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)

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3513 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Health annual report 1979. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3513

Ministerial Statements

Resignation of Deputy Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3513

Mrs. Dailly –– 3513

Terry Fox cross-Canada run for cancer research.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3513

Mr. Barrett –– 3513

Motion 11. Mr. Barnes –– 3514

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code, of British Columbia (Bill M 212). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 3514

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3514

Mr. Lorimer –– 3516

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3517

Mr. Passarell –– 3518

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3518

Mr. Barnes –– 3519

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3520

Mrs. Dailly –– 3521

Mr. Cocke –– 3521

Mr. Levi –– 3522

Mr. Barber –– 3524

Mr. Mussallem –– 3526

Ms. Brown –– 3527

Mr. Davis –– 3528

Mr. Lockstead –– 3528

Mr. Mitchell –– 3529

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3530

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It's a great pleasure for me today to welcome to the House and

introduce to you a most important visitor to British Columbia who is in

the visitors' gallery, the Hon. Ron Dawe and Mrs. Dawe, from

Newfoundland. Mr. Dawe is the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture for Newfoundland and Labrador, It's his first visit to British

Columbia and he's been here for two days meeting with members of our

government and other people in British Columbia. He's here for the

purpose of the tire-dipping ceremony for the Cross-Canada Vintage Car

Rally which left this morning and will arrive and be welcomed at a tire-dipping ceremony in St. John's on August 22.

Mr. Dawe has

another distinction which may be challenged by members of this House,

and that is that he's a close friend of and went to school with the

hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I would ask all members

to join with me in extending a very warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Dawe.

MR. BARRETT:

We have in the gallery this morning some 18 young people from the city

of Montreal who are on a tour through the western part of Canada. They

are with the organization YMHA of Montreal. That was the home of the

famous YMHA Blues at one time, when Canada had international fame in

the basketball field. I ask the House to welcome them.

Hon. Mr. Mair tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year 1979.

RESIGNATION OF

DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish

to make a ministerial statement. Effective August 31, 1980, the Deputy

Minister of Education, Walter Hardwick, has announced his resignation.

With regret, I am accepting that and announcing it today,

was a professor from the geography department at UBC, as I think the

House knows, who came and joined the government in 1976. His leave

provisions at UBC made it necessary for him to make a judgment as to

whether to return and retain his tenure or to stay. He has decided that

he should return to UBC to resume teaching, but he also intends to

continue with government work. He will be assisting Dr. McGeer and me

in operating the Knowledge Network to develop and deliver high-quality

education. He has also accepted my invitation to remain as a special

consultant to me during the month of September and to assist me in the

future in a consulting capacity where necessary. I will have need of

his qualities and his great knowledge of education.

I should

just say that during his period as deputy minister there has been a

revitalization in the direction of education in the province. In my

view, he is responsible for the recruitment of many very excellent

officials and the establishment of a modern management system. He has a

strong sense of the future; he is a dynamic, energetic man with a keen

mind.

His friendly approach and sense of duty will be missed by all of us.

MRS. DAILLY:

On behalf of the official opposition, may I'say that we too regret the

fact that Mr. Hardwick is leaving. I think we all found him — in the

opposition also, may I say — very cooperative and always in good

humour. We wish him all the best in his new work.

TERRY FOX CROSS-CANADA

RUN FOR CANCER RESEARCH

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker,

all British Columbians and members of this House have been following

the journey of young Terry Fox for some weeks now. He is attempting to

run across Canada in an extremely worthwhile effort to raise funds for

Canadian cancer research. I think that it should be said that Terry

Fox, being a British Columbian, exemplifies the very best that we look

for in citizens of this province. In attempting a very courageous

effort, suffering from a tremendous handicap, and in deriving the

returns for a worthwhile effort like cancer research, he is certainly

to be commended by all Canadians.

I just want to say at this

time that the province, through the lotteries fund, will be turning

over a cheque in the amount of $30,000 this coming Monday towards

Canadian cancer research on behalf of the Terry Fox journey. We want to

wish him the very best of success on behalf of all members of this

House in his continued journey, and hope to welcome him on his arrival

in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in

response to the excellent statement made by the Provincial Secretary,

let me say that we congratulate this decision on behalf of all the

people of British Columbia to recognize what this fine young man has

done to stir the hearts and minds of all Canadians. I regret that the

motion of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — Motion

11 standing in his name on the order paper — is not being called,

although I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on his behalf in

response to this announcement, since the member was busy on the phone

arranging more activities for Mr. Fox. I want to say that Mr. Barnes

and others in this province were a great encouragement to Mr. Fox when

he initially announced this decision. I am glad that everybody is

beginning to recognize what a great event and a great sacrifice this

young man is making.

I'd like one caution: he's made a

commitment to complete his journey across Canada but he should not

endanger his health. Everybody in this country now recognizes his

achievement to this point. If his doctors counsel him to slow down or

stop because of his health that will be completely understood by every

Canadian. Perseverance should not lead to self-punishment. The point

has been made and we are all proud of Terry Fox.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave at this time, in light of….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARNES: Let me finish my statement, please. I believe that when the government wants to cooperate it is for tactical reasons.

[ Page 3514 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: They are trying to muzzle me, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

Notwithstanding the generosity on behalf of the government, I would

like to explain that I am quite appreciative of the remarks made by the

Provincial Secretary on behalf of the efforts of Terry Fox, and at this

time I would like to move Motion 11 standing in my name on the order

paper, which has been there for quite a few months — since April 12.

I'm pleased that the government has given me an opportunity to read the

resolution:

"That this House join the Canadian

Cancer Society and members of the public who are supporting 21-year-old Simon Fraser University student and former athletic team

player Terry Fox of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, who started an

8,000-kilometre run from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver the

morning of April 12 — a journey he estimates will require running an

average of 30 to 40 kilometres per day up to late September or early

October of 1980.

"That this House recognize

and commend the bravery and courage of this young amputee-athlete who

lost his right leg to cancer, but who seeks to inspire others by taking

this action, many of whom may have varying handicaps or disabilities

themselves.

"That the Clerk convey this

message of encouragement and good luck to Terry Fox, who has said, 'I

am not disabled; I happen to be a person with one leg,' on this

extremely difficult and hazardous journey."

I believe the

contents of that resolution are so complete that very few other remarks

are needed from me. Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, before putting the motion I must have leave. Shall leave be granted'?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN RIGHTS

CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M

212,

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to move second reading of this bill and would

like to make a few remarks in terms of background of the development of

this project for Vancouver. Through the good offices of the federal

government and with the active support of the mayor of Vancouver and

the majority of council, the province of British Columbia has been

virtually assured by the International Bureau of Expositions in Paris

of hosting a world's fair on transportation in Vancouver in 1986.

opening the debate on the bill before us, I would like briefly to

highlight the orderly progress we have made in preparations to date for

this great event, while also trying to clear away some misconceptions

that may exist. The world exposition is to be called Transpo '86. Why

transportation as a theme for world exposition? Vancouver will be

celebrating its hundredth anniversary in 1986. Vancouver was founded as

a transportation centre. The city owes its position to one of the

giants in the history of Canadian transportation, Sir William Van

Horne. I am told there was every reason to believe that Van Home even

gave the city its name. Nineteen eighty-six also celebrates the

hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the railroad in Vancouver,

completing the link from the east coast to the west coast of Canada.

Vancouver today becomes more and more an important transportation

centre. In fact it is the second-largest port in the western

hemisphere. It is Canada's gateway to the Pacific Rim. So why

transportation? Because it is a subject of fundamental and growing

importance to the continued economic growth and well-being of British

Columbia.

Transportation is important to the whole world. I

can tell you that other nations in the east and west have already told

us they think transportation is a very important and timely topic for a

world exposition. What will the exposition be? It is an opportunity for

countries to share their experience and knowledge of transportation by

demonstrating how they have dealt with problems of moving people and

goods. It will be a great gathering of the most advanced designs and

concepts in transportation. It will be an event people will want to

personally experience. The exposition itself will host many countries

which will exhibit and engage in all the other activities in addition

to transportation exhibitry and futuristic demonstration projects which

contribute to the success of a world exposition — for instance, the

national foods, the cultural and sporting events, the excitement of

being with people from many countries and sharing in an exhibition that

is a worldwide attraction.

But there is another important

dimension to our proposal. Transpo '86 will be designed to increase the

level of man's knowledge and achievement in transportation and

communications. The International Bureau of Expositions in Paris has

asked us to try and achieve this growth in knowledge by inviting the

many international transportation orga-

[ Page 3515 ]

nizations

— and there are hundreds of them — to come to British Columbia in the

years before Transpo. Each of these international organizations will be

invited to hold at least one annual meeting in our province during the

period between now and Transpo '86. Each will be asked to make

recommendations on the problems in transportation faced by its

particular speciality. We would like to believe all these

recommendations could be considered by a congress of the world's

leading transportation experts in 1986 — a world congress on

transportation in Vancouver as part of Transpo '86.

Transpo

'86 is to open six years from now on a site of some 140 acres being

secured by the provincial government on the north shore of False Creek

in downtown Vancouver. This transportation exposition is a priority

commitment of the provincial government. We already have had the full

support of the federal government and their assistance in advancing our

proposal in Paris. The participation of the federal government is of

paramount importance to us, and we are continuing our work to define

this participation now. While Transpo '86 is a provincially inspired

enterprise, the host nation is Canada. We intend to make full use of

the six-year preparatory period to ensure the most imaginative and

best-planned world fair possible, with the full support and input of

the Canadian government.

You may recall that during our

recent meetings with federal ministers we pressed the importance of

Transpo '86 to this province. We believe that the federal government

will take a full

part in Transpo. Indeed, to quote Senator Ray

Perrault, the leader of the government in the Senate and the senior

political minister for British Columbia, in a speech to the Vancouver

Board of Trade on May 30 of this year — referring to Transpo '86: "The

federal government had a major financial involvement in Expo '67 and it

is expected our government will play a major role in supporting and

promoting this stirring event."

Mr. Speaker, the people of

British Columbia have every reason to be encouraged and, indeed, proud

of our progress to date. This great undertaking on behalf of our

province began some 18 months ago under the guidance of my colleague,

the then Provincial Secretary, the Hon. Hugh Curtis. This initiative

has allowed us to get ahead in our planning and get ahead of those

other member nations of the International Bureau of Expositions that

were said to be eyeing 1986 as a year in which their countries might

like to host a world exposition.

The pre-inquiry team from

the International Bureau of Expositions, which visited Vancouver for

one week in early May to investigate our preliminary plans, in private

conversations as well as in published reports pronounced Transpo's bid

as the "best prepared and most comprehensive presentation in the

bureau's experience." The team made a very positive and complimentary

report to the executive committee meeting of the International Bureau

of Expositions in Paris on June 6, after which that committee

unanimously recommended that the team support recommending that 1986 be

set aside for Canada to act as host nation for a world exposition on

transportation to take place in Vancouver.

That

recommendation from the June 6 meeting was taken before the full BIE

general assembly meeting on June 13. The Transpo '86 board includes

myself as the minister associated, the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers), and the mayor of the city of Vancouver. We were in Paris

to participate in the general assembly of the BIE, at which time the

whole 36-nation assembly recommended without any qualification or

condition that 1986 be given over to the Vancouver world's fair. I can

tell you that it was with great pride on behalf of British Columbia and

of the work that has gone into our preparations that we took

part in

that meeting.

The chairman of the pre-inquiry team that

visited Vancouver, Dr. Cort Van der Linden, told the general assembly

that he was very much impressed by the site and the appropriateness of

the theme of transportation, and the effort made by everyone involved

in Transpo '86. He added — I am sure we will all agree — that Vancouver

is a truly marvellous city in which to host a world exposition. As

well, the executive vice-president of the BIE, Nicolai Filipov, in

moving acceptance of the pre-inquiry team's endorsement of Transpo '86,

commented: "Our preliminary inquiry team was highly satisfied that at

this stage of preparation, six years before the exposition, the

organizers' plans are so well advanced."

While we must

wait out the customary four-month moratorium before final approval is

given at the BIE meetings on November 23, there is no doubt in my mind

that British Columbia now has what we all worked so hard to secure, a

world's fair on transportation for Vancouver in 1986. With this in

mind, the organizers, and thus the federal, provincial and municipal

levels of government, must proceed with preparations in order that

Transpo will indeed open in Vancouver six years from now. The bill we

are discussing, which will create an organization to be responsible for

Transpo on proclamation, is an important part of this early preparation.

The

government of British Columbia has undertaken primary responsibility in

the preparations for Transpo '86. The province has undertaken to

provide the site and funded the organizing society which has prepared

the preliminary briefing and bid materials. The province believes that

Transpo is a viable enterprise on a subject of great relevance to all

Canadians and to people everywhere. There is ample precedent for

cooperation between Ottawa and British Columbia on an undertaking in

western Canada of this significance at this time, particularly with the

recent precedent of a substantial federal involvement in the hosting of

the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton and Expo '67 in Montreal.

must remember at all times that Transpo is in fact a viable proposition

on its own merits. Excluding costs of the amphitheatre planned as the

centrepiece for the exposition, for which we continue to anticipate

some federal assistance, a preliminary projection of direct costs

versus direct revenues has been undertaken. Calculating anticipated

operational and capital expenditures against revenues from

participants' fees and from 13 million forecasted visitors, a direct

expenditure of $150 million and a direct recovery of $138 million would

leave a shortfall of some $12 million in current dollars.

This

requires a further word of explanation. Firstly, the revenue figure

includes only such things as admissions and exhibitors' fees. It does

not cover such potential money earners as official stamps, coins and

medals. These sales alone could wipe out the projected deficit.

Secondly, the revenue figure does not include indirect revenues from

such things as visitor spending. Thirdly, the above figures do not

include the capital cost of the amphitheatre for which the provincial

government has set aside some $50 million at this time.

There

are more than the financial benefits mentioned above. There will be

business opportunities and jobs for British Columbians. There will be a

bonanza for tourist and

[ Page 3516 ]

hospitality

industries. Jobs will be generated by the construction of British

Columbia Place, the amphitheatre and all civic works; jobs on the

transit systems, in the pavilion, the exhibits and the concessions;

jobs in the dismantling and removing of temporary exhibits and jobs in

the ultimate construction of residential, recreational, commercial

buildings and open space that will become British Columbia Place.

Then

there are the residual benefits: Vancouver's enhanced status as a

convention and tourist city, the attraction of a covered amphitheatre

which can handle major sports and a variety of other events, the

permanent exhibits such as the planned forest and foundation centre,

and the possibility of improved transportation systems. An industrial

eyesore will be gone. The north shore of False Creek will be opened up

to all British Columbians and transformed into a pleasing urban

development for the public.

We have asked the federal

government, at our joint meetings in Victoria on May 5 and in follow-up

correspondence to the Hon. Mark McGuigan, to join us in a comprehensive

cost-benefit analysis of these ancillary matters covering Transpo '86.

While our preliminary projects are most encouraging, we intend to

approach this exposition in a sound and responsible manner. We intend

to host an exciting and worthwhile world exposition but to do so in a

businesslike fashion that brings the maximum possible benefits to the

people of British Columbia.

The federal government has been

very helpful to date, through the Department of External Affairs and

through Ottawa's general agreement to those things inherent for Canada

in playing host to such an exposition, including such things as the

provision of a commissioner-general and staff, special customs,

security and immigration arrangements and so on.

British

Columbia has not undertaken this enormous project simply to bring

tourist dollars to Vancouver and British Columbia. Our purpose is to

help Vancouver mark its centennial in a way that will put that city and

our great province on the international map. Transportation is

important to the whole world; nowhere is it more important than in

Vancouver. We believe that a world exposition on transportation will be

a fitting mark of Vancouver's coming-of-age. Equally important, this

exposition will act as a catalyst for needed transportation

improvements within Vancouver and throughout the lower mainland.

Vancouver's model might well apply to our province. By land, sea and

air we prosper. This transportation exposition can be the catalyst by

which our natural advantages of land, sea and air lead to greater

prosperity and lasting benefits.

The purpose of the bill

before you is to create a non-profit Crown corporation which will be

charged with the responsibility of the planning, organizing,

administration and production of Transpo '86. There will be a board of

directors headed by a president who will also be the

be a vice-president who will be the deputy commissioner-general,

appointed by the province of British Columbia. The corporation will

have 13 director-members appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and these will include nominees of the

Columbia. The financial affairs of the corporation will be reported to

this assembly once a year by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services. As well, the auditor-general will complete an

audit of the corporation at least once in each year.

The

Minister of Finance will be the fiscal agent of the corporation, and

the corporation is given in this bill the power of borrowing for its

purposes. When the purposes of the corporation have been served, it may

be dissolved under this bill by order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Every effort has been made,

and will be made, by those who are working on Transpo '86 to make this

an exposition worthy of British Columbians. The Crown corporation will

be empowered to organize this exposition, and in doing so to promote

Vancouver, on its centennial, as one of the world's great cities, to

promote British Columbia as a vital, beautiful and prosperous province,

and to promote Canada as an exciting, vast and flourishing nation,

while playing host to the world.

I have pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 19.

MR. LORIMER:

This is a bill to allow the province to create a corporation for the

purpose of putting on an exposition in 1986. It suggests the membership

of the corporation will be three representatives from Vancouver, two

from the federal government and up to eight from the province of

British Columbia. It's obviously strictly a provincial show. Vancouver,

I suggest, was brought in by the province as the likely city — the

largest city in the province — to make the application for Transpo. In

fact, this is not a city-of-Vancouver operation at all; it's strictly a

provincial effort.

There are not too many facts known about

Transpo '86. We know that no other city in the world applied for the

hosting of this convention. Vancouver was the only city that applied,

and as a result was successful. No one knows the costs of the operation

— what the costs of Transpo '86 are likely to be. The Provincial

Secretary, in introducing the bill, said that they are now doing a

cost-benefit analysis to see what is going to happen — the likely costs

of holding Transpo, the likely revenues, and the likely deficits at the

end of this exposition.

The Vancouver city council is not in

agreement with the holding of this exposition. There is a great debate

going on in the city as to what the costs are going to be, what the

city of Vancouver is likely to be owing at the end of 1986. We also

know that up to this date the federal government has certainly made no

announcement as to what federal aid might be forthcoming.

The

reason this bill is before us, the reason the application was made for

Transpo '86…. These announcements were made in the fall — the

Christmas announcements. The reason for these announcements, of course,

was to get the people who were drinking coffee in the coffee shops off

the subject of dirty tricks and onto another subject. Transpo '86 was a

likely candidate. There were other announcements at the time.

MR. KEMPF: Is that the best you can do this morning, Jim?

MR. LORIMER:

This man from Omineca who talks a lot across the floor but never gets

to his feet to speak doesn't like the suggestion that the major reason

this was done was to get the people of the community to stop talking

about dirty tricks and start talking about the great function that was

going to come off in 1986. There's nothing wrong with that, of course.

The announcement on B.C. Place was made at approximately the same time,

as well as the fixed-link/tunnel announcement and so on.

[ Page 3517 ]

this was one of the Christmas announcements made by this government to

get the people of this province discussing other matters; but no

studies were made as to what could well happen, what the costs would be

and what the terrific losses might be. No effort was made either by the

city of Vancouver…. The reason, of course, that they had no idea

what the costs or benefits might be is that this was a very quick

surprise and they had no time whatsoever to determine the likely costs

or benefits of this exposition.

I was amused by the

minister's classing Transpo '86 in the same words as if he were

discussing the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games. I might say that

these things are not in the same ball park. If you are expecting to get

people coming from around the world, that just isn't going to happen to

the same degree or any like degree as for the Commonwealth Games or the

Olympics.

The announcement was made. There was obviously

very little consultation with the Vancouver regional district, the city

of Vancouver or the neighbouring municipalities who would have to be

doing a lot of the work with regard to the hosting of this operation.

The

real problem with this fiasco, I might say, is that the announcements

were made without any pre-study about what the results might be. No leg

work was done ahead of time. Announcements were made. I would

anticipate and forecast, along with many other people, of course, that

the losses that will be borne by this province and the city of

Vancouver will be quite extreme. They are talking about a financial

plus. I think it will end up as a financial minus.

Transpo '86 were to benefit transit or transportation in any way in the

city of Vancouver where the exposition is being held, I would support

this bill very heartily; but there is no indication whatsoever that the

transit situation in Vancouver is going to be improved, with or without

the exposition. If it isn't improved, the nations coming from around

the world to this exposition will look to see what we have in

transportation and, unless something is done in a great hurry, we will

be the laughing stock of the world as far as our transportation system

in the city of Vancouver is concerned. There are only two things in

transportation in the Vancouver area that might be shown with pride.

One is the Royal Hudson , a novel operation, tourist train; and the

other, of course, is SeaBus. Apart from that Vancouver lags far behind

other cities of the world in the modes of transportation.

I said, if there were any suggestion or hope that transportation would

be improved as a result of this exposition, we would fully support this

bill, but there's no indication here that anything will be done in

transportation. It's mainly a method to get funds from the federal

government to help in financing B.C. Place. This opposition cannot find

its way clear to support this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in this debate in second

reading of the bill to establish the Transpo 86 Corporation and

certainly to offer it my enthusiastic and wholehearted support in every

respect.

think there may be a couple of

misunderstandings on the part of the last speaker, the hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, who early in his remarks referred to it as a

convention. I say kindly that it is not a convention or a conference on

transit or urban transportation; it is a world exposition. I believe

that most members opposite, whether they agree with or not, recognize

it as such — a proposal for a world-class exposition sanctioned under

the International Bureau of Expositions, which maintains very tight

control as to when, how often, and where an exposition may be held.

The

fact that there has been no proposal for another exposition in 1986

does not suggest that the field of international world fairs is empty.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there's considerable activity around the world

with respect to the next decade in world expositions. Some of these

proposals will fail and some will succeed; certainly Vancouver, the

Canadian proposal, is in the latter category. There are proposals now

for Australia in 1988; there has been from time to time the suggestion

that one would be held in Alaska, but I think that one is somewhat in

doubt; and members of this House will be interested to know that one is

proposed in very early stages for London, in the United Kingdom, in

I cannot let pass some other remarks by the first

speaker for the official opposition, who described this as one of the

Christmas announcements, because the record of statements made in this

House last year and statements made to the press, a variety, of

material which is readily available to individuals in this House and

outside, would show that the announcement with respect to seeking

classification for 1986 was made very early in 1979 and worked on in

May 1979, with an announcement to the effect that, as minister

responsible at that time, I was to be in London to do some preliminary

work. Certainly, virtually immediately after the provincial general

election a delegation comprising senior public servants in British

Columbia attended a semi-annual meeting in Paris in June — not last

fall, last summer or last winter, but in June 1979.

The

reason is that the International Bureau of Expositions, the assembly

which says that you may or may not undertake a world exposition,

through an international accord signed in 1928 — I believe I'm correct

when I say 1928; certainly it's been in place for a number of years —

meets twice annually. It meets in Paris, which is its headquarters, in

June and November.

Therefore the record is quite clear for

the member to carry on just a little further research. If he is not too

excited about Transpo, so be it. That's fair. But, please, the record

should not show unanswered the suggestion that this was something

suddenly dreamed up in August, September or October of last year. We

already have 18 months of very careful detailed work by a number of

people, federally, provincially and in the city of Vancouver, with

respect to this exposition in 1986.

I said earlier that it

is not a convention; it is not a conference on one single or particular

aspect of transportation. Transpo '86, by its very nature, will bring

people together from around the world, particularly from the

participating nations. There are 38 nations, I think — possibly 39. I

understand that mainland China is very interested in joining that

particular organization just as soon as possible and I had an

opportunity to discuss that fact a few weeks ago with a representative

of that country. We will see demonstrations of past, present and future

transportation on the land, in the sea, in the air and in space. We

will see involvement by the countries, of course, and by major

corporations and small business firms. Some of them perhaps have

developed a particular type of technology. which will be of interest to

other participants and to the visitors.

We could not have

got this far without the endorsement of the majority of members of the

Vancouver city council, without the endorsement of the federal

Conservative government and the newly re-elected Liberal government in

Otta-

[ Page 3518 ]

wa.

No province has the opportunity or authority to move on the

international scene when dealing with an assembly of this kind.

Therefore we really went at the invitation…. Admittedly

the initiative came from British Columbia and Vancouver, but when we

appear before the assembly when it meets every six months in Paris, we

are introduced and are under the guidance, if you will, of the Canadian

delegate representing this country as we deal with further developments

regarding Transpo.

I must confess that very earlier on I

wondered if we had all the capability — I speak now of early 1979 — to

host a world-class exposition. That fear, concern or doubt, slight as

it may have been, vanished quickly when I saw the individuals who were

ready and willing to participate and those who will be attracted from

other parts of Canada to participate as time goes on. Any possible

residual concern was wiped away when the pre-inquiry team arrived here

in late April of this year for a one-week visit in Vancouver,

essentially, but also in Victoria briefly, to discuss and examine the

capability of the province of British Columbia and the city of

Vancouver to host this exposition.

My colleague the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) has already identified that pre-inquiry team. Their report, Mr.

Speaker, is most illuminating if one cares to read it. Certainly in the

language of the International Bureau of Expositions it has been

described to me as extremely enthusiastic with regard to, firstly, the

magnificent natural beauty of Vancouver and the lower mainland area;

secondly, the site; and thirdly, the arrangements which have been

carried on this far.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we started

early on in 1979 and the reason that we worked very hard through the

balance of that year is that while we have still good lead time, there

is much to be done. I think that there are examples of great success in

world expositions in the last 10 to 20 years, but the success is

particularly noticeable when the work has commenced well in advance. I

think that it's correct to say that at this moment in time we are

perhaps one year ahead of schedule. We're one year ahead of the

tightest time constraints that will be placed on us for the preparation

and development of the site and for the hosting of this exposition.

That

pretty well concludes my remarks. We've had great support from the

from the city of Vancouver. As more British Columbians come to examine

and understand what a world-class exposition is all about, they

recognize that it will have great benefits for this province, for

western Canada and, indeed, for all of the country.

There is

one other point I would make. I had the opportunity to visit what was

to be the site of Expo '67 in Montreal in 1965. It was an empty site.

Some work was underway. To the best of my recollection no buildings

were under construction at that particular point in time. But within a

two-year span of time all Canadians saw what happened successfully in

that great year of 1967. This is not something which can be developed

in just a very short space of time. It is certainly not something which

can be developed without the support of a provincial government, a city

council and the national government. But I'm satisfied, Mr. Speaker,

that in every respect at this very early stage we can have and will

have an exciting and immensely successful world exposition with the

theme "Transportation in All Its Forms" six years hence.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments in regard to the Minister

of Finance's statements. First, he said the competition was very

strictly regulated. How closely must it be regulated when Vancouver,

B.C., was the only applicant? It's a definite landslide victory for

this present government. Secondly, the minister talked about space

transportation being included in this $150-million country fair. I

wonder why the government speaks about space travel when there are

enough definite problems of travelling around this province on some of

the highways now.

The Provincial Secretary in his opening

remarks this morning spoke about the government wanting to run this

country fair as a business venture, and then he went on to say that the

anticipated loss would be almost $12 million. I wonder what type of

business venture this is when you lose $12 million before you even

start building the fair. The anticipated cost six years before the

completion is $150 million, using some figures from other exhibitions

and transportation conventions. So this $150 million would probably

increase by at least 12 percent, looking at the inflation level of the

economy at the present time.

Instead of the government

stating that a country fair in 1986 will cost $150 million plus and

lose at least $12 million, that $12 million could go directly to help

people in this province, specifically in the north, with some of the

problems that we're facing: lack of first-aid stations, bridges for

children to get across to school, playfields…. I would just make

a suggestion to this government that instead of $12 million being

wasted from a loss on a country fair, I'd rather see that $12 million

go into helping people in this province this year by building first-aid

stations and bridges, so children don't have to walk across the ice to

get to school.

Secondly, I suggest taking the $150 million

that's anticipated to be paid for the cost of this fair and putting

this right across the province, not just to help the people of the

north with first-aid stations and some social services, but to help

with problems that people right across this province are facing. You

should cut out spending for a country fair of $150 million plus, when

Vancouver was the only applicant to make a submission for this trade

and convention fair.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'll be

voting against this, because I believe that $150 million with a $12

million loss could go to better advantage for the people of this

province by alleviating some of the social problems people in the north

are facing today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I think we should respond to the comments just made about

a "country fair." Certainly this is a fair in a very beautiful part of

the country, the downtown part of Vancouver, but a country fair it

certainly is not. It's to be a great exposition of which all British

Columbians can be extremely proud; a window for the world, to show what

we can provide in transit services for the Vancouver area region

generally over the next six years. I'm very enthusiastic about what

will be done between now and then and what people from all over the

world will see when they participate in Transpo '86.

There

is a great deal said by the opposition, and generally it's all

negative. There is very little positive said about anything, and that's

to be expected from a group of socialists — they're very negative by

nature — but really let's consider as well that Transpo '86 will bring

many, many thousands of

[ Page 3519 ]

jobs,

particularly in the tourist area. I guess that's the difference between

the free-enterprisers on this side and the socialists on the other

side: we plan and prepare for people, and if we were to simply take the

attitude that "let things happen as they may," then we would not have

the jobs available and would not provide for a sound economy in British

Columbia.

All the things the member speaks of, for the north

— for all parts of the province, for our children, for those in need of

social programs, for our seniors — come about only if we have a

prospering province, a province that provides jobs and opportunities

for people, that shows people everywhere that we can and will be

innovative and that we will provide opportunities for all people. For

many of those youngsters who are presently in our educational system it

is these sorts of things that show them that British Columbia is the

movingest province in the whole of Canada and that here is where the

opportunities lie.

MR. BARNES: The previous speaker

made so many ridiculous remarks, things that I don't think we can give

him any credit for by responding. This side of the House is certainly

not opposed to exhibiting good work that is constructive and useful to

the community.

A transportation exhibition could be a good

thing if it was referred to the public, in the same way the Premier

appeared to indicate he would do on the constitution talks. However, he

was playing politics and was not serious. We would like to refer this

whole issue to the public. For instance, you are talking about a trade

and convention centre downtown — not necessarily rationalized as far as

the transportation exhibition is concerned; and the same thing with

B.C. Place. Both of those are separate, politically conceived ideas

that are not related to a scheme that will actually benefit the

residents in the lower mainland. They are separate, isolated,

independent operations. This is the problem and this is the complaint.

The Premier got an idea, went out and made an announcement and then

decided to go and negotiate for the space he needed with Marathon

Realty. You talk about business acumen. I'll tell you, if we ran peanut

stands as badly as you are running the government we would all be in

very serious trouble. What kind of management is that?

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) challenged this

side of the House to be constructive, and I certainly don't intend to

spend any more time describing their ineptness and inability to manage

the affairs of the people. I would like to suggest, however, that in

managing these affairs in their fumbling manner, they consider the

following: the incorporation of the use of cycling along with

transportation systems. I have made this recommendation in the past,

and I submit again today that there are many people who would….

Interjections.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, could we have order? The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

seems to have a great deal of difficulty speaking on his feet, but he

does very well when he is sitting down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair will maintain order, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I think the idea of a transportation exhibition

is to show the world something you can be proud of. The idea is to be

able to have innovative ideas, to have something new and different, to

show some foresight, to have it relate to the needs of the future

generations. I see none of these elements. criteria or characteristics

involved in what this government is doing right now. I'm not sure what

the benefits will be, except that we will have a much heavier tax

burden when we realize, halfway through it, that it is another

infeasible idea that is not going to materialize economically.

The

use of the cycle is really something that is potentially effective and

can be demonstrated during the exhibition period in 1986 — if this

scheme continues. I would like to see buses with racks on them that

carry cycles. I would like to see the use of parking facilities for

cyclists, for instance, at terminals where transfers take place in a

rapid transit system, so that people can drive their automobiles, if

they will, to a point where automobile congestion builds up and park

their cars, they would be able to mount a bicycle and ride the last

five miles much faster than they could drive their automobiles and

accomplish several things: physical conditioning, getting a little

fresh air, working up a sweat. When they get to work, find a shower for

them and a place to secure their bicycles until they are off-duty.

These

kinds of concepts are the things that I think would be impressive as

far as a transportation system is concerned in a metropolitan area as

large as Vancouver. The same thing should apply in the construction of

all new roadways. There is no need to repeat the problem we had with

the Massey Tunnel, in not providing for pedestrians or cyclists, We

have a difficulty right now in having to provide the capital operating

cost on an annual basis for that very ineffective shuttle system

which operates only in the summer months. If we had designed that

tunnel with the idea of people being able to walk or pedal through. I

am sure many people would be using it, because, as you know, more and

more people are residing in the Delta area around the Fraser River.

MR. KEMPF: What's it cost?

MR. BARNES: The member is concerned about cost, but this is the short-sighted

attitude of the government. They only see myopically; they can only see one

thing at a time; they cannot see into the future. Obviously they should have

learned something from the negotiations they had in the Columbia River Treaty.

but it seems as though they never, ever learn. We're talking about future

costs, not about the present.

the future, if we give the right leadership, we could encourage people

to be more efficient in the use of their resources, including the

energy within their own bodies. Many people are having great difficulty

expending the energy they accumulate by sitting at the dinner table too

long and not having any way to get rid of it. I'm suggesting to you

that if you were to allow people an opportunity, with some kind of

initiative, incentive or comprehensive plan that would permit them to

be able to go full circle, I'm sure they would take some chances on

getting out on the streets on their bicycles. I'm positive of it.

Another

example was the SeaBus. When we were government we introduced the

SeaBus and made specifications to the engineers to change that SeaBus

govern-

[ Page 3520 ]

ment

came in you cancelled the orders, and we now have a SeaBus that will

not permit cycles to be carried across. Obviously that would be a

perfect demonstration of transportation concepts, where people would

ride their bikes from West Vancouver and North Vancouver down to the

terminal, ride across, and leave their cars at home. We could have four

or five times as many SeaBuses as we have. These are the kinds of

practical things you can do that accomplish not just moving people, but

keeping people in shape.

Imagine a people-mover: we're

talking about getting into shape, being able to cut down on medical

costs and health costs, and you're going to put people on a treadmill

and have them ride around without moving. When are we going to learn?

That may be a good idea, but surely we can do better than come up with

concepts that put people on treadmills; they're getting too much of

that now. They're looking for some options, some real imagination.

Those

ideas are all worn out, ineffective and expensive. I'm saying that we

don't need to go big, we need to go imaginative. Big is not necessarily

better. Going into debt is not necessarily the objective of these

projects and schemes. They should relate somehow to something that's

going to be useful to the community.

In closing, I would

suggest that the Highway Act should be amended — that would be a good

move for the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

— so that when you're constructing roadways, tunnels and bridges, your

engineers are cognizant of the total potential options that people may

use to move themselves from point A to point B. Some may want to walk

or ride tricycles, bicycles or mopeds; there's no telling what they may

want to do. But we should be thinking about all these options and

cutting down on the locked-in situation we have with the internal

combustion engine, the automobile, which is obviously a major vested

interest on that side of the House. I can appreciate their inability to

be objective on a matter such as this because of their conflict of

interest. However, they should attempt to rise above that and think in

terms of the majority of the people in the community who are not locked

in to partisan politics and are able to look at things more objectively.

I'm

not opposed to the concept of showing off some of the innovative things

that we're doing in British Columbia in transportation, but I cannot

see any relationship to anything innovative. This is redundant, in

fact. This bill is just another example of expenditures in blindness.

They're not related to any real studies or efforts; it's sort of like

McGeer talking about a fixed link from the mainland to the islands. It

is just rhetoric; it's words, and it costs us a lot of money on

feasibility studies that are used indirectly in a porkbarrelling way of

paying off friends who are doing studies and nothing ever comes back.

That's the thing that upsets me most about most announcements made by

the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I find that last remark most unparliamentary.

MR. BARNES: What was that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Number one, the reference to a minister's name, and I would ask the member….

MR. BARNES: Whose name was that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You named a member, and I would ask the member to withdraw

that.

MR. BARNES: Pat McGeer — oh, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll remind you that in this House we refer to members by the riding

they come from or the ministry that they hold. I would also ask the

hon. member to withdraw personal allusions to members with respect to

the term "porkbarrel." The Chair finds that unparliamentary.

MR. BARNES: I would be more than pleased to withdraw any remarks that appear offensive to the Chair or to any hon. member in the chamber.

However,

I think it should be pointed out that perhaps other words can be used

in place of "porkbarrel" that would indicate that it is an opportunity

for the government to selectively give contracts to supporters, or

whatever you want to call them, who could do studies that never produce

anything other than pictures, ideas and large debts for the taxpayers.

We aren't able to relate those to any kind of constructive progress in

construction or anything that we're going to get out of it. I suggest

that that should stop. These announcements should not be made until

they have been thoroughly reviewed, investigated, studied and done in

such a way as to not jack up the price of whatever it is we intend to

get before we have decided whether we want it or not. We should learn

that lesson. That's one of the things that I don't understand about the

business people over there, not knowing those fundamentals. In any

event, as I said, I'm not opposed to the concept but I am opposed to

the methods and the manner by which this bill has come before this

Legislature. I intend to vote against it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't really planned on joining this debate. I thought

it was rather evident that this is a very positive move. It is a move

that has been brought forward through the encouragement of some people

with a bit of vision for British Columbia — our Premier; the former

Provincial Secretary, now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — and

carried on by our present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

I'm

glad to see that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

has a real vision for the future of transportation in British Columbia

in that he has discovered the bicycle. That's really a futuristic

transportation system. I hope that when the exposition comes he will

take his bicycle down to the exposition centre and show the world his

vision of the future. His vision of the future in transportation in

British Columbia and Vancouver is to put bicycle racks on the buses —

tremendously forward thinking.

When we look at

transportation in British Columbia, I can think of no area in the world

which owes more for its development, modern lifestyle and standard of

living than we do to developments in the transportation systems. We can

just look back briefly at the development of this province, beginning

with the coast, water transportation and coastal steamers. I can

remember as a boy growing up on the coast of British Columbia the old

Union Steamship line and the coastal steamers which really did a great

deal to develop our province. Coastal transportation, of course,

followed on to modern light aircraft for float operations.

The

vision of our former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, led to the development of

the very modern, efficient ferry systems we now have on this coast.

Although they are criticized by many members here, they are praised by

visitors to this province as probably the most efficient, modern and

com-

[ Page 3521 ]

fortable

ferry systems anywhere in the world. Yet they are constantly criticized

by the enthusiastic negativism shown by our socialist friends opposite.

Transportation

systems developed over the rest of the province. Again, former Premier

W.A.C. Bennett had a vision for this province which required

transportation systems in road, rail, water and air. Our present

Premier, a man of vision who is looking ahead, is developing an airport

program for this province so that air transportation can continue to

play a vital role in the whole transportation system of this province.

These

people opposite who smile and sit in their cozy places in the southern

part of the province think the province is developed. This province is

not half developed. When we get up to the north…. As some of our

members proudly say, their north is partway up this province. The

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was criticizing transportation. No

area in the province needs innovative and futuristic transportation

more than that part of the province.

The opportunity of

having a world-scale exposition on transportation in British Columbia

is an opportunity that we should not forgo. The member for Atlin said

nobody else wanted it. Indeed, other countries in the world did want

it but our province had the foresight to be first off the mark to grab

this opportunity, not necessarily so that we can show the world what

we're doing but so that many countries in the world can show each other

what has happened, what is happening and what will happen in the

future. It does require some vision to put a thing like this together.

Of course our negative socialists are against it, as they are against

all positive things.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly support this

bill. I think it will be a tremendous benefit to British Columbia not

only in enhancing our transportation systems, but in learning from

others so that we can develop better systems for the future and others

can come to British Columbia and learn what we have done. We have

indeed made some large strides in the development of transportation in

the very difficult country that we have in British Columbia.

The

attitude of the negative socialists opposite reminds me of a thing that

Jonathan Swift said when he wrote Gulliver's Travels . He said: "You

will know men of vision by the fact that all the nincompoops in the

world will be united against them. " Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition intends to completely reject this

bill in every form, and we're going to vote against it. The major

reason is that we consider the Social Credit government absolutely

irresponsible to bring in a bill like this and be ready to commit the

citizens of British Columbia to a debt at a time of recession, when

people need housing, more health care, denticare, and you name it. You

know the situation we're in in this province today. We're at a time

when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has announced a freeze,

and yet we're asked to support an exhibition on transportation. We're

not asked to support money for a transportation network around this

province. We're not asked in this bill to support light rapid transit;

we're asked to support a fair that's going to last for five and a half

months.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why all these moneys should be committed to a fair

at this time in this province's economy, when all ministers are going to

have to curtail their budgets. I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) stand up and say: "This is going to bring jobs. Why are

you so negative?"' If that member for Surrey, that minister, would

like to increase the number of jobs in this province and at the same time help

many of our citizens, why is he not in cabinet demanding that the Social Credit

government take their responsibility and enter into the field of housing in

this province? If you want to make jobs in this province and help people, why

don't you put massive sums of money, which you're ready to commit to

stadiums and fairs, into housing instead?

The

people of B.C. must be wondering what is going on with this government.

Are they in so much trouble politically that they have to keep bringing

before us these irresponsible projects that are going to drain the

people of British Columbia? Aside from our general objections to this

bill, which we consider absolutely unnecessary at this time in our

province's history, I am very concerned that the minister who

introduced the bill simply did not reassure anyone on this side of the

House in his opening remarks that the figures that he's presenting are

going to be accurate.

I have a number of questions that I

want to ask the minister which I hope he will reply to in closing or

later in committee. Perhaps I should reserve those detailed questions

for committee, but I just want to ask one now. That is: when the

minister talks about expenses, is he including what we understand is to

be a new covered football stadium connected with this? Is he including

the installation of sewers, pavement, water, hydro and gas lines? Is he

including the cost that Marathon Realty may be imposing for the land

that is needed? None of these answers have come forward, yet the

minister is trying to tell us that the deficit after the fair is over

is going to be very short. We have many more questions in detail. I'll

leave them for committee.

Our basic concern is that at a

time when we're desperately in need of housing these acres are going to

be bought for a fair. There's no guarantee when that fair is over — and

I know the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is listening,

because he made a statement with reference to what would happen to that

land after and something about housing…. Our question is: with

the cost of the land there, are average persons really going to be able

to involve themselves in housing in that area? The minister is nodding

his head and we certainly hope that when the minister nods his head

he's going to really be able to assure us that the lower middle-class —

I don't like to say class, so I'll say the lower middle-income

people of this province — would be able to buy lots there. As far as

we're concerned that money — and I cannot emphasize it more — should

not be going into an expo at this time. It should be going into the

direct needs of the people, particularly in the area of housing.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I think if this weren't so serious it would be laughable —

it would be a joke. When the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

spoke of nincompoops he was certainly speaking of the group that we

have called the government in British Columbia, led by Drapeau of the

West. The first minister will be called "Drapeau of the West." He's

going about this thing exactly the way Drapeau went after Expo. This is

just another monument set up by a government that cannot afford to

maintain its staff level, puts on a staff freeze and then gets up and

gives us the sort of aggrandizement treatment. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) tells us we can well afford it.

How can we well afford it when that same minister stood

[ Page 3522 ]

in this House a couple of weeks ago and said that he had to have a

staff freeze because we were going broke? And we will go broke just

because of the way this government messes around with the taxpayers'

funds in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The minister of waste, highways, potholes and everything else he can

get under his purview should not be talking about anything at this

point. What he should be doing is going to the remainder of the cabinet

and saying: "Look here, let's do some of that building up in the north.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is quite right that they have been

neglected up there."

No, instead of that we are going to

make a deal with Marathon Realty, now that we are forced into it. They

know they've got us right where they want us, in the palm of their

hand. This government is going to have to go and negotiate with

Marathon and the CPR. They are going to come out of there with one

great, smashing deal from that outfit. No government has ever come out

on the right side of a financial deal with Marathon or with the CPR,

and I predict that it is going to be exactly the same situation here.

It is a monument government. That is the only thing they understand.

The

whole question is so infuriating. When I hear all this talk about how

lucky and fortunate we are to be recognized by the world body of

expositions…. They have chosen us to be the site for this

monumental waste of money. They have chosen us because nobody else

asked. Did Rio de Janeiro ask? Did New York ask? No. Hong Kong? No. I

don't know anybody who asked. As a matter of fact, even Drapeau failed

to ask for this one. If that doesn't tell us something, I would like to

know what does.

I would just like to comment with one or two

words on the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland'

s) talk about

these terrible socialists over here. Then he talked about the ferry

system. There have been only two corporations nationalized in this

province, both by the W.A.C. Bennett Socred government. One was B.C.

Electric and the other was Black Ball ferries. That speaks for itself.

I don't know why he is talking about socialists.

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you against that too?

MR. COCKE: What am I against?

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to know what you're for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Minister of Transportation and Highways come to order, please?

MR. COCKE: I think nationalization is shameful; negotiations are far, far better. Anyway, that is neither here nor there.

Mr.

Speaker, it is a monument government. They have not made proper plans.

They have not yet got the site in their hands. When the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) tells us by nodding and smiling that all

is in hand and all is well in terms of this land being used for housing

afterward or whatever, I don't think he has a clue how much he is going

to pay for the land. I suggest the $12 million deficit is probably a

very small fraction of what this monumental disaster is going to cost.

It is going to cost plenty. I suggest that when they are dealing with

all these different systems of transportation — we are informed they

are going to be dealing also with transportation in space — we will

find out that the biggest space in this province is the space between

the cabinet's ears. It is all empty space and they are proving it every

day, particularly with Bill 19, Transpo. We are totally opposed to this

bill.

MR. LEVI: What if we gave an exposition and

nobody came? Nobody really wanted to host it except us. The minister

issued two documents, one a very impressive, colourful document which

presumably made up the bulk of the presentation in Paris. That is this

one here: "International Exposition on Progress in Transportation." I

was interested in trying to get from this particular document the

policy of the government in terms of transportation.

They

have a number of sub-themes in here, and I really want to just read one

theme, because it's the theme on water. That is a very good one,

because the only transportation policy we've had from that government

since they've been in is that they sold some ferries and they cut off

the coastal services. We've had the ridiculous situation where people

couldn't even get out of Ocean Falls, because there was no policy.

MR. BARBER: And the Marguerite .

MR. LEVI: And the Marguerite . Now we've got some minister who wants to build a tunnel underground.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

Tutankhamen, the former Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), is

talking. We're going to put you into a mausoleum one of these days.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

What else would we build? Well, we'll take the $14 million you blew on

the heroin plan and we could probably put people to work.

But

back to the main motion, Mr. Chairman, and I want to quote from this

fantastic document. It was written, I believe, by Jean Drapeau. I think

he was hired as a consultant, because it says here: "Man in motion" —

and if there was ever a guy in motion, it's Jean Drapeau — "on water — sur

1'eau…." You've got to listen to this, because I think this

really encapsulates all of the transportation policy, particularly

related to water, of the present government. It says: "This sub-theme

originates with man's first ventures onto the water. Today, slender

dug-out racing canoes race weekly in the coastal bays and inlets, crews

could easily become an integral part of the exposition." That's the

integral part: dug-out canoes….

MR. COCKE: Bicycles.

MR. LEVI: No, no bicycles.

carry on, however. The writer, in his effort to enunciate the theme,

pulls us into the twenty-first century. He says: "Besides paddle

propulsion" — which would make the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) very happy, because it's a kind of preventative health

measure — boats and ships of B.C.'s coastal and inland waters have used

[ Page 3523 ]

sail." I can see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), in order to replace the Marguerite , isn't going to rebuild the

Marguerite ; he's going to hire one of those wheat barques lying down in

Chile that they're not using; that will become part of our

transportation.

Then he goes on to say: "Paddle-wheel and

screw to move people and material…." Well, we can't comment too

much on that paragraph, Mr. Chairman.

"Much of the maritime history is still afloat and available

to illustrate the theme. The importance of canals to Canada's development

will be stressed as well." Now where is the canal going to be? One has to really think about that. I would

suggest that there is going to be a canal from the corner of Willingdon and

Hastings all the way down to connect up with Annacis Island. I think that's

probably a very appropriate place to put the canal.

"On

the other hand, Hovercraft, experimental submersible craft and an

operational jetfoil craft will be available for viewing.'' Well, we're

viewing that almost every day. It's so high out of the water because it

doesn't have any passengers that I don't think we really get a very

good idea what it does.

"Nuclear-powered

merchant ships will be discussed. Modern navigation aids, including

computer weather prediction models, will be discussed and demonstrated."

Now there is nothing wrong in that kind of thing. We've

had two large expositions in Canada in the past six years. We had the

Olympic Games, which is an exposition; it is an exposition of muscle

and physical competence. We had Habitat in 1976. There was a lot of

talking at Habitat. It was not, by and large, a very successful

conference. What came out of it were a number of resolutions about how

we might deal with making housing available to low-income people; there

was a thrust there. They walked away, and nobody paid any attention to

it and it sits there, mouldering on the shelves out at UBC. There is

still a little Habitat office that, I understand, is run by Peter

Oberlander; but nothing ever happens.

Now you've got this

transportation system. If the government had a policy, if they talked

about a transportation policy as a government, then, I think, they

would be able to justify it — that they want to build on the ideas they

have about transportation. Nobody on that side of the House has ever

got up and told us what their transportation policy is — whether it's

on land or on sea or in the air. They've not come out with a

conference. The only member over there who talks about any kind of

transportation is the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) —

and he's not in the cabinet. He talks about it, but nobody else on that

side talks about it. Now how can you sit down without people wondering

just what it is you're about, when you really don't have a

transportation policy?

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) said that it wasn't something they dreamed up; they had the

idea 18 months ago. Well, what did they have 18 months ago? I guess the

Premier was walking around, and somebody suggested: "We've got to get

the heat off us, so let's talk about an exposition of transportation."

Now that wasn't 18 months ago, because 18 months ago he wasn't in that

kind of trouble.

What amazes me is the second document that

was issued. The second document was a very large press release issued

on May 20, and it's put together. Actually the contact person is Paul

Manning of stadium fame; he's the man who now belongs to the committee

for Transpo. He says in the introduction…. Now they talk about

planning; they figured out what it's going to cost. Let me read the

second-last paragraph:

"Since the nature of

the concept is unique and there is no exact parallel upon which to

draw, the methodology used in developing each of the various figures is

described in detail later. But it should be noted that they are

intended only as a starting point for the financial control effort. It

is of the greatest importance that they be tested and modified as more

information becomes available."

It is this next paragraph.

"All

figures set out in the report are in 1980 dollars. It is expected that

while the absolute values of the numbers will increase as a result of

the inflation, their relative values will remain substantially

unchanged.''

I am going to have to call Paul Manning to

find out what he means by that. If he is suggesting that the proportion

of money expended on capital costs will not vary in terms of proportion

vis-à-vis the operational costs…. Is that what he is saying? That

is the only thing I can get out of it. It is amazing to me that you can

embark on a project like this. Yet nobody has sat down to do any

projection into 1986 and 1987, unless the government is trying to pick

it up. We already had one good example of what a terrible mess the

government got into. In fact, the whole fiasco of the Montreal games

affected every taxpayer in this country, not just in Quebec. Every

taxpayer in the country had to pick up the deficit for that.

The

minister tells us it is going to cost about $150 million or $160

million and they are $12 million behind. The individual who is

coordinating the program indicates that they have done no projections

past 1980. In another forum we have had an opportunity to try to

understand. The public knows, for instance, in respect to some of the

minister's negotiations about coal that nobody seems to be able to

understand or tell anybody what it costs to ship so much coal and how

much it will be. Nobody wants to talk about that. Nobody can talk about

anything but 1980 dollars or 1979 dollars. With all the machinery and

all the so-called financial expertise that government has got, do you

mean to tell me they can't sit down and tell us, within reason, what

this is going to cost? All they have to tell us is that they can only

give it in 1980 dollars.

We are talking about a 1986

project. That kind of information is extremely misleading. If we are

attempting to understand what it will cost, then they should do a lot

more work than just coming in here and suggesting to us that this is

something that is going to be reasonable. There is no indication

whatsoever that this thing will be anything less than a loss of $70

million or $80 million, based on the inflation over the next five or

six years. We have been having some discussions in another forum about

this, how you might calculate what costs will be five or six years down

the road. It was suggested to me that in the first instance you can

double them. That is really what you are talking about. You are talking

about the capital cost in paying off the money and the interest, also

adding for the inflation.

The minister omitted from his

statement that these costs he gave us this morning are in 1980 dollars.

The project will not be operating until 1986. It was a complete lack of

candour on the part of that minister in respect to telling us just what

it is going to cost. He has not told us, for instance, what the role

[ Page 3524 ]

the federal government is. It is my understanding that the federal

government made it very clear that they are not participating. They did

not, for instance, accept the argument the minister used that somehow

it is similar to the effort that was made in the Commonwealth Games. It

does not fall under the criteria of that kind of operation at all. They

were not prepared at all to be involved in it. Had the federal

government been prepared to be involved in it, I doubt very much that

they would do too much out in the west. He hasn't told us that.

What

negotiations are going on? We understand from statements in the press

that there are no negotiations. The federal government has been very

clear about it. They are not going to share in it. The major burden

will fall on the taxpayers in the province, and probably an extra

burden — as much as the mayor of Vancouver won't say it — on the local

taxpayers there.

It is an ill-conceived program based, they

say, on a transportation theme from a government that has no

transportation policy whatsoever. You can't justify that to the world.

Are you going to justify what you've done to transportation in this

province since you've been government? We have had statements of policy

coming from that government about energy, transportation, coal, oil. We

are still waiting. You know what happens. They are all up there working

in their little smoke factories and nothing really comes out.

relation to this project, it is not easy, as a citizen of this

province, to look at the possibility of the province having an

exposition on transportation and say you have to reject it. You have to

put some thought into the idea. But we do it on several grounds. The

key question is their failure — although they campaigned and they

constantly talked for five years — on the issue of solving the transit

problem. Their solution was simply to dump it on the provinces. We saw

what a mess they made of sea transportation. Without that kind of

policy that is the principle we use to vote against it.

don't think they are capable of pulling off this project. This could

wind up to be a great embarrassment, not only to the province of

British Columbia but to Canada as a whole. It is an ill-conceived idea

based on a whim. It is all part and parcel of that whole Pharaoh

apparatus they are intending to construct. The last major idea the

Social Credit government had — I am not talking about this one — was

back in 1970 when they conceived the idea of having a 57-storey office

building. Do you remember? Since that time they have never come forward

with one practical idea.

They're talking about building a

stadium down in False Creek in the middle of the busiest intersection,

with no transportation at all. They have no ideas; they are simply

grasping at straws in order to advance their political situation. This

is not going to advance their political situation, and it's certainly

not going to advance the prestige of this province. I have no trouble

in going along with my colleagues and voting against this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: First of all, I would like to make a sincere introduction of one of my fellow ice-hockey players.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER:

His name is John Way. Incredible as it may seem, he's almost as

incompetent a defenseman as I am on our phony-baloney hockey team,

which last night beat the opponents. I ask the House to make him

welcome, more or less.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, I've been trying for two years. I'm no better, and neither is he, unfortunately.

One

of the reasons why this bill is so objectionable is that it betrays,

more than the government might ever admit, the true priorities of

Social Credit. It betrays their real interests and their real point of

view. It admits more by this description than they would ever do by

their own language where their hearts really lie and where their social

priorities are really to be found.

If ever a bill

demonstrated that a government prefers image over real achievement,

it's this bill. If ever a bill could demonstrate that a government

prefers circuses and country fairs over the substance of a successful

social and economic policy, it's this bill. If ever a bill provided

evidence that this government is in desperate political trouble, and is

desperate to regain lost popularity by spending any amount of money to

reverse the political polls, it's this bill.

Have we heard,

Mr. Speaker, from any significant consumer or interest or social group

in the province that wanted Transpo '86? Was there a single

constituency in the whole of British Columbia speaking in favour of

this notion before the government adopted it? I'm not aware of a single

group of business People, neighbourhood interests, transportation

planners, or persons concerned with the issue, who asked the government

to put together this international country fair so aptly described by

my colleague for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). This bill does not represent

any interest group, any legitimate concern on the part of business or

trade unions or professional people in the province. It is a typical

Socred scheme to try and reverse the predictable Socred unpopularity

since "Bungling Bill," as he's come to be known, took over the

leadership of this province. It's a typical Socred scheme which proves

beyond question and doubt and challenge where the real interests of

Social Credit lie.

This government has asked us to take

pride in some very curious things. They ask us to be proud of the fact

that we won an international competition which no one else entered. Why

should we be proud of that? What kind of game is that that we should

take pride in winning? But apparently, by the standards of Social

Credit, this is something we should be proud of.

They ask us

to believe — or at least the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) did — that British Columbia has something to be proud of

in the field of transport. They ask us to believe that we will not be

mocked, ridiculed and laughed at by the international community that

comes to this province and discovers how obsolete, incompetent and

inept the transportation policies of the host province are. They ask us

to be proud of the British Columbia achievements which apparently will

be pointed to, no doubt with sniggering, by the international

transportation community that wonders how on earth any province would

have the gall to put on an international exposition when its own

transportation policies are in such a mess.

Now what are we

going to point to with this great pride of Social Credit? What will

British Columbia have to show at this international country fair?

Apparently we can show the

[ Page 3525 ]

jetfoil,

which will be out of service by that time. We might be able to show the

Princess Marguerite , which will be in mothballs at that time. We might

be able to tell them the story of what happens when a government

doubles the ferry rates and drives away all the tourists. That would be

a proud point to exhibit internationally, wouldn't it, Mr. Speaker? We

might be able to demonstrate the chaos of northern marine

transportation in this province, and tell them the happy story of the

people of Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Bella Coola. That would also be

something to be proud of, would it not, Mr. Speaker? All of these

tremendous achievements of Social Credit are going to be shown to the

world.

I suppose we can hope one thing: that by 1986 they

will be out of power. We might ask the other question: what will happen

to the exhibition if, one or two years from now, they are defeated, as

they surely will be, and another government is in office? Will a

successful government honour this ludicrous commitment and spend these

moneys so wastefully and purposelessly? One might ask whether or not a

successor government will be prepared to honour the commitment to this

ridiculous waste of money. It's just possible that a successor

government will not be prepared to do that. The International Bureau of

Expositions might, perhaps, take some cognizance of that possibility,

the current fortunes of Social Credit being what they are.

This

Transpo is going to be a vast embarrassment to the people of British

Columbia. When the international engineering and transportation

community comes here and looks at our obsolete bus system and chaotic

marine transportation system, and hears the stories of the Princess

Marguerite , the jetfoil and the marine transportation mess in the

northern part of this province, they are going to laugh and laugh and

laugh again at any province that would have the nerve to invite the

international transportation community to come here and see this chaos

in our own policies.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Maybe

there will be a British Columbia booth. I urge the government to make

it as small and obscure as possible. Thus we may be able to diminish

the embarrassment that will be suffered by the people of this province,

Maybe it would be better if we didn't have any booth at all, because we

have nothing to be proud of, nothing to show and nothing to exhibit.

However,

it is possible that the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will be able to show up with a few

models of vast cross-water bridges which have collapsed in other parts

of the world and which he proposes to build here. He may be able to

show us pictures of the Hood Bridge collapsing or of the bridge in

Florida collapsing. He may be able to show us pictures of the proposed

similar bridge from the mainland to Vancouver Island. That would make

an interesting exhibition. He may, on the other hand, show us pictures

of tunnels collapsing and then talk about his plans for tunnels to

Vancouver Island. He may, as well, show pictures of the Princess

Marguerite that was, the jetfoil that never worked, the Queen of Prince

Rupert that wasn't and all of the other wonderful achievements of

Social Credit.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) may, for instance, want to show us models of his monorail

scheme that no one has asked for, that cannot be afforded, that no one

wants and that will cost far more than it ever should. If he gets ahead

with that particular scheme, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may show

up with his monorail models in some small room.

That's all

we've got to show. That's all we have to demonstrate. That's all there

is to argue. How about the Trident? Well, we can't take any credit for

that. Mr. Vavarek can take credit for that, but not us. However, the

problem remains that if this international fair comes to British

Columbia we will be embarrassed. Our participation, our booth, our

exhibition will consist of nothing but failures and flops and chaos

because that's what the transportation policy is under Social Credit —

the Princess Marguerite , Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, the

jetfoil, the Prince Rupert , the doubling of the ferry rates and all of

those other spectacular achievements of Social Credit.

After

five years we have no LRT in British Columbia. After five years of

Social Credit all of the negotiations that were commenced under the New

Democrat administration with the national railways to use their track

and with B.C. Hydro to use its track have failed, been stopped and

achieved nothing. So we might also have a British Columbia booth that

presents all of the contracts that were never signed, all of the leases

that were never arranged, all of the arrangements that never occurred

for LRT because of the incompetence of Social Credit.

There

is one thing, however, that British Columbia could exhibit at Transpo

'86. Unfortunately for Social Credit, it is the only achievement of

government in this province in the last decade, but it wasn't theirs. I

suspect that is why we may never hear about it. You see, the only new,

modern, sophisticated, imaginative and workable transportation scheme

introduced in this province in the last decade was introduced by the

Barrett administration. It is called, of course, SeaBus.

SeaBus

works. SeaBus is an international symbol of Canadian excellence in

technology and engineering. SeaBus is far cheaper than would have been

a ridiculous third crossing over the Burrard Inlet with all of the

costs of the bridge, the access roads, smashing through neighbourhoods

and expropriating properties and the social and human costs that would

have resulted if that ridiculous Social Credit proposal of the sixties

had been allowed to proceed. It costs far less to the taxpayers than

would a third crossing. The SeaBus is a marvel of technology,

achievement and modern transportation. It is the only achievement of

government in the last decade that deserves to be exhibited at Transpo.

Will it be? Not likely, because much to the embarrassment of these

incompetents opposite it was, of course, an achievement of the best

government British Columbia has ever had, and that was the New Democrat

government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're biased, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: You bet I'm biased. I'm proud too. Comparing it with the incompetence of your government, I'm doubly proud.

There

is another aspect to all of this which was raised by my colleague, the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Legitimate criticism can

be raised about the competence of this administration to run a world's

fair. This is the government, after all, responsible for the Seaboard

Assurance fiasco. This is the government responsible for the fiasco at

Ocean Falls, where we will shortly be sued by the Los

[ Page 3526 ]

Angeles Times

because of the ineptness of Social Credit. This is the party

responsible for the Columbia River Treaty. one of the most ridiculous

international agreements ever signed, an agreement which has cost us $1

billion so far to export power to our American cousins. This is the

party which is not competent enough to do Transpo '86 because they were

not competent enough to realize the problems of signing the High Ross

Dam agreement. This party and this government are simply not competent

to make any international deal. The Columbia River Treaty was an

international deal which they blew. The Ross Dam Treaty was an

international deal which they blew.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member to return to the principle of the bill presently before us.

MR. BARBER:

The principle is to establish a corporation which will sign an

international agreement on behalf of the people of this province and

this country. We have some reason to doubt the ability of Social Credit

to sign any competent international agreement, because every prior one

they've signed has been a loser for the people of British Columbia.

not only does this bill reveal the fact that Social Credit, in the

field of transportation as in every other field, is more concerned with

image than substance, not only does this bill further indicate the

mistaken and misplaced priorities of Social Credit in a time of

recession and great human need, but this bill also causes reasonable

people to ask whether or not these incompetents opposite are able to

handle the obligations. We doubt that they are, because every other

thing they've tried to pull off internationally has been a flop, a

fiasco and a waste of money. I won't mention the Columbia River Treaty

again; I won't mention the Ross Dam treaty again. It's not necessary.

The point is well known and the evidence is overwhelming.

The

Socreds get hosed, and we get hosed, every time they go shopping

abroad. They ask us to be proud of winning a competition that no one

else entered — that is a joke. They ask us to be proud of the fact that

they cannot calculate the costs of the exposition — that is a joke.

They ask us to believe that British Columbia's booth at this country

fair will be something we can take pride in, and that is another joke,

with the solitary exception of SeaBus. But it wasn't their government

that did it, it was ours, so we don't expect to see much in the way of

praise for SeaBus. They ask us to take pride in the fact that British

Columbia's magnificent achievements in transit will be on display for

all the world to snicker at. Well, there's nothing to be proud of

there. Let me say it again; after five years of Social Credit all we

can show are contracts that were never signed, leases that were never

entered into, railways that were never exploited, light rapid transit

that was never built and achievements that amount to precisely nothing.

suppose, though, there is another thing that British Columbia could

display, and that is a picture of the lots of all the car dealers who

form the coalition government of this province. We could show pictures

of Mussallem Motors, and pictures of the Ford dealership of the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

and pictures of the GM dealership of the Provincial Secretary and

Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). We could show

pictures of all the used-car dealers and used-car lots run by Social

Credit. This might be British Columbia's unique contribution to Transpo

'86. At least we have something to show there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I will instruct the member, for the second and last

time, to return to the theme of the bill or discontinue speaking.

MR. BARBER:

I am on the theme of the bill, and I appreciate your advice. The theme

of the bill is to commit this province to participate in Transpo '86.

The question l am asking is: what participation will we have, except to

lose money? We have nothing else to show. Is this not a reasonable

question, Mr. Speaker? Of course it is.

I suppose we could

also show pictures of the money that will be wasted on the Annacis

crossing. Maybe British Columbia's exhibition at Transpo could also be

included in that field, but I doubt that they'll talk about that either

once the people become clear in their own minds — as they are rapidly

doing — of what a waste that is. So we're not going to talk about that

at Transpo '86 either.

The government asks us to take pride

in British Columbia's achievements and to be prepared to show them to

the world at Transpo '86. What we're asking the government to do is to

reconsider, and save us the embarrassment of being attacked by the

international transportation community for putting on such a joke at

the taxpayers' expense. If there was anything for British Columbia to

boast about we might support this bill. If there was any reason to

spend money on this project instead of on housing and health, we might

support the bill. If it was possible for the government to demonstrate

a federal commitment that would help bail out the British Columbia

taxpaying losers who will support this loser, we might consider

supporting the bill. If anyone in British Columbia other than the

political leadership of a failing political party had even wanted

Transpo '86 we might support the bill, but the government can offer no

such evidence, no such argument; the government can provide none of

those answers. Why is that? Because Transpo '86 is not needed, wanted

or welcome. That's why we don't support the bill.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place just for a few moments to say very

little, because we shouldn't be wasting so much time with such an

excellent bill.

I am amazed. What has the hon. member who

just spoke got against used car dealers? They are honourable people

making an honourable living. I want to tell them; I am entitled to

reply. If I was a used-car dealer I could say so, but I am not, and

neither is the hon. member for Vancouver South. What is the point of

degrading honourable people? If I was a used-car dealer I think I'd

just as soon be a used-car dealer as a professional gadfly and

dilettante.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not calling anybody names. At least we have an honourable job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I must ask you, as I asked the previous speaker, to return

to the principle of the bill before us, which is the Transpo '86

Corporation Act.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with you, and I return now to the act.

The fact is that this act tells very clearly a different philosophy between this party and that negative opposition.

[ Page 3527 ]

you ever heard more negativism, more tearing down, not a single

suggestion of building anything…. They talk about the great thing they

did, the greatest thing ever done, the only thing they can talk about

with pride — the SeaBus. Very well, it's a nice thing — beautiful. I

appreciate and admire it, but certainly I'm glad that we're a wealthy

province to be able to afford it. It is nice.

With this

bill, what we are saying is that it is a self-generating income for the

people of British Columbia. It is a matter of dignity and honour. A new

business is established to create more action in the province. We know

that during their term of office they tore things down and mining

stopped, building stopped and everybody stopped. They had to call the

parliament back to get things going again — to put everybody back to

work. Everybody quit working in British Columbia. Mines left. Do they

remember that? They called them back in the last of their dying days in

1975. The whole country stopped. But when we're back, mining is back,

business is back and we're prosperous and can afford SeaBus. If they

had still been in office, heaven forbid, SeaBus would have been taken

off long ago. They couldn't have afforded the gas for it.

However,

Mr. Speaker, I tell you the whole thing is a different philosophy. We

believe in building up and creating. This Transpo '86 will be a

monument to British Columbia and to the future, and it will be an area

now in slum condition that will be built up beautifully for people.

It'll bring much tourism, housing and business of all kinds. This is

the building-up principle of our government. Our philosophy is to

build, where theirs has been negative and knock-down. That's the

difference. That's what this bill says: we are builders. They are

negative and knock them down. We can expect the arguments from them.

Knock everything down and tear it apart — that's all you've heard this

morning, Mr. Speaker. Transpo '86 will be a monument not only to this

government, but also to the foresight of the people of British Columbia

who put us in government. And believe me, we re going to stay there.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps telling us that the whole world will

be talking about British Columbia once Transpo '86 is concluded, and

they will. There isn't any question about it. The whole world is going

to be talking about British Columbia, because they are going to be

witnessing in British Columbia, if they visit the twenty-first floor of

the Scotia Tower, where the offices of Transpo are, one of the most

luxuriously appointed suites of offices anywhere in the world.

very sensitive, perceptive British Columbian stumbled into these

offices and was so stunned that she came to me and reported that the

pile of the carpeting was so thick that she was gasping for air. She

almost drowned. She placed one foot on the rug and sank. That's right.

This very sensitive, perceptive British Columbian is about five foot

seven or eight, so we're not speaking about a tiny British Columbian;

we're talking about a giant British Columbian who just about drowned in

the carpeting in that suite of offices.

AN HON. MEMBER: More patronage.

MS. BROWN:

That's right. This British Columbian reported to me that indeed the

office of Mr. Paul Manning is more plush, she suspects, than the

offices of any of the Rockefellers who ever had offices anywhere in the

world.

The world will be talking about British Columbia when

this is over. They will be talking about the model of False Creek. I

would like the government members to take a tour of those buildings. I

am certainly going to take a tour of them and come back and compare it

with my own office, believe me, If I want to change my mind in my

office I have to step outside and then go back in again. That is how

small our offices are. The world, when it comes to Transpo '86, should

not only visit the offices on the twenty-first floor of the Scotia

building but they should visit the offices of some of the Opposition

members too.

However, in these offices there is a scale

model of False Creek. What happens is that you end up with a sort of

mirror vision. When you look in the office, on the entire wall you see

exactly the same thing you would if you looked out the window.

Somewhere along the line somebody spent a lot of money to have a model

constructed which was an exact replica of what you see when you look

through the window of the twenty-first floor of the Scotia building.

MR. BARBER: Why didn't they just take a picture?

MS. BROWN:

Right. And I would like to know, first of all, when the minister rises

to close debate, what it cost the people of British Columbia to have

that model constructed. I would like to have that figure broken down

into just how many child-care workers could have been hired for the

infant development program which, as you heard earlier in the week when

we were discussing it with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), is going short-staffed. It is not just the money that is

spent to bring that exposition here which is an insult to the people of

British Columbia but the money which has been spent to appoint the very

offices which the so-called workers of the government are sitting in as

they prepare for this exposition.

The member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem), who has left his seat, stated earlier: "The Transpo

'86 is a perfect example of the difference in philosophy between the

government and the opposition." He was quite right, because this

opposition would not have established, as a priority, the building and

the appointments of a suite of offices as a priority over the hiring of

child-care workers for an infant development program established to

work with small children with disabilities and handicaps who are trying

to adjust themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are having some

difficulty in seeing how this fits in with the principle of the bill,

but in fact it does because I am doing a comparison in terms of the

reason why it is not possible for the opposition to support this

particular piece of legislation, to spend this amount of money on what

the member for Dewdney again says will be a monument to the government

for years. The only monument we in the opposition want is healthy

children. That's the monument that we want. If this piece of

legislation….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon.

member. By the greatest stretch of the imagination the Chair is unable

to relate the remarks of the member to the bill presently before us. I

would ask that while casual and glancing references are acceptable to a

degree, the prolonged discussion the member is now engaged in is really

out of order under this particular debate. I would ask the member

please to return to the principle of the bill before us.

MS. BROWN: I would like the record to show that it is

[ Page 3528 ]

not

just the members of the opposition who are opposed to this bill. In

fact, the mayor of that marvellous royal city of New Westminster is

quoted as having said how grateful he is to Vancouver for accepting

this travesty, and how happy he is that New Westminster was not saddled

with it, because the end result is going to be a remarkable deficit.

New Westminster certainly is not interested in winning a competition in

which it is the only contestant. New Westminster wasn't interested, but

apparently Vancouver was.

I just want to say, very briefly,

Mr. Speaker, that the opposition is going to oppose this bill and go on

record as being opposed to it, and not in a negative sense. The

opposition is a positive opposition. It is a very positive opposition.

It is an opposition that says that we will not support a government

that puts monuments and things before people. That's a positive

opposition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to make

a few comments, essentially in a positive vein, and certainly

emphasizing the fact that Transpo '86 can bring blessings not only to

the people of B.C. but to Canada and, I think, to the world.

First,

to be quite specific, the Ontario government has put a large amount of

money — some $70 million — into a new light rapid transit design. A

great deal of work has been done on that development. The Ontario

government now sees Transpo '86 as an opportunity to market that

development, not just in British Columbia but around the world. The

Ontario government is prepared to not only sell a system for rapid

transit use in British Columbia, but to manufacture cars and other

components of that system in British Columbia not only for our use in

British Columbia but for the export market around the world. This is

the kind of development that can come to this province as a result of

the kind of initiatives that this government has shown in landing

Transpo '86 for British Columbia, and particularly Vancouver, in the

mid-1980s.

This automated light rapid transit system is

unique. There is considerable interest in it already in the United

States and the United Kingdom. It's interesting because it's relatively

low in capital cost and it's the kind of development that would fit

into our Urban Transit Authority plan for the greater Vancouver area.

It's light in weight. It's propelled by a unique magnetic system that

pulls on a rail; it doesn't drive the wheels, and is therefore

virtually noiseless. It uses less energy than other systems. It can go

up steeper slopes than other systems. It is therefore lower in cost

insofar as separating grades or street crossings from the rapid transit

system than it would be under any other known system. I believe it is a

highly marketable one. It's one that the Ontario government has

invested a great deal of money in. It's one that will probably be

installed in Hamilton, Ontario, in the next few years. It's one in

which the federal government is prepared to put up a third of the cost

in Hamilton and a third of the cost in any other province which will

use this system in the next few years. So here is an opportunity for

federal money as well as capitalizing on the initiative of Canadian

engineers in another province. It looks as if it is going to be proving

up perhaps one of the best light rapid transit systems in the world.

Vancouver,

with Transpo '86, has an opportunity to install this system, not on an

experimental scale of two or three miles in length such as exists now

in Kingston, Ontario, but on a city-wide scale. Ours may be the first

system using the automated light rapid transit vehicle which has been

developed in central Canada, which can be manufactured here if we adopt

the system and, if it is adopted by our Urban Transit Authority as the

system, will be a showplace for that system for sale around the world.

I think that this is the kind of development which the opposition

should welcome, rather than deprecate the kinds of developments which

we may well have to show the rest of the world.

There are

many other transportation developments that have occurred in this

province, are occurring or may well occur in the next few years. The

Pacific Northwest and British Columbia is the area in which helicopter

logging is being developed. Hopefully it will be successful and we'll

be able to demonstrate this kind of transportation development at

Transpo '86. Float planes — British Columbia uses them more than any

other province. Canada uses float planes more than any other country in

the world. Float planes are virtually unknown in most other parts of

the world. There is a kind of development that is native to British

Columbia and the pacific northwest.

We have the little

Pisces submarine that was developed exclusively in North Vancouver. It

is selling around the world for survey and other purposes. It is

continuing to sell well. It has been sold even to the Russians. They

want more. This kind of development may still be in the forefront in

1986. Why not boast about it? Hopefully the Trident is going to be a

success. Hopefully the member for Victoria by then will recognize it as

a success and be happy to see it being shown off as one of the kinds of

things we can develop in this province.

Yes, we will have a

few carry-overs from the past, like the Marguerite , or perhaps the

Royal Hudson . These are the kinds of developments that are heritage

kinds of things. It always intrigues me that the NDP really like to put

in the showcase of British Columbia the old cast-offs of the CPR. The

Marguerite still perhaps has a role to play, but the Marguerite was

developed, built and operated by the CPR. So was the Royal Hudson . Once

they pass out of economic viability then the NDP becomes interested in

them, buys them up and wants to run them forever. They still denigrate

the CPR. The CPR is terrible, but if the CPR doesn't need it anymore,

they want it and the people of British Columbia should pay for it. All

right, let's parade the Marguerite and the Royal Hudson also at Transpo

'86. That is fine. These are just two more examples of the kinds of

things we could show off. We have a fantastic highway system in some of

the most difficult terrain in the world. Let's boast about it. These

are the kinds of things we can talk about and can demonstrate, in

effect, at Transpo '86.

I am all for this bill. I think it is good legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have just a few brief notes, but I might remind the hon. member for

North Vancouver–Seymour that British Columbia did not land Transpo '86.

We were apparently the only city and province in the world bidding for

it. How can you land something nobody else wanted?

I will,

by the way, be voting against this. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, but

before I do, I'd just like to address myself briefly to one or two of

the remarks from the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour. For

example, he referred to the Royal Hudson and the Marguerite as CPR

cast-offs. I'd like to tell you that those ventures made money. It was

the Social Credit government that jumped on the bandwagon on those two

issues. It is the former Provincial

[ Page 3529 ]

Secretary

and the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) who are taking full advantage of the

Royal Hudson , advertising the Royal Hudson all over this province. I'm

not knocking it; it was a good venture. But I might remind the House

that that was an NDP venture, Mr. Speaker.

So was the

Marguerite , which happened to be a moneymaker, and would have made in

excess of $1 million this year had it been left on that route. It was

that government that withdrew that vessel from service. It is that

government that is now taking my suggestion and is possibly going to

put that vessel back into service next year. I'm pleased to see that

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is with me on that particular

issue.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He agrees with me on that one, at least.

The

reason I got up, representing a rural area, is that we do have many

transportation problems. I'm not talking about coastal transportation

at the moment. What I am trying to discuss is that in most of these

rural areas we have no reasonable type of transportation service other

than the automobile. Where we do have bus service it is irregular. In

most places it is nonexistent. Where we do have it, fares are being

increased again this year. There is no proper routing or scheduling.

What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, is that

those funds that are going to be diverted to Transpo '86 could perhaps

be better used in upgrading public transportation systems in rural

areas.

I can give you numerous examples in my own riding and

in other parts of the province that perhaps the government should be

considering. What have we got, for example, from Powell River to the

small community of Lund? Absolutely nothing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that we're debating Bill

19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, rather than transportation in the

Powell River area and other things. I wonder if the member would

address the bill.

MS. BROWN: Are you the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the member, no doubt, will be well taken by the member for Mackenzie as he continues the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Oh, yes. I understand very well. The fact is that that member doesn't

want to listen to what I'm discussing here, because the same thing

applies in his area. Where bus service exists in some of these rural

areas, 20- and 30-year-old buses are broken down half the time. There's

no public transportation, and here we have a government that's going to

waste millions of dollars on this big venture in the lower mainland.

might point out to you that we often hear about federal funding

participation in this Transpo '86 venture. I should point out to the

House that that federal funding is not necessarily guaranteed. With

this government's continued Canada-bashing policies that it has

undertaken, why wouldn't Mr. Trudeau and company say: "Why should we

fund your programs in British Columbia if you're going to kick us all

over the ball park every day of the week? Why should we?"

So those federal funds for this program are not necessarily forthcoming.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, I take offence at the reference of the member to

Canada-bashing. I assume that he feels that because British Columbia is

defending the rights of British Columbians it is Canada-bashing. I ask

the member to withdraw that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. To the member for Mackenzie, the Minister of Forests has

asked for a withdrawal of a remark which the minister finds offensive

in manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know what remark he

finds offensive. because the government is clearly on record as

Canada-bashing and Ottawa-bashing. If he finds that remark offensive, I

suggest to him that they change their policy over there. In any event,

I do withdraw.

There are other areas of transportation that

the funds could be used for. Never in the history of this province has

coast transportation been in such a shambles.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I hear the Minister of Forests yelling "order" again. I thought he

would be out killing little spruce buds instead of wasting his time

here in the House.

I have pretty well concluded my remarks

except to say that I feel these funds would be better spent — instead

of being wasted on this extravagant program that this government has

now embarked upon, Transpo '86 — to upgrade transportation all over the

province. I do realize that the light rapid transit. or whatever

transportation system the lower mainland requires. has been kicking

around for 25 years or more. My colleague, the hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), has on a number of occasions in this

House expressed our party's policy and view on this subject. I think

they are good policies. I would think that the government should take

these suggestions and this positive approach seriously.

MR. COCKE:

I rise on a point of order. I would like to have clarified for me the

Speaker's judgment with respect to a statement of Canada-bashing that

was on this side of the House. It was found to be unparliamentary. I

would just like to know on what basis that was found to be

unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point raised by

the member is well taken. The procedure of the Chair is that when an

hon. member rises and asks another hon. member to withdraw a remark,

the Chair has not indicated an offence but has merely asked for a

member to withdraw what another member finds offensive. I was merely

conveying the request of one hon. member to that of another member, no

decision by the Chair was reached. That is in the tradition of this

House.

MR. COCKE: I certainly understand that. I would like further clarification. Had the member not withdrawn, what then would have happened?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is hypothetical, and questions directed to the Chair are not in order.

MR. MITCHELL: I was a little worried that if I got up

[ Page 3530 ]

and did accuse anyone of Canada-bashing you might rule me out. I won't do that.

rise honestly and sincerely. My worry is that we are going to get

ourselves involved in another large debt that my good friend from

Saanich has told us over and over again we cannot afford. We are going

to find ourselves running lotteries all across Canada to pay for a debt

that, as predicted today, is going to be an albatross around our neck.

I had the $100 million overrun that the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has that he spends in his riding, maybe I

wouldn't worry, but in my own riding the transportation was saddled on

the people of the greater Victoria area under the urban transit system.

It's a bill that has been tacked on to every one of our light bills. I

have businesses who have two and three meters in there.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL:

I'm talking about the financing of this bill, Mr. Minister; I'm talking

about the debt that we, the province of British Columbia, will have to

be paying. I'm serious, Mr. Minister. I'm not Canada-bashing, as

certain members over there do, but trying to protect the people of my

riding, because we don't want any more bills tacked onto our meters.

Right now we don't even have a transit system out in the Western

Community. We're paying $90 a year for meters. Many businesses have two

and three meters in a store. Can you imagine, if we're paying that for

a transit system that we don't have, what we will have to be paying if

this bill is allowed to go through?

To get back to the bill,

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about transportation. As my good friend and

fellow traveler from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) stated, we're

talking about transportation; we're talking about float planes; we're

talking about the Trident air system; we're talking about a business

that is being promoted from Ontario. We in British Columbia have to

finance a sales pitch so that that business from Ontario can come out

and make the profits. We're going to go to a minimum of $12 million

into debt.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't going to say that this offensive man from Omineca was

interrupting the House, violating the decorum and deportment. I was

hoping that you would shut him up.

But I want to go on

record, Mr. Speaker, to say that we cannot afford this $12 million

waste. We cannot afford this to be tacked onto our taxes. We need

hospitals and rapid transit. In British Columbia, we need this money

utilized to benefit the people, not wasted on some grandiose pyramid or

fancy monument to this government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I never cease to marvel at the ways in which the socialist opposition

can find a way to oppose any measure. It must purely exhaust them. But

they inevitably find a way. I will not attempt to allude to all of the

remarks made across the way, but perhaps just two or three.

The first speaker for the opposition was the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer). A couple of his opening remarks could only be described as beautiful.

He stated at the outset that the city of Vancouver is not in agreement with

the holding of Transpo '86. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's categorically

untrue. On two previous occasions resolutions have been passed in the city of

Vancouver endorsing this proposal. On December 4, 1979, city council approved

a recommendation which, generally speaking, embodies approval in principle.

It establishes their city engineer to investigate and report on the transportation

committee, etc. That resolution on December 4, 1979, with four points, was passed

unanimously by the Vancouver city council. All aldermen were present.

Subsequently,

on May 22, 1980, in a city manager's report to city council,

endorsem