1981 Legislative Session: 3rd

Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Macdonald

–– 4877

Amax mine tailings in Alice Arm. Mr.

Passarell –– 4878

Coca-Cola contract for B.C. Games. Hon.

Mr. Wolfe replies –– 4878

Proposed Campbell River coal mine. Mr.

Gabelmann –– 4879

Policy on size of forest companies. Mr.

King –– 4879

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal

Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4880

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. D'Arcy

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Tabling Documents

B.C. Cellulose Company financial

statements for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4901

Report on education for 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4902

Appendix –– 4902

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's indeed a

pleasure for me to introduce a person in the gallery today who is

retiring after 30 years in the public service of British Columbia. His

name is Mr. Jim Williams. Latterly he was director of administration

and appeals for the Public Service Commission. Jim joined the public

service in 1951 as the first personnel officer for the Forest Service,

where he organized the personnel program and its administration. Some

11 years later he joined the Public Service Commission in 1962 as the

coordinator of accident prevention. Starting from scratch, he was

responsible for developing and ensuring the application of safety

practices and principles throughout the government service, something

that at that time no other provincial government had attempted to do.

In 1966 Jim became the chief selection officer for the Public Service

Commission during a period of unprecedented expansion, and in 1971 he

became the executive assistant to the then chairman of the Public

Service Commission. From 1975 to the present, Jim has served as

director of administration and employee relations, now known as the

director of administration and appeals.

Jim can very

certainly be proud of his career and his years of service, and I know

that each member of his House will join me in wishing him and his

lovely wife, Frances, many happy years of well-earned retirement.

MS. BROWN:

In the gallery with us this afternoon is a group of community

social-service workers from Douglas College along with a couple of

their instructors. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I had the pleasure of meeting with the group that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has just mentioned. I would like to ask the

House to especially welcome these students from the community

social-service program at Douglas and their instructor, Betty Emery.

The very special class here today is graduating this month and will be

going into the field of social service. In welcoming them I hope the

members will congratulate them on their graduation.

MR. DAVIDSON:

With us today in the gallery is Mayor Ernie Burnett for Delta. I would

ask all members to join with me in giving him a warm welcome today.

MR. COCKE:

I rise on a point of personal privilege. Yesterday, on a widely

publicized TV show, the Premier made a statement that was quite

incorrect, indicating that this member, when Minister of Health in

1974, introduced a clause on balance-billing into a contract between

the Medical Services Commission and the Medical Association. That

clause was introduced in 1971 by the previous government. As a matter

of interest, we introduced an order-in-council on June 6, 1974, making

extra billing against the regulations of the commission. I feel that

this kind of misinformation is very harmful to an hon. member, and I

demand a firm and full apology from the Premier of the province at this

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before a matter

privilege can be considered and before we can entertain debate on the

matter, the matter must be considered to see whether or not it is

indeed a matter of privilege. If the member has a written statement and

the motion which would accompany the matter. I would be happy to see it.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the whole question can be resolved by

the Premier at this point, with an apology in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then it would not be a matter

of privilege: it would now be a matter of a ministerial statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did use information on the Jack Webster show

which was provided to me and which was incorrect. The question of

including the clause in the contract for balance-billing was introduced

by Ralph Loffmark and was included again in the next contract by Dennis

Cocke, the then minister. When I found out the information that I had

relayed on that program was incorrect as given to me, I immediately

phoned the Webster program and asked him if he would correct this on

the same program and give it the same wide circulation, which he

offered to do.

If I caused any inconvenience to the member,

I apologize; that was the information I had at the time. The facts are,

Mr. Speaker — to make sure the record is clear — that the opportunity

to balance-bill, after many years of medicare, was introduced by Ralph

Loffmark and was continued in the contract by Dennis Cocke, the then

minister, in 1974.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, during question period we expect that the Attorney-General, if

changed in personality, would have been properly announced by the

Premier. So before question period commences, could the Premier table

the resignation of the hon. Premier and introduce the order-in-council

appointing the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We appreciate

the member's good humour, but he has sought the floor on other than a

point of order.

MR. LAUK:

On a new point of order, if the hon. member for Dewdney is not the

Attorney-General, I would ask that he yield that chair to the

Attorney-General, who's been waiting patiently in the back of the hall,

and that's a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Oral Questions

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Attorney-General, and I'm not in all that

good humour about it, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney-General confirm

that he has dismissed Bruce Donald, senior Crown prosecutor in the

Vancouver area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4878 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask the Attorney-General what the grounds were for that dismissal.

Did it have anything to do with the release of public information,

which was properly and should properly have been before the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question

is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to that

question is no.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, what

were the grounds?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Based upon information which came to me just over two weeks ago, I was

led to wonder whether or not Mr. Donald had released information from

files within his possession as senior Crown counsel to persons

unauthorized to receive that information, contrary to the public

service oath, and also whether or not in respect of those same matters

he had in response to questions posed by me and by senior members of

the ministry responded untruthfully. I met with Mr. Donald last Friday

and satisfied myself that both circumstances were the case. I was left

with no alternative but to dismiss him for misconduct.

MR. MACDONALD:

My supplementary is to the Attorney-General. Did this information on

which you acted come to you through the offices of Mr. Peter Butler,

who was the counsel for Mr. Vogel in a libel suit respecting the CBC

hat is now proceeding? Was it based upon the discoveries in hat case,

which are confidential documents until the trial?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second

question would elucidate a legal opinion. I think the member is wrong.

MR. MACDONALD:

Before deciding who's lying, why would not the Attorney-General at

least suspend him, as was he case with Mr. Vogel, or leave the matter

until this comes before the court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The matter was not one which involved testimony on the part of the

Deputy Attorney-General. In fact, it was sworn evidence of another

person. That evidence was put to Mr. Donald, and he agreed it was

substantially correct.

MR. MACDONALD: Wasn't the real

reason for this dismissal that the Attorney-General dismissed the

senior Crown prosecutor because in 1979 he revealed certain letters

with respect to two miscarriages of justice which were of public

interest — these are the Andrew Rigg case and the Micky Moran case, and

this is irrespective of whether or not he comments of the CBC were

justified or not — and that his is punishment for that release of

information that should have been in the public domain anyway?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the

member's information is inaccurate and incomplete.

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the

Minister of Environment. In view of the recent shocking revelations

that he report of scientists to advise the government on the Amax

permit was the minority opinion of the chairman only, and that four out

of the five eminent scientists on the panel did not approve the dumping

of toxic waste in Alice Arm, has the minister decided to revoke

pollution control permit No. PE-4335, issued to Amax Canada?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL:

Pursuant to

section 4(4) of the Pollution Control Act, did the director

of pollution control forward a copy of the application to the Ministers

of Health and Agriculture?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I take that question as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question. Can

the minister confirm that the federal cabinet issued its permit on

April 10, 1979?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I am not yet privy to

information about what goes on in the federal cabinet.

MR. PASSARELL:

In view of the fact that the federal government did issue the permit on

April 10, 1979 — it's been public for a year and a half — can the

minister confirm that our Pollution Control Board issued its permit on

January 12, 1979, three months ahead of the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Again, I'll take that

question as notice. I don't have the specific dates at hand, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL:

In view of the fact that the B.C. government issued its pollution

control permit three months before the federal government acted

contrary to the predominant view of the panel of scientists, has the

minister decided to call for a full public inquiry into the Amax mine

proposal for the dumping of toxic mine waste into the Nishga food

fisheries at Alice Arm? Can the minister give his personal assurance

that this Nishga food fishery will not be destroyed by this asinine

movement by this government to allow half a million tons of mine waste

to be dumped into the ocean?

MR. SPEAKER: The

question is based upon information which apparently hasn't been

confirmed in the House, in that part of it was taken as notice. In any

event, considerable opinion is being expressed in the question itself.

COCA-COLA CONTRACT FOR B.C. GAMES

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I would like to respond to a question I took as notice yesterday. The

question was from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), and

related to Coca-Cola and fruit juices at the British Columbia Games. I

would like to answer one question briefly regarding these games and the

availability of fruit juices for the athletes taking

part in the games.

At the British Columbia Winter Games in Prince

George —

the most recent games — Coca-Cola, the official soft drink of the

games, was available at each of the game sites and free to athletes.

Proper nutrition at the games is vital, and so milk and juice were

readily available. Juices were served at both breakfast and dinner.

Each athlete's lunch included a container of milk. To answer a specific

part of the member's question, it is my understanding that Coke has

never been served at breakfast, nor do the athletes have access to Coke

at breakfast or dinner.

There simply is no monopoly by

Coca-Cola. In fact, there is presently an agreement with the British

Columbia Dairy Foundation to be very much involved with the games

[ Page 4879 ]

the future. The B.C. Games have become an example of this province's

ability to stage athletic competitions second only to the Olympics in

size and in the number of participants. I'm pleased with the

association and assistance of the Dairy Foundation and Coca-Cola, and

can assure British Columbians that good nutrition is maintained

throughout each of the British Columbia Games.

We applaud

such organizations as Coca-Cola, the Dairy Foundation, the banks and

many others too numerous to mention who participate and help with a

major contribution toward making these games a success.

PROPOSED CAMPBELL RIVER COAL MINE

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. The

minister has had for some time now the second-stage report by Weldwood

Lusgar for their proposal to establish a coal-mine adjacent to Campbell

River. Can the minister now confirm that he has decided to tell the

company that he will not allow a coal-mine in the middle of the

Campbell River area which would destroy the entire salmon fishery in

that area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the

stage-two coal guideline submission by Weldwood Lusgar is before the

coal guideline steering committee and has not proceeded to the point

where it's ready to come back to the cabinet committee for their

decision on whether or not to proceed.

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier has indicated

that forest companies are — or will be — allowed only to reach a

certain size in the province of British Columbia. There is widespread

concern in the business community that the government has an unstated

policy in this regard, outside the relevant provisions of the Forest

Act. Can the Premier confirm that companies wishing to invest in the

B.C. forest industry are obliged to meet conditions which are not now

codified in law?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the

government has a stated policy, and it has that policy backed up with

authority contained in the Forest Act. Of course the matters of high

public policy are stated and, if necessary to enforce them,

consideration will be given to changes in the areas of authority to

make sure that in this province we maintain a balance within our forest

industry so it does not fall into a single set of hands or a few hands.

This government has rejected the other option of big-government

takeover in the forest industry, the option considered by the

opposition.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, perhaps the

Premier would be kind enough to quote the precise

section of the Forest

Act that he refers to. I have no knowledge of a provision of the Forest

Act which restricts the size of a company in this province. All I'm

asking the Premier is if he will please put in writing, either by

regulation or some other statutory provision, the precise criteria

which the government has restricting the size of forest companies, so

that people in the industry might understand what that policy is and be

able to comply in an even-handed fashion.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I feel the policy is clearly understood by those who would

consider expanding in the forest industry. The Forest Act itself gives

the ministry the opportunity to rule on the transfer of cutting

permits. I might say that I never saw any policy in the Forest Act, or

what limited act there was when the NDP was in government, that said

that they were going to take the industry over by government.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure if the Premier Goes over

the Blues he will be duly and appropriately confused by his own

answers. The Premier has indicated that if it is necessary to change

the act, despite all of the powers he now alleges are there, then they

will do so. This gives further ominous reason for concern to people in

the industry, and I ask him to articulate precisely what he had in mind

in terms of further legislative changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Questions involving future

policy and the need for legislation are out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, in

response....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Mr.

Premier, if a question is out of order, then I cannot accept an answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I had felt that the first

part....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is not

any part of that question that the Chair could determine to be in order.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Perhaps you could ask a

question that is in order.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier would be kind enough to indicate

whether or not there is an intention on the part of his government to

reduce to writing precisely what their policy is, so that it may be

distributed to the public and to the industry. Is there a plan to put

into writing, either by regulation or in some other form, what their

policy is. rather than to change it from day to day according to the

whim of the Premier

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order

insofar as it asks for plans that are underway.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the policies of this government are not whims taken by

this government or the Premier from day to day, but are a matter of

high government policy to meet its philosophical commitment that there

shall be a balance of small and large forest firms in the industry, and

that no one firm or no few firms could take over the total industry.

That policy has been clearly enunciated by this government. It was

dramatically illustrated by events a number of years ago. It is not my

intention to comment that the events were not clearly understood by the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, but I clearly want to say, along with

that, that we recognize the private sector as being the one that should

operate the forest industry of this province. In saying that, we shall

not allow any small group in the private sector to dominate the forest

industry. I further clearly state that it is not our policy to use the

taxpayers' money to take over forest firms, with big-government

ownership as the option. I think

[ Page 4880 ]

the

forest industry can rest assured that there are protections; they

cannot be gobbled up and will not be gobbled up, either by one or two

big companies or by the government itself.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

MR. BARBER:

Before we adjourned at lunch we were busy clearing up the record of

misinformation concerning the purchase of a trolley in Germany. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) started

back-tracking and offering a slightly different explanation. I went on

to say that Robert Bonner himself should be credited with telling the

truth that other Socreds have not told about this particular trolley. I

wish to advise the committee I was wrong. It was not Robert Bonner; it

was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

I would like

to read briefly into the record that five years ago the now Minister of

Finance publicly contradicted B.C. Hydro and the false claims Hydro

made concerning the alleged unsuitability of this particular streetcar.

To his credit, five years ago the now Minister of Finance publicly

chastised B.C. Hydro for providing "false and misleading information"

on the nature of this trolley. It may be that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is unaware of the honest and factual statement of his

colleague. But let me, if I may, read it into the record, so as to — I

hope once and for all — end the phony claim that this vehicle was

unsuitable, that its purchase was ill-advised and that it couldn't run

on any tracks, because Mr. Curtis himself made it perfectly clear that

that was a false claim.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: And there are references from Public Accounts ,

which my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) remembers.

I quote from an

article in the Vancouver Province

of June 2, 1976, entitled "Trolley Costs Defended," by Mark Wilson:

"B.C. Hydro officials, including chairman

Robert Bonner, were misleading or inaccurate in a presentation this

week to the public accounts committee of the Legislature, Municipal

Affairs Minister Hugh Curtis said Tuesday. Curtis said he was not

present at the committee hearing, but newspaper reports seem to show

that Hydro witnesses had inflated the unit price of secondhand trolley

buses bought under the New Democratic government, and had wrongly

stated the reasons why a $150,000 German-built streetcar could not be

demonstrated to the public.

"One

W.D. Duncan" — who may or may not have had an axe to grind, and who

worked for B.C. Hydro; I don't know if he still does — "said the

streetcar's wheels are too small and too narrow to allow it to run on a

conventional rail line, claiming that it would topple sideways on

curves. Curtis, while alleging that the vehicle was bought in haste,

said that it can operate over railway trackage provided overhead power

supply is provided. Similar streetcars have been ordered by the city of

Edmonton for operation over standard-gauge railway tracks.

"Curtis

said the reason that no operating trials were to be held was because it

would cost $100,000 to erect two temporary stations on B.C. Hydro's

Central Park line, install overhead wire and do other necessary works.

The minister said his government judges streetcar trials premature,

although he thinks the public would find the car impressive."

Mr.

Curtis went on in the same comments to defend the purchase of the

allegedly derelict buses obtained by the New Democrat administration

for — guess what, Mr. Chairman — spare parts.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

That was the purpose all along. But you needn't take my word for it.

Take the word of Hugh Curtis — then Municipal Affairs minister, now

Minister of Finance — the man who set the record straight on the

worthwhile nature of the purchase of this streetcar, which he described

as "impressive," and who set the record straight as well as to whether

or not it would allegedly not fit the tracks: it would fit the tracks,

it did fit the tracks, it does fit the tracks, and it should be used

today on the same B.C. Electric tracks to provide rapid commuter

service from Burnaby to Vancouver. That, after all, was the original

proposal for a demonstration project from Burnaby Lake to downtown. It

would have made sense; it did make sense, and to the credit of the now

Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, he said publicly in 1976 that the

false claims of B.C. Hydro notwithstanding, the vehicle was perfectly

serviceable, worked in a perfectly reasonable way and fit on the tracks.

hope that this time the minister might be willing to admit that the now

Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, was telling the truth. He may not like

to hear the truth from New Democrats — fair enough; he may not like to

hear the truth from employees of his own Urban Transit Authority, who

would tell him the same thing if he'd bother to ask. But he should at

least accept the truth published in June 1976 from his own cabinet

colleague, who said that that vehicle was perfectly usable, was a

perfectly reasonable approach to transit, worked on those tracks,

apparently was going to work in Edmonton — and presumably has, because

they now have rapid transit there — and was a perfectly sensible

purchase.

Mr. Curtis did go on, though, to correct one other

falsehood. It was in regard to the purchase of the trolley buses from

Saskatchewan, which the minister had indicated were derelict. You know,

Mr. Chairman, B.C. Hydro at the time — and this may be the origin of

the false reports we've heard from the government benches ever since,

except for the Minister of Finance, who has told the truth — alleged

that these so-called derelict buses cost $5,000 apiece. Well, once

again Mr. Curtis corrected the record and said that they only cost

$1,700 to $1,800 apiece for a complete bus. Now why were they

purchased? Well, not to operate, but rather to use them for spare

parts. If you bought the individual spare parts, it would cost a great

deal more than $1,700 or $1,800 per unit to get them all.

[ Page 4881 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: How much more?

MR. BARBER: Ask the Minister of Finance if

you don't know; but if you don't care, keep your mouth shut.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, you have been advised repeatedly about

parliamentary language, temperament and discretion in this chamber.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, if you

do your job, you won't have to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The member who just rose knows better than to interrupt

the Chair when the Chair is already on a particular point of order, and

knows that he should wait until the conclusion of that point of order,

at which time any point of order will be entertained. But to the first

member for Victoria, please. I ask the member to bear in mind where he

is and the rules that bind us in this place. And if other members would

cease from cross-chatter while the member is speaking, we would be able

to proceed with the business at hand.

The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intent to respect my right to speak

uninterrupted and to correct certain entirely false information about

the purchase of vehicles from Saskatchewan at an extraordinary bargain

in order that spare parts might be made available more cheaply than by

any other means for the transit service and the Transit Bureau of

British Columbia; and as well to correct the record repeatedly

misstated by certain persons about the advisability of the purchase of

this particular trolley vehicle. I once more ask the committee not to

bother, if they don't wish, for their own partisan reasons, to accept

any argument from the New Democrat members — fair enough. But at least

you should listen to your own Minister of Finance, who, when he was

Minister of Municipal Affairs, told the truth about why that purchase

was made, what the value of those spare parts was, and went on to say —

and I quote from the

article in the Province

— that the public of British Columbia, if they knew the record of the

trolley proposal, would find it "impressive." Well, it was impressive;

it was a progressive, imaginative, useful and perfectly serviceable

project.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to be kidding.

MR. BARBER:

Well, then take it up with Curtis if you think I've got to be kidding,

because I'm just quoting him. Take it up with your own colleague, if

you don't believe it.

However, we try once again to correct

the record and to read into the record comments which the members — at

least some of them — might find credible, and that is comments from

their own colleagues. Meanwhile we have other comments on transit which

will be presented by other of my colleagues this afternoon. We're

concerned about the bungling and the bullying of the Minister of

Finance in the field of transit. Several of us opposite, on behalf of

persons concerned with the democratic impulse, who believe in the

democratic system and who resent the roughshod and bullying attempts of

this minister to overturn the proper decisions of the GVRD, will be

debating that in the hours and days to come.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I wish to reiterate what I said this morning. I realize that much of

this discussion stems from the fact that there was a fair bit of

criticism by myself in response to other comments made — especially

when I outlined the attempts made by the former NDP government during

the early seventies to purchase almost anything rolling, as I put it.

As we're aware, they included a Reno gambling tour, a bunch of parlour

buses and a taxi service. These were the sorts of things that they were

involved with. I reiterate once more: this government is not going to

become involved in these types of purchases. I recognize too that it

could well be.... The member admits that they purchased all of these

old buses from the Saskatchewan government. I'm certain that the NDP

government in Saskatchewan, which is noted to be considerably more

astute than the former NDP government here, was happy to unload those

buses, because they probably couldn't get rid of them to a junkyard in

Saskatoon. Now we're stuck with them; we have a junkyard. That was a

criticism. certainly.

With respect to the German train: yes,

it can sit on the track. It will fit the track if it sits there, but

you can't run it on the track, because it has the wrong calibration.

That's what I attempted to point out this morning. So you would have to

replace the tracks. I've tried to make that very clear to the member.

Obviously I haven't got the message across yet, but I'll keep trying.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LORIMER:

It's always amusing to listen to the Minister of Municipal Affairs talk

about transit. He talks a lot about transit, but he does nothing about

it. There's a lot of wind but very little action. The history of this

government in the question of transit, like that of the Social Credit

government before them, has been dismal, to say the least.

He suggests that the car will not fit on the rails, or

something of that sort. For his information, the vehicle was parked on

the rails on a siding for some time before it was hidden away in the

Dominion Bridge buildings on Boundary Road. Also, I would advise the

minister that he's not going to be able to use the rails that are there

at the present time for rail transit. Those rails would not stand up to

Canadian standards for fast transit services. The whole rails have to

be removed, the bed has to be built again and new rails have to be

installed. I've mentioned this before, but I don't think they've

understood this.

I'm going to talk about transit a little

bit today, but I'm going to discuss other matters as well. If the

minister wishes to ask questions while I'm going through, I'll be quite

prepared to answer. We can have a question period here, and I won't

take your questions as notice. I'll try to answer your queries.

was sorry that I had to leave yesterday and was unable to hear the

minister in his opening remarks. I just got back and haven't had a

chance to read the Blues, but I did notice he was talking about the

rewriting of the Municipal Act, and I commend him for this. That was on

my plate and I think on that of the ministers before and after me. It

should be done; it has to be done. If he can succeed in doing it,

that'll be great. I hope that when he does it, he has some philosophy

in the new act that might indicate the relationship and the intent of

the relationship between the provincial government and local

governments in the province. I hope that he accepts the fact that this

is basically a partnership. All the groups of elected

[ Page 4882 ]

people

are representing the same taxpayers, and I hope that he will recognize

and establish this in his proposed new Municipal Act.

Really,

the job of Municipal Affairs is reasonably simple in that what you're

doing, by and large, is dealing with other elected representatives. The

purpose of the minister is to assist as much as possible a number of

the smaller municipalities that don't have the expertise in the field

of municipal affairs in accomplishing those things that the people in

the local communities wan to see come about. But unfortunately the

mayors call this minister a bully. I would never do that, but the local

mayors have called him a bully and say that he's drunk with power. They

say he's a confrontation minister — he likes confrontation. That may be

so. I'm not saying that myself. I'm saying what I've read in the papers.

HON. MR. FRASER: You don't agree with that,

do you?

MR. LORIMER: No, I wouldn't agree with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Would the Minister of Transportation and Highways please come to order.

I remind all hon. members, and of course the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, that it is unparliamentary to use words or

expressions in one fashion that would normally be unparliamentary. I'm

sure the member appreciates that.

MR. LORIMER: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether your list includes "bully." I would

think not. I would think it would not include "confrontation minister."

I can call him other names from quotes I have here.

Anyway,

I want to ask the minister about Gambier Island and the proposed mining

operations that are off and on, from time to time — mainly operating on

Howe Street but still a possible threat to Gambier Island. I would like

him to report to us the position of the Islands Trust with reference to

Gambier Island, whether or not he has been in contact with the Islands

Trust — with their worry and the worry of the residents of the island

as to the possible destruction of this fine recreational area within a

few miles of the densely populated areas of Vancouver North Vancouver

and so on. Maybe he can tell us what's going to happen on Gambier

Island, if he knows.

I notice also that the Islands Trust

budget has been reduced this year, while most of the budgets have been

increased. There may be a reason for this. Maybe the minister would

care to say why those amounts are being reduced.

I follow

the statements of the minister with some amusement. He has the habit of

announcing projects that be wishes he would be permitted to do, three

or four times through the course of a year before anything happens. As

an example, he announced, a year ago last January I think, that 250

trolleys would be purchased to replace the old ones in Vancouver. He

announced it again in the session in May or June. He announced it again

in late summer. I am advised that in October or November the Urban

Transit Authority did order some 200 vehicles. And that's fine. The 250

was reduced to 200, but what I'm getting at is the announcements that

are made right along, to get more print.

The difficulty is that although we may take the remarks with a

bit of salt, some of the media and some of the people in the areas take

these announcements seriously. As a result, I think a cruel hoax is

being played on the people of the lower mainland regarding this whole

light rail transit discussion. A number of statements have been made.

The minister, you might remember, was talking about light rail. There

were certain discussions back and forth with the regional districts.

Then one morning he gets up and says we're going to use monorail; we're

not going to use the conventional rail system. After about a year of

arguing back and forth the minister realized that a monorail system

would not operate efficiently in Vancouver; it might operate for

certain projects, but certainly not as a transit system for the lower

mainland. That kept him going for a year. Studies were made by the

Urban Transit Authority, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, all regurgitating the same

information and spending thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money,

and coming up with reasons why the monorail would not be satisfactory —

it could not be operated in an urban setting.

With

that cleared away, he suddenly woke up one morning and said that they

were going to an automated light rail transit system. So that's been

going along now. He suggested to the regional district that they spend

a few hundred thousand dollars for a study on costs. Prior to the study

coming in, he announces that he's going to go for the ALRT system.

One

of the reports stated that the regional district branded him as a bully

who was browbeating the GVRD before it ever sat down to consider the

alternatives. Alan Emmott, the chairman of the regional district,

stated that this is an extremely annoying situation. We have an ongoing

study — one that was agreed to by the minister and the GVRD — to assess

the relative costs of the alternative systems. "For the minister to

make a categorical decision before this is completed is irresponsible,"

Emmott said. Then he goes on: "If money is no object, fair ball. If

he's prepared to pick up any cost overruns, fair enough." But the

problem is that the minister is not prepared to pick up any cost

overruns, and he knows that there will be.

The automated

transit system may work well. It works well in their back yard where

they do their experimenting. But it has never been tested. There's no

guarantee that this will work any better. They claim there's a

guarantee that any costs over a certain figure will be picked up by the

manufacturing company. But that, of course, is a legal question as to

what is written in regarding guarantees'and whether or not the regional

district or the Urban Transit Authority can come within the wording of

those guarantees. So in actual fact the minister is prepared to buy an

unproven system, and if it doesn't work, the Urban Transit Authority

regional districts will be stuck for the losses. That doesn't make too

much sense to me.

Mayor Jim Tonn, the Coquitlam mayor, said

that he'd like to see Vander Zalm take over the transit management,

saying he didn't support the GVRD involvement in the first place. He

said he can't accept the continued browbeating from the minister. I can

advise the regional district that they don't have too much to worry

about, because the transit program that they're talking about —

producing transit out to Surrey and other areas in Richmond and so on —

will not be carried out by this government in any event.

The

basic and the maximum amount that this government is prepared to do in

rail transit will be the possible construction of a loop from the

proposed convention centre to the proposed B.C. Place by 1986 for

Transpo. I'm quite convinced in my own mind that that is the maximum

amount that we can expect from this government in transit. You don't

need to have a crystal ball to determine that. If you merely

[ Page 4883 ]

look

at the history of what's gone on in the last five to six years in the

transit field, you realize that, basically, up until this last year

there have been no vehicles purchased. Transit has come to a halt. The

number of vehicles now is far less than when this government took

office. Even with the purchase of the new vehicles, it will still be

less.

I could suggest to the people in the lower Fraser

Valley that the idea that they're going to receive transit services, by

way of rail or any other method of sophisticated systems, will not come

about through this government.

Mayor Harcourt said: "Why

doesn't the minister grow up?" Apparently he won't deal with the

regional district or the authorities in coming to some proper solution

or agreement with reference to transit. I don't blame the minister for

that too much. The minister makes a lot of announcements. He did state

that if he were in the position of Premier, he would handle things much

better and much differently than has been done. As a result, he has to

go to the Premier to get funds for the necessary services. He knows

he's not going to get the money necessary to put in a transit system.

It's as simple as that. But instead of telling the public that he's not

going to get the money and that they might as well forget about it, he

goes on with these promises that will never come about. I would think

that the minister would do a better service to the community by telling

them: "I can't get the money. I'd like to do it, but I can't get the

money. The boss won't give me the money, so we can't have any kind of

transit — light rail or automated." But he doesn't do that. He leaves

the people with an impression that next year they're going to be able

to run from Newton down to Vancouver on some fast system.

want to talk a little bit about the announcement that buying the

Canadian system is going to create jobs in Canada. Well, of course that

is not true. It will not create that many jobs, if they do put up a

plant to assemble it. The braking systems, electrical systems and the

computer systems in the automated system are built in Europe. Some are

in the States, but most are in Europe. They're not built in Canada. So

to that extent the Canadian component in an ALRT system is very small,

compared with what could have been done with the construction of a

standard rail system.

As you all know, in 1975 arrangements

were being made with Volvo for the construction of vehicles in this

province under licence from Europe. The land was bought and the

contract was ready to be signed, but it was turned down by this

government. I know the minister was not involved with transit at that

time, but his government refused to go ahead with the construction of

vehicles in this province for use in this province and for export to

the whole North American market. The licence would have included the

right to manufacture for North America. By not proceeding with this

program, the loss of job opportunities to this province has been

immense.

The vehicles he has ordered could well have been

built here. I'm not suggesting they would have been built more cheaply

than what he's going to pay for them. But I am suggesting that the

by-products of construction would have been very beneficial not only to

the coffers of the province but also to the people in the province who

have been able to obtain employment, and to the payrolls that would

have helped to establish communities outside the major centres of

population.

The other matter that should be considered is the question of

service on the CPR tracks from Mission to Vancouver.

Again,

this was in the process of being concluded with the CPR when this

government took over in 1976. Arrangements were made; there were to be

two trains coming in from Haney in the morning and two going out in the

late afternoon. Not only would it be a great benefit to the motoring

public to have fast service in and out of town, but the actual saving

in such a system can be explained by the fact that for heavy rail

transit the federal government will supply the cars required for the

service. They did so in Montreal and Toronto, and there is no reason

why Vancouver couldn't expect to receive the vehicles as part of that

program. The only costs would be rental of the services from the CPR

and some funds to re-establish and rebuild the stations on the way.

It’s an easy system to put in, and not an expensive one. It’s got

nothing like the costs of a light rail system; it's cheap in

comparison. That system could carry thousands of people to the urban

centres every day.

I want to mention my disappointment in

the choice of location for the bus station in Victoria. It's just

unbelievable to see the money being spent on a new bus station and

having it remote from the centre of the city. I suggest these steps are

designed to make it more difficult and less attractive for people to

use transit systems. The station should be a multipurpose station; it

should serve all forms of transportation. The station should be in

downtown Victoria, close to the areas where you move to the airport or

the E&N. It should be in an area from which all modes of

transit

take off. It should be near the dock where the Victoria Princess

used

to land. It should be handy to all the modes of transportation of the

city of Victoria. To put it out of the city, in my opinion, is a very

poor choice. I'm not sure why it was done, but I suggest to you that

it's something that even now you may be able to stop and take a close

look at and see how that fits in to your total transit program.

also want to mention the difficulties in the morale of bus drivers, the

number of people that are being put into the directorate of the transit

field that have no expertise in transit — people that are picked up but

don't understand what transit is all about. I want to discuss the fact

that most of these people are presently working without a contract and

that they have been for some time. Some of the dispatchers on Pacific

Coach Lines haven't had a contract in three years and at that time they

got a 3 percent increase. You haven't been treating your employees very

well, Mr. Minister. I think the minister should take a look at what

he's doing to his employees. Get them happy; give them some of the

rights and privileges that other people in the workforce expect and

get. I don't think it right that they should be asked to continue

running the vehicles without a contract. A 3 percent increase in wages

in three years when the cost of living is going up 11 percent a year is

just not good enough.

I also want to warn the minister with

regard to the ALRT system. It may work very well, it may be a good

system, but BART was supposed to be a good system, and the costs of

correcting the mistakes and things that couldn't be anticipated ahead

of time in BART have far exceeded the costs of the original

installations. This could well happen in the ALRT system. The

suggestion that more jobs will be created by the Canadian system is

false; there will be less jobs than if you constructed your own

vehicles on the conventional rail system. The cost of putting in the

ALRT system, according to the reports of the regional district, is

about $100 million greater than the cost of the other system. All these

things add up to the fact that I think the minister has made a mistake.

I have no doubt that in about six months he will say that he is

[ Page 4884 ]

not

interested in the ALRT' and will start another study of something else

— balloons or some system — that he can use to move people about in the

city. The ALRT will not proceed under this government except, as I say,

possibly for a small demonstration model for Transpo '86. However, I

don't think this government will be in power that long to bring about

this conventional system or the other system, so I don't think anything

will be done during the reign of this particular minister in the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

I do wish, though, that he

wouldn't make these statements when he knows very well that nothing is

going to come from them. He builds up false hopes of people on the

mainland and in Victoria, and really nothing is going to come of it.

do have more to say, but I would like to hear from the minister what

his plans are with reference to the ALRT and Gambier Island, and what

he proposes to do in changes in the Municipal Act, because, in my

opinion, it is not good enough just to renumber the sections of the

Municipal Act when you are redoing the act. I think you have to stand

back and take a look at it and see where it can be improved. So the

strict renumbering, I think, would be a mistake, with the act the way

it is written at the present time.

MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Chairman, just to have a lull in the storm of that invigorating debate

we are getting from the opposition members this afternoon, I would ask

leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, with us in the gallery this afternoon — again, as last

week, we have several, in fact — are 34 fine young northern British

Columbians, this time a grade 10 class from Fraser Lake Secondary

School in Fraser Lake, in my great constituency of Omineca.

Accompanying them are Mr. Lust and Mr. Ward, and their bus driver on

the trip, Mr. Biglow. I would ask this House to make them all very

welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first,

with respect to Gambier Island, yes, I've had discussions with the

Islands Trust, and certainly if they ask for a further meeting with

regard to anything to do with the Islands Trust, be it Gambier Island

or any other matter, I will certainly make the opportunity for a

meeting available to them.

However, as we are all aware,

unless we pass a law there is nothing to stop anyone from prospecting,

exploring, researching, or determining if, in fact, there might be

minerals there or anywhere else in the province. There is no law

against that, and I suppose if we were to single out one area or one

particular party for doing that, possibly we could be liable in some

way. However, until in fact there is an application for a permit to

begin a mining operation, there is no issue. People can explore. That

is not a problem. People can prospect. That is permissible. Until there

is an application for a specific permit to do certain things, there is

no matter to be dealt with. The Islands Trust is aware of that.

agree that possibly many people have been stampeded into unnecessary

fear that suddenly the whole of the island would disappear into the

water, but you can't help that. Sometimes these sorts of rumours and

stories are spread and people do become very much afraid unnecessarily,

and that is unfortunate. Until, in fact, there is an application to

deal with, there is no problem.

We were also asked by the

hon. member as to why it was that the Islands Trust's estimates were

reduced. I'm sure it's well intended. It appears to be somewhat

contradictory to some of the things that I've heard and seen displayed

in the Legislature over the last number of days, where people didn't so

much as question why something was reduced or increased, but simply

moved to amend to reduce for the sake of some exercise, I thought.

However, I'm pleased that the member is asking why it's reduced and

that he now has a concern, which appears to be the opposite of some

which were expressed and which I thought might have happened to my

estimates, where there were simply going to be amendments for the sake

of amendments and a little bit of grandstanding and a lot of talk as to

why it should be reduced and how hard it is for people to pay taxes —

all of which I agree with, naturally. But in this particular instance,

the concern of the member is: why is it reduced? I'm pleased that I'm

able to answer that.

The reason it's reduced is that when

the Islands Trust took authority over the islands they also took on a

person who had previously been employed by the Ministry of Highways.

That person has been there in a sort of supernumerary position. Because

the person had been there in the employ for a good while and because, I

imagine, he was near retirement age, they couldn't send him down the

road; they decided to keep him on and we as the government continued to

pay. However, that person is now retired; there is no longer any need

for the position, and that certainly accounts for some of the reduction.

There

is also a reduction because $20,000 worth of professional studies were

in last year's estimates and again proposed, but it was deemed no

longer necessary. There was one other item which accounted for a

$13,000 reduction: last year there was an election, and this year there

is not an election; so the $13,000 which was allotted for last year's

election was no longer required. So there is the $53,000 by which the

estimates were reduced.

The member had a fair bit to say about ALRT, and I would refer

him to the Blues — or to Hansard ,

if he's ready to wait that long — but certainly that topic was well

covered this morning. I certainly gave a good description of why ALRT,

what the advantage is, and I pointed it out especially to the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). So I think it's fitting again that the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) be somewhat aware of the

detailed explanation I gave this morning, which in effect was my

expression of concern for Burnaby especially, since had we proceeded

with the initial conventional LRT proposal, there would have been 18

level crossings in such places as Kingsway, Patterson Avenue, Rumble —

all of which would have created a chaotic situation. According even to

the traffic counts which have been projected in the initial GVRD study

as requiring burying, compared with the traffic counts as they are

today, that would mean that immediately upon announcement we would have

to start burying the track in any case, which would mean $50 million a

mile. So when you're comparing ALRT to CLRT, it's a little like apples

and oranges; or put another way, it's like, a Cadillac and a

Volkswagen, in that I think we have the Cadillac in the ALRT and the

Volkswagen in the LRT as proposed with all of its level crossings. Both

will get you from A to B, but the ALRT, the Cadillac, gets you there a

little quicker and a little more comfortably, and it provides certain

other luxuries that weren't available in the LRT approach.

[ Page 4885 ]

The

member mentioned that some years ago when he was responsible for the

position I hold now he was planning to provide for a commuter service

between Maple Ridge and Vancouver. Actually, I hadn't heard of that

previously; this is the first I've heard, though it might have been

mentioned earlier. I'm rather pleased that the then NDP government saw

the merits in developing a commuter service between Maple Ridge and

Vancouver, because it bears out the correctness and the wisdom of the

decision we recently made to get on, not to simply talk about or study

more the potential for a commuter service but to get on with

establishing a commuter service between Maple Ridge and Vancouver. Of

course I should again advise the member that we're hoping to see this

commuter service in place and running — serving the people well — by

the middle of next year.

It's not a cheap project. The

member mentioned that you could do that for very few dollars. Well,

we're looking at $24 million for that, so it's not just a peanut item.

It's certainly something which is fairly costly; but I think it will be

of tremendous service for the people in the northeast

section of that

region. After all, that is a

section in which we're providing for an

awful lot of housing for people, and we recognize that there's a need

for housing and have taken the initiative by making Crown land

available to be developed for housing purposes. The commuter train as

well as the ALRT tie into our attempts to provide for an urban strategy

which responds to the needs of people in the greater Vancouver region.

The

member also spoke of the LRT having — in his opinion — such a local

component to LRT that we didn't need to consider ALRT. I want to

reiterate again for the benefit of the member — and I would refer him

to what I've said this morning — that one of the good things about the

Canadian technology.... One of the great things is that this

government has recognized that we as Canadians musn't be afraid to

accept and to fly, to develop and continue with something that is

actually Canadian. Why must we look to the Americans or to the Japanese

to try our technology if we're sure and satisfied that this technology

will work? Let us buy something Canadian and let us develop something

Canadian. Let's support Canadian trade wherever possible. Here, in

ALRT, we have that opportunity. It's truly Canadian technology. Not

only is it truly Canadian; it will benefit our region and every other

Canadian city eventually if they have the foresight that this

government had to buy something Canadian. Similarly, we will develop a

whole new industry in British Columbia to export to all other parts of

the world where they want this technology as well.

Now I would just like to advise the member of the Canadian

component in the ALRT system. Initially, many of the components for the

ALRT system were designed in other countries — granted — because,

naturally, it was a system which was being developed and experimented

with, and from the very outset some of the components had to be brought

in from elsewhere as the program was being developed and tested. But

the manufacture of these components.... I've attempted to make clear

throughout these last months, especially to the hon. member from

Burnaby-Willingdon, that I'm very pleased that by far the majority of

GVRD directors have become very supportive of the ALRT system, because

they recognize that the things that have been said over these last

months are true. Granted, the mayor of Burnaby has the advantage of

serving on the Urban Transit Authority and is therefore getting a lot

of the information firsthand. Granted, Mr. Alan Emmott is the chairman

of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and thus has the opportunity

of studying and knowing and receiving information about the system a

lot more readily than others. But because of this, they have become

very supportive of the system.

are now going to be manufacturing the components, which were initially

an import when the project was being tested, in Canada. There are three

specific exceptions where off-the-shelf technology is available at the

best price from the United States, and the three components referred to

amount to less than 3 percent of the total of approximately $300

million — 1979 dollars. They are the wayside computers, the brake

components and some special track work. Now some of it — the technology

and so forth — will naturally come from Ontario, but we've always said

that by far the majority of it will be manufactured in British

Columbia, not only for British Columbia but for other places throughout

the world. The current estimate of the direct B.C. content — not

Canadian content; the Canadian content is much higher — is 66 percent

of the total. Therefore you're looking at approximately several

hundreds of millions of dollars for this system alone.

The

other mention was of the guarantees. We have negotiated the guarantees

for the performance of the system for the upper price. These have been

very tough and prolonged negotiations. But once more, being the first

to take on the Canadian technology, we've had good cooperation from the

urban transit people, the UTDC in Ontario. I find them to be an

excellent and very cooperative firm, and I'm sure they will do

extremely well regardless of where they go in the world and what they

manufacture in this line. So we're coming along well with the

guarantees.

The other mention was the PCL station for

Victoria. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, of all members,

should be well aware that the Pacific Coach Lines is not an urban

system. It's not to take you from 1st Avenue to 3rd Avenue and back

over to A Street or down C Street. It's not that sort of system. The

PCL system is an intercity or intermunicipal system. It goes up-Island,

it goes out the Fraser Valley to Hope, and it serves the various towns,

cities and villages on its way. It isn't intended to stop at every

junction in Comox, Duncan, Vancouver or come down the streets

throughout Victoria. That is not this sort of system. It brings people

to Victoria. Then if people get to Victoria and want to take an urban

bus to Oak Bay, Esquimalt, James Bay or wherever, they will pick up the

James Bay bus, the Oak Bay bus, the Esquimalt bus or the bus that runs

down Blanshard or Douglas. These are their choices to be made when they

get to that terminal, because it connects up with the urban system.

We've

been renting from the CPR for a good many years. I agree in many

respects that has been fairly convenient. It's been convenient for

those people wanting to come to the parliament buildings, be they MLAs,

someone within the government service or someone wanting to do business

with government. The station at the Empress was convenient for them. It

wasn’t necessarily convenient for the person living in Oak Bay or for

the person living in Esquimalt or elsewhere. However, it was for the

people visiting here.

But it also presented another problem.

This morning the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) expressed

concern — I agree with him — about the fact that here's another

government outfit losing millions of dollars. PCL does lose millions of

dollars. I commend the board for bringing up the charges to assure that

there's a greater contribution from the user. But these transit systems

or public service systems

[ Page 4886 ]

don't

make money, which is why, of course, we have a hard time turning it

over to a private entrepreneur. Otherwise I'd do it. If somebody comes

along and wants to buy it, run it and provide a service as a private

entrepreneur, they could probably do a lot better than government. I'm

the first to agree.

In part, at least here, the problem is

that the PCL bus would come in from the ferry or from Vancouver and run

down Blanshard with a few passengers parallel to an urban transit bus

which was going in exactly the same direction, also perhaps with two or

three passengers — stopping at every stoplight, stopping behind every

car, taking a half hour to get down and a half hour to get back out.

That is not only expensive, but it makes the whole system less

efficient. While I concur that maybe it would have been nice to have

carried on in a more downtown location, in many respects, from the

board's point of view, that was not a practical solution. They wanted

to also have their repair terminal, where they washed and cleaned the

buses and all the other things, right near the station. That is

possible where they're proposing to go at 2800 Douglas.

Finally

in that respect, Mr. Chairman, for a whole year we've had meetings,

letters going back and forth between ourselves, Victoria city council,

Victoria Chamber of Commerce and other groups who had an interest in

developing a downtown terminal. The Victoria city council put forth a

number of suggestions, but they were either too small, the wrong

location, a horrendous price, there was already something there or it

was zoned the wrong way. Yes, in the end the Victoria city council

agreed, as well, that they really didn't have a good alternative

proposal to make, and they felt perhaps the whole of the issue could be

left. We can leave it for a time, but we can't leave it too long,

because the Empress Hotel wants the property where the little station

sits now. Some decisions need to be made. Being a person who would like

to see us get on with matters and who wants to see the board carry out

its decisions in as autonomous a fashion as possible, I'm certainly

willing to bring to them any good suggestions that may be put forth,

but not to stop all progress with respect to PCL — they've got a job to

do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll recognize the hon.

member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, because he was questioning the minister, and then

the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll

only be a few minutes so that the member for Dewdney can get up in a

few minutes.

didn't suggest to the minister that commuter train service was a cheap

service. When you're comparing it to the other services, it is a very

reasonable service for the number of people it carries. To that extent,

it's a much cheaper service than most services in the transit field.

Secondly, the fact is that assistance is available for the cars that

are required, which adds to the savings in such a system.

The

minister was talking about the need for 18 level crossings in Burnaby

if a conventional rail system were used. That, of course, is a lot of

nonsense. You don't need any level crossings. The LRT service can go

underground, overground or on the ground. There's no, need whatever for

level crossings. The costs of the LRT appear to ) e very substantially

less than, the costs of the ALRT. I'm not going into any further

arguments on this at this stage, because, as I mentioned earlier, I

don't think anything will ever come of it anyway during the present

government.

Guarantees. You might want to check with the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), but guarantees are a pretty hairy

proposition, Mr. Minister. If you're satisfied that the guarantees are

good and safe, then I suggest you wouldn't be adverse to telling the

regional district that any overcharges or overruns will be looked after

by you. The regional district is concerned that if there are overruns,

they're going to be nailed. If you've got a guarantee that you're

satisfied with, then why don't you tell them that there'll be no

overruns and if something happens you'll be responsible? That would be

a very simple thing to do.

Talking about the station in

Victoria, I was somewhat taken aback by the response the minister gave

with reference to the location of a station. He talked about the fact

that Pacific Coach Lines goes from city to city. They're not an urban

transit system. I agree with him; that's absolutely correct. But the

philosophy I suggest for a transportation system is that you don't take

one piece of the transportation picture, isolate it and deal with that;

you look at the whole transportation system. You then meld your systems

together so that you have one system looking after a variety of

transportation modes. You don't look at commuter service as an entity

in itself, you don't look at urban transit as an entity in itself, you

don't look at the intercity system as a system in itself and you don't

look at the ship run to Seattle as a system in itself. This is all part

of a transportation system, and unless you get your pieces together,

your system will never operate efficiently. To consider that all you're

doing is making a station for intercity travel.... I suggest you

save your money and not bother with it at all, if that's your idea of

providing proper transportation in the capital city.

It's

true urban transit will not make money; it never will. But there's not

too many highways making money either. Transit and transportation

should be considered for what it is. It's a system for the movement of

people the same as the automobile, truck or airplane.

There'll

never be money made in the transit system. There may be in the holiday

transit and that sort of thing, but certainly not in urban or intercity

transit. If you want intercity transit to make money, I think you can.

I think you should advertise and boost up the express service — which

is a very fine service — on the intercity bus system. If you advertise

and push that, that's where you can make money. I would suggest that

what is being done is a good system, but not that many people know

about it. I think that a few advertisements would bring that financial

return up to a much better level than it is at the present time. You're

not going to make money on the transit system; it's going to be on the

sidelines maybe where some money can be picked up.

Bridges

haven't made too much money in late years, nor have highways. I don't

know why a person might expect a ferry, rail or transit system to make

money. So I don't think you should feel badly about it. You should

admit the fact that you're not going to make money on it. It's true.

You're not. You're providing a system. I'm suggesting that you should

consider an overall system, not just one item in the transpiration

picture. You should consider the whole system as one. It's not a bunch

of isolated and different modes of transportation. You should be

operating a system.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, thank you for

the opportunity of addressing this House.

First, I want to thank the minister for his statement today

that transit service on the north side of the river will go as far

[ Page 4887 ]

Maple Ridge by the middle of 1982. That is certainly good news. I know

it wasn't an easy project. I know it wasn't easily accomplished. I know

it ran into great difficulty with the railroad corporation that did not

want to cross the Pitt River Bridge. I want to assure him of the total

appreciation of the people of the upper valley. It's certainly a

breakthrough in transit. The minister recognizes that the only hope for

transit in the lower mainland is steel on steel, not buses. Buses

simply cannot be a major factor in public transit. That's been proven

in many jurisdictions.

At the same time as I'm complimenting

the minister, I'd like to say that he impresses me very much in this

House. I'm sure the hon. members of the opposition must recognize it,

although I don't hear them say it. The minister faces immense problems

in transit, but all we hear from him are the answers, and the way it

can be done. I want to tell him the member for Dewdney does recognize

this.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think the

only transit system that you could compare to ours is the transit

system in metro Toronto. In our system under the Urban Transit

Authority Act transit system deficits are shared between the UTA,

representing the provincial government, and the municipality. The

cost-sharing formula provides that for the first two years of an

agreement UTA pays 75 percent of the operating deficit, and the

municipality pays 25 percent. It takes a lot of courage for this

government to work with those figures.

In metro Toronto it's

exactly the reverse. In metro Toronto 70 percent is paid by the fare

box. I think there has been a change in the last year, but until a year

ago 70 percent came from the fare box, 15 percent from Metro, and only

15 percent from the provincial government. Some difference! That is the

major problem. The government grapples with this. But do we hear one

compliment or word of encouragement from the opposition? Not one word.

That's where it should come from.

Today in this province we

are dealing with an element we must master — that is, public transit.

We have the problem of one million too few people. If we had one

million more people we could handle it with 70 percent from the fare

box, as does metro Toronto. But since we do not have that one million

more people, the government faces the problem of having to pay it from

general funds, which I think is a courageous thing to do.

It's

all very well to say "government," but you must get the money from the

business community somehow and from the people, through taxation on

their money, to prove the worth of the system. It is difficult to prove

the worth of a system when it only serves one part of the province. Yet

with courage and determination — no alibis, no questions asked and with

only positive actions being given to this House, saying we will do it

this way over the objections of....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Those people, yes. I didn't want to mention names, but certain

politicians in the lower mainland of a different political hue, even

though the minister said they would get transit, had to find some way

that it wasn't suitable, that it wouldn't work, that it wasn't the kind

they needed and that they had to get some kind of a system with 18

level crossings. I think the minister has done a tremendous job. All

light rail transit means is 18 sets of gates going up and down, 25

times a day. Can you imagine the accidents? Yet some politician will

say that is the system. I think it takes courage to say we'll try the

system from Ontario that will work.

I compliment him. I do

not know for the life of me why he needs to waste his time in this

House trying to argue that system, which is a credit to us: a Canadian

system to be used in Canada in this great lower mainland of British

Columbia. I think we should appreciate it and not fight it. It's

amazing how I find the opposition trying to say: "Yes, it's okay,

but...." That's the part that I can't understand. I appeal to

you, Mr. Chairman. It's time we dealt with the facts here and

acknowledged this minister is doing such a wonderful job in this very

vital area — one million too few people, and yet rapid transit second

to none in Canada.

MR. D'ARCY: I have some local issues I want

to address, quite briefly, to the minister regarding transit. I want to

say that I'm glad to see the minister and his deputies here. The staff

the minister has are most helpful both in the distant past and in the

recent past and do their jobs well.

Before

I get into the local issues specifically, I can't help commenting, as a

layman from the interior, on some of this exchange which has been going

on for the last couple of days here. I have to find rather strange the

assumptions of the minister and some of his supporters that anybody who

says anything the least bit critical of the minister's arbitrary and

unilateral policies in transit must be a New Democrat. I happen to know

that some of the people who are saying these things claim to be

liberals, Tories and even occasionally Socreds. The minister seems to

assume that anybody who has any complaint at all must be a New Democrat

and is only doing it for political purposes. I'm quite sure that the

politics that the minister is attributing to some of these people would

be great news to many of these civic politicians from the greater

Vancouver district in particular.

MR. NICOLSON: The Socred revisionists.

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps so. Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, I want to make a couple of other comments here. Quite

frankly, I have never been inconvenienced by a level crossing, unless

there was a slow-moving freight train taking some time to get through

the crossing or, worse still, even stopped by it. I have never been

inconvenienced in any urban area that has rapid transit by the second

or two it takes a passenger train to pass through a level crossing at

speed. Of course, if the rapid transit that we're talking about is not

moving at speed, we shouldn't be having it in the first place. If it

can’t be moving at least 80 kilometres per hour between stations, we

might as well forget about it completely; put the tracks on the

streets, use fast buses or whatever.

some parts of the world the technology is there and transit moves at

speeds up to 160 kilometres per hour. I can imagine that there are very

few level crossings which are blocked for any length of time at that

speed. When I drive down Kingsway or any other thoroughfare in greater

Vancouver or anywhere else, it's not the level crossings that bother

me; it's the red lights. They're absolutely necessary, Mr. Chairman,

but red lights block traffic for a minute or two, not just 18 times but

hundreds of times throughout the lower mainland and the greater

Victoria area — and, for that matter, even in the city of Trail. The

minister is telling us that the need for level crossings somehow

justifies spending hun-

[ Page 4888 ]

dreds

of millions of dollars on new and untried technology. It is simply

beyond me. Of course, like everyone else, I don't like being

inconvenienced by anything that stops traffic. However, level crossings

with light transit are the least of my problems; unless, as I've said,

you've got a slow-moving freight train blocking the crossing.

Mr.

Chairman, I also find it rather strange that we have the minister

telling us that we must have a Canadian technology doing this. Now I

appreciate that; I would like to have a Canadian technology too. But

the reports that have been given lately would indicate that the ALRT

proposal is really only assembled in Ontario; in fact, the technology

and the manufacturing are international.

Whereas we well know that in

the province of British Columbia we have the capability right now of

manufacturing railway rolling stock, because there was a very

successful operation which did just that and whose cars are being used

on the BCR. If we listen to the complaints of the B.C. Railway, they

will tell us that the other railways in North America like those units

so much that they have trouble getting them back once they leave the

province. Now if we could do that, I'm sure we can manufacture

conventional rapid transit vehicles right here in British Columbia,

without importing technology or manufacturing facilities from Ontario

or anywhere else in the world.

However, what I really wanted

to talk about was my own area, where we have a major problem with

insufficient buses and buses which are just incredibly ancient. In

fact, Mr. Chairman, we have one unit operating in Trail — this is no

reflection on the maintenance there at all; they do their best — and

I'm quite sure that if an actuary from ICBC were to see that thing, the

insurance rates on the whole system might go up substantially. It's a

danger both to the drivers and to the passengers. In fact, possibly

even a compensation board inspector might want to pull the driver right

off that particular unit. I gather the history of it is that it started

perhaps 30 years ago in Montgomery, Alabama, and has been through many

B.C. Electric systems and B.C. Hydro systems and now is part of the

UTA. My primary concern is that the minister and his staff somewhere in

the UTA system in the province of B.C. find a replacement unit for that

vehicle. In the Kootenay Boundary Regional District east end and in the

city of Trail we have some of the steepest grades to be found anywhere

in the province of British Columbia. This unit really needs to be

replaced, and I think that somewhere in the system there must be a more

modern unit.

It does hurt my feelings a bit, Mr. Chairman,

to travel around this province and notice in greater Victoria, in

greater Vancouver and in many of the interior and even in some of the

northern communities, not just newer equipment but brand-new equipment.

Mr. Minister, I'm sure your staff can confirm that the

Trail-Kootenay-Boundary system has one of the highest riderships per

route mile anywhere in the province. So here we have a system which is

being utilized by the public, yet quite frankly they're using what they

themselves say is unsafe equipment. I want to repeat this is no

reflection on the maintenance crews there; they work day and night to

keep some of these units going. So first of all, we need at least one

replacement bus.

The second point I want to make, Mr.

Chairman, is that we have had a change in the demand for services to

our major industry, the Cominco smelting and refining operations in

Trail. A few years ago there were only three shift changes a day, and

those shift changes were served very well by cooperative transportation

societies that had been operating in the area for 40 years. Most of

those shift changes are still being served in most of those areas.

However, now instead of three shift changes we have seven, due to

12-hour shifts, staggered day shifts and so on. Many of those

transportation societies are finding that they can't serve all parts of

the city of Trail and all communities on all shift changes, so they

only serve certain of them. I have discussed this with the transit

authority, and the city of Trail has discussed the matter, and I

believe possibly so has Cominco. What we really need is an extra bus —

not to pull the rug out from under the transportation societies, but so

that the transit people in the area can

schedule services to those

parts of the city of Trail on those shift changes which are not being

served by these non-profit societies.

To repeat, Mr.

Chairman, a major priority is one new unit to replace the existing one,

which is quite literally falling apart. I was following it out to

Genelle the other day and I really thought some pieces were going to

fall off. I'm not exaggerating; it was that bad. Secondly, we need an

additional bus to provide commuter service to the major industry in the

city of Trail.

I have a number of other things that I would

like to say about inter-city transit in the area, but I think the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has covered them, and I don't

want to take up too much time in the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult. For the last several days we've

heard so many inconsistencies and contradictions coming from the

opposition, and in this again there is a bit of a contradiction. All

day yesterday the point was made: "You nasty minister, you're

centralizing too much. Everything's being centralized." Today it's the

opposite. "You've decentralized. You've taken away the decision-making

you had. Why don't you make some changes?" It's not us in Victoria that

decide whether a bus goes up hill or down dale, to Cominco or from

Cominco, three times a day or seven times a day. Those are the

decisions of the local council in Trail. The member should know that.

He's just left the chamber; however, I'll have it there for the record

so he can refer to it. It's the local council that determines what type

of service, how often, and even the charges that are made.

The

member also went on about the level crossings. I should point out that

by law trains have the right-of-way. They can scoot across Kingsway or

Rumble, toot their horn or not, I guess, and just carry forth. But

every 90 seconds? He says: "I don't care if the gates come down. It's

no inconvenience. Let the gates come down. So what." Maybe that's all

right in Rossland or Trail; I'm not so sure it is or that he's even

speaking for the people there. But for the people of Burnaby to have a

gate coming down every 90 seconds on Kingsway to allow a train to go by

one way or the other, or both ways at one time.... It doesn't make

sense. Yet that was the proposal. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer) says: "No problem; bury it." That's the very point I made

earlier. If you bury it it's $50 million a mile. All of that has been

said so many times, but they keep coming back with it.

guess the most disappointing thing is the criticism from the members

opposite for the fact that we've gone for a Canadian system. For

whatever reason, they were so set upon a west European system — a

German system — that I've heard even the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D’Arcy), the member for. Burnaby-Willingdon, and before that the first

[ Page 4889 ]

member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) all defending the import system. They should

be proud of the fact that we're determined to buy Canadian. Other times

those members will get out on the hustings and say we should do things

for British Columbia or Canada, but here they're constantly

contradicting that very thing which might have been said otherwise. We

are determined as a government, and I am determined as a minister and a

ministry, to buy Canadian whenever and wherever possible.

MRS. DAILLY:

On the subject the minister just discussed — that he's really surprised

we won't go for the Canadian-produced product — I have some statements

that counter that. I'm quite willing to bring them up for the

minister's attention, hoping he will counter it. Now that we're going

ahead with this we all hope it is going to be a Canadian product.

the minister will bear with me I want to read to him some of the facts

that were given to me, hoping he can disprove them. I mean that

sincerely. In point of fact I've been told that the Celtrac Automatic

Control System was developed by Standard Electric Lorenze, a German

subsidiary of ITT. The propulsion system and the linear induction

motors (LIN) were developed by German firms, and the extent to which

UTDC may have improved it remains to be verified. The computers are

American. The power inverters are European. The design work done

recently for UTDC was done by ABAM, a consultant firm in the United

States. So much for the all-Canadian myth. Further, the vehicles for

any LRT technology can be built in Canada. Hawker, Siddeley, Bombardier

and even UTDC have all manufactured or designed conventional LRT rail

vehicles.

All I'm trying to say to the minister is that he

has attempted — and probably rightly so — to sell this on the basis

that it is Canadian-produced, but on the other hand, I and some of my

colleagues keep receiving this material which is questioning whether it

is truly Canadian-produced. I've just read to the minister some of the

material that has been sent to us. I would like to hear from the

minister if he too has these facts. Can he hopefully disprove them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'll simply have to repeat what I said earlier, but I'll try to do it a

little more quickly. When the technology was initially developed and

the trial track and train were being put into place for Kingston, many

of the components were purchased from other areas. There was no need to

re-invent many of the parts which were actually already intended to be

a part of this Canadian developed system. Some of the inventions had

taken place elsewhere and the components were available. Certainly,

while the project was being tested, that was satisfactory. But now that

they're putting the first real system into place, these components will

be manufactured in Canada — 66 percent, as a matter of fact, of the

whole of the system will be manufactured right here in British

Columbia. We will be manufacturing for other cities across the world

and throughout North America. The only....

MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on that?

You're misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The UTDC is

negotiating with three firms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll have to ask the first

member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I'm shocked and amazed, Mr.

Chairman. Because of the Chairman, I'll have to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The UTDC is dealing with three firms in Vancouver to manufacture the

linear induction motors. There are only three exceptions where off

the-shelf technology is available at the best price in the U.S., and

those three components amount to only — or less then — three percent of

the total system: they are the wayside computer, the brake components

and some special trackwork. That amounts to less than 3 percent in

off-shelf items. The rest of it is Canadian and the majority of it is

British Columbian.

MR. LAUK: The minister has

indicated here that the train-control system, which was German

designed, the British power inverter, the linear-induction motor, the

U.S. power converter and the U.S. computer control will all be

manufactured in British Columbia or Ontario. Is that what the minister

is undertaking to this committee on this day?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Yes, I'll repeat again. Now this is the third time today, but I guess

perhaps I can't say it often enough, because I'm proud of the fact that

we're buying Canadian. We're setting an example for the world, but

especially for all other cities in Canada. The wayside computers, some

brake components and some track-work — all of which amounts to less

than 3 percent of the total cost of the system — will be imported. The

balance of it will be Canadian-manufactured and 66 percent of it will

be manufactured in British Columbia. Now how much plainer can I make it?

MR. LAUK:

This is very interesting, although it's a side issue to the debate

about what kind of transit system the lower mainland should have. It's

interesting the minister has undertaken that all of the major

components to the ALRT system will be manufactured in Canada. He says

that the majority of it will be manufactured in British Columbia. I've

made it clear in my question to the minister, that means the train

control system, the power converter, the linear-induction motor — the

extra power converter you need on the ALRT system that is designed in

the United States — and the computer control system, which is quite a

substantial component, will all be manufactured in Canada. I'm glad to

hear him say that, and we'll hold him to it.

That does put

the ALRT system on a par with all kinds of other systems that can be

manufactured in Canada. It makes it no different but on a par — not

superior. On behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, I'm afraid

that the minister has bought a "pig in a poke." What he has done is

worse than that from the standpoint of his attitude toward democratic

action and fair play in this province. Behind closed doors, without

competitive bidding or a fair shake for the taxpayers of British

Columbia, let alone the people who can manufacture and supply equipment

to a system here, he has given a turnkey operation to Kirk Foley and

the boys back east.

Interjection.

[ Page 4890 ]

MR. LAUK:

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says: "Oh, come on,

Gary." I've never encouraged such intimacy from the Minister of

Agriculture. But I should point out to the minister that he should

learn a little bit more about this major project that his colleague is

foisting upon you as well as us and the people of the province, instead

of sitting there and saying: "Oh, come on."

The

responsibility of this opposition is to point out that this minister

has deliberately usurped the power granted by this Legislature to the

GVRD for the planning of a transit system. He's usurped it, just as any

tyrant in the world has usurped power. The man has no respect for

democratic institutions, and he has no respect for the historical

practice in this province whereby such a major project is developed on

behalf of the government.

There was no public tender for a $500 million turnkey project

to this company back east.

MR. BARBER: Yesterday he said it was $650

million.

MR. LAUK:

It's rising every day. It's money we pay out to a contractor to put in

the entire system — designed and constructed by the contractor and run

by the contractor. The conflict-of-interest situations alone are

tremendous. The risks are incredible. This minister is smiling now. But

I'll tell you, people in Vancouver and the lower mainland aren't

smiling at your tyrannical attitude, Mr. Minister.

The ALRT,

the so-called small transit system, has been described by Kirk Foley

himself as being for use in smaller cities. It's not called a

high-capacity system, which is what is projected for the needs of the

lower mainland. We haven't tested it. It must be at least 70 percent

elevated and completely separated from population, either because of

the hot third track or the fact that it will be running though a

population area — all of this at great cost and with no guarantee of

federal funds.

Even the uncommitted federal funds spoken of

by the minister are minimal, compared to the total eventual cost. The

that may cover the extra cost for the new grades and engineering that

will be required by using this system in the first place. There's no

gain there. In moving from the conventional system to this system,

there's a $90 million extra cost for the whole GVRD plan, and there's a

$70 million extra cost at least for the New Westminster line alone.

That's great for Ontario.

The people in Ontario have been

told by their Premier that this deal with British Columbia is going to

provide lots of jobs to Ontario. This minister has been going around

saying to the people of British Columbia that this deal is going to

provide lots of jobs for the people of British Columbia. Who's telling

the truth, Mr. Chairman? Who is going to get these jobs? It sounds to

me like a little bit of flim-flam on both sides of the Rockies. This

minister is willingly playing that flim-flam game. Kingston thinks it's

getting the jobs; Vancouver thinks it's getting the jobs.

understand that this turnkey operation, in not going to tender, will be

completely and utterly controlled by the UTDC, without any say or input

in planning, except rights-of-way — in place in a way which at any

time....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're a disaster.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Minister, you're a disaster. The GVRD spent $600,000 in developing

a plan for transit at your request, Mr. Minister. What we ended up with

was back-of the-hand treatment from the minister, to put in place your

little toy train from Pier B-C to B.C. Place. That's what it's going to

be. It's going to be a little toy train, running about six or seven

kilometres, because I know the minister will never build a transit

system as long as he's minister. Thank God, that won't be very long at

all.

I have some questions for the minister on this system.

How much line is going to be built? What's being planned? Tell the

truth for a change. What lines are going to be built? Are you just

planning the little line from Pier B-C?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you

to withdraw imputing any wrong motive to the minister.

MR. LAUK: Nothing could be wrong with

asking the minister to tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you said more

than that. You said: "Tell the truth for a change." That is imputing a

false motive to the minister.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw "for a change" —

because the cost of this project is no small change.

would ask the minister how much line is going to be built, where and,

most importantly, when. I don't want pie-in-the-sky promises. When are

these lines going to be built? Is it just going to be that Tinkertoy

for six or seven kilometres?

The second thing is who is

going to pay for it. Is it going to be the provincial government? If

so, how much? Or is it going to be off the backs of ordinary homeowners

in the city and in the greater Vancouver district? What commitment has

the province made? Because there has been no commitment to speak of

from the federal government.

Those are the questions I have:

how much line, where and when? Until those questions are answered, we

can't trust this project in the hands of this minister,

Another

thing I'd like to ask is: could the minister inform the committee about

the fees to Ontario on this project? My understanding is there is a 15

percent commission fee.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much?

MR. LAUK: Fifteen percent. Is that not

correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Have you ever been

correct?

MR. LAUK:

It's amusing. The minister says: "Have you ever been correct?" If the

minister was candid, honest and straightforward with the people of this

province, we wouldn't have to ask him these questions in committee. He

operates in the back room with that arrogant smile and smugness, which

I'll tell you the people of this province will redress at the next

election in the municipality of Surrey. You have jackbooted your way

across this province in two ministries now, and the people are fed up

with it. You're the least consulting minister and the least sensitive

to the needs of a democratic politic like we have here in the province

of British Columbia, which I know you don't understand in any

particular.

[ Page 4891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member to address

the Chair.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to address himself to what commission

fees are being paid to Ontario, how much line, where, when, who pays,

and what proportion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, I'll try not to get upset, but there certainly could be cause

for that. Some of the things which have been said by the member

certainly ought to be clarified. I'll get right to the point and answer

these questions, but I appreciate the fact that this is the same member

who only two years ago made a prediction that in 1981 British Columbia

would have the highest unemployment in its history and housing and land

prices would fall to nothing at all.

MR. LAUK: That's a lie. You're lying.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was certainly

attributed to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

One moment, please. I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver

Centre to withdraw the statement "That's a lie," and then I will talk

to the minister.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister

is totally incorrect and he knows he's incorrect. I'll withdraw the

accusation that he lied, and I expect the minister to withdraw his

statement. I made no such statement at any time.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before the minister continues, it is very important to be most careful

when canvassing the conduct or statements made by others. I think that

is what invites unparliamentary rebuttal. I would ask that all members

remember: "Good temper and moderation are characteristic of

parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable

than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his

opponents in debate."

The minister continues.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the legislative authority for planning with respect to

transit lies with the UTA under the UTA Act, and of course it is

contracted to the GVRD, the CRD and other such municipalities or bodies

throughout the province. The proposal for the ALRT is for the

contractor to put the system in to meet the specifications of the UTA.

We are in the process of negotiating, or have negotiated and actually

have ready for the overall agreement, a guarantee which is bonded by

the Ontario government to the tune of $300 million and in effect states

that the system will perform as per specifications and that the cost of

the technology will be fixed at the time of contract. Also, of course,

there is a completion date.

All of this is specifically set

forth, and I think we're certainly very pleased to have seen the UTA

negotiate these matters with UTDC, which probably gives us a contract

unlike anything that's been negotiated — especially in the transit

field — anywhere in North America at any time. I think the UTA has done

a commendable job, and all members, regardless of where they sit in the

House, should recognize that as a tremendous accomplishment. The UTDC

will subcontract the detail design for the work for final approval by

UTA, and the final decision with respect to all physical facilities

rests with UTA.

The proposal is to plan a 20-kilometre

two-way system from downtown Vancouver to New Westminster, and to start

immediately and begin revenue service by 1986. I'm especially keen, as

well, to ensure that the system is extended into Surrey and Coquitlam

as quickly as possible in order to serve those very rapidly growing

urban areas and in order to help alleviate the problems with the

crossings. It's a system which I've said will go from Vancouver to New

Westminster to Surrey and Coquitlam. It's approximately 20 kilometres,

double-tracked. It's probably about 40 percent elevated. There will be

no level crossings with gates coming down every 90 seconds. It is not,

as the hon. member said, a toy train. As a matter of fact, it's a

system which was recommended to us by the Urban Transit Authority, and

the Urban Transit Authority, of course. has four GVRD members that sit

on it. So it comes highly recommended. We're expecting that this system

will be adopted in many other parts of the world, and we're pleased to

be the leaders in the field.

MR. LAUK: The minister hasn't answered the

question of who pays, and in what proportions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The other thing that should be cleared up before it's sort of left on

the record in a way that the member possibly intended it to be is that

when he mentions train control, the train control is the same as

computer control. I said that less than 3 percent of the system will be

brought in. The balance is manufactured in Canada. There's no other

system anywhere in Canada that can equal this. Even the regular trams

manufactured by Ontario which are in fairly extensive use, especially

back east, are only 78 percent manufactured in Canada. This is the most

Canadian system of all. But the wayside computer control is an imported

item and is part of that less than 3 percent component.

Who

pays for it? That's a good question. We again, and British

Columbians.... The hon. member for Vancouver Centre seems to be

repeating what has been said by the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Harcourt, a

number of times. Let me assure you that it's recognized by all

municipal people everywhere — bar none, unless they philosophically

wish to pick argument — that British Columbia has the best financing

formula for transit anywhere in Canada, by far. Let me also say that

this means the capital is included in the financing formula, and in

effect, we're paying now 75 percent of capital, which is reduced to 70

percent for the third and fourth year and two-thirds of the total cost

thereafter. So the province is picking up the bulk of the cost.

MR. LAUK:

I have just a couple more questions. One of the problems which I can

see with going with the turnkey operation and why I think it's a big

mistake is that you're opting on the one hand to hold one contractor

responsible for the sake of convenience, efficiency or whatever, and on

the other hand you have 80 percent of the work on a transit system such

as this in the design and construction of the railbed, the structures,

the power distribution and the signal system. That's about 75 to 80

percent.

I'll wait until the minister's attention is focused

on the question. Is the minister concentrating on the question? My

question is this: 80 percent of the construction is on the design and

construction of the railbed system, the power distribution system, the

signal system and structures. We

[ Page 4892 ]

could

buy the cars from some turnkey operation. but why do we have to hand

the whole contract over to UTDC? Doesn't that give the opportunity for

the UTDC to start creaming — at the expense of good materials and good

construction — on their total contract package? This is the conflict of

interest that I think disturbs a great many people in the city. Another

thing is that the railbed, track, power distribution and so on should

be locally constructed by local contractors. local engineers and local

people. The minister may say that's going to happen, but how can he

guarantee it happening in a turnkey package system like we're buying?

I'll

wait for the minister to hear this one. I understand the UTDC has

already hired an engineer to help with the planning who will supervise

the planning and perhaps even the placement of this project. But he's

from Seattle. Already the minister must say the UTDC....

Perhaps

the minister could listen to my questions and chat with the jolly

fellow in the back when I'm finished. The minister should indicate if

it is true. Can he confirm that an American engineer out of Seattle has

been hired by UTDC for this project; and if so, has the minister

decided to intervene and say: "Look, we've got engineers in Vancouver

who can handle this kind of package. What's going on?"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

As far as I know — and I'm fairly certain of this — there is no Seattle

engineer on the project. This sort of innuendo about Seattle engineers

is perhaps a little misleading, to say the least.

Let's get

on with the balance of the questions. The engineering will be done by

local engineers. The physical structure will be done by tender and open

contract so that local people will be bidding and competing with one

another for their part of the job in all physical portions.

MR. LAUK: That's the railbed and everything?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The UTA will approve

all the subcontracts. Yes, the railbed and all, all the physical

structure.

can go on for days and try to make things look bad in order to kill

transit for the greater Vancouver area. The member can say: "You're

arrogant, you're just bulldozing and bullying." Well, yes, contrary to

what perhaps the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and

the mayor of Vancouver have said they wanted, I am determined we will

not need further studies, and we're going to get on with the job. We've

studied this thing long enough. We're not going to delay transit

another 3, 5, 10 or 15 years. We're not going to go through the process

that you went through, hon. member, when you were government, of

purchasing a bunch of used equipment to make do for a time. We're going

to get on with a good transit system, and that's all there is to it

action.

MR. LAUK: The minister is not directing

himself to the question, and I don't expect that he'll want to. When

you get a turnkey package operation, you're not going to have control

over the construction of the railbeds, the rail lines and the power

distribution system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) said something that's probably truer

than I'd like to believe: the system's not going to be built anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Negative, negative.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to be negative about

this system.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You would like it to

fail.

MR. LAUK: I don't want it to fail. I

completely deny that to the minister.

Mr.

Chairman, I think that for the system to succeed, it's our

responsibility on the opposition side to point out the frailties of

giving a package deal to one company. The minister has not assured this

committee that giving the commitments that the railbed and power

distribution system and others will be constructed in British Columbia

by British Columbia engineers means anything in terms of that package

deal. It's a conflict of interest to cream on one part of the deal and

benefit the other.

The other thing is that it is a

low-capacity system. Can the minister assure the committee — contrary

to indications from Mr. Foley when asked about this subject — that it

can be added to to make it into a higher-capacity system? All

indications are that the ALRT — or that produced by the UTDC — is a

low-capacity system, and that we're going to be stuck with that

capacity for some considerable period of time, and that we cannot bring

on a conventional higher-capacity system when needed. Those are the

questions I have on transit, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The capacity of this system is 25,000 persons per hour per direction,

which is 3,500 more per direction than the conventional LRT. Put that

in your pipe and smoke it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the first

member for Vancouver Centre has no further questions, in the spirit of

having debate reciprocate, the Chair will recognize the member for

Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) who's been trying to seek the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on my feet. I'm standing.

have one question to the minister. The night before we voted on the

budget I saw the minister on television indignantly denounce a request

from the GVRD in terms of financing transit by saying that in principle

he would never vote for indexed taxes. When they asked for an indexing

increase of tax on gasoline, he would never vote on an indexed tax. Is

that correct? Did I see you correctly? Was that not you? You weren't

pulling the wings off a fly — nothing incestuous, nothing like that.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, that was you. Smiling on time; you don't

have to be cued like the other guy, who's the leader. You do it on

time. You look right in the camera, indignant. That's it. Look at that.

There he is.

"No way would I ever vote for indexed tax." Twenty-four hours

later he stood up in this chamber and voted for the first indexed

taxing on gasoline to support his government. Mr. Chairman, I want to

know if that was done with the full knowledge that school children in

this province might read the record and discover that the minister was

saying one thing on television and doing something else in his chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will all members please come to order. It would appear

to me that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on a vote

that is already

[ Page 4893 ]

passed. If the hon. leader can relate

his remarks to vote 156, the committee would appreciate it.

MR. BARRETT:

No, I'm not reflecting on a vote. I'm not debating the nature of the

vote. I'm stating as a matter of record that the minister stood in his

place that day and voted for indexed tax on gasoline on behalf of his

colleagues and that government over there. Twenty-four hours earlier he

was on television saying: "I would never support, in principle, the

idea of an indexed tax." Were you fibbing on television, or were you

fibbing in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I

will have to ask you to withdraw that remark. You cannot impute a false

motive to another hon. member of this House. That word is

unparliamentary. Would the hon. member please withdraw.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw if you will withdraw that I was

suggesting a false motive. I never said "false motive." The Chair did.

I ask the Chair to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. The Chair will not withdraw. The Chair finds the language

unparliamentary. The member has withdrawn. We continue on the debate on

vote 156.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe

to the member a false motive. I never suggested that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

What did I do wrong? Mr. Chairman, let's go over it again, so we'll

understand. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm saying he did something

wrong, but I'm not saying a false motive. On television, when he was

asked by the GVRD whether or not he would support an indexed tax on

gasoline to help finance transit, he said — and I saw him: "I will

never support an indexed tax as long as I'm in public life."

MR. HOWARD: But I'll vote for it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, are supporting and

voting for it two different things?

MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes, he voted blindly; he

really didn't mean it.

MR. BARRETT:

Look, Mr. Chairman, would you tell my back bench to be quiet; I've got

enough trouble with the minister without these fellows protecting him.

I tell you he meant to vote for it.

MR. HOWARD: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did mean to vote for

it.

MR. HOWARD: Did you, Bill?

MR. BARRETT: You ask him. Do you think he

had a false motive?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT:

Speak to the Chair. Mr. Chairman, did you know what the hotliner Rafe

Mair said about that member? He called him a turkey. You can't say that.

It's

a quiet afternoon, Mr. Chairman. The press is not going to pick this up

— it's time for confession. Could the minister tell this House why he

would say one thing on television and do something else the next day? I

mean I'd really like to know that. Now if the minister didn't mean what

he said on television — write these questions down, because it will

save us a lot of time — if you didn't mean what you said on television,

have you written the station and said: "Withdraw that interview with me

or I'll sue you for showing what I said"? You're pretty good at suing

people for cartoons and stuff like that — sensitive feelings, people

catching up with what you've said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I

will again remind all hon. members of the committee that we must relate

our comments to vote 156, the administrative actions of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition would contain

his debate to that, then the committee would be well served.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about financing transportation. Is

that not right? All right, Now did I hear the minister correctly? I

heard him correctly. He said the night before the vote on the budget,

"I will never vote for an indexed tax, " and the next day he did. Now

would the minister please explain to me how this contradiction came

about?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's on the financing of

transit. Would you call the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to

order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition

raised that particular point, because it will perhaps help clarify

something that I have wanted to see clarified for some time, and

hopefully the member may have something further to say after I give my

response. But first of all, we've been hearing all afternoon from

various members — just a moment ago from the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) — about how they would like to see the system fail,

and I was just reminded, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke just a

moment ago, of what he said in New Brunswick in 1976: "I hope British

Columbia goes down and down, because the further down it goes the

better I like it."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is false,

and I ask the minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They want failure;

they thrive on failure; they attract the negatives and the failures.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order. I have asked

all members of the committee to relate all their remarks to the vote

before us, and I will suggest the same to the hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs. If all members of the committee would do that, if we

could discuss the administrative actions of the department, as we are

so instructed to do in Committee of Supply, then the committee could

proceed on vote 156.

[ Page 4894 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman. I'm attempting to rationalize all of this debate today

about the failure and their desire for failure, because, as I said,

they thrive on it. But getting back now to the question, it will

possibly give me an opportunity to verify something that has been on my

mind for a while, and that's the fact that the delegation that came

here apparently had the support, if not of the Leader of the Opposition

then certainly of a good many members of the opposition, and definitely

of the member of the opposition who, as the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) said, was their spokesman for the NDP in Vancouver, namely

Mayor Harcourt. When they came to us with this proposition....

MR. LAUK: You're a pathological liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will have to

ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw that remark.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you

something about that man. Lie after lie after lie....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, I find those comments grossly disorderly,

and under standing order 20 I will ask you to withdraw from the chamber.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) also used that offensive language. I

would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs continues on vote 156. Oh,

I'm sorry, the first member for Victoria has a point of order.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw the

false and wrongful accusation that I suggested at any time — I defy him

to produce any such word from the Blues — that Mayor Harcourt was the

spokesman for the New Democratic Party in Vancouver or in any other

place. That is a false accusation that cannot be found in any statement

I've made in this House, and I ask him to withdraw unequivocally and to

do so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a

valid point of order. The member may take his place in debate during

Committee of Supply with absolutely no restriction on the amount of

times he can speak and, in fact, give the House an opinion with respect

to the comments. I can't, hon. member, ask for a withdrawal on your

point of order.

On another point of order, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: My point of order is in regard

to the advice you just gave. I do not stand to correct the record. I

stand to ask the minister on a point of privilege, if you will, because

I'm personally offended to have him put words in my mouth that I never

said, indicating, as he put it: "The mayor of Vancouver is the

spokesman for the NDP." To make such a false claim with a straight face

is personally offensive. What I did say for the record is that of

course he's a member of the New Democratic Party, and he's never tried

to be deceitful about it — unlike a few other municipal politicians I

can think of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now....

MR. BARBER:

But in any case, if you prefer that as a point of privilege, I ask the

minister to withdraw unequivocally the false and wrong claim that I

said the mayor of Vancouver was the spokesman for the NDP. I didn't say

it. I wouldn't say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I

can't accept that as a point of order. You have the right to speak to

the committee and point out your truth in Committee of Supply, and if

you were in the House, you could rise on the same point of privilege

under standing order 42. What the hon. minister said was not

unparliamentary, and the hon. first member for Victoria has the

sanction of the committee to rise in this committee and point out on

his behalf what might be a conflicting opinion.

The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to submit to the Chair is this: you yourself

— that is the member for Prince George South in the chair as Chairman —

have ruled on other occasions that if statements are made in this House

which are offensive to an individual member and that individual member

rises to complain about them, it's incumbent upon the person who makes

the statement to withdraw, if asked to do so. You have ruled that way

and now you're ruling another way. I submit you have to maintain some

regularity with your rulings, Mr. Chairman, or the whole office of

Chairman of committee will fall into disrepute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have ruled on

many occasions...

MR.HOWARD: ...any way you feel like it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, hon. member. I have ruled on many occasions that when language

is unparliamentary, a member must withdraw. It is on that basis that

rulings are made in this House by the Speaker and by the Chairman of

committee.

On vote 156, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, the delegation came forth requesting that the gas tax,

the hydro surcharge, and the escalation of it be tied to the

cost-of-living increases on a per annum basis. This in effect could

mean that you could well double the revenues that might accrue to the

regional district every five years, and in fact you would double the

taxes to people every three, four or five years, whether they needed it

or not. So, you see, I could certainly not accept that proposal by the

GVRD. However, while I perhaps could not accept that proposal, they had

considerable support from the other side, but certainly those members

can speak for themselves. We agreed on most of the points raised by the

GVRD, but that's one I could not accept.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 4895 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for being candid. One day he

says he can't accept this principle, but the next day he votes for the

principle. I want to know what happened in between the time he first

said he could never vote for indexed taxes and 24 hours later when he

voted for it. Today, nine days later, he comes back in the House and

says he's opposed to the principle. I want to know what it is that

makes it a principle one day and a matter of expedient politics the

next day and then back onto principle again nine days later.

There

may be young people coming into this Legislature who expect consistency

when a minister declares what principle is. Today the minister has

again confirmed that he could not accept the principle of indexed taxes

on gasoline