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)

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2379 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of Privilege

Standing order 26.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 2379

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Neighbourhood pub licences. Mr. Macdonald –– 2380

Northeastern coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 2380

Day care. Ms. Brown –– 2381

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 2381

Day care. Ms. Brown –– 2381

Asbestos levels on Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2382

Extended-care beds. Hon. Mr. Mair replies 2382

Trade and Convention Centre Act (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 2382

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2384

Mr. Mitchell –– 2384

Mr. Stupich –– 2385

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 2385

Mr. Lauk –– 2387

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2388

Mr. King –– 2388

Mr. Davis –– 2389

Mr. Mussallem –– 2390

Mr. Skelly –– 2390

Mr. Nicolson –– 2392

Mr. Barber –– 2392

Mr. Passarell –– 2397

Mr. Barnes –– 2398

Mr. Hall –– 2400

Ms. Brown –– 2401

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2401

Division on second reading –– 2403

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF:

Firstly, this afternoon I would like to introduce to the House Mrs.

Gail Tompson, who is in the gallery. Gail is the president of the

Skeena Social Credit Party, an association working very hard to bring

the truth to Skeena, even though the member sitting does not. I would

like the House to make her welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, I sincerely regret that on this particular

occasion I must ask you to remember the intent of introduction period.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of events over the last couple of weeks, I would like the people of Skeena to decide for themselves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I must ask you at this point to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly withdraw any aspersions which I've

thrown the way of that member. Again, I say the people of Skeena will

understand.

In the gallery this afternoon as well,

representing an industry which adds a great deal to the economy of

British Columbia, and which with proper wildlife management and proper

and logical predator control will add even more to this province, is

Mr. Bob Henderson, executive director of the Western Guide Outfitters.

With Bob is Mr. Red Sorensen, Mr. Lynn Ross and Mr. Lee O'Neil. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

Visiting the precincts today and later to be in the gallery are 15

biology students from L.V. Rogers Senior Secondary School, where I

taught with their teacher, Mr. Fred Young, for some eight years. Also

accompanying them is Mr. Allan Auringer. I ask the House to bid them

welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: In the gallery today we have a

Mr. Colym Welsh, secretary manager of the British Columbia Turkey

Marketing Board. With Mr. Welsh we have Mr. Norman Cryer, one of the

province's old-time turkey producers and a long-time acquaintance of

our first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Would the House

please welcome these two gentlemen.

MRS. WALLACE: I

would like the House to join me in welcoming a grade 6 and 7 class

visiting from Alex Aitken Elementary School in the Cowichan Valley,

together with their teacher, Mr. Hoag.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is a large

group of youngsters from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary School. I also had the pleasure

of meeting in my office with a large delegation from the Guildford Park Community

School, and with them were 35 young people from Beauport, Quebec. I ask the

House to extend them a welcome and wish them a good stay in British Columbia.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are seated two people with whom I had the

pleasure of having lunch today and who will be meeting with the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I understand, later this

afternoon. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Emil

Lindahl, who is the labour attaché to the American embassy in Ottawa,

and Robert Moore, who is the American consul general in Vancouver.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I had the distinct pleasure on the weekend of visiting our Speaker, Mr.

Harvey Schroeder, at his home. I would like to report to the House that

he is improving, and he stated that for the last week he felt better

than he had for some weeks. He says hello to everybody and said he will

be back as soon as he can.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would

like the members to welcome three gentlemen in the gallery today: Mr.

Norm Cryer, Mr. Colym Welsh and Mr. Jack Howard, from the turkey

industry in this province. Would you bid them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, prior to calling for question period, on Thursday I

indicated that a further statement would be made relating to standing

order 26, which provides: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it

shall be taken into consideration immediately."

During

question period, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) stated: "My

question of privilege is the absolute, blind and stubborn refusal of

that Chairman to even acknowledge questions." Having regard to the

frequently expressed views of hon. members that the time provided for

question period ought not to be infringed upon by other matters, the

Chair ruled that the matter of privilege might be raised immediately

following question period. Accordingly the Chair later recognized the

hon. member for Skeena. Hansard discloses that upon gaining the floor

the hon. member stated: "The question of privilege is that for which I

attempted to rise during the question period."

I need not

again state to the House what matters fall within the ambit of

privilege. Suffice it to say that failure in question period to respond

to a question or series of questions is patently not a matter of

privilege. If the Chair were to rule otherwise, hon. members will

readily see that virtually daily the House could well find itself

setting aside all its appointed business to embark upon debate arising

from the complaint of an hon. member, however aggrieved he may feel,

that his question has gone unanswered.

The Chair notes that

the hon. member for Skeena also complained that the Chairman of the

Committee on Crown Corporations had on three or four occasions

summarily cancelled meetings. Hon. members will be aware from the Journals

of the House that the House has consistently declined to intervene in

those matters which ought to be resolved in the committee concerned.

While

not alluding specifically to the matter which the Chair has just

reviewed, I must again urge upon all hon. members the responsibility

which we all have to observe the rules of the House, which, if abused,

can only lead to frustration of the orderly transaction of its

business. Hon. members have the most important right, almost at any

time,

[ Page 2380 ]

seek recognition by the Chair on a point of order or a matter of

privilege. This prerogative of hon. members, provided for by the rules

of the House, imposes a clear obligation on hon. members not to claim

the floor to make gratuitous statements under the guise-of stating a

point of order or a matter of privilege. In order to dissuade any hon.

member who, seeking to press a point, might be tempted to indulge in

such a disorderly tactic, the Chair must require that members,

immediately upon rising, state the rule which they consider to have

been infringed or state the privilege claimed to have been breached,

without embarking upon debate or disorderly comment. Failure to do so

must call for the immediate intervention of the Chair even although, if

allowed to continue in a disorderly manner, the member concerned might

eventually arrive at a perfectly valid point of order or matter of

privilege.

I would call members' attention to the sixteenth edition of May, page 470:

"On

July 1, 1952, the Deputy Speaker deprecated a growing practice of

interruptions of debate by members who, when the hon. member who was

speaking refuses to give way, think that the only way that they can get

their word in is by raising a point of order. He stated that in his

opinion such interruptions constitute fraudulent points of order and

should be stopped. "

It is very far removed from the

intention or desire of the Chair to be perceived to be lecturing the

House on a procedural matter, but if the Chair is to fulfill the duty

imposed upon it by the House, all hon. members must honour and assume

their individual responsibilities in the matters to which I have

alluded. In so doing, hon. members will greatly assist the Chair in

protecting their rights and in furthering the orderly conduct of the

business of the House. Thank you.

Oral Questions

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB LICENCES

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. I wrote him with the same questions last April 18,

but I happen to notice him sitting over there and, not having had a

reply, I would like to put the questions to him.

Following

the order-in-council of April 20, 1978, creating marine pub houses — a

new category of neighbourhood pub — did the liquor administration issue

a pre-clearance letter within four days to a company that became

Grandma's Marine Pub, of which the directors were R. Dale Janowski and

other members of his family? Did that pre-clearance letter go out and,

if so, when?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The information is

very specific. If the member has written a letter, I will certainly be

supplying him with an answer. It does require specific research; I

don't have that information.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to

express a little astonishment that my letters are at the bottom of the

pile, even on a matter of this sort. It's kind of crushing.

what I have stated is the case, that the pre-clearance letter went out

within four days of the creation of these pubs, did the pre-clearance

letter go out before an application for a marine pub house licence

could have been received and in fact was received?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm afraid the answer to that question must be

like the other. It is specific information that

would have to have researched, and then I would respond to the member.

He has indicated that he has written a letter, dated April 18, with

these questions contained in it. Certainly we will have a response for

you in written form, presumably answering the questions contained in

your letter.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question.

Is the minister taking the question I've just asked on notice so that

he will come back to the House and give the answer publicly?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you get a letter it will be public.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want a letter; I want an answer now in the House. That's three weeks ago.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Well, I still intend to respond to you in writing if your letter asked

for that. I'll be pleased to take your questions today as notice.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have one other question. Is it also true that under the old

regulations relating to neighbourhood pub licences, this application

could not have been granted because the site requested was within one

mile of another site of a neighbourhood pub?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'll have to look at the specific circumstances of this. I don't know

how close or how far it may be from any licensed establishment. I'll

take that as notice as well.

NORTHEASTERN COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. It concerns the negotiations that have been going on

between the two levels of government over support for northeast coal.

On Saturday the Prime Minister of Canada stated: "It's a complete and

utter lie that we had introduced new elements into discussion of an

economic package." He meant tying reduced Alaska gas pipeline

compensation to northeast coal assistance from the federal government.

Would the minister advise if the Prime Minister was correct in his

statement that it was a lie to say the federal government had

introduced new elements into the negotiation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly pleased that those on that side of the House

are taking some interest in this great economic development that is on

the verge of taking place in our great province. I want to inform the

member that I certainly was not with our great Premier Bennett when he

met with the Prime Minister of Canada, and therefore I'm not privy to

what conversations took place.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr.

Speaker, the minister was privy to negotiation with the federal

officials that were here. Would the minister advise whether the federal

officials introduced a new element into those negotiations — that new

element being reduced compensation for British Columbia in terms of the

Alaska pipeline?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to be

[ Page 2381 ]

very

careful how I answer this legal question posed to me because it's got a

double-edged sword to it. I didn't say we were negotiating, and I don't

think anybody in the press or any of the federal or provincial

ministers have said anything about reduced compensation. I don't

remember it ever being mentioned, but my legal friend from

Coquitlam-Moody is trying to put words in my mouth. I am very reluctant

to respond to that legal question. However, I did make a statement to

the press on Friday morning saying that the subject of the Alcan

pipeline was introduced a week from this morning in our negotiations

with our federal counterparts.

MR. LEGGATT: Was the

introduction of that new element contingent in any way on the

discussions that were taking place around federal support for northeast

coal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should

ask the member, in answer to his question, to read the newspaper. I'll

state it again in this House: a pipeline is a pipeline is a pipeline,

the northeast coal is northeast coal is northeast coal, and a railway

is a railway is a railway, and never the three shall meet.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister again. I take it that the

answer is no, that there was no contingency. Would the minister also

advise whether it was he or his officials that indicated to the press

that this new element was introduced into these negotiations?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Let me inform the member so that he'll be up to date. We have told our

federal counterparts that certainly we're willing at any time, at the

drop of a hat — providing that we can get out of the Legislature to

carry on the province's business — to respond to Ottawa in the package

that we have put before them on the Alcan pipeline. We have on several

occasions travelled many miles to Ottawa, met with officials from the

federal government and told them that we're ready to negotiate with

regard to the Alcan pipeline. We stand ready at a moment's notice and

we are ready, willing and able to do that.

But, Mr. Speaker,

to answer the member's question, what we're waiting for, my dear

friend, is some response from Ottawa to the great proposition we put to

them for the great province of British Columbia. Let me assure you that

we are negotiating, and we may be tough, because we're responsible to

the people of British Columbia. We may seem a little tough, but we have

to act in accordance with the mandate given to us to do the best

possible thing for the citizens of this great province of ours. Let me

assure you that we will.

MR. LEGGATT: It's impossible to put words in that minister's mouth because it's constantly completely full of his own.

DAY CARE

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. The Social Services

Employees' Union, Local 2, of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional

Employees' Union conducted a province-wide survey of day-care centres

and discovered that the present-day system is overcrowded and that 97

percent of the centres have a waiting list. Has the minister received a

copy of this survey?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. It is now about four weeks

since the minister informed the House that he was meeting that week to

discuss the minimum wage. Were any decisions made at that meeting with

respect to the minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A decision was not made at that meeting.

MS. SANFORD:

Has the minister received recommendations from the Board of Industrial

Relations on their review of the minimum wage for each of the last four

years?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not received

recommendations from the Board of Industrial Relations with respect to

each of the last four years. But I do have a recent report and, I might

add, I have another report as well.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise what the Board of Industrial Relations recommends with respect to the minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I'm at liberty to make that recommendation.

Those documents were conveyed to me in my capacity as minister, and I

don't think it would be proper for me to disclose them to the House.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise the House when we can expect some announcement with respect to a change in the minimum wage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a question regarding the future, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not asking what he's going to announce.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In due course I hope to advise the member.

DAY CARE

MS. BROWN:

Can the Minister of Human Resources confirm that she had a meeting with

Local 2 social service employees of the Vancouver Municipal and

Regional Employees' Union?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

MS. BROWN:

Is the minister saying she did not have a meeting or that she cannot

remember having had such a meeting? I just need that clarified. It's

the day-care union.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker,

I have met with many day-care groups throughout the province. The one

which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is asking about is not familiar.

However, they may have asked for a meeting under a different name

because they belong to an association, as you and the member may know.

[ Page 2382 ]

MS. BROWN: On April 24 a brief from this union was submitted to the minister. Does the minister recall receiving the brief on April 24?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, no.

ASBESTOS LEVELS ON

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL:

Will the Minister of Labour table the Workers' Compensation Board

report on the levels of asbestos in the air on the vessel Queen of

Prince Rupert when it was taken? The tests were made about three weeks

ago.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.

member is referring to a question which he addressed to me

approximately two weeks ago, which I took as notice. I might say that I

did receive an answer, but I personally was not satisfied with it and I

am seeking further information.

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like, with leave, to reply to a question asked of me in oral question period about a month ago.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: How long ago?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, April 15 — not bad. Mr. Speaker, at that time the hon. member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked what steps I had taken to alleviate

the waiting lists of "one year or more" in extended care.

Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that we have made

considerable progress in this area, particularly in the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. I might add that our efforts began many,

many months ago and are ongoing now. We began in 1976 in this province

with 3, 946 extended-care beds, Today it has reached 5,786. That is an

increase of 1,840 beds or 31.8 percent. I should add that 60.5 percent

of those new beds were built in the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital

District. The hospital

section of the ministry is actively working with

the regional district to ensure that about 300 more beds are built

immediately. More will be approved as soon as the regional district

study of extended care pinpoints the most appropriate locations. In

addition, renovations are underway at the Pearson Hospital to

accommodate 38 more extended-care patients. At Royal Columbian Hospital

a new temporary unit will provide 40 more extended-care beds this

summer. Waiting periods for extended-care beds vary widely, from one to

six months in the capital region and from no waiting period to 12

months in the rest of the province, outside greater Vancouver.

Nobody

is happy with long waiting periods and we are working to reduce them. I

might say that nobody is sitting on their hands doing nothing, but

there are inevitable delays between approval and completion. You can't

throw up buildings or convert them overnight, and because we insist on

high standards of accommodation for people who need extended care, some

delay must be tolerated.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE:

On Friday last the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

introduced the trade and convention centre bill. At the time, I made a

passing remark that we were somewhat surprised that the trade and

convention centre bill hadn't been put forward by the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). We recognize that the Deputy Premier put

forward the bill because of her great interest in trade and conventions

centre and her lack of interest in human resources.

There's

also something else that comes to my mind. I recognize that the

Minister of Tourism at the moment isn't being paid — she's probably on

semi-strike — but, at the same time, I would suggest that she probably

knows that that Minister of Human Resources has a special smile for

her, as she has had for many people in the province. She also seems to

have a special smile for the Premier. Every time this bill has been

called the Premier has been either out of town or away. I'm just

wondering if there's been a bit of an altercation in cabinet around

this whole question. B.C. Place is the Premier's baby, and convention

centres are the Minister of Human Resources' baby.

I would

like to suggest a number of things with respect to this whole question.

First and foremost, while it's quite supportable — and we'll support it

— I believe that the convention centre concept should have a lot more

scope.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you going to support it?

MR. COCKE: Garde, why aren't you down in Montreal with the Premier?

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the big promotion that's

being done by this government. The First Capital City Development Co.

Ltd. put out a book.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the wrong bill.

MR. COCKE:

If the minister would have a little patience.... Relax. The boss is out

of town, but you can still relax a bit. Wait, and I just might be able

to draw a conclusion here with respect to this whole matter.

The

government that wrecked the downtown concept in New Westminster could

very well now be using some satellite proposals within the bill we are

now discussing. You're discussing a convention centre in Victoria, and

you're discussing a convention centre in downtown Vancouver; both are

supportable. However, the regional town centre concept brought one

thing to our attention, and that was the high concentration of business

in the downtown Vancouver area. It also brought to our attention that

if we didn't pay more attention to other regional centres, one day we

would be very sorry.

I view a lot of the material in this book as being just

[ Page 2383 ]

publicity

if in fact something material doesn't occur in the downtown New

Westminster area. We've moved the college downtown, for all the good

that is. The minister who destroyed the concept by not allowing the

ICBC head office down there is the minister responsible for congestion.

The minister, whose mind is on coal.... I'm wondering how you can mine

coal for $75 a ton and sell it for $66. He should be doing a little

more thinking about his portfolio and the part his portfolio plays in

the downtown centre concept.

When this bill was introduced

in the first place — the first capital city bill — we were told that

this was going to be a landmark sort of proposition. But then when you

bring up accompanying proposals that could very well become very much a

part of this proposition, there's no mention, no thought. If there is

anything that downtown centre lends itself to it is to some kind of

development in small business, including hotels, smaller convention

facilities and utilization of property that's already there. For

example, you have many, many acres just being deserted by the

corrections branch of Canada. The penitentiary property certainly lends

itself to some aspects of this proposal. We find the hon. member for

Vancouver looking after the interests of Vancouver, and to some extent

looking after the interests of the capital here in Victoria, but no

thought about the satellite development that could very well enhance

the whole proposition. One or two satellites to the proposal, and you

develop the whole area as....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want one in Skookumchuck.

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing wants one in Skookumchuck. It

should be discussed and I'm sure that he'll be up making a speech about

it in the House. Let's hope he does it in French.

Incidentally, as an aside, we very much appreciate the fact that you did that. I think a lot of people across the country did.

this first capital city proposal we see that New Westminster is now

ready to become a commercial centre. So what do we do? To enhance the

now possibility that they talk about, the commercial centre, we order

that a college and the courthouse be moved down there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What did you do?

MR. COCKE:

Whatever did we do? I gather, Mr. Speaker, he's not talking about what

I, personally, did. But in New Westminster we have a Royal Columbian

Hospital, which is super and had been ignored by the Socreds for years.

How you have the face to be with that party, I'll never know. We also

built a hospital that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) just took

credit for, and that's the 300-bed, extended-care hospital there. What

did we do for New Westminster? We put ICBC headquarters down there

until you came along and wrecked it. That's what we did for New

Westminster, Mr. Speaker, in a very short time — three years and four

months. That's more than has ever been done for that city, thank heaven.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have an unsettling effect on that group over

there. It strikes me that they didn't have a very good weekend. I

possibly can understand why they didn't have a very good weekend. After

all, Bill was down east and there was nobody to give them any kind of

leadership.

We're getting ready, Mr. Speaker, to become a

commercial centre. We see nothing about that. We see the minister

talking about all the grandiose plans. As I say, our Canadian gateway

in Vancouver can be described at best as an eyesore. I suggest — and

those are her words — that that government has done more to make New

Westminster's downtown area an eyesore than anybody in history. They

closed down practically everything on Columbia Street as a result of

the work that they have been doing. If they had any seriousness about

that area, there would be a satellite convention centre to what they

are building in Vancouver and Victoria down there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, while the matters being

discussed may be of great personal concern to you, the Chair is having

some difficulty in specifically relating this to the bill presently

before us. While passing reference of a comparison might be in order, I

believe the member is embarking on a rather thorough discussion of

something that is not presently before us in the bill. I would ask him

to return to the principle of the bill before us.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, he'd be doing well if he'd go out and give some advice on

gardening this afternoon, because he certainly isn't giving very good

advice in the House.

In terms of our discussion of this

bill, we're being asked here this afternoon to vote for a bill. We're

to raise some arguments as to whether or not we should vote for this

bill. I'm saying that it has some shortcomings. I'm saying we're going

to vote for it, but there are some shortcomings....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I said that at the outset of my statement this afternoon.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Barney, you were asleep, as you ordinarily are.

Mr.

Speaker, I suggested that at the outset of my few words. You know, my

few words are such that I just want to raise a couple of arguments. As

a matter of fact, by now I'm sure that somebody else would be speaking

in this House had it not been for all the interruptions by this very

rude rearguard that we have in here this afternoon.

Mr.

Speaker, also included in these arguments is that they're talking about

new hotels and locations in that area. But how do you encourage hotels

without some kind of assurance that there is going to be business going

on? I suggest that that's another reason for our wanting to see some

expansion of this whole proposal. I'm not at all that keen on

governments packing the whole load, particularly a government that's

talking in terms of their free enterprise attitude. There should be

some partnership, some arrangement where business gets involved. This

government decided that they're going to give business a lift, and if

it can work out, okay. But I suggest that there are some areas that

need significant help, and I would hope that those areas are going to

get help.

[ Page 2384 ]

Just

to get to the convention centre itself, the two sites.... I'm

particularly familiar with the Vancouver site, and I suggest that it's

one of the best sites that could be selected in that city. I think it's

as good as the other downtown development, the football field on False

Creek, is bad. I can understand why the sparks are likely flying in

cabinet. That is a beautiful site in terms of the setting — what you're

hotels. I think it's a very, very fine site.

I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that we're going to get the kind of cooperation from the

owners of that site that one might hope for; I don't think that the CPR

or Marathon Realty, as their real estate arm is called, have ever been

the easiest people to deal with, but I do hope that there is a

relatively good deal there. If anybody owes Vancouver a good deal, it's

Marathon Realty. Remember how CPR came to Port Moody, stopped the

tracks there and said, "If you want the tracks to go any further, you

have to give us half the city of Vancouver," which is exactly what the

government of the day did. They have made an absolute fortune out of

that ransom, and it's about time the CPR paid back some of that

fortune. This is a very good opportunity for them to get involved to

the extent of being far easier to deal with than they have been in the

past.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the site in Victoria will be

discussed by my colleague for Victoria. But I do want to say that the

proposal for Vancouver is a good one, from our standpoint. We only wish

there was something a little more imaginative in here in terms of the

satellite proposal that I put forward. Hopefully we're going to see

some thinking along that line coming forward in the not too distant

future.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In support of this bill I'd

like to make two or three brief comments in which I would attempt to

illustrate the importance of this trade and convention centre as it

will relate down the line to our plans to hold Transpo '86 in the city

of Vancouver. This is an international exposition with the theme of

transportation and on a future occasion will be addressed in a bill

which is before the House at this time. I want to state in debating

this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, that with the advent and completion

of this wonderful centre in Vancouver, a cross-section of conventions

of an international nature can be attracted to British Columbia.

Just

to single out one particular facet of this and to give you some notion

of the opportunities which exist, I have here a list of some 52

international organizations which address themselves to the subject of

transportation. I think we can conservatively estimate, when looking

forward some six years to the year 1986, when this world's fair on

transportation might take place, that we stand a chance of acquiring at

least 15 international conventions on the subject of transportation

alone in 1986 as a direct result of hosting Transpo '86. These

conventions range in delegates from, at the lower end, some 400 to some

3,000 or more. The average number of delegates is approximately 1,800

per convention on this list, and is expected to generate some $10.8

million from the delegates alone to those 15 conventions, not to

mention the ongoing funds expended by husbands and wives and family

members of delegates. I might say that we also expect to attract, in

addition to this, at least five major domestic conventions on the

subject of transportation which will generate additional funds into the

economy of British Columbia. I just wanted to indicate in one single

aspect the importance of this trade and convention centre as it relates

to major plans to bring to Vancouver an international exposition or

world fair on the subject of transportation.

A number of

important transport organizations have expressed interest in holding

meetings in Vancouver during this fair. The Canadian Transportation

Research Forum has indicated interest in holding its 1986 annual

meeting in Vancouver, and invitations will be extended to its United

States and Australian counterparts. It is anticipated a number of other

important transport groups will be similarly interested in scheduling

their meetings in Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that the hon. member is perhaps debating Bill 19, Transpo '86 Corporation Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. The member had advised that he was going to

show how this related to the bill presently before us. As the Chair has

allowed latitude to the previous speaker I would hope that these

remarks would be soon to be finalized.

MR. NICOLSON: I accept your decision.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point made by the member. I think it's

quite obvious that the trade and convention centre proposed by this

bill can attract conventions of the size to which I'm referring. It

should be noted that also there might be many international conventions

prior to 1986 which will address themselves to the subject of

transportation — seminars, symposia — all of which will generate new

concepts in transportation which will become themes for this world

international show.

I simply wanted to make the point that

it is interesting to note that there are upwards of 52 international

organizations which address themselves to transportation, many of which

are of a size which would require facilities such as the trade and

convention centre in Vancouver. It's very important to our move into

the eighties in terms of attracting the size of conventions, the number

of delegates, to a most attractive area in the world.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to mention before I talk that I hope I get a special smile

because I want to announce to everyone over there I am going to vote

for this bill. But my main job as part of the opposition is to do what

I've been receiving lots of advice from the other side of the House on

— to come into this House and give some constructive suggestions on

what should be developed in this area, and the reasons why. This bill

says that the Provincial Capital Commission is to acquire some land to

build a building on. I feel this is important on this ground: although

I'm not the member from Victoria, as one of the surrounding ridings

that also comes under the Provincial Capital Commission we feel that

the development of the waterfront as a people place that has been going

on by the capital commission must be continued.

To try and

stick a convention centre of the size and magnitude that they are

talking about in between Wharf Street and the water and still leave

sufficient land that can be used and utilized by the citizens of

Victoria is ludicrous. That area was purchased to stop the development

of the Reid Centre, to stop the obstruction of the view of the harbour.

[ Page 2385 ]

They

say the original Reid Centre was going for 19 storeys and this will be

smaller. But it's unimportant if it's ten feet or if it's ten storeys.

Once you have stopped the view, the harbour cannot be enjoyed by the

public. I would seriously and sincerely ask the minister to give some

consideration to developing this centre in an area that is more central

to the town, more central to transportation, parking and hotels, for a

number of reasons.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think if it's more central

it will be more beneficial to those who come to this area for a

convention. I think people come to the convention to do convention

business, not to sit and view the sea or airplanes coming into the

harbour, or to watch the ferries come back and forth. They come there

to do business. I feel that when they come, they're going to use the

convention centre for that business.

I also feel that the

convention centre can be a centre for the greater Victoria population,

if it's properly developed. It is something which is needed and can be

utilized. I sincerely ask that the minister, through her office, set up

some committees so there is some local input from the various

organizations of greater Victoria, so the centre can be used for

numerous community activities which can be enjoyed not only by tourists

coming here on conventions but by those who are going to be asked to

subsidize this through their taxes.

I feel that if this area

is developed it can be a great benefit to the business community, the

construction community and the community at large. I feel that we do

need one, but the location being bandied about, right down on the

waterfront — in spite of what the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) feels; perhaps in Vancouver it would be a good location.... The

waterfront should be developed for communities. There was a day when

everyone came to Victoria by sailboat and landed on the beach, but

today people come to the capital city by ferry or airplane and don't

land on the beach. That particular area is the wrong spot to utilize.

think it's wrong that it's blacktopped over and used as a parking area.

One of the plans that has been proposed is for a parking garage for 200

to 300 cars. Actually, to build a garage of that size near a convention

centre is not needed. If you are going to have 1,000 or 1,500 coming to

a convention and you are going to provide parking, you will want far

more than 200 to 300 parking stalls.

I feel that a

convention centre should be more central to the city, where it can be

developed, expanded and utilized by the greater Victoria community.

There is a lot to be gained by it, and it's something long overdue. I

sincerely ask the minister, with her special smile, to give some

consideration to its location and maybe get away from the waterfront.

Let's keep the waterfront for the public.

MR. STUPICH:

I suppose the speech which we heard from the minister introducing this

bill and the one we heard from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) are very much a repetition of what they said last year in

introducing very similar legislation. I haven't checked back in Hansard . I intended to, but it just came on me a little too soon.

Perhaps

the one point of difference is that last year there was $10 million for

the Vancouver trade and convention centre, and this year it's $20

million; last year it was $2.5 million for the Victoria trade and

convention centre and this year it's $5 million. Last year they

provided these funds for these programs and did nothing about them, and

this year the money is coming back into revenue in the financial year

1980-81, which will increase our revenue this year. The money for this

program is coming out of last year's surplus, or whatever, so it's

going to make this year's revenue look that much better, but I wonder

whether in fact anything more will be spent than was spent last year.

There

are other programs which the government is announcing again this year.

We've already discussed many of those in the opening speech debate and

in the budget debate, and we'll be discussing more of them when we get

around to dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis). I think it's a good idea. In spite of the fact that the

government did nothing about it last year, I would like to see

something happening. As the member for New Westminster and the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) were saying, I'd like to see

this kind of thing happening in other communities. Certainly in Nanaimo

we could do with some government assistance to provide, for example, a

theatre — a civic centre of some kind which would include a theatre.

This

is the kind of thing that should be happening around the province. It

did start when the NDP was elected. We had a program that enabled

communities who were prepared to initiate such projects and finance

them to some extent to get such projects off the ground.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Never mind, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't want to listen anyway. But you do,

Mr. Speaker, and I think you will agree with me that this would be a

good idea if it were picked up not just as a single program in itself,

or two single programs — one for Vancouver and one for Victoria, taking

care of the surplus of the past, but there is money enough in

government pockets right now, with over a billion dollars cash sitting

in the bank that they could be initiating projects like this all around

the province that would provide very much needed facilities throughout

the province, that would provide employment at a time when unemployment

is very high, that would generate markets for the kind of building

materials that are not being used right now and creating more

unemployment in the forest industry.

It is a time when this

kind of a program should be picked up, expanded upon, and made

available all over the province — rather than simply two programs, one

for Vancouver and one for Victoria. It's great public relations, great

politics perhaps, for the cabinet member introducing this particular

legislation, but it's falling very far short of the needs of the people

of British Columbia right now, very far short of the ability of this

province right now to do the kinds of things for B.C. and the people of

B.C. that could be done, that should be done, but will not be done

until that gang of obstructionists is thrown out of office.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but have a slight smile on my face, as does

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), at the comments

just made by the progressive member for Nanaimo who was the Minister of

Finance and had the ear of the then-Premier at the time that this

province was led into a deficit position for the first time in years

and the time that the tourism industry —

[ Page 2386 ]

which

is what we are really talking about now — was virtually slaughtered in

this province. It was that member who stood in this House by his

colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who suddenly left, along with

his colleague for Burnaby and the one for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King), who are sitting now, who virtually told visitors to British

Columbia — or the tourists, as they called them — to go home. Yet he

stands up in this House today and suggests: "Mirror, mirror on the

wall, who's the greatest obstructionist of them all?" The member for

Nanaimo. We shan't forget that and neither shall the people of this

province.

Speaking of his comments, he mentioned that it

would be a very good idea for similar developments to take place around

the rest of the province in the way of trade and convention centres. I

don't know where that member has been in the last year or two. I

realize that he realizes that during the NDP time in office conventions

did drop off in British Columbia. There was no incentive at that time

for hotels and private operators or communities to develop convention

centres because, oddly enough, one has to have people and tourists to

come to convention centres and one has to have trade in a viable

provincial economy to justify the development of the two centres that

we are talking about and other centres around the province. Once again,

that member will recall, I am sure — to say it kindly — with some

embarrassment, that that was not possible under the NDP because of the

economic conditions that developed in British Columbia under their

tutelage, because of the loss of credibility that this province

experienced under their tutelage.

But today, if that member

were privileged to move around the province, he would see that in many

parts of British Columbia there are new and very exciting facilities

developing to take advantage of the major impetus that these two trade

and convention centres will bring to British Columbia. My own community

of Vernon, where I've lived a good part of my life, is one of the areas

in British Columbia which is capable of handling some of the larger

conventions in this province and which is looking at the development of

a possible trade opportunity. But apart from that, there are many

communities that are now looking, in cooperation with the private

sector, to develop the type of facilities that we will need and that

will be economically viable in all parts of this province to benefit

from the impetus that this bill will bring about in the development of

the two major trade and convention centres. And in suggesting that

perhaps....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'll speak about the hon. Minister of Human Resources in just a moment. She happens to be a very good friend of mine.

is significant, Mr. Speaker, and that member again becomes very

confused in not realizing this, that these two centres will attract

conventions and trade seminars and opportunities to this province that

we have not possibly been able to compete for or to accommodate in the

past. These will be centres of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 people.

British Columbia has never before been able to compete in this area.

The bookings we have now fall in that classification. The important

aspect of this is to recognize the number of preconvention seminars,

preparatory seminars or associated seminars that will take place in

British Columbia next year and in the following years as a result of

having the major international conventions in either one of these

centres.

There will also be the post-convention seminars

that will result from these two world-attracting catalysts. It may be

news to the opposition, because they're not usually up to date, but

many communities in this province are today working with the Ministry

of Tourism and with the private sector so that next year and in the

years after they can take advantage of these pre- and post-convention

and trade centre opportunities.

The member mentioned the

role of the Ministry of Tourism in this. I would like to say, first of

all, that I don't think it's at all unusual that the Minister of Human

Resources should be guiding this bill through this House. No one in

this province has worked harder than this minister, in whatever

capacity she has held within the government, to help bring about this

major centre in Vancouver. It is only right and fitting that she should

be carrying it through — no one is more conversant with the details of

that centre — and this should remain so. The hon. Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been with her through this at all times, as have

the sitting members for Vancouver. The hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the member for North Vancouver-Capilano

(Mr. Ree) and the other members who come from Victoria have all worked

with this minister.

There seems to be some idea across the

way that it's very simple to put together such an international

attraction as is in place with these two programs. That's simply not

so. I certainly won't go into the role of the complexities, because

they wouldn't be understood, and I wouldn't want to take the time of

the House.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), in

trying to suggest that this minister shouldn't be playing this role,

doesn't seem to understand that the development of such things as trade

and convention centres is very much a part of the required knowledge of

a Minister of Human Resources. This minister and this government are

interested in creating job opportunities and training opportunities

that will result from this for people of all ages, not just in the

prime of life. There's going to be an opportunity with these centres

for senior people to take

part in activities and to benefit from the

dollar spinoff. So again I would suggest that he doesn't quite

understand.

He also pleaded in this House for help to New

Westminster: why isn't New Westminster getting one? I would

respectfully suggest to that member for New Westminster that he is the

person who can help New Westminster benefit from the Vancouver trade

and convention centre. He is the one who should help that community

recognize how they can go out and attract private capital, as the rest

of us are doing in our own constituencies. There are many hotels and

motels which must develop and will develop in order to accommodate the

visitors who will come with these conventions and trade activities. The

private sector will also be capable, without tax assistance, of hosting

major conventions in such a way that people will have a variety of

experiences around the province. They are doing it in the Peace River,

Mr. Member; they're doing it on the north end of Vancouver Island;

they're going to be doing it in the Kootenays and the Okanagan. I would

respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for New

Westminster should not be negative and frightened in his approach. He

should go out and speak positively, first, of the economic climate in

this province which allows this type of development and, secondly, of

the enthusiasm and vigour that there is in this province, which will

see these developments do the job with which they are

[ Page 2387 ]

charged

— that is, to help make British Columbia an international meeting and

activity centre for people in the whole of the world.

thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this moment. Again, I would speak with

great confidence of the Minister of Human Resources. Our ministry is

represented by staff on the committee, and we all work together. I'm

pleased to support the bill and, furthermore, I'm very pleased with the

minister who is introducing the bill.

MR. LAUK: First

of all, I want to indicate how pleased I am that the minister has been

so relentless in the past few years in pushing this project forward. We

all know that, politically as well as in the business community, there

are a lot of knockers, people who are not enthusiastic about any change

or any big project, and we have to deal with them from time to time.

There

are some problems with the way the project may proceed that the

minister has to direct her attention to, but on the whole it's a

project which is long overdue in the city of Vancouver and in my

constituency. It will bring a lot of trade and tourist business to the

core of the city, which will increase jobs and wealth for British

Columbians. So I'm very pleased it is proceeding and that a form of

agreement has been worked out between the various levels of government.

I can see also that the appointment of Dr. Shrum is a wise move. We

don't want to overwork him. He's the only one in the province who seems

to be able to put one of these things together.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? I wouldn't attack Dr. Shrum. He has a way of fending off any such attacks. He uses logic.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some problems which should be mentioned. I see the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) has left. I think the major

reason that this project is still in the hands of the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is that it takes a person with a lot of

intestinal fortitude and, as I say, relentless attention to get a

project like this off the ground. It takes a person who is getting paid

to do it, too. I mean, people get very discouraged when they take on

such a task and don't have any financial reward for it, at least to pay

for the expenses. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we now know why the

Minister of Tourism isn't getting paid. It's because this minister is

doing her job. Therefore, we expect that if we check the accounts,

maybe this minister is receiving the Minister of Tourism's paycheque. I

wouldn't be opposed to that either, because the work that is involved

in getting this project off the ground has been arduous over the years.

I do hope — and there was some cross-comment — that we do not have the

same bill reintroduced next year and that the construction can start

soon.

I want to leave the project and the tremendous effort

that the minister has put into this project to get it on the rails and

deal with the plan itself, which is not particularly her

responsibility. I understand that the minister may be in haste to get

the project finally underway and has conceded a number of points with

respect to design and planning for the convention centre in the city of

Vancouver, that may be, unfortunately, agreed to in haste. I think,

first of all, the size of the hotel space on either end of the pier is

insupportably high, both from an engineering point of view and from an

economic point of view. I think that has to be confronted and dealt

with forcefully by the minister with clear instructions to Dr. Shrum,

who I'm sure does not agree with the greed that's gone into the

planning as far as the size of hotel space.

Secondly, I

charge that the government and the minister lack imagination in most

projects of this kind. I don't want to appear too harsh, but I think

it's a good thing that this government gets behind such a project and

pushes for it on a purely salesmanship point of view. But as far as

planning, design, environment and liveability the government seems to

lack imagination. They seem only to think in dollars and cents and the

trade industry and tourism point of view, and not in terms of the

people that use the downtown area today and those generations that will

use it in the future. If one imagines the proposed project — as it is

proposed today — proceeding and completed, it's an added feature to the

waterfront that more and more makes the Vancouver waterfront look

another Maginot Line, with a blockbusting hotel at one end and another

blockbusting hotel at the other end. You know, it's just not a very

imaginative design. It takes a good idea and destroys it in design and

concept.

I think a lot more has to be said about its

structure and design. I understand that the hotels are going to be so

large at either end of the pier that they have to re-design the pilings

that will have to go underneath it. The original engineering report has

the pilings costing so much to support the structures that were

designed for the pier. Because of the size of the hotels, I understand

that they've got to take all the wood out of the plan and put in some

concrete and steel and so on to support these structures. One wonders

whether those costs aren't going to be very, very high indeed. We're

not too certain whether even that will do the trick.

these have to be looked at more carefully. I say we have to make the

convention centre in Vancouver pay for itself. I think that when one

considers the business that will or can be brought to the city by the

existence of the centre itself, we have to consider that benefit when

we are considering cost-benefit ratios with respect to such a project.

But we also have to think that we may be getting greedy with the size

of hotel space there, and sacrificing legitimate design and aesthetic

values for the space. I think the minister should carefully have a look

at that.

I'd like to make another proposal. If this project

goes ahead — as I think it might — the Minister of Human Resources

should take on the Ministry of Tourism once again as her own portfolio.

There are some other projects that are absolutely essential and I think

that she should get behind them. I think she should also have the

Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, because the only

thing that's happened.... It's nothing personal; I happen to be very

fond of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips). He's a very fine gentleman indeed, but he doesn't seem

to have the wherewithal and the intestinal fortitude that's necessary

to get anything done. This project is a magnificent example of how we

can have the Minister of Human Resources take over some of these other

portfolios and get some projects on the road. After all, the Ministry

of Industry and Small Business Development is the nerve centre of the

government. [Laughter.] Everybody's laughing at that, Mr. Minister. I

think that a little bit of that salesmanship ability of the Minister of

Human Resources should be spread around a little bit. I think she

should talk more to her colleagues. She shouldn't be so aloof. She

should give them some of her ideas, get them moving. They should

[ Page 2388 ]

send her to Japan, to get some of these deals through, instead of fumbling the ball as soon as they get off the plane.

think the convention centre has got the goodwill of the opposition and

many people in the city of Vancouver. But there are many groups,

including this opposition, that have serious questions about the size

and the design and the costs that are involved. There should be no fear

in discussing those questions openly with the public and with the

opposition and so on, so that a cooperative effort can be achieved and

the project meet, as best it can, all of the needs and the desires of

the people in the area — the business community, people who live there

and the tourism industry — as well as the aesthetic problems of the

site.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I promise the House that I

will be brief, but I do want to add my support to this great bill. It's

a very proud moment for the Minister of Human Resources today, I'm

sure. When this bill passes this Legislature with unanimous support....

Make no mistake about it, the idea originated with the then Minister of

Tourism, and I want this House to be very much aware of the fact that

that minister has spent a long number of hours to bring this great

moment to fruition. I want to wish her luck.

I want to talk

for just a few moments about the fact that this is a trade centre as

well as a convention centre. It is well known to the members of this

Legislature, and to all the citizens of British Columbia, that British

Columbia indeed stands as the gateway, the door, the window — call it

what you will — to the great Pacific Rim. The greatest potential for

economic development and trade relations that ever existed in the world

of today exists in British Columbia, and happens to be logistically

situated so that we have the great responsibility to all of Canada to

carry out our great and tremendous obligation to see that we take

advantage of that great — and fastest growing — market in the entire

world.

I brought this up because I want to tell you that,

although this is happening in the great cosmopolitan city of Vancouver

— which is indeed one of the most cosmopolitan cities in all of Canada

and will some day be the greatest financial centre in all of Canada —

it is the responsibility of British Columbia to see that this takes

place. I want the rest of Canada to know, I want the business interests

in Ontario and the business and government interests in Quebec to know,

I want the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to know

that although this trade and convention centre is going to be good for

British Columbia, it is going to be good for them too. When we went to

Ottawa with our first proposal, it was brought up by some of the

inward-thinking members of that cabinet that all of the cities in

Canada would be asking for similar facilities. I want to tell you that

this is a facility for all Canadian industry to take advantage of, and

certainly it'll be a great step forward.

As I've said in

this House before, and will continue to say again, Canada is a trading

nation, British Columbia is a trading province, and without that great

trade we cannot maintain our economy that feeds the taxes to provide

the social services that the people of British Columbia have come to

know and expect. Certainly as long as this government is government —

and we will be government for a long number of years — the growth in

the economy will provide the tax base to provide the services that the

people of this great province should indeed have.

But there is one aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that we must never leave untold

and that is that with a little bit of government seed money you will see the

private sector come in and invest not $10 million, not $100 million, but I predict

that the private sector will come forth with hundreds and hundreds of millions

of dollars, because this will be the nucleus; this will be the core and they

will take advantage. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that money is needed,

and the opportunity is there. This great trade and convention centre will just

be the little pinpoint to start it all happening.

want you, Mr. Member from Vancouver Centre, to go back in history with

me just a couple or three short years ago when the hotels in Vancouver

were running at 60 to 70 percent occupancy because we had had a growth

period of new construction of hotels in downtown Vancouver and

everybody was crying doom and gloom. I want to tell you that because of

the efforts of that great minister, when she was minister of tourism,

last year the hotels in downtown Vancouver were running at 110 percent

occupancy, if that was possible. What I am trying to say is that they

were certainly running at full capacity and when the member for

Vancouver Centre says we're building the hotels too big, our eyes are

too big, I want to tell you, we don't need just one new hotel in

downtown Vancouver; we don't need just two hotels in downtown

Vancouver; we need several new multi-million dollar hotels in downtown

Vancouver, and it's the private sector which will respond and come

forward and build them.

That is all I wanted to say, other

than to say that it is the vision and the courage and the guts of this

minister — who conceived this great idea and has certainly had many

obstacles to overcome — that brought about this great day in this

Legislature where we are actually able to vote on this bill. When the

member for Vancouver Centre says that this minister has no imagination,

I want to tell you that if, when you were government, you had had, in

the total cabinet, 1 percent of the imagination of this great minister,

you would have done tremendous things. But I want to tell you this is

one of the most imaginative ministers not only in the province of

British Columbia, not only in the government of British Columbia, but

you'd be hard pressed to find her imagination in any cabinet minister

in any provincial government in Canada. I am certainly glad to support

her and to support this bill.

MR. LAUK: Under

standing order 42, I wish to correct a reference to my speech made by

the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that the hotels could not

be filled. I was questioning the design, the aesthetic value and the

engineering of such large hotel complexes on that site. Certainly they

can build hotels anywhere in the city of Vancouver and fill them up

because it is a dynamic city.

MR. KING: I always love

listening to the small minister of business — I mean the minister of

small business. He always puts on a good performance. I think the most

significant thing he said was that he had this little pinpoint in his

mind. I thought that was very appropriate.

He also said that

with a little government seed money, great things were going to happen

by the private sector. That is precisely what Chrysler Corporation has

figured out, Mr. Speaker. I just hope we don't have to go to those

lengths to get the private sector to find British Columbia an

attractive investment climate.

The legislation was brought in, I think, on two previous occasions — a little less money last year than is provided for

[ Page 2389 ]

now

— and while we in the opposition agree that improved trade and

convention facilities are required in the city of Vancouver.... I'm not

going to call it the gateway or the window to the Pacific. That is

stealing the Premier's speech and I think that's the only one he knows.

Nevertheless, Vancouver is a beautiful area. British Columbia is a

beautiful place to visit. Our tourist industry will expand and

certainly in the current year with the high interest rates and

particularly with the disparity between the Canadian and the American

dollar, we can look to an increased flow of tourism from south of the

border. With that, in addition to the availability of gasoline in

British Columbia, it doesn't take too much imagination to recognize

that we are going to have to provide increased facilities to

accommodate the tourist flow which will happen because of those

economic factors — which do not have anything to do with the best

designs of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) or the minister

who introduced the bill.

I do, though, want to lend my

congratulations to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy). She is a very vigorous person and I can understand the

people on the other side of the House supporting her and looking to her

with awe and respect and admiration. You don't have too many symbols on

that side, so the competence of that minister and her toughness are

certainly something to be revered by the government benches. She's

worked long and hard on it, and I hope that when the House passes this

bill the minister will make sure that she gets on with the job and does

not have to come back again next year with a similar bill. While this

one is very good, it is meaningless unless it's undertaken after

approval is given.

I want to identify with some of the

remarks my colleague from Nanaimo, (Mr. Stupich) made. He said that

tourism does not start and end with Vancouver and Victoria. The fact of

the matter is that right now there are only two options that I'm aware

of for the very large conventions in the province. One is, of course,

Vancouver. But if you want to go into the interior, the only facility

available to really accommodate the large convention is the Peach Bowl

in Penticton. I know for our own party conventions, and undoubtedly the

government knows also from similar experiences, we're kind of

restricted in that way. I think it's very useful in terms of economic

impetus and certainly in terms of fairness to try to ensure that there

are options available throughout the province, certainly in the major

centres and many of the smaller ones too. Of course, they couldn't

justify something of this size and this expenditure but, relatively

speaking, I think there is a tremendous need throughout the province to

exploit all the natural beauty and natural advantages that many of the

interior and northern areas of the province have to offer as alternate

sites for conventions.

The other thing is, Mr. Speaker, that

it doesn't always have to be one enormous facility. In many of these

things it can be broken up between two towns so that some economic

advantages flow from conventions. At least many people are exposed to

different geographic regions of the province.

The former

Minister of Small Business said Vancouver is logistically well located.

I wanted to observe that yes, and it is also geographically in terms of

taking great advantage of the natural flow from offshore. But the

majority of our tourism does come from the east and the south. I think

the people in the interior and in the northern part of the province get

a little bit fed up acting as the supplier of power and resources,

basically so that all of the cultural and recreational and other

opportunities are developed in the lower mainland. Many of the areas of

the province have suffered great disruption, as my particular area has,

for the development of hydroelectric power. I don't believe in being

provincial and parochial in trying to deny other areas advantages which

benefit the whole province to a degree, but at the same time there is

one sure way to create alienation, and that's to be less than

even-handed in seeing that all areas of the province receive relatively

equal consideration in terms of the investment of public dollars to

shore up their economies and to provide the amenities which many of the

more isolated areas of the province now lack.

While I'm

certainly prepared to support the bill, I hope that the minister and

the government keep in mind that a great deal of the revenue, power and

the resource base which feeds the lower mainland and even Victoria, the

breadbasket of this province, comes from those isolated areas. They

should not be asked and obliged to remain isolated and deprived of

recreational and cultural development and so on for all time — simply

as a supplier, rather than as emerging areas which have their own

amenities to offer to tourism and to lifestyle too. So that's the main

point I wanted to make.

In terms of the Minister of

Tourism's performance, I don't know. I can understand her being a bit

testy, Mr. Speaker. Apparently she's not getting paid her ministerial

salary, and I can understand her being a bit chagrined and a bit

disillusioned over that. But I think it is appropriate that the

Minister of Human Resources brought this bill in. She's a paid

minister. She has proved that she's a good campaigner, both within the

cabinet room and without, and perhaps it took her particular kind of

vigour to bring this project to the stage it's at now. Although the

Minister of Tourism, when she left, pledged her full support to her

colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, as the sponsor of this

bill, I thought I saw a little tear glistening on her cheek as she left

the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker,

I'll be brief. I want to focus on two minor or relatively unimportant

aspects of the convention centre development in Vancouver, namely the

foundations. I want the foundations to be very substantial. On

transportation, I don't want SeaBus to terminate in the convention

centre; I think the terminal should remain where it is.

I'll

dwell on those two points briefly, but I do first want to congratulate

the hon. Minister of Human Resources for her fantastic efforts and her

success. She has not only brought three levels of government together

and ensured their participation financially and in other ways in this

magnificent convention centre development in Vancouver and Victoria,

but she's also apparently got the unanimous support of this House,

which other than voting on Quebec remaining in Canada hasn't been

accomplished in recent times here. I congratulate her on the support

she has in all comers of this Legislature.

As for the centre

in Vancouver, fairly recently I was talking with Dr. Shrum about it. He

was describing the piling and saying the wooden piling would be

adequate to carry almost any weight. I hope the most substantial of

foundations are provided for the convention centre and the wooden

piling is removed. This development, I believe, should be the only one

that projects out into the harbour proper. It should be built for all

time it should be built to stand for a hundred if not a thousand years.

And it should contain a substantial

[ Page 2390 ]

hotel

element, highrise but imaginatively designed, because it will stand for

such a long time and perform such an important function not only for

Vancouver but for Canada and indeed the Pacific Northwest of this

continent. It should be well built; it should be well designed.

Remember,

Mr. Speaker, that many people who will come to that convention centre

will come back again simply because they had the experience of

attending a convention in such a magnificent setting. Not only can they

see the North Shore mountains but they can also see one one of the

finest harbours in the world at work. It's not just a harbour for

tourists, and it's not just a harbour for convention-goers; it's a

working harbour with all kinds of traffic and commerce coming and

going. It is in large

part industrial, and one must expect to see

freighters and rusty Russian fish packers coming and going — all kinds

of commerce. It is a magnificent sight; it's a great experience. It

will be for many, many thousands of people, and they'll come again

because of this site. If it's well designed as well as well located, so

much the better.

As far as transportation is concerned, I

know there will be a link with not only B.C. Place but ultimately a

rapid transit system for the whole of greater Vancouver. In that

connection, I hope that the southern terminus of SeaBus would remain

where it is and not become part of a new trade and convention centre,

because that would simply add to congestion in that particular area. In

relation to Transpo '86, which is only half a dozen years away from

now, I would like to think that some imaginative scheme to carry people

in numbers from the convention centre through Gastown and into the area

generally described as B.C. Place might be developed as a developmental

project — that an experimental link or a first link of some kind

relating to urban transit might be installed.

In closing,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like also to refer to the general attitude to

development relating to the convention centre and indeed the kinds of

traffic which it will attract. One of the reasons — perhaps the

principal reason — why so many cruise ships call in Vancouver and

indeed tend to make Vancouver their base in the summer months is that

we don't have the kind of restrictive laws and legislation to do with

marine traffic that they have in the United States. The Jones Act in

the United States requires that ships not only owned in the United

States but built in the United States and manned by United States

citizens carry anything and everything between points in the United

States. You cannot pick up and lay down in two different United States

points unless you use a U.S.–built, U.S.–owned, U.S.–manned vessel.

That has driven international carriers to start in one country and

terminate in another. Those carriers are starting in Vancouver and

terminating, let us say, in Alaska. That is one of the principal

reasons why Vancouver, not Seattle, is the point of origin of many of

these scenic tours up the west coast. I hope that the government of

Canada and certainly the government of British Columbia continue to

have in effect an open-door policy relative to shipping and transport

of all kinds, so that Vancouver will indeed be a gateway, and a gateway

which is receptive to shipping from all over the world. That will be

one additional reason why this convention centre will be such a success.

hope it can initially come close to paying for itself. I know in the

longer run it will certainly pay for itself in overall provincial

terms. It will attract people to conventions who will come again and

again because of their experiences here, particularly at that fine

location, and who will tell others about the northwest and British

Columbia in particular. The minister and the government are to be

congratulated. Now the only thing is to get on with the job and build

the convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I rise in my place to support this bill, of course, but at the same

time I thought that it would be a bill on which everybody in the House

would want to have a little to say on what a wonderful thing it was for

British Columbia, which it is. I thought to myself, how would it be

possible for anyone to object to it, until I heard the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) say the people in the north are fed up

with all the good things coming to the lower mainland. Well, I won't

tell you that the people of the north are not fed up, because you'll

realize that it's just a fact of nature that the southern coast of

British Columbia is the part most suitable for this kind of effort. The

people of the north are very pleased with what is going on here today,

and they're very pleased with what they're doing, because British

Columbia is a unit, and British Columbia is a unit working together.

All factors of our society are working together.

I said to

myself: is it possible to have any negative attitude toward it? It

really is not. This is one opportunity that our opposition does not

have to be negative.

This is a great bill. I myself

compliment the Deputy Premier on what she is doing with a very

imaginative bill. It is just impossible to recognize the courage it

took a year ago. Although the minister suggested it over a year ago, I

said to myself, it's impossible, it's just too costly, it could never

be done, and here it is in sight. I think it is a tremendous step

forward for British Columbia — and particularly for the lower part of

British Columbia — and the benefits will spread out to the province.

Having

had a lot to do with several conventions, I know that the people of

British Columbia like to come to Vancouver and Victoria. Everybody

likes to come to Vancouver and Victoria. On occasion we have tried to

have conventions in central British Columbia, and although they were

moderately successful, we never had the enthusiasm from the people in

the interior, because they want to come to Vancouver. It is just part

of the scheme of things.

Again, I congratulate the minister

on her effort on this splendid bill which is a great step forward in

the great continuing life of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY:

It is a pleasure for me to rise and to discuss the Trade and Convention

Centre Act, and to add my name to those among the members who are

supporting this act and supporting the trade and convention centre. I

do agree that the minister should be congratulated for bringing forth

the proposal in the Legislature, even though this is the second time

around.

I would like to talk about some of the confusion of

the people in my riding about the whole way that the tourist industry

is administered and planned in the province of British Columbia. It

seems confusing to my constituents, for example, that this bill is

being put forward by the Minister of Human Resources, rather than the

Minister of Tourism, even though the trade and convention centres seem

to relate more to trade and tourism than they do to human resources or

the jurisdiction of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources.

However, perhaps this is because of — to use the word coined by the

member for Vancouver Centre — her relentless pursuit of this project in

cabinet by that minister.

[ Page 2391 ]

wish the Minister of Human Resources would have as great a relentless

drive in relation to the problems concerning her own department — the

problems of day care, the problems of bus passes, and all of those

other problems that relate to her own department. It is confusing for

my constituents, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, that the

Minister of Human Resources and Deputy Premier is presenting this bill

rather than the Minister of Tourism.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, great latitude is allowed during second reading, but one must stay within the bill.

MR. SKELLY: I am dealing with the trade and convention centres, Mr. Speaker.

We've

just had a report on the tourist industry in the province of British

Columbia that was done under the Travel Industry Development Subsidiary

Agreement. The report expresses some concern about the planning and the

confusion in the ministry of travel industry, and the way the industry

is being managed in the province of B.C. I think it's no wonder that

the ministry and the administration of tourism in British Columbia are

in such poor shape. I don't think that the new minister is responsible.

In fact, I think that once things get back on the track that minister

is going to be a good Minister of Tourism. One of the problems it seems

that she is experiencing is the very problem that this bill

demonstrates. The industry is being pieced off. The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) seems to

have some jurisdiction in tourism under the federal-provincial

agreements, and, because of her relentless pursuit of this project, the

Minister of Human Resources is able to piece off another part of the

jurisdiction. As a result there is confusion in the Ministry of

Tourism. Some key people are quitting that ministry. It's very

difficult to manage the ministry and I think the new minister is having

a very difficult job of it.

I suspect that the new minister

will be a very good Minister of Tourism, and there's a reason for that.

The minister visited my riding recently and she did so on a low-key

basis. What she did was go through the ridings and most of the very

small communities in the riding to take a look at some of the problems

and to listen to what the people in the industry and local government

were saying. She talked with those involved in the industry — the motel

operators, restaurant operators — and met with them at breakfast

meetings, in quiet informal discussions, wine and cheese parties and

this kind of thing, on an informal basis. They told her quite a bit and

she listened quite a bit — which is a good thing for a Minister of

Tourism, as far as I'm concerned.

Two ministers before the

present minister, we had a problem in that that minister staged great

media events. She showed up in Port Alberni at one time and didn't get

a good reception, because we had things imposed on us by that minister.

She wasn't willing to come around and listen to the people and find out

what their problems were. We had things imposed on us, like the Captain

Cook celebration. I believe at that time the Indian people in Port

Alberni ran her out of the city. I think the new minister is taking

precisely the opposite track. She's going in on a low-key basis — a

non-political basis — and taking a look at the problems and conveying

the problems to her people in the ministry to see if they can be

resolved, and new programs can be implemented.

I think that

one of the problems in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the problem that it

does piece off a part of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Tourism

and give it over to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources.

As a result, we're going to continue to experience this disorganization

and lack of planning that we've had in the Ministry of Tourism since

the Deputy Premier was the minister in that department.

would also like to associate myself with the remarks made by the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke in that people in my constituency and in other

rural constituencies throughout the province — and on Vancouver Island,

not simply in the north, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

stated, but people in all rural areas in the province — are watching

this government invest millions upon millions of their tax money into

grandiose projects in the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria.

The Annacis Island bridge, which could cost between $150 million and

$250 million of taxpayers' money, being built in the greater Vancouver

area; a huge stadium and the B.C. Place complex, which will cost who

knows how many hundreds of millions; trade and convention centres in

Vancouver and Victoria; improvements to the Crystal Garden — all of

those things are great things for those cities, but it doesn't

represent an equal distribution of the hard-won taxpayer's money of the

citizens of this province.

When you look at roads in the

rural areas of Vancouver Island, it's a shame. Out in the rural areas

of Vancouver Island they call the present Minister of Transportation

and Highways "pot-hole Fraser." And he talks about the previous

Minister of Highways. I was talking to an employee in the Highways

department in Port Alberni who said: "if a million dollars a year were

invested in the two foreman districts in that area, you wouldn't begin

to combat the deterioration of roads in that area for another five

years; you wouldn't see the impact of the investment of that money,

because roads have been allowed to deteriorate so badly." And those

roads are the key right now to our tourist industry on rural Vancouver

Island. Hundreds of thousands of people come each and every year to

visit Pacific Rim National Park in my riding, and yet they drive over

some of the worst roads in the province. Yet what is the Ministry of

Tourism or this government doing to upgrade those roads to attract

tourists to that area, improve their stay in that area and make sure

they enjoy the stay in that area? What are they doing? They are dumping

it all into Vancouver in projects like this trade and convention centre

or into Victoria into the Victoria trade and convention centre project.

agree that these projects are necessary. What I'm asking the government

to do is to take a more equitable approach to the expenditure of

tourist funds throughout the province and recognize the needs of rural

areas, such as the constituency of Alberni, the North Island area, the

Kootenays — where are those members speaking on behalf of their

ridings? — and the northern area of the province. Those areas require

road, rail and airport infrastructure development in order to

accommodate the special needs of the tourist industries in those areas.

We support the trade and convention bill but we are asking for a more

equitable distribution of the investment of tourism funds throughout

the province so that all areas of the province can enjoy the kind of

economic, pollution-free development that goes along with the tourist

industry and the employment that can be created in that industry.

We support the bill, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, and we just

[ Page 2392 ]

ask

that the government take into consideration those other areas of the

province and their desperate need for tourist industry development.

MR. NICOLSON:

Like others, I rise to support this bill, but I would like, at the same

time, to offer some advice and direction and to caution the government

that patience, goodwill and a common interest can be imposed upon just

so far. I say that as a member from one of the many interior ridings,

from part of the Kootenays, particularly representing a town such as

Nelson, which is a regional centre and which, I think, has tremendous

potential in terms of attracting small, appropriate-sized conventions,

and has indeed done so in the past with no help from government, thank

you. There are many amenities there which have lent themselves to

putting on such things as the BCTF summer workshop and so on.

the Kootenay region were to have this type of assistance which is being

made available to Vancouver and Victoria.... I think as a first step

some study could be made of existing facilities, and there are

tremendous existing facilities. For instance, in Nelson we can seat 500

persons for a dinner on one floor. There aren't very many dining

facilities or convention facilities anywhere in the province that can

do that, but it can be done and is done in Nelson. We do put on things

like mine rescue safety banquets in conjunction with activities, which

are a convention of a sort, where people come from all over the

province in competition. It is a learning experience and it is usually

capped off with a banquet.

I think that our area could

attract many, many more. It is a very beautiful area, as I mentioned.

Things such as the BCTF summer workshop at the old Notre Dame campus

and now David Thompson University Centre — as I say, we have this huge

facility.

I think that some thought should be given to

looking into and investigating the things which I see as shortcomings —

such things as, for instance, the hotel facilities. In fact, in recent

months one of the hotels has been closed through some various business

failures, and perhaps it offers an opportunity for redevelopment. I

think that in many areas throughout the province we are disturbed when

we hear the announcement of something meant to vitalize the tourist

industry and find that the lower mainland area or the-Victoria

metropolitan area have been given consideration almost before the fact,

and then the others must stand in line for whatever crumbs are left.

TIDSA

was a splendid example, where $9 million was committed for the Whistler

development and then the regulations were passed a few days after that

announcement, and people are still standing in line and trying to

qualify for those funds; some have been more successful than others. So

it is with this sense that we are addressing ourselves to this bill,

which really is a re-enactment of a bill passed last year. There are

some differences in terms of reporting and accountability and how the

funds shall be disbursed, but the main part of this is simply to

increase the amounts that this Legislature is committing. So people

have been talking about these expenditures for a year. Once again we

have recycled this. There has been recent rekindling of interest

because of the minister's announcement done in cooperation with the

three levels of government.

Really, it is time to consider

that if we've been missing out on trade and convention opportunities in

the lower mainland for lack of a facility which can house 5,000

persons, we have also been missing out on trade and convention

opportunities which fail perhaps for lack of one missing link where

most of the other facilities are already existent. I know that that

certainly is the case in Nelson. With some well-thought-out program to

try to solve some of the problem areas, such as hotel accommodation and

the quality of it, and also the transportation problem, which I think

is sometimes over-dramatized for some reason or other.... The Castlegar

airport enjoys some notoriety, yet I've talked with many pilots who say

that it's really more difficult sometimes getting into Prince George

because of the amount of fog they have up there. I know that good

experienced pilots can land in Castlegar quite easily. So addressing

ourselves to some of these problems would, I think, go a long way

toward getting a more enthusiastic response for this type of

expenditure.

I think it is going to do a lot for downtown

Vancouver; it's going to do a lot for Victoria if it's done properly. I

mention in passing that in Victoria we enhance the tourist image of the

place by having our waterways beautified, while in a place like Salmo

or Nelson you can't even get a dollar out of the government to rip-rap

a stream bank. Yet you have ornamental ironwork and everything along

the Gorge here. It seems that anything done here in the name of tourism

is supposed to be fine. I don't want to be a knocker of things, but I

would say that there are splendid opportunities in many communities in

the interior. Nelson pioneered the idea of a midsummer bonspiel decades

ago which has endured and now causes a mass influx into the community.

The city has endured because it has a great deal to offer.

the same consideration, energy and thought given to Bill 23 could be

prorated to a smaller community such as Nelson, and many others in the

interior, the image of British Columbia as it is seen through its

visitors would be very much enhanced, and it would lead to repeated

visits. People who might come to this convention centre would then want

to go to a smaller conference in some other part of the province and

would get into the habit of coming to British Columbia. Organizers

would be in the habit of thinking about British Columbia, whether for a

5,000 member convention, a workshop for shop stewards put on by the CLC

or some type of educational project of smaller dimension. They would

think in terms of British Columbia, because we've got a good climate at

all times of the year compared with the rest of Canada. It really

doesn't matter what part of the province you're in, at least if you're

on this side of the Rocky Mountains.

MR. BARBER:

These are my first public comments on this bill since the convention

centre in Victoria became a centre of a lot of political conflict. I

have eight very specific criticisms that I wish to address to the

minister and a number of equally specific remedies that I hope she

might consider.

I'm going to support the bill, but I do so

now with a few more misgivings than I did a year ago when the

predecessor bill was first presented. The misgivings I have are chiefly

in the way that this government has turned it into a bit of a botch, at

least in the capital city. I'm not in a position to comment on how

they've handled it in Vancouver, and I don't propose to do so. But I am

intimately aware of the way in which this government has politically

mishandled the convention centre issue in my own riding. I propose to

direct my own remarks to that, and then, because I favour it in

principle, to make some specific proposals that I hope the government

will consider in order to retrieve this particular proposal.

[ Page 2393 ]

has, I think, been mishandled by the provincial government. The

convention centre proposal in Victoria has been needlessly thrown into

controversy and disrepute, because the government does not seem to

recognize what authentic public consultation really means. The

government has, I gather, learned a few PR tricks, learned to take out

ads in the newspapers from time to time — usually from election time to

election time — and to give the appearance of consultation. But in

point of fact in my own riding there is tremendous public

dissatisfaction with the provincial administration and its handling of

the convention centre proposals.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

think one of the reasons why, in Victoria as opposed to Vancouver, this

government has mishandled the issue is that for some five years now

this government has consistently misread the human and the community

aspirations of the people of my riding. Were it not so, the people of

Victoria might have elected two Socreds last time; but they elected two

New Democrats instead. One of the reasons they did this is that the

government has consistently misunderstood, misdescribed and

misappropriated the ideas and the concerns and the positive analysis

offered by the people of the capital city. I think one of the reasons

why they've turned the convention centre in the capital city into a bit

of a botch can be found in the reasons why they've botched so many

other issues that affect the capital city. I think, of course, of the Princess Marguerite ; I think of the general disregard in which they hold the public service; and I think of this bill as well.

want to give eight particular reasons and eight specific criticisms of

what the government has done. I want to try and outline briefly where

it has gone wrong. I want to try and outline, as specifically and

categorically as I can, what in my own opinion are the reasons why this

bill has become controversial in the capital city and why a year ago it

was not controversial at all. And I think, as a result of that

analysis, if any of its parts seem correct to the government, they may

well be then able to go on and remedy some of their own actions and

take a few new ones in order to retrieve this particular idea.

The

first of the eight reasons why this has been mishandled in the capital

city is that it was oversold in the first place. The Speaker may recall

that a minister previously responsible attempted at one point to turn

the Reid Centre site, the proposed venue of the convention centre in

Victoria, into a sort of a glorified farmers' market. The Speaker will

recall that two and three years ago attempts were made, fundamentally,

to oversell the business and mercantile and commercial interests that

might focus at that place. The Speaker will recall that on not one but

two occasions nationally advertised competitions were held for tenders

and bids and proposals for the Reid Centre site. At that time the

minister responsible, who is no longer a member of this House,

attempted to persuade business to invest at that particular site. Well,

two major, advertised competitions later, there were exactly zero

proposals. At the consequence of the first advertising, when no

proposals whatever came in, that minister and his associates were, I

understand, really quite astonished. Therefore, presuming that the

fault lay not in the idea but in the advertising, they launched a

second advertising campaign to once again attempt to oversell the

prospects of that particular site. And once again they blew it. There

were literally no business proposals for that site — not a single

tender, not a bid, not a single competitive proposal.

It's

important, therefore, to understand the first of these eight reasons

why the government has mishandled this, to realize that, first of all,

they tried to oversell it. And they tried to persuade the business and

the human community of Victoria that something or other could take

place there. In fact, there is simply at this moment and in the

foreseeable future no demand for it. So the government, of course, then

attempted quite quickly to scale down its proposals and to turn what

was to have been a glorified convention centre, farmers' market, public

concourse and cultural centre at the foot of Fort on Wharf into

something really very different — tremendously more plain and thereby

more disappointing.

The second major error this government

has made, I think, is to once again misjudge the popular importance in

my riding of the Reid Centre site. Once again, the government seems not

to comprehend how tremendously sensitive in the minds of the people of

Victoria are any proposals to deal with that site. That particular site

created the political career of Mayor Peter Pollen. He understood the

popular interest in that site. He fought back an immensely stupid

proposal by an immensely stupid developer, who seemed to think it was

appropriate to build two highrises at the foot of Fort Street. It was a

disgraceful proposal, and to the credit of Mayor Pollen that proposal

was killed — and, we trust, for all time will remain silent.

That

has been a controversial site for a long time, but the government seems

not to understand that it remains controversial. Simply because Peter

Pollen isn't the mayor any more doesn't mean that the people have lost

interest in the site or in its opportunities, potential or dangers.

Just

because Bob Williams had the guts and the foresight to buy that site

and turn it into public property for all of us, that doesn't mean the

people of British Columbia and Victoria in particular have lost

interest in the site. The government does seem to think, though, that

because Mr. Bawlf's original farmers' market proposals got nowhere —

they were oversold; they were overdescribed; no one would go for it —

it was going to therefore be politically acceptable to try to persuade

the people that the next best, and only best, thing to put on the site

was a convention centre. Well, that may or may not be true, but once

again they mishandled and misjudged the popular reaction in Victoria.

The

third specific reason why this bill, at least in its specific

application to Victoria, has been mishandled is, I think, found within

the administration of the Provincial Capital Commission. Because the

law we're debating today, Mr. Speaker, refers by name to the Capital

Commission, I propose to do so as well.

The Capital

Commission has been perceived as functioning like a secret society. It

has been heavily criticized by many people in Victoria, including — in

recent date — proponents of the convention centre at that or any other

site for failing to take the public into its confidence. I was a member

of the Capital Commission for a couple of months in 1975, before we

were bounced out of office. As a member of the commission, I was, at

that brief point, privy to some of its debates. I am astounded that the

commission never bothered, and I'm embarrassed that I never suggested —

it didn't even occur to me — that its meetings be held in public. If

people really knew what went on at those meetings, they would certainly

know that there was no reason to keep them secret. It's a perfectly

ordinary group doing perfectly ordinary work

[ Page 2394 ]

behalf of the people of Victoria, specifically the Capital Improvement

District. Nonetheless, the third major reason why this has been

mishandled in Victoria is because the Capital Commission, one of its

principal sponsors, has not seen fit to engage in an authentic way the

opinions and the ideas of the people of Victoria, but rather it has

seen fit, in an apparently secretive way and certainly in a very closed

way, to try to do its own business as if the only proper role for the

people was to rubberstamp whatever it was they proposed at the end of

their deliberations. This is a very serious error, and it's one of the

reasons why it has been botched just a bit in Victoria. The Capital

Commission has not been sensitive to authentic public criticism. The

Capital Commission has not provided a real public voice.

The

Capital Commission has become a significant force in planning matters

in greater Victoria because, for the first time now, it has its own

revenue,

whereas previously it had none save that which the government

granted. Now it has revenue for the first time in its corporate

history. It will have further revenue if it is in any fashion involved

with the convention centre. Therefore, all the more necessarily, the

Capital Commission must become accountable in new ways to the people of

Victoria. If it doesn't, I predict that the same needless controversy

and conflict will continue. As long as the Capital Commission continues

to try to do its business behind closed doors, there will be people in

Victoria knocking on those doors and demanding they be opened to them

and to everyone else. The government has not recognized the sensitive

position of the commission itself, and has not done what it could and

should within the law and by amending the law to make important

corrections.

The powers of the Capital Commission will be

enhanced by this act. Logically, therefore, if the government is

sensitive about the way the Capital Commission is perceived in the

capital city, they should take it upon themselves to amend the Capital

Commission Act at the same time. Unless they do that, these same

problems will continue on and on and on into the future. Secret,

closed-door meetings are not satisfactory or acceptable. They are, in

fact, specifically and legitimately unacceptable to the people of

Victoria. The Capital Commission has become a powerful body. All the

more important, therefore, is the necessity to open it up, which this

act could in part provide for, and which this government could insist

on, if it were so inclined. We need a major review of the Capital

Commission Act, and we need amendments to it. The commission has not

been authentically sensitive to the public voice, and neither has the

minister.

Today, as the result of tremendous public pressure

in the last three weeks — much too late, much too little but

nonetheless here it is — the Capital Commission is sponsoring a public

exhibition of its plans and its drawings and its proposals for the Reid

Centre site. It may or may not be too late for real public criticism. I

use the word "criticism" in the academic and positive sense. The word

"criticism" does not mean negative, carping comment. It means

"disinterested, scientific and logical examination of a point of view."

I use "criticism" in that sense. There has not been an opportunity

afforded by the Capital Commission, nor by this minister, for competent

public evaluation and criticism of these proposals at any of the key

points. Rather, once again, the government has presumed that the only

role for the people is to look at the drawings after they've been

published, to go I look and "ah, " to be grateful for a handout, and to

say yes to the scheme. Well, that's not good enough; that is not

acceptable to the people of my riding; and, indeed, it is increasingly

unacceptable to a number of political representatives in my riding as

well.

Today, for three days, we have opened at the McPherson

Playhouse an exhibit of the drawings and models associated with the

convention centre at the Reid Centre site. It's too little and too

late, but better than nothing, and I suppose we should be grateful for

however little and however late such a recognition occurs of the public

interest. Nonetheless, the government has been neglectful The

government has failed utterly to persuade people in my riding that they

are welcome from the beginning to say and shape and determine the

quality, the site, the design and the governance of their convention

centre in their community, which is Victoria. That's the third major

criticism I have.

The fourth is of the Pan-Pacific Society.

The businessmen who compose this society, which is also perceived as

another secret society, are, by themselves, good, honourable,

tough-minded guys. I have no individual or personal criticism of any of

them. They do what they want to do very well, which is run this like

any other business. But the problem is that this convention centre

cannot be managed or operated like any other business. There is a

public interest here which must be represented by a public voice. The

Pan-Pacific Society is not inherently competent to represent anyone

other than its own members, every one of whom is a business person.

Business has a right to be represented in the councils of those who

determine what the convention centre should look like and where it

should be located. They have a right. However, they do not have the

only right. They do not have the only voice. They must not have the

only say. The Pan-Pacific Society is the group that Mr. Bawlf created,

in private, to meet, in private, in order to decide, in private, the

disposition of these public funds for a convention centre. This was a

serious mistake, and I know that the government of the day was warned

by its own public servants of the consequence of that error. I am also

led to believe that the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

fought with those proponents of that approach in that day. I wish he

had won. Unfortunately he lost.

But I think the Pan-Pacific

Society — the group which the government apparently still proposes to

use to administer the place — has outlived its usefulness. The business

people in it deserve credit for what they have done to date because,

from their own point of view, they have represented the position of

business in a very credible way. What they have not done is represent

the position of the whole community. This they cannot do. This they

cannot do because they do not represent the whole community; they only

represent themselves. That's fair; it's reasonable that they represent

themselves. I don't object to that at all. But it is incumbent upon

this government to find other people who represent other points of view.

my own opinion, Pan-Pacific, which is perceived, like the Capital

Commission, as another secret society, has outlived its effectiveness.

I believe that the members of PanPacific should be thanked for their

work, which has been very considerable, and should be asked to step

down in favour of another body administering the centre in another way.

far as being a credible public operating authority goes, Pan-Pacific no

longer is. They have lost, through no fault of their own, considerable

credibility. They are viewed as a group of businessmen looking after

business interests only.

[ Page 2395 ]

They

are not viewed by, I think, many — probably the majority — of the

people in my riding as being authentically representative of the whole

community. Again, they represent themselves and they do it very well. I

don't object to that. But they can no longer purport to represent the

whole point of view of the people of Victoria.

Other voices

must be heard in the governance of the trade and convention centre in

Victoria. I suspect that Pan-Pacific is no longer the best instrument

for credible public governance of the trade and convention centre.

The

fifth specific criticism I have is in the question of sites. To the

best of my knowledge, the Capital Commission has considered at least

four primary sites for the convention centre. There are numerous and

conflicting reports about where the convention centre should best be

located. For my own purpose, I want to try and keep an open mind. I do

not personally object to a convention centre being located at an inner

harbour, if the design is right, if the site is right, and if that's

what the people want. I have some criticisms of the first two

proposals, and a major one about the third, whether or not the people

want it there.

Nonetheless, the fifth major failure of this

whole proposal has been to recognize that the people of Victoria just

might be interested in hearing wide-open reports, ideas and notions

from the beginning about alternative sites to the one at the foot of

Fort Street at Wharf in Victoria. That may or may not be the best site.

But the point is that the public was not, from the beginning — two,

three and four years ago — taken into the confidence of the Capital

Commission or later PanPacific, because this government has done

nothing at all in a direct or bright way to involve the people.

Then

once again we hear over and over that there are secret reports that say

that some other site is better for some other purpose, but because of

the coalition cabal with business they have made a deal which has to

stick, because the Socreds have made a deal with Socreds. Those are the

rumours in the capital city, and the minister knows full well that

those are the criticisms. Because there was not adequate public

consultation about alternative sites in order that.....Should this be

the best one, everyone would agree that it was. What remains, to the

damage and detriment of the convention centre, is the idea held in the

minds of many people that maybe there is a site somewhere else but the

government won't let us have it. The people responsible for this have

got to be aware that if there are alternative sites that have merits or

demerits, that has got to be made known.

The current site

has merit and demerit; that is well known. But the alternative sites

have never been discussed in a genuinely forthright way by this

government. That is a shame because it has tended to undermine their

own position, at least as far as the people of Victoria are concerned.

From

the beginning the study of alternative sites should have been more

thorough and should have been vividly public, but it's not been that at

all. In consequence, the public of Victoria lacks confidence that the

Reid Centre site is the best possible site for the convention centre.

That is the fifth error.

The sixth problem is the financing

of the operating deficits. There is an unfortunate double standard here

in this bill. The minister did not refer to it for obvious reasons, but

I will. The Vancouver convention centre is being offered a

$300,000-a-year deficit subsidy. The government said in the budget

speech, as I recall, that they will provide $300,000 a year for a

certain period of time to subsidize the operating losses of the

Vancouver centre. That is good; that is fair; that is reasonable. I

support it. But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how much they've offered to

subsidize the operating losses of the Victoria convention centre?

Precisely nothing. Zero. No dollars. No nothing. It's a double

standard. If a case can be made that the province is responsible for

sharing in the start-up operating losses of the Vancouver convention

centre, the same case can and must be made in Victoria because the same

logic applies, the same circumstances prevail, the same need is

present. It is a double standard. It's not reasonable or fair, and that

is the sixth major criticism of how the government has handled this

issue in my riding.

No one objects to the operating grant

being made in Vancouver. It is, however, resented by people, including

public officials, in Victoria that Vancouver, which happens to be the

political headquarters of the minister responsible for this bill, gets

$300,000 a year and Victoria gets zip. It's not fair. It is a double

standard. If there is a rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If

there isn't, then I suspect it's simply a double standard and one to

which I take considerable objection.

We need to know — and I

hope the minister may today give us some information, or if she doesn't

have it at hand, which is fair, she should bring it back during debate

on committee stage of this bill — what the operating losses are going

to be in Victoria. We need to know whether the government is prepared

to reconsider. We need to know whether or not the government is willing

to share, for the start-up period when the losses are greater because

the facility is just getting going, in the actual operating deficits of

the capital city's trade and convention centre.

I would like

specifically a commitment from this government that they will share in

the operating losses of the Victoria convention centre proportionately

in the very same way they are going to do for the Vancouver centre. I

appreciate that the populations differ, I appreciate that the capital

costs differ, and that is why I emphasize that my request is for

proportionate sharing on the same formula that Vancouver quite properly

enjoys.

My seventh specific criticism is in regard to the

design of the Reid Centre site itself. Let me restate. I don't

personally object to building a convention centre at a harbour site;

not at all. There is a lot of argument in favour of that. But let's

talk specifics about this design at this site. I would appreciate the

minister's comments in reply.

I have had a chance to examine

the design — at least in the preliminary form that I received it some

time ago. I will be going either later today or tomorrow to the foyer

at the McPherson theatre to take a look at what I understand are the

latest revisions. But for what it is worth, I myself am disappointed in

the design. For what it's worth, as just one layperson, I think that

the design we have at this site is not adequate to its potential. In my

opinion, for what it's worth, it is not architecturally sympathetic to

its site, to its surroundings and to the dominant architecture of Wharf

Street, which is turn of the century, which is brick, which is cast

iron, which is arches and balustrades, low sidewalks and a low profile.

In my opinion, for what it may or may not be worth to the government,

the design they have is simply not good enough. It's not the worst

original Reid Centre proposal, it is much improved. That was a horror.

But nonetheless this particular design is just barely adequate, at

least according to the designs that I've been permitted to see to date.

[ Page 2396 ]

Let

me be more specific about the lack of architectural sympathy or

sensitivity to this particular site. The designer would have the people

in Bastion Square, say, look out onto a flat, ugly, unadorned, unused

roof for a convention centre. That would be the sight that they'd gaze

on — a concrete roof, which may or may not have pebbles to make it

somehow look more interesting. Well, what's happening thereby, Mr.

Speaker, is that one of the most significant aspects of the Inner

Harbour, one of the most significant viewpoints of the whole of the

Sooke Hills and the western community in my riding, is given visual

entrée by a totally boring, architecturally unimportant statement.

Surely

this government recognizes that any public architecture in a place like

the Inner Harbour must be of the highest standards and not simply of

adequate standards. A design that offers to all of the people who stand

on the other side of the street and sit in the buildings or ride by in

the buses and look around Bastion Square nothing but a flat, ugly,

unadorned, unused roof is a very foolish and a very unimaginative way

to take advantage of an extraordinarily beautiful setting. If that

building is built next year, it will be there for another 50 or 80 or

100 years, and for all of those years people will curse and kick and

regret that we ever permitted a government to proceed with such an

unimaginative aspect, which is what will be visually presented there in

that part of the harbour.

Another criticism. At the Wharf

Street profile, according to the current design, the building will rise

starkly some 35 feet above the sidewalk. Again, you can still see it

from further up Fort Street and you can still see the rooftop clearly

from Bastion Square, but at Wharf Street itself the building simply

stands there, massively, 35 feet up in the air. Now I realize it may be

difficult to imagine this because of the peculiarities of the site —

there is a very considerable drop between the sidewalk and the

effective sea level, where, on piers, the building will be built in the

first place. Nonetheless, one of the major reasons why the building

simply imposes itself 35 feet up on a sidewalk is that the government

has decided that there should be a parkade present. For what it's

worth, I personally think that there should be no parkade at the site.

The advantage of removing the parkade would be to allow the design to

be removed