1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page

167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 167

Mr. Lockstead –– 167

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 167

Division on second reading –– 168

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Octures Fund Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 169

Mr. Hanson –– 169

Mr. Barber –– 170

Mr. Smith –– 171

Mrs. Jordan –– 172

Mr. Hall –– 173

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 174

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 174

Mr. King –– 176

Ms. Sanford –– 177

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 177

Division on second reading –– 177

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 177

Mr. Hall –– 177

Mr. Rogers –– 178

Mr. Barnes –– 179

Mr. Passarell –– 180

Mrs. Dailly –– 181

Mr. Cocke –– 181

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 182

Division on second reading –– 182

Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 182

section 4.

Mr. Lea 18 2

Division on the title –– 182

Third reading –– 183

Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act (Bill 8). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 183

Tabling documents

Medical Services Plan of British Columbia audited financial statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 183

Appendix –– 184

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have in

the gallery today a school class from the large community of Grindrod,

British Columbia. There are 16 students from the Grindrod Elementary

School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Peebles, and by Mr. and Mrs.

Shulte. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, another group of students who will be observing our

deliberations today are from Parkland Senior Secondary School in the

beautiful Saanich Peninsula portion of the constituency of Saanich and

the Islands. Would the House make them welcome?

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming

29 students from grade 6 at Macaulay School. They are accompanied by

their teacher, Mrs. Pollard, who is assisted by five parents of

students.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, may we move to public bills and orders?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

(continued)

HON. MR. McGEER:

At adjournment time last evening we were warming up to an interesting

theme. By that time I didn't have an opportunity to say how pleased I

was to support this bill on second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Just a few brief words on

section 1 of this bill. Particularly

pertaining to the amount of moneys being appropriated to the Ministry

of Transportation, Communications and Highways. This morning I received

a telegram from concerned parents in the community of Squamish. They

held a meeting last night, and they specifically request, in this

telegram to the Premier, that the government does not officially open a

stretch of new highway between Malcolm Road and Garibaldi Way. The fact

is that the government refused to build an overpass to protect 320

elementary school children who have to cross the highway in that

section. I want to know from the government if part of this $25 million

is going to go to build an overpass for those school children. I want

it known in this Legislature today that if one child dies on that

highway, let it be on their heads. So I am asking that the government

take immediate steps and inform those people that an overpass will be

built in that community forthwith.

Last, but not least, I should inform this House that the parents — and I have

contacted the Minister of Transportation, Communication and Highways — are ready

to blockade that highway on Monday morning should the government not make a

commitment today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Although I have permitted this statement, it is, I think, stretching

the point to suggest that the statements made were relevant to Bill 7.

If, indeed, it were deemed to be relevant, then anything that could be

purported to be a legitimate expenditure by government could be brought

under Bill 7. I would think perhaps the debate would be more in order

under the estimates of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and

I would suggest that would be the right time.

MR. NICOLSON:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the manner in

which this sum of $25 million has been brought in, without any detail

as to the projects which are to be funded by that $25 million, leaves

open any of the projects which might be undertaken in the province. But

I'm sure that the opposition would welcome the minister in future, if

he is going to use this type of legislation, bringing in detailed

estimates, which is where this amount belongs in the first place.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to close the debate on this

wide-ranging discussion. For the benefit of those who haven't enjoyed

the earlier speakers, I would remind them that this bill is very

important. It designates the surplus which was created during the year

of 1977-78 to some very worthwhile projects. The two most significant

ones are: the commencement in the first instalment of a ten-year

retirement of our direct debt of this province, namely $26 million; and

secondly, the creation of a substantial increase in our homeowner

grants of $100 to every citizen, and several other measures.

So let's not mistake the fact that, as I've said before, this bill

symbolizes the budgeting job, the job of administration of public funds, which

this government has been able to accomplish. Opposition members can belittle

this, and I think what's most interesting has been the comments by the new

members from Ottawa. They've descended upon this Legislature and they seem

to have never heard of the word "surplus" before. [Laughter.] It's

s-u-r-p-l-u-s, Mr. Speaker. The reason they fit so well into this opposition

party they've now joined is that they're imbued with the deficit philosophy.

Deficit philosophy translated means debt — d-e-b-t. I'm being very fundamental.

Mr.

Speaker, it's really generated by the New Democratic Party and

ex-members from Ottawa, and the approach they take, the aversion they

have to anything called "surplus," which is really responsible

budgeting, not surplus, It's developed by what I call pie-in-the-sky

budgeting: in other words, you overestimate your revenues, you kid

yourself, and you underestimate your expenditures. It's as simple as

that.

There's an old rule we all learned some time back: if

you want to balance the public funds, you don't spend more than you're

taking in.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do it the other way around.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, they can argue over semantics, but that's the rule.

They're against surplus; they're for deficits. It's as simple as that.

[ Page 168 ]

This

surplus was created simply because of a responsible budget, and during

the course of the year we're talking about the surplus was created

mainly through buoyancy in resource revenues. If you want to criticize

that, you members of the opposition go ahead. As we've said before, the

revenues from resource allocations in the immediate year past are 75

percent over the best year under your administration. This surplus was

created through the strength in resource revenues, in part evidenced by

our resource taxation policies.

So, Mr. Speaker, I only want

to deal here with two items of a specific nature. First, there was

criticism by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) of the sale of the

ferries in the early months of our administration, as though this was

some unusual transaction, and a very hidden transaction which we should

be ashamed of. He also referred to the fact that a person should be

apprehended and put in jail if he were to do this kind of thing.

However, I would only mention that this is very commonplace in terms of

public administration financing, when you're short of funds due to a

prior administration. Practically every one of Air Canada's aircraft is

leased. A great many railcars in Canada are leased. Here we have three

vessels. So this is no unusual transaction.

Any

administration, which in order to reduce the sort of debt load which we

incurred had an opportunity to enter into a transaction whereby it

could, instead of paying 10 percent on that debt, enter into a lease

under which the effective rate was 7.5 percent, would be foolish to

ignore it. That was a very opportune and beneficial transaction which

put funds in the hands of the people of this province and reduced

taxes. There is no question in my mind or on this side of the House

that the transaction can be supported from any way you want to argue it.

Secondly,

the same member was critical of the fact that in the first year of our

administration we allocated $40 million in special funds. He said there

was some devious transaction which we pushed into the budget. He's

wrong. It wasn't $40 million, but he was pretty nearly correct; it was

$27 million. There were a number of special purpose funds which were

devoted to the problems of that year. I want to emphasize that I don't

know where he got his figure of $40 million, but it's incorrect. The

member for Nanaimo, the member for Prince Rupert and several others

have argued that there was no debt. They said we fiddled the accounts

and told Clarkson Gordon what to do. Any responsible chartered

accountant knows, and the member for Nanaimo well knows, that you don't

instruct an auditor how to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to tell me that ICBC didn't lose $185 million in two years? Talk to the auditor.

They're

trying their best to persuade the people of this province that there

was no debt. They're failing because even the staff members who worked

for both governments will tell you that there was plenty of debt, that

there was plenty of trouble.

You remember Bill Stowe. He was

so concerned at the time of the election. Listen to what he said, not

what I said. He said there was going to be a loss. He was extremely

concerned, dedicated and sincere. He called a press conference and told

everybody on day two of the new government that this province was in

deep trouble and was going to lose about $500 million. He was their own

staff member who that government hired. He had an independent view.

They

should hold their heads in shame for the last budget they generated in

1975-76. You know what they did. They estimated their revenues and

their expenditures using all the experts they had, and the budget

didn't balance.

So I had a little bug on the wall of the

room, and what happened was: "What do we do, boys? Well, let's just

boost those revenues about $300 million. We'll up the sales tax, we'll

up the timber sales, we'll up the resource taxation, and so on." They

overestimated. They committed themselves, Mr. Speaker. They knew. They

thought they would get away with it, and they got caught short.

This

is the same old history we've had over and over, but there is an issue

they should hold their heads on in shame for all time. There was a

valid reason for them being thrown out on their ears, Mr. Speaker, in

the election of that time. So let's not make any mistake about the fact

that they cooked the books in 1975, not this government. They cooked

the books. Mr. Speaker, they cooked that budget, and they didn't get

away with it.

At the same time it is reassuring to know that

all members of this House support the direction in which these funds

are being placed, and I am pleased to note that both sides of the House

are going to vote in favour of this measure. As I've said, we've had a

wide-ranging debate, and I have referred to the fact that we have this

aversion to surplus, which has arrived from Ottawa. I take note of

that, and with that I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if your office would consider commissioning an

investigation, in light of the minister's admission that he bugged the

office of a member of this Legislature. Was that statement not true?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sit down while you're behind, Bill.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that is what the minister said, and if the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to accept that the statement is not

true. If that is the case, I wonder how much of the minister's

statements were true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is not a valid point of order and I don't think we can expect a response to it.

Shall we proceed? The question is second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[ Page 169 ]

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 7 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

Bill

7, Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE

AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUND ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: We

acknowledge the fact that the tourist industry is an important industry

to this province. It is one of the fastest growing industries and its

benefits affect all residents of the province. The industry also fits

within the government's objectives of providing more jobs and

diversifying our resource-based economy. This government also wishes to

encourage trade and promote manufacturing industry within the province.

These activities will assist the government's objective of more jobs

and diversification of our economy.

Therefore, as an

incentive to the tourist trade and manufacturing industries, this bill

proposes to set aside $12.5 million from the 1978-79 revenue surplus to

help pay for construction of trade and convention centres in Vancouver

and Victoria. There will be $10 million to be placed in a Vancouver

trade and convention centre fund and $2.5 million in a Victoria trade

and convention centre fund. These funds will be paid out towards the

construction costs of these centres, only when financial arrangements

have been satisfactorily made to pay for the total construction costs

of the centres.

Mr. Speaker, these centres will be a

positive step toward assisting the economy of this province. This bill,

therefore, should have the support of all members of this House. I move

second reading.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, throughout

the election campaign, my colleague in Victoria and I indicated to the

people of Victoria that, in the event of our election or in the event

of the present government's election, we would support the Victoria

convention centre.

I support it for a number of reasons. I

look forward to a convention centre that will take into consideration,

environmentally, urban environmental aspects that are of such great

concern in Victoria. The citizens of Victoria and the tourists coming

to Victoria are very interested and concerned about the maintenance of

the heritage aspects of this city.

I'm speaking in favour of

short-term employment goals and long term employment goals. To ensure

that the environmental considerations and the architectural sensitivity

of this structure will meet the needs and aspirations of the residents

of this city, there should be public hearings. There should be public

discussion and involvement in the design and how a new structure of

this type would relate to, and could be integrated into, the existing

services in Victoria.

Transportation and parking and how it

would vitalize the small business community should be considered. I

would like to read for you some of the short-term employment

possibilities that may help rectify our very, very bad employment

situation for the construction industry. One-quarter of all plumbers in

Victoria are unemployed, as are one-third of all bricklayers, one-third

of the glaziers, one-third of cement masons, 25 percent of labourers,

50 percent of plasterers and 40 percent of carpenters. In Victoria,400

of 1,000 organized carpenters are unemployed. On a short-term basis

construction of the Victoria trade and convention centre would be a

stimulus to the employment in the construction industry which, we

agree, is very, very necessary.

I also believe that the

convention centre could be an asset in offsetting a characteristic of

the economy of British Columbia, which is the seasonality. Our fishing

industry has a seasonality aspect; and so has the forest industry

through fire shutdowns and snow shutdowns. Our entire economy is

seasonal, as is the tourist industry. The trade and convention centre

business is competitive, but I think that we can do it properly. We can

encourage people to visit our city in the off-tourist season, where

small business does have difficulties.

So I agree that, on

the short-term, construction jobs will be created; there will be other

spin-off jobs. I believe it can help offset the seasonality in the

tourist industry, bringing people in the off-season. Another very

important aspect that we would all agree upon is that we do not want

the downtown core of our city to lose its vitality. A convention centre

would help encourage the kind of restoration work, the kind of

upgrading that is presently going on in Victoria to ensure that our

downtown core is alive, prosperous and vigorous.

One of the steps taken by the former NDP administration was purchase of the Marguerite,

which I read brought 148,000 people to Victoria in 1978. Also, they

brought something in the order of $6 million. In Seattle they are very

concerned about the systems aboard the Marguerite for the maintenance of sewage disposal. I think the proper maintenance of the Marguerite

and the ongoing guarantee of that operation go hand in hand with the

construction of a trade and convention centre. I think they go together.

Another

thing we have to look at is ways in which the trade and convention

centre can spin its benefits into as broad a region of the lower Island

as possible. There is a present tendency for tourism to concentrate

around the legislative precinct. It would be worth investigation during

the planning to look at ways in which the benefits can be spread more

evenly, or that they can extend to a broader region — Esquimalt,

Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay. I think the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Smith) would certainly be looking at ways a trade and convention centre

would benefit Oak Bay.

So I'm speaking in favour of it. I

think there are short-term benefits. I think it can be an asset if it's

done properly, if the public gets a chance to say how they think it

should be constructed, and what their concerns are. Residents of the

lower Island should have a say. They reside here year round. I do

recognize the importance of the tourist industry, but at the same time,

people who live here year round should have a say in how it's

constructed, what the design is, and so on.

So I'I be standing in support of it.

[ Page 170 ]

MR. BARBER:

This has been my first formal opportunity in the House to debate the

concept of a trade and convention centre in Victoria. I'm happy to do

so and I'm happy to support it and want to offer very briefly some

other reasons complementing those put forward by my colleague from

Victoria.

First of all, I'd like to give credit where it's

due; and that belongs to Sam Bawlf. Sam has a very fine record. For the

northern members, he was the former first member for Victoria. He has a

fine record of recognizing the particularly apt value of the natural

siting at the Inner Harbour and the natural opportunities in Victoria

for a project like this described today. He deserves credit for pushing

that in public debate. He deserves credit for pushing it through

cabinet.

It should be noted as well that he was not defeated

because he favoured proposals like this. He was not defeated on the

basis of his really first class work at the Inner Harbour and the

Crystal Gardens. That had nothing to do with the fact that he isn't

here today. He was defeated because he had the misfortune of running

for Social Credit on Vancouver Island, and that's politically suicidal

these days.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We did win eight out of ten of them, Jack. That's not too bad a record.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you do in the rest of the province?

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you do in the real world?

MR. BARBER: We'll talk about that later too. What do you mean, "the real world"?

Sam

deserves credit for the fact that we are debating this today, and I for

one, as a friend and colleague of his over some years now, want to make

that clear and make that a matter of public record.

There

are a couple of other people who deserve credit as well, when you look

at how it is we can use the land where the trade and convention centre

will be built. Those two people are Bob Williams and Peter Pollen. Bob

at the time was Minister of Lands. Peter at the time was the mayor.

Between them, they managed to stop a stupid and disastrous proposal for

two high-rise buildings, of all the ridiculous places, at the Inner

Harbour. Between them they managed to fend off a completely lunatic

scheme that would have ruined the scale, in human and architectural

language, of the Inner Harbour.

Peter Pollen stopped a very

bad and dangerous proposal at the Inner Harbour. Bob Williams, to his

credit as well, persuaded the administration of the day to buy the site

and guarantee it for public purposes. And it's only because Bob

Williams and Peter Pollen had that vision and that determination that

today we're able to debate this bill on the floor of the House;

otherwise the land would have been long gone. They too deserve credit,

and that should be a matter of public record.

As for the

proposal itself before us today in the form of this bill, I have a

number of questions which I appreciate the minister may not be able to

answer today, so I should like, if I may, to put them to him today and

hope that in committee he could come back with some answers. I realize

you can't have all the stuff at hand.

The first question is

essentially political. Who, ministerially, is in fact in charge of the

convention centre? It's a question of some interest to small business

in Victoria and particularly to the people now involved in the planning

committee for the convention centre itself. Who, in fact, ordinarily,

and in the future can people approach? I appreciate, or presume, it

won't be the Minister of Finance. He's simply presenting this bill

today, and that's fair enough. Who in the future would be able to stand

up in the cabinet benches and reply to questions we may want to ask

from time to time about the convention centre?

I would like

to observe as well that the local planning committee now is well

composed and is doing a good job. The local planning committee has

earned the respect and confidence of many people in Victoria. They too

— at least those who've come to me privately — want to understand

where, within the government's view of things, future direction will

come for Inner Harbour planning. For the moment, that's not entirely

clear.

There are questions as well of operating losses,

questions of the deficits that inevitably will accrue to the ledgers of

the Victoria trade and convention centre. Is the government willing to

entertain a commitment to pick up a share or a percentage of those

deficits? If so, what will that share or that percentage be? How will

that be determined, and how quickly may a decision be made on that

matter? It's of real concern to the planning committee in Victoria.

It's of real concern to people generally who look at convention centres

and observe that indirectly they are tremendously valuable, but

directly they sometimes lose money. The indirect benefits are

considerable and worthwhile. The direct problem may be of how operating

losses at this particular convention centre will be paid for. I'd

appreciate today, or in committee, an opportunity to discuss that with

the minister.

Does the minister today, or perhaps in

committee, find himself able to tell us the current estimated final

capital cost for the building? We appreciate, of course, that the

government proposes to contribute $2.5 million. That's very generous. I

don't criticize that at all. I wonder if you could tell us what the

final capital cost is now, as prepared for you by the Provincial

Capital Commission.

The lines of at least

the first drawings of the building and the restraint and the

architectural sensitivity of the first models coming forward are really

fine. They must be honoured; they must be respected. There is no point

in putting up an enormous garage for human beings with four plain walls

and presuming that we've done justice to the remarkable location made

available to us here at the Inner Harbour. No one wants that — it

wouldn't serve any good purpose. The site is extraordinary and so the

building should be. The sea access is extraordinary and should be

reflected in the design and the usability of that building. The access

to the Inner Harbour by a promenade for ordinary citizens — not

necessarily coming for a convention centre or coming for trade centre

purposes, but simply wanting access to the site — is also extraordinary

and it must be respected and honoured in the design.

There

are other remarkable aspects here that have to be understood and have

to be integrated into the final design. One of the lucky circumstances

is that this site connects

[ Page 171 ]

with

virtually every significant form of transportation, save one, to and

from Vancouver Island — and I refer of course to Swartz Bay. It has bus

access, it has seaplane access, it has direct access to the Coho and the Marguerite.

There

is one more form of access that it could incorporate, and I simply

propose it as something worth studying. I don't know if it's entirely

practical — I'm advised it is — but it would be up to the government to

conduct the feasibility studies that may make it so. Would it not be

possible to simply consider extending the E&N track down Wharf

Street for four blocks and using the convention centre at ground level

on Wharf Street as the terminus of that service? Would it not be a

marvelous thing to be able to invite tourists who come for convention

centre purposes to catch the train at their front door right there on

Wharf Street, all of four blocks from the present terminus, go across

the Johnson Street Bridge and proceed up Vancouver Island? Would it not

be a marvelous thing for all of us on the Island to be able to

encourage that direct, local and physical use of the last remaining

active rail line on the Island? Would it not be possible to at least

consider extending the E&N track from where it now ends at the foot

of Johnson Street down Wharf Street to the foot of Fort? It's all of

four blocks. I'm told that to extend the rail line itself that short

distance may cost less than 5 percent of the total final cost of the

convention centre and the related facilities. It may well be that that

5 percent could make a first-class difference. It may well be that that

5 percent, should the figure prove accurate, should the feasibility

study bear it out, could allow us to heighten and enhance the

outstanding connectedness of that really outstanding location to all of

the forms of transportation that we enjoy in downtown Victoria. It is

at the very least, I think, worth some study.

There is one

final argument that I'd like to make. The commercial enterprise values

of this convention centre are self-evident; they are not in dispute by

anyone. It is important that they be enhanced here. The commercial

worth of this site.... Its annual operating losses, which one can

predict will be in the order of $200,000 to $400,000 in the first years

— so we're informed — are worth bearing, because the final result, the

indirect asset, is much more considerable. So it is that this House

every year justifies the small operating losses of the Princess Marguerite,

because the overall benefit to the economy is enormous. So too the

small operating losses of this convention centre can be more than

justified by the overall impact of the literally millions of dollars

that will come in in convention centre activity. Those values are

self-evident and we respect them. The opportunities for retail space,

for active, small, private enterprise space down there — also serving

the interests of the people who come for convention centres — are

significant, worthy of respect and worthy of incorporation into the

final design.

There is one other aspect that should be

considered here and that is the cultural aspect of a centre that

recognizes its location on the Pacific Rim. We have here some very

special interests that we share with the people of Australia and New

Zealand, of Japan, of Mexico and the United States, and with every

other person living in this part of the continent. The pan-Pacific

opportunities have to be recognized — and they are more than just

commercial ones, they are more than just opportunities to gather, to

meet about business and trade possibilities, as important as they are.

There

are opportunities as well to invite international bodies to meet here

in Victoria — agencies of the United Nations, agencies concerned with

the Pacific Rim development, agencies concerned with planning the

political and economic strategies open to all of the Pacific Rim

nations as the twenty-first century comes closer. Here in Victoria

these too can be recognized at this site. Those aren't strictly and

ordinarily just business opportunities; they are also opportunities to

invite people from around the Pacific Rim to come here to an

outstanding location and do business that otherwise would be done

elsewhere — if we're not bright enough to attract it here in the first

place.

The specific possibilities of a Victoria convention

centre are considerable. It's not just southern Vancouver Island or the

lower part of British Columbia we should be addressing ourselves to.

It's also presented as an opportunity for and a means of inviting

people from the cultural world to come here and share what we've got.

The opportunities for festivals are considerable, and I know that it's

been frequently proposed that this centre be a home for dance

festivals, for film festivals, for ethnic organizations' festivals.

It's been frequently described as a means of bringing together under

one roof some splendid cultural and commercial enterprises.

There

is no reason why this centre shouldn't start with a major cultural

event. When it opens a year and a half or two and a half years from

now, the way in which it opens should be with a major cultural

enterprise. I think, for instance, of a musical enterprise, that being

my own interest in these things. There are many others, I know, being

discussed and debated privately in Victoria. They are well worth

consideration; they're good ideas. They would be a way, if we could

start it, to give a particularly distinct complexion to this

particularly distinct opportunity for a trade and convention centre

that no one else could have.

We would be half blind and half

bright if our thinking were restricted to commercial enterprises alone,

important as they are. The field is much broader. The international

agencies, the international interests, the cultural and ethnic

possibilities here at this site are very considerable. They're worth

debate; they're worth support; and they certainly have mine.

MR. SMITH:

I'm very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It is a bill that has

enormous and exciting importance for people who live in the area of

greater Victoria, and I'm going to try and speak to it, not just as a

member for one of the constituencies here, but as a citizen of the

capital region.

I'm also very pleased and delighted that the

two members for Victoria appear to be joining with members on this side

of the House in a bipartisan resolution to support in a positive way

the realization of this facility. I can assure them that this is much

more important than politics, and that it is not a partisan endeavour.

It is, indeed, the lifeblood of greater Victoria that there be a

commercial centre of this kind, a centre that will attract not just

major conventions but also major cultural gatherings to greater

Victoria.

I cannot, however, fail to join with the member

opposite in paying tribute to Sam Bawlf, whose brainchild this is and

who did so much to restore the beauty, the history and the vitality of

the downtown core in greater Victoria.

I also would like to

pay tribute to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

whose imaginative leadership in the field of tourism is another reason

why this bill is before this House.

[ Page 172 ]

The

formation of a foundation to ultimately operate the convention-trade

centre has taken place. It is a reasonably broadly based community

foundation known as the PanPacific Conference and Trade Society and it

has already done feasibility studies and advanced some preliminary

drawings of what this convention facility would look like. A

medium-sized convention centre is proposed on the site on Wharf Street,

which used to be known — infamously at one time — as the controversial

Reid site, and that has quite a planning history in Victoria. Thank

goodness it is now going to be used as a model showpiece for a trade

and convention and cultural gathering place, instead of, as my friend

observed, a high-rise development.

The proposal is that a

medium convention centre be built on that site, a Class C centre,

looking after approximately 1,500 participants or convention delegates.

That is similar to the size of the facility in Charlottetown and other

cities, where centres of this kind have had an enormous impact on the

local economy, and where they have been a great cultural enrichment.

can assure the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that already

there is a very strong degree of public support, and there also has

been a fair amount of vetting by locally elected bodies of that site

and this proposal. Approving this proposal are the city council of

Victoria, the regional board, and the Provincial Capital Commission,

under whose auspices, I understand, this will come.

I have

been a member of the Provincial Capital Commission as a mayor for the

past six years. That commission has been charged with the management

and overseeing of the Inner Harbour lands. So I presume it will come

under their auspices. There will be a good deal of sensitive planning

and also opportunities for input into the final design.

The

need for this centre cannot be overestimated. Greater Victoria cannot

accommodate more than a small convention of 500 people. The last large

convention that I recall attending here was a convention of the Union

of B.C. Municipalities about nine years ago. We were all stuffed into

the Esquimalt Arena. The UBCM has not tried to come back to Victoria

since.

The facilities of the Empress Hotel are excellent as

far as they go, but the Empress can only cope with a small convention.

The tourist industry here is a growing, clean industry which is

welcomed by merchants and most citizens who hope that Victoria will

remain economically vital but don't want Victoria to change radically

or rapidly.

There are many examples of the importance of a

convention centre to a British Columbia community. The best one that

comes to mind is Penticton. Their convention actually has been

important to the lifeblood of that town.

About a year ago I

had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Quebec City at the Quebec

Hilton. At that time Quebec City was undergoing an economic recession.

But because of the Hilton convention centre, which is a Class B centre,

and the major conventions that had come to town in 1977-78, the economy

of Quebec City was far healthier than it really deserved to be. The

centre buoyed up the local economy, and it had enormous side effects

and ripples in the economy of the surrounding area. I believe that will

happen in southern Vancouver Island.

Victoria is ideally located for a facility of this kind. Victoria, as you know,

was a major trade centre in North America at the time of the 1858 gold rush.

For a short period of time it was a more important port and community than San

Francisco. Victoria has a great history as a marine centre. The city and the

site are ideally sited for a convention facility. It also, of course, is the

provincial capital.

have a lot of hotel and motel accommodation in Victoria and the centre

will not require additional major accommodation facilities. We have

about 4,000 available hotel and motel rooms now in the downtown core of

Victoria. The exciting possibilities of this convention centre and

trade centre are unlimited for this community. I urge all members to

support the concept and the project. You will see before the end of

this session that it offers enormous vitality to the downtown area of

Victoria.

I take great pleasure in joining with the members opposite for Victoria in endorsing and supporting the bill.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to introduce some very important guests to our House?

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a group of very important

people from the great constituency of Central Fraser Valley. They are a

group of students from the Abbotsford Christian School, and they are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Messelink. Would the House please

welcome them?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to say too

much, but I would like to speak as an Interior member and on behalf of

the members for the northern Interior and the Kootenays. We believe

that the people we represent in all areas of the province heartily

support the development of both the Vancouver trade and convention

centre and the Victoria trade and convention centre. We know that

international cultural and economic benefits they will bring to British

Columbia. We want to support the development of this type of facility.

should take the ultimate advantage of this development and utilize it

not only in the sense that has been referred to by previous speakers,

but also to enhance other parts of the province so that the spin-off

trade will reach the interior of the province. The people in the

Interior should be made aware of the opportunities there will be for

them to take part. We should develop our own Interior centres in a

manner that is compatible with the objectives of these two centres. In

turn, they will strengthen our economy and our cultural assets and

interests.

I would suggest for consideration that this might

be accomplished through either inviting one or two representatives of

Interior people — from perhaps the north, perhaps the Kootenays and the

Okanagan — to sit on the boards of these convention centres; or that

there be established a structure that is not too large to which they

can bring input into the management and future of these centres.

Equally importantly, if not more importantly, they can take back to

other parts of the province news of what is going on. They can suggest

ideas as to how smaller communities can take

part in these activities.

They would be made aware of events that are going to take place in

these centres long before the date of public announcement so that they

can, again, plan their own tourism and their own cultural activities in

coordination with it. There is then a reverse benefit.

[ Page 173 ]

would also like to suggest, particularly to the members in this House

who will be sitting on these boards, that they remain very sensitive to

the problems of the people in the Interior when they want to take

part

in functions in some of our provincial entities. I will use the PNE as

an example, hopefully to be constructive, not critical. An exhibitor

from the Interior who wants to take

part in the PNE runs into the

difficulties of time elements, transportation elements, and problems in

trying to move their needs, their wares or their animals into that

setting. I would cite, for example, with the PNE, that bringing

livestock to that program is extremely difficult.

You must

arrive at 3 o'clock in the afternoon; you must bring one vehicle in,

deposit your animals, and take that vehicle about two miles away. There

is nowhere to live or camp on-site, and yet those animals are very

valuable. There is not sufficient safeguarding of these animals for

Interior people to really have the confidence they need to enter into

the cost of exhibiting there.

That's just a very small

example, but if you can remember that the small merchant in the

Interior who may wish to participate in a trade fair is going to have

similar problems, and if you can just be sensitive to their needs, I'm

sure there's a method that can be developed that will not make the

operation too cumbersome, but in fact can recognize the difficulties

they have in taking part.

So I would just close, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that we do support this. We are as excited, I'm

sure, in Pouce Coupe and in Kimberley as you are in Victoria. We want

to be part of this program, and I would ask that consideration be given

to an avenue of linkage to the Interior of the province so that we can

put our best foot forward.

I would just also mention the

finances, which did come up in the election, I think, very narrowly on

the part of some of the opposition members. We recognize dollars are

needed, and we know that some of the Interior communities have

developed their own convention centres. The hon. member mentioned

Penticton. We have excellent convention facilities in Vernon through a

multiple-use concept. Incidentally, I was surprised when he said that

you couldn't house the UBCM convention here, because we've been

fortunate enough to have it twice in Vernon.

We also know we

can't support these major centres around the province, but we can give

consideration to assisting in the development of other attractions in

other parts of the province which are unique to them and which will have

good reason to encourage people who are visiting these centres to spend

time in the Interior and to take

part in these activities.

would cite one example in the Okanagan and Kamloops area. We're trying

to develop a blue and white weekend ski train which goes from

Vancouver. It would stop at Kamloops for Tod, Vernon for Silver Star

and Kelowna for Big White. This is something that we're going to need

help with, and perhaps this is the type of thing that government can

give some recognition to in order, as I say, to strengthen the spin-off

effect from these two centres.

MR. HALL: In rising to

support this bill, the main reason for my own support is the effect the

project will have on, first of all, the current unemployment situation

and the current economic situation in the province. This is a

traditional economic device, pump-priming if you will, to fill a gap,

to start something off, to take into account the multiplier effect that

the expenditure of public money will have in the private sector. It's

one which we have recommended all the time we've been a party and all

the time we were a government.

May I add, as it were,

parenthetically, it perhaps points out the peculiarities of politics

and perhaps the inconsistencies of politics when on the one hand we

have the people opposite tweaking our noses when they appear to see

some inconsistencies on our part, and at the same time standing up and

asking for government involvement in the private sector the next day.

While I know it's easy to say you can’t have it both ways, politicians,

I suppose, will continue to have it both ways as long as they've got

two feet to stand on and one mouth to talk out of. It seems to me that

I should mention that in passing, before some of the new members start

to line up at the public trough for more tax moneys to be spent in the

private sectors of their own constituencies in a similar way to this. I

want to just get that on the record, so we know where we're all going.

Leaving

that to one side, let's look at what is going to happen with this bill:

the expenditure of $12.5 million matched, I'm sure, by all sorts of

money from other places. That multiplying effect is going to be very

important to the city of Vancouver, very important to the city of

Victoria, and obviously to the outlying areas in the lower mainland.

remember when I first came to this House, we frequently saw

special-fund allotments. Invariably the Premier of the day had strings

attached to those special-fund allotments and, I'm going to suggest, if

not strings then some conditions attached to this money under the

payment section. It seems to me that if you had all of these dollars

that are going to be spent. and the multiplying effect.... We're all, I

think, unanimous and united in the desire to see that full effect in

British Columbia. We don't mind, to be sure, if the ripple effect

stretches into eastern Canada or even below into the United States, but

primarily we'd like to see the effect in British Columbia.

Therefore

I'm going to suggest to the minister and to the foundations, if I

understand the words of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. Smith)

correctly, or whatever committees or whichever minister is responsible

for the issuance of the money and answering to this House, that there

be constructed in the agreements that will be signed some sort of

preference for British Columbian products, for British Columbian

companies, for British Columbian workers.

I think we should

see the bidding technique used, as is always the case in public tenders

of this kind and public expenditures of this kind. While traditionally

we've had a 5 percent preference for British Columbia, I think we

should now increase that 5 percent in view of the fact we've got all of

these unemployed people in the province and in view of the fact that

we've got the kind of difficulties we are facing. Mr. Speaker, I

believe that we should make that a much higher preference and a much

higher head-start for British Columbian products and British Columbian

workers.

My second point, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope we're

going to see fair wages, good working conditions and good corporate

citizens used in the construction of these facilities. When I first

came to this House, we had what was called the Fair Employment

Practices Act, which left it simply and singularly to the Minster of

Labour to determine whether or not a public dollar was expended through

a tender to a company and arrived in the pocket of a person

[ Page 174 ]

who

was working in fair measure compared to the kind of wages that were

paid in that district. That Act was repealed and another Act took its

place. That Act was repealed as one of the first measures of the new

Social Credit administration in 1976, and I don't know what has taken

its place in order to see that fair wages and fair conditions exist

when public moneys are expended. I want to make an urgent request of

the minister to make sure that there is a preference again for

organized working people and a preference for fair wages and fair

working conditions when these moneys are expended. In that knowledge,

and with the knowledge of a B.C. preference, then I think everybody in

this House can fully support this bill, and we can wish and hope good

luck and good fortune to this trade and convention centre.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 8, dealing with the trade and

convention centre for Vancouver and a similar, but understandably

smaller, centre for Greater Victoria. My colleague, the member for Oak

Bay-Gordon Head — my MLA, sir — touched on a number of points which

relate to the greater Victoria centre, the one which will be

constructed just a few blocks from this spot.

It may assist

you and the House to know, sir, that the responsibility for the

Vancouver trade and convention centre, of course, rests with the Deputy

Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the

lady on my right. One doesn't get an opportunity very often, Mr.

Speaker, to publicly express one's admiration for a colleague in a

particular area of activity. I do so today with respect to the Deputy

Premier, the Minister of Human Resources, for the enthusiasm and the

tenacity — the determination, if you will — with which she tackled the

Vancouver project and brought it to this point where the Minister of

Finance introduces a bill which will assist in its funding. I

congratulate her for that project.

One other lady member

spoke in the debate thus far, sir, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan). I think it's important to know that on the basis of her remarks

residents from other parts of British Columbia support the two centres,

because the capital city and Vancouver, as Canada's third-largest city,

are major arrival points for visitors to beautiful British Columbia.

The benefits which will accrue immediately to the two cities will

inevitably spread to other parts of the province. I think that the

suggestion with respect to Interior participation in the design or in

conceptual studies has merit. My responsibility, however, relates to

the Victoria centre. The member opposite who asked the question is

still in the House. On behalf of the Provincial Capital Commission, the

agency to commence work with respect to the centre in Victoria, I want

to say that those points which have been discussed on both sides of the

House have been noted and will be kept in mind.

We recognize

the need for sensitivity at that site, on Victoria's Inner Harbour. The

former minister, Sam Bawlf, to whom tribute has been paid, understood

the need for sensitivity. I intend to maintain contact with Sam Bawlf

in order that he can continue to contribute his ideas and thoughts. A

change in ministerial responsibility should not introduce an abrupt

change in the very successful activity which has taken place thus far.

The

Capital Commission rests within this ministry now, and we have had

discussions in these very few weeks which indicate that a great deal of

thought has gone into the centre for Victoria. I encourage public

participation and full cooperation with the city of Victoria, the

council, the councils of adjacent areas and the public.

Another

remark which struck a responsive cord is that there should be a strong

multicultural flavour to the Victoria centre. There should be, there

can be, and there will be. Our Premier has shown this government's

commitment to multiculturalism around the province. This is not going

to be strictly a commercial convention centre in Victoria that pays no

heed to non-profit, cultural activities which all of us, regardless of

our political affiliation, want to see in that major facility.

think that the bill is great, not only for the city of Vancouver, not

only for the capital city, but for all of the province, and I think

that we will be able to share in the success. We will be able to see

two major facilities, albeit the larger one in Vancouver, and I can

understand the reason for that, in spite of the constituency I

represent. We have something which I believe, sir, is going to be very

important in the months, years and decades ahead in this province.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I just say, in addressing my remarks to

Bill 8, that we are discussing, embodied in this bill, a very large

concept which none of us should lose sight of. It is adding a dimension

to the third largest industry in this province. A convention and trade

centre in Vancouver, and a convention centre in Victoria, will add to

the plan, if you like, to the whole travel industry in the province,

and it should not escape anyone's notice that that industry — the

travel industry and the hospitality industry — is the largest employer

in this province.

I have waited until those members who

represent the greater Victoria area and Vancouver Island have had their

say on the Victoria convention facility. May I say that there isn't any

area in British Columbia that has a greater potential than has

Vancouver Island for conventions and so on. In reference to the remarks

that have been made about the Victoria centre, may I just take

exception to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who said that

we have a seasonal tourist business in the greater Victoria area.

Mr. Speaker, we need not have a seasonal tourist business in the city

of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, in all of British Columbia. We have,

by virtue of the two facilities which are embodied in this bill, the

opportunity to make sure that in Victoria we have an opportunity to

bring people to Vancouver Island, this tremendously beautiful part of

British Columbia. We have an opportunity to bring them all through the

year. That was very much proven by this government in the past two

years when we initiated package tours on the B.C. Ferries, which were

super successful, and showed that people wanted to travel Vancouver

Island and stay at ports of call within Vancouver Island, and elsewhere

in British Columbia, all through the winter as well as summer.

would also like to say now, in addressing myself to the total province

— and I was very pleased to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) comment on other areas of the province — that the surface has

not yet been scratched on the potential for post-convention tours in

this province. The fact that they come to the centres of Victoria and

Vancouver to visit — and they come in great numbers,

[ Page 175 ]

Mr.

Speaker; 11-1/2 million people toured or travelled the province of

British Columbia last year, representing $1.6 billion to the economy of

our province — has much reference to the larger centres, but it need

not be the end of their vacation or their convention, and we have

proven that over and over. The Greater Vancouver Visitors and

Convention Bureau has proven statistically that, in the average

convention they host in the city of Vancouver, 25 percent of the

delegates leave Vancouver for other points.

I would like to

share with some of the members who are from those other areas of the

province the information that should be passed on to those areas, and

we've certainly tried to do it through our portfolio of travel

industry. But there is not yet enough done in other parts of this

province to improve the services and entice those who come to visit

Vancouver from Japan to then visit the Interior, to ski Big White and

to enjoy all the other beautiful and wonderful experiences that are

available. But those experiences are available, those opportunities are

there and they are representative of a tremendous economic thrust that

is available to all areas of the province. I'm delighted to see the

support from other areas, which has also been expressed to me on a

personal basis from all parts of this province.

I'd like to

just say today that important to us in the Vancouver centre is the

design. In the execution of that centre, we hope the kinds of things

which we envision, the kinds of translation facilities, the

sophisticated kind of centre which will have international appeal for

conventions and trade shows.... May I say in that regard that I am

extremely interested in seeing that we have the very best of British

Columbia thought and creativity expressed through an architectural

competition in this province for our Vancouver centre. I'm pleased to

recognize today — although I haven't had a personal introduction to

them, I do know they are in our gallery today — Mr. Kalkin and Mr.

Bain, members of the British Columbia Architectural Institute. In a

meeting with them later today, I will express to them my desire that

all of the people in the architectural profession have that

opportunity. Who knows what very exciting plan will come forward from,

perhaps, some unknown architect out there in British Columbia

somewhere. Surely that opportunity should be there, and I will

certainly further that within the committee that is planning the

Vancouver centre. I hope that I will have the support of the Vancouver

committee in that regard, because I do believe that we need to have

that kind of thinking and expression from the community, and

particularly from those very, very fine architects. We need not go

outside the borders of British Columbia for excellence. We have it

right here.

I would refer to the tremendous potential for

construction positions and so on in the first building years. In

addition to those 600 or 700, it has been estimated there will be up to

1,000 construction jobs in the construction time.

May I

emphasize the long-term input that this will give to the economic

health of our province. Every person who comes to British Columbia and

leaves dollars through international trade shows, international

conventions. national conventions, and so on, contributes to the

well-being of each and every one of us. None of us is isolated from the

hospitality and the travel industry; we are all hosts.

can't isolate ourselves from what this really means to us in social

services. I'm going to refer to that because no one yet has. I say to

you, as I have said to people from one end of this province to the

other: this government's commitment to making sure that the economy of

the province is viable and healthy is for the greater commitment we

have as members of the Legislature, as government in this province, to

the social good of the people of British Columbia. The dollars that

have come in from the travel industry, through the conventions which

will go through these two centres, through the hospitality industry,

through the trade shows, through the tremendous health of the tourist

industry, that third-largest industry in this province, have accrued to

the benefit of the people of British Columbia through the dollars which

have been realized by the government through that industry.

When

one looks at the Ministry of Health it's incredible to think that in

just three and a half years we have doubled the amount through the

kinds of dollars that have come from the travel industry and through

the great economic thrust of this government, in hospitals alone from

1976, when there was an expenditure of $380 million, to $650 million

today — almost double. When one looks back on an expenditure in 1976 of

$700 million, one must realize that more than $1.2 billion is now spent

on health — $10 million a week on human resources, almost $25 million a

week on health.

The travel industry which this bill supports

brought in, in 1978, just last year, $1.6 billion to the province. I'm

sure in this gallery today there are visitors from other parts of the

world. Through these galleries and through these halls we have people

from other parts of British Columbia, too. They leave their dollars in

Victoria, in Nanaimo, in Vancouver. Through their expenditure on their

travel plans, their hospitality industry, all have assisted. In health

alone $1.2 billion has been spent. The travel industry brought $1.6

billion to our economy last year.

When we talk about the

industry of the province, it must be said that by our collective

thoughts in the economy of the province, by our collective motivation

in making sure of creating jobs and a way of life and opportunity for

every individual, all of us, no matter on which side of the House, no

matter on which side of the political spectrum, contribute so that we

can provide for those in need. The travel industry in this particular

bill pays tribute to providing for those who cannot help themselves.

The

Vancouver centre is more than a convention centre. Our province is

today on the threshold of a truly great opportunity for economic

development. As one of the Pacific Rim countries, and situated as we

are, and as is this trade and convention centre, we are essential parts

of the modern industrial revolution of the Pacific Rim. All that

incredible opportunity is going to accrue to us, but we have to be

prepared to be competitive in that marketplace. Unfortunately, across

Canada the only place in this country where a proper trade show can be

hosted — and I say "proper" with tongue in cheek — is at the CNE in

eastern Canada. There is really no other area in all our country that

will properly host trade shows and offer competitiveness in the

industrial world. This Vancouver centre pays tribute to that.

would like to share with you the fact that in the United States there

are approximately 100 of the top international shows that require an

exhibit hall of at least 100 million net square feet on an annual

basis. Every year these shows attract in excess of 30 million potential

buyers. In comparison, our record, Mr. Speaker, has been a dismal one

in Canada. With fully 25 percent of our GNP, as

[ Page 176 ]

opposed

to the U.S. 5 percent figure, derived through export trade, only

Toronto with its CNE space has the kind of property and the kind of

facility to offer trade shows and this kind of trade expertise. We want

this bringing together of the buyer and the seller so that we will have

the benefit and the realization of that trade and become Canada's

international showplace on the Pacific Rim. Only Toronto at this point

in time has an adequate facility. When this convention and trade centre

is finished, Mr. Speaker, it will give us a trade and convention centre

of incredibly great world proportions which will be honoured and

revered not only by the people of British Columbia but, as we are a

trading nation, by all of Canada. It will be definitely our window to

the world.

I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the

people who have been involved in the planning.... Let me pay tribute to

the members of the Vancouver city council and to the people who were

involved in the federal administration. This is not just a

one-government idea. It has been an ideal and an idea which has been

brought to fruition by three levels of government, which represents a

very remarkable kind of cooperation.

May I say too that in

looking at that centre and what it will do, not just in the immediate

job-making from the construction area but in the ongoing jobs which it

will bring to the province of British Columbia, we see in this bill

today the kind of planning and the kind of cooperation between

governments and between the community which will result in a very fine

facility, of which all of us can be proud.

I am very pleased

to see this day. It is a happy day for Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. It is a

happy day for British Columbia and for our nation. This is an extremely

excellent bill which will pay tribute to the economic development of

our whole nation, to our commitment to trade in the Pacific Rim and to

our province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: I am

going to be fairly brief. I support the bill. The Interior of British

Columbia provides much of the revenue for the power sources and so on

that feed the rest of the province of British Columbia. As such, we

undergo much of the disruption in our communities that is required to

shoulder the large projects that are undertaken.

I refer

specifically to Hydro projects and the dislocation that flows from

those kinds of projects. Nevertheless, I don't believe in being

parochial or too provincial. I believe that anything that is good in

general terms for the overall province should be supported by all areas

of the province provided there is adequate regard to the interests of

all of the people of British Columbia, not only those who reside in the

lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the dissertation

by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) about the

wonderful things that are happening in tourism. I just want to read

into the record some of the conflict with the stated objectives of the

minister which I am experiencing in my particular area of this

province, and which fly completely in the face of this government's

stated objective of attracting tourists and providing them with

facilities in the province of British Columbia.

We have a number of public campgrounds in the Columbia River area north of

Revelstoke at Mica Dam that are maintained by the B.C. Forest Service. They

accommodate visitors that come in from Alberta and indeed many other areas of

the world, as well as our own residents of British Columbia, for their fishing

excursions up into the reservoir behind Mica Dam.

Mr.

Speaker, those campgrounds have been closed up until this point, and

the response given by the regional forest manager in Nelson when he was

approached on this matter was that the government had not provided

adequate funds to staff the recreational grounds and to ensure that

there was a custodian for the clean-up of those campgrounds. The

consequences were that there were as many of 40 campers and

recreational vehicles lined up on the highway, obliged to dump their

refuse in public areas and, of course, contributing immensely to the

hazard of forest fires in that area.

Now, I'm going to have

more to say under this under the estimates of the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), but whether it's the Ministry of Forests or any

other ministry of government that provides facilities for tourism,

obviously there has to be a relationship and there should be one

policy. And that policy should not be to provide millions of dollars

for trade and convention centres in Vancouver and Victoria while

starving the Interior of the province of the most mundane kind of

facility, such as a campground. That is a conflict, Mr. Speaker, I am

not prepared to stand for and support, and it's one that the people of

British Columbia do not support.

I'm not going to read them

into the record now, but I have a large number of letters complaining.

Tourists came into Revelstoke, drove 86 miles to Mica Creek

anticipating that the campground would be there to facilitate their

fishing expedition — there was no notice that the campground was closed

because the Minister of Forests would not accord the appropriation to

staff it — and after arriving up there after an 86-mile drive, found

that the facility was closed and that they had to turn around and drive

86 miles back.

I have many letters from the Calgary area,

Mr. Speaker, and if there is anything that is designed to discourage

tourism and impair the image of British Columbia and the facilities

that we afford for tourists, that is the kind of conduct that will

achieve it. So I suggest that the Minister of Human Resources talk to

her colleagues, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance,

and get their act together. Either we are interested in accommodating

tourists on all fronts throughout the province or we are not.

The

other point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is while I certainly believe

that all British Columbians benefit from a facility in Vancouver and

Victoria, that can only be supported by Interior people if we feel that

we are getting fair treatment up there as well. When the city of

Revelstoke was unable to obtain a $400,000 grant toward our community

complex until it was propitious to do it during the course of an

election campaign, then it kind of jades my support and my enthusiasm

for this kind of multimillion dollar expenditure in the lower mainland.

That is not consistent; that is political manipulation for political

considerations.

I hope the government cleans up its act. I

hope they have proper regard for all of the interior and northern

communities and ensure that there are playing fields and park sites and

recreational facilities that are maintained, open and accessible to the

public. I hope they don't cut back on their budget so that they can't

even afford a staff person to act as the custodian of these public

facilities while at the same time expending millions of dollars for

trade and

[ Page 177 ]

convention

centres just because that happens to be where the votes are. That is

inconsistent, Mr. Speaker. In my view that kind of policy is most

hypocritical, but I support the concept and approach of the bill and I

trust that the government will have some regard to the observations I

have put forward.

MS. SANFORD: I was listening with

interest to the comments from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and

would like to point out that it's not just in his area alone in which

the problems that he referred to with respect to facilities for

tourists are in fact a problem. The convention centre on Vancouver

Island will undoubtedly bring more tourists to Vancouver Island, as the

Minister of Human Resources pointed out. The people who come to

convention centres often make trips beyond the actual site of the

convention centre. But I would ask the government and the Minister of

Finance to take into account the remarks made by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke and to take note also that on Vancouver Island,

north of Victoria, there is a great need. We have experienced the same

problems in the constituency of Comox and in the constituency of North

Island, where....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I

interrupt just long enough to remind you that the former speaker used

the absence of a certain facility in his area as an example of why the

money should be distributed in other areas. I don't think that we can

go into a wide debate on recreation facilities under this bill.

MS. SANFORD:

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to briefly point out that

because the convention centre is here, and because we will be expecting

more tourists on Vancouver Island as a result of the convention centre,

many people who attend the convention centre will want to make trips up

to Port Hardy to take the Prince Rupert ferry. There is not one

government campsite in the whole north Island.

The Premier

has just been up to Port Hardy in order to open up the new facility for

the docking of the Queen of Prince Rupert. With the completion of the

highway, we can anticipate that tourists who attend the convention

centre will want to travel north. There is not one provincial campsite

up in that area, and that's something that must be taken into account.

The Forest Service, as well, has had to close down facilities that were

available to tourists before.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I was

interested in the comments by the members, particularly the very

positive comments by my colleague, the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is the recognized

promoter of tourism in western Canada.

I've come to the

conclusion, having heard her today, that she is in favour of tourists.

I think it's all been said here this morning. We're all for tourism and

the many benefits which are derived from it. These two centres are very

necessary, probably overdue, and it's fortunate that we have the

surplus funds available to put this money up front to expedite the

completion of these two necessary projects. I'm very happy to move

second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 8 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

Bill

8, Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, this Act will set up a fund of $25 million from the

1978-79 revenue surplus to be used toward construction of a lower

mainland stadium. This stadium will be used for professional and

amateur sports activities and events.

Such a stadium fits

within the government's policies of encouragement of sports and

provision of tourist facilities. The stadium will be used not only by

British Columbians, but will attract out-of-province competitors and

spectators. This will act as an incentive for improvement of all sports

activities and events.

Hon. members should note that the

fund is to be used only after satisfactory financial arrangements are

made to cover the total cost of the stadium. I believe all members of

the House will wish to support this bill. I move second reading.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HALL:

In rising to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we

again support the government's attempts to assist in the stimulation of

the economy of the province, to assist in making Vancouver one of the

places that has a major and superb stadium. I should say the lower

mainland, perhaps, rather than the city of Vancouver, because I am not

entirely certain that the location has been finalized. This party lends

its support to the idea that when things are a little tight the

government should take some aggressive action in stimulating the

economy — a traditional method which has been undertaken by previous

Social Credit administrations, and by the previous New Democratic Party

administration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to

exercise his prerogative when he signs those agreements, to make sure

that there is preference for British Columbian products, for British

Columbian working people, for British Columbian companies, to make

certain that that multiplying effect stays at home to do the greatest

good.

I also want to say in passing that I hope that when

the professional and private enterprises that use the stadium — as I

hope, indeed, they will; and I hope to be there as a spectator from

time to time — enter the agreement to pay an economic rent, we don't

see some of the mistakes of the past visited upon this stadium and that

the professional groups do, in fact, pay their way.

[ Page 178 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the major reason for my earnest support of this legislation is

the effect it is going to have on the construction trades in the

Vancouver area. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is, I am

sure, aware, as is the Minister of Finance, being a Vancouver MLA, that

at the end of last month there were 6,600 unemployed construction

workers in the organized construction locals in the Vancouver area.

That doesn't include the locals situated outside the Vancouver area,

such as the New Westminster carpenters and others. And I can give you

the figures of plumbers, of tunnel and rock workers, of carpenters, of

electrical workers, of glaziers, of bricklayers, of painters, and so on.

MR. BRUMMET: Send them north.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member opposite talking about sending them up

north. You know, one of the reasons the people don't often go up north

is that sometimes the contractors up north won't pay decent wages.

Interjections.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that one of the reasons for part of the

problem is that there are not the kinds of wages and working conditions

available with some of the smaller companies. That is what I was

referring to earlier on, about when the Socred government did away with

the legislation entitled Fair Employment Practices Act, and this

government did away with the subsequent legislation. There appears to

be little reason to have confidence that the public money is going to

be spent, and protected, in terms of making sure that the recipients do

enjoy fair working conditions and fair wages. That is the point I am

trying to make — that we should make sure that in the expenditure of

public money that is carried out.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Flip-flop.

MR. HALL: I don't know where the member got the flip-flop idea from at all.

supporting this bill, I want to make sure that you understand that this

group is not endorsing the commonly understood location of the stadium,

namely the PNE site.

I want to make it abundantly clear that

until a number of things happen, we will not endorse that location. The

traffic nightmare there is well-known. The destruction of the

neighbourhood around the PNE is well-known. Until there is some

honest-to-goodness planning, some organized attempt by the participants

of this project in terms of light-rail rapid transit, there is no way

that that site should be considered, no way whatsoever. I think that's

been said by the proponents of the scheme, and I welcome the fact

they've acknowledged that is indeed a major problem in the area. I know

there is a certain light-heartedness and a certain casual approach to

dismissing some of these complaints with the enthusiasm that is being

mounted by the proponents of this scheme. I admire that enthusiasm but

there is a tendency to overlook some of these problems. We're going to

make sure that everybody pays their fair shot at this thing, including

those who are going to get a great deal of advantage from it. To simply

say, without any recourse to intelligent planning and intelligent

studies, that it should be at one place is not serving the best

interests of the people of the area.

No doubt there will

have to be a stadium, and we support the concept. There is no doubt

that time has left Vancouver at the end of the table in terms of

comparing facilities in the major cities of Canada. More important than

anything else, Mr. Speaker, the economic impetus that the expenditure

of this money will give to a city which is unfortunately undergoing

major unemployment problems, particularly in the construction industry,

must be supported. We supported the previous bills, and therefore this

group on this side of the House will support Bill 9, the Lower Mainland

Stadium Fund Act.

MR. ROGERS: Not only am I in favour

of this, but I see the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

is here, and I want you to know that the last time I went to a football

game at Empire Stadium, that member was participating on what I believe

eventually turned out to be the team that won the Grey Cup.

Second,

it's interesting that the amount is $25 million. I am prodded to remind

the House that $25 million was the total cost of construction of the

Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The Astrodome is covered, air-conditioned

and usable for all types of sports.

There's no question that

what we're doing here is making this money available for a lower

mainland facility. But I want to speak against locating this particular

facility at the Pacific National Exhibition. I think that it's high

time we addressed the fact that the PNE is in a residential

neighbourhood. It is not in the mainstream of transit. It is certainly

not in the mainstream of facilities for parking and restaurants. It is

a $25 cab ride from the hotels in downtown Vancouver. The downtown

facilities are underutilized in the evening, which is when a stadium is

primarily used.

Everyone has said nice things about Sam

Bawlf today, and I want to say that he made points about building a

stadium in downtown Vancouver. There is land available. A land swap

between the city and Marathon Realty would be required but there is

land available, and it is the ideal place to build it. Almost every

major bus route in Vancouver loops through the downtown core: Dunbar,

Fourth Avenue, Granville Street, Victoria Drive, Hastings. They all

come through downtown, so the transit core, at least in terms of

busses, is already there. There are some 37,000 parking stalls in

downtown Vancouver which aren't used in the evening.

addition there are restaurants, hotels and we heard about the proposed

convention centre. What happens when people come to Vancouver for a

convention? Suppose the pipe and valve people are having a workshop one

night, but also the New York Yankees are playing against the Vancouver

whatever-they-might-be-called in a baseball game. I think a few people

might slip away from the workshop and catch the ball game. I know I

would.

I want to tell you why I don't think we should build

the stadium at the PNE. I want you to follow this imaginary evening in

1982. It's a Monday night and many people are home watching Howard

Cosell and Frank Gifford call the football game, but nonetheless the

PNE facilities are being strained to their absolute limit. Under the

proposal to build the multiplex in the PNE, the forum would still be in

place. With the forum in place, and it being a Monday night, there

would be the wrestling crowd there. The wrestling crowd

[ Page 179 ]

has

nothing to do in relation to any other group. If it's a wrestling

night, it wouldn't matter if it was someone's wedding night; he'd

cancel the wedding and go to wrestling. That's the loyalty of the

wrestling fans.

In the Agrodome on this same Monday night,

there is a totally different group. There is a rock concert, and the

kind of people who go to rock concerts don't necessarily go to

wrestling. The Agrodome is filled to capacity, and the security people

are having all the trouble that they naturally have with rock groups.

Coincidentally,

at the Coliseum the Vancouver Canucks are playing against the Montreal

Canadians; every seat is taken because they want to watch Montreal,

which by 1982 will probably still have the Stanley Cup championship

team.

Just the other day we passed

an Act about the

reduction of the pari-mutual tax. Naturally there's a better quality of

horse running at the track. Being a Monday night, necessarily the

horses are running. The people who go to rock concerts aren't the

people who go to the races or wrestling or, for that matter, to hockey

games. So let's assume the track's full.

If in the midst of

all this, and all those facilities are supposed to be left in place, we

add a multiplex, the multiplex has agricultural display areas,

industrial display areas, and sporting display areas. So what happens?

The world's forklift manufacturers are now in convention in Vancouver,

and they have the industrial area full of forklifts. It's totally

stimulating. Nonetheless, there'll be a lot of people out there.

The

member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) isn't in the chair, but he'd

appreciate the fact that maybe the Holstein cattle breeders are over in

the agricultural side. They aren't the people who go to wrestling; they

aren't the people who go to rock concerts; they aren't the people who

go to the track; they may not be the people who go to the hockey game;

but they're also going to be there.

The old Empire Stadium

is still there, and in September 1982 we are due for a Jehovah Witness

convention, so that's full to the door with 16,000 or 17,000 people. If

on top of that there's something going on like the B.C. Lions against

the Calgary Stampeders, there is going to be one unbelievable jam so

that nobody can go to any of the things that take place in the PNE,

because the facilities are strained beyond limits.

There is no need to concentrate every single function in the same area; there's absolutely no need whatsoever.

this horrendous Monday night in 1982 when this nightmare is taking

place, I've added just one other thing. It seldom happens in Vancouver,

but it could, and that is that at 8 o'clock it could rain. If you put

all those things together — it does happen; they do join together — you

know what kind of a nightmare we're facing. ICBC would have a field

day. It is so critically important that we locate this stadium where

people can get to it without having to take their cars. In order to do

that, we should be locating it in downtown Vancouver. It is viable.

have the feeling that several people involved in the PNE are interested

in building what amounts to a monument to the people who are involved

in building this thing. We should be practical: it should be plain; it

should be simple; it should be functional; and it should be covered.

MR. BARNES:

I'm just going to make a few brief comments about this legislation. It

has to do with a facility that over the years has been the means by

which I've made my livelihood, as the member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Rogers) pointed out. However, I must associate myself more closely with

the remarks by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who outlined

some of the problems with the proposed lower mainland stadium in terms

of the impact it could have on the PNE site, if that is one being

seriously considered. Certainly the government should stipulate the

conditions under which these funds will be made available.

my discussions with residents in the East End of Vancouver, I find they

are concerned about the traffic impact this project could have on the

community, particularly the problems with respect to transportation,

the possibility of homes being demolished, people being encouraged to

sell out for more and more development in the area in order for

speculators to get in on the potential spill-off from such a large

facility in that area.

There are many dangers to a

carelessly put together complex. The public should be involved. There

should be serious attempts to involve local interest in the planning

stages, to give guarantees that would virtually be irrevocable in terms

of protecting the existing community. I would say that the government

has a duty, while at the same time it's responding to a request to

recognize this need for a better facility, a more flexible facility.

Just as we recognize the need for a trade and convention centre, a city

of this size should obviously have a good sports facility such as the

one being contemplated.

But with progress comes considerable

problems, no matter what the scheme may be. I know the athletes will be

happy. I know the sports organizations — soccer and football and other

professional organizations and amateur organizations as well — will be

very pleased to see themselves come into the modern day with a facility

that will rank with other major centres throughout North America, and

for this I'm pleased.

It could be exciting. But in order for

it to endure over the years and not to have serious repercussions, not

to burden the taxpayer with further costs, debts that have been

carelessly conceived, there is every need to go slowly and to be above

board and not to let this project develop in the backrooms among people

who may have ulterior motives in mind, who may be playing politics with

the public purse by indicating that the private sector will bear the

burden; that the various ventures will be self-sustaining; when in fact

knowing full well that once the public purse is committed we find, as

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was suggesting, that they're

asking for concessions in terms of leases, in terms of forgiveness of

debts, and so forth. We're sort of caught in a situation where we've

got to keep the thing afloat, but we're being blackmailed in terms of

the private sector not assuming its responsibilities, the imagination

not being there, the guarantees not being there. So there are many

dangers in putting up a facility of this immensity, even though it

appears to be a tremendous boon to industry, to the building and allied

trades in terms of employment on a temporary basis. It would appear to

have a stimulating effect on the professional sports.

would just conclude with the idea that with the first move the

government makes, its first stipulation should be go to the public.

Let's make this thing a truly public venture. Let's do what you've said

you wanted to do with

[ Page 180 ]

BCRIC;

that is, involve people in the real decision-making on something that

will have a real impact on their lives. Let's talk about what could

happen if the guarantees were not there, such as communities suddenly

eroded, inundated by large influxes of speculators, and problems of

automobiles, lack of parking, and so forth, and having perhaps a

seasonal momentum being created that's on and off, which makes the

community rather unstable. The kind of effect would be disturbing for

established communities, particularly in the East End.

For

those members of the Legislature who perhaps haven't visited that area,

there are many long-standing communities and very beautiful homes right

around the Pacific National Exhibition grounds. I don't see how that

could be really a serious proposed site. But I'm a little bit

concerned. We may find that that site is being quietly supported

because obviously when if you're going to have a venture, you want to

be where the action is. You may do what the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Rogers) suggested: go down, maybe around the False Creek

area, get where the core of the spill off of the bus system, et cetera,

is.

I'm not even too sure about that. On the one hand, we

want it to be a success, but unless we have a strategy that will

protect the existing milieu, because the stability of that community is

concerned right now and investments have already been made by many

small businesses. I think we'll find that the effect of bringing in

large facilities like the convention centre and the proposed stadium

could be devastating. It would, in fact, just mean that greater power

goes into the larger capital holdings. This is inevitable. There is

every reason to be cautious. Obviously the public can't support the

private sector in every respect although we recognize you need the seed

money to get things started. But once they're started, there are all

kinds of Catch-22s, and the public invariably ends up being paid by

some indirect suggestion that this is good for business. But what

happens if the returns aren't there.

So let me make just one

other comment. I wasn't here on the debate dealing with the convention

centre, but I would say this on behalf of tourism: that those

entrepreneurs who hold hotels and have investments in the existing

tourist facilities in the downtown area, the West End and so forth have

every reason to be concerned about the prospects of a convention

centre, because while it may sound like a good idea, if we're not

careful we could be blackmailed into giving out to the private sector....

all know what should happen, but what would happen, for instance, if we

found ourselves unable to foot the bill and a private investor were to

say: "Fine, I'll put the convention centre up and the private sector

will be totally responsible, provided we get a permit to put up, say,

about a 50-story hotel right down the middle of it." I think that would

be a negative effect in terms of the existing accommodation.

I'm

saying let's go slow, let's find out exactly how the thing will come

down in five or ten years and what the public's commitment will be. We

don't want to have another Columbia River on our hands or the kind of

situation we have with B.C. Hydro where the public is paying out and

paying out and paying out, Mr. Chairman, with no hope of ever getting

out of debt.

The PNE has many problems that we don't want to

repeat. With respect to Mr. Swangard and others who have promoted this

new facility, I hope that there will be a serious impact study done

with respect to what could happen in any part of the lower mainland. I

don't see this being an overnight venture that everyone is saying we've

got to do really fast without involving the public, because I think

that would turn out to be a cost — a sort of a white elephant — that

the public would be faced with for many, many years to come.

MR. PASSARELL:

I'm a little concerned about the money that's being allocated for a

lower mainland stadium fund. Looking at it from the perspective of

where I live and looking at the youth of the area and what they have in

the facilities of sports....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

That's right — if we find some place flat enough, and that's where the

problem lies. Five of the six schools in the Stikine School District do

not have playing fields; there is not even a place to take the children

outside of the schools and play kickball or soccer or football. I've

gone through this for three years as a principal of the school and, as

my hon. colleague for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) knows, when you

sit down with the superintendent and you start saying that you want

something built on to a school or you want to help a small community,

they always come back to you and say: "Well, there is not enough

money." When I see $25 million being allocated for a football stadium

in the lower mainland or whatever it's going to serve, I would like to

see some of this money allocated for the youth of the north, so they

might have the opportunity one day, Mr. Speaker, to be able to become

active in sports.

I always find it interesting how this

facade comes back: "Oh, we don't have enough money for this, we don't

have enough money for that," especially when it comes to youth. I

think the youth of the north, the youth where I live, have suffered

long enough, and I would like to see some of this money allocated for

the youth.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Very often

the children don't even have the chance to play hockey up there, even

though the weather sometimes gets to be 60 or 70 below and the lakes

freeze up pretty well, but then you're dealing with three or four of

five feet of snow on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member,

out of respect for the fact that you're new in the House — and several

other members are new — I have delayed interrupting your speech.

However, we are in second reading of this bill on the stadium, and it's

straying somewhat from it when we're getting into the weather in Atlin,

and unrelated sports facilities. So could you direct your comments to

second reading of the bill?

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I respect that.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member was making a case....

[ Page 181 ]

MR. KEMPF: How do you know? Did you write his speech?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the member is making a case for the distribution of funds,

and that is that he indicated the $25 million was a large sum of money

for the downtown area while he felt that people were being neglected.

That was really the case he was making.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I appreciate your point of order, and I also appreciate that the member

for Atlin takes my remarks as they're intended, but if we are to allow

for the debate in this House to go wide-ranging, we can draw an analogy

that compares another debate with virtually anything in this House if

we choose to do so. We'd like to try and keep it within the realms of

order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker.

One

of the reasons why I'm talking on this is that I'm going to propose an

amendment on this bill at the proper time. I was interested when I

heard the previous speaker, or the Deputy Speaker, talk about watching

Monday Night Football on television. I wonder how many of my

constituents have ever had the chance to watch television, if there was

television, and then to be able to watch a sporting event.

I'm

totally against the allocation of $25 million for a football stadium on

the mainland without giving some help to the residents of the north to

be able to put in some type of a playing field of some sort. I think

the youth have suffered long enough on this and I'd like some

consideration to be given to the youth to be able to become active in

sports sometime and not give the entire sum of money to the mainland.

MRS. DAILLY:

I certainly endorse the point which my colleague from Atlin was making

and, I know, will make later on when he produces his amendment.

Basically, of course, the point is the priorities which the Social

Credit government seems to place on the needs of children versus the

needs of sports fans.

So once again we're placed in a

dilemma in voting for this bill, because we know that the sports fans

of this province are in great numbers and they certainly would welcome,

and they need a stadium. But at the same time, surely a government

which can place $25 million into this fund should be able to give

consideration to the needs of children in areas such as Atlin. But we

will speak on that further, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Set your priorities and vote against it.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, we have set our priorities in the past and our record

speaks. When the member who is interjecting sat on this side of the

House, he faced, I know, the same dilemma. We have to put the needs of

people first, and at the same time we have to be able, as members of

the opposition, to propose constructive objections. I think this is

what opposition is all about.

I just want to say that I

endorse the concerns expressed to the Minister of Finance by some of my

fellow members on this side of the House. I do hope that before you

hand over one cent of these public moneys for a stadium in the lower

mainland, you do not do so unless you have assurance that proper expert

studies have been made on the locale of this stadium.

Now

the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) as member for Vancouver South, made a

very good argument and proposal for the centre going in not at the PNE

but in another part of downtown Vancouver. He did an excellent job; but

the dilemma we face is that we also hear people who advocate the PNE

doing an excellent job. I have heard people from my own riding

suggesting that Burnaby would perhaps be an excellent place for it. And

we are not the ones to make that decision.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What

I want to find out, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Minister of Finance is

going to assure that not one cent goes to this stadium unless there

have been proper studies done by some committee, whether it be made up

of Greater Vancouver Regional District mayors or whatever. I'm just

asking for a commitment from him.

I'm particularly concerned

because, as you know, I represent the area of Burnaby North, in which,

if they should happen to decide to pick the site of the PNE, we already

have practically every bit of feeder traffic going from the Second

Narrows Bridge, from Cassiar and Hastings, from the Fraser Valley — you

name it. They use the residential areas of my riding in Burnaby North.

Also, the people of Vancouver East are going to face increased traffic

congestion. So I have a responsibility as the member for that area to

ask the minister not to move on this until a proper site is picked, one

which will ensure that the residents of the areas involved are not

going to be inundated with more traffic.

Mr. Speaker, I know

that the Minister of Finance is now ready to close the debate on this.

I do hope he'll make some comments and give us some assurance that his

money will not be handed over before those studies are properly handled.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have only two or three words. It strikes me that no

matter where the site will be, we have to be assured by the government

that there will be transit service to that particular area. This

government has been notorious in its three and a half years in

neglecting transit entirely, or almost entirely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame!

MR. COCKE:

"Shame!" the Provincial Secretary says. I would like him to come to New

Westminster, Coquitlam, Delta or Surrey and see the cutbacks in transit

in those areas. "Shame!" he says. What kind of shame? Shame on the

government. That has absolutely no mind when it comes to human needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure that this is just a passing remark.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister, and those responsible in

that government, will be taking a very good look at transit services to

wherever the

[ Page 182 ]

site

might be, because without that, chaos is created on the streets, the

highways and the byways of Burnaby North, Little Mountain, or wherever

they decide to place that stadium. Heaven help us if we have something

more monumental than we have now at the PNE. I defy anybody to try to

get from a

section of Vancouver to the east end of North Vancouver

during the course of horse racing, hockey, football or whatever. It's

just impossible, and I just hope that that's part of the consideration.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I want the House to know, in moving second reading and closing the

debate, that it's not true I've requested a seat on the 50-yard line. I

had one in the previous stadium, the Empire Stadium. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, I recollect the opening of Empire Stadium in 1954. I

witnessed the Bannister-Landy race, the famous race which later became

the subject of a trophy outside the stadium. Incidentally, last summer

I attended about four days of the Empire Games in the new stadium in

Edmonton, which is really a beautiful facility. I've some notion that

this could be a very worthwhile stadium.

Twice or three

times the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), has mentioned the

desirable aspects of entering into this arrangement in terms of

preference for B.C. products. I don't think he has the existing policy

quite straight. It is 10 percent preference as far as the government is

concerned. We have made this very clearly known to Crown corporations

and others. This has been the stated provincial policy on preference.

The member referred to our present policy as being 5 percent and

recommended that it should be 10 percent. He doesn't seem to be aware

of the policy.

I appreciate the recommendations and concerns

of members in terms of the location of this facility. I think it's

clear that we have indicated in the bill that it's for the lower

mainland. It's going to require input from local authorities, local

government and regional districts before any decision is made. Those

bodies will be making the recommendations. So those decisions or any

fixed notions of where it should be have certainly not been arrived at.

It's very definitely clear in the bill that this is to be defined as

simply for the lower mainland. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy

to move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 9 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

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

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, the words that the minister had to say

in the closing of second reading will come back to haunt him when we

get to his estimates.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman,

section 4 reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

make regulations and may by regulation define a word or expression used

in this Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's in a lot of other statutes.

MR. LEA:

Is it? I haven't noticed those exact words in other statutes. How would

the minister explain this section? Give me an example of how you would

define a word or expression.

AN HON. MEMBER: From black to white?

MR. LEA: Do you change black to white? Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps these remarks could be made through the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: One might choose by regulation to describe the word "surplus" as being the excess of revenue over expenditures.

MR. LEA: Does the minister know? Have you had this kind of definition in other legislation you have brought in?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Hewitt

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 18

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was not standing in his place when the division

was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The observation of the Chair was that he was standing.

[ Page 183 ]

MR. HOWARD: It could be clarified, I'm sure, by asking the member for Esquimalt if he was in his seat when the vote was called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there was some question, we'll have to take the vote again.

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 18

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

James

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, at the moment of my not voting earlier, I didn't

appreciate that the rules required me to vote. I was sitting in my seat

not voting on the first round because I thought it was a rather silly

procedure.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, notwithstanding your remarks, standing

orders require that every member who is in the chamber must vote on a

division.

MR. HOWARD: Those who are well versed in the rules knew that; that's why they voted.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order.

MR. HOWARD: It's still a stupid procedure.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

VANCOUVER AND VICTORIA TRADE

AND CONVENTION CENTRES FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

8, Vancouver and Victoria Trade and Convention Centres Fund Act,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Curtis filed answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon.

Mr. McClelland filed audited financial statement of the Medical

Services Plan of British Columbia for the fiscal year ended March 31,

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p. m.

[ Page

184 ]

APPENDIX

13 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following

question:

What

is the total number of persons employed in each of the following: the

Public Service, the B.C. Systems Corporation, the B.C. Buildings

Corporation, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"Public Service–

Established positions

32,906

Temporary

8,219

Total

41,125

B.C. Systems Corporation –– Established positions

B.C. Ferry Corporation –– Established positions

2,260

B.C. Buildings Corporation –– Established positions

1,244"

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada