1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 28, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Factory Act (Bill M 213). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 3533

Oral Questions.

Resignation of comptroller-general. Mr. Hall 3533

Disposal of PCP. Mr. Hanson –– 3533

Appointment to Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. Ms. Sanford –– 3533

Mr. King –– 3534

Refit of ferry Queen of the North . Mr. Lockstead –– 3534

Revenue loss on Victoria-Seattle ferry run. Mr. Barber 3534

Fire standards in rest homes. Mr. Cocke –– 3535

Mr. Nicolson –– 3535

Fire at native carving longhouse. Mr. Hanson –– 3535

Long-term care review. Hon. Mr. Mair replies — 3535

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

section 4 — 3536

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Mr. Barber

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 3547

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Mussallem

Division on

section 4 –– 3559

section 12 –– 3559

Mr. Nicolson

Division on

section 12 –– 3560

Appendix –– 3561

MONDAY, JULY 28, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In the gallery today are visitors from the great constituency of Delta.

I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Harley Jensen and his wife

Marion. Harley is with Foremost Foods and is a member of the B.C. Dairy

Council. With Mr. and Mrs. Jensen are their sons Derek and Drew. I

would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. LORIMER: I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. James Graham of Burnaby.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It gives me special pleasure to introduce a guest and a friend of all

of us — at least on this side of the House — who is in the gallery

visiting the Legislature today, the president of the British Columbia

Social Credit Party, Bernie Smith. I ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. COCKE: Sitting beside Bernie is a friend of everyone on this side of the House. I'd like to introduce Garth Brown.

MS. SANFORD:

I have two introductions I'd like to make today. One is Mr. Dave

Talbot, who is a constituent and also the son of one of the attendants

here in the precincts. He is visiting British Columbia on leave from

his teaching duties in Kenya. I hope the House will make him welcome.

The

second introduction is a cousin. I'd like to introduce Valerie Mikota

and her husband Lorne from Coquitlam, and their two children D'Arcy and

Audrey.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We also have a friend of this

side of the House sitting next to Mr. Brown in the gallery — from the

beautiful community of Lund, British Columbia, Miss Jan Lovewell. I ask

the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. HYNDMAN:

On behalf of both the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself I

would like the House to pay a special welcome to a British Columbia

family who've taken part of their holiday to be in the gallery today

observing the Legislature. Would members join me in welcoming Jonathan

and Marilyn Chilvers, Sarah Chilvers and Patrick Chilvers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FACTORY ACT

a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 213, intituled

An Act to Amend the

Factory Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, since the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) was not on the list, leave will be required again.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF COMPTROLLER-GENERAL

MR. HALL:

My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Has the

comptroller-general, Mr. Lionel Bonnell, left the government service

today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. second member for Surrey, yes.

MR. HALL: I have a supplementary. Under what circumstances has Mr. Bonnell left?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The circumstances are, very simply, that at approximately twenty

minutes before noon or a quarter to noon I received a letter of

resignation.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, would the

minister confirm that Mr. Bonnell has resigned and has not been

dismissed? In short, has he been pushed and not jumped, or vice versa?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in person nor by

message, did I suggest that Mr. Bonnell should resign. I was quite

surprised to receive his letter today.

DISPOSAL OF PCP

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Last Thursday I

asked the minister whether a wood preservative, PCP, was being disposed

of in the Hartland Road dump by Plumper Bay Sawmills and at the B.C.

Forest Products plant on Gorge Road, and whether their disposal was

consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment. He took

that question as notice. In view of new evidence that PCP contains

residual dioxin, which is one of the most potent compounds known to

man, I wonder if the minister has decided to expedite his inquiry or

exactly what he's doing. It can't involve any foot-dragging; it's an

important issue.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I appreciate the

member's concern, and the matter is receiving an urgent request from me

to the ministry, but I haven't yet received an answer for the member.

However, I will see that the further information he brought up today

goes to the people in the waste management branch who will be making

the decision.

APPOINTMENT TO WORKERS'

COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD

MS. SANFORD: I have a

question to the Minister of Labour. The minister has now announced the

appointment of a new board of review for the WCB appeals. Mr. Tom

Hutchison, a former WCB adjudicator, is the employers' representative

on that board of review, as I understand it. Is it

[ Page 3534 ]

the

minister's intention to use the adjudication services department of the

WCB as a training ground for employers' representatives on the boards

of review?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the fact

is that there were three appointments: one representing employers, one

representing trade unions and the third a new chairman. I might add

that Mr. Hutchison, I'm advised, was in fact going to leave; like most

young men, he was looking for promotion and a new challenge. He's a

very capable advocate, and I thought it would be an excellent step, if

there was a vacancy for an employers' representative on a panel, that

he would be a logical candidate.

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the independence of

the boards of review for Workers' Compensation Board appeals, surely the

minister must recognize that the independence cannot be maintained when a former

WCB adjudicator is appointed to the independent board of review. Can the minister

explain that action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to draw any separation from someone

who has been acting as an advocate for an employer and someone who has

been acting as an advocate for an employee, whether or not they're

acting as compensation consultants on behalf of employees' or

employers' advocates on behalf of the corporation in whose interest

they have been employed. It doesn't make any difference, but it seems

to me that someone who has been appealing on behalf of employees and

trade unions — that they are going to think any differently. I think

you might draw a comparison to the Labour Relations Board. It's

acknowledged beforehand that you know what the general persuasions are

— and were — of the people who are involved.

MR. HANSON: You don't understand.

MRS. WALLACE: You don't understand at all.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, yes, I do.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour would think it was

appropriate to have Mr. Hutchison, who has been an independent

adjudicator of the board, now placed in a position on an appeal panel

examining a decision which he himself had rendered as an adjudicator?

As a lawyer, does the minister believe that that kind of an appeal

system is fair and impartial?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, the member has raised a very valid point — a point which had

not gone by me. As a matter of fact, it is my wish that when he does

take his place he should be precluded, of course, from sitting on any

panel involving any appeal of a case in which he has been previously

involved.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

if the member sees nothing wrong with transforming the adjudicative

process, which is supposed to be fair and impartial, into an advocate

for employers, is it now his intention to use mediation officers as

employers' advocates on the Labour Relations Board as well? Would he

not perceive that that might compromise the perceived independence of

that agency?

REFIT OF FERRY

QUEEN OF THE NORTH

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister might answer that question.

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Queen of the North

has had some serious problems which include an inoperative fire

detection system, inadequate navigation radar, hard-to-read compass

cards, shortage of passenger accommodation, unsuitable crew quarters,

faulty refrigeration equipment, possible fire hazards, and the list

goes on. Can the minister explain to the House how these problems exist

when we were assured by him in this House of a satisfactory refit of

the Queen of the North ?

HON. MR. FRASER: I think the member for Mackenzie is getting carried

away with a press report. While we have had our problems, hardly any of them

remain; they've all been corrected.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The minister is well aware that these matters were raised in this

Legislature on many occasions, and we did not receive satisfactory

replies from the minister.

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister now tell the House how much money has been wasted on the refit of the Queen of the North ?

HON. MR. FRASER:

We haven't wasted any money. That vessel which you are referring to was

parked, not doing anything. It's value is probably $30 million. We've

put it to great use. It's a very popular run and business is excellent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the government wasted at least $10.2

million on that refit, because they did not put it on the route where

it should have been.

I have a supplementary question. Has

the minister decided to admit that it was the government's failure to

make a decision soon enough that led to the botched refit?

HON. MR. FRASER: We haven't wasted any money and the refit was not botched at all.

REVENUE LOSS ON

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY RUN

MR. BARBER: I have another

question for the Minister of Finance concerning further losses in

provincial revenues. Can the minister confirm the estimate published by

the former Social Credit chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the

current member of the Legislature for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) that the retirement of the vessel Princess Marguerite and its replacement by the former Queen of Prince Rupert and the Flying Princess will "cost the government a minimum of $5 million this summer"?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I can neither confirm nor deny it. The quarterly

financial report will be available within a very few days, before the

end of this week.

I assume the member asked the question

with all seriousness, but he finds the answer unacceptable. Mr.

Speaker, this government files reports every three months on the

financial

[ Page 3535 ]

affairs

of the province and its Crown corporations — this is a first — and I

think the member will have some indication of the state of the

province's economy at that time.

MR. BARBER: I asked

a serious question and I was hoping for a serious answer. What I've

asked the minister is whether or not he has advice as to the validity

of the estimate of a loss in the order of $5 million prepared by his

own colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He declined to

answer that. Has he received any estimate from any source as to the

likely loss to be suffered this year on the Victoria to Seattle run?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

No, I have no indication as to likely loss. I do refer the member again

to the fact that the quarterly report is due in just a very few days.

FIRE STANDARDS IN REST HOMES

MR. COCKE:

Last Thursday I asked the Attorney-General about emergency procedures

in nursing homes, with an eye to preventing a repeat in British

Columbia of the serious tragedy which occurred in Mississauga. The

Attorney-General, I think, misunderstood my question and indicated that

the Mississauga tragedy occurred not because of defective fire

standards but because of careless smoking. The issue is not of fire

prevention but rather of what procedures are used to evacuate residents

in the event of serious fire. Has he decided to implement the

recommendations of the Hospital Employees Union brought forward to the

provincial fire commissioner for improved emergency evacuation

procedures in B.C. nursing homes? It is a very simple question.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Following last Thursday's question period I looked at the Blues and

realized the implications of the member's question. I have asked the

fire commissioner if he would provide me with his views as to the

appropriateness of the suggestions which have been made by the Hospital

Employees Union.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary

question. Would the minister also ask the fire commissioner to provide

him with information on how many intermediate-care homes and private

hospitals lie beyond the boundaries of any fire improvement district. I

can name one: the Willowhaven Private Hospital, six miles out of Nelson

and six miles beyond fire improvement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have not asked the fire commissioner for that information, but I'd be happy to do so and provide the member with a response.

FIRE AT NATIVE CARVING LONGHOUSE

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Unfortunately, this

morning there was a very serious fire which destroyed the native

carving longhouse adjacent to the Provincial Museum here in Victoria.

In view of the fact that $200,000 has been cut from the Provincial

Museum's budget, I would just like the minister to assure the House

that the native carving program will proceed and money will be made

available to restore the building and encourage the program to continue.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As the members will realize, this fire took place just this morning,

and I will be happy to report the following to the House. At about 10

a.m. this date, the fire broke out in the museum's cedar-plank carving

shed in Thunderbird Park. I might say that within five minutes the

structure was engulfed in flames. Wind direction and the prompt arrival

of firemen saved the almost adjacent Mungo Martin House. The carving

shed is a total loss, along with one attached totem pole and two small

poles in the process of being carved. Presumably tools and a small

amount of supplies and furniture were also lost.

A pole in

front of the shed, but some yards from it, was damaged but can,

perhaps, be repaired. All poles are modern, and the destroyed pole is a

copy of an older pole still available for copying.

Apparently the intensity of the fire was enhanced by a recent application of preservative to the building.

I've just received this report, and no assessment has been made of the cost or what action may be taken resulting therefrom.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to answer a question asked of me.

Leave granted.

LONG-TERM CARE REVIEW

HON. MR. MAIR:

On July 21 the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) questioned

me concerning long-term care facility reviews. I would like the House

to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am now in receipt of the report of the

financial review from Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. This review covered

a representative sample of the proprietary care facilities in private

hospitals. I'm satisfied now that I have information upon which to base

my decision regarding rates, and that there is a sufficient margin of

profitability to ensure an adequate level of care. I'll be making a

decision on rates prior to July 31, 1980. I'm also considering a new

approach to rate-setting which will ensure that residents receive the

care that we pay for.

With regard to the long-term care

review, I'd like to make it clear that this review is planned in a

number of phases. The first two — the financial review, which I just

mentioned, and the independent quality-of-care review — are now

complete. I anticipate a report on the latter within two weeks from Mr.

Paul Hanbury, who is, as I stated earlier in this House, completing his

report at home.

The ongoing aspect of the review is a

detailed survey of the major components of care, such as program

content, staffing standards, nutrition, physical plant, safety

standards, clients' records, and so on. The steering committee

continues to monitor the progress of the review and to provide overall

direction.

The nutritionist, about which the member asked

specifically, Mrs. Jane Thibedeau, will become involved when we reach

that aspect of the review.

With regard to the Hospital

Employees Union request to participate, I'm instructed that we declined

their offer to sit on the steering committee on the grounds that we

could not invite every interested party and still have a workable

committee. We did, however, specifically invite them and others to

present their views in writing to the committee and assured them that

this information would be considered.

[ Page 3536 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. MACDONALD:

Transpo will be sitting upon land on False Creek. We presume it's going

to be touching ground, and not just another airy-fairy dream of the

Social Credit, so I'd ask the minister: have you got an agreement with

respect to the land, its acquisition and what you're going to pay for

it? I know some of the transportation will be aerial, but no doubt

there'll be some use for the ground too. Who owns that land?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

At this stage we're proceeding on the basis that the landlord for the

properties to be occupied by Transpo '86 will be B.C. Place, the one

involved in the acquisition of those properties. Transpo, of course,

would become a tenant of the landlord.

MR. MACDONALD:

That leads to a second question. Are you leasing from a landlord who

owns the land or can get the land? What's the situation there?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

We're proceeding on the assumption that the land will be available and,

as you know, events are taking place in that direction. What we're

talking about here, at this stage, is developing the approval for the

bid from the International Bureau of Expositions, which has still not

occurred, and which we hope will occur later this year. The bill before

us simply sets up the framework for that corporation to exist after we

acquire the bid.

MR. MACDONALD: Before any more trips

to Paris are made without taking the opposition along, it would be nice

to know that you had some kind of agreement and that this government of

businessmen — though perhaps that's the wanting element in the

government — has some means of acquiring that land. I put it to you,

Mr. Minister, that you've got nothing whatsoever in writing from the

CPR in terms of acquiring the land. I suggest to the minister that the

CPR is not a philanthropic or eleemosynary society, and that they've

been known, on occasion, to demand their price. I think they want

$82,000 per mile for the rails of the Kettle Valley, which is pretty

good for rails which have been used for 20 or 30 years. You're dealing

with a pretty sharp operator, Mr. Minister. You're spending a lot of

public money and you've got no land to settle your enterprise upon.

Then, when you're locked into the deal, and you go to the CPR and say,

"Let's have an agreement about this land," how in the world are you

going to get it at a fair price?

The minister's receiving very competent legal advice so he can answer that question.

You've

got us worried, Mr. Minister. It looks like the most incredible blunder

that any government's ever committed: to go ahead with plans for both

B.C. Place and Transpo on land that you don't own, that's owned by the

CPR. The CPR has recently had it rezoned by the city of Vancouver, so

that for what was once False Creek land — pretty valuable — with

rezoning they're going to ask $500,000 or $600,000 per acre. Didn't

they get that rezoning from the city of Vancouver? So they're away up

there in the clouds as a result of a public stroke of a pen on their

rezoning, and here you're dealing with them in the expectation that Ian

Sinclair is going to be kind, good and solicitous so far as this

government is concerned, and save them from this situation.

Have

you got any kind of written agreement with the CPR which entitles you

to arbitrate the cost, or what? I think we're running into something

that's going to cost us a fortune.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member appears to have certain forebodings about disaster, which I

presume arise from his tenure of office between 1972 and 1975. It seems

quite natural he would expect "bungling," which is the word I hear

arise quite often. In any event, we have a bill before the House having

to do with B.C. Place which is intended to flow from the operation of

Transpo to provide an acceptable use of that site after this world

exposition. As the member well knows, the type of question he is

addressing at this moment can best be handled in debate on the B.C.

Place bill.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no doubt the

minister's got a perfectly valid point of order, and all I can ask him

is: why are you dealing with a landlord who has no title to the land?

B.C. Place doesn't have it. Should you not question your landlord and

say: "If you're going to give us a lease...." Have you got any idea

what you're going to pay B.C. Place for it, by the way? So much an

acre? So much for six months? Any idea? That's question number one.

Question

number two is: what are you going to do about dealing with a landlord

who doesn't have any claim on that land at all in law, and is dealing,

as I say, with a very sharp operator, the CPR, who are going to get the

last dollar out of it? Don't you feel that you're on rather shaky

ground, or maybe no ground at all, Mr. Minister?

Has there

been a lease drawn up with B.C. Place so that Transpo will have the

land to go ahead with this exposition? Have you got anything in writing

from B.C. Place?

MR. COCKE: What we are noting at

this point is that the minister has been struck dumb. What has caused

this tragic situation has been that the member for Vancouver East has

pointed out that he is going to be indirectly dealing with Big Julie.

Big Julie happens to be a very tough entrepreneur making some $400,000

or $500,000 a year to be the chief executive officer for the CPR. They

own all the land at the moment and they've never been noted for their

altruism. You see, Transpo is going to have to deal indirectly. Transpo

is counting on B.C. Place to acquire the land and vest on Transpo the

right to use the land for a short period, at which time we're going to

have just the most amazing world class exposition, we're informed.

We're all to be very thrilled with this world class exposition. Has he

any idea what we're going to pay for the land that the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) indicates will be good, cheap housing

land thereafter?

[ Page 3537 ]

MR. KING:

I don't think the bill should pass yet without a bit more information

from the minister. One of the things that has been criticized in this

Legislature over the years is the bringing in of legislation which is

not adequately explained and expanded on. Then for the minister to ask

the House to accept on trust that everything is in good order.... I

suggest that for the kind of financial commitment the taxpayers of the

province are being asked to put forward for this project, the minister

has a real duty and obligation to come before the Legislature better

equipped to answer for the economics and details of the project than he

is prepared to do at the moment. I start to wonder when he responds to

my colleague and says: "Everything will be all right. I have a good

relationship with Mr. Sinclair of CP Rail." I wonder if he is the

originator of the phrase, "Hope springs eternal from the human breast,"

because hope is what he seems to be proceeding on — hope that there

will be an agreement and the land acquisition will take place at some

reasonable cost. We as an opposition have an obligation to ensure the

taxpayers' moneys are expended wisely. That cannot be done adequately

until we know what the economics of this proposed deal are. If the

minister doesn't know the economics or the financial arrangements in

terms of the acquisition of land, then perhaps the bill is premature.

Perhaps you should withdraw the bill and, after you've gained your

education regarding the details of it, reintroduce it and come back to

this House so you can answer some questions on it.

Asking

the Legislative Assembly to accept that some amicable and reasonable

deal is going to be struck with CP Rail at this point in time is asking

a little bit much. Remember it was Mr. Sinclair and CP Rail as a

corporation that were interested in acquiring control of MacMillan

Bloedel. The Premier of the province in effect told them they weren't

welcome in British Columbia. He intervened personally to forestall the

acquisition of MacMillan Bloedel shares by CP Rail. Is it not

reasonable now to think that Mr. Sinclair will look with a bit of a

jaundiced eye on some pallid appeal by our little Provincial Secretary

for cooperation and corporate good citizenship in terms of striking a

deal for land they now hold and which the provincial government is

interested in acquiring? We are afraid that this incompetent

government, who have already destroyed one private insurance company

because of blundering ahead with legislation that wasn't carefully

developed, is going to be skinned alive. In the final analysis, when

any government is skinned alive it is the taxpayers of the province who

pay for it. That minister has an obligation to come forward and give us

a more complete and detailed accounting than he is prepared to do now.

This legislation is premature unless the minister can spell out

precisely what stage the negotiations are at. Do you have any written

commitments? Do you have an agreement in principle? What do you have,

Mr. Minister? Those questions must he answered.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As the member quite correctly states, we all have a responsibility to

protect the taxpayer in these costs and matters. What should be said

here is that once again we're six years away from the event that is

being planned — six years. What we're asking for here is authority for

a corporation which will do these negotiations to which you now refer.

This would be the structure under which the negotiations would take

place and all the rest that is associated with the development of a

world's fair.

So this is simply the structure under which

those and many other negotiations would take place — the Crown

corporation — and the formation of their board of directors, the

appointments of a commissioner-general and all the rest of it that is

required by the International Bureau of Expositions. It's a very

straightforward matter, but in terms of acquisition of the property,

the proper rental to be charged and that kind of thing, this would be

the subject of responsibility of the Transpo 86 Corporation. We're here

today debating the formation of the corporation only.

MR. COCKE:

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what we're concerned about. You

see, the first hint — our first hint in this particular area — about

this government's ability to absolutely waste has been the way they've

set up their organization. The minister should take the time to go to

Vancouver, up to the twenty-first floor of the Scotia Tower building,

and take a look at opulence the like of which the Brontmans, I'm sure,

would be green with envy over; as a matter of fact, it's been brought

to my attention that it might even drive them to drink.

Mr.

Chairman, they're spending money now like drunken sailors developing

that property, and we're suggesting that it's out of control; we're

suggesting that they're making deals, Mr. Chairman, without even any

idea of what it's going to cost — and I don't think they care. Because

when that government goes out and builds monuments to itself, cost is

absolutely no object whatsoever. That's precisely what we're looking at

now and we've seen that procedure before, so we're extremely concerned.

For

an example, in this same

section there is a little item on emblems. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to know what just the emblems for Transpo '86

are going to cost us, because we've seen this government with their

emblems. You're going to plaster the whole countryside with the

"Transpo '86." We'd like to know what that's going to cost us poor old

taxpayers.

MR. BARBER: And whether or not it will have a smile face.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and whether or not there will be a smile this way or whether it will by that time in '86 go down this way.

MR. KING: A smile by the politicians, a grimace by the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I think this whole question is one that deserves just a

bit more candour from this government. The minister sits there and

says: "Oh, well, this isn't going to take place until 1986." Well, you

know, Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is making decisions about

taxpayers' expenditures between now and 1986, and if we get any

returns.... I charged the other day that what we're really doing here

is backing up the first minister of this province, who has some kind of

a desire to be the Jean Drapeau of the west. Can we have a couple of

answers? How much are we paying for the property? How much are we

paying for the emblems? And how come we're spending money in the Scotia

building the way we are?

[ Page 3538 ]

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, the other day when we were debating second reading, the

minister alluded to another report. I was quoting from one report. He

said there was another report that has been presented. Now I presume

that that report is the one I have in my hand, which is the preliminary

briefing to the International Bureau of Exhibitions on Transpo '86,

March 1980. On page 34 of that report there is a statement, and I

quote: "A detailed feasibility study outlining the financing of the

exposition and the cost-revenue ratio anticipated will be presented to

the BIE delegation during the Vancouver inquiry."

Now can

the minister tell us: have the International people got information

that he hasn't given us? In March he said in his brief that he would

make available a detailed feasibility study outlining the financing of

the exposition and cost-revenue ratio. What did he give them? They

obviously wanted to know, when they came out here, how it was going to

be financed. There are requirements laid out in this brief. There are

certain requirements that you have to adhere to when you enter into one

of these expositions. One of them really relates to an undertaking that

you will have, for instance, on the property. You are required to have

a minimum amount of property, something in the order of 120 acres.

Presumably,

if the city of Vancouver has been awarded this exposition, they were

satisfied with the answers that the minister gave. What answers did he

give in respect to the financing, and particularly the property? He

assured them that the property was available. On what basis could he

assure them that the property was available if, as my colleagues have

suggested, no agreement has been signed? What did he tell them? What

did he tell them about the money? The other day when I asked the

minister why the calculations only went as far as 1980 dollars, he

said: "Well, we're not going to be spending the money until 1985." But

what we were attempting to find out was the projected cost in 1985

dollars. We have none of that information.

I would suggest

that the minister has evidently given the international exhibition

people information that he is not prepared to share with this House. If

he has conformed to the requirements that they laid down, then they

obviously have this information. Why doesn't he want to give us the

information, particularly the amounts and what the arrangements are? He

has assured them that the land is available. On what basis can he give

this House assurance that the land is available? What commitments did

he make? What negotiations took place? Or is everything on hold? I'm

quite sure that the international exhibition people would not have gone

along with agreeing to have the exposition in Vancouver if the criteria

were not met. Can the minister tell us what it was that he told them,

particularly in respect to the acquisition of the land?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the information provided to the International Bureau of

Expositions is the same that is available to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), namely the preliminary briefing —

which has been supplied and referred to today — to the International

Bureau of Expositions, March 1980, and the document which I believe he

had last Friday, Hanscomb Roy Associates' preliminary master budget of

May 1980. Together with those substantial documents having to do with

cost estimates of a preliminary nature and the briefing books, the

government made a commitment to that body that we would be acquiring

the site. They have been instructed accordingly, have the confidence

that we will be acquiring the site and are proceeding on that basis.

MR. LEVI:

Unfortunately, I only got the report at noon and haven't had a chance

to go through it. Perhaps the minister might draw my attention to where

it deals with the acquisition of the land and the amounts of money,

because I haven't been able to go through it yet. I have made reference

to page 34, on which they talk about the financial viability of Transpo

'86, and I quoted the statement — the detailed feasibility study —

outlining the financing of the exposition and the costs and revenues.

In there they are saying that that would be made available at some

later date.

The only other document that I have is this

rather imposing document, "Transpo'86." There is no date on it. It

looks like a piece of PR material. It doesn't have the kind of thing

the minister was saying....

Perhaps the minister might

refer me to the

section of the report that answers the questions I

asked. Bear in mind that this report, which I gather is the briefing

document, says: "A detailed feasibility study outlining the financing

of the exposition and the cost-revenue ratio anticipated will be

presented to the BIE delegation during the Vancouver inquiry."That's not this, is it?

Ah, he's got something else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, you've seen it.

MR. LEVI: Are you referring to the press release?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure

that the document referred to in the briefing notes on page 34 is the

preliminary master budget. I believe the member had it in his hand here

last week in referring to the cost estimates and projected deficit. I

believe that is the document that is referred to in the briefing book.

MR. LEVI: These are all the documents? You're not holding out on anything?

I've looked through here and I can't find any reference at all to the acquisition of land and the cost that you anticipated.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You wouldn't see that here, no.

MR. LEVI:

Well, you should know that one, because that's one of the key questions

that has been asked this afternoon. I haven't been able to find it, and

I had time to go through this one. I think that is one thing we wanted

to know — of those which have been subject to questions in the House to

another minister. What arrangement has been made to acquire the land?

If the minister can help me in that, then I think we're off and

running. I haven't been able to find that in the report at all. It

deals with a lot of projections related to attendance, but it doesn't

tell us a great deal about costs.

While the minister is

looking for that, he might give us some understanding of what actual

commitment he has from the federal government and what the financial

participation of the city of Vancouver will be. As I understand it,

three levels of government are involved. We have no amounts. All we

have is the information that there is going to be a participation. It

is my understanding that the federal government is out of it. They are

not prepared to put up any money other than to sponsor. Perhaps the

minister would tell us. He

[ Page 3539 ]

indicates

that that's not the case. How much are they going to put up? The last

statement I remember from the federal government is that they weren't

prepared to participate, because it did not fit the criteria. As the

minister keeps saying, it was similar to the B.C. Commonwealth games.

They said that was a different kind of operation and the criteria were

quite different. Does he have an undertaking from the federal

government, is it firm and what percentage of participation have they

offered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again, this event is in

this application stage. I can say that we have general endorsement of

the proposal by the Prime Minister and one of his ministers, the

Minister of External Affairs, in terms of the original submission that

was made. We've had the assistance of his ministry in terms of staff

people who assisted us with the presentation to the international

bureau. After all, it becomes a national exposition to take place in

Canada and we request that it be held in British Columbia.

we have had their assistance and are looking forward to their

participation of a more direct nature as events develop. For instance,

we would like to have their participation in the way of a major

exposition or building on the site, and we will look forward to that

event taking place in the passage of time. Secondly, we will hope to

have participation with the national government in terms of their

coming on side and sharing the costs of the amphitheatre, which is not

directly a part of the Transpo projection which you have before you,

but is of course part of the ancillary costs associated with that site.

We have a commitment to develop an amphitheatre.

We've had

general endorsement but not the detailed agreement in terms of the

national government's participation. At this point, we have before them

a request to share with us in a cost-benefit analysis of a

comprehensive nature. We're looking for a favourable response to that

request.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, on page 14 of the briefing book there is a

section headed "Criteria." It says:

"There are common standards necessary for any international

exposition, regardless of location. In addition, specific sites, attendance,

geography and other factors will affect site needs in special ways. Finally,

the theme and its development can alter the needs for exposition site in terms

of acreage, density, geography and other characteristics.

"The following is a list of criteria the committee for Transpo

'86 feels have been satisfied for an exposition with a projected attendance

of 13 million.

"(

a) At least 128 acres or its equivalent are available

exclusive to parking.

"(

b) Control of the land is guaranteed in a timely fashion.

"(

c) Usable land, in terms of topography.... The topography has variation, but the variation will not be so severe as to greatly effect movement, usability and expense...."

"(

e) The cost of securing the site is reasonable.

"(

f) Any existing structures on the site that have usability for the

exposition in their present or nearly present status will be made

available."

I want to go to (e): "The cost of securing the site is reasonable."

Has the minister been able to tell the international committee that the site

is secure and the cost reasonable? Has he told them that? Because that's

part of the criteria they lay down in the negotiations in order for you to receive

their endorsement to continue. Has he told them that he's secured the site?

And what is reasonable cost? That information is not in the budget; you haven't

given it to us.

Mr.

Chairman, we suspect that the minister doesn't have a site. We don't

want to call him naughty names, but I think that he does not have a

secure site. I'm just wondering whether the international people are

aware that you do not in fact have a secure site. That's pretty

important, because if you don't get a secure site....

It's

my impression that you're going to have to go it alone on this one,

because the citizens of Vancouver have been told: "You will not be

charged anything extra for this. It will not go on your tax bill. " It

looks like you're going to have to do with this what you say you're

going to do with the northeast coal: you're going to go on your own.

Now

in doing that, because you've made this kind of commitment, you're in a

very difficult bargaining position with the CPR. In fact, that's the

kind of bargaining position that the CPR like to have people in. You

ain't got nowhere to go, baby, so deal with us. What is a reasonable

price? Surely the minister can tell us this, because, after all, you

want us to pass the bill because this is what makes the whole thing fly.

You

must have told the international people that you have met the criteria.

Have you met the criteria on the land? What is a reasonable amount of

cost?

If the answer to those two questions is, "Yes, we've

met the criteria on the land and the reasonable cost," then you must

have reached an agreement with CPR.

Has the minister reached

an agreement with CPR? Or is everything on hold and the international

exposition people understand that this can only go ahead if we can

reach an agreement with CPR? The longer it takes, the worse your

bargaining position is, because you obviously, presumably, are not

going to back out of it. You're not going to say: "Well, we're not

going to put it on because we can't secure the land." Where are you in

respect to the security of the land? Have you told them that the cost

of securing the site is reasonable and you've got it? That's a fair

question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is clear that the

government has indicated to this bureau that we will be acquiring the

site. That's a commitment we have made. As to the price or whether it's

reasonable or not, obviously we would not commit ourselves to acquire

it at an unreasonable price. It's a matter of degree as to what is

reasonable or what is not reasonable, but what you are questioning here

are really the concerns of the corporation which would be established

under this bill.

These will be the matters that they will be

concerned with. The directors of the corporation will have to address

these matters. What they pay for the site, what they pay for the

tenancy of it, what they sell the exhibits for, what they rent them for

— the bureau is essentially interested that it is a viable proposition,

that the charges for admission and the charges for exhibitors will not

be excessive. That's why they're interested in whether ongoing costs of

an excessive nature will be passed on which would become unattractive

to their international exhibitors.

So that's their primary

interest in it — that we're prepared to back it. We've made the

commitment. We will be acquiring the site, and beyond that these are

the concerns of the corporation and the directors which we will appoint

to it.

[ Page 3540 ]

MR. LEVI:

We now have a somewhat different story than what we started out with.

The government took an active role in securing this endorsement by

going to Paris. The minister was there; his colleague the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was there. We know that when two cabinet

ministers go along, what you're talking about is that the government is

going along with the proposition. Surely the government has some

general parameters in which it's prepared to follow through on its

endorsement.

Is the minister saying that once the commission

is formed they will do all the negotiating with CPR — that this

management group will then go out and negotiate the land? Is that

what's going to happen? Or is the government, the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), involved in this? Because what he's

saying now is that all the government did was to obtain the okay but

everything else is up to the management committee.

What kind

of parameters are they operating in? Because you do have the key

question of the acquisition of the land. Either it's the government's

project or it's not the government's project. I suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is the government's

project. They are simply giving a management group the enabling

legislation to make them operate it.

But you've got some

criteria in this. You're not going to say to the management: "Go out

and see if you can negotiate the land with the CPR." You must have done

all that. You're not going to leave it to a group of people who at the

moment do not exist as an entity to go out there into the cold world

and start negotiating with the CPR. Surely that's not what's happened.

What has happened is that you've completed your negotiations with the

CPR, but you don't want to tell us how much you're paying for it. It

can't be that this committee is going to do that. If it is, what have

you been doing all this time? I find this very difficult to understand,

Mr. Chairman, that suddenly, because he wants us to pass a piece of

legislation setting up an administrative body, somehow they're going to

take over everything and run it and negotiate it, but the government is

going to pay for it. The taxpayers are going to pay for it. Now who's

handling the taxpayers' money — the government or this committee? Or

have you already reached the agreement?

I don't think, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister is being very candid with us about where he

is with negotiations on the land. From what he says this time around —

that no negotiations have been completed, and it's going to be this new

body that he wants to legislate today that is going to deal with it....

Surely that can't be the way it's operating. It can't be, because it's

a most impossible situation for a government to put itself in. Already

we know it's a difficult situation. They're on the hook to provide the

land.

In the first part of the discussion this afternoon,

Mr. Chairman, we got the indication from the minister that no decisions

had been made. In hearing the answer to the last question, we get the

impression from him that all of that's taken care of; or, if not, it's

going to be taken care of by the committee. That is the key thing. Is

the committee that we are going to create the legislation for going to

negotiate the land question? Is one of their functions to negotiate the

acquisition of the site?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I have

said, Transpo '86 is in effect a tenant of the site which is proposed

and the landlord of that site would be British Columbia Place. It is

under this distinct and separate arrangement that these two proposals

will proceed. It is British Columbia Place, of course, that is involved

in the acquisition of the proposed land, and it will need to satisfy

Transpo and its board of directors on the suitability of the facilities

and the site — particularly the site. This will be the responsibility

of the board members of this corporation which we would like to

establish under this bill. As you are aware, it is not the Transpo 86

Corporation which will be buying or acquiring a site, but they will be

undertaking to satisfy themselves as a tenant and any arrangements that

flow from that.

MR. LEVI: If B.C. Place is not

successful in negotiating the land requirements that are laid down

under the criteria and they cannot agree on price, then is the

agreement with the international group finished? I get the impression

from your briefing book that you have to undertake to do a number of

things. As I understand it, it is agreed that this exposition will take

place here in 1986. That is what we got from the press. What are we

really saying? Are we really saying that if B.C. Place can acquire the

necessary land then the exposition will take place? It is very iffy

right now. Is that the situation, Mr. Minister — that really what the

exposition people told you is that you don't have an agreement to hold

the exposition here unless you can come up with the land? That is the

key question. If you don't reach your agreement on the land the whole

thing is scrapped. Is that the arrangement, or are you completely

locked into the international people. Have you made the commitment?

That is what I don't quite understand. First of all, when I saw you had

to follow certain criteria and they had agreed to give it to you, then

presumably you had met those criteria. I think what you are telling us

now is that it really depends on what B.C. Place can do in terms of

negotiating the property so they can, in fact, rent it to this body

we're attempting to set up today.

Let me ask the minister

candidly: is it possible that this exposition would not be put on

because you would not be able to reach an agreement in respect to the

land and your dealing with the CPR? Is it possible that the whole thing

would, have to go by the board?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The

situation at the moment is that we do not have approval of this

exposition until it is ratified by the International Bureau of

Expositions in November. They have given preliminary approval subject

to a four month waiting period, which concludes in November. Subject to

events that may take place in that period of time — I am not now

talking about the tenancy but other applicants, etc. — this event is

unlikely. At this stage we do not have formal approval. It is subject

to a moratorium. In November we expect approval. We are almost talking

about a chicken-and-egg situation here. We are at the stage where this

committee has been invited to come here. They have viewed the site and

were impressed with it and we have indicated that we plan to acquire

it. We've given the commitment that we will and that is exactly what is

going to happen.

MR. LEVI: Now it becomes even more

complicated. It reminds me of a story of a couple of guys who want to

pick up some real estate. They go out and look over False Creek and

say: "I think we should get that. I don't know who owns it, but I think

we should get it and flog it to the people in Paris."

The minister said three things. It's not firm that you're getting it. There are in fact going to be other applicants. We

[ Page 3541 ]

weren't

aware on Friday that there were going to be any other applicants. We

understood we were the only applicants but it is wide open.

frankly can't understand what the rush is for all this. You could set

it up in the next session of the Legislature. When you come in with a

bill like this and we are going to pass it, then surely we have reason

to expect that you've consummated the deal, that you have in fact been

accepted, that you have the site worked out, and it is leased by B.C.

Place to the Expo people. But you've come when none of this is in

place. You have no agreement on site.

So what do you need

the legislation for? Surely there are a number of things that you have

to do. You would be far better off if you could come into the House and

say to us: "We've got the site; we've finished the negotiations."

You've got through all the flak you're going to get, because you're

going to pay through the nose for the CPR thing. Why do you need it

now? There is absolutely no basis on which you need this kind of

legislation now, when you're not even going to get an answer until

November. What's the hurry?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There is

not any hurry. This matter is proceeding in a very orderly fashion. We

are in advance of the 1986 exposition, and the bureau are very

impressed with the fact that this government is well prepared in

developing this material. This bill, if passed, is subject to

proclamation. We want to be ready to move when approval has been

obtained, so that we can proclaim the responsibilities under this bill

which are needed to proceed and make plans for developments incurred

insofar as preparing for this exposition is concerned. This matter

takes years to prepare, but we need to have the bill to proceed when

approval is obtained, hopefully in November.

MR. KING:

The bill does a number of things, including providing for a board of

directors — a board of directors that the minister can initiate by

proclamation, providing remuneration to that board of directors with a

mandate that's totally tentative. Unless the land is in fact acquired

before November, you have no assurance that the project is going to

proceed. What you have indicated this afternoon is that the

international committee approved the site tentatively, upon the

condition that you can acquire it at reasonable cost and before

November. Now you want legislation approving further expenditures for a

board of directors, possibly with luxurious offices and luxurious

salaries, to preside over something that is completely tentative and

may never come to fruition.

Mr. Minister, that's totally

irresponsible. This is the most absolutely asinine kind of procedure I

have ever seen. The Premier comes out and announces some big luxurious

project, some pillar to his own ego, at a particular site, which tips

off CPR, the landholder, that the government wants to acquire this

site. Indeed, the whole viability of the enterprise and the project is

premised upon them obtaining this land from CPR. CPR now knows that the

government must have this land before November.

I want to

ask the minister this question: If Wolfe Motors had an expansion

planned, does the minister think it would be prudent for Wolfe Motors

to go out and say: "We have a million-dollar expansion planned, but

it's totally dependent upon us acquiring the three lots across the

street, and we have to have them by November."? Would he announce that

to the owner of those lots and then go over there and bargain with him?

Of course not — nonsense. In fact, the common practice with both the

government and the private sector is that you keep your mouth shut

until you have acquired the land that is necessary. That's to protect

yourself from getting gouged in terms of acquiring the land that the

owner knows you must have within a certain time-frame.

this case, the Premier, because he needed some political bulwarking, I

suppose, of his sagging fortunes and images, makes the announcement,

delivering the Provincial Secretary and his ministry as a captive to CP

Rail, who are now in a position to bargain from the toughest posture

imaginable. You're going to go with bucketfuls of the taxpayers' money

and say: "Well, we have to have this by November or we lose the whole

project; we lose all of Transpo."

That minister has the gall

to tell us that he is a businessman. Perhaps he's prudent when it comes

to his own private fortunes, but I see no evidence whatsoever of the

same prudence being applied to protecting the taxpayers' interests in

this kind of deal. This is absolutely scandalous.

As far as

the bill is concerned, the only provision that this bill puts forward

now is for the expenditure of still more moneys in terms of the

acquisition of office space and salaries for the executive to preside

over something that may never happen. CP Rail may never release the

land. CP Rail may ask a price that is absolutely unacceptable. What

then, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

You

ask us to proceed on faith. From a government that has already

legislated, by accident, a private-sector insurance company out of

existence because of their poor preparation, they are poor credentials

by which to ask us to accept you on the basis of trust. This is a

scandalous thing, and I think that the minister should withdraw the

bill until he is prepared to come into the House and assure all members

of the Legislature that you have a reasonable financial proposal to put

forward, that the acquisition of the land has, in fact, taken place for

reasonable amounts of money. Other than that, you're asking the

Legislature to buy a pig in a poke; you're asking us to give carte

blanche in dishing out the taxpayers' money. I say that is totally

irresponsible, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI:

By God, you've got it right. He's only been in there one minute and he

knows the right name. The minister has been in the chair for about 25

minutes and he keeps referring to me as the member for

''Coquitlam-Maillardville."

Let me ask the minister

something else. You've got 175 acres of land that you have to acquire.

Some of it is from the CPR. According to your statement on the scope on

the budget, "the site, which is some 175 acres in total extent, is

presently occupied by railyards and industrial and warehouse buildings.

These will be removed and the site provided with basic services." Now

some of the land is also held by B.C. Hydro. We know he doesn't have a

deal with the CPR. I strongly advise the minister to get some running

shoes, because he's going to be run over with the largest steamroller

[ Page 3542 ]

he's

ever seen; when the CPR start negotiating this, it's going to be

incredible. I think what's going to happen is that Big Julie is going

to look like one of those super diesels when he comes into town to

argue. I can just see him arriving in town around November 18, which is

about three days prior to when they're going to tell the international

people that we've got a deal, and Big Julie is going to say to you:

"There are 175 acres. Very good, Mr. Minister. It's $1 million an acre.

How do you like them apples?" Because he's in a position to say....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll sic my boys on him.

MR. LEVI:

Yes, you'll sic your boys on him. Now the other question I have to the

minister is: as some of the land is owned by B.C. Hydro, have they made

any arrangements or had any discussions with B.C. Hydro? Again, he

appears to want to leave it all to this committee. He says it's not

even formed yet, but they're going out into this tough, wild world of

real estate negotiations with the king of the barracudas from the CPR

and they're going to negotiate this.

Now I think, Mr.

Chairman, that the government is going to stake what little reputation

it has left on the fact that it's going to go ahead with this thing.

Bear that in mind when we're talking about the acquisition of land and

exhibits and parking. We haven't even talked about the 60,000-seat

stadium that he wants to build. You know, before it's finished this

thing is liable to run into anything in excess of half a billion

dollars, particularly if we're dealing in 1985 dollars. The minister

doesn't like to deal in 1985 dollars; he likes to deal in 1980 dollars,

with no projections. Has he got an agreement with B.C. Hydro? Has he

had some discussions with them? Perhaps he'd like to tell us. Surely

they must have some idea of what they think this is going to cost. We

have no idea of what it's going to cost, because all he's dealing in

are 1980 dollars. But I would suggest that we're probably looking at a

half a billion dollar project here, if it goes ahead. We have no idea

what it's going to cost for the CPR.

Once you have time

constraints and are moving rail lines and warehouses and that kind of

thing, it's not easy. And then we're going to have serious problems in

terms of completion dates — very high costs. So we could be looking at

a very difficult kind of situation. The minister said last week that

they'd spent 18 months pre-planning this thing. I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that that's not the case, because if there had been that kind

of pre-planning, many of the questions that we've asked today would

have been answered. If they were pre-planning, surely if they know that

they ever wanted to do this, they would have gone a lot further in

their negotiations than they've gone now, and they haven't. If the

negotiations are going on with the CPR, then presumably what the

problem must be is price. If there is nothing settled, it's price. And

if there is no settlement on price, this exposition is in jeopardy,

because they don't have the approval yet and they've only got some

three months to do it. We're arguing about the legislation, because

there is no issue about the fact that somehow they want to launch this

thing immediately. If they get the agreement in November, there is an

adequate amount of time to launch this thing full bore with all of the

questions asked in the spring session of the Legislature. That's not

going to hold up a thing. But if anything was a pig in a poke, this is,

because he hasn't answered one question in respect of the basic

requirements that are needed under the criteria of this international

exposition for the acquisition of land. The taxpayers in this province

look like they're going to be very badly skinned on this.

would ask the minister, now that he's back in his seat, if they have

had discussions with B.C. Hydro, because B.C. Hydro also has some land.

MR. BARBER:

The cost of the land relates directly to the costs that will have to be

borne by the exhibitors at Transpo. If the exhibitors have to pay too

high a cost because of a foolish land deal, they'll stay home. If the

exhibitors stay home, Transpo will flop. The question of land is a very

real question, because it will determine the extent to which private

and public agencies around the world will be financially able to

participate in Transpo, should they choose to do so in the first place.

This is one of the principal reasons why we've been raising these

questions of land cost and the assembly of land, and the detail of them.

The

Provincial Secretary has been singularly and wilfully silent on the

issue. Why it serves his political purposes to do that, we're not sure.

If they had a deal, they would be the first to announce it. If they had

a beneficial agreement, they would be the first to publicize it. If

they had a good arrangement with the CPR, they would have been the

first to let us know. But the point is, they've been silent on those

three issues. The reason they have been silent is self-evident. They

are going to have to announce, after the Legislature adjourns, one of

the worst deals imaginable. They have to do that because of the

bungling and the foolishness of the Premier, who went public too soon.

When

you negotiate for land, surely it serves your interests if you

approach, or at least appear to approach, two or three vendors

simultaneously, and not just one. You do that in order that you can

persuade the one you really want that you have two or three other sites

that you could go to, and it is therefore in the interest of that

principal vendor to keep his price low, because he perceives that he

has competition. Any businessman knows about that. The Premier appeared

not to know about that, because he went public too soon. The Premier

and his staff went public too early and made it clear to the CPR, from

the outset, that the only site was the False Creek site, and the only

land was the CPR land.

Therefore the question about whether

or not this situation represents a buyer's market or a seller's market

is germane to the whole debate. Because of the foolishness of the

Premier and his administration, this is clearly a seller's market, and

the only seller is the CPR, because that's what the Premier said. The

Premier was so foolish....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that language is abusive, I think, to the courtesy expected in debate.

MR. BARBER:

The Premier's judgment was so ill-advised, although the Premier himself

is surely no personal fool, that we're now in the position of having to

pay, according to a deadline that has been set internationally, what

will no doubt be an extraordinary sum in cash and in the value of

exchanged lands to the CPR, which has us over a barrel. They have us

over a barrel because of the mindless decision of Social Credit to

announce its intentions, to announce the deadline, and to announce the

site before they had even commenced negotiations and had a firm and

private deal with the only vendor they appear to be approaching.

[ Page 3543 ]

there was, on the other hand, a private deal, then let the Provincial

Secretary tell us today what it is. If there is in fact a negotiation

taken to such a point that the CPR has agreed to the sale of certain

lands and the transfer of others, let the Provincial Secretary tell us

today what that agreement is. We doubt he'll do that, because he's been

silent so far. It would be in his better political interest to tell us

what the deal is; but he can't, because he has no deal. He can't,

because there are other lands at stake around the province. The

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has told us that. There are

other lands which are being examined and appraised, to determine

whether or not they can be exchanged, in whole or in part, for the land

at False Creek that the CPR owns, and that the province has told them

we have to have by November.

Mr. Chairman, could you see the Premier or the Provincial Secretary standing

up in November and saying: "Sorry, folks, Transpo's off; we couldn't

get the land for a good price"? Of course not. The political reputation

of Social Credit, such as it is, is too intimately connected with this particular

deal. The Premier will not stand up in November and humbly admit he was wrong

and that the deal's off because they can't get the land. To the contrary:

in November we will learn what a ridiculous price has been paid in cash and

exchanged land values for Transpo '86 and B.C. Place. Why will we do that?

Because the Premier is too proud and too stubborn to have it done any other

way, and because the Provincial Secretary, we well know, always does the Premier's

bidding.

We're

in a situation where it is a seller's market. We are the buyers and we

have told the seller how much we need his land and when we have to have

it by. No wonder we're going to get hosed. No wonder the CPR will

delay, and delay, and hold to ransom the people of British Columbia,

because of the stupidity of Social Credit.

I have a few more

questions for the Provincial Secretary. He asks us to have confidence

in him, the minister who presided over the Seaboard bungle. He asks us

to have confidence in Social Credit, the government responsible for the

chaos on the Victoria-Seattle Princess Marguerite

service. He asks us to have confidence in his business judgment, as a

member of a government which is shortly to be sued, it would seem, by

the Los Angeles Times for another bungle at Ocean Falls in regard to newsprint.

There

is some reason to believe why we shouldn't take the Provincial

Secretary at his word or offer to him the trust and confidence he seems

to think he deserves. He doesn't deserve it because this government

hasn't earned it. This is the most incompetent government that has ever

plagued the province of British Columbia and this current bill is

further proof of it. The Premier, making an announcement that he needs

the land by such and such a date and only this land will do, has set up

the people of British Columbia for a terrible fall. There is some good

reason to believe we should have no confidence in this administration.

As usual, whatever the CPR wants the CPR will get. The final cost is of

no apparent concern to the government. This, I would argue, is for two

reasons. Firstly, they will not have the Premier stand up in November

and admit he was wrong and that he fell through. Secondly, it may well

be the case that in 1986, God bless the occasion, they won't be the

government. Another party will be the government. That being the case,

clearly the cost of the land will be immaterial to this group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The hon. member has been in the House for a number of years now and I'm

just wondering whether we have to sit here and listen to personal

attacks or attacks on government when we're really discussing the

merits of a

section of a bill. I think it is totally out of order. All

the debate I've listened to for the last 15 or 20 minutes.... He should

stick to that

section of the bill which is presently up for discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point is well taken, hon. member. All members will be advised that

during committee and

section debate in committee following second

reading, which does allow us great scope for principle, it is

parliamentary procedure to pay very close attention to the detail of

the

section before us. I would ask all members to be reminded of that

parliamentary process.

MR. BARBER: The issue at hand

is whether or not the exhibitors will be able to participate in Transpo

'86 if the cost of the exhibiting land may be too great. The specific

reason why it may be too great is because the Social Credit government

will have bungled it again. That is directly in order, Mr. Chairman,

and the

section at hand clearly indicates that. The Minister for

Municipal Affairs has obviously not been listening.

The

further questions I have are these. What deal has the CPR offered? What

cash have they asked per acre and what lands in exchange of purportedly

equal value have they requested? What has been the CPR's position in

all this so far? I would further ask whether or not any of the lands —

the right-of-way along the Kettle Valley Railway — have been part of

the deal proposed by the CPR, because we know from earlier comments of

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) that it is a concern of

the CPR to be involved directly in the trade of lands as well as in the

sale. What I am asking is whether or not other CPR lands have been put

forward by the CPR as negotiable items for trade. In particular I want

to know — and the committee has a right to know — whether or not among

these lands are those currently operated by the Kettle Valley Railway,

a subsidiary of the CPR.

There has been a historical

precedent for this government's tactic in this instance. The committee

will know — I will allude to them only briefly — that the Queen of Prince Rupert

this year was leased from the B.C. Ferry Corporation suddenly at the

last moment, as the result of another bungle, to replace the Princess Marguerite . The committee also knows that to this date no lease price has ever been set for that vessel. To this date the Queen of Prince Rupert has

not yet had a price laid to it. Therefore when we examine the

ridiculous scheme here at the False Creek lands where the Premier

announces his intentions in advance and thus allows the CPR to hold us

to ransom, it is not exactly inconsistent with the incompetence of

Social Credit because they entered into the same basic scheme with the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Therefore we wish to know, because the government won't tell us what

its own intentions are, what the intentions of the CPR are. What have

they asked for? What lands are they proposing to trade? Do those lands

include the Kettle Valley Railway? What date has the CPR set for the

conclusion of negotiations satisfactory to that corporation's own

interests? What has the CPR said? We can't find out what you've

[ Page 3544 ]

offered.

We'd like to find out what the CPR has demanded. On that basis we may

or may not be able to approve this section. Those are among others of

the questions that the official opposition has.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As I made clear earlier, the bill proposes Transpo '86 would be a

tenant of these properties and the landlord would be British Columbia

Place. We are all, I think, clearly understanding that point. The

government has made a commitment to acquire the site; agreement in

principle has been obtained with the present landlords or owners of

this site. We have indicated that the site will be acquired. We are

addressing a matter here to establish a corporation which would become

the tenant and which has the responsibility, as was pointed out, to

provide facilities at a reasonable price. If we don't fulfill that,

naturally we won't have the success we're looking for here.

all have the same interests involved except that the members opposite

oppose the whole matter of Transpo. They are completely negative in

their attitude towards it. They don't want to see it proceed, so

they're trying to undercut it in some way here today, as they have in

previous days, to attempt to see that it does not proceed in an orderly

fashion with the establishment of this bill. It's very clear and

simple, and I'm sure that when we deal with the matter of British

Columbia Place and the negotiations that have been taking place there,

answers to those questions will be made known.

MR. BARBER:

The minister's answer is lamentable. He seems to think we're dense and

don't understand business and the connecting relationships here. The

current owner of the land is Marathon Realty, which is a wholly owned

subsidiary of the CPR. The CPR owns the land and B.C. Place will buy

the land. B.C. Place will then lease part of the land to the board

whose creation we are debating this afternoon. That board of Transpo

will in turn lease for a limited period that same land to the

international exhibitors.

Now let's work it backwards. If

the exhibitors have to pay too much they can't attend. If they're

charged too much it may be because that's a reflection of an

overpricing of the land. If the land is overpriced that may he because

the government blew the deal. Don't take us for being dense, Mr.

Minister. We understand what the problem is and we understand the

business problems that you face because of the first mistake of the

Premier, to which I alluded before.

Once again we ask you:

what is the deal you have with the CPR in, as you put it, general

principle? You've said you have a deal, a general agreement. What are

its terms? What are the terms that the CPR has proposed and which you

now tell us you have accepted? We have a right to know this, because on

it hinges the possibility — or lack of it — of Transpo being able to

rent space at a reasonable rate to international exhibitors. If the CPR

has a right to know what your terms are, so does this committee. We

insist on an answer from the minister.

What is the deal you

have with the CPR? What is the term and condition of that agreement?

Additionally, you might tell us when it was entered into, by whom and

with what legislative authority. At the moment there is no legislative

authority to enter into such a deal, and that's another interesting

point that we'll get to in a few minutes.

The minister seems

to have a hearing problem. He told us earlier this afternoon that they

now have a deal in general principle — an agreement of a general order

with the CPR for the land. We know, because the International Bureau of

Expositions tells us so — that the deal must be concluded in

publishable form by November. That's the contract with the BIE: that's

the requirement. Good, we know that much. Apparently. the CPR knows

what the terms of the deal are. Why should not the people of British

Columbia be told what the CPR has been told?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be right back.

MR. BARBER:

Are you going to get the terms of the deal for us? The minister waves

and says: "I'll be right back." What kind of a way to run the

government is that? Have you got the deal? There he is.

know about and profitable enough for the CPR to sign, then it's surely

in the interests of the committee that we know it too. Again I ask the

minister, who apparently doesn't have a hearing problem now, because he

just waved at me before he left the room, what are the terms and

conditions of the deal? The opposition and the people of British

Columbia have every right to know and you have every obligation to tell

us.

The Provincial Secretary seems to have been taking the

wrong lessons from the Premier, who tried this stunt for weeks. If you

Minister of Finance, who probably does. If you do know what they are,

don't reply by dumb silence, because that's not an acceptable or

responsible way to govern. If you've just sent out for the deal so you

can have a copy of it and table it, that's fine. Tell us that. But why

do us the discourtesy of simply being quiet and refusing to answer by

dumb silence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BARBER: I use the word "dumb" in the precisely correct fashion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It means "silence," so you were either being unparliamentary or redundant, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: No, I'm being pointedly redundant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. That explains it for the Chair. The member is quite in order.

MR. BARBER: I know that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Smart aleck!

MR. BARBER: Better a smart aleck than a dumb Bill — I'm referring, of course, to Bill 19.

Will

purported agreement with the CPR are? If you won't tell us, will you

explain why? Or are you simply copying the inept performance of the

Premier during his estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

[ Page 3545 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 4 the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I hear the sigh in your voice, Mr. Chairman, You're thinking: "Oh, no, here we go again, thanks to the government."

the minister would reply candidly and fully we would move to the next

section, but if he refuses to reply we can only suspect it is because

they have made a deal with the CPR that is so costly and ridiculous

they are ashamed to tell us what it is. If the minister has an interim

reply which is, "I've sent for a copy of it, don't worry, it'll be here

in a moment," that's fair; I don't expect him to have the contract on

his desk. But if he's sent — if that's why he left the House — to get a

copy, then tell us that, We'll wait for a moment. But if, in fact, it

is your policy to deny information which this Legislature has a right

to be granted, then we object to that policy, as we objected to it when

the Premier tried the same stunt and as we will continue to object to

it for some time.

On the assumption that the minister did

this general agreement you today tell us you have negotiated with the

CPR? Who signed the agreement on behalf of the people of British

Columbia? With what legislative authority did she or be do that, and on

what date? Will you table the agreement in the House after the

committee rises? Will you tell us, if there is no such written

agreement, what verbal agreement has been reached with the CPR?

It's

an important matter here, because on it hinges the financial viability,

or lack of it, of the entire Transpo. If Transpo has no financial

viability, then it's a ludicrous and wasteful thing to have this bill

on the table — the bill should be withdrawn. If no financial viability

can be demonstrated, then the bill shouldn't be here at all.

know the Socreds are capable of getting us into ridiculous financial

messes. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has himself

predicted that the replacement service for the Princess Marguerite

will cost $5 million this year. If they can do it on that scale with

two tiny boats, how much do you think they can do it on a global scale

with Transpo? There is some reason to believe that the Socreds may once

again have gotten us in over our fiscal heads, and will cost us

millions of dollars that shouldn't be spent here at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order,

section 4 of the bill states the

purpose and powers of the corporation. We're continuing to hear from

the member about some possible or not possible arrangement with CPR,

and about the government and its ability to enter into a contract with

CPR. Could we ask that you call the member to

section 4 and have him

stick to what's pointed out in

section 4.

MR. BARBER:

On the same point of order, for the benefit of the minister — who

evidently didn't have anyone read this

section to him — 4(2) says: "The

corporation shall have the following duties, functions and

powers:...(

b) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property."

This debate is totally in order. We're asking about the ability of the

corporation to acquire and dispose of real and personal property. That

means the land on which the corporation will do its business. That

means the land we're talking about. The minister's point of order is

absolutely irrelevant, but an interesting political defence at a

difficult political moment for Social Credit.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, we have approved the bill in principle in second reading.

The purpose of committee is to discuss, in some detail, the sections.

This

section is explicit. It speaks to what the corporation will do,

and we should confine our debate to that.

MR. BARBER:

Section 4(2) reads in part:

"....to

acquire and dispose of real and personal property;...to administer the

funds, grants, revenues, income, royalties, gifts and other property

received by the corporation:...to carry out the directions,

instructions, duties or functions requested by the commissioner

general, necessary for the purposes of this Act; and" — the final part

— "...to do all things not inconsistent with this Act that it considers

necessary or advisable to carry out its purposes and powers."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section

4 is the engine of the bill.

Section 4 allows, in every mechanical way,

all of the negotiations for the land, property and equipment.

Section

4, being the engine of the bill, properly calls into question the deal

made for the land itself. That's important. Whatever deal is made for

the land determines the cost of renting the land. That's important. The

cost of renting the land will be reflected in the number and calibre of

exhibitors who will come from, we are told, around the planet to show

off their transportation initiatives and achievements. That's important.

Section

4 has two subsections, (1) and (2). Subsection (2) runs (

a) through

(j). It is a great detailed list of all of the powers of the

corporation, and the purposes of it as well.

Section 4 is one of the

key sections in the whole bill. Therefore we are asking the minister to

tell us what agreement has been made for which Transpo clearly — under

section 4 — will be held to account, at least in part, for its tenure

there. What agreement has been made? On the basis of that we can then

determine whether or not to support the section. But if there has been

an agreement made which will be inherited by this board whose powers

and functions we're debating now in

section 4. It may prove that that

agreement is unsatisfactory to the board and the official opposition.

This may further prove to be the only opportunity we ever have to

debate such inherited and obligatory agreements.

Section 4 is the only

proper

section for debating this; there is none other. That's why we

debate it now, that's why we did not raise it in second reading. Again

we ask the minister to tell us: what general agreement — which he

himself referred to a few minutes ago — has been entered into? What are

with what lawful authority? And most generally, what....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry; I can't take this anymore.

MR. BARBER: Goodbye, Bill. I didn't know it was so easy to....

[ Page 3546 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Ernie, if it's that easy in the House, how much easier will it be in Surrey?

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you think listening to you is easy?

MR. BARBER: No, it's probably not easy for you or for any government that refuses to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER:

I understand why the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), as usual, is

uncomfortable having questions put that his colleagues will not answer.

He was embarrassed when the Premier tried this stunt; he's now

embarrassed that the Provincial Secretary tries it.

questions are: what agreement has been entered into — clearly within

section 4, as we now debate it — that is going to end up as one of the

obligations of the Transpo board? What agreement, arrangement, contract

or deal has been entered into that will inevitably be inherited by the

board that the minister proposes to create in this

section and give (

a) through (j) — all of these detailed statements of powers and

obligations? What's the agreement? If you're so ashamed of it that you

can't tell us, at least admit why you should be so ashamed that once

again the CPR hosed the people of British Columbia because of a

decision made by the Premier to go public far too early with only one

vendor, one site and one date for the conclusion of the negotiations.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of proceeding, as much as possible, with

orderly discussion of this matter, I'll ignore the supercilious,

insulting nature of some of those remarks. I will only say once again

that the question associated with the acquisition of the property is

being addressed to the wrong minister. Transpo will be the tenant;

British Columbia Place will be the landlord, and they're involved in

the acquisition of the property. With all due respect, I think you're

directing that question, the terms of the agreement etc., to the wrong

minister. I'm not able to give you details of that; but I'm sure you

know the minister to whom that question may be directed.

MR. BARBER:

We know that these questions may also be asked of the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) as fiscal agent — that's true. We have three choices; we've

chosen you. You're the minister responsible for Transpo. Transpo will

be obligated to enter into an agreement;

section 4 says how. If you

prefer the shorthand, tell us what agreement has been negotiated with

B.C. Place, the proposed landlord. Is that fair; will you answer that

question? It's all the same deal, the same problem, the same

arrangement and the same result of the decision taken by the Premier to

announce the site and the timetable before he had negotiated anything.

Will you tell us now what Transpo's obligations are to B.C. Place? Then

maybe we'll understand what they are to the CPR in turn.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier — perhaps the member didn't hear —

those concerns will become the responsibilities of the directors of

this corporation, to negotiate their tenancy and to be satisfied that

the space being provided is completely satisfactory to the conducting

of a national exposition. I'm not attempting to withhold information.

I'm simply saying that you're directing it to the wrong minister.

You're aware of it. The minister responsible in this Legislature is

another person.

MR. BARBER: Any minister or member is

entitled to speak in the debate, as is the Minister of Environment, who

is purportedly negotiating with the CPR — although one wonders if

"negotiation" is the precisely correct word, considering what the CPR

has on us. Nonetheless, that's not the issue here. What we're asking

about are the inherited obligations that the yet-to-be-named board of

Transpo will have to accept, by virtue of this act.

We're

asking the minister, who surely knows what the deal is with the CPR, to

tell us. It was, after all, the minister himself who told us this

afternoon that there was a deal. Good. He obviously knows what it is.

That's nice. We'd like to know too. Tell us. Tell us what the deal is,

directly from the CPR or via B.C. Place, if you prefer; or tell us what

the deal is as you perceive it, acting as minister on behalf of

Transpo. However you view it doesn't matter much to us; whatever

perspective you want to claim in order to answer the question is fine

by us. So let's pretend that whatever it is it's fine by us, and now

tell us what the deal is. We don't care about your perspective; we care

about the deal.

We don't care about the way you look at it;

we care about the financial obligations which you and your colleagues

will have burdened the people of British Columbia with because of this

scheme to hoist Transpo '86 on a population that clearly has no great

interest in it and that clearly has other needs I including health and

housing, far more important than these. Nonetheless, as long as you are

in government this obligation stands. We want to know what the

obligation is. You must know. You told us that there was one. Surely

you wouldn't tell us there was one and not inquire as to its contents.

If you know the contents we'd like to know too. We are as responsible

as you are to the people of British Columbia for what happens in this

House. We are as responsible as you are for the content of this

section

and for the ability of the board of Transpo to act on an obligation

that you seem already to have required of them, at least according to

your own statement earlier today. What's the deal with the CPR, from

whatever perspective or vantage point you want to announce it? What

have you committed us to, when, and with what lawful authority? Those

are the questions we continue to put to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

MR. BARBER:

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again

when the Provincial Secretary is willing to be more forthcoming and

answer questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion is out of order.

MR. BARBER: All right. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3547 ]

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

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

Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: We've just established that a deal has been made

by this government with the CPR over that property. The question that

the opposition is asking is: just what is that deal? Big Julie has

never been noted for making deals that are full of love and altruism

for governments or people or anybody else.

MR. BARRETT: CPR's not for sale.

MR. COCKE:

CPR is not for sale. Now we just wonder how bad the sellout was. That's

all we're asking. How big was the sellout? Just tell us that and then

we can move on to other issues.

We've been very patient this

afternoon. We just want to get some information. It is our job, on

behalf of the public, to glean that information for them. This

government feels that a government should sit behind their closed

doors, make deals with people like the CPR, and not tell anybody. Well,

Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with taxpayers' money, and all we want to

know is: what was the deal with the CPR, B.C. Place and, ultimately,

Transpo '86?

MR. BARRETT: They don't know. They don't know themselves.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, we've just been informed that they do know.

MR. BARRETT: No, they don't. They haven't told the minister.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see. They've made a deal, but the minister doesn't know.

MR. BARRETT: Yeah, CPR put it in a hat.

MR. COCKE: I see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, there is a Chairman present at the committee.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, our enthusiasm to try to glean information on behalf of

the public is very difficult for us to subdue. So just let the minister

stand up, and if he doesn't know what the deal is, can he identify the

minister who can help him out, and then we can proceed to the next

section of this bill?

MR. BARRETT: What's the deal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

Hon.

members, prior to recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre,

inadvertently, at the division, the Chairman reported that the motion

was that the committee rise and report progress. The motion should have

been that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. We'll have to resolve

that problem later, but that is for the information of the members. The

first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARRETT: He just said there wasn't a deal — Rogers.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Chairman, from cross-comment.... The reason I rise is that

the matters that have been raised this afternoon are with respect to a

proposal, the structure of which will be established within the

constituency of Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There was a full moon last night.

MR. LAUK:

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says that there was a full

moon last night, and I had heard rumours that he was seen creeping

around from shrub to shrub in his black cape, with hair growing rapidly

on his face. Rumour also has it he was making sounds like a coyote. But

we knew that; he does that in here.

MR. LEA: Are you against the leg-hold trap?

MR. LAUK: He'd probably chew his ankle off.

Mr.

Chairman, the proposal is a substantial one, perhaps costing the

taxpayer a great deal of money. However, the design is not in place.

Every question that we have for those involved is met with a shrug of

the shoulders. We don't know where the amphitheatre is going to be,

because we don't know where the land is going to be. We don't know

specifically what B.C. Place is. We've been to Mr. Volrich. We've been

to the city council. We've been to the town planners, We've been to Mr.

Narod, the project head. When he's in town, we've talked to him. They

all shrug their shoulders; they don't know.

So what is this

government doing? It's hiring people to manage a project and those

people don't know what the project is. It's asking the Legislature to

pass this

section in this bill without knowing what the project is.

have on the one hand the Provincial Secretary saying that the land swap

deal between Marathon Realty and the CPR on the one hand and the

government on the other has been approved in principle, and yet we have

the Minister of the Environment, the designated minister in charge of

this project — so-called — who cross-commented a moment ago saying that

there is no deal. He says there is no deal. Mr. Wolfe said that there

was a deal in principle.

[ Page 3548 ]

We've

asked for details of the negotiations, Mr. Chairman, and the people of

Vancouver Centre have corresponded with him. I've spoken to large

groups of them. They want some development in Vancouver Centre, but

they want to know what the price is, Mr. Chairman. They want to know

what the deal is., They're not going to buy a pig in a poke. This

government has no right to ask this side of the House to buy a pig in a

poke and they have no right to give back-of-the-hand treatment to the

people of Vancouver and British Columbia who want the details of this

deal — no right whatsoever.

The Provincial Secretary is

hopelessly inept, Mr. Chairman. He's demonstrated his ineptitude in two

portfolios and he's doing it again now. I hesitate very much to make

that kind of comment about a member of the cabinet, but unfortunately

it's true. Insofar as the Provincial Secretary is incompetent, the

Minister of Environment is a patsy for the Premier and does what the

Premier tells him.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of

order, I would ask that the first member for Vancouver Centre withdraw

those unparliamentary remarks he made about me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw remarks that another hon. member has found offensive.

MR. LAUK:

Yes, I'll withdraw the remark that the minister is a patsy to the

Premier. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition gets the

distinct impression that this new minister is taking too long to

discover his own skills in his present portfolio. It is our impression

that the minister has had a sufficient amount of time to express

himself in his portfolio, and not necessarily parrot the day-to-day,

seat-of the-pants type of thinking of the Premier.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

On a point of order, perhaps you could ask the first member for

Vancouver Centre to relate this matter — the matter of my competency —

to the bill we're discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Environment does make a valid point.

MR. LAUK: Let me get it correct. He says I should relate his competency to this bill? I say zero plus zero equals zero.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

It's my understanding that in the House during committee stage of a

bill we do a clause-by-clause study of the bill that's before us. I

find this member's argument to be somewhat out of line with the second

reading of a bill discussing Transpo '86. Perhaps the Chair would care

to direct the member as to the correct line of debate.

MR. LAUK: I'm not discussing second reading, Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. We are on

section 4 of the bill, in committee, and we

must be relevant to

section 4. The point made by the hon. minister is,

in the opinion of the Chair, a valid one.

MR. LAUK: In what way? That I shouldn't be attacking his competence? It's like shadow-boxing, I will agree.

With respect to

section 4, we have asked the Provincial Secretary to disclose

the details of the agreement in principle between Marathon Realty and the province

of British Columbia. We don't know what vast tract of publicly owned land

is up for grabs in this province. It's being dealt off in the back rooms

like some kind of big-deal poker game. I am deeply concerned, doubly concerned,

because of my knowledge of the competence of the Provincial Secretary, who is

marshalling this bill through the House. This

section calls for the Crown corporation

to acquire and dispose of land.

you know, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely appalling that they will not

disclose the details to the public. We asked these questions as long

ago as April and May. What kind of land? What tracts of land would be

made available for the land swap? There's been silence on the part of

this government and an apparently complete ignorance of the subject by

the minister in charge. Every time we go into the planning office and

look at the map of B.C. Place, it's been changed. We look at the map of

Transpo, it's been changed. The dotted line on the map of Transpo

showing the LRT link has been eliminated. Can the minister tell us why?

No more light rail transit. What is the prevailing idea now? I'm saying

that the people that you've hired are in the dark. Somebody, somewhere

is negotiating this land deal, has negotiated an agreement in

principle, according to this minister, and you have refused to disclose

the details to the public. To rise in your place and give us that

small-time entrepreneurial view that it would be unwise to disclose

such details to the public is to be completely rejected.

least in a private enterprise world, Mr. Chairman, the shareholders of

a company can call their board of directors to task on an immediate

basis under our reformed Companies Act — reformed by the NDP. They can

bring them to task immediately if they're about to deal in a major way

with properties belonging to the company. They must have disclosure of

the details of what's going on, and the board of directors can't even

act.

This kind of treatment is government arrogance at its

worst. The people of Vancouver have had enough of that kind of

treatment. They want a democratic government; they don't want a

government that acts in the back room against their best interests, and

someday down the road we find out how much they've stabbed us in the

back and what kind of a bungle they've done. This is a government that

trades on withholding information from the public. We've had a sad, sad

grand tour from dirty tricks to deception to hiding facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. By the greatest stretch of the imagination the Chair is unable to see how that relates to

section 4.

MR. LAUK: I am drawing this analogy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that may be the case but it is very difficult for the

Chair to relate that specifically. As the hon. member is well aware,

there are very strict rules that guide us on discussion in committee

and the member is fully aware of those regulations. I would ask him

again to return to the

section of the bill presently before the

committee.

MR. LAUK: I am just saying that their

withholding of information with respect to this deal with Marathon

Realty is characteristic of this government. They have a disrespect for

the general will of the public and they demonstrate it time and time

again. With some it is arrogance, with others it is just complete

incompetence and ineptitude. He doesn't know

[ Page 3549 ]

what

he's doing. We've had enough of it, Mr. Chairman, and mark you, if we

don't get the details today or soon, this government will pay dearly

for it at the hands of the public, whom we think we represent, They are

entitled to this information and the public has the right to know.

MR. MACDONALD:

I would just like to add a couple of points because there are some

legal aspects involved here, as the member for North Prince George will

realize. There is certainly no deal whatsoever that has been reduced to

writing with the CPR. There is an ancient statute in the western world

called the statute of frauds. It says that nothing is binding when

you're dealing with land unless it is reduced to writing and signed.

Isn't that correct?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MR. MACDONALD: No? Oh, yes, that is certainly the case.

MR. LEA: But not with widows.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Health is like Caesar's wife: guilty as charged.

You

can't have an agreement to buy a house or anything else unless you've

got it in writing and signed by the vendor. You've got nothing here: no

agreements to refer the matter to arbitration, no agreement to exchange

the appraised lands for some other lands, nothing whatsoever. So you're

building castles in the sky for B.C. Place and Transpo '86. That is the

first point. It leaves you absolutely naked as far as the CPR is

concerned. They can name their price. It is a very dangerous position.

You are locked in; you can't back out. You stake your political

prestige on behalf of the people and you've got no method to determine

the price that you're going to have to pay.

Secondly,

suppose you resorted — I don't think this government ever would — to

expropriate some of Ian Sinclair's property. I doubt very much if you

can do that, Can you expropriate from a federal company like Marathon

Realty under provincial law? I don't think so. So here again you're in

a blind alley so far as determining this thing. The other point is that

after the rezoning by the city of Vancouver, which brought the asking

price of the CPR up to $500,000 an acre, you are looking at 60 to 100

acres to be taken. Do you know what that is before the bargaining

starts? You are looking at anywhere from $30 million to $50 million —

that is what we are talking about today — of public money. If, after

getting that rezoning out of the city of Vancouver by public agreement,

the CPR then have an informal asking price of $500,000 an acre for

these False Creek bottomlands, after they have got the government of

British Columbia into a sucker position, what is that price going to be?

MR. BARBER: Much higher.

MR. MACDONALD:

Far higher, because before you strike the deal with Ian Sinclair....

They say they don't know what the cost of this little misadventure on

the part of the Socred ranks will be. I think we all know what the cost

is going to be for the people of British Columbia. It can be expressed

in two words: an arm and a leg. It's funny, but that's the position

you've got yourself into, Mr. Minister. I say that you can go on with

this thing.... It is sheer incompetency and I say there should be at

least one businessman in the ranks of the cabinet opposite.

MR. BARRETT:

What we have here is a request by the government to endorse a

section

when they don't know what it's about. Is that right? Could the minister

tell us he knows all the details, everything that's involved, exactly

what the swap is but he's not at liberty to give the exact details at

this time? Could you tell us that?

It's not enough that

you're going to ask us to vote for something we don't know about, but

you're telling us by your silence that you're going to vote for

something you don't know anything about either. You can all have an

excuse. You weren't taken into his confidence. But what's his excuse

for not taking himself into his own confidence?

MR. LEA: He knows when to trust somebody.

MR. BARRETT:

He knows when to trust somebody. He's trying to tell the people of this

province and this country that no matter what the deal is, the CPR

won't hose him. That's what he's trying to say: the CPR will be

benevolent in dealing with surchargers. Why, they're the biggest

surchargers in this country that ever were. They skinned this country

building that railroad. Now come on, Mr. Minister — stand up here in

this House and tell us what you've agreed to, through you, Mr.

Chairman, so that the taxpayers of this province will know what we're

getting into. If you don't know, stand up and say you're asking for a

blank cheque and you trust the CPR and they won't skin us. I'd like to

hear that statement of naivete.

Mr. Chairman, the minister

doesn't know what he's getting into. He's sitting there saying: "Vote

for this, even though I don't know what it's all about, because my boss

told me to go ahead with it."

He really doesn't know what

the deal is. The other minister — the Minister of Environment — to

protect his position in this fiasco as it develops, called across the

floor of the House. He said: "There is no deal."

MR. BARBER: That's not what Wolfe said.

MR. BARRETT: Well, one or the other of them is looking for a defence mechanism.

Mr.

Chairman, that minister used to be the Minister of Finance. Did you

ever make a financial deal without knowing what the arrangements were?

MR. KING: Or what the interest was?

MR. BARRETT: Or what the interest was? Do you ever fix a car without putting on a surcharge?

Mr.

Chairman, I want to give a hypothetical situation. If my colleague for

Revelstoke (Mr. King) banged up his fender and went into a car repair

shop and they said, "We don't know what we're going to charge you. Just

leave your car here," and then after he took it out repaired and they

said, "there's $4 per hour on top of that that we didn't know we were

going to charge you," what defence would he have? He'd say: "Well, I

thought I had a deal before I went in the body shop." Most customers go

in the body shop knowing what they're going in for, what the deal is.

Most places that do body repairs tell them what the deal is. That's the

body shop.

[ Page 3550 ]

Mr. Chairman, how much is it going to cost us to have this deal repaired?

Mr. Chairman, I ask a question of the minister: what's the deal? How many

acres? What's the difference between "The Gong Show" and "Let's

Make a Deal"? Do you know what the deal is, Mr. Minister? Do you know what

you're voting for? You stand up and tell us that you're prepared to

vote for a

section and you don't even know what the deal is. If that's

the way you want to operate as a government, stand up and say: "Look, I

don't know what the deal is, but I'm going with Evan anyway."

Well,

Mr. Chairman, I've made it a practice not to vote on something I don't

know nothin' about. But if you want to be a row of sheep and go along

with baa-baa, go ahead. But I'm not going to vote for something I don't

know anything about. But if you want to go ahead, if you think that's

what you're here for, that's it, and it's causing a lot of trouble to

ask these questions. The whole parliamentary system's built on asking

these very questions, and having them answered. But the system breaks

down when there are no answers.

Am I being unfair, Mr.

Chairman, in this

section to ask the minister: "Please, Mr. Minister,

stand up and tell us what the deal is. How many acres are you going to

trade off, and where are those acres?"

Who are we dealing

with here? Let's go back and look at the script. We're dealing with the

CPR. Does the CPR love Social Credit? I don't think love has anything

to do with the way the CPR makes a deal. Do you? You do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: They're only asking $82,000 per mile for that Kettle

Valley steel.

MR. BARRETT: They're only asking $82,000 per mile for the Kettle Valley steel — that's charitable.

MR. KING: That's obsolete.

MR. BARRETT: That's obsolete. I mean, that's a big-hearted corporation.

MR. BARBER: Thirty-year-old steel.

MR. BARRETT: Thirty-year-old steel.

The

CPR wanted to buy a 13.5 percent ownership of M&B. Who came down

out of the hills, sans skis, saying: "B.C.'s not for sale"?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty in relating all

remarks of the member specifically to

section 4 presently before us, as

I believe the member himself is most aware. I would ask him now if he

would return to

section 4 of the bill presently before us.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I will be absolutely explicit. This

section deals with

B.C. Place. This

section has to do with a land swap. CPR owns some

land. This government wants that land and will trade something to get

that land. I can't make it any more clear than that. I ask the minister

to please tell me what he is willing to trade to acquire that land.

MR. KING: The parliament buildings?

MR. MACDONALD: Prince George North?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The Marguerite ?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Heroin Treatment Program?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, even interruptions are in order, because speculation is rife.

am in order; the interruptions are in order; everything is going okay

except the silence of the minister. I ask the minister to tell us what

is on the table in the bargaining. What are you going to trade?

MR. KING: Trade the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Something that's worth something.

MR. MACDONALD: More than $3.

MR. BARRETT: More than $3.

You

know, this is the end of July. Thank goodness it's not August. When we

get into the dog days of August, where heat affects the brain, we could

understand this lack of reaction; but here we are in this

air-conditioned chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: You must have been out in the sun.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, those brand new back-benchers come down to this place

with the idea that when you ask a question of the minister he is not

supposed to answer.

MR. LEA: He won't talk to them.

MR. BARRETT:

Because he won't talk to them, of course. If he won't talk to the

backbenchers, what right do we have to expect that he will answer to

the people?

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is dumb.

MR. BARRETT:

No, he is struck dumb. The minister has no deal. I believed the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) when he interrupted and said

there is no deal.

Do you have some answers to provide, Mr. Minister? Did you put your hand up to leave the room?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: A plus B, out the door with thee. You're not happy.

Mr.

Chairman, this involves many millions of dollars. Not all the people in

this province are millionaires. A lot of people out there still work

for a living. A lot of people have to pick up the bills of a government

that functions behind the scenes. The people of this province have a

right to know exactly how much this is going to cost, and I don't think

you know the answer to that question.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I ask the minister this: when was the last negotiating meeting between the CPR and the government over this property?

[ Page 3551 ]

Alleluia, brothers and sisters! A simple question: when was the last meeting between the government and the CPR over this deal?

When was the first meeting between the government and the CPR over this deal? How many meetings have there been?

Well,

I hope there are no taxpayers watching any of this, and I sure hope

there are no Socreds watching any of this because some people would

call this arrogance. I ask the minister again: how many meetings has he

had with CPR on this deal?

When was the last meeting with the CPR?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I bought a ticket there recently.

MR. BARRETT: You bought a ticket there. Boy, did they see you coming.

Mr.

Chairman, this is incredible! Here is a minister of the Crown, a

representative of the constituency with his companion's finger in it —

the gerrymandered riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain that the member

represents....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must

remember standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration."

MR. BARRETT: Does he not represent that gerrymandered riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on Bill 19,

section 4.

MR. BARRETT: What standing order was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 61(2), page 23.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, is it proper to refer to the minister and the riding that he represents?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 4 is under consideration, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, that's correct. The member who is the Provincial Secretary

is also the MLA for the Vancouver riding of Little Mountain–Finger. I

ask the minister a simple question on this section. And we're in

committee stage where questions are to be asked. Mr. Minister, how many

meetings have you had with the CPR to discuss this?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the opposition leader should visit the House a little

more often in committee so he could hear the answers previously

provided to members. Over and over we go, but I'm quite happy to

address myself to the question he's asked. I see he's nodding his head

up and down; it's kind of a relief to not have his squeaky voice

performing here for just a minute or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again — and I say this in all sincerity — my ministry,

as Provincial Secretary and as chairmanship of Transpo '86, are not responsible

for the negotiations you're now referring to. This ministry and Transpo

will become a tenant of the proposed site, so I cannot see the relevancy in

members persisting in asking this minister what these negotiations are and what

status they're in, etc.

have a responsibility to provide Transpo and to provide a site for

Transpo. We've been around and around this matter, but you are

addressing that question to the wrong minister. You're nodding your

head, so you agree with that, Mr. Leader. Therefore I'm sure — and you

are as well — that full disclosure of the nature of the transaction

you're asking about is going to be provided in due course. The chairman

of the corporation of British Columbia Place is the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the general manager of that

corporation is Alvin Narod. These are very important negotiations, and

I just suggest that you're wasting the time of this House in the debate

section 4 of this bill in persisting in asking a question of this

minister which I cannot provide.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, the minister informs me, as I'm listening and nodding my

head, that you are responsible for the tenancy of Transpo '86 at the

B.C. Place site. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE: We're the tenants.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, that's right; now we're getting there. You're responsible for the

tenancy. What is the deadline for the rented area to be in place?

AN HON. MEMBER: November 1.

MR. BARRETT: November 1. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, is making himself

aware of the relationship between Transpo '86 and British Columbia

Place. What I said earlier is not what is being said. I said that a

formal approval to proceed with a national exposition in British

Columbia should be received in November of this year. We're asking for

this bill now, subject to proclamation, so that we are in preparedness

to proceed with the plans, the appointments to the board of directors

and so on that are necessary and so no delay will take place when that

approval is obtained.

MR. BARRETT: The minister is

responsible for tenancy; the deal has to be in place by November. The

approval has to be there. Is that correct? Part of the approval has to

be where the tenancy is taking place. I think that; anybody else would

think that; I think the minister knows that. You can't have an approval

of a tenancy unless you know where you're going to be a tenant and how

much it costs. Is that right? We're getting someplace, Mr. Chairman.

We've got that much out of the minister.

He is responsible

for tenancy at B.C. Place for the exposition, and that tenancy has to

be in place by November. Do you have any idea whether or not the

negotiations going on — if they are going on — between the CPR and the

government of British Columbia will be completed by the time of your

deadline for the announcement of the tenancy condition?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's your question again?

[ Page 3552 ]

MR. BARRETT:

You are responsible for arranging tenancy for the location. Is that

correct? The location is going to be at B.C. Place. Is that correct?

The deadline for arranging tenancy is in November. Is that correct? All

three things you've just said. Do you know whether or not the

negotiations between the government and the CPR that have started or

may be planned will be completed by that target date?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In the most simple terms, I've every expectation those negotiations

will be completed. I did not state — with regard to November — that it

was anything but the formal approval date, the conclusion of the

waiting period that is necessary before the BIE will formally approve.

I think you can dodge round