1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2733 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2733

Bonded Businesses Act (Bill 123). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2733

Oral Questions

Feasibility of copper smelter. Mr. Bennett — 2733

Inadequacy of telephone system in parliament buildings.

Mr. Wallace — 2735

Spending estimates covering new school district grants. Mr. Schroeder —

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7).

Report and third reading — 2736

Unified Family Court Act (Bill 49).

Report and third reading — 2736

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 10).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2736

Mr. Wallace — 2738

Mr. Phillips — 2740

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2740

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2742

Mr. Fraser — 2742

Mr. Gibson — 2743

Mr. Rolston — 2746

Mr. Gardom — 2747

Mr. Wallace — 2749

Mr. Phillips — 2752

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2754

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2755

Division on second reading — 2755

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill

75).

Report and third reading — 2755

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 115). Committee

stage.

section 2.

Mr. Gardom — 2756

section 3.

Mrs. Jordan — 2756

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2756

Mrs. Jordan — 2757

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2757

Mr. Gardom — 2757

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2757

Report and third reading — 2757

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2758

Mr. Fraser — 2758

Mr. Gibson — 2758

Mr. Rolston — 2758

Mr. Chabot — 2758

Mr. Steves — 2759

Mr. Wallace — 2759

Mr. Smith — 2759

Mr. D.A. Anderson p2759

Mrs. Jordan — 2760

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2762

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 95).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2762

Mr. Morrison — 2763

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2763

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Mr. Gibson — 2763

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2764

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 96). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2764

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2765

Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2766

Mr. Morrison — 2767

Mr .D.A. Anderson — 2767

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would

draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery

of Mrs. Barbara Wiskin and a North Shore study group, here to

learn about parliamentary procedure, and ask the House to make

them welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the

House's attention to a guest on the floor, a former Member of

this Legislature who had the privilege of sitting in the corner

seat over there, occupied by another distinguished Member,

before the present Member, (Laughter) who is also a

distinguished Member. Our guest is now a federal Member of Parliament, Frank Howard, from Skeena.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the

gallery today are two groups of students, one from the

Sutherland Junior Secondary School in my constituency. With

them are a group of students from the Province of Quebec, on an

exchange tour. I would like the House to make them feel welcome

in B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed, I understand

that a number of Members are singing the blues. I'd like to

announce that I have made available in the chamber itself three

copies of yesterday's Blues , which you'll find on opposite

sides of the chamber, in case you wish to refer to them in any

matters that may come up in debate. The pink copies, which are

the Members' own copies of their own speeches, will be

available for correction and returned to the Hansard

office, as normally so.

I have a note here from the Chief of Hansard that all

queries regarding distribution of the Blues or other matters

regarding the transcripts should be referred directly to the

Speaker's office in accordance with standing order 129.

Now there is another aspect I would like the House to

consider. I would ask the party leaders if they would be

prepared to meet with the Speaker, or any one they designate,

to discuss the standing order 129 and see where we are going in

regard to the use of the advance transcripts of Hansard .

I would hope that I get the co-operation of the party

leaders in that regard and that at an early moment we could

arrange a joint meeting.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS

AND EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 85, Public

Officials and Employees Disclosure 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.

BONDED BUSINESSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 123, Bonded Businesses

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.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have the order for second reading of Bill 86 discharged.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon. Member wishes, consequent

upon the order, that the bill be withdrawn.

HON. MR. LAUK: I ask leave that the bill be withdrawn from

the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there are two steps, if I'm correct,

Mr. Clerk.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there two steps?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think so.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

FEASIBILITY OF COPPER SMELTER

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. On Monday

last I asked him a question, which he took as notice, regarding

the conflicting statements between Mr. Jewitt, the president of

Granby Mining, in regard to a copper smelter in B.C. I wonder

if in the three days that have ensued the Minister is now able

to determine to this House what the truth is in this matter and

whether Mr. Jewitt is wrong when he said that the Minister's

statement in the House was completely false.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I had a written answer of that for three days and the Hon. Member

[ Page 2734 ]

didn't show up in the House each day. (Laughter.)

The statement made in the paper that I was incorrect was

wrong in the respect that I always stated that I had meetings

with Bethlehem Copper in regard to the smelter in the north,

and we both agreed. He said first that it wouldn't be feasible

unless they were allowed to get rid of the sulphur in the air.

I said we couldn't agree to that, and he said that he wouldn't

agree to it either.

Following that my Deputy did have a couple of meetings with

them, but the question of sulphur came up again. It was the

understanding of my Deputy that they wanted the government to

handle the sulphur situation in the copper smelter. He went to

the Pollution Control Board — two members of it. I

haven't got the names here; I had them when I had the answer

ready. They gave him the lead and zinc controls, and he

informed them that it would be better to lay down a definite

plan.

I have informed them since that the Pollution Control Board

is interested in a pollution-free smelter. It wouldn't be

proper for the Pollution Control Board to say that you've got

to have a smelter 98 per cent pollution free, if they could

make it 99 or 100 per cent. So the proposal should come from

industry to the Pollution Control Board, and that's the only

thing that's holding them up.

I will apologize for one thing. A letter that came from Mr.

Jewitt did get mislaid, and it was delayed in being answered.

It has been answered now, and I'm sure that Mr. Jewitt will be

happy with the reply.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Do they have a

firm proposal laid before the government and is the only

hold-up to do with the sulphur emission? Is that the only

thing wrong with their proposals?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This proposal was only a suggestion that

it would come that way. There was no firm proposal given to

either us or the Pollution Control Board.

MR. BENNETT: Well, further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My

discussion with the individual — and sometimes you have

to leave the House to go and collect this information —

was that the offer was left open for the government to set

those additional conditions and that they've offered several

different ways that they would co-operate to build this

smelter. I understand that the proposal was left open to the

Minister, or to his officials, and I wonder if the Minister

could make any documentation public so that we could go through

it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The suggestion that they made in the letter of March

15, which as I said was delayed in answering, and I apologize for that, was

so open that this is one of the reasons why we set up a task force, so that

we can call these people in and maybe have an input and decide as to where they're

going.

MR. BENNETT: Further supplemental: that isn't the reason

that the Minister gave for the task force the other day. He

said it was because private industry had failed to come up with

any plan, not that he was calling a task force to aid them in

their research.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they failed. No definite plan came

forward — they've been reticent. These are the words I

said — that they've been reticent in laying before us a

definite proposal for a copper smelter. I'm trying to urge them

to do it and I think that the task force will assist them in

getting their courage up to bring about a copper smelter.

MR. GIBSON: In view of this proposal, the Noranda Placer

proposal and the Cominco proposal, could the Minister say how

many proposals and suggestions are currently before the

government for a copper smelter from private enterprise?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This was in a letter to myself from Mr.

Jewitt. There were two companies involved in this suggestion.

They've got to make application to the Pollution Control Board

with a definite proposal, and I suggested that that should be

done.

How many proposals? Cominco has not come forward, except

that we have discussed Cominco's proposal to build a copper

smelter in Kimberley. I don't know what the hold-up is

there except that it's bringing into operation, I imagine,

Highland Valley. That's the only other one.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A supplementary on the same

subject to the Minister of Mines. You referred in your earlier

statement to Bethlehem Copper and a smelter in the north. What

do you define as the north? In other words, where are they

suggesting this be located?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They had a public hearing at Clinton. They

were suggesting a copper smelter there, but it wasn't feasible

if they had to take the sulphur out of the ore. I said that we

can't have a highstack smelter and that we've got to get rid of

the sulphur.

MR. FRASER: You're referring to the one that was north of

Clinton.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. BENNETT: Just getting back to the sulphur

[ Page 2735 ]

content, I understood that they were prepared to convert the

sulphur to sulphuric acid and, if that wasn't acceptable to us

as fertilizer, to further convert to gypsum. Weren't those

proposals in removing the sulphur satisfactory to the

government?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're not altogether satisfactory

because if you put it into gypsum you're destroying the

sulphur, and you're destroying a resource. This is one of the

problems of the task force. We want to save the sulphur. Even

if we can't use it now, at some later date we will.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a further supplemental. The first

plan was to convert it to sulphuric acid, which is keeping it

in a sulphur form. That would remove over 95 per cent of the

sulphur content into the air. I just wonder if that wasn't a

firm proposal to remove the sulphur, which the Minister says is

the drawback to their proposal.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I haven't got the letter here today. There

was no firm proposal but a suggestion that they possibly could

get 95 per cent, but I wouldn't be happy with taking 95 per

cent of the sulphur out. That's my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed to another question now, Hon.

Members? The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

INADEQUACY OF TELEPHONE SYSTEM

IN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think when the

party leaders review the Blues we might review the question

period too.

The Minister of Public Works doesn't get asked too many

questions, but this is a good one. (Laughter.) Is the Minister

aware that MLAs are virtually isolated from the public in their

offices because of a hopelessly inadequate telephone

system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Well, that's a

real toughie, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely you could have phoned that message to

him.

MR. WALLACE: No, I couldn't get a line.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to give

the Member for Oak Bay the busy signal on that one because he's

directing it to the wrong department. We now have a new

Department of Communications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong number.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: could I ask the

Minister of Transport and Communications how many additional

telephone sets have been added to the switchboard in the past

year without the addition of extra lines?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Public Works section.

(Laughter.)

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The installation

of public lines within the chamber is the responsibility of Public Works. (Laughter.)

No, I'm perfectly aware of the present situation of the telephone system. There

seems to be a tendency, too, for the individual to think: "Well, it's easier

to telephone." There have been additional lines put in. A completely new switchboard

was put in under the aegis of the Minister of Public Works, but let me tell

you there is a tremendous use of the telephones, unequalled both for long distance

and for day-to-day use by the Members of this present Legislative Assembly

and I appreciate it. I get the busy signal too when I try to get out so I'm

very much aware of it, but I'm getting a report on the whole thing — the increase

in utilization. I would suggest too that you try and use Telpak lines more than

they are being used.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You can't get on

them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I've put in additional Telpak lines

just this last six months.

Anyway, I draw your attention to two things: (1) there has

been a tremendous increase in the amount of telephone

facilities in these buildings in the last two years; (2) there

has been an even greater increase in the use of telephones by

the Members. We'll do our best.

MR. WALLACE: One more supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I think the

Minister's answer is very fair but I think it must relate to

the fact we are full-time MLAs. We're here twice as long

as we used to be and the public are asked to make use of their

MLAs, so I think it's fair to say that we could anticipate a

tremendous increase in phoning. Could the Minister be more

specific in telling us how many additional lines he proposes to

introduce, and whether in fact, at least for the next month,

there might be some kind of moratorium on introducing them into

other offices to try at least to make the MLAs available to the

public for the next several weeks?

[ Page 2736 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister, it's a very serious matter, as he has indicated

in his answer to the previous question. Would the Minister

agree that the problem is not restricted to the telephones used

by the Members of this assembly but really it's a problem that

exists apparently throughout the government service in greater

Victoria? Would he not agree?

Have there been any instances, through you, Mr. Speaker, of

telephone service being discontinued to offices because of

abuses — that is, phones left off the hook, deliberately

shut down during lunch hour and so on? Are you looking into

that part of the problem?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact some time ago I sent

a memo throughout the general service asking them not to leave

the telephone off the hook at any time, because it ties up a

particular line. I sent a memo out, I think, about four months

ago to that general effect.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister's

department asked B.C. Telephone to monitor the volume of

incompleted incoming calls? It's a straightforward

question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I have not asked the B.C. Tel to

monitor the volume of incoming calls.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could get on to another subject.

If it's an important supplementary, proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister agree that the addition of

8,000 civil servants in the last 18 months has a bearing on the

telephone situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I think the length of some of the

long-distance phone calls that some of the Members make

has something to do with tying up lines.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack on a new

subject, I hope.

SPENDING ESTIMATES COVERING

NEW SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANTS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Surprise. After three days

of knee bends I made it. (Laughter.) I don't know on what basis

you establish your pecking order, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest

that you revise the system.

This question is for the Minister of Education. Will the Minister be bringing

before the House a supplementary spending estimate to cover the recently announced

increases of grants to school districts?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): That is not my

intention at this time. The manner in which that will be

handled will be decided by the Minister of Finance with

cabinet.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

Bill 7 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Bill 49 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING) FUND

AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as this is the

second debate in principle of this bill, which is essentially

to change the name of a fund to the Provincial Transit Fund

Act from the Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund

Amendment Act, 1974 , I'd like to quickly reiterate points

that were made earlier by other Members of my party concerning

our position on this bill.

We feel that the whole question of rapid transit as well as

the third crossing cannot be separated into the either/or

proposition that has been made to date. We do not feel that it

will be possible to simply force rapid transit, and some

solution by way of rapid transit, by making it increasingly

difficult to use private vehicles across the existing

connections to the North Shore.

We feel that if there is to be some reasonable and adequate

solution to transportation problems in an area of Vancouver

which it is our belief the government's Land Commission

Act and other approaches to housing will make more and more

important for housing.... The North Shore, we think, will

certainly have the housing that's predicted

[ Page 2737 ]

for it in the years ahead, particularly in the coming

decade.

We feel that to ignore the need for a third crossing to take

not only rapid transit but also existing private vehicles is

short sighted. It isn't an either/or situation. There is no

question that we're going to have to have both. We're going to

have to have more rapid transit and we certainly applaud moves

in that direction. But the fact is that we are also going to

have far more use of private vehicles.

The suggestion is that the number of people using private

vehicles on the North Shore will be, in terms of those using it

now, substantially reduced. There will, of course, be new

people coming into the area which will also be using a portion

of the transit facilities, but those now in the North Shore

will not have the opportunities they presently enjoy for

driving their private vehicles to and from Vancouver.

There's no question that a policy which is putting this

— as has been done by government speakers to date in the

second reading debate — as an either/or situation is

totally short-sighted. We are not going to solve our

problems of transit in Vancouver, Victoria or elsewhere in the

province which have difficulty simply by creating or allowing

existing bottlenecks to get even tighter and more

constricting.

The solution lies elsewhere. We have been very disappointed

by the government's approach to this particular bill as

represented by the second reading debates earlier this session.

Indeed, I think we devoted the whole of our Saturday morning

day to this particular bill.

The fact is that only if we proceed with properly planned

bridges, approaches and, of course, properly planned rapid

transit — be it rail, monorail, underground, trams or

whatever — are we going to get the type of mix that will

be acceptable to the public, which will satisfy the needs of

the people presently existing on the North Shore, as well as

the many, many scores of thousands who will be moving there in

the next decade, according to all predictions. To adopt the

approach that has been represented by government speakers,

which is to say that this bill is for rapid transit and that

rapid transit means no third crossing, we think is quite

ridiculous.

I have no wish, Mr. Speaker, to go into the factual

arguments put forward by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), but they went

in detail through the studies that have been presented to

Members of this House, pointing out that the very best expert

and technical advice that we could get indicates that we're

going to have to consider the two problems together: that a

third crossing is necessary, and for it to be successful in

dealing with future transit problems we're going to have to

have a third crossing which incorporates both private vehicles

and rail or other rapid transit modes.

There is no way that the government policy of simply

allowing a problem to get worse and worse and worse, and then

say that the answer to it is rapid transit — there is no

way that's going to work.

There is another problem area which I think my colleague for

Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out very well last week when

he said that everybody has the idea that rapid transit is for

the other guy; it's not for them. The Premier has his car, I've

got my car, the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has a

car or two, I don't know. But we all want to use our own cars

and we want to force the other guy onto the bus and onto the

streetcar. We want to force him onto the rainy street corner

waiting for the bus or the streetcar.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): When

I get to Vancouver, I'd just as soon get on the bus.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Minister of Mines says that when

he's in Vancouver, he'd sooner be on the bus. Keep it up, yes;

keep it up. He's got the right approach. I'm afraid the rest of

us are more willing to admit that we're not as perfect as the

Hon. Minister of Mines, and we tend to be selfish. All of us

do, and everybody listening to this debate tends to be the same

way.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I walk to work frequently in this

building, but I've not often seen many other Members who live

some distance from it walk to work. I'm not suggesting that I

am any better than anyone else. I'm just as bad. But let's not

have this holier-than-thou attitude whereby we're

sure the problem will go away if only the other guy takes the

bus and walks in the rain and suffers the inconvenience of

rapid transit or public transit.

We are going to have to realize that we have developed in

North America, rightly or wrongly, attitudes towards personal

transportation, and while certain relatively small segments of

the population will go ahead and use bicycles or use buses or

use their feet, most won't. If we don't face up to that very

human failing that many of us seem to have — most of us

seem to have — we're being hypocritical.

The third crossing and, I think, this bill demonstrate some

of that hypocrisy. It is not a question of being in favour of

rapid transit or against it, and those who are in favour of

rapid transit obviously have to oppose a third crossing.

The situation we are in is that the development of the North

Shore, as it exists now and with the development that's coming

forward in the future, will mean that more facilities will be

necessary, even if half the people on the North Shore who

presently use their private vehicles stop doing so and take

rapid

[ Page 2738 ]

transit. Even if half of them do that, the increased

development on the North Shore, the increase in the number of

buildings, and in particular residential accommodation —

probably the increase in rental units — will result in

others using their vehicles; and the net result will be that

we're going to need a third crossing anyway.

If we proceed as we are doing with this bill, and with the

arguments that have been presented to date and say that it's an

either/or situation, we will ignore some very real and pressing

problems.

Mr. Speaker, you're a well-travelled man; you've taken

advantage of your opportunities to visit the Mother of

Parliament in London and you've seen the tremendous number of

bridges across the Thames. Perhaps you've visited the National

Assembly in Paris and you've seen the tremendous number of

bridges across the Seine there.

Those bridges were mostly constructed in the days of rapid

transit. There had to be; there was nothing else in the way of

private vehicles in the days that most of those bridges were

constructed.

Mr. Speaker, as an aside may I just welcome my friend Mr.

Howard, a former colleague of mine, who I see leaving the House

at this time? Nice to see you here.

Back to the question of rapid transit. These cities, which

relied upon people walking, upon subways, upon trams, upon

buses, developed a tremendous bridge system. It was necessary

to move people. I just wonder whether or not the people who

have argued to date in this debate on Bill 10 have realized

that the experts who drew up those plans that were referred to

— and given in detail by the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound and the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano — know something.

They might not be perfect, but they do know something.

They've tried to understand the problem and they have come up

with the recommendation of a joint transportation link

involving both rapid transit and private vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this in no spirit of animosity to the

government. I appreciate their desire to do something about

rapid transit, although we have had plenty of arguments with

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and others

as to whether they are proceeding in the right direction. I

think they do realize, somewhat vaguely, that there is a need

for improvement in rapid transit; there is a need for

improvement in buses and purchases of buses by the Minister

— despite his attempts to slough off all the costs onto

municipalities in terms of operation or recognition of this

fact.

What has been very distressing in the debate so far on this bill is that the

approach has been taken that somehow you are either for the private vehicle

— and therefore for a new bridge, a third crossing — or you are in favour of

rapid transit, and that is something else again and you are in favour of no

bridge. The question is not that simple. If we continue to oversimplify complex

questions involving the whole business of urban development in greater Vancouver,

we are going to continue to go the way of cities whose planning simply has not

brought them up to the realities of the present day, let alone the future.

If we proceed on the basis of ignoring the technical and

expert studies that have been done, if we proceed on the basis

of ignoring the wishes of people and their attitudes toward

public transit as well as their own private vehicles, we will

be doing so at our peril. Quite clearly, we are going to find

that all the best intentions in the world, all the best efforts

to persuade the other chap to board the bus are going to fail

if this whole problem is not dealt with in an integrated and

overall manner.

There really isn't a great deal more to say on this bill

except that we urge the government to reconsider. Adopting the

either/or approach will fail, and that is the approach we have

been given so far. Adopting a much more difficult approach,

perhaps much less understandable to the uninitiated, which is

based upon the technical studies and predictions for the

future, will succeed — with difficulty. Obviously, urban development is a difficult subject, but it will

succeed.

Those who come along to this Legislature and the people in

this province in the 1980s will appreciate that bit of

foresight and thinking on our part. Rushing after slogans which

say "rapid transit instead of the private vehicle," and

which have led to the conclusion that the government has

expressed in debate on this bill, simply won't work. We urge

the government to reconsider.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Talking to the principle of this

bill, we are discussing only the change of a title. I suppose

if one were completely objective it still could be that under

the title, Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act , a third

crossing could be financed. I think those of us on this side of

the House have taken the change of name to mean that the

government has decided not to have a third crossing or that, in

dealing with the total problem of transportation in the lower

mainland, in Vancouver in particular, a third crossing comes

very low on their list of priorities.

It is very difficult to discuss that aspect of this bill

without transgressing on Bill 70. But this bill, Bill 10,

section 4 in particular, also relates to something similar to

the contents of Bill 70 ( Transit Services Act ), so I

assume that we are allowed a certain amount of latitude in

discussing the principle of Bill 10.

The implication in the bill and the public reaction and

editorial comment reveal that most people have concluded that

this government has decided against a third crossing. In some

of the debate that has already taken place this point has been

made. In my reading of the bill initially it was my feeling

that the

[ Page 2739 ]

conclusion need not necessarily be that the government had

given up the idea of a third crossing but that they simply

wanted flexibility in the spending of money on transit

services, which might or might not include a third crossing.

But I think the government, in debate, has made its point

clear.

The Conservative Party feels, in light of the facts and

figures and the way in which the population is increasing in

Vancouver and on the North Shore, that, while it might be

altruistic and desirable from an environmental point of view to

say we will not have a third crossing, we in this party think

that attitude is totally unrealistic. The increase in

population has been quoted many times in recent debates in

British Columbia. It is about 3 per cent per year, which is

double the national average. If you study the increase in the

production of motor vehicles of all kinds — I haven't got

the exact figure available but it certainly is an annual

increase — these vehicles are going to be on the

highways, on the streets and on the byways in these increasing

numbers regardless of what this government or any government

does.

In my view it is really a little like King Canute trying to

hold back the waves and just pretending that, if he makes a

gallant and idealistic try, we can solve the problem by simply

ignoring a very large percentage of the basic problem: the fact

that there are more people living in that area; there are more

vehicles in that area; and that trend will continue. I think it

is short-sighted and unrealistic of this government to

think that simply by telling the people "we will not build a

third crossing but we will use other methods of dealing

with transit problems," that this somehow or other is a

rather quick and efficient and appealing way to tackle what the

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the other

Members of that party have very clearly described as a

long-range and a very serious and difficult problem.

I would certainly agree. I make the point for this party

that we are not in favour of this bill and do believe that a

third crossing is needed. But that in no way should be regarded

as any kind of indifference towards alternative methods of

moving large numbers of people in metropolitan areas. It

certainly is not true that if you are for the third crossing,

you are against other forms of rapid transit. It is the clear

understanding of this party that it has to be a problem tackled

from many different directions.

I think it should be made clear in this debate that many

other cities have introduced other attractive methods of moving

people, such as the park-and-ride system. We have

San Francisco with its BART system which, I understand, is

losing money at a fantastic rate and is in real difficulty, not

to mention the fantastic capital outlay that was involved in

developing BART in the first place.

There is no simple solution to the transit problem. It is only more confusing

to all concerned if some bill such as this, which is very simplistic and, in

our view at least, unrealistic, is put before the people of the province, giving

them the impression that we are on a new track which offers much more hope than

a third crossing.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

How much money would we get back from a tunnel?

MR. WALLACE: I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss the

cost of a tunnel or the amortization or tolls or anything else.

This, I think, would transgress on Bill 70 anyway, which is

dealing much more with various ways in which transit can be

handled. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks that this bill

relates very intimately to Bill 70 which has not yet been

debated in the House.

It does seem to us that the one central mistake in this bill

is that it tries to put across the point that one is either for

or against a third crossing and that the other methods which

the government has in mind, however good they might be per se

in our view, will not be adequate in the absence of a third

crossing.

The other reason we feel very unhappy about this bill is

that it does overlook a point that has already been raised in

debate. It is a little bit like this lottery debate we had

yesterday. Lots of people were against lotteries in the debate

yesterday, but I wonder if there is any one of them who himself

or herself had not at some time taken

part in lotteries. It is

always good for the other guy but it is not so good for me, or

it is good for me but it's not so good for the other guy.

This kind of debate goes on in terms of transit also that

these people, in a vague way who travel in and out to city

centres every day should take the bus. Though when I go into

the city centre it is all right for me to drive my car. This is

another aspect in which I think this bill is unrealistic.

Maybe it is designed to make life so very much more

difficult for the motorist that by a sheer subtle device of

making life intolerable for him, he will seek some other method

of transportation. But even if that were the case, Mr. Speaker,

and all the motorists suddenly chose some alternative, I'm

quite sure that the facility isn't there to transport them.

So it seems to us quite unreasonable to regard the third

crossing as being something that can either be ignored for a

little longer or can be treated in isolation from the total

problem of transporting large numbers of people.

We feel quite strongly about a third crossing, particularly

in light of the situation which now exists, as any motorist who

has tried to cross Lions Gate Bridge at busy hours would know,

and in view of the fact that both vehicles and people are

increasing in numbers, and that we're the most mobile society

that

[ Page 2740 ]

ever has been. If that wasn't the whole crux of the

revolution that took place when the horseless carriage first

appeared, I don't know what it was.

But certainly this is just a further step down the road

whereby society has to acknowledge that individuals have the

choice and freedom to drive vehicles, and that seems to be what

they want to do, that's what they're going to continue to do,

and therefore while we should offer them alternatives I think

the government is being extremely short-sighted in

suggesting for one moment that we can continue to try and

prevent or to argue against a third crossing being necessary.

So we're very much opposed to this bill.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Basically this bill

is a name change only and as our leader said in speaking to the

bill before the rugby recess when he spoke in the debate, any

third crossing that comes up is going to have to have provision

for rapid transit.

We're debating here as to whether people in West Vancouver

will use these buses or a rapid transit system indeed, if and

when it is installed. But the whole point is that the people of

this province and the people who are debating this don't seem

to realize that if rapid transit is indeed installed to carry

the people from West Vancouver into the heart of Vancouver,

they will ride the buses because this government will decree

that they shall ride the buses. Because this province is

getting like Russia every day that passes by.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the

deep philosophical involvement in this debate displayed by most

Members, the reasonable alternatives and the positive

suggestions and the honest differences of opinions held by most

Members.

Some people come to this House to contribute something and

many of the people in the debate did. Those that didn't, I'll

let the House judge that itself.

But I haven't changed my mind, and I'll tell you why I

haven't changed my mind and why this government insists on

defining the problem far more closely than perhaps the Liberal

leader would want us to. But there are alternatives to the

automobile and I disagree completely with the First Member for

Point Grey when he said that the automobile is the great

preference.

All right, if politicians are never going to lead, that's

the safest position to take. Any politician in North America

today that doesn't attack the automobile is generally safe,

because most people have been geared by advertising and

psychological conditioning to believe that an automobile is

synonymous with success in our society. Some psychiatrists have

even defined at one time in the late '50s and early '60s the great flashy attachments on the

hoods of automobiles as being extensions of phallic symbols for

the North American male.

Well, you know, Mr. Member, psychiatrists have given us

other evaluations of the meaning of the automobile to the North

American male's ego.

MR. PHILLIPS: You should go see a psychiatrist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now we hear again from that Member for

North Peace River.

AN HON. MEMBER: South Peace.

MR. WALLACE: He doesn't even have a licence to practise.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we could only mobilize that energy that

comes out of that one single mouth, we would solve the energy

problems for a city as large as Vancouver. (Laughter.) If it

only could be canned or bottled, or preserved, or put under

pressure, just think — there'd be the Phillipsmobile, run

on voluble amounts of hot air. But the problem is, with a lack

of research, it would all go out as exhaust. (Laughter.) But

nonetheless, he's trying to solve the problem in his own

way.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sells cars. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't want to bring that up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because someone might suggest there was a

conflict of interest. But far be it from me to do that.

Now, back to the serious aspects of the debate. There is a

question of how do politicians get involved in assisting

people to change their habits. First of all, you have to have a

belief in an alternative way or an alternative system. I just

don't believe that our cities should be committed to the

automobile. I just don't believe it.

Every time we look to solve a traffic problem in North

America, the emphasis, until recently, has been heavily towards

meeting the needs of the automobile, not of the passenger or

the commuter or the working person, or anything else. We've

made no serious effort to even scale or alter working hours in

congested areas. We've made no serious effort to really talk to

people and say: "Okay, get together with your neighbour, get

four or five people in a car." We've made no effort to do

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making a sacrifice.

[ Page 2741 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Just bring in a bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know it's a sacrifice depending on whose

car you have to get into. But even in spite of that barrier,

human contact of all kinds of people may modify points of view,

and I don't even exclude the Member for South Peace River in

that regard. But I'm suggesting that we must tell people that

the total commitment of cities to the automobile must end.

That is our opinion and we're putting our opinion right in

legislation. If people don't want the cities to be turned over

to the automobiles, they'll support the government. If they

want to destroy the cities on behalf of the automobile, vote

against the bill.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's

simplistic.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it's simplistic because that's

what politics should have boiled down to a long time ago. If

you want to keep on going out and fogging up people's minds

with phony arguments and standing on the fence and never coming

down on the side of an issue and saying we're in favour of

rapid transit but we've got to build more bridges for cars,

that's the kind of flim-flam politics that should have

ended in North America a long time ago.

Yes, it's simplistic. We're saying we won't build another

bridge across the First Narrows in Vancouver. That's it. Okay.

We've said that's the end of serving the automobile. As long as

we are government, I do not want in any way to contribute to

ripping the guts out of downtown Vancouver with freeways,

access roads and concrete jungles.

I've just come back from Hong Kong where they have a ferry

service and they've also built a tunnel. The tunnel costs $2 a

trip for an automobile, the Star Line ferry costs a nickel. I

want to tell you, I've taken the $2 ride in the tunnel one

time, and I took 10 rides on the five-cent ferry, and I

was ahead 10 to 1, not only in money, but in social experience.

As a matter of fact, I even binged. I bought five of my friends

a first-class ticket each on the Star Line ferry. It cost

me 30 cents all told. I don't mind going first class once in a

while. (Laughter.) And there we were on the upper deck of the

Midnight Star, enjoying our little eight-minute trip

across the Hong Kong harbour among the various odours....

MR. PHILLIPS: How much of the province's business did you do

on the top deck?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the top deck, my friend, we did more on

the top deck in the open than the Socreds did down in the

boiler room, closed up for 20 years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Member, one of the aspects

of your new leader is that he's shown that he does have some

masochistic tendency — he still shows up when you're in

the House. (Laughter.) But Mr. Member, I want to say to you,

through the Speaker, this is really a simple matter of learning

from other people's mistakes. It's not that we have any more

genius, it's not that we have any more talent or skills. But if

we're not prepared to learn from other cities' mistakes, then

we can be condemned as being stupid. If people want to get in

their car and choke on somebody else's exhaust, so be it.

We are providing alternatives through that Minister and the

alternatives are a good bus system, hopefully a good ferry

system across Burrard Inlet and hopefully a more human

experience allowable for people in travelling to work and

coming home from work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's more than just money. It's a whole

social structure and approach to life. We think cities should

be a human, warm experience, and you'll never get that by

building more concrete, more roads and more services to the

automobile. The $27 million will be transferred for that

Minister's use and he'll start using it and the test will come

over the next 24 months, or 18 months, or 12 months, or six

months, or whatever it is, that we go to the highest court in

the land. (Laughter.)

Ernie LeCours is in the gallery, I'm told. He knows what I'm

talking about. He used to argue for these things when he was

with the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't listen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They wouldn't listen to him and poor Ernie

got dumped along with the government.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): You'll know

what it feels like next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: When's the date?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The point is that one of the reasons why

this government has been attacked so severely is because it's

had the guts to move into new areas and make decisions. The

most popular thing would be to build that bridge over there and

satisfy West Vancouver and North Vancouver and everybody else,

but we've said: "No, we're going to do the right

[ Page 2742 ]

thing. No bridge. No more service to cars — let's get

on with making our cities more human." Let's hope that people

will satisfy North American advertising, North American

pressure and start becoming something better than what industry

and behaviour patterns have led us to be over all these years.

We're willing to stake our political careers on that kind of

decision-making and I now move second reading.

Bill 10, Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment

Act, 1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill 70. It relates to this

bill.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This bill

provides authority for the province to carry out a programme of

public passenger transportation services for British Columbia.

The general programme in public transport is designed to give

British Columbia an alternative to dependence on private

automobiles for personal transportation. The reason behind the

bill is that immediate action is required at the provincial

level on transit plans to serve immediate needs and future

requirements.

The transit industry has traditionally been an area of

private initiative. Transit services have been generally

carried on by individuals who are now finding it almost

impossible to carry on their business due to the heavy losses

which are being suffered in the transit industry generally.

This government recognizes tremendous neglect of public transit

and the need for provincial initiative now to upgrade existing

services and to plan and institute new transit services of all

kinds.

The government has acted this past year to establish a new

outlook for public transit in both the Greater Vancouver and

Capital Regional District areas. Government initiative, acting

through B.C. Hydro transportation, has been effective in

starting new services — in Coquitlam as well as North

Vancouver. The next step involves introduction of more new

services, purchase of further equipment and planning new

transit systems for communities outside the Vancouver and

Victoria areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LORIMER: During the course of the past year's programmes, two

private companies were acquired to provide extensions of new services to go

ahead in Vancouver. In Victoria three private companies have come forward to

offer their systems to be incorporated and planned as part of the regional network

for public transit in the Victoria area.

Bill 70 provides the legislative authority for the province

to act in all these matters.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I appreciate the Minister's

remarks, but I would like to make a few here and say that Bill

70, Transit Services Act , is another typical takeover

bill of the NDP where it takes over all the transportation

facilities in the province the exception probably being the CNR

and CPR if they so desire. As an example, what happens to

Greyhound Bus Lines in this authority granted to the

Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we take over B.C. Ferries?

MR. FRASER: Oh, no, you've already got those. They started

needed services, but I don't think the province should get a

monopoly on everything in the transportation field in the

province, and that is exactly the authority that will be given

when this bill is passed.

I would like to say again, as in so many things we discussed

earlier, that it will be of great benefit in some of the things

they'll do here in the lower mainland, but I'd like to hear

more of what they intend to do to benefit other people in the

lower mainland of the Province of British Columbia.

I don't know why any private interest party in

transportation would invest with this kind of authority given

to the Minister here to go into transportation, because the

investment climate will be nil once this bill becomes law in

the province. It further gives the authority, as I understand

it, to go into the manufacturing of transit vehicles. Again, of

course, we could have a repetition of the Flyer industry

situation that the Government of Manitoba got in and have had

quite a bit of difficulty with.

The other subject that I'd like to note here, Mr. Speaker,

is the regard that this government has for local government

involvement in transportation planning, and it's certainly

evident in this statute. The Minister doesn't have that good an

image with the lower levels of government when he suggests that

secret discussions on transit....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, he said so, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was groaning there.

He really said: "Take it or leave it." This statute would seem

to strengthen his hand.

It will have the effect, I think, of focusing off the real transportation needs

of the Greater Vancouver Regional District with the supreme authority granted

the Minister here.

[ Page

2743 ]

It further gives the Minister, Mr. Speaker, absolute control

over fares and tolls. Maybe this is a method of instituting a

new highway toll authority in the province without even coming

back to the Legislature. I can well remember the tolls we had

at Pattullo Bridge and Spuzzum in the Fraser Canyon and the

ferry system at Kelowna and Nelson and so on. I would like to

hear the Minister say whether this authority implied here is

going to be used in this regard. We threw out tolls years ago

in this province by that prior bad government that we're always

hearing so much about. They were the government that got rid of

all the toll authorities in the Province of British

Columbia.

It would appear also on the authority under Bill 70 here,

given to the Minister, that he can decide the location of power

generation systems and transmission lines without any

communication whatsoever with local municipal authority. I

think that it is a pretty high-handed statute. If he so

wishes he doesn't have to consult with them at all and I think

that's a very bad feature of this bill.

Bill 70 provides for $50 million expenditure which, when

made law, will be spent outside the direct control of the

Legislature. Along with the $27 million which has just been

passed, it amounts to $77 million that once this legislation is

passed goes beyond the powers of the Legislature. It will be

spent without authority from the Legislature. We get the stock

answer, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee can

certainly check these expenditures but it's after the fact and

there's no discussion on the estimating prior to the

expenditure, and that is the feature of so many of the

socialist bills that we have seen come forth in the last 18 or

19 months.

It also provides in here for five members to be set up as a

committee to advise the members. Again, I think this provides

jobs for probably five NDP supporters. With this and things

that have passed before us, there certainly won't be many more

left; they will have to go beyond the NDP. By the time the

government finishes its plans there will be far more government

outside the control of this Legislature than in any other

Canadian jurisdiction.

I would just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this party

certainly opposes this bill.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I just

have a very few words to say on this bill. The powers it gives

to the government are absolutely immense and, in my view, are

much more extensive than are required at this stage. It is more

or less a blank cheque to the Minister.

The newspaper headlined the Act the day after its introduction as: "Transit

Act Gives Government Hefty Clout," and it does indeed. We find in here even

words which would, under one

interpretation, permit the government to enter

into the manufacture of rapid-transit vehicles and buses and so on.

The powers are extremely broad, and the Minister in his very

short opening words, I think, might have taken more time to

justify these very wide, sweeping powers. I would ask him in

his concluding remarks, when he closes second reading, to give

this House an undertaking that these powers will not be

exercised without the closet sort of consultation with local

levels of government in whatever areas this transit authority

might be operating.

The history of consultation in this regard, at least insofar

as the public has been able to see, has not been a good one. I

appreciate the arguments which the Minister has brought forth

on many occasions about the difficulty of consulting with

municipalities with respect to specific alignments of transit

rights-of-way and the problems this would lead to

in terms of increasing the cost to the public of acquiring

those rights-of-way once they were finally settled

on. But I would suggest to the Minister that it should not be

impossible to devise legislation which would provide that,

whenever such rights-of-way were acquired, the

acquisition cost should not be a cost that was escalated to

take into account that right-of-way but rather one

that would permit the acquisition as if that proposal had never

been made.

The Minister has been held to account in quite extensive

terms in his estimates with respect to the taxation costs to

municipalities of his new transit authority and the heavy

burden that that 2 mill assessment is going to place upon those

municipalities. He should at a very minimum, as a matter of

principle, when he is seeking to have the municipalities bear a

new responsibility, provide at the same time a new source of

revenue. He has clearly not done so in this case. Not only

that, he has turned down requests by municipalities for sources

of revenue such as 2 or 3 cents on the gasoline tax which the

Greater Vancouver Regional District has specifically asked him

for. They have also asked him for rather specific guarantees on

consultation.

I would suggest to the Minister that it is only a matter of

equity that he provide some kind of compensatory tax revenue

and, further, that he should tell this House whether or not his

offer so far is strictly a unilateral one or whether he has any

kind of acceptance whatsoever from the municipalities to

indicate that they are prepared to go along with his 2 mill

proposal and 50-per-cent cost-sharing

proposal up to that level.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the bill should be amended in

committee stage to make very detailed provisions for reporting

to this House insofar as the operations of this new unit go.

Surely the other side of very broad powers and immense

executive and discretionary powers must be accountability for

those authorities. The reporting function is not at all well

defined.

[ Page 2744 ]

I would like to ask — and I think the House is owed

this — the Minister, in closing this debate before the

vote takes place, to give us the benefit of his grand design or

his master plan, in whatever stage of clarification it might be

in his own mind, for the transit pattern in the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. We have heard a great deal about

this concept of streetcars or light rapid transit —

"light rail transit" as the Minister referred to it in his

estimates.

Does he contemplate in his master plan for the greater

Vancouver area, being guided and pretty well bound by the

existing light rail transit lines and rights-of-way

that might exist? If he is to be bound by those lines, which

are particularly old rights-of-way to New

Westminster and an old right-of-way to Lulu Island

along the old Arbutus alignment, has he studies which indicate

that this is indeed where light rail transit is required? Has

he studies which indicate what will be the resulting growth

patterns in the Greater Vancouver Regional District as a result

of this sort of transportation infrastructure being

installed?

In that regard I would comment from an excellent

article of

April 17 in the Province by Mr. Mark Wilson, which goes

through this question in some detail and which makes particular

comment on a need for a proper transit system to have some

provision for grade separation and the much greater cost that

this entails. He concludes in this manner:

"If Vancouver is to have a revived local passenger train

service, then it should be engineered at the outset to achieve

grade separation. The magnitude of the expenditures involved

should thereby ensure that routes are properly examined for

their acceptability.

"The last thing the city wants is a non-segregated

system with all its evils because somebody thinks they can get

transit on the cheap and make use of some 100-ft.

rights-of-way simply because they are there."

I think those are very wise words for the Minister to take

to heart. He should as well have some concept in his mind about

the use of the existing lines out towards Mission and the

existing lines from the North Shore, over the CNR bridge, and

into the downtown heart of Vancouver. Many people have

suggested this as an alternate way across the inlet. I suspect

that with current switching facilities it would be a pretty

slow alternate. But the Minister may have studies which would

indicate that in the longer run, perhaps with some extra

trackage, this could be made into a feasible crossing pattern.

The logical extension of that LRT pattern would then be from

the ferry terminal on the North Shore, along the BCR right-of-way, perhaps up as far as the Whistler

recreational area.

There are marvellous things that can be done by this agency, if imagination

is applied, if the municipalities are consulted, and if the public is allowed

to supply both its needs and its ideas to the Minister and to the transportation

authority as things go along.

I think there haven't been too many mistakes made yet. But

because of the critical implications this new agency will have

for the North Shore, my own riding, for the entire Vancouver

area, and for many other parts of the province, the Minister, I

think, should give this House a very clear commitment of

receptiveness to public input on the one hand and a close and

annual reporting to this Legislature on the activities of the

agency on the other.

I would suggest to him, too, that in considering the

development of his transportation plans under this new agency,

he should not underestimate the attachment of British Columbia

to the automobile.

I want to quote here briefly from a report in Business

Week , February 16, 1974, which is particularly relevant to

the United States of America because that was during the time

of gasoline rationing. It was found that even then, North

Americans were found to be very reluctant to give up their

automobiles. I'll make again this short quote:

"Economists estimate the short-term demand elasticity

for gasoline at roughly minus 0.2, which means that a 10 per

cent rise in the gas pump price inspires a mere 2 per cent drop

in consumption. To be sure, auto travel in recent months has

been down more than might be expected if one applies this

formula to recent price hikes, but this appears to be the

result of several other factors — 55 mile an hour speed

limits, gasless Sundays, actual shortages in many areas and

public attention focused on the energy crisis.

"Auto usage seems similarly unresponsive to parking charges.

In 1970, for example, San Francisco imposed a 25 per cent tax

on all non-meter commercial parking in the city. The tax

was lowered to 10 per cent in 1972. According to Damian Kulash,

an expert at the Urban Institute, the hefty tax caused a shift

from long-term parking to cheaper short-term

parking and cut garage revenues, but had no noticeable impact

on traffic flows.

"One reason that gasoline prices and parking charges have

such a small impact is that they represent only a small part of

a car owner's expenses. The biggest bite comes from such fixed

costs as depreciation and insurance. Moreover, the average

commuter trip is six or seven miles, requiring only a gallon of

gasoline for a round trip. 'You could double gasoline prices

without significantly affecting commutation patterns,' says

Wohl."

who is another man quoted in this article.

The lesson in that to me, Mr. Speaker — and I

[ Page 2745 ]

suggest that it applies as well to some considerable extent

in British Columbia — is that if the Minister is going to

base his transportation plans on the concept that people will

voluntarily get out of their automobiles and into the

transportation system because of changes in costs, I think that

would be wrong.

I think that what he has to do is not make the cost of the

automobile higher, but the serviceability of transit better

— shortening headways; making waiting areas more

agreeable, particularly shelters from the rain; service through

more extended hours of the day; more complex routes taking

people closer to their doors; more park-and-ride

areas, which I presume will be a part of the object of

expenditure of this new agency; and other matters of this kind.

The real solution for transit facilities in the long run is to

give service, rather than to be a last resort for the desperate

commuter who has been driven to that transit system through

simply not being able to make any progress in stalled city

traffic at all. That to me means that attention must continue

to be paid to the automobile.

I think it was wrong for the Premier to suggest that it is

up to this Legislature or any other body to try and impose our

idea of how people ought to travel on the general public.

That's our very basic difference in principle, because the

Premier believes we should impose ideas of how to travel

— he says you simply shouldn't use the automobile.

Therefore, for example, we are going to select one community

in this province where we have some leverage because they need

something. We're going to select the North Shore and we're

going to say to you people living on the North Shore: "Get out

of your automobiles, because it's just going to be so rough to

get across to the place where you earn your living that you're

going to have to. We're not going to use any of the tax revenue

which you contribute to this province, be it the directly

related gasoline tax, or be it all of the other taxes that the

people on the North Shore pay. We're not going to use any of

that tax revenue to facilitate the crossing of your

automobiles, even if you're prepared to pay for it through a

toll. We're not prepared to do that because it's our judgment

that that's not good for you and it's not good for the

province." I just can't buy that philosophically, Mr. Speaker.

I think that's incorrect.

When the Premier talks about getting the cars off the

streets of Vancouver, once again he hasn't studied the

situation very carefully, because the Thurlow tunnel which

would connect with the end of the third crossing would, in

fact, take 70,000 cars per day off the streets of downtown

Vancouver.

HON. MR. LAUK: Nonsense! Where would they go?

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member says "nonsense." I ask him to

stand in his place later on in this debate and explain just why

it's nonsense and quote the sections of the Swan-Wooster

report which note how those cars have to cross that area of

downtown Vancouver in transit to other portions of the lower

mainland.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know it would increase traffic —

that's the way it generally goes.

MR. GIBSON: The fact of the matter, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker, is that at the moment, according to those

studies...and I challenge the Minister to stand up and find

the flaws in those studies. I hope he's read them — he

said he pored over them in a previous debate. I challenge him

to stand up with that detailed knowledge and explain the flaw

in the study that found that 70,000 vehicles per day would be

removed from downtown Vancouver through construction of the

Thurlow tunnel. I'll leave that at that point.

I was most encouraged at a hint in a newspaper report of the

Minister some weeks ago which indicated that he didn't have a

completely closed mind on the third crossing, so I will

continue to keep my fingers, crossed and simply, on that

subject at this stage, hope that he will keep an open mind and

that he will recognize the place of the automobile in his

transportation planning for the area that I have the honour to

represent.

Mr. Speaker, one of the more popular ideas very often

discussed in transportation theory, at any rate, is the concept

of providing free rides, hoping by cutting the fare to zero to

attract customers from out of their cars onto the buses, or the

subways, or whatever. I want to quote again from this

Business Week report:

"Another popular idea that draws fire from economists is the

gambit of slashing fares or providing free transit to attract

riders. Several cities, such as Seattle and Birmingham, are

experimenting with free public transit in downtown areas, and

others, such as Atlanta, have cut theirs substantially.

"While some officials argue that drastically reduced fares

will pull people out of automobiles, the evidence is hardly

conclusive. Numerous studies indicate that transit fare

elasticities are fairly small, that it takes a very large

fare cut to stimulate any significant rise in demand.

"Moreover, the new riders are not all refugees from the

automobile. When the City of Rome experimented with free

transit in 1972, for example, it found that ridership jumped,

but that most of the new passengers were former pedestrians.

Traffic congestion was

[ Page 2746 ]

unaffected.

"Atlanta is another case in point. In 1972 the city rolled

back bus fares to 15 cents, a 62.5 per cent cut. Michael Kemp

of the Urban Institute's Transportation Studies Group reports

that passenger traffic jumped about 20 per cent as a result of

the cut, and research suggests that perhaps 40 per cent of the

added bus riders would formerly have used cars. The cost to

Atlanta, in terms of transit income forgone, said Kemp, was at

least $3 for each car trip removed from the road.

"What particularly galls many economists about the low fare

strategy is that virtually every study of transit fare and

service changes indicates that demand elasticities are

significantly greater for service improvements. That is,

ridership is more sensitive to changes in level of service than

to changes in fare. Riders appear particularly responsive to

reductions in door-to-door travel times. Thus a

study by Charles River Associates, a Cambridge, Massachusetts,

consulting firm, suggests that the reduction in auto trips that

free transit would be expected to produce in Boston could be

achieved at a fraction of the cost, simply by offering more

extensive and convenient routes."

Thus, while I would definitely suggest to the Minister that

there is a place for experimentation in slashed or even free

fares at different times of the day and in different areas of

the city, and I would invite him to start with the North Shore

and the Lions Gate Bridge in making that experiment, I would

say at the same time that he should give even greater priority

to the service that his transit facilities offer to the general

rider. There's no question that as the Greater Vancouver

Regional District continues to grow, and as the complexity of

our society increases, which of itself requires travel, mass

transit has to be an increasingly important means of moving

people throughout the area. It can be, I would think, a very

pleasant means as well.

It can be clean, safe, fast, economical if imagination and

dollars are poured into this new agency. It can be well located

and of great service to the people of the area if adequate

consultation is undertaken before the construction of the

facilities concerned. And it can help build and shape a truly

great metropolitan area, if these things are done properly.

Those kinds of words indicate the enormous impact that will be

had for good or for evil of this agency we are discussing

today.

So I suggest to the Minister that the manner in which that agency is staffed,

the manner in which it is accountable to him and to this Legislature and to

the consuming public, is one of the very greatest importance and one that he

should not fail to speak about in his concluding remarks on second reading.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday about

6 o'clock a very beautiful sight went through the District of

Mission. It was a Town and Country highway bus, Mr. Speaker, a

brand new one. I went into the bus. I can't remember how many

seats there were, but it sure looked like a nice bus to me.

Mr. Speaker, it was just the kind of concrete,

nuts-and-bolts symbol of what I believe this

legislation will be forecasting. This was a bus called "Town

and Country," which I gather is going to be the

extension of the old Pacific Stage Lines type of facility. It

has a very nice light pea-green and brown logo on this

highway bus — to be distinct, of course, from the fast

bus, a service which already is going to Coquitlam and which is

a great success, and which, I gather, in the morning and the

evening during rush hour has standing room only

accommodation.

Many of the people even as far as Mission, Mr. Speaker,

including one of the alderman of Mission, who incidentally

works down on Burrard Street.... It is not unusual to live in

Mission and work on Burrard Street. He parks his bus at the

park-and-ride place there in Coquitlam and takes a

fast bus into work.

I believe this is really exciting news. It's one of the

things that I really did try to say during the campaign. I

think it's part of my upbringing. I grew up in West Vancouver.

That municipality to my knowledge has had a municipal system

— the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) can check me — that I believe goes back 30 years

— roughly 30 years.

It's a very, very successful system, a system which the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

has used many times. I understand his wife picks him up at the

foot of the street, but that's okay; at least that's part way.

I think that this is an essential Act to see that the places

where we live are as livable as they are now, and I hope, even

more livable.

I understand, for instance, in going over the First Narrows Bridge,

we see in a car 1.34 persons. That's not very good, Mr. Speaker. It's

even worse going over the Pitt River Bridge — people driving from

my riding, going to work — because right now the bus system is really

not adequate at all. There are usually, I would think, about 1.25

people going over that Pitt River Bridge. In other words, there are

mostly cars with one people....

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You've gone

too far now!

MR. ROLSTON: Even though there's a new Pitt River Bridge

slated, this is not going to solve the problem of transit and

the movement of people in a

[ Page 2747 ]

great, long, 80-mile riding like Dewdney. So I appeal

to all the Members to support this kind of legislation.

I believe that long before this legislation there has been

consultation with the municipalities — certainly in my

experience. In fact, one of the first meetings I ever had was

with the ex-mayor of Maple Ridge. We discussed, among

other things, public transit of people. We have had many, many

consultations since in both the councils of Mission and Maple

Ridge. The aldermen have transit committees. We're planning

future meetings with Vic Parker, the consultant, and with the

Minister, and I know that things will be very carefully worked

out.

I remember a caucus meeting last summer where the MLAs on

our side of the House saw pictures; we looked at some of the

planning and legwork that had already been done by our transit

people, seeing what other parts of the world are doing.

I understand that there are all kinds of possibilities. I

would hate to think that the City of Vancouver had totally

rejected the possibility of putting some kind of surface rail

facilities down that Granville Street mall. I hope that that at

least was an option; I hope it was discussed. But I hear that

it really wasn't — that the city wasn't even open to that

possibility.

Now we have buses with hinges in the middle, Mr. Speaker,

that could have gone up Lonsdale. We have a great variety of

systems. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the bus has its

limitations and that in some cases with the fast bus we might

already be at some kind of a saturation point. So we need

other types of systems. We need to have light rapid, and

eventually we need to have rail.

There are already consultations with the rail people,

including the CPR. There was, I think, a premature release in the Province about three months ago about a rail service

out to Mission. But at least we're talking about that, and with

the regional districts I think a lot of very good work could be

done.

In my case I don't think there's anything that the people in

my riding look forward to more consistently than a fast,

sensible way of getting into the greater Vancouver area to

work. They ultimately look forward to an improvement of the

rail systems into Vancouver. The MP, Mark Rose, and myself have

gone to the CPR. We've talked with them and we've had

correspondence with them.

I understand that in the nuts-and-bolts sense

there's really not that much that needs to be changed. There

certainly are certain areas that need to be improved. The CPR

bridge over the Pitt is not adequate and there are certain

places in Maple Ridge where a lot of ballasting and work needs

to be done. But we have the system; we have the rail.

Of course, we know what's gone on in Ontario with the Government of Ontario

rail system. We know of very attractive exchange points — interchange points

— where the buses meet the rail. From their experiences we can learn what they

have done.

Of course it's very important, as other Members have said,

that it be a fast, clean, efficient system — that there

are places where you can meet, where you can be out of the

rain, where you can have coffee and meet your neighbours. I

really do hope that this legislation is acted on, that all the

MLAs take the movement of people seriously.

This isn't to say that we won't still have the private

family car, which we use when we go to get the groceries or

when we go camping or go on long excursions. We all expect that

tradition will continue.

But I believe that it is true that we in our own lifestyle.... I'd like to take the bus home even from this Legislature,

or walk partly to this Legislature from where I am presently

living. I think that this legislation needs all the

encouragement that we can give it.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, just in closing, that it is the

old bell curve in statistics that reflects the type of people

that use transit. I understand that it's the low-income

people and the very high-income people that are the

people usually who are freed up enough to use this kind of

service.

It's the middle-income people who are locked into that

car. We saw in that movie, "American Graffiti," the

tremendous involvement with the car. They aren't that loosened

up to get out of the car.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there are some people who go to

places at work that for many years will still be off the given

routes of the system. But I believe it's our responsibility to

design a system. I think that this is a symbol of the kind of

livability that I certainly expect in the more urban areas of

this province. And I certainly support it.

I finally would like to have some kind of assurance from the

Minister that areas around an exchange point do not.... If

there is any great appreciation, I think we should look at

legislation to ensure that the municipalities and the

provincial government share in that appreciation of the land

and real estate. We've seen this dramatically in Toronto.

We've seen this around Toronto and the subway routes where

it's very obvious that the land has gone up tremendously in

value. I think that the City of Toronto should have benefited

from that, and should have had some kind of share in that

increase.

Thank you.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a few short observations,

Mr. Speaker, that this certainly appears....

Interjection.

[ Page 2748 ]

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. It's nice to see all you

gentlemen in such great spirits this afternoon — the new

Premier sitting in his seat. He was a little while ago sitting

in the seat of the Hon. Attorney-General. He's moving

around quite quickly these days. We do wish he'd spend a little

time in his own seat and on his own portfolio. That would be in

the interest of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member get back to the subject

he loves?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This well appears to be another plank, Mr. Speaker, in the

platform of state control of this government. Once again it is

a great illustration of the unlimited powers that they wish to

grant unto cabinet. We find that within the bill they have an

unlimited right to purchase or otherwise acquire motor

vehicles, buses, ferry transportation systems, and the stock of

any corporation carrying on the business of a passenger system

which, I suppose, could well extend to Joe's Taxi if the

government decided Joe's Taxi was something which should be

taken over within the provisions of this Transit Services Act .

One can see from these very disturbing words that there's

not any process or provision within the statute for

compensating those organizations, facilities or services that

are acquired by the government. We suppose the government, if

it felt necessary — as it did unfortunately feel

necessary in the case of the insurance industry — could

here as well expropriate without compensation by taking the

attitude and reaching a decision that it would be impossible

for an independent transit service facility to operate legally

within the Province of British Columbia. It could say: "No,

your doors shall be closed immediately. We don't have to

compensate you and we can take over that which you have."

Those powers are within this statute. Perhaps they will not

be exercised; but if they're not going to be exercised, they

should certainly not have been given in the first instance.

We find it somewhat disturbing that the agreements and

consent of municipalities to the programmes of the government,

which have not been described, under this statute once again

are subject to the discretion of the government or, more

particularly, of the Minister. He does not have to enter into

an agreement with a municipality if he does not choose to do

so. I think that should certainly be a paramount consideration.

He has the ability to run roughshod over the municipalities in

any manner if he so chooses, perhaps the only limitation being

that it may well be politically untenable or politically

unadvisable.

But that's not enough. If the powers are not going to be exercised, they certainly

should not have been granted in the first instance.

It has the power to fix tolls as the Minister may deem fit

in any city or in any municipality, perhaps completely contrary

to the wishes of the city or the municipality or the

inhabitants of such city or municipality.

It has the opportunity to compete with Hydro or to deal with

Hydro. Perhaps once again we can see here a great conflict of

interest between the Minister of Municipal Affairs acting as

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs being a director of B.C. Hydro. What is in the best

interest of B.C. Hydro is not necessarily in the best interest

of municipalities or in the best interest of public

transit.

I wish to make this point very, very clear. I'm certainly

not accusing the Minister of any personal conflict, but there

certainly is a political conflict. I think it was a highly

improper decision on the part of the Premier of this province

to appoint the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of

B.C. Hydro for the simple reason that we can find a terrific

conflict between the two duties. That conflict could present

itself in this bill, as it has presented itself and is already

open and obvious to the general public by the Minister

ensuring, as he must, by virtue of Hydro policy that it does

not pay the bulk of municipal taxes, thereby depriving

municipalities from that which it should receive from that

public corporation. That opportunity for conflict unfortunately

does continue within the confines of this bill.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):

Impossible.

MR. GARDOM: It's not impossible; it's absolute fact, and you

know it, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Crown is indivisible.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if the Crown is indivisible, we have a

very funny picture of indivisibility of the Crown when we find

the Premier making statements to the effect that Crown

corporations are no longer to receive subsidies from the

provincial government. They are receiving subsidies by failing,

in the City of Vancouver alone, to pay

half-a-million dollars worth of taxes last year.

There's a big difference there, Mr. Attorney-General.

It's an obvious conflict which you are quite thoroughly aware

of, I'm sure.

We find, under the provisions of this bill, a very

[ Page 2749 ]

remarkable power granted to the cabinet to establish a

corporation by order-in-council. This is a new one.

Until now, we've usually had the government come into this

Legislature and say, "Look, if we're going to establish a

corporation, we're going to do it by a separate bill." But not

here, no sirree, Mr. Speaker.

Under one

section of this statute, specifically

section 11,

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the

right to establish a B.C. Transit Company. That can come into

being in the Province of British Columbia not by legislative

Act or following legislative deliberation and legislative vote

in this chamber but just by a decision behind the red door of

cabinet. That is not good enough.

This B.C. Transit Company, if the cabinet snaps its fingers

and decides it wishes to incorporate that company, can have

unlimited funds until March 31, 1975. There is no check and

balance in the statute whatsoever as to the amount of money

that can be appropriated to this B.C. Transit Company if it is

incorporated within the provisions of this Act. There's no

check and balance whatsoever as to amount of money that can be

allocated to it from the consolidated revenue fund. This is

really one of the grossest examples of blank-cheque

legislation that we've yet had come before this chamber.

It's not a question as to whether or not a person is in

favour or not in favour of public transit, make no mistake of

that. We're very much in favour and I'm very much in favour of

having a public transit system. But I'm also very much in

favour of having the government out and inform the general

public of what it intends to do. Is this going to be another

one of the many, many bills that will never, ever be

proclaimed? It would be a very interesting bit of resource work

for someone to check into the amount of bills which have or

have not been proclaimed or sections of bills that have or have

not been proclaimed by this government since it has come into

power.

Is this going to be another balloon? If it's going to be a

balloon, fine and dandy. Perhaps the Minister should say that.

If it's not supposed to be a balloon, the Minister should come

before this Legislature and the people of this province and

inform them of his specific plans for public transit. This he

is not doing. He is asking us to vote upon this bill blindly;

he is asking us to give the cabinet the power to incorporate a

company with unlimited funds. Surely to goodness, that is a

denegation of the responsibility of this Legislature and

certainly a denegation of the responsibility and duty of every

backbencher. There are a lot of Members from municipalities and

cities in this House, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to be

precluded from having a vote or a say in the establishment of

this company or what it will do or the amount of money it may

have.

It is as I said, Mr. Speaker; it's just one more plank in the platform of state

control. British Columbia is falling very, very heavily under the heavy hammer

of socialism — and this is just one more hammer of socialism.

MR. WALLACE: I suppose this is one of these other bills that

is euphemistically referred to as "enabling legislation." We

hear that word frequently in this chamber.

The reason we're very concerned about this bill is that, in

effect, it enables this government to do just about anything

and everything it might want to do in the whole wide area of

transportation. That's giving transportation a very wide

definition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: High priority.

MR. WALLACE: I would agree with the articulate

Attorney-General that transportation must in our modern

society have a high priority. I said in an earlier debate this

afternoon that the mobility of modern society is perhaps one of

its biggest problems. It is both a curse and blessing. It's a

blessing that mobility takes people out of a limited physical

environment and enables them to see more of their province and

more of the country and more of the great wide world. But at

the same time, it is a curse in that the ease with which the

individual can be mobile creates all the problems we're now

talking about in urban areas. I think in another debate I

mentioned that, by 1990 or some such date, about 90 per cent of

all the population of Canada will be in five main cities. This

is certainly, as the Attorney-General says, one of the

priorities of any government in any highly developed,

industrialized society.

But, Mr. Speaker, all societies are still composed of many

individuals. This government doesn't seem to have the message

that many individuals in British Columbia today are becoming

more and more appalled, apprehensive and terrified at the

increasing power of this government over the lives of

individuals.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Nonsense.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Kamloops says nonsense. He

should read my mail, or maybe he's not even reading the

newspapers.

The letters to the editor in any newspaper I read never fail

to mention that, while this government may have many good

intentions, the power which is being given to the state by

legislation every time we come into this House is frightening

many, many citizens of British Columbia.

I don't know how many letters the Member for Kamloops gets,

but I certainly get a steady stream of letters from citizens in

Canada who have previously lived in certain European countries.

Time and time

[ Page 2750 ]

again I get the message from these letters that this is the

kind of trend that was set in many countries in Europe where

more and more power was taken over by socialist governments,

and that the final situation is like that in Hungary where

freedom is a myth and the individual lives at the whim of the

state.

Now the Attorney-General can smile and shake his head,

but there are many people in the province of British Columbia

who are very apprehensive. I know very well that the

Attorney-General is entitled to his opinion just as I am

to mine, and we happen to differ. But I am trying to explain

why this party opposes this particular bill even though the

goals of the bill are very admirable and very important to a

modern society. Nobody can question the importance of dealing

with the transportation problems in highly congested

residential and industrial areas in this or any other

province.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the press gallery are coming in

for a rough time these days. Another certain member of the

press gallery wrote an article, I notice, saying that at the

last session of the Legislature many Members of the opposition

expressed apprehension at the sweeping powers given to this

government, but that at this session the Members of the

opposition were going to be somewhat less vocal in expressing

this apprehension because the government that took so much

power in recent months by legislation has not used that

power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very facile argument. If

somebody has a gun, there is not much point in getting

concerned only after they have blown your head off. In applying

this kind of reasoning to this bill there is a clipping from the Province of March 14, just after Bill 70 was tabled

in the House, that I would like to quote.

The powers in the bill were being described, and the

reporter goes on to say: "However, Mr. Lorimer said outside the

House that the government does not plan to take immediate

advantage of many of the powers granted."

Time and time again we get legislation from this government

where there is very extensive power given to Ministers or to

the cabinet. When this side of the House expresses the natural

apprehension of the individual in society against the power of

the state, we get this repeated answer: "Well, of course, the

government doesn't mean to use all this power."

The Attorney-General suggested that I am exaggerating

the situation and that either the power is not dangerous or it

will not be used. Mr. Speaker, some of the attitudes that have

been demonstrated by the Minister responsible for this very

important public area have already, in my view, given very

considerable concern as to whether he is the kind of person who

should have this kind of power.

I repeat that I have nothing against the Minister as a person. I have great

respect for him as an honourable man and an honourable Member of this House.

But the record is quite clear. I won't read all of it again, but in an earlier

debate I pointed out that Vancouver city Aldermen Bowers and Hardwick felt that

they had been ignored by the Minister; and when in fact subsequent meetings

were held, because certain information was disclosed publicly, the Minister

simply said that if there was any further disclosure there would be no more

meetings, and that since the provincial government is paying a large part of

the costs of transit, "we will lay the plans and we will tell you, the municipalities

and the regions, just exactly how transit is going to be run, organized and

operated."

If the Attorney-General thinks that I am too

concerned with powers in this bill, I think we already have

examples by the Minister which suggest that if there are

difficulties in reaching negotiated agreements with regions and

municipalities, we may well imagine or fear that in the future

he could be extremely authoritarian in his use of the power

which is an integral part of this bill.

I know we don't want to get into sections at this stage, but

section 2, in particular, which allocates the power, makes it

very plain, particularly in the early part, that the Minister

can plan transit services without any particular consideration

for municipalities or regions. There again, he has the

authority to make the decision and impose it on these local

regions and municipalities.

An interesting part of

section 2, Mr. Speaker, which I

thought would have been mentioned earlier, is that the

government can build restaurants and hotels under this

authority. This shows just exactly how far you can stretch the

definition of transportation or the need for a government to

provide transportation when you give the Minister authority to

construct and maintain buildings including restrooms and

hotels.

I think it is quite reasonable for the individual in society

to look at a bill like this one, which comes after many other

bills, and say: just how far does the state in British Columbia

want to go in getting its fingers into every aspect of the

affairs of the individual?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: To provide services to the

individual.

MR. WALLACE: That's right, Mr. Member, to provide services

to the individual. That is just where we are at a difference

with your side of the House. We feel that the kind of services

that you are seeking the power to provide under this bill are

far too extensive and ill-defined, in the sense that the

power seems to be endless. Some of the sections of the bill at

least provide for cabinet decision and not just Ministerial

decision; but the power which is given is

[ Page 2751 ]

something about which our party is very apprehensive. It

seems to just repeat in Bill 70 what we have seen in so many

other bills.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, although it may be that this

government has not yet used some of the powers which we opposed

in former debates, the fact is that the power is sitting there

and can be used in the future. We certainly believe that it is

power that has real dangers for the continuing freedom of the

individual in our society to decide a lot of things for himself

and to remain free from state interference and control to a

degree which is unnecessary.

I know that the Premier will be up on his feet before long,

giving the same simplistic argument again that the Conservative

Party is opposed to rapid transit.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You're opposed to

everything.

MR. WALLACE: No, we are not opposed to everything.

I don't think that the record justifies that interjection by

the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health knows very well

that there are many actions of his government that we strongly

support. I think it is not a fair statement, by any means, to

say that we are opposed to everything.

We are in favour of responsible government, and responsible

government means the responsible use of power. It means that in

democratic societies governments don't ask power which they

claim is not necessary or which they won't use. That's an old,

old story. Even in my relatively short life I can remember the

statement by certain politicians: "This is my last territorial

demand in Europe; just give me what I want this time and I

won't ask any more."

It is somewhat similar in this legislation: just give us

this power; we are not really going to use it, but we just

might need it. I don't think that it is a fair approach in a

democratic society for governments to seek this kind of power

in an area which affects practically every individual in our

communities.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was waving his

arms around and talking about transit earlier today and how

strongly he was opposed to the automobile, I was just

wondering: if that is the case, why are we building two

enormous ferries to carry cars back and forth between the

mainland and the Island?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Don't give me that, Mr. Minister; it's to carry

the largest number of cars of any ferry in the fleet.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: So we're getting a rather ambivalent attitude

from the government. In one respect, they are opposed to

encouraging the use of cars; yet apparently we're spending $40

million to encourage the further transportation of vehicles

between the Island and the mainland.

I'm not the only person who is expressing concern about not

only the powers in the bill but the fact that some of the plans

which the Minister has revealed up to this point are less than

likely to be effective.

We have people in the automobile field such as BCAA (British

Columbia Automobile Association) who say the ferry system

proposed is like fitting a Band-aid on a broken leg. It

seems to me that in that regard, too, even in the planning of

the new ferry system to cross Burrard Inlet, we have had some

very distressing statements by municipal people as a result of

certain meetings that took place with the director of transit

(Mr. Pearson) in which, again, some attempt was made to use

political muscle and persuade the mayor of North Vancouver (Mr.

Reid) to soft pedal his dealings with a company which had

already entered into negotiation and had

approval-in-principle from the council regarding

the use of land on the North Shore.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: That was all dealt with.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Kamloops says, "It was all dealt

with." Well, it might have been dealt with to his satisfaction

but it certainly hasn't been dealt with to mine. As in many

other areas of important human affairs in British Columbia,

this government means well...

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): You're darn right they

do.

MR. WALLACE: ...and it tries hard. Yet it brings in

legislation of this kind which scares the individual....

HON. MR. KING: Don't be scared.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You scare too

easy.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes, I think we have every reason to be

scared. The reason it scares me and scares a lot of citizens is

that citizens take a great deal of interest and pay a lot of

respect for the past and for the examples that have been set by

other governments and other politicians who seek excessive

control over the individual.

I think the most important point that should be raised in

this debate — and many of the points were well covered by

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

— is that despite

[ Page 2752 ]

the need for transportation and rapid transit services,

despite the intentions and the efforts of this government to

bring about solutions, we have to vote against it...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: ...for the very clear reason that there is

power in the bill which is unnecessary, which further

accentuates the basic difference between that side of the

House, the so-called "heavy hand of the state,"

and this side of the House, which believes in preserving the

freedom of the individual to look after more of his own affairs

and to be left free to participate in planning and not to be

told by the state what is good for him.

It's very clear, particularly in

section 2, that this is

exactly what this legislation empowers the Minister to do. Were

it not for some of the earlier actions of the Minister, maybe

our apprehension would be a little less. But this Minister,

perhaps of any in the government, has shown that he is not slow

to use all the power he has as a Minister to tell people that

if they don't like it they can lump it. I think that's a

shocking attitude for any Minister to have, and I think it's

particularly serious that in this bill we should be giving such

excessive power to that very man in the cabinet.

For that reason we are quite distinct and convinced that we

must oppose this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't wish to prolong the debate. However, I

do want to say that I certainly endorse many of the things that

have been said by the two previous speakers in this House. This

bill is more state socialism. It's just one more step towards

setting up in British Columbia a complete socialist state.

HON. MR. COCKE: Read the bill, will you?

MR. PHILLIPS: The powers given to the Minister in this bill

are typical of the type of powers which have been extended to

most of the Members of the cabinet during the past 18 months.

They are setting themselves up in power by these bills to be

complete dictators. Very shortly, as more of this legislation

comes into being, it will not be necessary to call the

Legislature into session at all because the cabinet will have

sufficient power to make all of the decisions necessary to run

the province. That is exactly the way we're heading.

When the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says people are frightened, he is

accurate in that statement. The people of British Columbia, who love freedom

and who realize that it was freedom which built this nation and built this province,

realize that freedom is being eroded away. I suppose in this province there

are people who really do not care about their freedom, who want to be looked

after from the cradle to the grave and told by the state what they can and cannot

do. But fortunately for this province there is a vast majority of freedom-loving

individuals. It is those individuals, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned today.

A lot of the individuals who placed their faith in this

government, which is taking all the power in bills such as

this, are today themselves disenchanted because they thought

they were getting a social democratic government. I have

letters from some of these individuals. They themselves say

that the government has gone too far and they didn't vote for a

Marxist government.

AN HON. MEMBER: National socialist party.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to state unequivocally

here that I am not against public transit.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you go ahead, Mr.

Attorney-General, and see how I vote. You've seen how I

vote. I vote for the freedom of the individual; I vote for a

democratic type of government. Never will I vote for

legislation that takes away from this Legislature the duties of

the MLAs.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier a moment ago said when he was discussing another

bill that the government was being attacked for going too fast and being too

bold. That is not what the government is being attacked for at all. The government

is being attacked because they are turning British Columbia into, as I said

before, a complete communist state. The Premier can make all the airy-fairy

philosophical speeches that he wants to make in this Legislature, but he fools

no one.

There are sections in this bill which will allow the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to take over

any method of transportation he desires to take over. This may

be all very well and fine with this particular Minister because

I have a great appreciation of the present Minister. But who is

going to follow in his shoes?

AN HON. MEMBER: What section?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what section. Take a look at

section 10. Take a look at

section 2. Take a look at

section

Interjections.

[ Page 2753 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Every time you start baring the facts about

what is happening and what powers are contained in the

legislation, we always have to have some quips from the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) whom I think is afraid that

he's going to have to enlarge the mental hospitals around this

province because that government is driving people crazy. He's

concerned, and if he were really concerned about....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Health should look after a

sick government, that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who gave you that line?

MR. PHILLIPS: Our freedom in this province is

disappearing.

This bill permits the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer) to go into the dicey business of manufacturing

transit buses. The power is in the bill. Are we going to have

another Western Flyer No. 2 manufacturing plant here in British

Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could be. The Minister has the power. Why is

the power in the bill if you don't intend to use it? Why are

all the powers in this bill?

It is very difficult to visualize any private money or

private industry investing or enlarging their transportation

services in this province once this bill is passed. All they

are doing, if it is a successful operation, is setting

themselves up so the Minister of Municipal Affairs can move in

and take it over.

We have seen this happen with the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. All that has to be decreed by that government

over there is that it is supposedly in the interests of the

individuals of the province. But what they are really saying is

that the government is going to tell the people of this

province what is good for them.

As I said just a short time ago, if the public

transportation system is set up and the people won't ride the

buses, won't use it, and continue to use their own mode of

transportation, it won't be long before we will see a bill

introduced in this Legislature to compel the people of this

province to ride the public transportation. Make no mistake

about it; this government wouldn't give a second thought to

bringing in such legislation.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where were you when brains were given

out?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is unfortunate maybe for you, Mr. Minister of

Health, that I have brains enough to see through some of the legislation you

present in this Legislature. I think if you were to get out of the realm of

the cabinet — where I think you brainwash each other and tell each other what

a great job you are doing — if you were to take a month off and do some thinking

about the powers that have been taken unto yourself and the other cabinet Ministers,

you might be astonished yourself. You laugh it off, but I want to tell you that

the people of British Columbia aren't laughing today.

HON. MR. KING: You've got them all laughing.

HON. MR. COCKE: Charlie McCarthy.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The people of British Columbia are frightened.

The people of British Columbia don't want this province to be

known as Little Russia. They don't want it to be known

throughout the rest of Canada and the rest of the free world as

Little Russia.

point out to these blind-eyed Ministers what they are

doing to this Legislature. Maybe they really don't appreciate

the power they have. But there could be more dictatorial

— I won't say more socialist-minded —

Ministers....

Interjections.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

have any respect for the House at all? I suppose because it's

the government you don't have to have respect at all.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: If anybody is embarrassing their leader, it's

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk). He is not only embarrassed by the lack of

action on behalf of the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce, I think he's even afraid to allow his

estimates to come to the floor of this Legislature to be

debated. I think the Premier is going to arrange a trip out of

Victoria somewhere, and he's waiting for that to happen. Maybe

it will be next week when he goes down to Minneapolis to get

his doctorate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. We are supposed to be dealing with

Bill 70.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you ask the Minister

[ Page 2754 ]

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to just...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll see that you have the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. LAUK: I was trying to get you on the track, Don. I

know you're so easily distracted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's been expressed here before, and I

think I've expressed it as strongly as I can what is happening

in British Columbia.

Last spring, when we talked about excessive powers in bills,

we were right on because some of those excessive powers are

starting to creep up here and there. They are starting to show.

The same type of thing will happen here.

It would be far better if, when the Minister closes debate,

he would tell us what he plans to do. But I really don't think

he has a plan. He'll give himself in this bill broad enough

powers to do anything he wishes to do. Then, if somebody comes

up with a plan and he thinks it's a good idea, he has the power

to do it. The fact that he has $76 million of taxpayers' money

to spend without coming back to the Legislature doesn't matter.

That's what he has under the terms of this bill: $76 million

that he can spend without even coming near this Legislature,

without consulting with the people who were elected to look

after the taxpayers' money. That's a nice hunk of money for a

man to play with, particularly when he is not limited in any

area by this legislative measure which is before us this

afternoon.

So I hope, when the Minister closes the debate, he will give

the House some idea of where he is going and some assurance

that this $76 million of taxpayers' money will be prudently

spent. Also, give us some assurance that when this system he is

going to create comes into being, he is not going to force the

people of British Columbia by law to use it.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The last three speakers in this debate

seem to follow a lot of the usual trend we've been hearing in

the House for the last few days. There was a little bit, I

would say, of legitimate criticism perhaps. But as far as the

principle of the bill itself, the principle of the government

assisting in establishing a decent method of transportation in

communities that cannot afford it, there wasn't one item of

criticism. There was only the usual frustrated attacks on the

government because it is this government that is doing it and

not a different one. Otherwise, a lot of the objections we've

heard from the last three speakers would not have been

made.

We are in the same situation on the principle of this bill

as the principle of others. I said once before that I feel

sometimes, when I come through the doors of this House, that

I've come through the looking glass. That is certainly

reinforced today. When the day comes that I see the tea party

going on up in that corner, I'm quite sure who will be pouring

the tea.

HON. MR. LAUK: They don't understand. They never read the

book.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm sure the previous speakers could not

have ridden on some of our famous Bluebird buses in the City of

Kamloops. I don't know what their age is, but if they make it

to the time when the government assists the city in setting up

the proper transportation system, which should be very shortly,

I'll be extremely surprised.

We've heard complaints all through this session about the

lack of aid to the municipalities. Member after Member of the

opposition said we're not doing anything at all for the

municipalities. Here the municipalities are being offered

assistance that's going to cost a lot of money they would have

no hope of raising themselves. I imagine the next time

something comes up in the Department of Municipal Affairs,

these Members will once again say there's nothing being done to

assist the municipalities. If this was the only assistance

being given to the municipalities it would be quite

significant.

As I look through the bill I find the cabinet in council

will have quite a lot of authority. It will have quite a lot of

power to spend money, and every dollar will be spent so that

people won't have to hitchhike or take their cars downtown or

go in a pool system. They will have a decent, modern, fast,

clean transportation system if they wish it. And they are not

forced to take it.

I don't think, Mr. Member, we have to worry for quite a few

years yet about a new cabinet. I know we've heard that before:

one-termers; wait until next time. But I find most of the

people who complain and say this are the ones who get in with

the least votes.

I certainly intend to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I have

had queries from Kamloops over the last two weeks on the

telephone and by mail from the city council and interested

citizens. As far as they are concerned, they're in a hurry for

it. I imagine that the cities of Prince George and Smithers, if

they have any transportation system at all, have ones that can

only be considered as antiquated, such as the one in Kamloops

that has been subsidized by the city for the last three years

and which the city feels that it cannot afford to subsidize

much longer.

Under this bill the municipalities are going to get a real

break in their financing; they're going to get a decent system

that's going to help move citizens

[ Page

2755 ]

downtown without, as the Premier has said, continually

smelling the exhaust pipes of the hundreds of cars that would

have been on the road.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. LORIMER: This has been an interesting, roving

discussion this afternoon. I want to congratulate the Members

for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)

for reading the bill. The remainder was basically rubbish.

They talk about a takeover bill. I can assure you that the

companies are lined up at our door asking us to take them off

the hook. That's the way the transit business is going

throughout North America. There's no money in transit; the

private companies realize it, and they want to get out.

There's no expropriation rights in this bill at all. I just

wish that our legal advisers would take a look at the bill

before they talk about these sweeping powers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's very little power in this

bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: But we've had an interesting

discussion.

The other sweeping powers were the incorporation of

companies that are permitted in this bill. That

section was

plucked out of a fine Tory bill from the Province of Ontario,

intituled Northern Ontario Railway Act .

MR. WALLACE: We're in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes. That is sweeping powers we were

talking about — copying the Tory Act.

MR. WALLACE: I don't approve of it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It was also suggested that there was no

reporting to the House.

Section 10 deals with reporting.

There's very little power in this Act. It's inadequate, really.

We should amend it. There's very little power in there.

I might say that there were a number of points raised by the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), and by

and large I think we're basically in agreement with the transit

system there. Only one difference might have been the corridor

he was talking about. That might be something we have to

consider at length and have more debate on.

I might point out that a transit service will take people from behind the wheels

of their cars. Before the transit went in in Coquitlam and North Vancouver,

at the park and ride at the PNE there were some 750 to 800 people using the

parking lot facilities. When the other two services came in, that dropped down

to 550 for about a month, and gradually within a month it was back up to about

the same figure as before the service started. So that indicates that when you

give a service, the people will use it. It's where there is no service or inadequate

service that we still have the problem of cars. So I'm convinced that with good

service we can get people from behind the steering wheels of their cars and

use the transit service. I agree that a lot of people won't, but by and large

I suggest that they will.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lea

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

Bill 70, Transit Services Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting

after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Report on Bill 75,

Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

INTERIM RENT STABILIZATION ACT

Bill 75 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 115, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order. Would it be possible for the

House Leader to inform the

[ Page 2756 ]

opposition what the order of business is going to be this

afternoon?

I think it is a gross discourtesy to all Members of the

opposition that we have not received any indication of the

order of business from anyone in the House. I did receive from

the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — and I thank him

very much for his co-operation — a statement to the

effect that we were going ahead with bills 70 and 88, to be

followed by 95, 96, 97 and 98, and then 18 and then to a

motion. With all respect, I don't think it is the function or

responsibility of the Member for Cariboo to deliver these

statements to the House, although I do thank him very much for

the assistance that he has given. If we are going to run this

Legislature in a competent fashion — no evidence being

given of that fact to this point — will the House Leader,

or the Premier, or somebody, please tell us what the order of

business is going to be?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 115; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman,

that nowhere in th