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)

SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1985 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Use of library during Saturday sitting. Mr. Chabot — 1985

Mr. Speaker — 1985

Routine proceedings

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974. (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1985

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1985

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1988

Mr. Gabelmann — 1989

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1992

Mr. Gibson — 1992

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1997

Mr. Bennett — 1998

Mr. Cummings — 1999

Mr. Gardom — 2000

Point of order

Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Gardom — 2001

Deputy Speaker — 2001

Mr. Gardom — 2001

Mr. Speaker — 2001

Mr. Gardom — 2001

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2002

Mr. Speaker — 2002

Mr. Chabot — 2003

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2003

Mr. Chabot — 2003

Mr. Speaker — 2004

Mr. McGeer — 2004

Mr. Speaker — 2004

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2004

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2004

Mr. Morrison — 2005

Mr. Speaker — 2005

Mr. McClelland — 2005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2005

Mr. Speaker — 2005

Mr. Dent — 2005

Mr. Gardom — 2005

Mr. McClelland — 2005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2006

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2006

Routine proceedings

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 10). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 2006

Division on motion to adjourn the debate — 2009

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates. On vote 106.

Mr. Phillips — 2011

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2013

Mr. Phillips — 2014

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2015

Mr. Phillips — 2016

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2017

Mr. Phillips — 2017

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2018

Mr. Phillips — 2018

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2018

Mr. Bennett — 2019

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2019

Mr. Bennett — 2019

Mr. Gardom — 2019

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2021

Mr. McGeer — 2022

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2024

Mr. Bennett — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2025

Mr. Chabot — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2025

Mr. Smith — 2025

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2026

Mr. Gibson — 2026

Mr. Bennett — 2027

SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, a Saturday morning sitting is an unprecedented thing. I would

like some advice from you with regard to the facilities of the library.

Six sections under our standing orders make specific reference to

the integral part of the Legislative Assembly which the library plays.

There is not a full complement of staff in the library and I find it

exceedingly difficult to get some of the information which is necessary

for me to debate the subject matter before the House at this time.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could investigate that problem

and probably recess until such time as we can get sufficient staff to

facilitate the Members of this House to research the necessary details

on this terribly important question of housing.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly look into the question of whether the library is open today.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I agree that it's open.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there someone in there?

MR. CHABOT: There's one member of staff, but it's not a full

complement and it's exceedingly difficult when you're not familiar with

a particular subject and you need help….(Laughter.)

It might be a laughing matter across the way, Mr. Speaker, but I

don't think it's a laughing matter. It's clearly spelled out in six

different sections of the standing orders how important the library is

to the Legislative Assembly. I hope that something will be done prior

to the debate which I assume we're going into in the very near future.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you returned all the books you have out on loan?

MR. CHABOT: As far as I know, yes. I have to go and get some more, and I need some help.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll certainly help you.

MR. CHABOT: Could you come right now, Mr. Speaker? There's on specific book I have difficulty finding. Will you declare a little recess?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think that both of us can go out together.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's what I'm asking for. Let's go.

MR. SPEAKER: In a minute.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING) FUND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is related

specifically to transportation in the Vancouver area and the energy

crisis, which will become more complex in the North American scene.

The energy crisis on petroleum products has at least served a useful

purpose in showing that the future needs of the greater Vancouver area

have to be met essentially by mass transportation and must be based on

something other than the individual automobile.

In our opinion, the solution lies in the development of an efficient

rapid transit system, not a third crossing of Burrard Inlet.

This Act therefore proposes to amend the purpose for which the $27

million fund may be used from that third crossing of Burrard Inlet to

the provision of a rapid transit facility in the province and

specifically in the lower mainland area.

Those of us who have had the wonderful opportunity of living in this

beautiful province, and specifically in the Vancouver area, can

understand the mistakes made by other large cities in ripping the

hearts out of those cities with super highways, freeways and concrete

ribbons that destroy any sense of neighbourhood or community that was

left in those cities.

It is a philosophical and direct commitment of this government to

ensure that our cities remain human, warm and understanding. We do not

see the need for our cities to serve the automobile; cities should

serve people, for that is what cities are all about. Therefore I

suggest to the House that this bill is a move away, as has been started

in some other Canadian cities, from serving the automobile and towards

developing a rapid transit system that meets the needs of people, not

cars.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

we intend to oppose this legislation. It will come as no surprise to

the Premier that this is our position because Members of this party,

including myself, spent many, many hours and days attempting to

convince the former government that it should live up to the obligation

which it

[ Page 1986 ]

undertook when it acquired the First Narrows

crossing and when it subsequently undertook the construction of the

Second Narrows crossing.

In January, 1955, when the government of the day saw fit to acquire

the urban transit crossing known as Lions Gate Bridge and to make it

part of the provincial highways system, the government stated that when

further traffic arterial routes across Burrard Inlet were required the

government would construct them.

The Premier of the day (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said that Lions Gate

Bridge was now part of the Queen's highway system, and a commitment was

made at that time not only to the people who lived on the North Shore

or to those who lived in Vancouver and had occasion to cross to the

North Shore, but as well to those people who required access to the

lower mainland from the Sun shine Coast, from Squamish and north from there, that they would be afforded the kind of access which the future would require.

As a consequence of that commitment, numerous studies were

undertaken into the means of providing new, alternative means of

relieving the growing traffic congestion on the Burrard Inlet

crossings. Over the intervening years, from the late 50s until 1967, in

excess of 40 separate schemes were considered. Finally in 1967 the

provincial government, through the Minister of Highways, convened a

series of meeting with the representatives of the municipalities on the

north and south shores of Burrard Inlet to consider the resolution of

the problem. Out of these meetings came further meetings with B.C.

Members of Parliament and provincial MLAs from the greater Vancouver

area….

The culmination of those meetings was the conclusion of an agreement

between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British

Columbia, under which specific examinations and inquiries would be

undertaken to provide, once and for all, a solution to the problem of

which we were all then so fully aware, and a problem which remains with

us today.

This particular legislation, whereby the government established a

$27 million fund to facilitate the construction of this crossing, was a

direct result of the agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and

the Premier of British Columbia. This legislation was introduced on the

floor of this House specifically in compliance with that agreement.

What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, is to default on the part of

British Columbia in that agreement.

For the federal government's part, following the meeting of minds

between Canada and British Columbia, it undertook extensive and costly

studies. Something in the neighbourhood of $5 million was expended by

the basic studies upon which engineering could continue. During the

course of those studies the entire community — the three municipalities

on the north side of the inlet, the City of Vancouver, indeed, all of

metropolitan Vancouver — was engaged and encouraged to be engaged in

the discussions surrounding the location of the crossing and the nature

of it.

The final recommendation was that there should be a tunnel under

Burrard Inlet. This tunnel would serve the needs of north-south

intermunicipal traffic for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, in spite of

the small but vocal opposition there was, in spite of all the emotion

that was displayed in the latter stages of these discussions, it is

clear to those who look carefully at the scheme that the central

provision in the tunnel was for public transit.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was insisted upon by the national government

that in the construction of the crossing, facilities for public transit

would be the primary motivation. It is true that there were also to be

facilities for the private passenger vehicle. But, Mr. Speaker, too

much emphasis has been placed upon those facilities for the private

passenger vehicle, and it was very convenient for the opponents of the

scheme to ignore the fact that facilities for the private passenger

vehicle were also facilities for commercial transport.

It was convenient to overlook the fact that as the metropolitan area

expands there is an ever-increasing need to expand our facilities in

order to ensure that the commercial life of that community can be

sustained. I agreed with many of the opponents, and I agree with what

the Premier has said here this morning, that in our search for ways to

diminish the demand we are currently making upon energy resources, and

in particular petroleum resources, our passion for the private

passenger vehicle must somehow itself be diminished. Our reliance upon

it must be less than it is today, and less than has been forecast for

the future.

I am a proponent of public transit. Mr. Speaker, I am a proponent of

public transit in the metropolitan area which will adequately serve the

needs of the metropolitan area. I recognize the need there is for an

east-west public transit corridor, and I would urge the Government of

British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and all the

municipalities within that region to concern themselves at the earliest

moment with the solution to that problem.

Mr. Speaker, while an east-west corridor is required, it must also

be recognized that a north-south corridor is required. The opportunity

that we have had with this bill, inadequate though these provincial

moneys may be, and the opportunity that was given to us with the

proposal of the national government, would have made an immediate start

upon the north-south corridor — not simply a corridor which links the

comparatively small North

[ Page 1987 ]

Shore communities with the City of Vancouver, but a

north-south corridor which would extend to the communities lying south

of the City of Vancouver such as the communities of Richmond and Delta,

themselves probably one of the most important developing areas in the

whole metropolitan region.

The move we are taking here today, in addition to breaching the

understanding between British Columbia and Canada, is denying us the

early opportunity to do something to establish the public transit

system of which the Premier speaks, and with which I agree.

If I may return momentarily to the matter of the facilities in the

proposed crossing available for vehicles other than public transit, may

I say that the provision of those facilities was an attempt to look

beyond the needs of the metropolitan community over the next few

decades, to look beyond to the north of this province and to recognize

the needs of the people who today live in those areas over the next

decade.

It is true there has perhaps been too much attention in the past

focused upon the lower mainland area, but nonetheless it is and will

remain that part of British Columbia to which commerce will turn. Our

highway system over the next two decades will extend north but will

still link the northern regions of this province with the lower

mainland, not only as access to the facilities which are here but

because it is the gateway to the south.

Therefore, the improvement of this harbour crossing with facilities

for other than public transit is and will become an essential, integral

part of the inter-regional traffic system of which the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) spoke during the course of his estimates over

the past two days.

When the present government undertook its decision to discard the

proposed tunnel crossing of the Burrard Inlet under the guise of doing

something for public transit, it made a blunder which will require

years of careful effort to overcome. The action upon which the

government appears to be set now, in the provision of a ferry link for

passengers only across the inlet, is a blunder which will take years to

overcome. It fails to recognize the way in which modern technology

indicates people should be moved; it fails to understand what the real

need is with respect to the crossing between the north and south shores

of Burrard Inlet. It fails to recognize the real importance of that

crossing not only to the metropolitan area but to the entire province.

It's not too late for the government to reconsider both the

direction it would go in this particular bill before us today but also

in the direction in which it intends to go with respect to alternative

facilities for the crossing of Burrard Inlet.

To suggest that the $27 million in this fund, by releasing those

moneys from the specific purpose for which the fund was established,

can in any way meet the obligation of this government, so far as public

transit is concerned, is unthinkable. Even by extending this $27

million for the specific purpose for which the fund was established,

namely the crossing of Burrard Inlet, there still rests upon the

Government of British Columbia the obligation to provide additional

millions, indeed hundreds of millions of dollars in order to realize

the public transit system which will in any way approach the goal which

the Premier enunciated in opening this debate, namely the goal which

the people in the metropolitan area out of their private vehicles and

in that way attempting to avoid the continuing congestion of our cities

and the continuing and expanding consumption of petroleum resources.

We cannot be blind to what is happening in other areas. We cannot be

blind to what has occurred in the City of San Francisco where, after a

decade and a half of planning and construction, they realized the goal

of mass, heavy rapid transit only to find themselves today in a

situation where that highly expensive system is almost in collapse. It

is a financial catastrophe and has not made any appreciable impact on

the public transit requirements of that metropolitan area. That is the

nature of the challenge that faces this government if, as the Premier

says, it is their aim in this bill to ensure that there are public

transit facilities serving the metropolitan area.

The government is making a mistake. The government is making a

mistake which it or some future government of this province will be

obliged to undo. It is missing an opportunity; indeed, Mr. Speaker, I

suspect that it has already discarded an opportunity to provide this

crossing of this harbour and with it to embark in a major way upon the

public transit solution which metropolitan Vancouver needs and to which

this government gives lip-service.

I would urge the Premier to adjourn this debate. I would urge him to

send his Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the head

of the transit bureau division of that department to the federal

government for the express purpose of bringing together the national

government and the Government of British Columbia in a positive effort

to have the earliest start made on the proposed and partly-engineered

Burrard Inlet crossing.

It may not be too late. There is no question that the months lost

since this government embarked upon the opposite course will have

increased the cost of the facility greatly. But that is why we must not

delay longer; it will never cost any less. After we spend the millions

of dollars that this government indicates it may spend in the provision

of a ferry service, the people of the Province of British Columbia and

the residents of the metropolitan area will still, within a decade,

face the same problem and be obliged to look for the same solution. By

that time

[ Page 1988 ]

not only will we have thrown away the moneys used

in the establishment of a ferry system but we will also bear the

increased cost of construction incurred through the lapse of 10 years.

It's not too late. I urge the government to take this step to

conclude the arrangements with the national government, to build the

third crossing, to utilize these funds for the purpose for which they

were set aside, at the same time to make its commitment clear to the

metropolitan area to extend this crossing throughout the balance of the

region, to complete the north-south axis of a public transit system and

to commit itself and its funds to construction of the necessary

east-west corridor or that public transit system.

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

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

one of the worst speeches I have heard him make — not because it's not

an articulate speech, which it is, but because he is inaccurate in

almost every particular. I'll briefly go through part of the history of

the third crossing debate which has been raging on in the City of

Vancouver. I feel it is my responsibility to do so as one of its

representatives. I had the good fortune to be part of the crusade that

prevented the third crossing from being built.

It wasn't a small, vocal opposition; it was a large, rational,

articulate opposition from the whole of the City of Vancouver,

representing people from every walk of life, from every class.

What were they saying? They were talking about the quality of life

in the City of Vancouver. They were people who had been to Toronto, to

San Francisco and to Los Angeles — particularly Los Angeles, one of our

sister cities on the Pacific coast. They could see the absolute

devastation and destruction of community life in those cities because

of a commitment on an indefinite basis to a freeway system, a

commitment of the city to the service of the automobile on an

indefinite basis and not to the service of its people.

I have seen the design of the third crossing mentioned by the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, all three large volumes of it. I

and some architect engineer friends who were on the committees set up

to prevent the building of this third crossing pored over those

documents for weeks. It was clear to anyone, even a lay person, that

that third crossing proposal was a total and complete and long-range

commitment to a freeway system that would cut and split the City of

Vancouver for the foreseeable future.

There has never been any question of that, and the engineers themselves have admitted it on several occasions.

When the Hon. Member suggests there was some sort of an agreement

between the federal and provincial government, let me suggest this. It

appeared to us at the time that Mr. Basford, who represented and does

represent the federal riding of Vancouver Centre, was urged by the

local Liberals (and they can correct me if I'm wrong) to push for this

third crossing. Mr. Bennett, the then Premier, was a reluctant bride

indeed.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You didn't know Mr. Bennett very well.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, he was seldom a reluctant bride.

The suggestion that public transit corridors were available in the

third crossing reveals a fairly substantial lack of knowledge on the

part of the Hon. Member. As an afterthought, the engineers suggested

the middle line of traffic of the third crossing could be reserved for

buses. This is what the Member suggests is a public transit system. I

say nonsense.

The design by the engineers considered a freeway system that would

cut right across the waterfront of the City of Vancouver, would rip

through the centre of the West End of Vancouver, putting a tunnel

through Thurlow Street, an open trench tunnel that would take as a year

and a half to two years to build, and disrupt completely the movement

of people and traffic within the West End district.

The City of Vancouver currently has decided to block the streets to

put in promenades, to put in the Granville Street Mall, to discourage

parking facilities in the City of Vancouver, not even thinking for a

moment that the concept of the third crossing will ever return.

The Hon. Member mentioned San Francisco and the BART (Bay Area Rapid

Transit) system. There are several things that must be said about San

Francisco in relation to Vancouver because they are in many respects

similar cities. The BART system in San Francisco did cost a great deal

of money and perhaps it was premature. But the public transit systems

in San Francisco make traffic congestion on the major downtown streets

of San Francisco much lighter by one-third compared to the traffic in

the City of Vancouver. One can see that clearly, and those are the

reports we get from San Francisco. The transit systems in San Francisco

are good; they are working. BART may have been costly but I say that

Vancouver doesn't need to make the same mistake. We can go to a bus

service, street-car service and local gridiron system of bus traffic

that will avoid the tremendous reliance on the private automobile.

Toronto. All over North America people are waking up to the fact

that we've made a mistake in North America by our heavy reliance on the

private automobile. What happened in Toronto when they

[ Page 1989 ]

stopped the Spadina Freeway? These were people from

all walks of life; not a small vocal opposition but the mass of the

community of the city who said no. They stopped that freeway hanging in

mid-air. We turned around and we're moving in a new direction.

The people of Vancouver are no different than the people of Toronto

in this respect. They wish to reclaim the city for people. There was a

time when you would look at a map of the City of Vancouver and see that

there were more parking lots and more service stations than there were

services for people. The trend is being reversed by a courageous group

of people in the City of Vancouver which is now the bulk of the people

in that city.

Public transit. The ferry system. The Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound suggests there were technical advances and we must

opt for these technical advances to move people and things. I say

that's nonsense; that's a tautological argument. The ferry system in

Sydney, Australia not only works well and carries hundreds of thousands

of people every week across their inlet, but it pays for itself.

Coronado in California, Mr. Speaker. All of these things pay for

themselves because they use them for tourist facilities on the weekends.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They built a bridge and the people wanted the ferries back.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Premier suggests in California, in

Coronado, they built a bridge and the people wanted the ferries back

because it's part of the quality of life. In Sydney it's part of the

quality of life. They move hundreds and thousands of people in a city

that is similar in size to Vancouver.

The promenades being built in the City of Vancouver and the ferry

system all add to the human dignity available to people who want to

live in large cities.

Finally, the commitment to a third crossing not only commits us to

the kind of freeway system that would destroy an extensive community in

the City of Vancouver but to say that $27 million would have been

sufficient even then in 1969, or before, to build that freeway system

and that third crossing is a fatal mistake. The engineers themselves

were suggesting figures of upwards of $500 million to complete the

whole network. They were saying that. I say the suggestion by the

Liberal Party is folly. We couldn't possibly opt for it; it would be a

negation of the way the people are thinking in the City of Vancouver.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Would Members always handle the microphones by

the rod and not by the microphone itself. They are very delicate

instruments and they cause noise on the tapes.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker.

I think there are two points of view relating to the debate that has

gone on now for quite a number of years concerning alternative

crossings of Burrard Inlet. Those points of view have been expressed by

the two previous participants in this debate. One has been the

traditional North Shore approach and the other has been the fear in the

City of Vancouver of being carved up and having another Los Angeles

created in that city.

In the last couple of years in the North Shore, a new, third kind of

perspective has begun to emerge. I think I was elected to this

Legislature largely because I spoke out on that issue, largely because

I argued as strongly as I possibly could against any further facilities

for automobiles in the lower mainland. That was a major debate in the

1972 election. I am not sure I would be sitting here in this House had

I taken another position, had I called for a bridge, a tunnel, a

freeway or whatever the proposals were. I am convinced another

candidate would have been elected.

The feeling on the North Shore has been changing. I can't speak for

West Vancouver, but my guess is that in the two ridings, Capilano and

Seymour, the population is probably split pretty evenly between the two

views: public transit only, and a combination of public transit and

automobile crossing.

I admit that. I know a great many members of our party in my riding

have argued with me and said that is is impossible for us not to build

another bridge. The two bridges now in operation are overloaded; they

are running beyond capacity. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Lions

Gate Bridge has too many automobiles on it, and at some times of the

day the Second Narrows Bridge has too many automobiles on it. That is a

problem we have to deal with, and those of us in different parties deal

with it in different ways.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) suggested a

concern that the City of Vancouver could go the way of Los Angeles. But

it is not just Los Angeles; even San Francisco and many of the other

cities in North America that have opted for partial rapid transit

solutions are carved by freeways.

I remember on my visits to San Francisco walking in some of those

streets along the Embarcadero area. Those areas, even with a fairly

good transit system, are carved up by freeways. The poverty and

alienation the freeways create in that city are impressive. I don't

think very many of us want to see that happen in Vancouver. I know that

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

doesn't want to see that happen in Vancouver.

I think the point he misses is that if we opt for any

[ Page 1990 ]

more automobile lanes across that inlet, they are

going to pour into Vancouver somewhere. Even though they may tunnel

under the West End, they emerge somewhere. It may be in False Creek or

it may be somewhere else. At that point we begin to carve up the city.

I don't think we want that sort of solution in the lower mainland area.

We have to take a good, hard look. I will be candid with you, Mr.

Speaker. I have sat down with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

and said, "You know, Graham, maybe we are going to have to build a

third crossing if we don't do something pretty quickly about the

traffic and commuter problems in North Vancouver." I said, "I don't

want to see a third crossing" because of the kind of dangers the Member

for Vancouver Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has talked about and the kind of

fears I have begun to express about carving up the City of Vancouver in

a very alienating way.

We have to do something very quickly and I think we have begun to do

that. I think the first step in our programme to do something is the

introduction of this legislation. And I will be very pleased when it

passes. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has

been quite active. He has been meeting with the city councils in

various parts of the lower mainland for quite a long time now,

discussing what kind of alternative transit facilities we can have in

the lower mainland. I know members of his department met with the City

of North Vancouver as long ago as last fall to discuss the alternative

transit and commuter services across the Burrard Inlet and within the

region of North Vancouver.

I have some ideas about solutions to the problem. They don't include

another freeway link of any kind; they don't include any more lanes

across that inlet for vehicles. We have enough lanes across that inlet

if we organize ourselves properly, if we remove from those bridges the

commuter traffic, if we remove from those bridges the rush-hour

traffic. Why we don't begin to talk about staggering work hours so that

we don't have everybody going to work between 7 and 9 o'clock, I don't

understand.

That is the kind of solution; not the $500 million to build the kind

of facility the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) wants. I don't want to impose that kind of burden on

taxpayers. I would much rather have some of them going to work at 6 in

the morning, some at 7, and some at 10 or 11 in the morning. That is

one solution.

In terms of the transit facilities themselves, there are a variety

of solutions. I want to be a wee bit parochial and talk about the North

Shore, even though I appreciate that the transit problems are much

broader and much wider than that.

We have in the east portion of my riding, east of the Seymour River,

which for those Members who don't know the area too well is roughly

east of the Second Narrows Bridge, an area of only 13,000 people in

8,000 or 9,000 acres. It's a very large area, very thinly populated,

and an area that is going to be very thickly populated in the not too

distant future. We had no public transit in that area. We had one bus

operated by a private person which didn't provide very good service

and, as a result, didn't carry very many passengers.

Last October, the Municipal Affairs department introduced public

transit from B.C. Hydro into that area. I remember saying to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, "I hope you are prepared to run those

buses empty for a year or two because I'm convinced that people's

patterns of commuting are difficult to change. I am persuaded they have

all had to buy that second car. They are used to going to work by

vehicle and the remaining members of the family have that second car to

use. They are not going to use that public transit. I hope," I said to

the Minister, "you are prepared to let those buses run empty because

they are going to run empty for a long time. It has to go in so that

the future population in that area will know they don't have to buy

that second car and, in some cases, even the first car for a lot of

people."

A very surprising thing happened. Those buses went in in October and

many of them are running overfull already. There is a Fastbus service.

They are running from Deep Cove into the Second Narrows Bridge

exchange; they are running every 15 minutes during rush hour; and there

is standing room only. I cannot believe it. That is an eloquent

demonstration of the public acceptance of public transportation when it

is provided on a decent and speedy basis. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs deserves all the credit I can possibly give him for this.

That kind of service has to be extended in the North Shore and f

know it is going to be extended. But there are other approaches as

well. The proposed ferries from the Lonsdale area to the south shore on

the north side of Vancouver wherever that may be — Granville or

whatever part of the City of Vancouver is chosen — is just one part of

what has to be an integral transit system.

I hope that when the ferries are operational — and I hope that is

very soon — the buses being ordered from various builders across the

country will be used to funnel into those two depots. I am absolutely

persuaded that we are not going to be able to provide enough buses or,

enough facilities for the numbers of people who will be prepared and

happy to use that kind of facility so they don't have to use their cars

which are becoming more and more expensive to use. I am absolutely

persuaded that people just can't wait for the facility we are prepared

to introduce.

Buses and the ferry link is one part. But there is

[ Page 1991 ]

another part of it, and that is the use of rail trackage. For some reason,

in the City of Vancouver and other places we've not used the rail trackage we

have. In the North Shore we have rail trackage from Horseshoe Bay to the Second

Narrows Bridge. At the Second Narrows Bridge we have a crossing. We have a third

crossing already; we just don't use it: the CN bridge just east of the Second

Narrows Bridge. That links up with Horseshoe Bay; it links up with all of the

commuter traffic through West Vancouver. That can link up with the ferry terminal

and keep going east to link up with the CP tracks in North Burnaby. You then

have the beginning of a major light rapid transit system.

We have to go on that course as quickly as we can so we can turn

around this deadly direction of the automobile. Then, Mr. Speaker, I

think that that will not be enough. I think that we have to move from

that one day — probably a decade away, but events may speed that up — to a rapid transit tunnel, the fourth crossing of Burrard Inlet. The

locations it will go to and from is a matter that I think will have to

be determined in some years to come, but that too becomes part of our

commuter transit solution.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of other points. One relates to

empty cars going across those bridges. I drive across the Second

Narrows Bridge and I have to wait. I do not particularly mind that. I

prefer that to having the kind of taxes imposed on the citizens that

there would be needed to just to get my automobile across, so I'm

prepared to wait the five or 10 minutes. But when I am trying to catch

the ferry over to Vancouver Island I cannot take a bus. One of these

days, Mr. Member, I hope I can take a bus from Deep Cove to Tsawwassen.

If we are given the opportunity, I am convinced that I will be

travelling from Deep Cove to Tsawwassen by rapid transit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Member for West Vancouver

(Mr. L.A. Williams), unlike a lot of proponents, including myself, at

least does use public transit far more than most people who talk about

it. I am one of those who do not use public transit very much. I am in

the same bag as Art Phillips is to a certain extent. I talk about it

and don't do it very much.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Typical socialist.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I started to say a moment or two ago before I got waylaid….

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I am just going to listen to this exchange, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to continue.

I started to say that one of the problems at the moment with the

line-ups is that most of the automobiles going across the bridges do

contain only one passenger — the driver. I do not know if we want to

get into that bag but I think we should seriously consider imposing a

reverse kind of toll on those bridges. Perhaps we should say that cars

with three or more passengers in them go free, cars with two passengers

pay a certain amount and cars with only a driver pay a greater amount.

Perhaps this is a solution to the problem, Mr. Speaker, because I think

people would double up if they were given that kind of a deterrent.

I'm not absolutely persuaded that that's worthwhile in the long

term. I've been one of those who has said that public transit should be

free and, by that, I mean right across the board — from highways right

through to buses. But perhaps there is an interim solution that might

be something that needs to be considered, although I think it needs a

great deal more debate. That's one thing we should be looking at.

The other final point I wanted to deal with is the inter-regional

traffic argument that is put forward by the mayors on the North Shore

and the Members of the Liberal Party in their attempts to provide more

lanes for their vehicles. They argue that if we are going to have

additional routes into the Interior those additional routes are going

to have to come through the North Shore. They will have to come down

through Howe Sound or, as the Member for West Vancouver said the other

day, through Indian Arm. Over my dead body, Mr. Member.

If we are going to have another highway link to the Interior I do

not believe that that highway link should come through a recreational

area such as the Howe Sound region. One of the reasons I was against

any proposal to put a coal port into the Howe Sound region was because

I felt that the Howe Sound area should be maintained for recreational

purposes. For the same reason I am opposed to putting a four-lane road

through there. If we are going to develop the road from Pemberton to

Lillooet of any of those possibilities north of Pemberton, that means a

four-lane road from Squamish south. It probably means a four-lane road

from Whistler Mountain south. I do not think that is either desirable

or practical; nor can we afford it, knowing what kind of terrain we

have got in there.

The other alternative that the Member for West Vancouver suggested

is to bring the road through Indian Arm. That is an even more beautiful

area, Mr. Member, and I am not prepared to see a highway rip that part

away.

If we do, in fact, have to have this alternative link to the

Interior I suggest that there are areas further east of the Fraser

Valley, north of the Haney-Mission area where the road should go. The

traffic can then funnel into either side of the Fraser River at that

[ Page 1992 ]

point. I may have some arguments from the Member from Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) about that, but that is my personal view.

I don't believe we would be very smart, Mr. Speaker, to pump more

cars into the North Shore, either from the north or from the east, as

some people have talked about, by putting a causeway across from

Belcarra to Deep Cove, bringing traffic in from Port Moody, Mission,

Haney, et cetera, and bringing it in to the North Shore so you can get

it into Vancouver as an alternative route. That suggestion has been

made seriously by people — Warren Kennedy is one, and many others. I do

not believe that that is a very smart transit solution for moving

people in the lower mainland.

I reject totally the argument put forward by many people in North

Vancouver and West Vancouver that we are going to have to expand our

inter-regional traffic and that that traffic has to funnel through the

North Shore. I do not believe that and I don't want that. If that does

not happen, Mr. Speaker, and if we do the other things that I talked

about this morning, I do not believe we need another crossing for

automobiles. I am going to support this bill very enthusiastically.

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

Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill. I am very

pleased that the money that is being released in this bill will be

transferred over for the use of the public transit and the facilities

dealing basically with the North Shore.

The Vancouver district is in a unique position in that probably it

is one of the very few cities in North America that still has an option

as to which way it is going to go in regard to the movement of people.

The options are there. They can go to a freeway system or they can go

into a multi-type transit system.

The freeway system approach is no cheaper, I suggest, than the

other. It's much more expensive in its facilities alone, but in

addition to the cost of this there are, of course, the very severe

costs of the increased construction of streets and the increased costs

of parking automobiles, and so on and so on. So if we are looking at a

cost figure I suggest that the transit solution is a much cheaper

solution and also a much cheaper solution as it affects the environment

and the cities themselves and the neighbourhoods.

I want to speak for a few moments about the proposal for the ferry

system across Burrard Inlet. I am hopeful that it can get off the

drawing boards into operation as soon as possible. The vehicles we hope

to have will be able to hold 350 to 400 passengers. They will be loaded

from the side so there will be a rapid loading and unloading movement

of the people that are using the transit system. It is hoped that the

operation will be controlled from both ends of the ferries so that

there will be no turning-around movement at each end of the run.

It is anticipated that over 1,500 people per hour going one way can

use this facility in the initial stages. When the need arises this can

be increased.

The travel time, we are told, can be as low as six minutes if the

pond is calm, but we are suggesting that 10 minutes probably will be

the average time for crossing the inlet. Add another five minutes to

that for loading and unloading aspects of the operation and there

should be a 15-minute service going each way.

The other problems involved will be some parking areas for

automobiles at the ferry slip. We are hopeful that most people will use

the bus services to the ferry system at the North Shore and that the

amount of parking required at the ferry slip will be somewhat reduced.

The other areas involved, of course, are the areas south of

Vancouver, where we have a great problem in moving people in a transit

system. There is a population of probably one-third of a million people

that have no bus service at all and are unable or find it very

difficult to get into the City of Vancouver unless they have two cars

or something of that sort.

So these are other problems that have to be attended to, but I am

very pleased to see it moving along. I agree it is not near enough to

look after our transit problems. There is more to come and I am assured

by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) that we have lots more

money.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I am

glad the government called bills this morning, because the Premier was

on the radio saying the reason for this session was because the

opposition was obstructing estimates. I was hoping he was going to

recognize that this particular bill was a mistake. Well, just leave it

sitting there on the order paper because, Mr. Speaker, the North Shore

has had a generation of threats and promises and blackmail and betrayal

on the question of a crossing of the inlet and today is just another

milestone in that — just another milestone that's not going to hold

back the way the world's going to end up. It's just going to make

things a little bit worse for a little while longer.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that this government is showing itself

against the people of the North Shore. Again, this is a declaration of

war on the North Shore, Mr. Speaker. This government's written off the

North Shore.

That Member over there for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

who came out against this crossing won't be back. He spoke about why he

was elected, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't understand why he was elected. He

was elected because Derril Warren split the vote — that's the only

reason he was elected.

[ Page 1993 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: This is music to his ears.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have more recent electoral

evidence than the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Every single

candidate in that by-election supported a third crossing and three of

the four candidates supported a third crossing with automobile

facilities. Those candidates between them garnered 83 per cent of the

vote. I think that that's a fairly substantial vote of confidence in

the third crossing from the very central riding in the North Shore.

That was the number one issue, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

That was the number one local issue in that campaign.

The other issue, of course, was the performance of this government

that's driving this province into the ground. That was the other issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) intervened in this debate this morning and I

hope, Mr. Speaker, he understands more about his department than he

does about transportation in the lower mainland. If he doesn't, the

growth of secondary industry in this province is going to be even

slower in the future than it has been in the past.

He's talking about freeways, Mr. Speaker. There are no freeways in

the third crossing suggestion, Mr. Minister. You should know that. You

pored over the plans — you said so yourself. That waterfront

distributor was pulled out of the plans long ago. The Drake cut isn't a

necessary part of the plan and the Thurlow tunnel, as you should know

better than anyone else, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, would

take 70,000 cars a day off that part of the city that you represent,

and it would stop people from filtering through all those streets in

the part of the city that you represent and causing the terrible

traffic congestion there. You should be in favour of that Thurlow

tunnel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They'll park the cars in the courthouse, will they?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier asks where they would park the cars.

It indicates how little the Premier understands about the

transportation problems of downtown Vancouver. Of all the cars that

cross the inlet at the moment, only half of them are destined to

downtown Vancouver, Mr. Premier. The problem is that at the moment

those cars have to go through downtown Vancouver because your

government isn't ready to provide any way of going around or under

downtown Vancouver and that's exactly what the third crossing proposal

would do.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's a good bridge, Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Speaker, and the people from there that are destined to Richmond or

that are destined to the University of British Columbia filter through

the streets of Vancouver.

That's by way of introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, because it's

essential to try and discuss this problem in some depth. The Members

from the opposition side have been saying that they're against the

third crossing with automobile facilities because they're for public

transit. Those two questions have nothing to do with each other, Mr.

Speaker. You don't need to be against something just because you're for

something else. We're for public transit. I believe, and this party

believes, that the way to get commuters across Burrard Inlet is public

transit. There's no question about that, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) for what he's done

on the bus system for the North Shore so far. I hope that he'll do more

and quickly and I think that's his earnest intention, as quickly as he

can get buses.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says everything they're doing is

wrong, Mr. Speaker. I don't say everything they're doing is wrong. When

you're spending $2.5 billion a year, Mr. Speaker, you've got to do a

little bit right. It's almost accidental but it happens. So the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has done something right there and I

congratulate him for it.

Public transit is the answer for the North Shore. Public transit

across the Burrard Inlet was a very important part of the $4 million

study that was paid for by the federal government about a third

crossing. On the very first page of the

summary and recommendations of

that report, it says:

"In accordance with the terms of reference, a special

study was made of the desirability of providing a corridor for future

rapid transit on the Burrard Inlet crossing.

"The study concluded that a rapid transit system on

the Brockton alignment would generate a higher percentage of transit

patronage than would a transit crossing on any other alignment..."

I would just mention that to the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour who wondered where it might start and where it might

end. The study found that those would be the best places.

"...and that provision of such a corridor in conjunction with highway facilities on the crossing was economically advantageous."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that through Stanley Park?

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

[ Page 1994 ]

Speaker, that's not through Stanley Park. I

thought, Mr. Minister, that you had studied these plans and pored over

them for days. That's what you told the House. That's not through

Stanley Park, Mr. Minister. You don't understand the plan. It's a

tunnel. It goes right under the water. That's difficult to see. Of

course, it comes up. It doesn't come up in Stanley Park; it comes up to

the east of Stanley Park.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair; it keeps me awake.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report goes on to say:

"The crossing is therefore designed to accept a future

two tracks of light-weight, medium capacity rail rapid transit, and as

an interim measure the transit corridor will be available for express

bus operation."

In other words, the thinking of the third crossing all along has

been thinking related to transit, which has to be the solution for

getting commuters across the inlet. Those who would oppose the third

crossing by saying they're for rapid transit are just laying down a

smokescreen, Mr. Speaker — just finding ways to excuse their deplorable

lack of attention to the North Shore.

This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't understand

production; it doesn't understand hard work. All it understands is

consumption and spending for its friends. I want to tell the

government, Mr. Speaker, that people on the North Shore are hard

workers and producers. Just because they don't vote for this government

doesn't mean this government should ignore them or penalize them.

Now, going on with rapid transit, the terms of reference explicitly

required the consultants to "examine methods by which provision could

be made to accommodate any future rapid transit system crossing Burrard

Inlet."

So now we've got a $4 million study here, Mr. Speaker, and I think

it's a pretty fair study. It goes into some detail on rapid transit:

"The economic merits of making provision for such a

system" — that's a rapid transit system — "as an integral part of the

crossing as opposed to future independent provision for rapid transit

crossing across the inlet was then examined closely. It was estimated

that such provision on the Brockton crossing, in addition to the six

highway lanes, adds some $15 million to the cost of the crossing,

compared with the approximate $75 million which would be required for a

totally separate transit crossing on the same alignment."

Let's look at those cost figures for a moment, Mr. Speaker — $75

million to build a tunnel for a transit crossing alone and about $123

million to build a tunnel for a transit crossing plus six lanes of

traffic, with the connectors on the end additional and the Thurlow

tunnel being something justified in its own right.

Now, what's the reason that there's a difference of only $48 million

between the transit tunnel alone and the extra six lanes of automobile

traffic? The thing is, I'm told by engineers, that when you're building

those caissons and all of the prefabrication needed to lower the tunnel

sections to the bottom of the Inlet, it costs very little extra to

build them a good deal larger. That's the reason why building a transit

tunnel alone costs around 60 per cent — maybe a little bit more — of

the amount required to build transit-plus-automobile lanes.

So as long as you're building one, Mr. Speaker, you get quite a

bargain if you build the other. And if you wait and try to build the

other separately, if you try to build either one of them separately — either the automobile lanes or the transit lanes — you pay a very high

penalty for that indecisiveness, or, in this case, for that commitment

to a particular doctrine and dogma of being against the automobile.

That's the kind of cost that this government is planning to force on

to us by going the route of a rapid-transit tunnel only. I don't think

that in the long run they are going to do that; I think reason is going

to prevail. I'm trying to give some of those reasons and sound the

alarm.

I've dealt with cost here. I'd like to give some of the arguments

for including an automobile provision in that crossing — some of the

positive arguments — in addition to the argument that it could be done

reasonably cheaply at the same time you build that transit tunnel.

There are a lot of very positive arguments.

The first is that the worst congestion crossing that inlet, Mr.

Speaker, is no longer caused by the commuter. The worst congestion is

caused on the weekend. That is because ordinary people from all over

the lower mainland are going back and forth from Vancouver to the North

Shore and vice versa. They are on all kinds of errands; some are

working, but not too many on the weekends; most are visiting relatives

or shopping or out sightseeing or headed up to the recreational areas

of British Columbia which are now increasingly accessible through the

North Shore.

If you want to get to the Sunshine Coast area, the Nanaimo area, the

Whistler area, the Cypress Bowl area, you have to go through the North

Shore. That means you have to go over one of those bridges — generally

the Lions Gate Bridge, which is the most congested on weekends.

Of course a four-day work week, that we can see on the horizon in

the next decade, is being experimented with by many companies now. It's

seven-day here, according to this government. But a

[ Page 1995 ]

four-day work week for many of the people of

British Columbia is just going to further aggravate this problem of

weekend congestion. That's not going to be cured by transit, Mr.

Speaker, either rapid transit or slow transit.

The third crossing has a second advantage, in addition to resolving

that problem of weekend recreational congestion for the ordinary person

around Vancouver. The third crossing would decongest Vancouver's

downtown, and that's what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) just didn't understand when he was making

his remarks.

It decongests downtown Vancouver by arranging that that 50 per cent

of the vehicles that cross Burrard Inlet, bound for areas other than

the central business district of downtown Vancouver, could take the

third crossing across Burrard Inlet and then continue right underneath

the city in a tunnel aligned under Thurlow, never touching the city

streets at all, and exiting onto the bridges across False Creek — those

being, of course, the Granville Bridge and the Burrard Bridge.

By 1985, according to the study, during the peak hour the bypass

would relieve the grade crossing streets of the city of over 5,000

vehicles, which would be using the third crossing during the peak hour,

and over another 2,000 vehicles of different kinds destined to the

central business district from other parts of the city.

There is a relief to the city street system of 7,200 vehicles in the

peak hour alone equivalent to the provision of 12 additional city

street lanes for surface distribution within the downtown peninsula.

That is an enormous benefit of the proposed third crossing, which

obviously isn't understood by Members on the other side of the House — a tremendous benefit to downtown Vancouver.

That's why I made a plea a couple of days ago to the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), who has to be concerned with these things even

if some of his more woolly-headed, theoretical colleagues aren't. He

has to be concerned with actually moving people around. I make the same

plea to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) because he

has to have the same practical concerns — and that's to do something

that costs not a penny: that is, to make strong representations to the

City of Vancouver and to say, "Please protect the Thurlow Street

alignment for a tunnel."

I don't ask the government to make a commitment to that tunnel right

now. I just ask them to ask the city not to foreclose the possibility

of that connector route to a third crossing in the future, or else make

it far more costly when it eventually is built. I make that earnest

plea to the Minister.

The population of the North Shore is growing rapidly. It's estimated

at around 140,000 now, and within 10 or 12 years it could well be up to

the 200,000 mark. There is a rule of thumb that one can use for

peak-hour commuter trips between the North Shore and Vancouver — across

the inlet, in other words. It is the 10 per cent of the population rule

of thumb for peak hours. It's about 14,000 person-trips at peak hours

now and we can assume it will go up to around 20,000 in the next 10 or

12 years, using that 10 per cent rule of thumb.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs expands the transit system, as

he is proposing to do, that is something that we might just be able to

handle by using every conceivable effort.

The ferry system that he has described I very much welcome; I think

it's a very positive step and I commend him for it. That ferry system

will take about 1,500 people at peak hour across Burrard Inlet.

I suggest to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that by the end of the next

decade that ferry system will have been at least doubled from those

plans and perhaps redoubled. I think it's going to be a very valuable

facility.

Let's say he doubles it; then that will handle 3,000 of the

increase. Then if he's able to double the number of buses crossing the

inlet in that time, that will handle a lot more of the commuter traffic

increase. But what he's not handling with that kind of a scheme, Mr.

Speaker, and which he can't handle — because it's not the

responsibility, really, of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to handle

inter-regional traffic; that's the Minister of Highways, or at least he

has to work with the Minister of Highways on that — is the enormous

growth in traffic of people destined to places that won't be served by

rapid transit.

Again using that 10 per cent rule, if we say that there will be an

increase of 6,000 and if we take the fact that only 50 per cent of the

traffic crossing the inlet now is traffic destined to the downtown

business district and therefore amenable to solution by rapid transit,

that's going to mean another 3,000 vehicles on the road just with that

growth — maybe 2,500, taking the standard figure of the number of

persons per car.

The system just won't handle that. The existing system just won't

handle that, and there is nothing that rapid transit or bus transit or

the ferry or anything can do to solve that particular problem, because

that is people who are headed for areas that won't be effectively

serviced by a transit system.

That's the reason we have to have a third crossing facility

incorporating the automobile. That's the reason, when you add to it the

inter-regional traffic growth that I discussed in the estimates of the

Minister of Highways the other day, currently around 10 per cent of the

crossing of that inlet and absolutely certain to boom to more than

double in the next decade, Mr. Speaker — let's say the next 15 years.

[ Page 1996 ]

I'll stand here and estimate that 15 years from now that

inter-regional traffic across that inlet will at least have quadrupled.

That may be a conservative estimate. I suspect that it is because

that's about 10 per cent per year, and the population of those areas is

growing faster than 10 per cent a year when you look at theSun shine

Coast and when you look at the Pemberton Valley and when you look at

Vancouver Island and the feeding over to there through the Horseshoe

Bay terminal. So all the growth factors are there.

Instead of around 10,000 crossings on a peak summer day — and I'm

including here the traffic which will be diverted from the route to the

Interior through Hope, assuming that much of it will go through the

Pemberton Valley — if all of that quadruples, it will be up to 40,000

crossings on a peak day. That again is going to put an unbelievable

strain on the system.

So when we add the strictly Greater Vancouver Regional District

traffic to the inter-regional traffic 15 years from now, with forecasts

that are not unreasonable (I think if anything they are moderate

forecasts), you have already reached the stage where a third crossing

with rapid transit and with six lanes of vehicle access is more than

justified 10 to 15 years from now.

Even if a third crossing were decided on today, which looks

unlikely, it would take many years to build. There is a good study in

existence but much more detailed information would have to be done;

public hearings would have to be held. Then the actual design,

construction and calling tenders would have to proceed. That's all a

minimum of 10 years, I would say, especially given the delay that is

inevitably going to be built into any such decision given the

philosophy of this government.

It's not too early to be hammering at this subject and to be saying

to the government that their theories are just fine but they've got a

responsibility to the future as well as to this year. I know they're

thinking mostly in the present, but they've got a responsibility to the

future. It's not too early to start telling them about it.

It's kind of sad to see the approach this government is taking. It's

a very arrogant approach; it's an approach that says "I know best for

you." They don't say, "Here's hundreds of thousands of people who have

a problem. How can we help them with that problem?" The approach they

take is, "We solve that problem by you people changing your lifestyles.

In other words, we don't like the way you people of British Columbia

get around this province. Get out of your cars; get into the kind of

transportation we say you should have."

I believe public transit is the answer for most of the commuter

problem across Burrard Inlet. But there is a substantial number of

people who disagree with that and who are prepared to pay the price for

disagreeing with that. There's another level of government which has

been willing to put up the money for that.

I wonder if the government might not rethink this a little bit as to

the crossing fund, as to the $27 million. It's a piece of accounting, a

piece of bookkeeping. It's the philosophy behind it that's more

important. If the Premier will stand up and say that that $27 million

he's going to earmark for transit will be earmarked to transit by the

North Shore, that would be a step forward and a good thing. It wouldn't

really make any difference because it's all bookkeeping anyway.

What the government has to understand is three things. The first

thing is that there is a requirement within the next 15 years for a

third crossing in that inlet incorporating both rapid transit and

automobile lanes.

The second thing is that if it tries to build those facilities

separately or if it plans to build only one facility now, the taxpayers

of the future will be paying an enormous premium for duplicating that

tunnel-building effort when the other one is inevitably built. As I

said earlier, it would cost $75 million to built the transit tunnel

alone. For the addition of another $48 or $50 million (1971 prices),

you could have both. It's irresponsible to consider building them

separately.

Thirdly, assuming this is a toll-financed structure with the federal

government money used for it, the report which I read, you may recall,

noted that if you look at it another way the incremental cost of adding

the transit lanes would be only $15 million. I think one could make an

agreement that all that would have to be charged to the transit side of

it.

So what would this mean? It would mean motorists would be

subsidizing the transit riders because it would be the motorists who

would be paying for that tunnel. I think that's right and proper; I

don't think that's an undue encouragement of the transit option. I

think that would be a right and proper resolution.

I will conclude by saying this: growth is happening in British

Columbia. The government has yet to say what it thinks about it,

whether it's going to do anything to decentralize the growth. The

greater Vancouver area is continuing to grow by around 3.5 per cent a

year and that brings in its trail all kinds of problems, one of which

is a transportation problem.

The housing estimates which we thought we had been brought back here to discuss today….

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Because we thought there was some consistency in

the government, Mr. Member. The government said we were obstructing the

estimates;

[ Page 1997 ]

that's why we thought we were coming back here — to discuss the housing estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: The day is not over yet.

MR. GIBSON: They give rise to a lot of concern about where

housing should be located. One of the great hopes of the Housing

Minister — because he has been talking that way — would be to solve a

little bit of his problem by building new houses on the North Shore.

You can't have housing without transportation. Every report of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District which looks at the North Shore, and

particularly at the eastern half of the riding of the Hon. Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), puts in that caveat: "How can

you have more housing here in these thousands of acres until something

effective is done about the transportation problem to the North Shore?"

As I said earlier, transit will solve only half of that; but you

can't just build half a house in each place. You just can't build

houses and say only people who are going to ride transit are going to

be able to live in these houses. You have to make some provision for a

balanced transportation package before the housing potential of the

North Shore can be realized. Surely that is the kind of thing which

should sink into this government.

I make this representation, this plea to the government: take the

$27 million and do your bookkeeping. Don't violate a commitment to the

people of the North Shore. Keep that money for the North Shore

dedicated to North Shore transit and then be prepared to add a great

deal more to it. Be prepared to have open minds rather than dogmatic

ideas about how people ought to live in saying they ought to live the

way you think they ought to live. Be prepared to have open minds about

that.

Be prepared to go to the national government and say, "Irrespective

of the way things have developed in the meantime and the statements

we've made, we hope that commitment for financing of the crossing is

still open. We'd like to work with you on that."

Give some recognition to the hard-working, taxpaying, productive

people of the North Shore who don't ask much out of this or any other

government but who have a need here for which a solution has been too

long denied.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Having come from just a

little bit south and east of the Member opposite who just spoke, I feel

it's important to put this whole question into perspective as far as

we're concerned.

For so many years we have heard of the difficulty that confronts the people

in West and North Vancouver in obtaining access to the City of Vancouver. I

would suggest that you come with me on a trip just from New Westminster to the

City of Vancouver, with all of those alternative access routes, and it is a

worse trip, I suggest. Then to go across the bridges to Surrey, it becomes infinitely

worse. Mr. Speaker, that Member hasn't driven those roads, certainly not at

rush hour, and if he has, it has been with his chauffeur and he has been asleep.

(Laughter.) That trip to Vancouver is indicative of things to come that are

going to get worse.

The arteries are plugged up now, and what is the alternative? More

arteries? More parking lots? Somehow or another, we are going to have

to ask people to share. The energy crisis, as the Member for Vancouver

Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) who spoke so ably a while ago, has really drawn

our attention to a better perspective, and that perspective is for

three reasons: (1) for congestion, and (2) for costs, and (3) for

energy conservation, we must share, and sharing can only mean one thing

— it can only mean public transit.

What will North and West Vancouver achieve as a result of this bill?

They will achieve an approach to public transit. They will achieve

something that we all want — we in New Westminster, those in Surrey,

and those in North and West Vancouver. I don't think there is very much

point in being romantic about the ferry system, but I suggest to you

that the ferry system will be a boon to British Columbia. Our harbour

is absolutely beautiful, has always been a tourist attraction, and with

an adequate ferry system it will become that much more attractive.

I recognize why ferry systems have broken down. It's because they

haven't had the connecting links with transit. They haven't had the

opportunity to afford parking and that type of thing. But the ferry

system can work, and it must work. The same thing with the whole

transit system, because we can no longer increase the numbers of cars,

because there just isn't the land available to build the roads, to

build the parking lots and all of the other back-up services that are

required for the traditional kind of transit that we have enjoyed.

I know that I am like the rest of us. I feel that it is great to

have transit, so that there will be more room for me and my car on the

road. But we are going to have to get rid of that attitude. That

attitude has to be only reserved for those people who have real need f

or their car in the process of their work during the course of the day.

The rest of us are somehow or another going to have to condition

ourselves and our families to move in a cooperative way with our

neighbours and our friends.

The traditional approach — and this hasn't only been in British

Columbia; it is the traditional approach across Canada and the United

States — has been to increase the price of transit and reduce the

service. The CPR has been doing it for years on a

[ Page 1998 ]

transcontinental basis. The old BC Electric and its

successor has done it. Transit companies across the country have

reduced service and increased price and put themselves in a position

where they were completely opting right out.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this government has gone the route of

saying, "We must completely change the approach, and that approach has

to be transit." We want people to get the idea that it is going to be a

better quality of life. What kind of a quality of life do we enjoy

sitting in our car, breathing everybody else's fumes? If you made

another two bridges across the harbour, you would need more unless we

completely change our approach. I suggest to you that this approach is

the right one, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) for this bill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I think the

real problem to transit is one really of money and not discussing each

individual facility. It is one of sharing between levels of government.

The bill we had, and the agreement we had before on the Burrard Inlet

Crossing Fund was an example of agreements between governments.

We have an example in the United States where the federal government

— Congress — has allocated $4 billion to solving transit in the United

States, in sharing with the cities and the municipalities. I think we

had an earlier commitment from Ottawa here in B.C. I would like to see

that commitment expanded into a policy by the federal government for

sharing with provinces and with cities directly. If we are going to

solve transit problems, they involve more than one jurisdiction. They

involve federal, provincial, municipal and even inter-municipal, and

the aspect of regional governments.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of funding and cooperation. I would hate to

see a commitment to one particular area, a commitment made through

negotiation by levels of government, removed and taken away under the

guise of putting money for transit, because really this is one of the

problems of transit. Certainly we should be putting money into a

transit fund.

Everybody in this House agrees. The province agrees, and

particularly in the metropolitan area of Vancouver, that we have to

have rapid transit, some sort of transit system. And yes, we don't want

one person to a car. This was a commitment that was made, and made to

meet a problem. It is no good standing up, as the Hon. Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and trying to play one area against the other.

You mentioned that the money would better be spent travelling from New

Westminster into Vancouver, or one area into another. How does that

rationalize the fact they both have problems? The big thing that New

Westminster has is that you have an option how you drive into

Vancouver. There are many different roads,

whereas from the North Shore

they only have two options, and they are bridges. The thing they are

talking about is they need a third option. That option will encompass

not only vehicular traffic, but rapid transit as well.

All of the studies that have taken place over the years have talked

about encompassing all levels of transportation together in one

facility. I believe that it is not enough. As the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said, you are not going, by legislation

or restricting facilities, to tell people how they are going to travel.

Some people want to move by car. It is not just for the existing people

of the North Shore that you are talking about this facility. You are

talking about a facility. You are talking about a facility that has to

be planned, that will take time to construct, for the major population

development on that North Shore. With the restriction of the farmland

in the Fraser Valley for housing, the only large area available for

housing, and for any housing development of any degree, is on the North

Shore up in the mountains, out of the agricultural zone, under the

recommendations made by the Land Commission.

Recognizing that we are going to have a major population growth in

that area, we have to look at more than just a rapid transit facility

to solve that problem. We have to look at a facility that will meet the

realities of the situation. That is not to say that one system isn't

better than the other, because the ferry system is an idea. That ferry

system isn't new, and types of ferry systems have been studied to go

across to the North Shore for years, and the last study before

presumably the one this one was based on was done in 1972. It gave

options of types of ferry travel. One of them that is very intriguing

is one that works by a track, that would be pollution free, would not

have any problem with the energy crisis as to fossil fuels, and would

work with a cable driven by electric motors.

I think we can recognize that we can move people. But remember this:

people have to have parking lots also, when they come to ferry

terminals, if we have traffic going both ways, both from downtown

Vancouver and from the North Shore. Anyone who says the traffic only

emanates from one side is not realistic, because on weekends when the

people are driving over to the recreational areas on the North Shore,

most of the traffic emanates from the Vancouver side. Both sides of the

inlet take advantage of the crossing.

If they are using ferries, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have to

have parking lots to park their car when they drive to the ferry. You

are not going to eliminate the need for parking lots with any sort of

transit system. There have to be parking lots adjacent to the transit

system where they can get on and off. On a ferry system, those parking

lots will be right

[ Page 1999 ]

downtown because that's where the ferry system has

to stop and start. It emanates right from downtown Vancouver running to

the North Shore.

We talk of transit, and in this bill it's really saying is it's a

bookkeeping entry. It's taking away the obligation, the specific

obligation, of negotiation to solve the North Shore problem in

spreading it out over a general transit fund — a fund we all agree

with. But it's losing a commitment that we had and a negotiation that

was made with various levels of government.

I think the Municipal Affairs Minister has been under some fire from

the regional district and the municipalities in the greater Vancouver

area, because of the fact that he's arbitrarily holding meetings

without discussion or without inclusion of all members, in saying — and

I have my

article here — where he would eliminate people who would leak

the news. Yet what we want is cooperation and discussion — not one

level of government arbitrarily saying: "This is how you'll travel;

this is the system that will work."

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned. This $27 million was set up for

travelling, or a transportation link in B.C. While we're happy to see

transit, this is really just a bookkeeping entry. But I hope the

government isn't removing its obligation to solve the problem of the

North Shore.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Actually, I'm

not a very old man but it seems that we've gone full cycle in my

lifetime. I remember the ferries in North Vancouver; I remember the

street cars. And I remember when it used to take about a half an hour

to get from Lynn Valley to downtown Vancouver with no trouble, and with

a cost of around 10 cents. It used to take about half an hour to get

from Capilano, with a cost of 10 cents.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: In a way I'm disappointed when I get

interference from that Member for Okanagan South (Mr. Bennett) because

I think of what a great man his father was. What went wrong? What went

wrong?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, just remember, because that tunnel's going

to come up in Point Grey. Try and sell that to your people. And your

citizens will be paying for this end of the tunnel. Try that one on

your Point Grey citizens.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That's right, threats.

MR. CUMMINGS: Right now.… Yes, there is a threat to the

citizens of Vancouver. We're going to be paying for this ridiculous

tunnel and bridge.

Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the downtown area is devoted to the car

now in roads, parking lots; and the future would even be worse with

bridges or tunnels. Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Would you take your hands out of your pockets? It bothers me to see a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill, please?

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm very, very pleased, and I think the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), should be

congratulated in taking this forward step — and the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) too. This is the most forward-looking government,

because we've profited from the mistakes of the past.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're filibustering!

MR. CUMMINGS: Sure we are. Actually I received a note and it

took me a long time to find out that the note came from my friend from

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He says, "You have to speak." So I'm up

here.

There's an awful future with this bridge and tunnel. But where is

the money coming from? Basford won't give you the money now. The

federals have smartened up. Where are you going to get the money from?

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: No way. Actually, when I first heard of the

proposition I thought, well, the cement companies are going to rip us

off again. You know, that LaFarge Company, that noble company that

managed to pay a fine of half-a-million dollars….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, you know, cities are for people, not for cars.

Interjection.

[ Page 2000 ]

MR. CUMMINGS: I'd like to prosecute them if I could figure out a way to do it. If we had class action we'd have those people.

MR. GARDOM: You can't even sue the ICBC, and you know it.

MR. CUMMINGS: I just worry about your fat friends in Ottawa. Those are

the ones I….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks

to the principle of the bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: Keep them in order. There they are, chirping like little birds.

But if I can get back to the subject: this rapid transit system from

the North Shore and from the other areas will make Vancouver a city for

people. I'm very pleased to support this bill.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe he should speak more often to get that kind of recognition.

Mr. Speaker, in the political propaganda this party peddled to the

public before the last general election it said that the central

problem facing our cities is their chronic inability to pay for the

services people need. But the inability that is paramount and certainly

chronic, Mr. Speaker, is the inability of this government in any way to

effectively come to grips with the problems of the cities and their

chronic and continuing neglect of the financial needs of the cities.

Mr. Speaker, I would just illustrate one point before developing

what I'm going to suggest here with this particular bill. By this

government ignoring its honest and proper responsibility to pay its

share of city-imposed taxes, it's ripping off metropolitan Vancouver to

the extent of one-half-a-million dollars a year. I see in the budget….

HON. MR. COCKE: Ohhhh.

MR. GARDOM: "Ohhh," says the Minister of something or other

over there. I see from the budget that the motor vehicle user taxes

will be coming in in British Columbia at $184 million; that's the

forecast for 1975. And approximately two-thirds of all of the motor

vehicle user taxes that are collected in the province emanate from

metropolitan Vancouver. That would be about $120 million.

Yet this city in metropolitan Vancouver has always received the

Cinderella treatment from these big ugly sisters over here in Victoria.

What they've done here by eradicating this $27 million — which should

have been $40 million by now by just natural interest accretion — is

once again financially stabbing metropolitan Vancouver in the back.

This isn't a metro Vancouver transit fund; it's a provincial transit

fund. And if the government is unable to appreciate the fact that

another crossing is vitally needed, and for provincial purposes, then

every single solitary dime that is in this bill should be set aside for

metropolitan Vancouver transit and metropolitan Vancouver transit

alone. It certainly should not be $27 million; that wouldn't even pay

for digging a hole into the ground. It should be $100 million.

If this government can't see the provincial need for the crossing,

which obviously it cannot, it should certainly at least see that its

greatest priority need of all is to take care of transit in

metropolitan Vancouver and come up with some kind of effective funding.

This thing is just a tiny bit of smokescreen, Mr. Speaker.

Before sitting down I have to mention that this Saturday exercise of

the Premier is nothing more than ignorance, petulance and an appalling

lack of administrative ability. I'm quite certain that his sand is

running out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: You know, he may well be a socialistic social worker, but a House Leader he is not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: He's destroyed the Whip system. And no wonder there are cabinet rumblings about who's going to succeed him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member...? Order!

MR. GARDOM: Little wonder that we have Calder sitting over there in London….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…? Order, please!

MR. McGEER: You cut him off. You cut off your switch, Mr. Speaker. And his speech was getting interesting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: At what point did he shut it off? I'd like to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in the middle of your speech. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You have no authority to use that button. At what point did you use it? At what point?

[ Page 2001 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: The point of order is this, Mr. Chairman: did you cut me off or did you not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! On the point of order, I called the Hon. Member to order and he refused to obey the Chair so I cut off the mike.

MR. GARDOM: At what point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the point where you were out of order.

MR. GARDOM: At what point did you consider I was out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the point where shortly after you had…. Order, please! The Hon. Member has no point of order. Would he be seated?

MR. GARDOM: I certainly do have a point of order, Mr.

Chairman. The House has not given you authority to go ahead and stifle

debate. They certainly have not! We're not going to have closure by the

Chair nor closure by this great big powerful socialistic government,

and make no mistake of that! You want to carry on with this kind of

Saturday nonsense, you do it according to the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. GARDOM: Saturday means no rules too, I suppose.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated? I have asked for the Speaker to come back to make a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Why is it so quiet? Is something going

on? Is there anybody about to take their place in the debate? Well,

I've finished my lunch. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: (Mike not on.) The Deputy Speaker saw fit during

remarks of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to push the panic

button and stifle the debate of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey. I'd like to know at what point he pushed it so I won't repeat the

remarks I made.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member: was he behaving himself?

MR. GARDOM: Oh, as always, as always.

MR. SPEAKER: I would assume that he was, but had he been ordered to take his seat?

MR. GARDOM: No, no, no! The Chairman was saying…. Not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there something about the button or the sound system you don't like?

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes, I do not like any Speaker of this

House taking it upon himself as a result of his own initiative to

stifle debate. That's just what the Deputy Speaker was doing. He just

cut me completely out of Hansard , Mr. Speaker, and there is no

authority within our rules. You and I have canvassed these, Mr.

Speaker, in the House; there's no authority for the Speaker of this

House to do that thing. And that happened. I should think the Deputy

Speaker should certainly not only apologize but be censured for that.

MR. SPEAKER: I've looked into the matter because I earlier

had a request from the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) on

the same question of this sound system. I can't find any authority for

the sound system at all; that is, the voice amplification system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it out!

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you may be right that I should do that and I will make note of that immediately. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: There's certainly no authority….

MR. SPEAKER: But in the meantime until I can take it out, would the Hon. Member proceed in order in his speech?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, what I was just drawing to the attention of

the House, Mr. Speaker, was that the Saturday exercise of the Premier

is one of ignorance and petulance and an appalling lack of….

MR. SPEAKER: Oh then, you obviously were out of order.

MR. GARDOM : …on his part. Well, I think…

MR. SPEAKER: It has nothing to do with debate on this bill.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think so because it certainly concerns

itself with the performance of the Premier which is becoming worse and

worse every day.

[ Page 2002 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has demonstrated why we probably need a switch-off system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out to the Hon. Members that it's

the duty of the House to reinforce the authority of the Chair and not

to undermine it. It follows from that that if you have a sound

amplification system that is there without authority, the House should

have dealt with the question in the first place, not leaving the

Chairman in the invidious position of being jeered at because he calls

a Member to order and the Member rides roughshod over the Speaker or

the Chairman because he has a sound system to do it. Therefore, I

suggest to the Hon. Member that rather than attacking the Chairman he

should consider his own conduct and remember the rules.

I don't want to cut off the sound system because it assists the

gallery; it assists the press gallery; it assists every Member to hear

what is being said in this chamber. But there is no authority for that

sound system. Therefore, I am going to have to, in view of your

suggestion, cut it off until the House decides on the proper authority

to the Chair.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the point of order which we are

discussing, one of the advantages of the sound system, of course, is

the proper functioning of our Hansard . But it's not a question

of whether or not a Member is in or out of order; it is the action on

the part of the Deputy Speaker when in the chair which in fact stifled

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member on an error. There's no connection between the sound amplification system in this Chamber and Hansard .

You still have to use your microphones to be on the tape. But that does

not mean the sound system has to be on at the same time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, are you indicating then that when the sound system in this chamber goes dead, the remarks are still recorded…?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed, because they have authority for that under the House rules.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What concerns me

is the use of the cut-off button by the Speaker — and I must say that

you, Your Honour, to my knowledge, have never used that button. It is

itself an abuse of the rules of this House and o parliament.

I happen to be a strong supporter of the Speaker and the honour we

must give to the Chair and the position which he holds. It is

traditional when a question of order is raised that the Speaker call

the Member to order. If the Member persists, then, as you, Your Honour,

on so many occasions have done, the Speaker rises in his place and it

is obligatory on each Member of this House to take his seat until the

Speaker has discharged his responsibility. The only way we will ever

have order in this House is if that rule is obeyed.

But that rule is not going to be obeyed, Mr. Speaker, when the

Speaker or whoever occupies the Chair does not use the power given to

the Chair in that regard but instead adopts some mechanical means of

cutting off the sound of this chamber, it demeans the Chair to let it

take place.

I have on past occasions indicated my views in this respect to the

House. I think every Member recognizes his obligation to take his place

when the Speaker rises. That is the ultimate authority of the Speaker,

an abuse of which is subject to the most dire penalty. I would hope we

would continue to follow those rules and to ignore this matter of the

sound system.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member,

particularly because I know that if every Member behaved with the

decorum he does, we would not have that problem at all. But

unfortunately, there are other Members who have not exhibited the same

propriety to the chamber.

MR. CHABOT: Name them.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure those to whom it cuts close will rise. (Laughter.)

Now, as a result of the request of the Hon. Members, I hope they cut

the sound system off until this Chamber works out a system that will

protect the Chair and that will be used in a proper fashion by the

Members, just as it used to be from time immemorial.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: You want that from Hansard ? I can find the examples.

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly will not accept that

[ Page 2003 ]

statement from the Hon. Member. It indicates

precisely what is wrong when you can attack the Chair in this fashion,

as you've done over many days, that there must be general support in

the chamber for the conduct of the assembly. One of the prohibitions

that you will read in your books on parliamentary procedure is that you

do not attack the Chair; you make no reference to the Chair in terms

that are slighting. That has not been generally observed in this

chamber.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) clearly indicated

what he had been saying, which was out of order, and persisted in doing

it when the Speaker resumed the chair. It was pointed out to him that

he was also out of order when speaking again and that is the problem.

We will have to proceed as best we can with our microphones. Be sure

to use your microphones and raise them when you speak, so that Hansard may take your remarks on the record.

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. SPEAKER: I have some tablets for your cold.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I put this question — of the use of the cut-off button under your desk — last fall.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know where it is.

MR. CHABOT: At that time you said that you would examine this

question. You felt it was a question worthy of further study. Not too

many weeks ago, I again raised the subject, Mr. Speaker.

You suggested that you would examine the thing and bring a ruling as

to what should take place relative to the cut-off button on the

Chairman's desk or behind your desk. So I think ample time has been

given for you, Mr. Speaker, to have brought down a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I just did.

MR. CHABOT: But I want to say that you have taken a very serious action and by your very words the microphones have gone dead.

MR. SPEAKER: At your request.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, not at my request.

MR. SPEAKER: You said to cut them off.

MR. CHABOT: I think it is a very serious thing that you have

done, Mr. Speaker, a very serious precedent which you are establishing

at this time. I think that in all fairness to this House the question

of whether the microphones should be on or cut off should be put to the

House. Then, if this question of microphones, this question of

amplification of voice in this House fails, then I think direction

should be given to the attendants to come in and remove the microphones

forthwith. (Laughter.) No, I am serious about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier. What is your point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that the House has authority to use the microphones for the Hansard

service. Since the Speaker has been placed in this situation and must

invoke the authority that he does have or doesn't have — and that is

that there is no authority for the speakers' amplification of the voice

— I therefore suggest that if the House itself wishes to give the

Speaker such authority a House committee be authorized to meet with the

Speaker forthwith to recommend a solution to his lack of authority or

he could do it himself. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you take this

under advisement and report back to the House as to what kind of

authority you would need for the House to have the voices amplified,

forthwith.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Would you use your microphone, please?

MR. CHABOT: Well, since we are not allowed to use it…. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You are on Hansard . If you do not want to be on Hansard , don't use your microphone.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this whole question arose not

because of the amplification provided by that ball up there and these

microphones here. The whole dispute we have at the moment concerns the

cut-off button, not whether the Members should be heard in this

assembly or not. I think we have flipped around now to the denial of

the right of those members with soft voices of being heard in this

Assembly. I think it has gone in a very wrong direction.

I think that there is need, Mr. Speaker, to closely examine the

suggestion or recommendation you have made to those two people in the

console down at the far end of the chamber as to whether they should

[ Page 2004 ]

turn the microphones on or turn them off. It is a

very serious point and a very serious matter — the question of turning

off these microphones.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a very serious matter to turn them on without authority.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you have been doing it. You have

established a precedent, Mr. Speaker, over many months — about 19

months. I think the whole question of whether the microphones should be

on or off should be put to the House. It should be put to the House

forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The proper way to do that, Hon. Member, is by

motion. Put a motion on the order paper and the House can consider it.

If you want a House committee to deal with it, fine, the House

committee can do it. If you want the Speaker to meet with a committee

of the House to discuss how it can be worked out, I would be delighted

to cooperate.

I point out to the Hon. Member that voice amplification in the

chamber has not been installed by virtue of any standing order,

statutory authority or motion of this House. It is intended to assist

all Hon. Members by making remarks audible in all parts of the chamber

and it has ancillary benefits for the public who may be attending in

the galleries.

I point out also to the Hon. Member that I am unaware of any

jurisdiction in Canada and, in fact, in other legislatures where they

have a sound support system without giving the Speaker and the Chairman

a cut-off button.

That the button should be used sparingly is obvious to anyone. It is

equally obvious that the Hon. Member should heed the authority of the

Chair. I point out also to the Hon. Members that our standing orders

say that where there is disorder, the Chairman or the Speaker can leave

the chair until the disorder ceases. I point out that the use of the

button is a substitute, I suppose, for that idea.

At any rate, before I take on myself the continuation of an

unauthorized system, I want the support of the House for whatever is

done.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order, I would like to speak to this. I have been in this

House a dozen years under a number of Speakers before the Hansard

system was introduced. We always had a microphone; it was taken for

granted as one of these unwritten rules of natural justice that exist

in this chamber as elsewhere.

What is new, Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of a cut-off button.

What has caused the problem now has been that the Deputy Speaker saw

fit to use the cut-off button rather than the gavel, which is his

symbol of authority. He used the cut-off button instead of rising to

his feet, in which case the Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) would have sat down. The Member from Vancouver–Point Grey did

not realize that the power had been cut off. You don't need authority,

Mr. Speaker; it exists in the form of precedent here. I would ask you

to ask leave of the House to turn the microphones on again now.

MR. SPEAKER: May I correct the Hon. Member on this point of

order that he has raised? I have indicated already to the House that

the cut-off system was inaugurated back in 1956. Previously Speakers

used to do so by private code of their own when they wished to cut off

one side or the other where disorder occurred. This did not happen very

often.

I might say to the Hon. Members that I appreciate the honour you do

me by the fact that I have not had to use the cut-off button in the

last three sessions. To that extent your respect for the Chair has made

it possible, but there are times of disorder. As I said earlier, I feel

that before we come back to a sound system, which is unauthorized now,

I can put that to the House but it doesn't solve all the problems.

MR. McGEER: Ask leave of the House now to turn the microphones on.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point, the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I was here before there was any sound system here at all.

MR. FRASER: You've been here too long!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We got along very fine without it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's because no one heard you. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, they heard me. I think that probably

you didn't have such long speeches because they had to use more effort

to speak and therefore they would tire out that much quicker.

Nevertheless, there were no amplifiers and no speaking system at all at

that time and it got along fairly well. So I do not think it matters

much, as far as I am concerned, as to whether you have the sound system

on or not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I respectfully ask that leave be requested from the House by the Chair until this matter is resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: On the condition that the House

[ Page 2005 ]

will come to some final decision on this matter, I

would ask the House to give leave to the use of the sound support

system, but remember that that depends on no disorder because the

Chairman must be supported.

AN HON. MEMBER: No conditions — just ask the House.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, before we get on

with this point, I would like further clarification. Earlier this

afternoon you said that when the cut-off button was used, Hansard was still able to record from this microphone.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. There are separate systems.

MR. MORRISON: I would like to have that absolutely confirmed,

because my understanding was that in a previous debate, when the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was cut off, the only reason his

remarks appeared in Hansard

was because your microphone was live, and he happened to be close. If

he were sitting in the far corner, my understanding was that his voice

would not have appeared in Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: No. When the matter was raised with me by the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) recently, I checked into it

very carefully to make absolutely certain that we had the authority to

use Hansard under our

standing orders, and that they were entirely separate from the sound

amplification system after it goes through the amplifier. From there on

they are separate systems. So you are now speaking on Hansard whenever

you use your microphone at the present time.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): On a further point of order on the same issue, I am not completely satisfied either. I agree, and I understand that Hansard

is a separate system, but the question we really want to know is

whether or not that cut-off button cuts off the microphone or the sound

system.

MR. SPEAKER: As it happens now, the cut-off button is not in

use at the present time. The sound support system has been cut off down

below this chamber, not anywhere near the Hansard desk at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: I am asking the question: does the cut-off button cut off Hansard ,

or cut off that sound support system, or does it cut off the

microphone? If it cuts off the microphone then our voices will not be

recorded in Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. The cut-off system from Hansard , which is in the hands of the Chairman as well, does cut off Hansard because those remarks are being made after the Speaker or Chairman is standing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, might

I suggest, if the House is agreeable to the suggestion from the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), that we ask leave of the House

until the Speaker's report comes in on this whole matter to continue

with the present practice….

AN HON. MEMBER: Without the cut-off button.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Without the cut-off button. We have no

authority on anything, really. So we continue using the microphones

until we have a complete Speaker's report with the House committee to

deal with the whole matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Members that there

is no authority, and mere leave of the House in this matter is without

prejudice to any future rules that the House may make one way or

another on the question. Is that understood?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, just one point, and that

is that on two occasions yesterday, while the Hon. Member for Skeena

was in the chair, the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

refused to take his seat at the time the Chairman was standing.

Therefore before I would be prepared to grant leave I would like some

assurance that when the Speaker or Chairman of the House does stand in

his place, the Hon. Member who has the floor would be seated.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the House seems to be very

single-minded in granting leave to see that the sound system continues.

Again I would stress the caveat that the House also, I think, is

universally of the opinion that the cut-off button should not continue.

I think it should be made non-operative today. Just put a piece of

adhesive tape over it.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have it both ways, you know. If you

are going to use a sound system to override the Chair, then there must

be some way of stopping the override.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, the situation, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to you, is no different whether the sound system

is on or off. The Speaker still has the rules to follow. It doesn't

make any difference whether the sound system is on or off. The cut-off

button in our opinion is a bad deal, and it doesn't make any difference

whether or not….

[ Page 2006 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Members prepared to have the question

put? Shall leave be granted for the temporary use of the sound system?

I don't think that we should make any conditions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) has made the most valid point in terms of control

of the House. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has stated that

it has long been the practice of this House that when there is trouble

in communicating between the Speaker and a speaker, the Speaker rises

in his place and that Member should automatically sit down. If we adopt

that practice, which is indeed in our rules, then there is no need for

the cut-off button.

What I am suggesting is that we ask leave of the House to continue

with the voice amplification system, eliminate the cut-off button, and

when the Speaker stands in his place, it is incumbent on that Member to

sit down immediately. Pending asking leave for this continuation, I

suggest that we have the House committee to articulate the rules for

future proceedings of this House.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I assume that the Speaker would agree that

the establishment of a committee would perhaps require a motion. I

think perhaps that with the lead given by the Hon. Premier, such a

motion might be prepared and submitted at the earliest possible time.

I would agree to give leave to the continued use of sound

amplification, and to the discard of the cut-off switch, on the

understanding that all Members will obey the rules. I trust, Mr.

Speaker, however, that if a Member is disobedient, you will not

hesitate to exercise the disciplinary power you have, because then and

only then can we have order restored to this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: On that basis, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be a short pause so far as the sound

amplification is concerned. But you may carry on if you wish, because

you will be on Hansard .

MR. McGEER: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has, I judge, completed the burden of his argument.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this bill a retrograde step in the supplying

of transit services to the people of British Columbia. The government

led the people to believe before that last election that somehow a

bright future lay ahead in the matter of transit services. Progress

would be made. The people's government would be far more sympathetic to

the crowded circumstances of the lower mainland than the denial which

had been characteristic of the previous administration.

Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? First of all they proposed

that we go back to streetcars, and then they proposed that we go back

to the old North Vancouver ferry system. The Member for Vancouver East

who likes to buy antiques, and spends most of his dreaming hours living

in the past century applauds that. But I don't feel the people who are

facing the future instead of backing into it are going to applaud it.

I'll tell you what a permanent citizen of that constituency said. I

refer to someone slightly to the right of the Second Member for

Vancouver East, Alderman Harry Rankin. They were colleagues together on

the Vancouver city council, and Alderman Rankin, I remember, when

someone suggested that city council should go and see the Minister of

Municipal Affairs said: "Why go see the monkey when you can see the

organ-grinder?" He suggested a visit with the former Premier. Well, of

course, it is more true than ever today. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is the monkey in this two-man act, and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is the organ-grinder.

But Alderman Rankin put his finger on it again, when the Minister of

Municipal Affairs came out with his plan for rapid transit, which was

restoring streetcars. He said: "People have been certified for less

than that." That is what the right-wing socialist had to say about the

transit plans put forward by the Members for Burnaby and Vancouver East.

That is not where the problem is. The problem is between Vancouver

centre and the North Shore. To provide communication between those two

links, there is a total of nine lanes — six at the Second Narrows and

three at the First Narrows.

If there was some other narrow point of land or had the people who

put up the bridges used more imagination, there probably would be as

many lanes across False Creek as are adjacent to it. There are 24 lanes

there. I've never heard any suggestion that some of those lanes should

be ripped up so that people would be encouraged to use rapid transit.

Never once.

In a similar stretch across the Fraser River, which is about the

same width as False Creek, there are 14 lanes, and more are being

completed today. Anybody who thinks about the problem, Mr. Speaker,

realizes that wherever you look in the lower mainland area of one

region being connected with another there are at least three times as

many vehicle lanes to go between the Vancouver Centre area and the

North Shore.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) quite correctly pointed out that the No. 1

[ Page 2007 ]

issue in that whole North Shore area is some

commonsense rationalization of the transit system. What we have at work

on the problem today is miniscule minds, Mr. Speaker. That's why we're

getting the kind of bills that the Minister of Finance brought forward

today.

He thought, you know, Mr. Speaker, that he was bringing it forward

on a day when there wouldn't be much debate. Yes, he did. It spoiled

his speech. He had it all prepared; he was going to give a great

flaming speech to wind up the debate — saying that the Liberal Members

who were so interested in that bridge weren't here. Who wasn't here

today, Mr. Speaker? Well, it's some of the NDP Members from the City of

Vancouver who aren't here, and the Conservatives, of course, but

they're from Victoria. Spoiled his speech.

Here we are today, Mr. Speaker, in emergency session — emergency

session. We've got orders of the day. I read them and didn't see

anything about bills. It talked about Committee of Supply; it talked

about presenting petitions and so on, but here we are discussing a bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's hardly a priority bill, is it? Not a priority

bill. It's a prolonged debate, on a Saturday, about a bookkeeping entry

the Premier thought he could slip by the Liberals. That's what he

thought.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Punishment bill.

MR. McGEER: He got caught in his own rugby game, and in his

own campaign there in Nova Scotia. How was the campaigning in Nova

Scotia, Mr. Premier, was it good? Will the NDP do well there? Well, I

don't know, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Premier might give us a report

of his activities when he comes to close the debate because we're

interested in how things were there.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is rapid-transitting it back

and forth across the country and he's going to be across the ocean

next. The House is falling apart; never had such chaos and lack of

order and weak leadership and confusion as we've got today, never. I

can never recall a period when the House was getting less direction

from the government and I can tell you….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would certainly say that the Hon. Member

himself is out of order. But I would ask the Hon. Member speaking to

come right back to the principle of the bill.

MR. McGEER: I've caught the fever, Mr. Speaker. I wish this

bill meant that something would be done to solve the crisis of

transportation between the

North Shore and the City of Vancouver. All we're getting out of this

is a betrayal where money which was committed for this purpose is to be

taken away. In place of it, what are we to get? We're to get a couple

of ferries like the old North Vancouver ferries that are going to carry

only a fraction of the number of people who must be moved, even if

they're successful. Mr. Speaker, I don't think they're going to be

successful.

The Minister told us that these ferries would have the capacity to

move 1,500 people an hour. The design terms given to the Swan Wooster

firm, who did a comprehensive study of what should be done, they just

didn't think how it used to be when they were a boy in the old days.

They were doing a study looking for what it was going to be like in the

future. This is only one of a number of volumes that have been done on

it, Volume I – the Burrard Inlet crossing. May I draw your attention to

page 48 of this 234-page study. Page 48 said that the crossing had to

have a capacity to transport 7,500 to 15,000 passengers per hour. Mr.

Speaker, do you realize that's 10 times as much as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was proposing in his substitute

policy, presumably, for which this money is required.

His indulgence in nostalgia is taking good money that could be used

for a useful purpose and putting it into something that was discarded

as unworkable 30 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister

of Municipal Affairs have their bags packed for a voyage into the past.

That's not good enough for the people of the lower mainland.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, even those who've tried to second

guess the future on rapid transit have often been wrong. The experience

of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), which was looked to as the example

for all great cities in North America to follow, has been nothing short

of disaster and that system may close down. Originally, it was planned

to cost $750 million; it cost over twice that. It's losing about $30

million a year, and is now being talked of as closing down less than

two years after it opened.

One of the key proposals in that BART system was a tunnel under San

Francisco Bay that would not have automobile traffic. They thought if

they could put this extra crossing underneath the Bay, and not have

vehicles associated with it, they could persuade people to use that

subway system which had a car running every 90 seconds.

People are staying away from that system in droves and it's losing a

fortune. It was a multi-billion dollar gamble that to date has been

unsuccessful. I say that as an absolute warning to anyone that thinks a

metropolitan subway and rail transit system going underneath Burrard

Inlet is going to substitute for sufficient vehicular traffic. This

will not. We could wind up pouring more than a billion dollars down the

drain.

[ Page 2008 ]

The problem with rapid transit is that all too frequently it isn't

rapid. More than that, rapid transit is one-dimensional. It encourages

ribbon development, the kind of thing that we have seen in the greater

Toronto area. These kinds of subway systems have been failures more

often than they have been successes. I say right now, unequivocally,

that there will be another bridge built across Burrard Inlet in the

future. That time will come as soon as people regain their common sense.

It's nothing new to have the knockers, the negative people, those

who are hesitant, stalling construction of bridges. Mr. Speaker, the

First Narrows Bridge was delayed for 16 years by people who claimed

that it wasn't needed, that it would lose money, that it would wreck

Stanley Park and that it