page 3538 ]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the other day when we were debating second reading, the minister alluded to another report. I was quoting from one report. He said there was another report that has been presented. Now I presume that that report is the one I have in my hand, which is the preliminary briefing to the International Bureau of Exhibitions on Transpo '86, March 1980. On page 34 of that report there is a statement, and I quote: "A detailed feasibility study outlining the financing of the exposition and the cost-revenue ratio anticipated will be presented to the BIE delegation during the Vancouver inquiry."

Now can the minister tell us: have the International people got information that he hasn't given us? In March he said in his brief that he would make available a detailed feasibility study outlining the financing of the exposition and cost-revenue ratio. What did he give them? They obviously wanted to know, when they came out here, how it was going to be financed. There are requirements laid out in this brief. There are certain requirements that you have to adhere to when you enter into one of these expositions. One of them really relates to an undertaking that you will have, for instance, on the property. You are required to have a minimum amount of property, something in the order of 120 acres.

Presumably, if the city of Vancouver has been awarded this exposition, they were satisfied with the answers that the minister gave. What answers did he give in respect to the financing, and particularly the property? He assured them that the property was available. On what basis could he assure them that the property was available if, as my colleagues have suggested, no agreement has been signed? What did he tell them? What did he tell them about the money? The other day when I asked the minister why the calculations only went as far as 1980 dollars, he said: "Well, we're not going to be spending the money until 1985." But what we were attempting to find out was the projected cost in 1985 dollars. We have none of that information.

I would suggest that the minister has evidently given the international exhibition people information that he is not prepared to share with this House. If he has conformed to the requirements that they laid down, then they obviously have this information. Why doesn't he want to give us the information, particularly the amounts and what the arrangements are? He has assured them that the land is available. On what basis can he give this House assurance that the land is available? What commitments did he make? What negotiations took place? Or is everything on hold? I'm quite sure that the international exhibition people would not have gone along with agreeing to have the exposition in Vancouver if the criteria were not met. Can the minister tell us what it was that he told them, particularly in respect to the acquisition of the land?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the information provided to the International Bureau of Expositions is the same that is available to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), namely the preliminary briefing — which has been supplied and referred to today — to the International Bureau of Expositions, March 1980, and the document which I believe he had last Friday, Hanscomb Roy Associates' preliminary master budget of May 1980. Together with those substantial documents having to do with cost estimates of a preliminary nature and the briefing books, the government made a commitment to that body that we would be acquiring the site. They have been instructed accordingly, have the confidence that we will be acquiring the site and are proceeding on that basis.

MR. LEVI: Unfortunately, I only got the report at noon and haven't had a chance to go through it. Perhaps the minister might draw my attention to where it deals with the acquisition of the land and the amounts of money, because I haven't been able to go through it yet. I have made reference to page 34, on which they talk about the financial viability of Transpo '86, and I quoted the statement — the detailed feasibility study — outlining the financing of the exposition and the costs and revenues. In there they are saying that that would be made available at some later date.

The only other document that I have is this rather imposing document, "Transpo'86." There is no date on it. It looks like a piece of PR material. It doesn't have the kind of thing the minister was saying....

Perhaps the minister might refer me to the section of the report that answers the questions I asked. Bear in mind that this report, which I gather is the briefing document, says: "A detailed feasibility study outlining the financing of the exposition and the cost-revenue ratio anticipated will be presented to the BIE delegation during the Vancouver inquiry."That's not this, is it?

Ah, he's got something else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, you've seen it.

MR. LEVI: Are you referring to the press release?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that the document referred to in the briefing notes on page 34 is the preliminary master budget. I believe the member had it in his hand here last week in referring to the cost estimates and projected deficit. I believe that is the document that is referred to in the briefing book.

MR. LEVI: These are all the documents? You're not holding out on anything?

I've looked through here and I can't find any reference at all to the acquisition of land and the cost that you anticipated.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You wouldn't see that here, no.

MR. LEVI: Well, you should know that one, because that's one of the key questions that has been asked this afternoon. I haven't been able to find it, and I had time to go through this one. I think that is one thing we wanted to know — of those which have been subject to questions in the House to another minister. What arrangement has been made to acquire the land? If the minister can help me in that, then I think we're off and running. I haven't been able to find that in the report at all. It deals with a lot of projections related to attendance, but it doesn't tell us a great deal about costs.

While the minister is looking for that, he might give us some understanding of what actual commitment he has from the federal government and what the financial participation of the city of Vancouver will be. As I understand it, three levels of government are involved. We have no amounts. All we have is the information that there is going to be a participation. It is my understanding that the federal government is out of it. They are not prepared to put up any money other than to sponsor. Perhaps the minister would tell us. He

[ Page 3539 ]

indicates that that's not the case. How much are they going to put up? The last statement I remember from the federal government is that they weren't prepared to participate, because it did not fit the criteria. As the minister keeps saying, it was similar to the B.C. Commonwealth games. They said that was a different kind of operation and the criteria were quite different. Does he have an undertaking from the federal government, is it firm and what percentage of participation have they offered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again, this event is in this application stage. I can say that we have general endorsement of the proposal by the Prime Minister and one of his ministers, the Minister of External Affairs, in terms of the original submission that was made. We've had the assistance of his ministry in terms of staff people who assisted us with the presentation to the international bureau. After all, it becomes a national exposition to take place in Canada and we request that it be held in British Columbia.

So we have had their assistance and are looking forward to their participation of a more direct nature as events develop. For instance, we would like to have their participation in the way of a major exposition or building on the site, and we will look forward to that event taking place in the passage of time. Secondly, we will hope to have participation with the national government in terms of their coming on side and sharing the costs of the amphitheatre, which is not directly a part of the Transpo projection which you have before you, but is of course part of the ancillary costs associated with that site. We have a commitment to develop an amphitheatre.

We've had general endorsement but not the detailed agreement in terms of the national government's participation. At this point, we have before them a request to share with us in a cost-benefit analysis of a comprehensive nature. We're looking for a favourable response to that request.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, on page 14 of the briefing book there is a section headed "Criteria." It says:

"There are common standards necessary for any international exposition, regardless of location. In addition, specific sites, attendance, geography and other factors will affect site needs in special ways. Finally, the theme and its development can alter the needs for exposition site in terms of acreage, density, geography and other characteristics.

"The following is a list of criteria the committee for Transpo '86 feels have been satisfied for an exposition with a projected attendance of 13 million.

"(a) At least 128 acres or its equivalent are available exclusive to parking.

"(b) Control of the land is guaranteed in a timely fashion.

"(c) Usable land, in terms of topography.... The topography has variation, but the variation will not be so severe as to greatly effect movement, usability and expense...."

"(e) The cost of securing the site is reasonable.

"(f) Any existing structures on the site that have usability for the exposition in their present or nearly present status will be made available."

I want to go to (e): "The cost of securing the site is reasonable." Has the minister been able to tell the international committee that the site is secure and the cost reasonable? Has he told them that? Because that's part of the criteria they lay down in the negotiations in order for you to receive their endorsement to continue. Has he told them that he's secured the site? And what is reasonable cost? That information is not in the budget; you haven't given it to us.

Mr. Chairman, we suspect that the minister doesn't have a site. We don't want to call him naughty names, but I think that he does not have a secure site. I'm just wondering whether the international people are aware that you do not in fact have a secure site. That's pretty important, because if you don't get a secure site....

It's my impression that you're going to have to go it alone on this one, because the citizens of Vancouver have been told: "You will not be charged anything extra for this. It will not go on your tax bill. " It looks like you're going to have to do with this what you say you're going to do with the northeast coal: you're going to go on your own.

Now in doing that, because you've made this kind of commitment, you're in a very difficult bargaining position with the CPR. In fact, that's the kind of bargaining position that the CPR like to have people in. You ain't got nowhere to go, baby, so deal with us. What is a reasonable price? Surely the minister can tell us this, because, after all, you want us to pass the bill because this is what makes the whole thing fly.

You must have told the international people that you have met the criteria. Have you met the criteria on the land? What is a reasonable amount of cost?

If the answer to those two questions is, "Yes, we've met the criteria on the land and the reasonable cost," then you must have reached an agreement with CPR.

Has the minister reached an agreement with CPR? Or is everything on hold and the international exposition people understand that this can only go ahead if we can reach an agreement with CPR? The longer it takes, the worse your bargaining position is, because you obviously, presumably, are not going to back out of it. You're not going to say: "Well, we're not going to put it on because we can't secure the land." Where are you in respect to the security of the land? Have you told them that the cost of securing the site is reasonable and you've got it? That's a fair question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is clear that the government has indicated to this bureau that we will be acquiring the site. That's a commitment we have made. As to the price or whether it's reasonable or not, obviously we would not commit ourselves to acquire it at an unreasonable price. It's a matter of degree as to what is reasonable or what is not reasonable, but what you are questioning here are really the concerns of the corporation which would be established under this bill.

These will be the matters that they will be concerned with. The directors of the corporation will have to address these matters. What they pay for the site, what they pay for the tenancy of it, what they sell the exhibits for, what they rent them for — the bureau is essentially interested that it is a viable proposition, that the charges for admission and the charges for exhibitors will not be excessive. That's why they're interested in whether ongoing costs of an excessive nature will be passed on which would become unattractive to their international exhibitors.

So that's their primary interest in it — that we're prepared to back it. We've made the commitment. We will be acquiring the site, and beyond that these are the concerns of the corporation and the directors which we will appoint to it.

[ Page 3540 ]

MR. LEVI: We now have a somewhat different story than what we started out with. The government took an active role in securing this endorsement by going to Paris. The minister was there; his colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was there. We know that when two cabinet ministers go along, what you're talking about is that the government is going along with the proposition. Surely the government has some general parameters in which it's prepared to follow through on its endorsement.

Is the minister saying that once the commission is formed they will do all the negotiating with CPR — that this management group will then go out and negotiate the land? Is that what's going to happen? Or is the government, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), involved in this? Because what he's saying now is that all the government did was to obtain the okay but everything else is up to the management committee.

What kind of parameters are they operating in? Because you do have the key question of the acquisition of the land. Either it's the government's project or it's not the government's project. I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is the government's project. They are simply giving a management group the enabling legislation to make them operate it.

But you've got some criteria in this. You're not going to say to the management: "Go out and see if you can negotiate the land with the CPR." You must have done all that. You're not going to leave it to a group of people who at the moment do not exist as an entity to go out there into the cold world and start negotiating with the CPR. Surely that's not what's happened. What has happened is that you've completed your negotiations with the CPR, but you don't want to tell us how much you're paying for it. It can't be that this committee is going to do that. If it is, what have you been doing all this time? I find this very difficult to understand, Mr. Chairman, that suddenly, because he wants us to pass a piece of legislation setting up an administrative body, somehow they're going to take over everything and run it and negotiate it, but the government is going to pay for it. The taxpayers are going to pay for it. Now who's handling the taxpayers' money — the government or this committee? Or have you already reached the agreement?

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is being very candid with us about where he is with negotiations on the land. From what he says this time around — that no negotiations have been completed, and it's going to be this new body that he wants to legislate today that is going to deal with it.... Surely that can't be the way it's operating. It can't be, because it's a most impossible situation for a government to put itself in. Already we know it's a difficult situation. They're on the hook to provide the land.

In the first part of the discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we got the indication from the minister that no decisions had been made. In hearing the answer to the last question, we get the impression from him that all of that's taken care of; or, if not, it's going to be taken care of by the committee. That is the key thing. Is the committee that we are going to create the legislation for going to negotiate the land question? Is one of their functions to negotiate the acquisition of the site?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I have said, Transpo '86 is in effect a tenant of the site which is proposed and the landlord of that site would be British Columbia Place. It is under this distinct and separate arrangement that these two proposals will proceed. It is British Columbia Place, of course, that is involved in the acquisition of the proposed land, and it will need to satisfy Transpo and its board of directors on the suitability of the facilities and the site — particularly the site. This will be the responsibility of the board members of this corporation which we would like to establish under this bill. As you are aware, it is not the Transpo 86 Corporation which will be buying or acquiring a site, but they will be undertaking to satisfy themselves as a tenant and any arrangements that flow from that.

MR. LEVI: If B.C. Place is not successful in negotiating the land requirements that are laid down under the criteria and they cannot agree on price, then is the agreement with the international group finished? I get the impression from your briefing book that you have to undertake to do a number of things. As I understand it, it is agreed that this exposition will take place here in 1986. That is what we got from the press. What are we really saying? Are we really saying that if B.C. Place can acquire the necessary land then the exposition will take place? It is very iffy right now. Is that the situation, Mr. Minister — that really what the exposition people told you is that you don't have an agreement to hold the exposition here unless you can come up with the land? That is the key question. If you don't reach your agreement on the land the whole thing is scrapped. Is that the arrangement, or are you completely locked into the international people. Have you made the commitment? That is what I don't quite understand. First of all, when I saw you had to follow certain criteria and they had agreed to give it to you, then presumably you had met those criteria. I think what you are telling us now is that it really depends on what B.C. Place can do in terms of negotiating the property so they can, in fact, rent it to this body we're attempting to set up today.

Let me ask the minister candidly: is it possible that this exposition would not be put on because you would not be able to reach an agreement in respect to the land and your dealing with the CPR? Is it possible that the whole thing would, have to go by the board?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The situation at the moment is that we do not have approval of this exposition until it is ratified by the International Bureau of Expositions in November. They have given preliminary approval subject to a four month waiting period, which concludes in November. Subject to events that may take place in that period of time — I am not now talking about the tenancy but other applicants, etc. — this event is unlikely. At this stage we do not have formal approval. It is subject to a moratorium. In November we expect approval. We are almost talking about a chicken-and-egg situation here. We are at the stage where this committee has been invited to come here. They have viewed the site and were impressed with it and we have indicated that we plan to acquire it. We've given the commitment that we will and that is exactly what is going to happen.

MR. LEVI: Now it becomes even more complicated. It reminds me of a story of a couple of guys who want to pick up some real estate. They go out and look over False Creek and say: "I think we should get that. I don't know who owns it, but I think we should get it and flog it to the people in Paris."

The minister said three things. It's not firm that you're getting it. There are in fact going to be other applicants. We

[ Page 3541 ]

weren't aware on Friday that there were going to be any other applicants. We understood we were the only applicants but it is wide open.

I frankly can't understand what the rush is for all this. You could set it up in the next session of the Legislature. When you come in with a bill like this and we are going to pass it, then surely we have reason to expect that you've consummated the deal, that you have in fact been accepted, that you have the site worked out, and it is leased by B.C. Place to the Expo people. But you've come when none of this is in place. You have no agreement on site.

So what do you need the legislation for? Surely there are a number of things that you have to do. You would be far better off if you could come into the House and say to us: "We've got the site; we've finished the negotiations." You've got through all the flak you're going to get, because you're going to pay through the nose for the CPR thing. Why do you need it now? There is absolutely no basis on which you need this kind of legislation now, when you're not even going to get an answer until November. What's the hurry?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There is not any hurry. This matter is proceeding in a very orderly fashion. We are in advance of the 1986 exposition, and the bureau are very impressed with the fact that this government is well prepared in developing this material. This bill, if passed, is subject to proclamation. We want to be ready to move when approval has been obtained, so that we can proclaim the responsibilities under this bill which are needed to proceed and make plans for developments incurred insofar as preparing for this exposition is concerned. This matter takes years to prepare, but we need to have the bill to proceed when approval is obtained, hopefully in November.

MR. KING: The bill does a number of things, including providing for a board of directors — a board of directors that the minister can initiate by proclamation, providing remuneration to that board of directors with a mandate that's totally tentative. Unless the land is in fact acquired before November, you have no assurance that the project is going to proceed. What you have indicated this afternoon is that the international committee approved the site tentatively, upon the condition that you can acquire it at reasonable cost and before November. Now you want legislation approving further expenditures for a board of directors, possibly with luxurious offices and luxurious salaries, to preside over something that is completely tentative and may never come to fruition.

Mr. Minister, that's totally irresponsible. This is the most absolutely asinine kind of procedure I have ever seen. The Premier comes out and announces some big luxurious project, some pillar to his own ego, at a particular site, which tips off CPR, the landholder, that the government wants to acquire this site. Indeed, the whole viability of the enterprise and the project is premised upon them obtaining this land from CPR. CPR now knows that the government must have this land before November.

I want to ask the minister this question: If Wolfe Motors had an expansion planned, does the minister think it would be prudent for Wolfe Motors to go out and say: "We have a million-dollar expansion planned, but it's totally dependent upon us acquiring the three lots across the street, and we have to have them by November."? Would he announce that to the owner of those lots and then go over there and bargain with him? Of course not — nonsense. In fact, the common practice with both the government and the private sector is that you keep your mouth shut until you have acquired the land that is necessary. That's to protect yourself from getting gouged in terms of acquiring the land that the owner knows you must have within a certain time-frame.

In this case, the Premier, because he needed some political bulwarking, I suppose, of his sagging fortunes and images, makes the announcement, delivering the Provincial Secretary and his ministry as a captive to CP Rail, who are now in a position to bargain from the toughest posture imaginable. You're going to go with bucketfuls of the taxpayers' money and say: "Well, we have to have this by November or we lose the whole project; we lose all of Transpo."

That minister has the gall to tell us that he is a businessman. Perhaps he's prudent when it comes to his own private fortunes, but I see no evidence whatsoever of the same prudence being applied to protecting the taxpayers' interests in this kind of deal. This is absolutely scandalous.

As far as the bill is concerned, the only provision that this bill puts forward now is for the expenditure of still more moneys in terms of the acquisition of office space and salaries for the executive to preside over something that may never happen. CP Rail may never release the land. CP Rail may ask a price that is absolutely unacceptable. What then, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

You ask us to proceed on faith. From a government that has already legislated, by accident, a private-sector insurance company out of existence because of their poor preparation, they are poor credentials by which to ask us to accept you on the basis of trust. This is a scandalous thing, and I think that the minister should withdraw the bill until he is prepared to come into the House and assure all members of the Legislature that you have a reasonable financial proposal to put forward, that the acquisition of the land has, in fact, taken place for reasonable amounts of money. Other than that, you're asking the Legislature to buy a pig in a poke; you're asking us to give carte blanche in dishing out the taxpayers' money. I say that is totally irresponsible, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI: By God, you've got it right. He's only been in there one minute and he knows the right name. The minister has been in the chair for about 25 minutes and he keeps referring to me as the member for ''Coquitlam-Maillardville."

Let me ask the minister something else. You've got 175 acres of land that you have to acquire. Some of it is from the CPR. According to your statement on the scope on the budget, "the site, which is some 175 acres in total extent, is presently occupied by railyards and industrial and warehouse buildings. These will be removed and the site provided with basic services." Now some of the land is also held by B.C. Hydro. We know he doesn't have a deal with the CPR. I strongly advise the minister to get some running shoes, because he's going to be run over with the largest steamroller

[ Page 3542 ]

he's ever seen; when the CPR start negotiating this, it's going to be incredible. I think what's going to happen is that Big Julie is going to look like one of those super diesels when he comes into town to argue. I can just see him arriving in town around November 18, which is about three days prior to when they're going to tell the international people that we've got a deal, and Big Julie is going to say to you: "There are 175 acres. Very good, Mr. Minister. It's $1 million an acre. How do you like them apples?" Because he's in a position to say....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll sic my boys on him.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you'll sic your boys on him. Now the other question I have to the minister is: as some of the land is owned by B.C. Hydro, have they made any arrangements or had any discussions with B.C. Hydro? Again, he appears to want to leave it all to this committee. He says it's not even formed yet, but they're going out into this tough, wild world of real estate negotiations with the king of the barracudas from the CPR and they're going to negotiate this.

Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that the government is going to stake what little reputation it has left on the fact that it's going to go ahead with this thing. Bear that in mind when we're talking about the acquisition of land and exhibits and parking. We haven't even talked about the 60,000-seat stadium that he wants to build. You know, before it's finished this thing is liable to run into anything in excess of half a billion dollars, particularly if we're dealing in 1985 dollars. The minister doesn't like to deal in 1985 dollars; he likes to deal in 1980 dollars, with no projections. Has he got an agreement with B.C. Hydro? Has he had some discussions with them? Perhaps he'd like to tell us. Surely they must have some idea of what they think this is going to cost. We have no idea of what it's going to cost, because all he's dealing in are 1980 dollars. But I would suggest that we're probably looking at a half a billion dollar project here, if it goes ahead. We have no idea what it's going to cost for the CPR.

Once you have time constraints and are moving rail lines and warehouses and that kind of thing, it's not easy. And then we're going to have serious problems in terms of completion dates — very high costs. So we could be looking at a very difficult kind of situation. The minister said last week that they'd spent 18 months pre-planning this thing. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that's not the case, because if there had been that kind of pre-planning, many of the questions that we've asked today would have been answered. If they were pre-planning, surely if they know that they ever wanted to do this, they would have gone a lot further in their negotiations than they've gone now, and they haven't. If the negotiations are going on with the CPR, then presumably what the problem must be is price. If there is nothing settled, it's price. And if there is no settlement on price, this exposition is in jeopardy, because they don't have the approval yet and they've only got some three months to do it. We're arguing about the legislation, because there is no issue about the fact that somehow they want to launch this thing immediately. If they get the agreement in November, there is an adequate amount of time to launch this thing full bore with all of the questions asked in the spring session of the Legislature. That's not going to hold up a thing. But if anything was a pig in a poke, this is, because he hasn't answered one question in respect of the basic requirements that are needed under the criteria of this international exposition for the acquisition of land. The taxpayers in this province look like they're going to be very badly skinned on this.

I would ask the minister, now that he's back in his seat, if they have had discussions with B.C. Hydro, because B.C. Hydro also has some land.

MR. BARBER: The cost of the land relates directly to the costs that will have to be borne by the exhibitors at Transpo. If the exhibitors have to pay too high a cost because of a foolish land deal, they'll stay home. If the exhibitors stay home, Transpo will flop. The question of land is a very real question, because it will determine the extent to which private and public agencies around the world will be financially able to participate in Transpo, should they choose to do so in the first place. This is one of the principal reasons why we've been raising these questions of land cost and the assembly of land, and the detail of them.

The Provincial Secretary has been singularly and wilfully silent on the issue. Why it serves his political purposes to do that, we're not sure. If they had a deal, they would be the first to announce it. If they had a beneficial agreement, they would be the first to publicize it. If they had a good arrangement with the CPR, they would have been the first to let us know. But the point is, they've been silent on those three issues. The reason they have been silent is self-evident. They are going to have to announce, after the Legislature adjourns, one of the worst deals imaginable. They have to do that because of the bungling and the foolishness of the Premier, who went public too soon.

When you negotiate for land, surely it serves your interests if you approach, or at least appear to approach, two or three vendors simultaneously, and not just one. You do that in order that you can persuade the one you really want that you have two or three other sites that you could go to, and it is therefore in the interest of that principal vendor to keep his price low, because he perceives that he has competition. Any businessman knows about that. The Premier appeared not to know about that, because he went public too soon. The Premier and his staff went public too early and made it clear to the CPR, from the outset, that the only site was the False Creek site, and the only land was the CPR land.

Therefore the question about whether or not this situation represents a buyer's market or a seller's market is germane to the whole debate. Because of the foolishness of the Premier and his administration, this is clearly a seller's market, and the only seller is the CPR, because that's what the Premier said. The Premier was so foolish....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that language is abusive, I think, to the courtesy expected in debate.

MR. BARBER: The Premier's judgment was so ill-advised, although the Premier himself is surely no personal fool, that we're now in the position of having to pay, according to a deadline that has been set internationally, what will no doubt be an extraordinary sum in cash and in the value of exchanged lands to the CPR, which has us over a barrel. They have us over a barrel because of the mindless decision of Social Credit to announce its intentions, to announce the deadline, and to announce the site before they had even commenced negotiations and had a firm and private deal with the only vendor they appear to be approaching.

[ Page 3543 ]

If there was, on the other hand, a private deal, then let the Provincial Secretary tell us today what it is. If there is in fact a negotiation taken to such a point that the CPR has agreed to the sale of certain lands and the transfer of others, let the Provincial Secretary tell us today what that agreement is. We doubt he'll do that, because he's been silent so far. It would be in his better political interest to tell us what the deal is; but he can't, because he has no deal. He can't, because there are other lands at stake around the province. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has told us that. There are other lands which are being examined and appraised, to determine whether or not they can be exchanged, in whole or in part, for the land at False Creek that the CPR owns, and that the province has told them we have to have by November.

Mr. Chairman, could you see the Premier or the Provincial Secretary standing up in November and saying: "Sorry, folks, Transpo's off; we couldn't get the land for a good price"? Of course not. The political reputation of Social Credit, such as it is, is too intimately connected with this particular deal. The Premier will not stand up in November and humbly admit he was wrong and that the deal's off because they can't get the land. To the contrary: in November we will learn what a ridiculous price has been paid in cash and exchanged land values for Transpo '86 and B.C. Place. Why will we do that? Because the Premier is too proud and too stubborn to have it done any other way, and because the Provincial Secretary, we well know, always does the Premier's bidding.

We're in a situation where it is a seller's market. We are the buyers and we have told the seller how much we need his land and when we have to have it by. No wonder we're going to get hosed. No wonder the CPR will delay, and delay, and hold to ransom the people of British Columbia, because of the stupidity of Social Credit.

I have a few more questions for the Provincial Secretary. He asks us to have confidence in him, the minister who presided over the Seaboard bungle. He asks us to have confidence in Social Credit, the government responsible for the chaos on the Victoria-Seattle Princess Marguerite service. He asks us to have confidence in his business judgment, as a member of a government which is shortly to be sued, it would seem, by the Los Angeles Times for another bungle at Ocean Falls in regard to newsprint.

There is some reason to believe why we shouldn't take the Provincial Secretary at his word or offer to him the trust and confidence he seems to think he deserves. He doesn't deserve it because this government hasn't earned it. This is the most incompetent government that has ever plagued the province of British Columbia and this current bill is further proof of it. The Premier, making an announcement that he needs the land by such and such a date and only this land will do, has set up the people of British Columbia for a terrible fall. There is some good reason to believe we should have no confidence in this administration. As usual, whatever the CPR wants the CPR will get. The final cost is of no apparent concern to the government. This, I would argue, is for two reasons. Firstly, they will not have the Premier stand up in November and admit he was wrong and that he fell through. Secondly, it may well be the case that in 1986, God bless the occasion, they won't be the government. Another party will be the government. That being the case, clearly the cost of the land will be immaterial to this group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member has been in the House for a number of years now and I'm just wondering whether we have to sit here and listen to personal attacks or attacks on government when we're really discussing the merits of a section of a bill. I think it is totally out of order. All the debate I've listened to for the last 15 or 20 minutes.... He should stick to that section of the bill which is presently up for discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. member. All members will be advised that during committee and section debate in committee following second reading, which does allow us great scope for principle, it is parliamentary procedure to pay very close attention to the detail of the section before us. I would ask all members to be reminded of that parliamentary process.

MR. BARBER: The issue at hand is whether or not the exhibitors will be able to participate in Transpo '86 if the cost of the exhibiting land may be too great. The specific reason why it may be too great is because the Social Credit government will have bungled it again. That is directly in order, Mr. Chairman, and the section at hand clearly indicates that. The Minister for Municipal Affairs has obviously not been listening.

The further questions I have are these. What deal has the CPR offered? What cash have they asked per acre and what lands in exchange of purportedly equal value have they requested? What has been the CPR's position in all this so far? I would further ask whether or not any of the lands — the right-of-way along the Kettle Valley Railway — have been part of the deal proposed by the CPR, because we know from earlier comments of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that it is a concern of the CPR to be involved directly in the trade of lands as well as in the sale. What I am asking is whether or not other CPR lands have been put forward by the CPR as negotiable items for trade. In particular I want to know — and the committee has a right to know — whether or not among these lands are those currently operated by the Kettle Valley Railway, a subsidiary of the CPR.

There has been a historical precedent for this government's tactic in this instance. The committee will know — I will allude to them only briefly — that the Queen of Prince Rupert this year was leased from the B.C. Ferry Corporation suddenly at the last moment, as the result of another bungle, to replace the Princess Marguerite. The committee also knows that to this date no lease price has ever been set for that vessel. To this date the Queen of Prince Rupert has not yet had a price laid to it. Therefore when we examine the ridiculous scheme here at the False Creek lands where the Premier announces his intentions in advance and thus allows the CPR to hold us to ransom, it is not exactly inconsistent with the incompetence of Social Credit because they entered into the same basic scheme with the Queen of Prince Rupert. Therefore we wish to know, because the government won't tell us what its own intentions are, what the intentions of the CPR are. What have they asked for? What lands are they proposing to trade? Do those lands include the Kettle Valley Railway? What date has the CPR set for the conclusion of negotiations satisfactory to that corporation's own interests? What has the CPR said? We can't find out what you've

[ Page 3544 ]

offered. We'd like to find out what the CPR has demanded. On that basis we may or may not be able to approve this section. Those are among others of the questions that the official opposition has.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I made clear earlier, the bill proposes Transpo '86 would be a tenant of these properties and the landlord would be British Columbia Place. We are all, I think, clearly understanding that point. The government has made a commitment to acquire the site; agreement in principle has been obtained with the present landlords or owners of this site. We have indicated that the site will be acquired. We are addressing a matter here to establish a corporation which would become the tenant and which has the responsibility, as was pointed out, to provide facilities at a reasonable price. If we don't fulfill that, naturally we won't have the success we're looking for here.

We all have the same interests involved except that the members opposite oppose the whole matter of Transpo. They are completely negative in their attitude towards it. They don't want to see it proceed, so they're trying to undercut it in some way here today, as they have in previous days, to attempt to see that it does not proceed in an orderly fashion with the establishment of this bill. It's very clear and simple, and I'm sure that when we deal with the matter of British Columbia Place and the negotiations that have been taking place there, answers to those questions will be made known.

MR. BARBER: The minister's answer is lamentable. He seems to think we're dense and don't understand business and the connecting relationships here. The current owner of the land is Marathon Realty, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CPR. The CPR owns the land and B.C. Place will buy the land. B.C. Place will then lease part of the land to the board whose creation we are debating this afternoon. That board of Transpo will in turn lease for a limited period that same land to the international exhibitors.

Now let's work it backwards. If the exhibitors have to pay too much they can't attend. If they're charged too much it may be because that's a reflection of an overpricing of the land. If the land is overpriced that may he because the government blew the deal. Don't take us for being dense, Mr. Minister. We understand what the problem is and we understand the business problems that you face because of the first mistake of the Premier, to which I alluded before.

Once again we ask you: what is the deal you have with the CPR in, as you put it, general principle? You've said you have a deal, a general agreement. What are its terms? What are the terms that the CPR has proposed and which you now tell us you have accepted? We have a right to know this, because on it hinges the possibility — or lack of it — of Transpo being able to rent space at a reasonable rate to international exhibitors. If the CPR has a right to know what your terms are, so does this committee. We insist on an answer from the minister.

What is the deal you have with the CPR? What is the term and condition of that agreement? Additionally, you might tell us when it was entered into, by whom and with what legislative authority. At the moment there is no legislative authority to enter into such a deal, and that's another interesting point that we'll get to in a few minutes.

The minister seems to have a hearing problem. He told us earlier this afternoon that they now have a deal in general principle — an agreement of a general order with the CPR for the land. We know, because the International Bureau of Expositions tells us so — that the deal must be concluded in publishable form by November. That's the contract with the BIE: that's the requirement. Good, we know that much. Apparently. the CPR knows what the terms of the deal are. Why should not the people of British Columbia be told what the CPR has been told?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be right back.

MR. BARBER: Are you going to get the terms of the deal for us? The minister waves and says: "I'll be right back." What kind of a way to run the government is that? Have you got the deal? There he is.

If the terms and conditions of the deal are good enough for the CPR to know about and profitable enough for the CPR to sign, then it's surely in the interests of the committee that we know it too. Again I ask the minister, who apparently doesn't have a hearing problem now, because he just waved at me before he left the room, what are the terms and conditions of the deal? The opposition and the people of British Columbia have every right to know and you have every obligation to tell us.

The Provincial Secretary seems to have been taking the wrong lessons from the Premier, who tried this stunt for weeks. If you don't know what the terms and conditions are, tell us and we'll ask the Minister of Finance, who probably does. If you do know what they are, don't reply by dumb silence, because that's not an acceptable or responsible way to govern. If you've just sent out for the deal so you can have a copy of it and table it, that's fine. Tell us that. But why do us the discourtesy of simply being quiet and refusing to answer by dumb silence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BARBER: I use the word "dumb" in the precisely correct fashion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It means "silence," so you were either being unparliamentary or redundant, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: No, I'm being pointedly redundant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That explains it for the Chair. The member is quite in order.

MR. BARBER: I know that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Smart aleck!

MR. BARBER: Better a smart aleck than a dumb Bill — I'm referring, of course, to Bill 19.

Will you answer? Will you tell us what the terms and conditions of this purported agreement with the CPR are? If you won't tell us, will you explain why? Or are you simply copying the inept performance of the Premier during his estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

[ Page 3545 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 4 the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I hear the sigh in your voice, Mr. Chairman, You're thinking: "Oh, no, here we go again, thanks to the government."

If the minister would reply candidly and fully we would move to the next section, but if he refuses to reply we can only suspect it is because they have made a deal with the CPR that is so costly and ridiculous they are ashamed to tell us what it is. If the minister has an interim reply which is, "I've sent for a copy of it, don't worry, it'll be here in a moment," that's fair; I don't expect him to have the contract on his desk. But if he's sent — if that's why he left the House — to get a copy, then tell us that, We'll wait for a moment. But if, in fact, it is your policy to deny information which this Legislature has a right to be granted, then we object to that policy, as we objected to it when the Premier tried the same stunt and as we will continue to object to it for some time.

On the assumption that the minister did not hear the questions, they are: What are the terms and conditions of this general agreement you today tell us you have negotiated with the CPR? Who signed the agreement on behalf of the people of British Columbia? With what legislative authority did she or be do that, and on what date? Will you table the agreement in the House after the committee rises? Will you tell us, if there is no such written agreement, what verbal agreement has been reached with the CPR?

It's an important matter here, because on it hinges the financial viability, or lack of it, of the entire Transpo. If Transpo has no financial viability, then it's a ludicrous and wasteful thing to have this bill on the table — the bill should be withdrawn. If no financial viability can be demonstrated, then the bill shouldn't be here at all.

We know the Socreds are capable of getting us into ridiculous financial messes. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has himself predicted that the replacement service for the Princess Marguerite will cost $5 million this year. If they can do it on that scale with two tiny boats, how much do you think they can do it on a global scale with Transpo? There is some reason to believe that the Socreds may once again have gotten us in over our fiscal heads, and will cost us millions of dollars that shouldn't be spent here at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, section 4 of the bill states the purpose and powers of the corporation. We're continuing to hear from the member about some possible or not possible arrangement with CPR, and about the government and its ability to enter into a contract with CPR. Could we ask that you call the member to section 4 and have him stick to what's pointed out in section 4.

MR. BARBER: On the same point of order, for the benefit of the minister — who evidently didn't have anyone read this section to him — 4(2) says: "The corporation shall have the following duties, functions and powers:...(b) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property." This debate is totally in order. We're asking about the ability of the corporation to acquire and dispose of real and personal property. That means the land on which the corporation will do its business. That means the land we're talking about. The minister's point of order is absolutely irrelevant, but an interesting political defence at a difficult political moment for Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have approved the bill in principle in second reading. The purpose of committee is to discuss, in some detail, the sections. This section is explicit. It speaks to what the corporation will do, and we should confine our debate to that.

MR. BARBER: Section 4(2) reads in part:

"....to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;...to administer the funds, grants, revenues, income, royalties, gifts and other property received by the corporation:...to carry out the directions, instructions, duties or functions requested by the commissioner general, necessary for the purposes of this Act; and" — the final part — "...to do all things not inconsistent with this Act that it considers necessary or advisable to carry out its purposes and powers."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 4 is the engine of the bill. Section 4 allows, in every mechanical way, all of the negotiations for the land, property and equipment. Section 4, being the engine of the bill, properly calls into question the deal made for the land itself. That's important. Whatever deal is made for the land determines the cost of renting the land. That's important. The cost of renting the land will be reflected in the number and calibre of exhibitors who will come from, we are told, around the planet to show off their transportation initiatives and achievements. That's important.

Section 4 has two subsections, (1) and (2). Subsection (2) runs (a) through (j). It is a great detailed list of all of the powers of the corporation, and the purposes of it as well. Section 4 is one of the key sections in the whole bill. Therefore we are asking the minister to tell us what agreement has been made for which Transpo clearly — under section 4 — will be held to account, at least in part, for its tenure there. What agreement has been made? On the basis of that we can then determine whether or not to support the section. But if there has been an agreement made which will be inherited by this board whose powers and functions we're debating now in section 4. It may prove that that agreement is unsatisfactory to the board and the official opposition. This may further prove to be the only opportunity we ever have to debate such inherited and obligatory agreements. Section 4 is the only proper section for debating this; there is none other. That's why we debate it now, that's why we did not raise it in second reading. Again we ask the minister to tell us: what general agreement — which he himself referred to a few minutes ago — has been entered into? What are the terms and conditions of the agreement? Who signed it, when, and with what lawful authority? And most generally, what....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry; I can't take this anymore.

MR. BARBER: Goodbye, Bill. I didn't know it was so easy to....

[ Page 3546 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Ernie, if it's that easy in the House, how much easier will it be in Surrey?

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you think listening to you is easy?

MR. BARBER: No, it's probably not easy for you or for any government that refuses to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: I understand why the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), as usual, is uncomfortable having questions put that his colleagues will not answer. He was embarrassed when the Premier tried this stunt; he's now embarrassed that the Provincial Secretary tries it.

My questions are: what agreement has been entered into — clearly within section 4, as we now debate it — that is going to end up as one of the obligations of the Transpo board? What agreement, arrangement, contract or deal has been entered into that will inevitably be inherited by the board that the minister proposes to create in this section and give (a) through (j) — all of these detailed statements of powers and obligations? What's the agreement? If you're so ashamed of it that you can't tell us, at least admit why you should be so ashamed that once again the CPR hosed the people of British Columbia because of a decision made by the Premier to go public far too early with only one vendor, one site and one date for the conclusion of the negotiations.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of proceeding, as much as possible, with orderly discussion of this matter, I'll ignore the supercilious, insulting nature of some of those remarks. I will only say once again that the question associated with the acquisition of the property is being addressed to the wrong minister. Transpo will be the tenant; British Columbia Place will be the landlord, and they're involved in the acquisition of the property. With all due respect, I think you're directing that question, the terms of the agreement etc., to the wrong minister. I'm not able to give you details of that; but I'm sure you know the minister to whom that question may be directed.

MR. BARBER: We know that these questions may also be asked of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) as fiscal agent — that's true. We have three choices; we've chosen you. You're the minister responsible for Transpo. Transpo will be obligated to enter into an agreement; section 4 says how. If you prefer the shorthand, tell us what agreement has been negotiated with B.C. Place, the proposed landlord. Is that fair; will you answer that question? It's all the same deal, the same problem, the same arrangement and the same result of the decision taken by the Premier to announce the site and the timetable before he had negotiated anything. Will you tell us now what Transpo's obligations are to B.C. Place? Then maybe we'll understand what they are to the CPR in turn.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier — perhaps the member didn't hear — those concerns will become the responsibilities of the directors of this corporation, to negotiate their tenancy and to be satisfied that the space being provided is completely satisfactory to the conducting of a national exposition. I'm not attempting to withhold information. I'm simply saying that you're directing it to the wrong minister. You're aware of it. The minister responsible in this Legislature is another person.

MR. BARBER: Any minister or member is entitled to speak in the debate, as is the Minister of Environment, who is purportedly negotiating with the CPR — although one wonders if "negotiation" is the precisely correct word, considering what the CPR has on us. Nonetheless, that's not the issue here. What we're asking about are the inherited obligations that the yet-to-be-named board of Transpo will have to accept, by virtue of this act.

We're asking the minister, who surely knows what the deal is with the CPR, to tell us. It was, after all, the minister himself who told us this afternoon that there was a deal. Good. He obviously knows what it is. That's nice. We'd like to know too. Tell us. Tell us what the deal is, directly from the CPR or via B.C. Place, if you prefer; or tell us what the deal is as you perceive it, acting as minister on behalf of Transpo. However you view it doesn't matter much to us; whatever perspective you want to claim in order to answer the question is fine by us. So let's pretend that whatever it is it's fine by us, and now tell us what the deal is. We don't care about your perspective; we care about the deal.

We don't care about the way you look at it; we care about the financial obligations which you and your colleagues will have burdened the people of British Columbia with because of this scheme to hoist Transpo '86 on a population that clearly has no great interest in it and that clearly has other needs I including health and housing, far more important than these. Nonetheless, as long as you are in government this obligation stands. We want to know what the obligation is. You must know. You told us that there was one. Surely you wouldn't tell us there was one and not inquire as to its contents. If you know the contents we'd like to know too. We are as responsible as you are to the people of British Columbia for what happens in this House. We are as responsible as you are for the content of this section and for the ability of the board of Transpo to act on an obligation that you seem already to have required of them, at least according to your own statement earlier today. What's the deal with the CPR, from whatever perspective or vantage point you want to announce it? What have you committed us to, when, and with what lawful authority? Those are the questions we continue to put to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MR. BARBER: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again when the Provincial Secretary is willing to be more forthcoming and answer questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion is out of order.

MR. BARBER: All right. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3547 ]

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

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

MR. COCKE: We've just established that a deal has been made by this government with the CPR over that property. The question that the opposition is asking is: just what is that deal? Big Julie has never been noted for making deals that are full of love and altruism for governments or people or anybody else.

MR. BARRETT: CPR's not for sale.

MR. COCKE: CPR is not for sale. Now we just wonder how bad the sellout was. That's all we're asking. How big was the sellout? Just tell us that and then we can move on to other issues.

We've been very patient this afternoon. We just want to get some information. It is our job, on behalf of the public, to glean that information for them. This government feels that a government should sit behind their closed doors, make deals with people like the CPR, and not tell anybody. Well, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with taxpayers' money, and all we want to know is: what was the deal with the CPR, B.C. Place and, ultimately, Transpo '86?

MR. BARRETT: They don't know. They don't know themselves.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, we've just been informed that they do know.

MR. BARRETT: No, they don't. They haven't told the minister.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. They've made a deal, but the minister doesn't know.

MR. BARRETT: Yeah, CPR put it in a hat.

MR. COCKE: I see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, there is a Chairman present at the committee.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, our enthusiasm to try to glean information on behalf of the public is very difficult for us to subdue. So just let the minister stand up, and if he doesn't know what the deal is, can he identify the minister who can help him out, and then we can proceed to the next section of this bill?

MR. BARRETT: What's the deal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre, inadvertently, at the division, the Chairman reported that the motion was that the committee rise and report progress. The motion should have been that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. We'll have to resolve that problem later, but that is for the information of the members. The first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARRETT: He just said there wasn't a deal — Rogers.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, from cross-comment.... The reason I rise is that the matters that have been raised this afternoon are with respect to a proposal, the structure of which will be established within the constituency of Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was a full moon last night.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says that there was a full moon last night, and I had heard rumours that he was seen creeping around from shrub to shrub in his black cape, with hair growing rapidly on his face. Rumour also has it he was making sounds like a coyote. But we knew that; he does that in here.

MR. LEA: Are you against the leg-hold trap?

MR. LAUK: He'd probably chew his ankle off.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal is a substantial one, perhaps costing the taxpayer a great deal of money. However, the design is not in place. Every question that we have for those involved is met with a shrug of the shoulders. We don't know where the amphitheatre is going to be, because we don't know where the land is going to be. We don't know specifically what B.C. Place is. We've been to Mr. Volrich. We've been to the city council. We've been to the town planners, We've been to Mr. Narod, the project head. When he's in town, we've talked to him. They all shrug their shoulders; they don't know.

So what is this government doing? It's hiring people to manage a project and those people don't know what the project is. It's asking the Legislature to pass this section in this bill without knowing what the project is.

We have on the one hand the Provincial Secretary saying that the land swap deal between Marathon Realty and the CPR on the one hand and the government on the other has been approved in principle, and yet we have the Minister of the Environment, the designated minister in charge of this project — so-called — who cross-commented a moment ago saying that there is no deal. He says there is no deal. Mr. Wolfe said that there was a deal in principle.

[ Page 3548 ]

We've asked for details of the negotiations, Mr. Chairman, and the people of Vancouver Centre have corresponded with him. I've spoken to large groups of them. They want some development in Vancouver Centre, but they want to know what the price is, Mr. Chairman. They want to know what the deal is., They're not going to buy a pig in a poke. This government has no right to ask this side of the House to buy a pig in a poke and they have no right to give back-of-the-hand treatment to the people of Vancouver and British Columbia who want the details of this deal — no right whatsoever.

The Provincial Secretary is hopelessly inept, Mr. Chairman. He's demonstrated his ineptitude in two portfolios and he's doing it again now. I hesitate very much to make that kind of comment about a member of the cabinet, but unfortunately it's true. Insofar as the Provincial Secretary is incompetent, the Minister of Environment is a patsy for the Premier and does what the Premier tells him.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, I would ask that the first member for Vancouver Centre withdraw those unparliamentary remarks he made about me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw remarks that another hon. member has found offensive.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'll withdraw the remark that the minister is a patsy to the Premier. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition gets the distinct impression that this new minister is taking too long to discover his own skills in his present portfolio. It is our impression that the minister has had a sufficient amount of time to express himself in his portfolio, and not necessarily parrot the day-to-day, seat-of the-pants type of thinking of the Premier.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, perhaps you could ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to relate this matter — the matter of my competency — to the bill we're discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Environment does make a valid point.

MR. LAUK: Let me get it correct. He says I should relate his competency to this bill? I say zero plus zero equals zero.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's my understanding that in the House during committee stage of a bill we do a clause-by-clause study of the bill that's before us. I find this member's argument to be somewhat out of line with the second reading of a bill discussing Transpo '86. Perhaps the Chair would care to direct the member as to the correct line of debate.

MR. LAUK: I'm not discussing second reading, Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on section 4 of the bill, in committee, and we must be relevant to section 4. The point made by the hon. minister is, in the opinion of the Chair, a valid one.

MR. LAUK: In what way? That I shouldn't be attacking his competence? It's like shadow-boxing, I will agree.

With respect to section 4, we have asked the Provincial Secretary to disclose the details of the agreement in principle between Marathon Realty and the province of British Columbia. We don't know what vast tract of publicly owned land is up for grabs in this province. It's being dealt off in the back rooms like some kind of big-deal poker game. I am deeply concerned, doubly concerned, because of my knowledge of the competence of the Provincial Secretary, who is marshalling this bill through the House. This section calls for the Crown corporation to acquire and dispose of land.

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely appalling that they will not disclose the details to the public. We asked these questions as long ago as April and May. What kind of land? What tracts of land would be made available for the land swap? There's been silence on the part of this government and an apparently complete ignorance of the subject by the minister in charge. Every time we go into the planning office and look at the map of B.C. Place, it's been changed. We look at the map of Transpo, it's been changed. The dotted line on the map of Transpo showing the LRT link has been eliminated. Can the minister tell us why? No more light rail transit. What is the prevailing idea now? I'm saying that the people that you've hired are in the dark. Somebody, somewhere is negotiating this land deal, has negotiated an agreement in principle, according to this minister, and you have refused to disclose the details to the public. To rise in your place and give us that small-time entrepreneurial view that it would be unwise to disclose such details to the public is to be completely rejected.

At least in a private enterprise world, Mr. Chairman, the shareholders of a company can call their board of directors to task on an immediate basis under our reformed Companies Act — reformed by the NDP. They can bring them to task immediately if they're about to deal in a major way with properties belonging to the company. They must have disclosure of the details of what's going on, and the board of directors can't even act.

This kind of treatment is government arrogance at its worst. The people of Vancouver have had enough of that kind of treatment. They want a democratic government; they don't want a government that acts in the back room against their best interests, and someday down the road we find out how much they've stabbed us in the back and what kind of a bungle they've done. This is a government that trades on withholding information from the public. We've had a sad, sad grand tour from dirty tricks to deception to hiding facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. By the greatest stretch of the imagination the Chair is unable to see how that relates to section 4.

MR. LAUK: I am drawing this analogy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that may be the case but it is very difficult for the Chair to relate that specifically. As the hon. member is well aware, there are very strict rules that guide us on discussion in committee and the member is fully aware of those regulations. I would ask him again to return to the section of the bill presently before the committee.

MR. LAUK: I am just saying that their withholding of information with respect to this deal with Marathon Realty is characteristic of this government. They have a disrespect for the general will of the public and they demonstrate it time and time again. With some it is arrogance, with others it is just complete incompetence and ineptitude. He doesn't know

[ Page 3549 ]

what he's doing. We've had enough of it, Mr. Chairman, and mark you, if we don't get the details today or soon, this government will pay dearly for it at the hands of the public, whom we think we represent, They are entitled to this information and the public has the right to know.

MR. MACDONALD: I would just like to add a couple of points because there are some legal aspects involved here, as the member for North Prince George will realize. There is certainly no deal whatsoever that has been reduced to writing with the CPR. There is an ancient statute in the western world called the statute of frauds. It says that nothing is binding when you're dealing with land unless it is reduced to writing and signed. Isn't that correct?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. MACDONALD: No? Oh, yes, that is certainly the case.

MR. LEA: But not with widows.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Health is like Caesar's wife: guilty as charged.

You can't have an agreement to buy a house or anything else unless you've got it in writing and signed by the vendor. You've got nothing here: no agreements to refer the matter to arbitration, no agreement to exchange the appraised lands for some other lands, nothing whatsoever. So you're building castles in the sky for B.C. Place and Transpo '86. That is the first point. It leaves you absolutely naked as far as the CPR is concerned. They can name their price. It is a very dangerous position. You are locked in; you can't back out. You stake your political prestige on behalf of the people and you've got no method to determine the price that you're going to have to pay.

Secondly, suppose you resorted — I don't think this government ever would — to expropriate some of Ian Sinclair's property. I doubt very much if you can do that, Can you expropriate from a federal company like Marathon Realty under provincial law? I don't think so. So here again you're in a blind alley so far as determining this thing. The other point is that after the rezoning by the city of Vancouver, which brought the asking price of the CPR up to $500,000 an acre, you are looking at 60 to 100 acres to be taken. Do you know what that is before the bargaining starts? You are looking at anywhere from $30 million to $50 million — that is what we are talking about today — of public money. If, after getting that rezoning out of the city of Vancouver by public agreement, the CPR then have an informal asking price of $500,000 an acre for these False Creek bottomlands, after they have got the government of British Columbia into a sucker position, what is that price going to be?

MR. BARBER: Much higher.

MR. MACDONALD: Far higher, because before you strike the deal with Ian Sinclair.... They say they don't know what the cost of this little misadventure on the part of the Socred ranks will be. I think we all know what the cost is going to be for the people of British Columbia. It can be expressed in two words: an arm and a leg. It's funny, but that's the position you've got yourself into, Mr. Minister. I say that you can go on with this thing.... It is sheer incompetency and I say there should be at least one businessman in the ranks of the cabinet opposite.

MR. BARRETT: What we have here is a request by the government to endorse a section when they don't know what it's about. Is that right? Could the minister tell us he knows all the details, everything that's involved, exactly what the swap is but he's not at liberty to give the exact details at this time? Could you tell us that?

It's not enough that you're going to ask us to vote for something we don't know about, but you're telling us by your silence that you're going to vote for something you don't know anything about either. You can all have an excuse. You weren't taken into his confidence. But what's his excuse for not taking himself into his own confidence?

MR. LEA: He knows when to trust somebody.

MR. BARRETT: He knows when to trust somebody. He's trying to tell the people of this province and this country that no matter what the deal is, the CPR won't hose him. That's what he's trying to say: the CPR will be benevolent in dealing with surchargers. Why, they're the biggest surchargers in this country that ever were. They skinned this country building that railroad. Now come on, Mr. Minister — stand up here in this House and tell us what you've agreed to, through you, Mr. Chairman, so that the taxpayers of this province will know what we're getting into. If you don't know, stand up and say you're asking for a blank cheque and you trust the CPR and they won't skin us. I'd like to hear that statement of naivete.

Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't know what he's getting into. He's sitting there saying: "Vote for this, even though I don't know what it's all about, because my boss told me to go ahead with it."

He really doesn't know what the deal is. The other minister — the Minister of Environment — to protect his position in this fiasco as it develops, called across the floor of the House. He said: "There is no deal."

MR. BARBER: That's not what Wolfe said.

MR. BARRETT: Well, one or the other of them is looking for a defence mechanism.

Mr. Chairman, that minister used to be the Minister of Finance. Did you ever make a financial deal without knowing what the arrangements were?

MR. KING: Or what the interest was?

MR. BARRETT: Or what the interest was? Do you ever fix a car without putting on a surcharge?

Mr. Chairman, I want to give a hypothetical situation. If my colleague for Revelstoke (Mr. King) banged up his fender and went into a car repair shop and they said, "We don't know what we're going to charge you. Just leave your car here," and then after he took it out repaired and they said, "there's $4 per hour on top of that that we didn't know we were going to charge you," what defence would he have? He'd say: "Well, I thought I had a deal before I went in the body shop." Most customers go in the body shop knowing what they're going in for, what the deal is. Most places that do body repairs tell them what the deal is. That's the body shop.

[ Page 3550 ]

Mr. Chairman, how much is it going to cost us to have this deal repaired?

Mr. Chairman, I ask a question of the minister: what's the deal? How many acres? What's the difference between "The Gong Show" and "Let's Make a Deal"? Do you know what the deal is, Mr. Minister? Do you know what you're voting for? You stand up and tell us that you're prepared to vote for a section and you don't even know what the deal is. If that's the way you want to operate as a government, stand up and say: "Look, I don't know what the deal is, but I'm going with Evan anyway."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I've made it a practice not to vote on something I don't know nothin' about. But if you want to be a row of sheep and go along with baa-baa, go ahead. But I'm not going to vote for something I don't know anything about. But if you want to go ahead, if you think that's what you're here for, that's it, and it's causing a lot of trouble to ask these questions. The whole parliamentary system's built on asking these very questions, and having them answered. But the system breaks down when there are no answers.

Am I being unfair, Mr. Chairman, in this section to ask the minister: "Please, Mr. Minister, stand up and tell us what the deal is. How many acres are you going to trade off, and where are those acres?"

Who are we dealing with here? Let's go back and look at the script. We're dealing with the CPR. Does the CPR love Social Credit? I don't think love has anything to do with the way the CPR makes a deal. Do you? You do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: They're only asking $82,000 per mile for that Kettle Valley steel.

MR. BARRETT: They're only asking $82,000 per mile for the Kettle Valley steel — that's charitable.

MR. KING: That's obsolete.

MR. BARRETT: That's obsolete. I mean, that's a big-hearted corporation.

MR. BARBER: Thirty-year-old steel.

MR. BARRETT: Thirty-year-old steel.

The CPR wanted to buy a 13.5 percent ownership of M&B. Who came down out of the hills, sans skis, saying: "B.C.'s not for sale"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty in relating all remarks of the member specifically to section 4 presently before us, as I believe the member himself is most aware. I would ask him now if he would return to section 4 of the bill presently before us.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will be absolutely explicit. This section deals with B.C. Place. This section has to do with a land swap. CPR owns some land. This government wants that land and will trade something to get that land. I can't make it any more clear than that. I ask the minister to please tell me what he is willing to trade to acquire that land.

MR. KING: The parliament buildings?

MR. MACDONALD: Prince George North?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Marguerite?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Heroin Treatment Program?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, even interruptions are in order, because speculation is rife.

I am in order; the interruptions are in order; everything is going okay except the silence of the minister. I ask the minister to tell us what is on the table in the bargaining. What are you going to trade?

MR. KING: Trade the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Something that's worth something.

MR. MACDONALD: More than $3.

MR. BARRETT: More than $3.

You know, this is the end of July. Thank goodness it's not August. When we get into the dog days of August, where heat affects the brain, we could understand this lack of reaction; but here we are in this air-conditioned chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must have been out in the sun.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, those brand new back-benchers come down to this place with the idea that when you ask a question of the minister he is not supposed to answer.

MR. LEA: He won't talk to them.

MR. BARRETT: Because he won't talk to them, of course. If he won't talk to the backbenchers, what right do we have to expect that he will answer to the people?

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is dumb.

MR. BARRETT: No, he is struck dumb. The minister has no deal. I believed the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) when he interrupted and said there is no deal.

Do you have some answers to provide, Mr. Minister? Did you put your hand up to leave the room?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: A plus B, out the door with thee. You're not happy.

Mr. Chairman, this involves many millions of dollars. Not all the people in this province are millionaires. A lot of people out there still work for a living. A lot of people have to pick up the bills of a government that functions behind the scenes. The people of this province have a right to know exactly how much this is going to cost, and I don't think you know the answer to that question.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I ask the minister this: when was the last negotiating meeting between the CPR and the government over this property?

[ Page 3551 ]

Alleluia, brothers and sisters! A simple question: when was the last meeting between the government and the CPR over this deal?

When was the first meeting between the government and the CPR over this deal? How many meetings have there been?

Well, I hope there are no taxpayers watching any of this, and I sure hope there are no Socreds watching any of this because some people would call this arrogance. I ask the minister again: how many meetings has he had with CPR on this deal?

When was the last meeting with the CPR?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I bought a ticket there recently.

MR. BARRETT: You bought a ticket there. Boy, did they see you coming.

Mr. Chairman, this is incredible! Here is a minister of the Crown, a representative of the constituency with his companion's finger in it — the gerrymandered riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain that the member represents....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must remember standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

MR. BARRETT: Does he not represent that gerrymandered riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on Bill 19, section 4.

MR. BARRETT: What standing order was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 61(2), page 23.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, is it proper to refer to the minister and the riding that he represents?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 4 is under consideration, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, that's correct. The member who is the Provincial Secretary is also the MLA for the Vancouver riding of Little Mountain–Finger. I ask the minister a simple question on this section. And we're in committee stage where questions are to be asked. Mr. Minister, how many meetings have you had with the CPR to discuss this?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the opposition leader should visit the House a little more often in committee so he could hear the answers previously provided to members. Over and over we go, but I'm quite happy to address myself to the question he's asked. I see he's nodding his head up and down; it's kind of a relief to not have his squeaky voice performing here for just a minute or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again — and I say this in all sincerity — my ministry, as Provincial Secretary and as chairmanship of Transpo '86, are not responsible for the negotiations you're now referring to. This ministry and Transpo will become a tenant of the proposed site, so I cannot see the relevancy in members persisting in asking this minister what these negotiations are and what status they're in, etc.

We have a responsibility to provide Transpo and to provide a site for Transpo. We've been around and around this matter, but you are addressing that question to the wrong minister. You're nodding your head, so you agree with that, Mr. Leader. Therefore I'm sure — and you are as well — that full disclosure of the nature of the transaction you're asking about is going to be provided in due course. The chairman of the corporation of British Columbia Place is the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the general manager of that corporation is Alvin Narod. These are very important negotiations, and I just suggest that you're wasting the time of this House in the debate on section 4 of this bill in persisting in asking a question of this minister which I cannot provide.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister informs me, as I'm listening and nodding my head, that you are responsible for the tenancy of Transpo '86 at the B.C. Place site. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE: We're the tenants.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's right; now we're getting there. You're responsible for the tenancy. What is the deadline for the rented area to be in place?

AN HON. MEMBER: November 1.

MR. BARRETT: November 1. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, is making himself aware of the relationship between Transpo '86 and British Columbia Place. What I said earlier is not what is being said. I said that a formal approval to proceed with a national exposition in British Columbia should be received in November of this year. We're asking for this bill now, subject to proclamation, so that we are in preparedness to proceed with the plans, the appointments to the board of directors and so on that are necessary and so no delay will take place when that approval is obtained.

MR. BARRETT: The minister is responsible for tenancy; the deal has to be in place by November. The approval has to be there. Is that correct? Part of the approval has to be where the tenancy is taking place. I think that; anybody else would think that; I think the minister knows that. You can't have an approval of a tenancy unless you know where you're going to be a tenant and how much it costs. Is that right? We're getting someplace, Mr. Chairman. We've got that much out of the minister.

He is responsible for tenancy at B.C. Place for the exposition, and that tenancy has to be in place by November. Do you have any idea whether or not the negotiations going on — if they are going on — between the CPR and the government of British Columbia will be completed by the time of your deadline for the announcement of the tenancy condition?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's your question again?

[ Page 3552 ]

MR. BARRETT: You are responsible for arranging tenancy for the location. Is that correct? The location is going to be at B.C. Place. Is that correct? The deadline for arranging tenancy is in November. Is that correct? All three things you've just said. Do you know whether or not the negotiations between the government and the CPR that have started or may be planned will be completed by that target date?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the most simple terms, I've every expectation those negotiations will be completed. I did not state — with regard to November — that it was anything but the formal approval date, the conclusion of the waiting period that is necessary before the BIE will formally approve. I think you can dodge round with this type of questioning, Mr. Leader, all you wish to; but we have a commitment to provide a site which is highly acceptable to the BIE. They've physically examined it, and it's an area in need of upgrading. We recognize that the opposition does not approve of this measure, so I quite understand why they're proceeding as they are in clause-by-clause debate in this bill. The only significance of November is that that happens to be the date on which formal approval will be obtained.

MR. BARRETT: The site is at B.C. Place. You've made that commitment, we understand. It needs some upgrading, so you know exactly what the site is if you say it needs some upgrading. You nod your head — you agree that you know exactly the site you've committed the exhibition to. We haven't bought the site yet. But that doesn't matter, eh? The fact that we haven't bought the site doesn't matter to the exhibition people. It doesn't bother you either.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's six years away.

MR. BARRETT: Six years away.

Once you're committed and you know you're tied into that, the CPR can ask any price they want. That's like buying a house by going down the street and saying: "I like that one, we'll take it, but don't tell me what the price is until later."

Mr. Chairman, not only is he not in the negotiations, as he properly should be to make the debate in order, but he's telling us he doesn't care. He's made a commitment. The deal's got nothing to do with him; his commitment is to provide that site with some costs of preparation. They know exactly where the site is, because he's made a commitment here in this House by saying that they even know where they want to clear up. Is there anybody in British Columbia who goes out and buys a house or a car and says, "I'll take that one," and later on asks, "What's the price?" Sure there are. It's the same point I made earlier: millionaires do that. You're all a bunch of millionaires over there anyway, and with somebody else's millions what do you care?

What an outfit! He gets up and admits that he's responsible for the tenancy, admits that he's picked the site, admits there's preparation work to be done at the site. They don't own the site. They're going to buy the site, but they don't know how much the site is going to cost them. In any event, they're locked into that site. Don't you think the CPR knows that too? The CPR knows, that you're locked in, the CPR has no deal, the CPR knows you have no option. They might, as some businessmen might, hold you up for ransom. I know that the CPR is a charitable group that has nothing in its heart but love for the Canadian taxpayers and would never take advantage of that business situation. But what if it was somebody really tough like Imperial Oil? Aren't Imperial Oil and CPR tied in together?

MR. BARBER: Just a bit.

MR. BARRETT: Just a bit. Or maybe the private banking system, or maybe Marathon.

We have an admission by this minister that he really doesn't give a fig. All his job is is to promise the site and that it'll be ready. "We'll do the preparation work and whatever it costs is none of my business."

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows the landlord.

MR. BARRETT: You bet he knows who the landlord is.

So whatever deal they make, that's none of your business. Is that what you're going to tell the taxpayers of this province? You just told us that in the House. Will you go out in the corridor and tell that to the television reporters? "It's none of my concern how much it's going to cost. I've made a commitment." Isn't that right?

Mr. Chairman, if. the land price is too high would the minister consider moving to another site? Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister who's responsible for the tenancy: is the sky the limit on the tenancy? As minister, what is your personal commitment to what is the limit for the tenancy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I said earlier, there is a commitment to provide the site at reasonable cost in the interest of having a viable exposition, which will have admission fees and exhibitors' rentals attractive enough to make it successful.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman, this is more difficult than the denticare plan, but we're getting a tooth at a time. Now the minister is beginning to define his own protection. Good stuff. I like to see a politician protecting his own turf. Now let's deal specifically with the turf.

He's in charge of the tenancy. We got that out of him. The deal has already been made for the site — the choice of site has been made. There is a commitment to do some preparatory work on that site. Right? Okay. The land has not yet been bought, but he assumes it's going to be reasonable. That's what he told us. It only took him five minutes to give us that much information.

Now what is a reasonable price?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd much prefer it if the Leader of the Opposition did not try to put words in this minister's mouth. It's a common practice of his that I've witnessed for years and years and years. You know, I have the greatest admiration for his ability at this, but we're all quite familiar with it in this Legislature.

This minister only wants to say once again that a reasonable price is that which will make the exposition viable in terms of what we have to charge for space to international exhibitors and what we have to charge for admissions. That's the fundamental interest of this government in promoting this exposition. It wants it to be successful — attractive enough for people to come not once but many times, and to come to Vancouver from far-off places. I think it's in your interest, just as much as this government's, to see it succeed. So that is what a reasonable price is.

[ Page 3553 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're really getting a good little exchange going here. If there's anything I add to what the minister says, please say so and I'll correct it. Okay, let's go. Just nod your head, because I'm watching closely.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Never mind the "nod the head" stuff. Just proceed.

MR. BARRETT: I'm proceeding. You're in charge of tenancy. You've picked a place. The place needs some preparatory work. You don't know what the price of the place is. You want it to work. You said that it can only work if there is a reasonable price for space and a reasonable charge for admission. Have I misquoted you on anything so far? No? Not even all the Leader of the Opposition's brilliant oratorical skills can alter what has been said. You've given me all that information. I've just elicited it from you. That's what you've told me.

Now that you've told me there has to be a reasonable price for space and a reasonable charge for admission, have you drawn up a budget for this event?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of the fact that we have a preliminary master budget for this proposal.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. You see, it's very simple. I'm learning a little bit at a time. The minister says there is a master budget. Now I ask the minister: what is the maximum charge for space and the maximum charge for admission in that master budget?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not in a position to be able to answer that very simply. I could provide the information to the member at a later date, but I can't answer that in a simple quick answer.

MR. BARRETT: There is a master budget. What is the maximum charge for space? What is the maximum charge for admission? The minister said he can't answer it specifically; he can provide it for me. I thank him very much and I will make a note. I know the minister will send the stuff.

In making the budget, was there also a consideration of the maximum cost of the land for the location of this project, figuring in what the cost of space and admission would be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying any wiles, slippery debate, distortion of the minister's words. I am being so polite I can't believe it. All I'm doing is asking questions on information he has provided. What is the maximum cost of the land that would be allowed in his master budget?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't want to make it difficult for the Leader of the Opposition by causing him to be polite for too long, but I would once again refer him to the preliminary master budget of Hanscomb, Roy Associates. There are full details on the background development of those space costs and I'm sure that additional information could be provided on request. In other words, the space cost, admission factors, estimates — all of which are based on events six years hence — are established in a comprehensive study. I am sure this will be updated as time goes along because it, after all, is a preliminary master budget.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not as clever as the minister is. The minister keeps on adding adjectives and adverbs when he gets in a bit of a corner. This is a preliminary master budget and additional costs may be considered later on, adjusted to what we are.... No? Is it going to be stuck to rigidly?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. BARRETT: No? Okay, I don't want to put words in his mouth in this very important debate. Are there parameters in this preliminary master budget that allow for an absolute maximum as to the cost of the land to make this project viable? With all reasonable projection that any human being can make for six years, are there parameters in that budget for the maximum cost of the land to make the space and admission charge feasible, to make it workable?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I referred the member to the report that is available to him, and one of his co-members has that information. I am sure that on studying that he will be able to answer the questions he asks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister. You tell me: what is the maximum allowable charge per square foot that makes it economically feasible as projected in the information you have prepared by your staff?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to deal with that at the moment is to undertake to provide to the leader that kind of information, if he wants some kind of an estimate as to what the space cost associated with the study was. I would be happy to do that.

MR. BARRETT: I would be happy to set this section aside and go on to other things until we get some information. You can't come into the House and ask the House to pass a section fairly unless we have the information. You said you were going to bring us some information. That is fine. You bring us some information and we'll deal with the section. That is only fair. It will only take a few minutes. Recess the House; tell your staff to bring it down; go on to another section; we'll come back to it in 20 minutes. Let's do that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The section we are dealing with is dealing with the powers and purposes of the corporation. It gives the usual corporate powers to do business, to administer the funds, grants and revenues, and, along with that, to acquire and dispose of real and personal property. We are not dealing here with the company's powers to acquire personal or real property; we are dealing with their powers to rent space. Such arrangements would be on a rental basis. Those are just general powers associated with any corporation.

MR. BARRETT: That's why I've kept it in order. I've stuck strictly to the tenancy that you raised. Every question that has flowed from the slap on the wrists I received from the minister has been in response to his own answers. You are responsible for tenancy. This is the section that you confirm deals with that. I am asking you, Mr. Minister, to set it aside for 20 minutes and come back and tell the House what the maximums are.

[ Page 3554 ]

You don't know. You are going into this project involving tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars and you don't know what the maximums are. You are trying to tell me that the master budget doesn't have a maximum projection? I am a gullible fellow but you're asking me to swallow too much here. You've led me down this path of tenacy. You've given the definition of what the section deals with and I'm asking you a specific question under this section.

Mr. House Leader, I think it would be worthwhile if we passed this section over until we get a few answers that the minister is going to get, and go on to other things. Thank you, Mr. Minister. You are going to get that information?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What was your question? I was dealing with something else.

MR. BARRETT: What bill are you on?

Mr. Chairman, I've asked under this section — to stay in order under the minister's own definition of tenancy — what are the maximums chargeable for rent and admission under his master budget projections that are permissible to make this deal viable? Could he tell us that, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. BARRETT: You'd vote for anything, even yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman, I am in order. The minister defined that the section dealt with his responsibility of tenancy. He also further defined that a reasonable tenancy had to be expected to make it financially viable. That's correct, isn't it, Mr. Minister? Is that right so far? Have I distorted or twisted anything you've said? No.

You've got a master budget there, haven't you? Yes, that's what you told me. Is there any consideration in the master budget of what the maximum charge per square foot and for admission price would be to make the project viable? Could the minister tell me that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, earlier I referred the Leader of the Opposition to the Hanscomb, Roy preliminary master budget report. Evidently he doesn't wish to have a reference to it or look at it. Perhaps I can assist by referring him to page 15. I don't know why the leader doesn't elect to have a look at it himself, as I indicated earlier, to save the time of the House.

MR. BARRETT: I trust you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I see.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you wish me to read to him from this document which he already has. Is that what you would like me to do, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BARRETT: What is the maximum figure?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in a note to the information supplied, the revenue estimates of the exposition....

"(1) Gate admissions. A total of approximately 13 million admissions is forecast at an average cost of $6.80 per admission. This average cost is arrived at by projecting proportions of adults, youths, children and senior citizens, and pricing these at different rates for both daily and season's ticket admissions.

"(2) Exhibit rental. Approximately 27,900 square metres of indoor space and 34,000 square metres of outdoor space will be rented at average costs of $402 and $204 per square metre respectively. These averages are also arrived at by pricing various categories of space and various types of exhibitor at appropriate rates. In arriving at total anticipated rental, a 15 percent allowance for discounts has also been assumed."

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the BIE on more than one occasion has asked whether some type of discounting could be available to participating nations who are members of the BIE so that they can find it more attractive to participate as exhibitors. That is the importance of having their approval. We could proceed with an exposition without their approval, but with this international organization endorsing it we can expect that a great many of their members will in fact participate.

I might say that we have gone out of our way in an exemplary fashion to put out in front all of these reports for public information when they were available. This information has been supplied to the press on several occasions, as you are well aware, as soon as it was available. So I think we have demonstrated a wish to disclose completely to the public whether or not this is in fact a viable proposition, and to allow ample public debate to take place. I don't think that this government can be criticized on that count, with all due respect. We have put all of this information forward. I am simply having difficulty with the questions being asked by the leader and other members opposite, because they persist in asking me for the detailed nature of the negotiations which are taking place with the present owner of the properties. So I think you're well aware that I'm not able to answer that question. But I understand it is proceeding favourably, and I'm sure there will be full information available to you and all other members of the public when that matter has been concluded.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I have been humbled by this overwhelming font of information. Because I've been humbled, I only have one question left to ask you. I hope that you put me in my place.

It costs $6.80 per admission on an average. You tell us that it is projected that covered space is rented for $402 per square metre, uncovered space is $204 per square metre, and there is a discount of 15 percent. That's correct? Thank you. There is a discount of 15 percent, because of a request from some nations. That's what you said.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This was assumed, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. My last question is: could you please tell me what is the maximum figure per square metre for the cost of the land to make these figures viable?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the party opposite is opposed to this proposal. [Laughter.] The leader laughs. They're on record as being opposed.

[ Page 3555 ]

MR. BARRETT: Stay in order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, they want to destroy this proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the question I've been asked is what is the approximate cost — or the exact cost — per square metre, or something....

MR. BARRETT: The maximum cost.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The maximum cost, okay. Don't get angry, Mr. Leader. Just keep your cool. I'm trying to answer your question, Mr. Leader, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: I'm cool.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The point is that, as in all negotiations of this type, these are sensitive matters. You would ask me, as the minister responsible for this tenancy, to come forward with some kind of figure which might prejudice those negotiations. Now I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be a party to destroying or hindering those negotiations to the detriment of obtaining them at reasonable cost. That would be an unreasonable action on your part. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask the member to quite kindly understand that this is a matter which has agreement in principle, I'm told, and for some time the negotiations have been proceeding, a commitment has been made.... [Laughter.] Oh, the members opposite laugh. They think it doesn't matter that these are sensitive negotiations. They'd like to have it hammered out and have the thing all fall apart. So I think it's well understood that I'm not able to answer that question. I've tried to answer to the best of my ability the basis on which the preliminary budget was prepared on behalf of Transpo '86, to try to get some idea of whether it was viable, whether the ancillary benefits would offset these costs. We think it is viable, and we'd like to have the authority for a corporation which will deal with these concerns and the costs of this space.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is accusing me of attempting to elicit information that he isn't even privy to, obviously. Would they tell you what they're negotiating for?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Why are you asking me that?

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you why. Because you've given us....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're asking funny questions. Yes, I'm not privy to them. That's a funny question to ask me.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. That's a statement I made. You're nervous. Mr. Chairman, tell the minister not to be nervous. He's a businessman. You tell us you've got these figures. You tell me and my colleagues that you can't discuss what the price of the land should be. Well, if I were an accountant at the CPR and I read the budget there, I would work back the price per hectare you're willing to pay on these figures, wouldn't I? Wouldn't you, Mr. Chairman? Wouldn't you, Mr. Attorney-General? He's accusing me of trying to get information that any accountant could figure out based on what he's already made public. You've got a master budget over there. The CPR's got accountants. The CPR can pick up this master budget and figure out what you're willing to pay in your estimates. Is that right? Sure they are. So you're telling me that I shouldn't ask something that they could figure out with their accountants. What is the figure that your accountants used to come to this figure in terms of the cost of land and the cost of rent? That's public knowledge. They'd have to have a figure. Did you give them the figure? What is the figure?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Is that right? Is it complicated?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you talk. You got skinned on the Marguerite, the jetfoil and everything else. They keep you right out of cabinet meetings now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on Bill 19, I think.

MR. BARRETT: You got the boing, boing!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Elworthy?

MR. BARRETT: Where's Elworthy now that we need him? It's a good thing that minister's got a sense of humour. When you blow $8 million you might as well laugh about it.

I'm just getting the answer here, Mr. Chairman. I'll just be a minute. What was the base figure they used to come up with these public figures" Is there a penalty if you cancel this, if the figures aren't viable or if it comes out that they're not able to make a deal on this location? Is there a cash penalty, do you know? What is the cash penalty that you've signed for cancelling an international agreement? None. Nothing in the contract as a penalty. Up to what time? Is that absolute? Can you cancel in 1985, the year before, in 1984 when everything goes down the tube, according to Orwell, or 1983, the year before that? Nothing in the contract as a penalty?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't know! He's signed a contract, and he doesn't know whether or not there's a penalty. Do you know if there's a penalty?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I imagine the Leader of the Opposition would like to have me indicate that there are arrangements for cancellation. There's nothing obliging an exhibitor, country or province to proceed at any time. What you undertake to do in order to have them reserve.... All they're doing is reserving Canada and British Columbia for 1986 in their terms. I'm not aware of any penalties or any time-frame associated with it. Other countries have cancelled their commitment, and I could name some. This is not something British Columbia is going to do. They have confidence in the Canadian government and in British Columbia's ability to fulfil.

[ Page 3556 ]

MR. BARRETT: I have confidence in the minister; I have confidence in the other minister; I have confidence in.... But most legal documents don't deal in confidence; they deal in legal documents. Did you sign a document that is penalty-free if you can't provide this site?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister: did you sign a contract with no penalty?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Did you sign a contract that is penalty free if you can't provide this site?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's difficult for me to follow what the reason for the leader's line of questioning is. I'm not aware of any contract I have signed which would.... Our commitment is made here to proceed with this; we're simply asking for a Crown corporation to be able to deal with all of these concerns. I'm not aware of any agreement we have signed which would involve penalties.

MR. BARRETT: Did you sign an agreement when you were in Paris?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that the section itself does not deal with the item under discussion.

MR. BARRETT: Did you sign an agreement in Paris? You didn't sign an agreement in Paris. Did you sign any documents on behalf of the government in soliciting this exhibition? Did you submit a bid? You signed a bid? Does your legal department tell you, by the submission of that bid and making the commitments, that if you're not able to deliver, you are liable? Is the government liable if you can't perform on the bid that you submitted that was accepted? Are we liable for it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: For what?

MR. BARRETT: If we don't perform.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of documentation associated with this application. I could not, unless I were to try to read all of this out, which I don't think the leader wants to see or hear about.... It's difficult for me to understand the line of his questioning here, but we have committed ourselves to proceed, to perform. There is no other obligation if we do not, if that's what you want to hear us say. We have obviously expended funds thus far towards the development of this bid to be successful in it.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is practice when a member is in committee to continue a line of questioning, and I'm sure the good member, my very dear friend from Dewdney, would give way while I just complete a couple more questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would have to give way, otherwise I will have to cite standing order 37, which allows the Chairman or the Speaker to recognize members. I recognize the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I will give way to him this time, but I've been waiting for the last 20 minutes to say a word, and the questioning never changes. I will give way this one time. I wish to get up after that.

MR. BARRETT: I want to put it on the record that my good friend and colleague from Dewdney, who is a dear associate of mine, has been most thoughtful this afternoon. If that doesn't finish him, I'll think up some more compliments.

What the minister wants us to believe is that there are a whole bunch of documents — that is what he just said — but he doesn't know how many he signed. He is unable to tell us whether we're locked in in terms of liability on those documents. He doesn't know what the cost of the land will be in terms of coming up with these specific calculations.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On a point of order, just to correct the leader, he said that I said that we didn't know whether we were committed or whether there was any penalty involved. I indicated there was no penalty for any evident cancellation or what have you. You were incorrect, Mr. Leader, and I just wanted to point that out.

MR. BARRETT: You said you weren't aware of any.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He tried to state that I did state there was a penalty.

MR. BARRETT: I've got the floor. The minister is jumpy. I am sure the member will give way to you. Will you give way to the minister when he gets his chance?

MR; CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize speakers, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister said there are absolutely no penalties, is that right? There are absolutely no penalties at any time if you cancel out, right?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Right.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct. Will you stake your seat on that? That's a fair question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to join me?

MR. MACDONALD: At least state the finger.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are in committee. We are discussing section 4. Our own standing orders ask that we maintain strict relevance during committee discussion of a bill when we are discussing it clause by clause. Will all members be reminded of that, please.

MR. BARRETT: Would you call my seat-mate to order, Mr. Chairman? He's sticking his finger into this business here.

Mr. Chairman, the minister says "absolutely no penalties." Right? Don't back off now. That's what you just said.

[ Page 3557 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not backing off.

MR. BARRETT: You're not backing off? Okay. There are absolutely no penalties if you cancel and you're committed to this site.

Now I ask you this question, Mr. Minister. If the figures come in too high for the land costs, will you go ahead anyway? If the figures come in far too high above the projections of the budget, because of exorbitant land costs, will you go ahead anyway?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I'm not able to conjecture on how we would need to revise our budget — how we would need to address ourselves to this. I simply state again that we can't hope to be successful without admission fees and exhibit space charges being reasonable. That's how I described what we mean by reasonable prices for the cost of space. We're aware of this, B.C. Place is aware of this — the two are interdependent — and the present owners of the property are aware of this. I mean, it's all part of the same transaction. So I can't conjecture or try to answer your question on what may or may not happen.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The point I make is not that important, and I know the Leader of the Opposition will not be displeased with what I have to say. I've been listening all afternoon to this debate, particularly on this section 4. I think that I only heard one relevant question asked so far, and that is: "Is there a penalty clause?" That's a fair question, and it was answered. But when the honourable opposition attempts to bring up the question of how much we are going to spend, what we spend it on, have we got the money, will it cost more, what are the square-footage allowances — they are totally irrelevant to this section. Those numbers are the responsibility of the government. The government stands or falls on what they do. It is their job to assess the figures, to complement the figures with their own judgment, and to come up with a workable scheme. I have confidence in the government that they'll do this correctly. It is not for the opposition to argue and say: "We want your numbers." I don't think they can rightly expect that, and I think the minister is justified in saying no numbers will be given, because that is the course of planning that they are taking, and upon their course of planning they stand or fall.

Section 4 clearly states: "The corporation shall serve as a non-profit agency of the Crown for the planning, organizing, holding and administering of Transpo '86 in all its aspects." Then it goes on to enumerate from (a) through to (j) what their powers are. Their powers are to spend money, but it's not for the opposition to question. Perhaps at a later time, if it's unsuccessful, they could ask these questions. But to ask the government for the direct planning, dollars and cents per square metre — those are not the questions to be asked. These are the wrong questions, and they serve no purpose. It is only a delaying tactic. We've sat here nearly four hours today, over three hours. We've gone through this exercise before in this House. It has no purpose. It's impossible, Mr. Chairman, to conjecture on the intention or the purpose of the opposition in following this line.

It is obvious that the minister is not going to answer those questions. Then hang the minister on his questions. He is not going to answer questions that will interfere with his position, because he has a right to hold these things, and your right as opposition in due course. Mr. Chairman, I'm not lecturing, except to say it's their right in due course. If errors have been made, he will be hanged on them, or the government will be hanged on them. But it is not for them to ask today what will you do with a square foot, how much....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Read them section 4, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I shall read it all through. I think I should read it carefully, because they obviously haven't read it. I propose now — which I don't like to do — to read this entire thing, (a) through (j). On subsection 2....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, for the member's information: I've read it, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you understand it?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney continues, bearing in mind that we do have the bill before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I know, Mr. Chairman, but I want to make a point on every.... Well, when the Chairman holds his head so plaintively, I will forgo this opportunity. I would be wasting the time of this House to read it, because the bill is before us. But I could comment on each section and point out on each grouping that nowhere does it say that the government will spend so much, or intends to spend so much.

I've got to bring myself to understand the purpose of this debate. There is no purpose in continuing on with a debate and demanding things that will not be told, because they're not public knowledge. The time will come when they will be public knowledge but at this time they are not. It has been clearly discussed; more than once, by the minister; it has been understood in the press, it has been spoken of everywhere in almost every form of media, this great, successful project Transpo '86.

What the opposition does not understand is that a businesslike government of this type is able to produce a self-generating business in Transpo '86. This will bring in many times more than the government will ever spend on it. This is a self-generating exercise. I liken it to an automobile. The socialists are good at this. They will say: "The car is running fine. There is lots of power in the battery, but how do you recharge the battery?" The generator light goes on saying that the generator has stopped working. They will beautifully, gaily sail along: "Don't worry. Something will happen." But eventually that car is going to stop because nobody has been generating. That is the trouble with the socialist system. You've got to build generating systems within our society so they generate the income for the province of British Columbia.

Transpo '86 is novel; it is unique in British Columbia. It will put this country on the industrial map. The idea is mind-boggling. But here we are with it before us. The opposition wants to know how much it will cost and where we're going to spend the money; certainly they'd like to know. Perhaps these figures are not all available at this time; of course not. [Laughter.] Listen, I may be poor at many things, but one thing I'm not poor at is operating a business. Many projects I go into understanding what the end results are but without the exact figures. If any businessman knew the exact figure of his project, I'll tell you what would happen to that businessman: he'd be broke in six months. Because an

[ Page 3558 ]

entrepreneur moves on with ideas and imagination. If something fails occasionally, as it must do.... But here is a project that will not fail; here is a project that's a proven success; here is a project that would put British Columbia — not just Vancouver but British Columbia and Victoria, the whole of the north country — on the map for the future. Yet we have all afternoon been asking questions that have no answers at this time. And the hon. leader stands up in his whimsical way, as he is wont to do, and asks questions quietly: "Will you tell us a little more, just a little bit more, please? Now if you tell me this last question, I'll be able to give you an answer. Now just one more question...." That's how we go on all afternoon, but we are not succeeding in solving this problem.

Why can't we just say to government: "Go on with your project. We think it's a lousy scheme; we think it's terrible; we think you're going down the drain; we think you're going to lose everything. We know you will, because we're the socialists. We know when a business is in trouble. We know you're in trouble, and we're looking at this with the greatest pleasure."

Don't save us! Please don't save us! Please let us go down the drain! Let us try this; let us see what we can do! Why don't they say it? They want to save us from ourselves. Please, we don't need to be saved.

What is bothering this opposition today, Mr. Chairman is a simple little thing: they know it's going to be a great success; it positively has to be a great success. It'll create a new atmosphere in Vancouver in that False Creek section such as we've never seen before. They know it'll be a jewel in British Columbia's crown. What could be more disastrous to a socialist than to see a private enterprise party making a great success of something, as we always do?

MR. BARBER: Like the Princess Marguerite.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Here is another one like the Marguerite. [Laughter.] I stand here in answering that remark, Mr. Chairman, and tell them the right decision was made by government on the Marguerite — nothing wrong with that decision. I know that we'll never retract it, because it was carefully thought out and properly done, and we know today why tourists didn't come at that certain time. I won't explain that, but you know — we know, you know. They're here now; the place is full of tourists. They hook on these little things. Why, it's so pitiful!

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we have a great, successful enterprise here. That's one thing socialists can't understand — successful enterprise. They can't understand how it will work. So what is the answer?

I am beginning to see what's happening. They don't understand. They've got to get answers in dollars. What is the cost per square foot? What are you going to sell it for? Will the owners of the property know what you are going to sell it for? Will they raise their price? Well, it's pure stupidity.

Here we have an exercise in business administration and acumen. This is one of the first projects of this magnitude to reach British Columbia, sought after and acquired by us. Now it has to be put into force. It wasn't something that was foisted on us. This government sought Transpo '86 and, over great competition, received it.

MR. BARBER: By whom?

MR. MUSSALLEM: You know by whom. I'm not going to answer these silly questions.

It was sought after and acquired. Today we have acquired Transpo '86. The next thing is to get it going. We get it going by building it. I know very well that the corporations and enterprises want to get in there in the worst way, to make a jewel of this establishment.

We have the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts telling us it's a failure. They haven't got the faintest clue whether it is a failure or not. There's no substance. They grill the minister on supposition — what could happen and if it should happen. I tell you and I pray, why not just let it go? If it fails we'll be back next year. Tell us then where we failed.

What's worrying them today, Mr. Chairman, is the enormous and unquestioned success of this project. That's the problem, that's the fact and that's what they're debating. That's why we've spent four hours here, in hope that the minister may by some accident make a mistake and say a wrong word. He hasn't done so, and they keep delving and trying. Later on they'll say: "What you said...." I say, let the government go on with the project, which they intend to anyway, and will do, and will succeed in one of the greatest projects in British Columbia history, one of the great things that will be done. That is what is worrying these people, because it is great, it will be great and they know they're on a downhill run. The words they say here today will be forgotten but Transpo will be a success. They're trying to make a mark by disrupting in the faint hope that something will happen to take the government off its course. I will tell you now that the government is not going off its course and this will go through without question. It is high time they realized it. Here we are at 20 minutes before 6 o'clock still talking about it. I fail to understand it. It boggles the mind to understand what they're after. I tell you the debate has been absolutely irrelevant. I ask you to desist.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to just sum up our opposition to this bill. I want to thank the member for Dewdney for reading one of Mayor Drapeau's speeches. That is the same kind of claptrap the people in Montreal got before the Olympics: "Don't stand in the way. Let it happen. It's going to be a great success. Everything will be all right. Don't ask picky, picky questions like how much it's going to cost. We may even get a place that doesn't have the roof finished. We might even blow a few hundred million here, $60 million there, but don't stand in the way of progress, my friend." What kind of speech was that? I promise not to repeat it. I'll protect you the best I can but if you persist in making a fool of yourself, Mr. Member, I won't be able to protect you.

We have the minister involved with $100 million worth of land, not an unreasonable price at today's costs. They might have to clear the site and do some more work. He's trying to tell us that on the basis of $6.80 per admission, $4.02 per square metre under cover and $2.04 not under cover, he's going to make money on it, or break even, but he doesn't know or won't say what the basic price is for the cost of land to come to these figures. I'm not going to buy that stuff, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Listen over there. How much money did Can-Cel make in its first three years of operation? How much did you sell Panco Poultry for? Who shot the Swan Valley? Who killed it?

[ Page 3559 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will come to order. All hon. members will come to order. We are on section 4.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that the one minister responsible at least ducked out of the House and is coming back before it's almost over. Look here, if you want to be known as the Drapeau of British Columbia, you go ahead, but we're not going to have anything to do with it. You are the Mayor Drapeau of British Columbia, Mr. Minister. You're willing to say anything about this deal to guarantee that it doesn't go down the tube. You give us figures here and you won't even say what those figures are based on. Now come on!

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem): it's a nice try to defend the minister, but even you don't run your car business that way and you know it. I idolize that fierce independent member for Dewdney. I admire him and praise him when he comes in with important bills, like saving the Sasquatch and stuff like that. Really, somebody has got to be an expert on something, and he's an expert on describing something nobody knows exists. He's done it again today, in B.C. Place. First it was the Sasquatch and now it's this.

I can imagine what the members opposite would be saying if the NDP were in power, if you were sitting here and we brought in this bill and you asked the question: "How much is it going to cost?" And we say: "Well, we'll tell you later." Do you know what Doctor Science would say? He'd come in from Mars and talk about the Columbia River Treaty or Wenner-Gren, or maybe even say this money should go for a tunnel. What happened to that idea?

Quit laughing, Alex. It's not funny, Alex. You want the tunnel built so you can hide the Marguerite in it.

Mr. Chairman, the Drapeau of British Columbia sits across from us. Right there! He also made a whimsical comment today: "Well, the federal government will cooperate." How do you know they're going to cooperate? How much are they going to give you? You don't know. You don't know, Mr. Drapeau! Once burned, twice shy. Mr. Drapeau went to Paris and signed a deal and got skinned. B.C.'s not to be outdone. That minister goes to Paris, signs a deal and he's going to get skinned, too. Could you tell me this: will it be the same architect? Will Mr. Taillibert be there again to fleece us poor little North Americanos conned by politicians on $100 million worth of property? Boy, oh boy! The big spenders and the big blowers. You're trying to make Drapeau look like a piker and you're working overtime at it.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. NICOLSON: This section reads: "No person shall, unless authorized in writing by the corporation, use the words Transpo 86...." That seems a little high-handed,Mr. Chairman. I hear the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) saying: "What?" Perhaps he hasn't read the section. This section says: "No person shall, unless authorized in writing by the corporation, use the words Transpo 86 or similar words relating to Transpo 86." If I didn't have some faith in the judicial system that such a piece of legislation would be found ultra vires or something...beyond this Legislature's ability to so restrict people's freedom of speech. It would seem rather ridiculous. As I read this, it would mean that in referring to this we could not use the words "Transpo '86." We couldn't even use it in this Legislature. No one has yet said: "Read the thing in context." If you read the whole thing there is another part B that says: "...or produce, distribute, sell or use symbols, emblems, souvenirs or similar things relating to Transpo 86. A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $2,000." I think that this is very poorly written. As I read it, it simply says that no person shall, unless authorized in writing by the corporation, use the words "Transpo '86" or similar words relating to Transpo '86. I would like the minister to explain how any person would be protected from a contravention of the act in liability of a fine of $2,000.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That clause, I think you'll find, is a standard clause associated with previous centennials, Captain Cook celebrations and other types of activities. It is quite a standard protection. It does appear to be all-embracing, but I'm sure that the intention is to allow the power to intercede where there is some abuse being made, safeguarding the trademark associated with the event.

MR. NICOLSON: I am quite aware that one would want to prevent people from using the words — assuming someone wants to — "Transpo '86." Of course it is a form of copyright that we're really attempting to create here. What I am submitting is that you have not done that. You have exceeded that desirable aim, and as this thing reads in plain English, if anyone uses the words "Transpo '86" they are in violation of this section and act and liable to a fine of $2,000. It is sloppily drafted; it is not the exact wording of the Captain Cook legislation or others: even if it were, it should not be

[ Page 3560 ]

repeated in this particular section. What we are left with is just being protected by the good will of the government in not prosecuting anyone unless they are actually exploiting the name for commercial purposes. Could this section not have been amended to say "not to use the words Transpo 86 or similar words for commercial gain," or be more specific?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be described in this manner. In any normal case the authorization can be provided in writing by the corporation. I think you will find that that is the common terminology associated with acts of this kind.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish it to be recorded then that I will vote against this section. I will call for a division on this section. I would hope that we could adjourn. I will first move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 22

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When a member stands to draw attention to the division, that member then is shown in Hansard as having been recognized, and therefore it's known which side of the House required the division in committee. If, on the other hand, there is no recognition, then nobody knows — for posterity's sake — who called the division. So I think that's something that we could possibly think about in the future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I draw attention to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. It is being contemplated we sit from 10 o'clock until 12 o'clock, and then resume the usual sitting hours in the afternoon.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

[ Page 3561 ]

APPENDIX

81 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources the following question:

What was the cost of printing, collating, and mailing the circular dated July 18, 1980, from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to all British Columbia newspaper editors?

The Hon. R.H. McClelland replied as follows:

"Cost of Minister's Letter