1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2993 ]

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Nechako River fisheries.

Mr. Howard –– 2993

Water pollution in Campbell River area.

Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2993

B.C. Housing Corporation assets.

Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 2994

Nechako River fisheries.

Mr. Howard –– 2994

Downtown Vancouver open-space agreement.

Mr. Barnes –– 2994

Use of American tradesmen on B.C. Jobs.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 2994

Timber supply at Pemberton.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2995

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Potential danger at Long Lake dam.

Mr. Passarell –– 2996

Ministerial Statements

Knowledge Network Communications Authority.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2996

Mr. Howard –– 2996

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Acute-care hospital at UBC.

Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 2996

Alcohol and drug dependence of juveniles.

Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 2997

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

section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 2997

section 7.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2998

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2998

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2999

Mr. Macdonald –– 2999

Mr. Nicolson –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Mr. Macdonald –– 3000

Mr. Hanson –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Mr. Howard –– 3000

Mr. Gabelmann –– 3000

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3000

Division on

section 7 –– 3000

section 10.

Mr. Barber –– 3001

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3001

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3002

Mr. Hyndman –– 3002

Mr. Lorimer –– 3002

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3002

Mr. Howard –– 3003

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3004

Mr. Cocke –– 3004

Mr. Nicolson –– 3004

section 15.

Mr. Cocke –– 3004

Mr. Hall –– 3005

Mr. Lorimer –– 3006

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3006

Ms. Brown –– 3008

Mr. Cocke –– 3009

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3010

Mr. Lorimer –– 3010

Mr. Barber –– 3011

Division on

section 15 –– 3014

section 16.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3015

section 19.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3016

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3016

Erratum –– 3017

Appendix –– 3017

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On behalf of the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who as we know is ill, I would like to welcome

Rev. C. W. Bryce of Abbotsford, who led us in prayers today. I

understand that this is his first such attendance in the assembly.

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

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, visiting with us in the

Legislature this afternoon from the constituency of Saanich are good

friends of ours, Mr. and Mrs. Mountain. I would ask the House to

welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

Dr. and Mrs. Donald Rix of Vancouver. Although Dr. Rix is a medical

doctor and pathologist by training, he is one of the senior community

leaders in the city of Vancouver, a vice-chairman of BCIT, and a member

of the board of Crofton House School. He has been extremely active over

the years with the executive committees of the B.C. Medical Association

and is chairman this year of its finance committee; he is active also

with the Canadian Medical Association and he is the Deputy Speaker of

the Canadian Medical Association. Would members join me in welcoming

Dr. and Mrs. Donald Rix.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon is a friend of mine from

Victoria, Mr. B.J. "Box" Johnson. I'd like to have the House welcome

him this afternoon.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon from

Sparwood, the coal capital of Canada, are Mayor Frank Fairclough and

his wife Anna, and Aldermen Molly Doratty and Gordon McDonnell. I'd

like the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Environment. In light of the negotiations that are

currently taking place between the federal Department of Fisheries and

the Aluminum Company of Canada with respect to the flow of water in the

Nechako River, can the minister advise the House if he or his

department has made a decision to lend its support to the federal

Department of Fisheries to help ensure that an adequate flow of water

in the Nechako River is maintained?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. We have made inquiries under the Water Act, and I understand

that legal opinion indicates that we have no authority to do anything

other than lend moral support, which we have done in this particular

situation.

MR. HOWARD: Do I understand the minister to say that there is

no obligation on the part of the provincial government relating to the

protection of fisheries? Can the minister advise me about that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not what I said.

What I said was that we checked the Water Act, and the licence under

which Alcan is operating — and operates a spillway — and we do not have

the legislative authority to order them to spill water.

MR. HOWARD: I see. I wonder if I could ask the minister if he

is aware of

section 1(3) of the Industrial Development Act, which says

— and this is the act under which Alcan got that original agreement —

"An agreement entered into under this act shall provide for the

protection that may be considered advisable by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of fisheries that would be injuriously

affected."

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, I thank the member for the

information, but that's not an area under which I have authority. I

believe you'd find that that particular act is certainly not under the

Ministry of Environment.

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

I wonder if the minister is also aware that

section 2 of the

Industrial Development Act provides that "an agreement made under this

act may be amended or extended if considered advisable by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, if the subject matter of the amendment

or extension could lawfully have been incorporated in the original

agreement at the time it was made." Is the minister aware of that

provision?

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

WATER POLLUTION IN CAMPBELL RIVER AREA

While I'm on my feet I'd like, if I may, to add to an answer asked

of me by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He asked me about

the water supply for the Campbell River area. The note that I have

says: "The minister answered correctly; however, the following might be

added. No immediate action is considered necessary, because the quality

of water for the Campbell River water supply is well within the

drinking water standards."

The other question you asked was about the pollution control branch,

and I'll quote you: "Has the minister decided to advance the deadline

set to end the obvious poisoning of that lake? Some time ago there was

a deadline set — in 1983, I believe — to have the lake cleaned up. In

view of the obvious urgent problems in the Campbell River area now, has

the minister decided to advance that deadline?" A review

[ Page 2994 ]

of the pollution control branch files did not

indicate any commitment to remove the tailings from Buttle Lake by

1983. There was a proposal to use an open-pit part of the mine for

tailings disposal in 1972, but this was vetoed by the mines branch

because it might endanger the underground workings. The parks branch

has been queried regarding any commitment by the mine. The parks branch

permit to operate the mine tailings line expires in 1987.

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

B.C. HOUSING CORPORATION ASSETS

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

"Mr. Tom Toynbee, the former president and former

chief executive officer of the B.C. Housing Corporation, announced in

January that the disposal of the corporation's assets was then

complete. Can the minister now inform this House of the breakdown of

these assets and disclose to whom these assets were sold?"

The minister replied:

"That's a question that would be more appropriately

put on the order paper. He's asking for specific dispositions and

dollar figures of a great variety of lands and housing complexes in the

province. I'll be glad to take the question as notice. The figure is

substantial, and the answer will be fairly lengthy. I would have hoped

you would have put it on the order paper so that I wouldn't be

preempting the members' opportunities to ask more urgent and pressing

questions."

Now I have the answer, and I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether he

wants to put the question on the order paper and I'll give the member

an opportunity — or whether he wants me answer it in the oral question

period. Hearing nothing further from that member, I'll give him the

answer right now.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) has risen on a point of order — which, I might add, hon.

member, is somewhat out of place in question period. Nevertheless....

MR. LEA: Well, it's on question period and the directions

that the Chair gave to all members of the House, and also the

directions that the Chair gave to the members of the government, asking

them, if they had lengthy answers, to provide them after question

period. The Chair requested the government do that, and I wonder why

the government is not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. In response to the

point of order raised, the Chair did undertake — for the guidance of

members, and particularly if answers are lengthy, written answers — to

protect the value and use and intention of question period. They are

best given at the conclusion of question period if they are that

lengthy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in my response,

taking the question, as notice, I indicated to the member that it would

be more appropriate to put the question on the order paper. He hasn't

seen fit to do so, and I have a personal ruling according to which all

oral questions that I receive are answered in the oral question period.

So if you are going to deny me the opportunity of responding in the

oral question period, where the question was put, then I have no

alternative but to await a question on the order paper from that

member. Unless he's prepared to do so, I won't answer the question. I'm

prepared to answer it in the oral question period if that's where he

wants me to do it, but I won't file a document afterwards.

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. HOWARD: After those diversionary tactics seeking to

extricate the Minister of Environment from a difficult situation, I

wonder if I could ask the Minister of Environment a final question.

Would the minister agree that by the government and himself not

pursuing its obligations and responsibilities with respect to the

protection of fisheries in the Nechako River it is, in fact, siding

with the Aluminum Company of Canada?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER OPEN-SPACE AGREEMENT

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Can the

minister explain why on May 6 of this year she cancelled a 1974

agreement with the city of Vancouver requiring that the city use funds

paid by the province for the site of the new courthouse for the

acquisition of downtown open space for the people of Vancouver?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have no knowledge of the subject which the questioner

puts before me, but I would be pleased to take it as notice and perhaps ask

him what his concern is.

MR. BARNES: I do have another question, but I'd like to bring

the minister's attention to the fact that I have a document with her

signature on it that was dated May 5, indicating that she had released

the city of Vancouver from an agreement to provide open space to

downtown Vancouver for $2.1 million...

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

USE OF AMERICAN TRADESMEN ON B.C. JOBS

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

[ Page 2995 ]

way involving people working at two sites in the

province of British Columbia, one in Winfield and the other in

Whistler. I have answers to these two questions, which I believe to be

satisfactory. I accept them as being satisfactory; the member may not

like them.

I might tell you it involved the Vernon Fruit Union, which the

member probably read about in the press, and a company called Van Doran

from Yakima, Washington. Ten work visas were issued to the employer,

Van Doran, by immigration officials in Seattle; the reason for this was

that the company maintained that special skills were needed to install

the equipment. There were some objections filed by the pipefitters and

the IBEW about using foreign workers to do work which it was felt could

be done by Canadians. I might say that that was a fair request on their

behalf. I can advise you that there was discussion between the

employment and immigration commission official, the fruit union, the

pipefitters and the IBEW. I was advised about one hour ago that an

agreement has been made. The project will be under the supervision of

an American project manager and two supervisors; three Canadians have

been hired. This is satisfactory to all the parties involved.

With respect to the Whistler project, in this case I think they were

well ahead of both of us, Mr. Member. The five people who landed on

site were given notice, and they ended up in custody. None of them had

visas. In fact, there may have been a violation of immigration

regulations. The workers were arrested and issued with departure

notices. I hope that satisfies the inquiry made.

TIMBER SUPPLY AT PEMBERTON

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the Minister of Forests. A

Mr. J. Tsuida of a firm known as Western Log Exchange Ltd. Is trying to

establish a sawmill and manufacturing plant at Pemberton. Evans

Products Co. Ltd. closed their mill in that town, and they now ship

their timber to a mill at Lillooet. Will the minister now take action

to guarantee a minimum supply of timber to Tsuida's firm to guarantee

local utilization of the lumber and the employment created at Pemberton?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The answer is, most emphatically, no. I

will not make any special provision for Mr. Tsuida or anyone else. Any

timber that may be available in the forests of British Columbia can be

disposed of through those means laid down in the Forest Act. I'm not

about to violate the Forest Act to look after any individual who may

require timber.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question. Since Evans

received 90,000 cunits of allowable annual cut from the Soo and Yalakom

PSYU for utilization at the mill at Pemberton, why is the minister not

prepared to reduce their supply and grant at least 25,000 cunits to any

prospective mill at Pemberton?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I've already answered the member. Evans

Products had a timber allocation of some 190,000 cunits of wood on an

annual basis. They were cut back substantially when they shut down

their plant in Pemberton. They have since built a $10 million veneer

plant in Lillooet, and the wood that is going to their plant is that

wood that is economically tributary to Lillooet under the terms of

agreements made under the Forest Act of the time.

I shall not violate the principles of the Forest Act and make any

direct allocations of timber to anyone. The competitive route exists.

Timber supplies are potentially available through those who already

have licences in the area. When our timber supply area analysis is

completed for the area, then we will know exactly what additional

unallocated cut exists. If he wishes to acquire that, Mr. Tsuida will

Act.

MR. HOWARD: I have a point of order that relates to the

discussion that took place earlier between the Chair and the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) with respect to an

attempt on the part of the minister to deal with a question. I draw the

attention of the Chair not to a guideline but to a ruling, as I believe

it would be identified, which Mr. Speaker Schroeder made in this House

on March 26, 1980, in which he said: "If the question is of such a

nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a

return is to have the answer" — the answer, not the question — "on the

order paper itself, as though the question had been a written

question." And that's the course of action that the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing should have followed, instead of that diversionary

tactic that he employed earlier.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I

think I outlined how clearly I indicated to the member that the

question belonged more appropriately on the order paper, rather than in

oral question period. I invited him to put the question on the order

paper, which he's refused to do. So, as I said before, I have a

personal rule that all questions asked in the oral question period are

answered in the oral question period.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not at this point, hon. member. You rose on a point of order.

Are you tabling the document at this time?

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. For the benefit of

all members, I think it's possibly appropriate to refer to the fifth

edition of Beauchesne, and to a

section that should be widely read by

all members. I would refresh members' memories of page 132,

section

359, where the Speaker expressed some general principles in order to

clarify the regulations which have traditionally guided question

period. Subsection 2 says: "The question must be brief. A

preamble need

not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long

preamble on a long

question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of

reply. A supplementary question should need no

preamble." Hon, members,

if members were to take this into consideration it would greatly aid in

the business of question period.

[ Page 2996 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to

move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is, hon. member?

MR. PASSARELL: A dam at Long Lake, north of Stewart, which is

in danger of collapse. The owners, Cominco Ltd., had planned to blow it

up earlier this spring, expecting the water level to be low. The water

level has unexpectedly risen, creating a clear and present danger that

the dam may give way. Alternatively, if they blow the dam up now they

could send a large column of water down the valley, destroying the

Granduc road, and into the inhabited areas of Alaska.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I have the motion

before me, and without prejudicing the matter of urgency, I will take

the matter under advisement and report back on the issue.

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

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

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table with the House

the constitution and bylaws of the Knowledge Network of the West

Communications Authority. The Knowledge Network has been incorporated

as a non-profit society under the Societies Act of B.C. I would just

like to set out very briefly for the House the purposes set out in the

constitution.

They are: to operate without profit to its members as a charitable

institution for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, in

cooperation with the universities, colleges and provincial institutes,

school districts, and other institutions and agencies concerned with

education; to receive funds and other assets from the government of

Canada, the government of British Columbia, and from any other source,

and to use and apply all or part of such funds and assets in such

manner as the directors deem appropriate for any purpose which in the

opinion of the directors will further the objective to assist, and

collaborate with, universities, colleges, provincial institutes, school

districts, ministries, and other agencies of the province in the

development, coordination and delivery of educational programs and

materials; to establish, maintain and operate a telecommunications

network, including cable, microwave, satellite and broadcast elements;

to operate one or more broadcasting undertakings primarily devoted to

the field of educational broadcasting; to foster, stimulate and

participate in the development and production of high quality

educational programs and material; to provide assistance by way of

policy and technical advice to the provincial body created pursuant to

the Broadcasting Act of Canada; to acquire, establish, maintain and

operate for the purposes of production, generation, distribution and

transmission of learning materials and to acquire, hold, improve and

maintain real property; to enter into any contracts or arrangements

with any authority for the production, acquisition or sale of

educational programs and materials.

As the former Attorney-General has well recognized, there's some

legal wording in those objectives, and I paraphrased them and tried to

make it a little simpler for the lay people of the Legislative

Assembly. But through all of that verbiage, what we have done today is

to announce via satellite the educational television network of British

Columbia, to be known as the Knowledge Network of the West. It will

consist of three elements: first of all, a closed-circuit

interinstitutional system among the universities, teaching hospitals,

law courts, BCIT and the Blanshard Building in Victoria; secondly, a

closed-circuit television system using low-power broadcast and

satellite connection to off-campus interior and northern locations;

and, thirdly, access to an educational channel on community cablevision

systems.

Mr. Speaker, we've been working for some years to lay the groundwork

for distance education in British Columbia, so that all the citizens of

our province, regardless of their educational background, financial

circumstances, or where they live in British Columbia, will have

opportunities to receive educational programming at the university,

college, institute and high school level. A giant step forward was

taken today with the formation of this network, the directors of whom

will be Dr. Walter Hardwick, Deputy Minister of Education; Mr. Gerry

Cross, Deputy Provincial Secretary; Mr. Jack Fleming, Assistant Deputy

Minister of Education; Mr. Harold Page, Assistant Deputy Minister of

Communications; Dr. Robert Stewart, chief executive officer of the

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications; Mr. Don Hamilton

as a broadcast consultant; and Mr. Ron Jeffels, principal of the Open

Learning Institute.

We resisted the temptation to add other names at this time, but the

network which has been established will be a vehicle through which all

our educational institutions will be able to bring to people everywhere

in British Columbia the richness of their offerings, which, until this

time, had been largely limited to the classrooms of their own

institutions. So we've taken a great step forward, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister of Education and I are very proud of the advances that have

been made.

MR. HOWARD: Just a brief and laudatory comment in response

thereto, to express our appreciation to the minister for advising the

House of this move and to wish the program itself every success. It's

one of those items that's long overdue. We applaud the minister for

doing it.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I'm taking the

time that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would want in order to

apologize to you and the House for giving the wrong answers as to why

he was thrown out yesterday, but I know he'll be up right after me.

ACUTE-CARE HOSPITAL AT UBC

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

[ Page 2997 ]

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

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

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

3) Will the minister advise the House when the battle will be

resolved between the Miniter of Universities, Science and

Communications and the Ministry of Health over the $600 per

patient-day, which is the proposed budget of that hospital?

1) In 1978 the Ministry of Health and the University of British

Columbia agreed on a preconstruction operating budget for the proposed

acute-care hospital.

2) The Ministry of Health anticipates that the university will

submit a 1980-81 operating budget before the hospital admits its first

patient on or before September 1, 1980.

3) As the university has not submitted an estimate of operating

expenditures to the Ministry of Health, how can anyone say the per diem

rate will be $600 or any other amount?

4) There is no dispute between the Ministries of Health and

Universities, Science and Communications, for, among other reasons, the

key committee recommendations established the responsibility for

funding operating costs.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE OF JUVENILES

On June 5 the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked me a

question concerning family and youth counsellors in alcohol problems

for young people. I think the member will remember the question. I can

read it if the member wishes, but I'm sure she can refer to it.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission has had a small youth-family

counselling service in Vancouver for many years. It was decided some

years ago to make the experienced counsellors from this service

available to other programs in order to give the staff of those

programs expertise in dealing with youth. These assignments were not

intended to be permanent. Such a counsellor was assigned to the

commission's Burnaby outpatient-counselling service. He was there for a

year and a half on a part-time basis but has since resigned.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission has done a study of the need for

treatment services for youth. It did not mention Burnaby specifically

but pointed out problems in the lower Fraser Valley generally. The

commission has a pilot project underway to assist the effectiveness of

drug and alcohol counsellors working in the school system. The programs

of the commission are under review, and the need for services for youth

will be taken into account in the commission's planning. I expect a

report on the commission late next month.

MR. HOWARD: I earlier raised a point of order in respect to

an earlier exchange between the Chair and the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing and quoted the decision of Mr. Speaker Schroeder with

respect to that matter. I wondered whether the Chair might not draw

that to the attention of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing so

that he can follow the commendable practice just followed by the

Minister of Health.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the order of business I would

like to mention to hon. members that considerable interest has been

expressed by all members of the House on both sides, by support staff

and by members of the fourth estate as to whether or not the House will

be closed on Monday. I would like to announce that it will be closed

Monday, subject of course to any intervening exigencies.

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

Leave granted.

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

SPECIAL FUNDS ACT, 1980

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

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

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

section 3.

MR. HANSON: I'd just like to make a couple of comments. I

have no problem in voting for the Barkerville appropriation or money

for Ford steel, but it would make me a lot happier if there were a

companion piece of legislation appropriation for the Indian people and

the Indian culture of this province. There are probably many members of

this House who are not aware of the fact that the majority of Indian

languages in Canada are in British Columbia. A couple of the

interesting facts about this....

Interjection.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

member is speaking about things that are not in the section. We're

supposed to be discussing things that are in it, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made, hon. member. We are now

restricted specifically to what is in

section 3 and strictly relevant

to the section. Bearing that in mind, the member continues.

MR. HANSON: I take your guidance. I'm pointing out to the

House that the reservation I do have in voting for this appropriation

is that there is not a companion amount of money for Indian culture as

well.

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

[ Page 2998 ]

now that we are in committee we must be strictly

relevant. What is not in the bill is certainly out of order. We must

deal only with what lies before us in the specific section.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr.

Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I wonder if you could

check the bells. I know a division was called. I know the second member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was here, but apparently he didn't

hear the bell. I know he would want to vote on something that took

place in his constituency, and it would not do for the very famous and

fearless member for Vancouver Centre to chicken out on a vote.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would just like you to clarify a point for me. I understand by the Orders of the Day

that any members in the precincts are required to vote on a

section of

a bill when it comes up. The second member for Vancouver Centre is not

here, and I just wonder if he perhaps doesn't understand these rules.

Oh, here he is.

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Forests obviously couldn't see, but this House agreed to an early

division. You asked for agreement; we agreed. The member for Vancouver

Centre was stuck at the door — I saw him.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, first of all

I'd like to have you verify whether or not a proper time lapse occurred

between the time of the last vote and the time I left the chamber,

because I understand that it was only a couple of minutes, and we

normally get considerably more time. In any event, I would like to

request that the vote on

section 6 be repeated in order that I have an

opportunity to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. There is no such

provision for the recall of a vote. The subject, I feel, has been well

canvassed and now is exhausted. The members of this House should be

familiar with the rules and regulations that guide us. Certainly the

division bells have between two and five minutes to go between being

sounded and having the division taken. If agreement is reached, it is

the consensus of the. House that the division can be taken earlier. It

is also the responsibility of members to take it upon themselves to be

present for the votes taken in the House. On

section 7.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question of

the minister in charge, if that minister would put up his hand. Is it

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)? The purpose of the fund is to provide for

the establishment of B.C. Place. Would the purpose of the fund also

include land acquisition?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member,

this is the first allocation for what will be known as British Columbia

Place. Therefore it's not possible to answer yes or no in terms of the

specific question you put. I think the member is aware that

negotiations are underway with respect to the owners of the land now.

This money, in all likelihood, would not be used for that purpose. As

you know, we are in the middle of very detailed and complex

negotiations.

MR. MACDONALD: On behalf of the government, has the minister

committed himself to the purchase of this site of land? I think it is

owned by the CPR, perhaps through their Marathon Realty.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I answered the question with

respect to the financial matter. I would now refer the member to the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who, along with other

ministers in other sections of this bill, is seized with more detailed

knowledge of the specifics.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to know if the government of the

province of British Columbia has committed itself to purchase or

acquire the lands now presently held by the CPR or Marathon Realty for

the purpose of establishing thereon a B.C. Place.

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

[ Page 2999 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, that leads to another

question. When you made that commitment on behalf of the people of

British Columbia to acquire lands, did you have any idea of the price

you would have to pay for the acquisition of said lands?

HON. MR. ROGERS: There is an agreement in principle between

the owners of the property and the government of the province of

British Columbia. The price is to be negotiated, and....

Interjections.

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

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: No way!

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

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

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: I bought a house. But, you know, I did a funny

thing. Before I committed myself to buy the house, I got the other guy

to state the price, because I figured, as a prudent young lawyer coming

along and knowing a little bit about business, that if I didn't know

the price before I committed myself to buy, I might lose my shirt.

Now we have it from the Minister of Environment…. The Minister of

Finance didn't want to answer that question. He kind of thought it

might show that the government of businessmen, whom we see over there,

are the most incompetent burnblers that this province has ever seen.

Tell me this, Mr. Minister of Environment — the Minister of Finance

has ducked a little bit on this thing; the Minister of Human Resources

is silent because she has the convention centre, and she has her own

problems — if you can't get a negotiated price from the CPR that's

satisfactory, is there any way that you can take a federal company and

federal lands to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, or are you

stuck with their figure? In other words, can they ask what the market

will pay, and set that price themselves? Can you take them to

arbitration?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Member, I don't think that will be

necessary, because we have an agreement in principle between the two.

We have jointly agreed to trade appraised-value properties for

appraised-value properties.

Interestingly enough, in some cases the appraisal done on some of

the properties put up for exchange by the Crown was higher by Marathon

than it was by the Crown, and vice versa. Yes, we have an agreement in

principle. I can't answer your legal questions. Perhaps you could

consult a lawyer and find out what the answer is as to whether or not a

federal Crown-owned company can do it.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the minister could give us some of the

asking demands of the CPR to exchange the False Creek lands, which,

having been rezoned, are pretty expensive.

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

section 7.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that

section establishes a fund.

I'm asking about the purpose of the fund. I don't see how you can have

a B.C. Place on False Creek lands owned by the CPR if you don't own the

land or get a lease agreement or something.

I have a further question for the Minister of Environment. You talk

about an agreement in principle. Is there anything in writing that has

been signed by the two parties — that is, by the people of B.C. and

Marathon Realty or the CPR — setting out the procedure whereby

appraised lands will be exchanged for appraised lands, and how the

value of those lands will be set on either side? Is that in writing? If

so, will you table it with the House?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come!

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if you'll do a little research,

you'll find that it is quite a common business practice. It would be a

little difficult for the province of British Columbia to buy 196 acres

in the middle of downtown Vancouver from the Canadian Pacific Railway

without telling them what we were going to do with it. We've been frank

with them and they've been frank with us. I think when the final

analysis comes in you'll find that we have done a good deal. It is

still not within the section, however.

MR. MACDONALD: There is nothing common in business about

committing yourself to the purchase of land without something in

writing regarding the price of that land that you're going to have to

pay. Don't tell me that's common business practice. There isn't a

company or an individual anywhere in Canada who would commit themselves

to purchase some land without any kind of contract as to what they're

going to have to pay. There are no powers of expropriation, I wouldn't

think, because I don't suppose you can expropriate CPR land. Maybe you

can. The Attorney-General might be able to…. Maybe you can take them

into expropriation court, but I doubt it.

Here you have committed the people to pay something. Isn't it

perfectly obvious that they're going to get more out of this deal than

they would be entitled to if you hadn't committed yourself to buy it?

They can set their own price, surely.

[ Page 3000 ]

They've got you in a box. You've got to go ahead with the deal, and

they'll just say: "We want this." They'll start a shopping list.

They'll say: "Well, give us the Peace River country as number one. Then

number two on our shopping list: we've had a little trouble with our

Fording Coal seams up there. They're beginning to run a little

threadbare, and we'd like a little more Kootenay coal." Then they want

a site for an office building somewhere else in Penticton.

They have three things there on their list. Their shopping list is

in their hands and you have made an incredible blunder in terms of any

kind of business sense whatsoever.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister said that they have agreed to

property for property on appraised value. Are some of the properties

the government is willing to exchange outside the lower mainland?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I discussed this earlier in second reading

of the bill, but put up were a number of properties throughout the

province, the majority of which are in the lower mainland, some of

which Marathon had no interest in, some of which they did have interest

in. But we are still in the negotiation stage. We're not over a barrel,

Mr. Member.

Interjections.

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

MR. MACDONALD: I have one further short point. When you say

you have with the CPR an agreement in principle, there is a statute of

frauds in all provinces that says that any agreements relating to land

have to be in writing. Your lawyer friends will tell you that. You have

no agreement at all relating to lands. Anybody would tell you that. You

may not be in the barrel, Mr. Minister, but you and the government are

going over the falls on this one. The people of British Columbia are

obviously going to pay far more dearly to acquire those False Creek

lands than if you had been prudent businessmen in your management of

the conduct of this province.

MR. HANSON: I would like to ask the Minister of Environment

how much of that $15 million would be appropriated for environmental

impact studies in the False Creek area.

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

MR. HANSON: What I am trying to get at here is in the

preamble,

section 7(1): "The purpose of the fund is to provide for the

establishment, planning and development of the B.C. Place site." The

minister appears to have principal responsibility for coordinating this

massive project, and his primary responsibility as Minister of

Environment is advocacy for the environment. I am just wondering how

much of that $15 million, if any, is going into the impact assessments

on those Marathon lands.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't think it would be possible to give

you a specific figure at this time, if any at all. I am sure your

colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) can

inform you that the proposal there is a substantial environmental

improvement over the existing situation.

MR. HOWARD: Before you call the question I think it is

worthwhile to point out that earlier — if I need to do it by point of

order then that's the process I'll follow — an accusation was made by

the Premier against the second member for Vancouver Centre to the point

that he was a chicken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That is an improper accusation; it is wrong. You

can call the member for Vancouver Centre a lot of things but, man, you

sure can't call him chicken. Only a turkey would do something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the point raised was certainly not

section 7, and as such could have — and should have-been raised as a

point of order, notwithstanding the fact that the point of order could

more appropriately have been taken when it was made, and would have

been out of order when it was subsequently made.

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the inability of the city of

Vancouver to provide very much new land for housing, how much of this

land will be set aside for medium- and low-income housing?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's too early to answer that question,

although land will be set aside for housing. However, in 1986 there

will be a world's fair on the site, so part of the planning at the

early stage is to decide — and this is something that's going on right

now — what percentage of the land will eventually be made into housing

and what percentage of it can possibly be converted into housing ahead

of time. Whether or not it's low-income housing will be largely the

determination of those agencies which are involved in housing.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Gardom

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Mussallem

Hyndman

Segarty

NAYS — 18

Howard

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

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

[ Page 3001 ]

Section 8 approved.

Section 9 approved unanimously on a division.

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

section 10.

MR. BARBER: During second reading I served notice of a number

of questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) in regard to the standards, criteria and tests that would be

applied when proposing expenditures under this fund. If the minister

wishes I could restate them all now, but I recall that notes were taken

and I wonder if he would care to simply answer those questions at this

point. I thought it was fair to give warning, because the questions

were of some detail. Some weeks have gone by, and hopefully he has

detailed answers.

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

MR. BARBER: Well, that's not a very helpful reply. What the

government proposes to do — perhaps having its usual problem of carts

and horses — is ask for the money before they tell us what they're

going to do with it; to ask for the funds before they tell us precisely

how they will be allocated. Ordinarily prudent governments do it the

other way around, but apparently this government has chosen not to be

prudent. I wonder if the minister could give in some explanatory

detail, before the legislation comes in and before we pass this

section, an indication of what his government proposes to do.

I would observe that as usual there's a bit of a double standard

here. We anticipate that the consequence of this bill — a useful one —

will be to make moneys available to private enterprise in the otherwise

decaying cores of certain urban communities in British Columbia to

allow them to rebuild their facilities and to allow the community to

rebuild the business core of its downtown. That's a good thing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The double standard is the usual one. In British Columbia, when we

give money to human beings we call it welfare and people who receive it

are sneered at. When we give money to business we never, ever call it

welfare. Instead we call it non-interest-bearing forgivable loans, or

we perhaps call it the downtown revitalization plan. What I'm concerned

about is that through this measure and many others we put an end to

that sneering and basically contemptuous double standard. Many people

recognize that it is a worthwhile thing that from time to time the

public make investments in private enterprise via non-interest-bearing

forgivable loans, say. That's fair; when there's a good reason and a

good cause we don't object. What we do observe, though, is that here,

as on many other occasions, the government appears to be creating an

instrument whereby the Crown will make moneys available to private

business for free.

When we do that for human beings we call it welfare, and people

don't like that. I remember some people opposite attacking previous

administrations for making investments in human beings — which is

called welfare — and thumbing their noses at it. Well, if it's good

enough for human beings and good enough for businesses, why don't we

stop calling it welfare and start describing it as we should, which is

legitimate public investment in individuals personal and corporate?

This

section proposes, it would appear, to make public investments

in individuals corporate — that's private business — in the downtown

sections of decaying urban communities. That's a good thing, or at

least so it appears, although the detail, to say the least, is sparse,

scanty and spare. It's not a good thing that the minister is unable to

answer these questions at this time. It would be a better thing, were

the government's house in better order, that we had that legislation

first and the expending authority second. It would be, I think, a lot

more appropriate a course for this Legislature to be told the details

first and to be asked for the money second. Social Credit chooses to do

it the other way around: they want the money first and they'll give us

the details second — maybe.

We haven't seen the bill yet, or at least the drafts of it we may

have seen might not be what's coming down. However, we continue to rely

on brown envelopes, as usual, to tell us what the government won't tell

us. As far as I can tell from the information we have received, the

government proposes to make public investments in the private sector

here.

Let me say again we support the bill at hand and just called a

division in order to demonstrate our support. But under

section 10 the

government wants us to commit moneys to a program which so far they

will not detail in its execution or in its application. This is

precisely the wrong way round. It is precisely the incorrect way to do

the public's business.

There is as well that question of the usual double standard which

applies. We give money away to business and we think it's good business

to do so. No one would ever dare suggest that was welfare for business,

but it is in fact, or at least it is to the same extent as when we give

money to human beings, and we call that welfare. I resent the double

standard, and I ask the government to take this opportunity to begin to

correct that double standard.

As well, I ask the government when they are prepared to bring this

legislation down in order that we can have the questions we asked a

long time ago answered at the earliest opportunity.

For the sake of the record — because apparently the minister won't

answer — let me briefly restate what they were. We want to know what

tests, standards and criteria will be applied when applications are

made for funds under this. We want to know whether or not private

corporations are entitled — as it would appear they would be — to make

requests for moneys from this fund. The specific language here in

section 10 says: "The purpose of the fund is to grant aid to

municipalities and the business community to revitalize downtown

areas." Does that mean that individual grants will be made to

individual businesses, or rather will general grants be made to

associations of businesses that, say, propose jointly, in collaboration

with the municipality, to build a mall?

One thinks, for instance, of the outstanding work done in the

community of Kimberley, where they established, by virtue of local

initiative and with local moneys, a Bavarian theme now reflected in

local architecture in downtown Kimberley. They did a good job.

[ Page 3002 ]

If it is the government's intention to award grants — which some

might call welfare — to business for these purposes, will these grants

be made available to individual businesses or, instead, to new

corporations that might be created to assist all of the businesses

generally, via malls or other enterprises, to clean up a downtown area

and make it attractive again for shoppers and tourists alike and

successful for small businesses?

It would be better if you could tell us that now before you ask for

the money. If we tried to do it this way, this Social Credit opposition

would have screamed blue murder about it. If we ever brought in a bill

that said, "Give us the money first and we'll tell you about the

spending second," they would have ranted and roared from the rooftops,

as was their wont. But now they're the government and not the

opposition, so they think it's okay. There's one more double standard

from the coalition opposite. Apparently where they sit now tells us

where they really stood all along. They want to do it their way no

matter what. That's not good enough for the public business. It doesn't

represent the correct public interest and it doesn't help the public of

British Columbia determine whether or not the moneys that we propose to

vote through this Legislature will be spent properly without the

influence of party politics, pork-barrelling and all of the other

things that have been traditionally associated with Social Credit in

this province.

If there are protections against that, let's hear what they are. If

there are provisions in legislation, let's know them now. If you have a

bill, bring it down now. If you want to ask leave to introduce it now,

we'll grant leave. But if you're not prepared — if your legislative

house is not in order, if your business is not ready to go — at least

tell us that plainly. And tell us, as well, why it is you want this

money before you're prepared to indicate precisely how you propose to

spend it. What the opposition wants to know are the tests, standards,

criteria, guidelines and all of the other things that we have a right

to know and you have an obligation to tell us, which would advise

business and local government alike what the application procedure will

be in every practical detail. These are reasonable questions. We served

notice last month that we felt it necessary to have these questions

answered. Last month the government knew we had these questions and

this month they still have no answers; this month we're now told

they're going to have a special bill.

Your house is not in order legislatively. If it were, you wouldn't

bring this procedure in following this order. If the government's now

prepared to reconsider, we'd like to hear it. How will the money be

spent, by whom, with what guidelines attached and with what standards

to be met? Those are fair questions. If we had done it this way in

government, you would now be legitimately asking these same questions

of us and be similarly discontent — as we are with you in regard to

this whole procedure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, occasionally the member

opposite, the first member for Victoria, gets a little carried away.

This is an appropriation bill. It is not unusual — and it was not

unusual in the years 1972-75 — for specific sums to be allocated for

specific purposes and legislation to follow later. The government's

house is in order, Mr. Member — your speech to the contrary

notwithstanding. The bill will appear in due course. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs has indicated that. There is ample evidence over the

years that at the beginning of a session — and every member of this

House knows when this bill was introduced; it's been here for quite

some time — the money is appropriated. The spending authority, however,

will flow in many instances — and this is one of those cases — from

legislation that comes to this House for debate. I do suggest that we

are allocating here, and I think that the debate should be restricted

to that allocation rather than to many of the points raised by the

member who took his seat.

MR. HYNDMAN: Very briefly, since the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is referred to in this section, I would like to take this

chance to flag for his attention and for the attention of his ministry

a point of view on this most worthwhile section, which affects a

significant portion of the city of Vancouver. My concern is that in

planning for the framework for carrying out the program this area of

the city of Vancouver may inadvertently be overlooked. The

section

refers to downtown revitalization. Most certainly the absolute downtown

core of Vancouver has been revitalized, but the peripheral core of the

city of Vancouver and small business in that area have suffered much in

the same way as the smaller communities around the province from the

competition from the development of suburban shopping centres. I refer,

for example, to the small businesses located along Victoria Drive,

Fraser Street, Main Street, Commercial Drive and in the Marpole area of

Vancouver. These are areas which classically exemplify the same kind of

problem which the bill seeks to address. I therefore urge the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, as the framework is planned to put this

section

1nto operation, to please bear in mind these parts of the city of

Vancouver and hopefully provide that they may qualify for application

and for assistance.

For example, the Victoria Drive Merchants' Association has just been

formed by a committee of small businesses and merchants along Victoria

Drive who hope to revitalize that part of Victoria Drive along which

their businesses and shops are located. They are going to need help.

They have suffered from the same kind of difficulty as smaller

communities around the province. I think the spirit of the legislation

is well met by, their needs, and I hope their needs will be borne in

mind so that in principle small business and the peripheral core of the

city of Vancouver may qualify for the program.

MR. LORIMER: The Minister of Finance stated that during the

period of the New Democratic Party government this was a common

practice — expropriating money and then bringing out money to decide

what the authority and purpose of those performances were to be. I

would certainly like the minister to give me one example of such an

appropriation with the act following. It would seem to me that sections

8, 9 and 10 of the bill under discussion at the moment are not

necessary if there is further legislation to come forward. Those

matters should be in that bill so that everyone in the House will know

what the purpose of the funds is, with some detail. If there is an

example of such an appropriation I would certainly like to hear it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would like to answer some of the

questions in order. Speaking to the point raised by the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, I think it should be remembered that the moneys

appropriated here are moneys that have accumulated to the people of

British Columbia because of good management, moneys that were left to

[ Page 3003 ]

government because we had a surplus. To ask for

examples from a time during which a government had nothing but deficits

is certainly rather difficult. Unlike this government, which has a

surplus, they ran up major deficits which we still, of course, have to

pay off, which is still a burden to the people of British Columbia.

Also now speaking to the points raised by the member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Hyndman), yes, we will be considering applications from all

areas of the province, though it is the intent that this program be

there to assist as much as possible the downtown cores in the smaller

communities. It does not preclude such areas as suggested worthy of

consideration by the member for Vancouver South.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) constantly mentioned

welfare. Frankly I think he should be told, if he doesn't already know,

that the people of British Columbia do not object to the word

"welfare." They object to the abuse of welfare. You constantly repeated

the word "welfare" as if the word itself was objectionable to people.

It is the abuse of it. This is not a welfare program. The people in

these downtown core areas are, by and large, the small business people

who were the first to settle there; those who came and pioneered, who

built when the area was only just developing, who stuck it out through

thick and thin. When the shopping centres began to develop on the

outside, on the fringes — sometimes a mile or several miles from the

downtown core — it became tougher and tougher for them. These people

who had pioneered, who had started the business in that community, were

finding it more and more difficult to compete with those shopping

centres, and this is where we want to assist; this is intent of the

program, to assist the small business community.

I'm very pleased that though perhaps the members opposite, while

they were in government — a number of them — weren't able to introduce

any such program or to show any leadership in attempting to provide

assists to the small business community, they are now at least prepared

to support the appropriation of these funds to make this downtown

revitalization program a reality. I commend them for that; I'm pleased

that they are supportive of appropriating these funds for that purpose.

I think they should be made aware as well that people throughout

British Columbia — and I have visited a number of these communities....

I'm glad to see the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) coming to

the House, because I think he, of all people, should be grateful to

this government in British Columbia for having introduced a tremendous

program of a similar nature for the city of New Westminster, a program

which is being hailed by all people in New Westminster as a tremendous

move forward in revitalizing a town, our first capital city, which

definitely was in need of this sort of effort. We as a government have

made it possible; we met with the business community only a week ago

and they all — one after another — expressed their appreciation for the

progress which is being made in the city of New Westminster. I was

sorry that I did not see the member for New Westminster there at that

time, but I guess perhaps his place of residence may be here. However,

I'm sure that he would have to be supportive of that program for the

city that he represents.

We've had tremendous response from the people in North Vancouver for

having introduced a revitalization program in North Vancouver through

the Lonsdale Quay — a program which has been tremendously well received

and which once more will provide a tremendous lift to an otherwise old

downtown area which needs that type of assistance. Just a few weeks ago

I had the pleasure of visiting Whistler, and Whistler is a thriving

area once again because we were prepared to introduce unique

legislation which would make things happen for a destination resort.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, we've seen ample evidence of this

government wanting to move in a variety of directions to assist the

small business community. I think what we have here in the downtown

revitalization program is an exciting program. It's not a welfare

program; it's one of helping people to help themselves, of providing

the tools to the small business community in that downtown centre so

they can make the place vibrant, alive and attractive for all the

people in that community. We will be assisting in that way those small

businesses; we will similarly assist the municipalities. Naturally the

municipalities will need the assistance because there will be some

changes required to public facilities, to streets, to sidewalks, to

various small park areas — all of this to make the downtown core a more

attractive area.

We will set forth the details of it in the legislation; we

definitely and obviously require this appropriation. I as the Minister

of Municipal Affairs am grateful that past Social Credit governments

during the last number of years have been able to make this possible.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the details will be provided in the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Mr, Chairman, I think we should point out that

the matter of practice with respect to the appropriation bill was

raised by the Minister of Finance, who said that it was the practice

when the NDP were government to bring in legislation to appropriate and

then follow it up afterwards with the details of the legislation. The

former Minister of Municipal Affairs asked him to cite an instance of

that. He said, "Give us an example," which prompted the current

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to take off on

this mythological declaration about deficits. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs said that the NDP did nothing but run up deficits. That is not

a true statement. There were no deficits created when the NDP were

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, so long as that government insists

on putting forward that blatant distortion of fact, other people have

got to rise and put the record straight. The deficit that existed

existed as a result of manipulation of finances by this government and

by the former Minister of Finance. The former Minister of Finance

created a fictitious situation, and then he labelled it as debt

created....

Interjection.

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

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

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

[ Page 3004 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask all members to maintain dignity and

courtesy in debate. The Table is aware that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs did make some comments that didn't really relate to

section 10,

but the minister did quickly return to the debate. With that said, I

would ask the member for Skeena, if he wishes to debate further, to get

back to

section 10.

MR. HOWARD: All we're trying to do is to make sure that the

record is balanced and that the myth created and perpetuated by the

Social Credit government is answered in a factual way. As long as it's

raised, it will have to be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 10, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Under

section 10, I wonder if the minister could

tell me whether a population limit is considered in the availability of

funds with respect to municipalities. If there is one, what is that

population limit?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it's

the intent of the ministry to devise a means whereby we would assist,

firstly, the smaller communities. We obviously have no limit in mind as

to how large a number or how small a number. We would receive

applications from all municipalities. But we would hope to assist

wherever possible, firstly, the smaller communities. It should be

recognized as well that a city like Vancouver or Victoria could soon

take up the whole of the amount if they were the first in line. So we

would want to make it available firstly to the smaller communities. The

member who asked the question has a number of those communities in his

constituency, one of which received assistance by other means in

upgrading the downtown street. So it's those types of communities that

we would hope to assist first.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the

Minister of Municipal Affairs' discussion with respect to New

Westminster as it refers to this particular section. The minister said

we should be grateful, I should be grateful and everybody should be

grateful for all of this fine work that's going on in the downtown

section of New Westminster. I would just like to draw to his attention

the fact that ICBC was moving into the downtown

section of New

Westminster, which would have been the catalyst for the downtown

regeneration, and that government stopped it. Five years later, with a

little deathbed repentance and a good deal of hypocrisy, we hear these

kinds of statements coming out. The fact of the matter is that the

announcement last week from the minister was about development.... It's

still hypothetical; it's still at the drawing-board stage. We were

ready to go with that. There was only one reason that was stopped.

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

MR. COCKE: We didn't run out of money at all; he knows that.

It was an ICBC development. Now they're moving it over to North

Vancouver. They didn't want it down there because it was an NDP

suggestion. But let me draw to the attention of that person, who was on

the GVRD at one time and closely associated with the municipal

governments in the lower mainland, that there was 100 percent support

for that as the catalyst for the downtown development. That, along with

the courthouse and the B.C. building, which I haven't heard anything

about since, would have been the absolute regeneration incarnate right

there, as far as I'm concerned. Now we get this, which is still taking

place. Sure, I suggest it's better than nothing, and I'm going to vote

for it — I've already voted for the appropriation. But I don't like to

listen to the kind of discussion in this House that doesn't lead us

anywhere.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to say that I support the

principle of this. I think it is disappointing that, with all the time

and with the experience in other provinces to go by in terms of

programs, things are not really ready right now.

I would urge the minister who will be implementing the expenditure

of these funds to consider, as one of the highest priorities, areas

which have recently had a monkey-wrench thrown into the economic

welfare of the retail industry by acquiring a new shopping centre. I'm

thinking of Nelson, Creston, and perhaps Nanaimo — other places where

shopping centres have created a real threat to the downtown areas.

That's why I support this bill, but I would urge the minister to give

communities such as those the absolutely highest priority — ones that

are going to be going through this shock. The shopping centre in Nelson

is not yet open, nor the one in Creston, for instance, in my area, nor

in many other parts of the province. I think we have to move as rapidly

as possible.

If it could assist the minister, I would send him my one and only

copy of the guide to the Saskatchewan Main Street Development Program.

The act in Saskatchewan was assented to on May 26, 1978, and they've

been underway with this program. I would hope that the minister's

people are in contact with them so that they can benefit by the

experience of two years in Saskatchewan. There is also the pamphlet put

out under the same program, "Facts For Business People." There's also a

pamphlet which promotes and explains the program in more detail. If the

minister is interested, I would certainly be willing to lend him my

only copy of this.

I would hope that it would assist in really getting something going,

because the thing should be happening this summer. There has been a

sudden explosion of shopping centres in villages, towns and cities. It

is creating a very urgent need for downtown revitalization programs

that will enable us to adjust and rehabilitate downtowns so that they

will be at least truly competitive with the shopping centres, which

enjoy certain other advantages and, I think, actually just tend to skim

the economic lifeblood of a small community.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 12 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Sections 13 and 14 approved. On

section 15.

MR. COCKE: This is the

section that provides some funding for

the Fraser River crossing that was one of the planks in the platform of

the Chairman and Deputy Speaker

[ Page 3005 ]

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

This Fraser River crossing comes into New Westminster at the extreme

west end of our town. It has now, I believe, successfully strangled our

town, in prospect. The east end of our town is ganged up on by the Port

Mann Bridge, the central part of our town is destroyed by the Pattullo

Bridge in terms of traffic, and now we're going to have the same thing

on the west side of our town, as the appropriation would indicate. I am

very sad.

I have noticed that there have been some minor changes with respect

to the way they're approaching Queensborough. I still say that while

they can possibly come up with some repair there, it is very difficult

for me to see how they can get beyond Queensborough to the west end of

our town and create anything but havoc. Havoc we will have as a result

of that Annacis Island crossing.

MR. HALL: I have been looking at this particular part of this

bill for a long time — as I'm sure many members in the House would

appreciate — coming from the largest riding in terms of numbers in the

province and a riding which has got as many traffic problems as any and

more than most.

It is a measure that on the face of it has some easement and some

relief for the good citizens who sent both the first and second members

for Surrey here. When it was first introduced and when it was debated,

as it has been debated on and off for weeks, two members and three

members at a time, I was always about to be the next speaker. Then the

bill was adjourned for further debate on second reading until some time

in the future, and I found upon my late arrival yesterday, having been

delayed in my own riding in Surrey — not, I should add, on a bridge or

in a tunnel, but delayed by constituency work — that the second reading

had taken place. As I mentioned, I think, probably in an out-of-order

fashion, had I been here yesterday I would have voted against the

principle of the bill.

I have been asked by members opposite in, I think, more than joking

style where I stood on this bill. My colleague the first member for

Surrey has seen fit to remark not once but twice or three times that

he's waiting to hear what I've got to say about the bill. I wish I

could be as interested in what other people have got to say about the

bill as he is about what I've got to say about it. But be that as it

may, I'm going to tell people that I am going to vote against this

section, because I don't think that the design for traffic relief in my

riding that is contemplated by the government is going to seize the

success the government wants it to seize.

It was brought to my attention that the first member for Surrey, in

his speech in the House, said that he was curious to know what I was

going to say and then he went on to answer his own curiosity by making

up what I had to say. That seems to me to be a little unfair. I can

make my own mistakes without anybody else making them for me.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: You've noticed that? I'll tell you, the member

should be more careful, otherwise he's going to get hit in the

pocket-book like he does so frequently when he does those kinds of

things.

He said, in fact — I've got the Blues here — that I hadn't said a

great deal about the Annacis Island bridge, although recently I'd put

forward an

article which I'd mailed to a number of people, and in it I

stated I was not in support of the Annacis Island bridge but on the

other hand I was not against it either. The

article I mailed out was my

constituency report. I said that local issues of overcrowding and

properly planned LRT involvement in third-crossing designs, etc....

That's the only reference I've got to the Annacis Island in my article,

so my colleague the first member really doesn't put accuracy on the

record when he talks like that.

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

MR. HALL: No, no, that was taken just a few years ago — about

1975, to be exact. That's not bad going for most politicians. I think

yours is about 1972; I think it was on your eighth trip to the U.K. or

something like that.

I would like to go on about this crossing and tell you that if the

crossing had been received with more favour by those who have to deal

with the day-to-day problems of traffic, planning and development in

the Surrey-Delta area I might have been persuaded to have considered

supporting the proposal more strongly than I did when it was first put

forward. The receipt of the proposal was marked, I thought rather

interestingly enough, by wonderment from the Greater Vancouver Regional

District; both the board chairman and the mayor of Vancouver said that

it would have been fine had there been more cooperation. It seems to me

that to start off a project of this magnitude, to start off a project

that is supposed to solve the transportation and transit difficulties

of that area, the fastest-growing area in the lower mainland, damning

it with the kind of faint praise and non-cooperative stigma that both

Alan Emmett and Mayor Volrich have already attached to the proposal is

hardly an auspicious launching of such a project.

The second thing is that there appears to be an intransigence on the

part of the government to move that third crossing anywhere other than

where they're going to put it: that is at Annacis Island. Had they been

flexible, had the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) or other influential members of the government — the really

influential members of the government like the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) — been able to suggest that that crossing be anywhere else

but where it is, I might have gone along with the proposal. Had, in

fact, the wording of

section 6 had some escape clause that that

crossing could have been anywhere in the lower Fraser River area from,

say, the Port Mann Bridge to the far western shores of Annacis Island,

I might have been able to support it. But to anchor it once and for all

on that particular area is the worst possible choice of all.

It's because of that intransigence, and the impact and the power of

the people who've chosen that particular site, that I can't support

that particular third crossing. I happen to be one member who believes

there's got to be a third crossing of the Fraser River, which has got

to take place at the location recommended by the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, with priority for light rapid public transportation

first of all. But the bridge designed to calm political waters, to save

political careers, to serve 30,000 people instead of 130,000 people and

to serve rubber-tired traffic is not going to solve the situation.

What's happened since that announcement of Annacis Island? We've had

every single municipal council — New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond,

Delta and Surrey — all

[ Page 3006 ]

split right down the middle on that proposal. Not

one municipal council is unanimous in its support of that proposal.

Already the liaison committee is trying to deal with access routes.

North and south ends of that proposal are now bedevilled by citizens'

groups and their own inability to deal with where those access routes

should go. For instance, in my riding and your riding, Mr. Chairman, if

you take the east-west feeder routes of 60th, 64th, 80th, 84th, 88th,

90th and 96th, we know that every single one of those has gots its

proponents and its opponents. It doesn't make any sense at all to make

some of them feeder routes for that bridge. The ones that Delta wants

are the ones that Surrey doesn't want. The ones that Surrey wants are

the ones that Delta doesn't want.

The ones that Surrey doesn't want are the ones that have Surrey

schools. One, indeed, Mr. Chairman, you will remember from your

representation of this part of town. There are four schools that you

and I share on 88th Avenue on the east and west sides of Scott Road.

One of the largest recreational complexes in British Columbia is on one

of the suggested feeder routes. I've seen you officiate there at

ribbon-cutting ceremonies. I've seen you munch the odd hot dog with a

beauty queen or two. I've managed sometimes to get to present a trophy

before you got there, and I've oftentimes beaten out the first member

for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in a tug of war, which is not too

difficult when you're my size.

You and I, being familiar with the area south of the river, know

that some of those access routes are going to be the death of some

politicians down there. You think that you've escaped that death by

insisting it be on Annacis Island, and I want to suggest to the member

for Delta — if I may now start using that personal way of addressing

you — that I think you've made a grievous error. Look at the recent

liaison meeting between Surrey and Delta, in which no agreement could

be made about feeder routes and schools on 88th Avenue.

The trouble is seeking to understand the concept behind the

announcement. The constituents who write to me are all pointing out —

and I speak now to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, through

you — that all my colleagues and constituents would love the bridge

where it is if they could be assured that nobody from Surrey would

drive over that bridge. My constituents would love it if everybody from

Delta would promise not to go over it first. My friends on these

benches from Burnaby and New Westminster would love the bridge,

provided nobody from the south side went over it and they could use it

to get out on weekends — southwards only.

That's the whole point: it isn't serving any one of those functions

properly. All it's going to do to my good friends of the IWA who work

in the mills along the Fraser River, on shift work and so on, is just

make them sit in gas-consuming, fuming traffic jams in a place slightly

different from where they're sitting, gas-consuming and fuming in

traffic jams now. That's the trouble. That's why I can't support this

section. I know that there are going to be people who are going to be

writing to me saying: "What on earth are you doing? Have you ever

driven from White Rock through the Deas Island Tunnel at such-and-such

a time?" And the answer is: "No, I haven't. " But I've driven through

the Deas Island Tunnel every single conceivable time of the day and

night. Last Friday afternoon I got caught up in traffic jams on the

401. I've been in traffic jams going to the airport; I've been in

traffic jams coming from Surrey, from South Delta, from North Delta. I

know what the traffic jams are like, but putting up another

vehicular-serving bridge isn't going to do those traffic jams one

little bit of good. That's why I'm opposing it.

I don't think it's a plot by the other side; I think it's a piece of

stupidity on the other side to put cars in the wrong place at the wrong

time. It's just that I don't think you thought this out, and it won't

work. It simply won't work. Anything that is going to be that

unsuccessful and anything that sets back the rapid onset of our total

commitment to light rapid transit, to a fully integrated transit plan,

to getting on with completing the work started by my colleague for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), when he was Minister of Municipal

Affairs and putting buses on the roads.... I remember that well, as the

member for Surrey and many other members remember, that there was

nothing in Surrey at all before 1972 in the way of buses. Anything that

stops that happening is going to stop the progress in these communities

of Surrey, Delta and Richmond and along the Fraser Valley, and then, of

course, on the other side of the Fraser River too. And that's why I

can't support this section.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at some length regarding

these particular sections during second reading some weeks ago, and I

gave some solutions to the minister as to the way to solve the serious

problem that is there with stranded vehicles and so on. I'm surprised

that the minister hasn't taken my advice and has not proceeded with

these particular sections. The big problem here is that the solution

proposed is not going to work, as my colleague has said. It can't work;

all it will do is move the bottlenecks in the vehicle traffic from one

area to another. As far as people from Delta or Surrey getting downtown

or home again in the busy hours, this will make, in my opinion, no

difference or very, very little difference — certainly not enough

difference to warrant the expenditures of the funds that are being

allocated.

The only solution, in my opinion, is to have a sophisticated transit

system to serve the people in the lower mainland in order to move the

people quickly and efficiently. You can build as many bridges as you

want, but unless you have a street network to look after the

automobiles when they cross those bridges, then the bridge itself is of

no value. There have to be systems. If you're going to take an

automobile or a freeway solution, which I don't support in any way....

But what you're doing here, it seems to me, is supporting it halfway.

You're building bridges, but there are no networks. As a result the

tie-up of traffic will be removed — to a degree, not to any great

extent, but some of it will come out of the Deas Tunnel — into

Westminster, into Burnaby, into South Vancouver. There will be

bottlenecks throughout and certainly that will be no solution and, in

my opinion, will not solve the problems that the minister is trying to

solve.

It's my opinion that this bridge, if it's ever built — and I hope it

isn't — will be known as "Fraser's Folly," the reason being that after

the cutting of ribbons — that will be the last cheer — there will be no

benefits at all to those people in Delta and Surrey, those who are

anticipating great improvement in their transit services.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to now try to

attempt to answer the questions and concerns of the members and give

Highways' side of Annacis. I'll have to capsule it, because it's a long

story. I believe that when the present member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) was the minister

[ Page 3007 ]

in the prior government, he commissioned a detailed

study of what to do about the bottleneck in the lower mainland. They

came up with what we're talking about today, the Annacis Island

crossing, to relieve the bottleneck. We have on the lower mainland

three major structures in this area of the Fraser River: the Port Mann

Bridge, the Pattullo Bridge and the Massey Tunnel. They're all at or

over capacity now and expanding fast. But anyway, we dusted the

consultants' report off and we had the present engineers in the

ministry — along with the ones who were there then — make revisions and

updates of the consultants' report. The government wanted to do

something about solving the bottleneck where the great majority of the

citizens of British Columbia live. We accepted their advice and that is

what we have in the bill here — to start doing something about it.

First of all, regarding transit, I would like to inform the House

that the structure part of the Annacis crossing is a four-lane

structure expandable to six lanes. When that time comes, following the

construction of the bridge, the people can then decide whether they

want to put transit on there or expand it for vehicles. My personal

opinion is that they'll come to the conclusion that we have six lanes

for vehicles. I am saying that I don't think transit will go on the

expandable bridge, for the simple reason that some of the members over

there have mentioned: you have to have feeder lines for transit as well

and the bridge wouldn't fit into that. This is my opinion.

What we think we can do for that general area is put transit on the

existing Pattullo Bridge. The engineers looked at that once. They got

the wrong advice from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, because

it told them it wanted expandable lanes on the bridge plus transit.

They went along on that study and found out that wasn't feasible. In

other words, what I am saying is that they should never have looked in

the first feasibility study at doing that to the old Pattullo Bridge.

It is a different type of concrete in the piers, that can't be worked

on today. But the senior engineers did come up and say: "While we

probably can't accommodate extra lanes for automobiles and transit, we

think we can put transit on the Pattullo Bridge." That's where that is

at. I expect to hear any time that it's feasible to get transit across

the river on the existing Pattullo Bridge.

I want to deal just for a minute with all the gossip that's been

flying around — not from MLAs of any party, but from planners in the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, and not even elected people —

about the day the Premier announced that we would go ahead with this

large project. They structured the press the day before; they wanted a

crossing for transit upstream from the Pattullo Bridge in the area of

the existing penitentiary site. Of all the ridiculous things that any

engineer has ever heard, that is the one.... But it made a front-page

story in the Vancouver Sun , the Province, the television and

the whole works. We were quite concerned. We checked back with the

elected people of Greater Vancouver Regional District to see if this

was their suggestion to get across the Fraser River, and of course it

wasn't at all. It was one of their planners. They had no part of it.

Why was that upsetting? Well, it's not feasible at all for the simple reason

that you will destroy both sides of the river for rapid transit access to that

bridge. I am well aware, just as you, Mr. Chairman, and all other members here

are, that we can't build a structure without getting proper access to that

structure. Getting access to the structure is a bigger problem than building

it in compounded areas of the lower mainland — wherever you have a dense population.

A lot of us try to conveniently forget that, but the fact is, we have to build

the access to structures on ground. If it happens to be that there are houses

in the way and commercial enterprises and that, then we have to make some decisions

in the public interest. That is what has happened here, and this Annacis has

been taken with a lot of this thought in mind — to impact on the fewest

number of citizens in the lower mainland, whether it be on the north or the

south side of the Fraser River. All the experts we could get our hands on — planners,

engineers, and so on and so forth....

I hope I have stated the government's position to a degree,

regarding rapid transit to get across the Fraser River. I want to

emphasize that. I suggest that rather than all the debate that's going

on locally, they'd better sit down and decide to start building rapid

transit. The government isn't holding them up. They're just sitting

around and arguing with each other, the north and the south of the

river. It is about time they made some decisions. We've got money in

this bill to help fund it. Where are all the decisions being made?

Now I'd like to deal with the municipalities that are affected by

the Annacis crossing. I want to make one thing very clear that has not

been said. The Greater Vancouver Regional District have a plan for

transportation corridors, and the Annacis crossing was in that plan.

Don't forget that. You can talk all you like about discussion, but it

was in their own plan. That's where they wanted it and that's where

it's going.

Now we are getting into the arguments from the individual

municipalities, how it's going to impact on them. I accept that; the

government accepts that. We've got meetings going on night and day with

them all to try to rationalize that point: That is, how it impacts when

our engineers say this is where the right-of-way has got to be; we have

to locate the structure of the bridge and therefore the approaches to

it, and this is how it will impact on Surrey, Delta, Richmond,

Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, and you name it. Discussions are

going on at staff level and at council level; and you're right, the

councils are split. Maybe that's a healthy sign. I don't think that the

government will ever get unanimous votes from the councils, but I will

certainly hope for, and I'm sure we will get, a majority vote. But to

make a point about a unanimous vote I think is stretching it a bit.

Anyway, that's where we are regarding that and the discussions that

are going on. I want now to address a few things that were brought up.

The first thing in the overall discussion is that the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is trying to make a point that the Annacis

crossing is going to destroy the fine old city of New Westminster.

Well, that's absolute rubbish. The city of New Westminster is now

destroyed. That's what he should be saying, because you go there now

and see the traffic that's backed up on their main streets to try to

get back and forth across the Pattullo Bridge. Just take a look at it.

Go there today. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) laughs. He

should go over there and see what traffic problems are. They haven't

got any like that over here, I'll tell you. Go and have a look. And

don't ride a bicycle; drive a car. Find out.

What I want to say in answer to the member for New Westminster is

that the Annacis crossing will assist the city of New Westminster to

relieve the mess they're in right now. It'll take 25 percent of the

traffic off the Pattullo Bridge and put it on the Annacis. To connect

with that side we are

[ Page 3008 ]

building the Marine Way, which nobody mentions.

We're making that four lanes right through from New Westminster right

back to where the great city of Vancouver's had it four-lane. In other

words, the Mickey Mouse setup you've had there for 100 years and

nobody's done anything about it — we're going to make it, and the road

is half built at the present time. So that's the connection we're going

to make there.

Regarding that part and into Burnaby, the Burnaby people and the

Vancouver council are now building Boundary Road with our money — not

their money, with provincial government money. They're building that so

it will tie into Kingsway and so on. So the overall pattern is there. I

got onto the subject because of the questions from the member for New

Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

are quite amazing. If there's any riding that the Annacis structure

will help, it is the riding that he has the honour to represent. He's

going to stand here and oppose it, and vote against it; I don't know

how. Everyone's entitled to arrive at his own decisions, but I'm sure

he'll regret that decision.

He makes the point that he knows better where to locate this large

structure than the specialists do. That's really what he said.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm talking specialists — engineers. There

have been hundreds of them. They're the ones that decided where to

cross the river to have the least impact on the communities involved

and the biggest assistance. So that's my answer to the second member

for Surrey. I appreciate his observations, but they're contrary to all

the engineering facts that have been made about the crossing.

Regarding the feeder routes, I would like to just expand a little on

those planned. None of those feeder routes on the south side of the

river have been definitely established. But we're dealing with all the

affected municipalities: Delta — Mr. Chairman, I think you know

something about that area — and Surrey.

Going right back again to what I said earlier, we can't build a

major structure without having access to it and having everybody

bottlenecked into it. I personally certainly want to see as much access

as possible, with the minimum impact on the area. But I want to tell

the Legislature that it's not possible to access a large facility like

this without impacting on somebody. What I'm saying is that we're doing

our utmost with our engineers in dealing with the councils to lessen

the impact on the greatest number of people; we're working on that. I

think it's going to take all the balance of this year before firm

decisions are made. There's no argument about some of the accesses;

some are very argumentive. That's where we are there.

I think so far I'm enjoying this debate. I've answered some of the

questions about it. I've cleared up some misconceptions. I wish you'd

just stay to the facts of whom you are quoting and so on; that would

help a lot. Thank you for listening.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just informed us

that he is giving serious consideration to putting a transit route on

the Pattullo Bridge. All we're saying to the minister is: do that

first. What we're asking for is that a commitment to transit be

honoured first. It is quite possible, having done that, that the folly

of the Annacis crossing will become evident, and that the minister will

then be prepared to reconsider his decision on that Annacis crossing,

and that even the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) will agree to

withdraw his threat to resign unless the Annacis crossing goes through.

If the minister is doing a feasibility study on putting transit onto

the Pattullo Bridge...

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

MS. BROWN: ...and if the engineers are saying it can be done,

then do it. All we're saying is that the first commitment should be to

transit, not to the automobile. This is not going to solve the

congestion which the minister is describing and which all of us are

very well aware of. It's not going to solve it. If there was any idea

that expending this $30 million would result in a solution to that kind

of congestion, the response of all the municipal governments, as well

as their representatives sitting here, would be quite different, but

it's going to exacerbate the problem; it's going to make it worse. On

top of that, it's going to be destroying neighbourhoods, and it's going

to be affecting the lives of people who live where these feeder routes

are that the minister is talking about.

So if there is a study being done.... The minister said that it's

been public knowledge for a long time. If now the engineers have said

that it can be put onto the Pattullo Bridge if you don't want the

expanded roadways for cars as well, do that. It's not too late to amend

this piece of legislation, to have that $30 million go into the

development of that transit route on the Pattullo Bridge instead of at

the Annacis crossing. It's your priorities, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, that are at issue here — this government's continual

priority to the automobile.

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

MS. BROWN: That's right. Everywhere else in the world people

are beginning to recognize that the commitment to the automobile is a

suicidal one in terms of its use of energy, its polluting of the

environment, and the fact that it's not solving the problem of moving

people from one place to another. By the time this government finds out

that this is what's happening, we will already have destroyed one more

area of the province by putting up this bridge, which is simply going

to be moving the congestion from point A to point B.

The minister stands up and brags about Marine Way; he's so proud of

it. That little Mickey Mouse road — he says it's going to be a

marvellous four-lane road going from New Westminster to Vancouver. But

you forgot to add that it's going across some of the best and most

arable land in this province; it's some of the last remaining arable

land. So you can brag about a four-lane highway. Once again there's

your commitment to the automobile. The minister said that's where it's

going to go, and that's where it's going to go. If there happen to be

houses and people in the way, it's too bad about them; they're just

going to have to move.

There was no consultation with the people living in that area — none

whatsoever. Letters were written to the minister's department — no

response. They were told: "It's under advisement; it's going to be

studied."

[ Page 3009 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Careful now, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: "It's under advisement; it's under study." That's

what the response that came from your department said. But there was no

meeting with those people. There was no discussion with those people

who live in the areas of South Burnaby and East Burnaby. There was no

meeting with them, no discussion with them. Even the GVRD, who you

claim already had it in their transit plans, were not even allowed the

courtesy of sitting down and discussing it with you. The GVRD says that

there was no discussion with you on that decision. A unilateral

decision was made.

The minister said that it's never going to be possible to get a

unanimous decision from a council on this. If the commitment is to

transit first, there will be a unanimous decision on that. That's what

the councils are saying: let's have a commitment to transit first. The

councils are light years ahead of this government. The councils

recognize what the automobile is doing to their municipalities. They've

been trying to get the government to move into the twenty-first century

and to recognize that.

It's going to destroy those neighbourhoods. The traffic coming off

that crossing where the bottlenecks are destroys their neighbourhoods.

The councils recognize that and the councils are asking for a

commitment to transit first. Try transit for a change. Give it a

chance. Get going on transit. Take this $30 million out of here and

commit it to getting that transit route built onto the Pattullo Bridge.

It's not too late to move an amendment. I'll second it and vote for it,

too. That is what they are asking for — the people living in those

areas as well as the councils, the elected representatives and the

so-called planners who the minister says are gossiping. When planners

talk about planning, that is gossiping. You said gossiping. You wanted

to put an end to the gossip the planners are spreading. Make the

commitment to transit first.

Amend this piece of legislation. It's not too late to do that. At

least sit down before any final decisions are made and speak to some of

the people whose neighbourhoods are going to be destroyed as a result

of this unilateral decision by you and your government. Those people in

east and south Burnaby are entitled to some kind of courtesy from this

government. They have made their views known to the minister and the

least the minister should be able to do is to sit down and speak with

them. The view they have made known to the minister is that they want a

commitment to transit rather than to the automobile because they

recognize that building more roads, more freeways and more bridges is

not going to solve the problem of transportation. We've got to start

looking at different alternatives.

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

MS. BROWN: Of course I ride the bus, and I walk and I ride a

bicycle too. I don't sell cars either, and that's why I have no

commitment to automobiles. I'm not in the business of selling cars. Why

don't you think about something besides the sale of cars for a change?

All you think about is selling cars, and you're not even a good

salesman either. You weren't salesman of the year last year.

Interjections.

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

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

As I was saying before I was interrupted by that failed General

Motors salesman.... That member over there is probably the reason

Chrysler is going bankrupt.

If I could bring some reason to this debate, I suggest to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways that it's not too late to amend

this particular

section and divert that $30 million to the development

of the transit route on the Pattullo Bridge rather than to the Annacis

crossing. We would be very willing to vote in support of that, but

certainly not to support the going ahead of the Annacis crossing at

this time.

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

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, when I go up to my property in the

Okanagan, Mr. Minister, all I hear is: "When is that guy going to

resign? When is that MLA of ours going to get out of here?

Interjections.

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

section 15.

MR. COCKE: Under

section 15, I would just like to draw your

attention to the fact that we are delighted in New Westminster. We have

two prominent members of the Crown who are going to save our city. We

have the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who

is going to save us with the Annacis crossing and then we have the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is going to

save us with his city regeneration.

MR. BARBER: What about Ray Loewen?

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

I would like to go on to say about the reduction of Pattullo traffic

by virtue of the Annacis crossing that what the minister didn't mention

was the influx of traffic from the other side. We'll get Delta traffic,

which we've never seen before. This is put in to alleviate the problem

of the Deas Island Tunnel. That's what it's there for. Oh yes, it'll

help for a few years, and as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer) said, it'll help for a little while, possibly, but all it will

do is generate more traffic. The only solution in the lower mainland is

the same solution that all major cities have to go for eventually, and

that is rapid transit. For heaven's sake, to motivate people to cross

the river by bridge in cars.... This is not in any way a crossing that

will assist transit, because there's no question that transit will not

be part of that crossing.

HON. MR. FRASER: I said that.

[ Page 3010 ]

MR. COCKE: Okay, fair enough, you've said that. But in any

event, the reduction of the Pattullo traffic, I would suggest, will be

minuscule. It will be increased proportionately from the other side,

and I predict that the west end of New Westminster is going to be

really, really congested as a result of this crossing. Of course, the

traffic then goes on into Burnaby, where you've got your four-lane

highway going down through that rich land — and I listened to the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) laughing and snorting a few

minutes ago at what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said

about the loss of this very rich farmland down there. Those of us who

can remember the beautiful truck gardens in Delta and on the Burnaby

side of the river....

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

MR. COCKE: They're still there, my foot! They've been built

on, because of the Social Credit governments over the years. This will

be encroached upon now. A four-lane highway along that Marine Way is

going to cost us a lot of farmland.

I don't think that the government has really dealt with this in a

thoughtful way or has been planning the way they should. They've

reacted to the member for Delta and he reacted to some of his

frustrated voters, no doubt; but those frustrated voters would be very

pleased, I'm sure, to see some progressive changes in the way we move

people around in major metropolitan areas. I believe that the only real

long-term answer is recourse to transit as quickly as possible. We're

not going to educate people to transit if we continue to build bridges.

They call that the third crossing. I can think of five, six or seven

crossings across that Fraser River, or under it, and you'll go on

putting them across. Pretty soon you'll have wall-to-wall crossings.

But you still can't convince me that you're going to create anything

but chaos in the metropolitan centres, because traffic....

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) shakes his head. If I had a

car dealership the size of his I'd shake my head too. Eventually, Mr.

Member for Dewdney, you're not going to be able to sell cars to people,

because they're going to be sick and tired of standing on the side of

the road while their cars are idling, wondering when they might get

into the city of Vancouver. That's what we're looking at — total

congestion. When the old artery is full there'll be

myocardial-infarction — and the Minister of Health will know all about

that. When the highway is full, it's dead stop.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to just respond to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) didn't say

anything, so I don't have to worry about responding to him.

First of all, I would like to respond about light rapid transit. In

my notes here it says that in the GVRD proposal for light rapid transit

in this area.... As a matter of fact, daily crossings of the Fraser

River now are 280,000 person-trips. The GVRD-proposed LRT system is

estimated by themselves to carry at most 5 percent of these daily trips

across the river — if they had it. So I think you should start looking

at the facts of life. Even if it does come-and it will come-it

accommodates only 5 percent of the problem. The other thing is, when

you are in LRT — and it's a great thing; yes, people-mover.... But we

still have a lot of other things that affect people that have to be

moved, such as the economic life of our province every day. I would

like to ask you: what does LRT do for that? So we still have to

accommodate something that moves.

I am told now that the amount of fuel that's being wasted in the

lower mainland by delivering parcels from one community to the other is

an absolute scandal, because there are no proper routes to travel on.

LRT is not going to relieve that one iota. You don't want to mention

that, but I want to bring that point out, and I want to remind the

members that the government is committed to light rapid transit.

When those councils get together and get their act together.... I

don't see them making any progress, because every time they show a plan

where they want to go with LRT the neighbourhood gets up in arms and

says: "You can't bring it through my area." These are their problems.

So let's face just where we're at here regarding LRT. Why don't they

decide something and get on with it? Our government is committed to

support it.

The last thing that I want to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is that we

are destroying ALR land. I happen to have gone all over this territory

that you make that charge on. As a matter of fact there's still farming

there; it is good land. I want to tell you, though, that the Minister

of Transportation and Highways can't go anywhere, any more than you

can, without the permission of the Land Commission. We have to

negotiate with them, and we get their approval for release all over

this province or we can't move. We get their permission; we have to do

it the same as any other citizen. They release land out of the ALR for

the benefit of the public interest. We don't go roughshod; we can't. We

have to abide by the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and they help us

set the route.

While I'm on the problem, they definitely helped determine the route

on the south side of the Fraser River. They asked us to go where we're

presently located. In the original stance they thought we had gone too

far into ALR class land, and they brought us back to where it is now.

That's fine with us. But I want to make it abundantly clear that in the

public interest, and dealing with all the authorities, including the

Land Commission, that's how these things are arrived at. There was a

lot of consultation over the last four or five years.

MR. LORIMER: I was somewhat surprised at the minister when he

mentioned the Pattullo Bridge. He finds out now that the Pattullo

Bridge can support light rail transit. I would remind him that an

engineering report was made back in 1975 which made it public that the

Pattullo was capable of handling transit, on the side or underneath,

and that the strength and so on of the bridge was quite adequate to

look after transit. So it hasn't been just a recent thing that we know

that the bridge is capable; it's been known for five years. Five years

down the road there's been no action to put transit on that bridge, but

we're still discussing putting more money into a bridge that we know

will not answer the problems that the minister is facing.

He goes on to say that they would move on transit if the

municipalities would get together and do something here and there.

There's no question in my mind that public transit is a provincial

responsibility, and you can't hide your responsibilities by passing

statutes in this House trying to transfer responsibility to another

area of government. The whole thing is a provincial responsibility and

not a municipal responsibility.

He mentioned also that only 5 percent, I think he said, of the

people going into Vancouver rode on transit services. I question that

figure.

[ Page 3011 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I thought you would.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, but if the figure is correct…. I agree

that the figure is low, but the reason for that is that the service has

been kept down and the prices have been increased. The transit in this

province has deteriorated for a period of five years, and it's

continuing to do so. This government — I think we might as well face

the fact — has no commitment whatever to public transit. Why don't you

get up and say it? Give your solution to the movement of people — which

is a freeway system — and then we can get on with the job; the people

can decide whether they want to have a system of transit or whether

they want to have freeways criss-crossing their neighbourhoods.

MR. BARBER: The fundamental debate here is over land use and

development. Access to land reflects or controls development of land.

The planned access to land through bridges, tunnels and roads

determines the use to which people may put the land connected by the

tunnels, bridges or roads. The fundamental debate at issue is the

governance of urban communities as reflected in this case by the

particular instrument of policy called Annacis bridge. This debate

takes a lot of other forms and has a lot of other characteristics.

It'll be raised again and again in other places, but the original

debate here is the use of land for private or public transportation

purposes or for any other.

Now let's talk about the bill, Annacis crossing itself. Let's talk

about the use of land that it implies and the characteristics of the

proposed use that we'll see 10 and 20 years from now. It's simply not

good enough to talk about the allocation of $30 million for a bridge.

We have to talk about the way in which that money....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we can only talk

about what is in the particular section, and in this case the ALR or

land acquisition is certainly not a direct indication in

section 15.

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

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

section.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: We're talking about, in this case, a commitment

to an aspect of public policy — the construction of a crossing at

Annacis Island. We have to talk about the impact that this commitment

will have 10 and 20 years hence, if we're to discuss it in a rational

way. That's important. I think the Legislature of British Columbia,

when it determines whether or not to expend $30 million — it will be,

finally, four times that figure on the Annacis crossing; we're only

talking about a minor share of the total cost in this particular

appropriation — has to examine, at least to some rational extent, what

other communities have said when faced with the same prospect and what

decisions other governments have made when faced with the same problems.

It's important that this Legislature ask why the people of Toronto,

for instance, finally said no to the Spadina Expressway. It's important

to ask why the people of Vancouver and the government of British

Columbia finally said no to a third crossing on the Burrard Inlet and

instead said yes to the SeaBus. It's important to ask why the people of

Vancouver finally said no to the Georgia Street freeway proposal, which

would have ruined the heart of Chinatown and the Strathcona district.

It's important to ask why the people of New York City said no to Robert

Moses and the Midtown-Manhattan expressway proposal, after, tragically,

they ended up saying yes to his other 12 expressway proposals. They

finally said no to that one, and that has — to say the least — been one

of the reasons why the Midtown-Manhattan district has had a chance to

come back in the last few years. It's important as well to ask why the

people of San Francisco finally said no to the Embarcadero Expressway.

They said no to all of these things for the same reasons that this

Legislature should say no to the Annacis Island crossing. They said no

in those other communities, because they finally realized the price

they would have to pay in the safety, security and livability of urban

neighbourhoods. The people of Vancouver said no to the third crossing

and no to the Georgia Street Freeway; the people of New York City said

no to the Midtown-Manhattan Expressway; the people of San Francisco

said no to the Embarcadero Expressway; and the people of Toronto said

no to Spadina for the same reasons. And they were these.

First, the private automobile in the heart of great urban

communities is antithetical to the success of urban life. Second, it is

vastly expensive, and there are cheaper alternatives. Third, it is a

committal of vast public funds to an obsolete technology. Fourth, it

doesn't work.

How many studies must be published before someone over there reads

them? Those studies conclude again and again that every time you build

a new bridge, expressway or throughway in an urban community it fills

up, usually within 18 months of its opening date, and beyond that point

no longer deals with the original traffic problems. Traffic grows to

meet the capacity of the roads to handle traffic. That's one of the

rules that honest engineers will tell you. Now there may be a few

self-serving engineers who would r