[ Page 2243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications estimates.

On vote 102.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2243

Mr. Barber –– 2247

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2250

Mr. Macdonald –– 2251

Mr. Cocke –– 2252

Mr. Mussallem –– 2255

Mr. Barnes –– 2257

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2261

Mr. Skelly –– 2262

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2263

Mr. Lloyd –– 2263

Mr. Skelly –– 2265

Mr. King –– 2266

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 102: minister's office, $134,140 -

continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, it's very hard to define the difference between our side of the House and that side of the House when you come to this minister; it's so vast.

I'm going to talk for a little bit about energy, because you've got your member down there from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , or the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , who comes on I'd like to address my talk a little bit to him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Through the chair.

If there was ever a case where a government was giving lavishly to the international multi-corporations, it's under this vote. Do you know how the people of B.C. are paying for it? The member for Skeena will tell you. They're paying it at the gas pump. They're paying for it when they buy home-heating oil. They're paying for it when little gas station dealers, who are independent businessmen, are driven out of business by the big multi-national corporations.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, British Columbia has never seen the extent to which it has befriended the international oil companies as it has in the last year and a half. I'm just going to give a little bit of that story. I think it will be very clear that the international oil companies have done everything to this Legislature in the last year and a half except refine it.

Some of the international oil companies are as big as some of the small countries of the world. Exxon Corporation had sales in 1974 - I took some of these figures down because they're absolutely staggering -$45 billion! Its assets were $31 billion! Its sales were greater than the gross national product of most of the countries of the world. One international corporation which, through Imperial Oil, is the major producer and refiner and marketing agency in Canada, is 70 per cent controlled by Exxon. The profits of Imperial Oil, Mr. Chairman

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you are soon going to show how this relates to the administrative responsibility of this minister.

MR. MACDONALD: Very soon, Mr. Chairman, because there you have the Minister of Transportation and Energy who has raised the price of crude oil to the producers, which has meant increased prices of home-heating oil and gasoline to the consumers of B.C., feeding the lavish profits of the international oil industry, and at the same time has actually reduced - while the prices are going up - the royalties payable by the international companies in the province of B.C. If you think that isn't relevant to this vote, Mr. Chairman I'm sure you do. It is the very relevant difference between this party on this side of the House and that party over there. We are suffering the ravages of the international oil companies here in Canada.

It all started out when, rather incredibly - and the minister whose estimates that are up agrees with this statement - Premier Bennett, away back on May 6,1976, went down to Ottawa. After an energy conference, he came back and said: "Surely we should be at least $10 a barrel. The price of a barrel of oil should be at least $10. That's a $2 raise in the cost to the producers of crude oil." These are premier Bennett's words - and you have to ask yourself, when he makes this kind of a statement: whose side is he on? He says the price we pay to our oil industry in Canada, which is an international industry dominated by the international multi-national corporations, should rise. Premier Bennett comes back as though he were working for them and not for the Canadian people and says that that price should rise to the international price of about $13.

Now we've seen the amount that's paid to the producing oil companies for a barrel of crude oil go up in a period of four or five years now from What was it about four years ago? Three dollars a barrel. It's now $9.75 a barrel. You have the Social Credit coalition on the other side of the House saying that's not enough, it should go up to the Arab price of $13 a barrel. Old oil, new oil - it doesn't make any difference.

The profit figures are well known for the international oil companies. I'll mention Imperial particularly because I mentioned it before. Those profit figures net after taxes have been going up by these sums in the last few years: 1972 for Imperial Oil - $157 million; 1973 - $228 million; 1974 -$290 million; 1975 - $250 million. They're going up while other people are restrained presumably by some considerations for inflation. Not the profits of the international oil companies.

The profits of the parent company, Exxon, come to net income after taxes

[ Page 2244 ]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Saskatchewan has had the courage to stand up in terms of the international potash industry, which is peanuts compared to the oil companies, to which you've been genuflecting ever since you became a government.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): They just raised the price to the oil companies the other day - the NDP in Saskatchewan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: No, Mr. Chairman, pull the Premier to order. He's got to make up his mind whether he's attacking a socialist government in Saskatchewan for imposing royalties that have taxed the business out of existence and nationalizing them, or whether he thinks they're a give-away government, as he's got here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the profits of Exxon Corporation, which, as I say, controls Imperial Oil 70 per cent, in the year 1975 were $3.1 billion in net profit. Yet you have a Minister of Energy who says, "That's not enough. You've got to increase the producer prices to oil companies."

They have their subsidiaries producing. Their producing section is one of the biggest sections of their business, and he's saying, in other words, that we will not be able to get by with energy supplies unless we make it even richer for the international oil companies. He's saying that what's good for Exxon is good for the Canadian people. Everybody who has the sense to think about it knows that's not true, because Exxon Corporation and Imperial Oil have not been plowing back into Canada the amount they have been making in profits in terms of new investment, in exploration and drilling.

The minister may say that at the present time in B.C. there's a fairly good drilling and exploration programme. It doesn't take into account the profits that the companies are making at the refining and marketing level. The House should consider that what the international oil industry is putting back into B.C. is long-term investment on which they will reap returns for many years to come. In the case of Imperial Oil, their investment back into Canada in 1975 was no higher than it was in 1972, notwithstanding the increase in profits to the extent that I mentioned.

Now mind you, they've had some deductibles from their profits. They've had to make political contributions. Those political contributions were not exposed in Canada, but they were exposed before a Senate committee meeting of the United States Senate. In the case of Imperial Oil, they had been giving on the average of $254,000 a year to political parties in Canada, including the Social Credit Party. Well, I'll sit down if the Premier gets up and is willing to deny that he's ever received any money in the Social Credit Party from Imperial Oil.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. MACDONALD: No, you shook your head.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. MACDONALD: You shook your head. Do you know the Senate testimony?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier does not dare get up and deny that an international oil company is fueling the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. MACDONALD: He can't deny it. The testimony is there in front of the Senate committee of the United States. You can't tell me that there isn't a relationship between the increased prices this government has given the producers of old oil in the Peace River country in the last year since they became government and the reduction of royalties for those companies and campaign contributions. Of course there's a relationship. And when I said.... Well, I won't repeat. I said something about what they've done to this Legislature. I was going to repeat it, but I won't, Mr. Chairman. You're looking at me as if I shouldn't repeat that.

Here's another example. I'm just going to speak for a few minutes of how the international companies, which are bigger and more powerful than most of the countries of the world.... Sales from the one big Exxon Corporation were $45 billion, which is higher than the gross national product of all but the 20 largest countries in the world. To that kind of superpower, that kind of foreign power, the Canadian people have been bowing down to the extent that people like Walter Gordon, who is not a socialist but believes in Canada, say this: "Former Finance

[ Page 2245 ]

minister Walter Gordon brought his message of Canadian economic nationalism here Wednesday night, calling on Ottawa to take over foreign oil companies." Yet there is no part of Canada today where those companies are not being treated with a more lavish handout than they here in the province of British Columbia.

Now I mentioned the specific example of what the Social Credit coalition has done for the producing companies which are subsidiaries of the international oil industry. They're not Canadian companies. In the Peace River area in a year and a half they have done two things. The coalition Social Credit government has gone to Ottawa asking for the Arab price. They've supported the $2 increase and you've given that to the producing companies around Fort St. John who have long had their oil wells paid for. Your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , Mr. Premier, isn't being quite as generous with the people whom he deals with or the less fortunate . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Kindly address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: ... as you have been with these oil companies. You gave them a $2 increase in the price per barrel - it's now up to $9.75 - and then, as if that were not enough, on old oil where the wells have been paid for long ago, the pipeline is in now and there's no new investment, you come along and reduce the royalty payment from 46.8 per cent, I think it was, to 40.7 per cent, a reduction in the royalty on old oil in the Fort St. John area.

I've worked out the extent of that particular giveaway, Mr. Chairman - exactly what, in a single year, has been given away in additional profits to an industry that was getting by under the royalties imposed by the NDP and where we had the incentive grant of 75 cents per barrel of crude oil. What the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has done to improve the lot in life of those oil companies by the two things, increasing the price -it's only $2 now, but he says it should go further -and reducing the royalty from 46.9 per cent to 40.4 per cent, to be precise.... The combined effect of those two factors has given the companies an additional $19 million net per year in terms of the increased price and in terms of the fact that the royalty has been reduced another $7 million a year. So those few companies, as a result of the great benevolence and the good-heartedness of the Social Credit coalition, in a year and a half are now making another $26 million a year out of the oil fields around Fort St. John with no assurance whatsoever that the money will be spent in the province of British Columbia over the future. That's a giveaway; that is a giveaway however you cut it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is chattering as if this didn't matter. Will the Premier get up and explain why they would increase the field price of oil to that extent?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor at the present time. Please continue.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give one little example of how Exxon Corporation treats the Canadian people. In 1975 there was a case before the supreme court in Nova Scotia. The judge found, and I'm quoting here from The Province:

"Imperial Oil have legally avoided Canadian taxes and socked up the price of its products to consumers. How did they do that? During the three-week hearing the lawyers dug into Imperial's relations with its parent company, Exxon Corporation of New York with other Exxon subsidiaries. The case documented how Imperial used a token Bermudian company, Albury Company Limited, to buy Venezuela crude oil from another Exxon subsidiary, Creole Petroleum Corporation, and then re-sell it at a profit to Imperial. Albury Company, which was wholly owned by Imperial, skimmed off $35 million in profits during a five-year period."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I still do not see how this relates to the administrative duties of the minister in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, let me explain that the minister is dealing with Imperial Oil, with Gulf Oil and with Shell. He is increasing the prices and the profits of these particular companies, and increasing the price of home heating oil and gasoline to the Canadian consumer. He is not bringing back into the public treasury the additional profits, and that is relevant to this vote, Mr. Chairman.

One of the companies which is operating very heavily in British Columbia is Imperial Oil. Everyone who watches the hockey broadcasts says it's a great Canadian company. It's going to roll up its sleeves and develop the north and the Arctic. It isn't a Canadian company at all! It's a branch of the international oil industry. One of the most sensible things the Canadian government could do would be to bring Imperial Oil under public ownership, so that it would have one public enterprise vehicle with which to begin to restore some economic independence to Canada and to make sure that the profits of the industry went back into exploration and development in Canada.

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're discussing something that would certainly require legislation, and we're discussing the administrative duties of the Minister of Energy.

MR. MACDONALD: It requires more than legislation, Mr. Chairman. It would require a little backbone, a little philosophy, a little vision and a little respect for the independence and the welfare of the Canadian people.

I was mentioning how Imperial Oil used this company as a filler company to skim off $35 million between the time the oil left Venezuela....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: We did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: Certainly we did. We were not the ones who increased the price to the producers around Fort St. John. We were not the ones who reduced the royalty. It was the Social Credit coalition that did that.

Under the arrangement with Albury, title to the crude oil was passed over to Imperial at the Tropic of Cancer, thus avoiding any problems with either Canadian or Venezuelan tax authorities. During the years when Albury was making profits of between $6 million and $8.5 million a year, its expenses were running in the range of $100,000 a year to $ 150,000 a year. That's a good business, isn't it, Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) ? What were the expenses of this little dummy company they set off to siphon off the profits between the time the oil left Venezuela and it reached Canada?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Profits? We're paying for it. We've been paying it through the export subsidy. We've been levelling the price right across Canada, and B.C. consumers are paying for it. In the meantime, Imperial Oil sets up a little dummy company with very few employees - $ 100,000 a year is all that they spend - and they make $35 million over a five-year period. They skim that off, and that's very funny to the Social Credit coalition over there. They have no respect at all for what's happening to the Canadian consumer, or the extent to which we're being exploited by an outside power which, as I said, is more powerful than most of the countries in the world today.

Nobody cares about that on that side of the House, and that, Mr. Chairman, is the fundamental difference between this party and the party over there. In the time we were in government, we protected and expanded exploration and drilling in the province of B.C. If the minister wants to rebut that, let him give the actual figures....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No. We did it by the incentive grant.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we raised them - within reason. Certainly we did. (Laughter.) Of course we raised producer prices, but we did it with the incentive grant.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And the minister says this in The Vancouver Sun of February 2 1:

"If we followed the right trade policy, if we hadn't taxed away all, or nearly all, of the so-called windfall profits of the oil companies ......

We "taxed them away" - after the profit figures I've just revealed? Well, they're well known. We didn't tax away the windfall profits of the oil companies. The profits have increased astronomically in the last four or five years; but that's what the minister said. Whom was he speaking to at the time? It was a meeting of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, where maybe they didn't know enough to check up the minister on these statements. Then he goes on to say: " . . . and required them to plow all this money back into exploration and development."

We should have, but you're not doing it now. You've increased the profits to the producers of the old oil in the Peace River area by $26 million a year, and you are not requiring that that money be reinvested. No, you're not. The old incentive grant remains the same. It's still there - 75 cents - and I'm glad that the minister's kept that much there. But when you increased the price and reduced the royalty to those companies, you should have increased the incentive grant, the amount of paper by which they could not receive their cash unless they reinvested it in British Columbia. That's the very thing you have not done, and you were misleading those poor people of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce.

What the minister's saying, in effect, Mr. Chairman, is what the oil companies want to hear -the song they want to hear. "What's good for Exxon will be good for you. Trust us."

Yet it's not possible for Canada to protect its independence, its consumers and its public revenues if we just say we're going to trust the international companies. We're going to make them richer than they've ever been before; we're not going to use

[ Page 2247 ]

planning and conservation and public measures to promote and expand that industry. We're going to throw the dollars at the international companies and hope they won't all stick to the ceiling and that it will all come out right.

Of course, there are big energy problems. We have to assure future supplies; we've got to rationalize transportation. But you can't do it by simply throwing money at international companies that have absolutely no respect for either the Canadian consumer or the Canadian economy or Canadian sovereignty. It's time that we undertook a little bit of planning and conservation through the Energy Commission, as was begun in British Columbia in the NDP years.

So specifically I say to the minister that your t policy, which is very frankly expressed, of charging the consumer the Arab price.... The replacement price, eh? Make the people of B.C. pay the replacement price, the $13 in the Arctic, $12 in the tar sands - or the Arab price - and hope for the best, hope that these international companies will be kind to the Canadian economy. It won't work. It's not the social democratic answer. We're proud of the kind of answer we can provide to this problem in planning and conservation and industrial expansion, not to throw the money away in that way as the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications did. "Point it in the right direction, " he says, What's the right direction? Up! Just as he's put the ferry rates up, he doesn't care if the consumer is hit. He thinks that's great dogmatic economics: if you put the prices of the oil companies' product up high enough, somehow it will be good for all of us.

Well, that's where we part company, Mr. Chairman, and that's the kind of decision I don't suppose can be settled in this committee. I suppose it will have to be settled out among the people of British Columbia, because we think the minister has pointed in a totally wrong direction.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I want to talk about the minister and his responsibilities' in British Columbia for the ferry system. I want to talk about B.C. Ferries and what they've done to it. I want to talk about the threat presently posed that the Sidney to Anacortes run may be lost by the summer of 1978. 1 want to talk about three proposals which we think the government should consider, especially in relation to the operations of the B.C. Steamship Company, to begin in a competitive way, in a free-enterprise way, to make a few bucks, bring in a few more tourists and improve a few more services in the transport field in British Columbia.

This minister is responsible for turning B.C. Ferries into a boring and homely little service that no one likes. It has all the charm of an occasional barge service, and no one likes that either. This party in the last election, at least in my riding, campaigned on a promise of improving the B.C. ferry system, making it more efficient, improving the morale of the service and the facilities. They've turned it into an occasional barge service that lacks any kind of charm or fun or good spirit. The people on board have made that known over and over again.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Sure, that's right. Music has a place on those ferries. Art and entertainment - they used to be there and they're not there any more.

I have a question, among others, for the minister. I wonder if he could tell us if he has, as of this week, he total number of employees who have been laid off or terminated from the B.C. ferry system. Originally it was to be 400. 1 would like to know what it is now. We're aware that it's gone up recently. Not a great deal of noise was made about it, and I wonder if the minister could at some time in this evening's debate tell us how many people have been laid off from the B.C. ferry system.

I'd like secondly to talk about what the Washington state ferry system has been doing, what the B.C. Ferry Corporation and what the B.C. Steamship Corporation could be doing in effective competition with them to develop ferry service and to bring in a few more tourists on the coast. I've spent some time talking with people in the Department of Highways, which is responsible in Washington state for the Washington state ferry system. I spent a couple of hours on the phone this afternoon, talking with two people who are most involved in making some plans of a very exciting and visionary nature for the restoration and the development of good ferry service in that state. They're doing some things that apparently our government has yet to have the wit or the imagination to consider for themselves. They're doing some things which if our government does not respond with similar wit and imagination, will see the loss of an important ferry service to Vancouver Island. I'm referring to the Sidney-Anacortes run, potentially as early as the summer of 1978, according to what I was told this afternoon. We see by the example of the Washington state ferry system where that wit and imagination has a role and where its leadership has a vision. They're doing some things there in a publicly-owned system that apparently our people seem unwilling or incapable of thinking of.

At the moment the Washington state ferry system is in negotiation with the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, in particular with Mr. Webber, their regional manager in Vancouver, to obtain the Sunshine Coast Queen. If they do obtain this, Mr. Chairman, they intend to make two round-trips daily, with one stop at Friday Harbour. Because of the

[ Page 2248 ]

Jones Act, they are not permitted to simply go between two American ports because it would be technically a foreign bottom upon which they are sailing. It would remain a Canadian flag ship. They're proposing to lease it. They hope to have word on that within two days.

To my knowledge, from what I learned this afternoon, this minister has yet to make any serious inquiry or response or commitment whatever to examining the implications of this particular purchase, should they obtain it, to the Sidney-Anacortes system, which is one of the important services that is available to the people of Vancouver Island. It's one of the important assets in the tourist system. It's one of the responsibilities of the minister to be aware of the competition, Mr. Chairman, and to determine how best to deal with it and how, when appropriate, perhaps to compliment it.

They've put in a bid for the Sunshine Coast Queen. They hope to know in a couple of days. There is evidently one other serious competitor and Crown assets expects to tell them shortly.

That particular system is, at the moment, served by the Evergreen State, which has a capacity of 100 cars. On the 26th of this month, it will be served by the Kalateen, which has a capacity of 160 cars. If they are unable to obtain the Sunshine Coast Queen, it is possible that, failing all else, they will abandon that run altogether by the summer of 1978. That is one of the serious options being considered by them, as I was informed today by their own Highways department responsible for the Washington ferry system. They are considering abandoning that service altogether and, from their point of view, maintaining an auto-ferry passenger service among the American islands of the Gulf Islands only. There would no longer be a Sidney run. The earliest at which that would happen would be the summer of 1978. They inform us that we would be given some 3 to 12 months warning if that should happen. They expect that it's more likely the 12 than the 3.

If they should get the Sunshine Coast Queen, it's presently rated at 200 cars, which is 40 better than the Kalateen, which has the highest capacity. We'll see on Vancouver Island, hopefully, because that service occasionally has overloads during the summer, a larger capacity and a better service. We'll see more tourists and a lot more support for the tourist industry coming on to Vancouver Island.

Washington State Ferries, though, is an example, I think, Mr. Chairman, as it was made very clear to me, of what happens in a public enterprise when you've got people with some daring, when you've got people with some drive, when you've got people who are interested in delivering to the people something better than a system with all of the charm of an occasional barge service. They're considering some remarkable things. I point these out, Mi. Chairman, in order to draw them to the attention of the minister and ask him to consider them as well.

This is a system which in it presently has seven boats over the age of 40 years. They have more than seven, but seven are over 40 years old. One of those has a wooden hull. It's a very backward system. They need a lot of capital investment and in their state they're prepared to make the capital investment necessary in order to bring it into the 20th and take it into the 2 1st century.

One of the things that they're considering, which seems to be most interesting and which will be determined by their toll-bridge authority at a meeting on April 19 of this year, is whether or not it's possible, abandoning the Sidney-Anacortes run, to develop a hydrofoil system. They've discovered, Mr. Chairman, what this government apparently has not - that there are economics and efficiencies in a hydrofoil service or a jetfoil service which are of significant value and significant worth and which should be considered, and which those people are most seriously considering.

According to the information I've received today, Washington State Ferries is seriously considering obtaining a 300-passenger new-model Boeing jetfoil which would possibly be used on a regular commuter run from Seattle to one stop in the islands, to Victoria, back to the islands and back to Seattle again. They think they can make money; they think they can run a service that their people need; they think they can bring that service into the 21st century; they think they can do it, and they're a public enterprise.

If it's possible in Washington state for those people to consider that kind of option, if it's likely that as part of the option we're going to lose the Anacortes-Sidney run, then I wonder what the response of this minister and that Ferry Corporation will be, Mr. Chairman. If they're permitted to see that particular run go down the tube, if they're not interested themselves in competing or seeing B.C. Steamship compete on that run because it's an important asset to the tourist industry of British Columbia, which is the chief justification for setting up B.C. Steamship in the first place via the Princess Marguerite, thereby guaranteeing that asset to the tourist economy of Vancouver Island, then what are they willing to do? Are they willing, believing in free enterprise, as we know they do, to enter some kind of friendly competition with Washington State Ferries to see who can bring the most tourists to Vancouver Island? That would be the kind of competition that we'd be really happy with. I have a letter here from Mr. Gallagher that indicates they're not willing. I'll be reading that into the record in a moment. I'd like to hear why they're not willing.

Washington State Ferries, at the meeting of its

[ Page 2249 ]

toll-bridge authority on April 19 of this year, expects to be making some profound decisions about a number of important new transportation plans in that state. They're a public enterprise and they're experimenting with some remarkable new forms. I think it's tremendously impressive. I would like to hear, Mr. Chairman, this minister come forward with equally rigorous, equally well-researched and equally exciting plans for new transportation.

Let me repeat: they have an old fleet. They don't have anything like the modern equipment we do throughout their system. They have seven boats over the age of 40 years, one of them with a wooden hull. They've got a long way to come. They have some problems too. They're overcoming those problems in a very exciting way, by employing some very novel thoughts and some very original thinking. I think we have something to learn from them.

I want to know what the minister will do if he should lose the Sidney-Anacortes run. I'd like to know what the minister's thinking is about the possibility of a jetfoil in reserve, in competition, because apparently they think they can make a go of it - Victoria, the islands, Seattle - because we need those tourist dollars. I'd like to know how it is they think they can make a go of it, and apparently our government thinks they can't, or at least thinks we can't. There's a remarkable challenge being posed by the Washington State ferry system to our own. I hope we learn from it. I hope we're up to the challenge, and I hope we beat them. That would be a pretty effective combination.

I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by making three specific proposals to the minister. It seems to me very likely that the B.C. Steamship Company would be the most appropriate instrument available to us to consider this. I'd like to know whether or not the minister will consider, through the B.C. Steamship Company, through some other vessel of smaller capacity and of substantial efficiency, to enter the Victoria-Port Angeles run. It has been argued, Mr. Chairman, that the Marguerite is not an efficient vessel - because of turnaround, because of crewing and because of fuel - for effective competition on the Victoria-Port Angeles ' run.

As you know, during the first year of its public ownership an experiment was undertaken to put the Marguerite on that run to Port Angeles in the afternoon. I want to know whether or not the minister has given any thought whatever to employing any other ship on that run because it is fairly clear from the information we've received that it is potentially a money-maker; that it most certainly will bring more tourists to Victoria; and that it could complement very nicely the role of the B.C. Steamship Company in guaranteeing parts of the tourist economy of Vancouver Island.

I'd like to read into the record a letter which Mr. Gallagher, general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, wrote on February 22 of this year. It was in regard to a letter that was originally written about the Langdale Queen. Paragraph three of this letter says:

"I think it reasonable that additional auto capacity on the Victoria-Port Angeles run and on the Sidney -Anacortes run should be provided by private-sector operators without subsidy."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It's right here. I'm sure Mr. Gallagher has a copy of it. It's dated February 22 of this year.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether or not that represents the minister's opinion. I want to know whether or not the minister is doing anything at all to encourage private operators to enter those runs, if that's the philosophy of the government. If so, who are those operators and when will they be entering? If he's not, does the minister not consider that it is possible for the B.C. Steamship Company to enter those runs - Victoria-Port Angeles, Sidney-Anacortes - to bring in some more tourists; to bring in those dollars; to act in a most complementary way to the present role of the Marguerite; and to do something for the economy that this Island badly needs having done for it?

I want to know whether or not the minister endorses the position taken by Mr. Gallagher that only private operators should do it. If so, which private operators are coming forward to do it?

The third proposal that I should like to make -the first being the Port Angeles run; the second being the competition on the Anacortes run - concerns whether or not the minister has given any consideration to any other model apart from that which was tested this last fall on the Victoria to Seattle run. Again, my information today is that a new model - which I am sure the minister is familiar with - with a different seating configuration and, they claim, greater economies, is now being considered by Washington State Ferries for a Seattle-American islands-Victoria commuter run. They think they can make a go of it. They think the base is there. They know they have access to the capital. No doubt the minister will talk about different levels of crewing. He might even talk about the international exchange rate. All the same, I'd like to know whether or not the minister has given it any serious consideration at all.

If one other public enterprise can consider it -Washington State Ferries - and think they can make a buck off us, surely a free-enterprise government might be interested in doing the same in return. If the B.C. Steamship Company is the appropriate

[ Page 2250 ]

instrument, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship Company has considered anything else apart from the solitary experiment carried on this last fall which appears at the moment not to be leading to a Victoria-S cattle and return hydrofoil run.

So those are my three suggestions, Mr. Chairman. The question about the ferries and reduced staffing was the first which I asked - and I will be asking others later. My second point concerned the arguments about what's happening on the Anacortes run and the questions about what the response, if any, of the minister has been to the possibility that we might be losing that 100 to 160 car capacity, bringing all of those tourists to Vancouver Island, if the Sidney-Anacortes run should be dropped by Washington State Ferries. Third was the possibility, Mr. Chairman, of entertaining three proposals: competition on the Port Angeles run; competition on the Anacortes run; and the consideration of a hydrofoil service between here and Seattle, or perhaps even between here and Vancouver, through the B.C. Steamship Company. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on these suggestions.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Victoria asked several questions. Perhaps I can answer them now.

He asks how many employees were actually laid off by B.C. Ferries. Between 170 and 180 were actually laid off. There were others who retired because of completing their full service with the ferries. A few transferred to other jobs in the government service, but layoffs, as such, were less than 180.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't right now. I simply have the layoff figure, which is the one you requested.

Washington State Ferries is interesting for many reasons, and certainly it can be used as a yardstick for B.C. Ferries. Speaking first to the quality of Washington State Ferries' fleet, overwhelmingly it's old. A large number of vessels operated by Washington State Ferries are ancient. Our fleet, especially after we've disposed of the Langdale Queen and the Sunshine Coast Queen, will be 1960 or later. The bulk of our capacity is within the last decade.

We have a modern fleet. We have a fleet that's really unrivalled around the world in terms of being modem and built for the service which it's supplying. So our ferries are new, and being new, of course, they cost more in terms of capital dollars. In other words, the Washington state ferry system is old, written off. Its replacement will be very expensive.

Generally speaking, our rates are higher on the long runs. They really only have one long run, the Anacortes run, which is a low run and you might even call it a subsidized run in their system. Their short runs are more expensive than our short runs. Our crossings, for example, to Saltspring Island, and so on.... The rates are much lower from Swartz Bay to Saltspring Island than comparable crossings in the Washington state ferry system.

But averaging it out, they cam a return that's comparable to ours per car per passenger. The Washington state ferry system is quite different from our own in one respect. It also receives a fraction of a cent a gallon on all gasoline sold in Washington state so that it doesn't get all of its revenue from tolls and some food. It gets it also from the gasoline tax.

Washington State Ferries face a real problem now. It has to modernize; it has to build now vessels. For example, it's looking at the old Sunshine Coast Queen, which we're endeavouring to dispose of, because new vessels cost many times the vessels they're using now. Recently, they put out for tender three 100-car ferries. The best bid was over $50 million - that's $18 million per ferry.

We bought one of them that carry 400 cars, as the hon. member knows, for $18 million: the Coquitlam, the Cowichan and the Alberni. So Washington State Ferries suddenly faces a financial problem of a very different order of magnitude than even that experienced by us in the last 10 years. We're in better shape. We're modern; we've got new equipment. We've got enough equipment to last three or four years without necessarily having to buy any more vessels.

We're in good shape relative to them. They're going to have to raise their rates or raise their gasoline tax. They're going to have to do something - perhaps abandon the Anacortes run, for example - unless they use the old Sunshine Coast Queen, our cast-off on their run.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, right.

The hon. member mentioned the jetfoil. The jetfoil is certainly modern, but our costing indicates that per passenger - I'm not talking about automobiles, I'm talking about passengers - we would have to get $20 from Vancouver to Victoria to make it break even with our present subsidy. In other words, with our present one-third subsidy we'd still have to raise two-thirds, and that two-thirds would cost roughly $20 per passenger - close to what Airwest charges, close to what Air Canada charges.

So it's a first-class service. It's a beautiful ride; it's a great vessel. But it's not the kind of basic transport the people of British Columbia - those of limited income - can get, and do receive on our ferries. So

[ Page 2251 ]

the jetfoil may be the first-class kind of water transport for people of the future, but it's certainly not the bread-and-butter kind of transport that we should have.

I think it's the kind of transport that perhaps the tourist who's prepared to spend $20 each way from Seattle to Victoria, for example, would appreciate. I'm not quite sure that that's a role for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which should provide a basic highway for people of British Columbia rather than for the tourists.

MR. BARBER: Speaking of the B.C. Steamships....

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes. Well, on the B.C. Steamship issue, as the hon. member knows, the Marguerite not only ran Seattle to Victoria, but also Victoria to Port Angeles - between 12 noon and 4 p.m. But the workload on the employee was just too great. It wasn't making schedules. It was caught for speeding, trying to make up time and so on. So that was relaxed and we only do the Victoria-Seattle run.

It's a good investment. It may cost the taxpayer of British Columbia $1 million a year, but it brings $7 million or $8 million worth of income into the greater Victoria area each year. So I think it's a reasonable investment.

Another vessel, if it were of the character of the Queen of Surrey, of course.... There's really an $18 million investment, compared to a $2 million investment in the Marguerite. So the economics would be very different, and surely the tourist - the American who was going to use it - would have to pay that price. It shouldn't be subsidized by British Columbians. So I doubt very much whether it's in the interests of the taxpayer of British Columbia to have the Queen of Surrey, for example, on a run between Victoria and some other ports in the United States, and carrying almost entirely U.S. passengers.

In closing, I'd just like to make one quick reference to the remarks of the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . You know, one of our real problems in this province is that we could be self-sufficient in gas. We could be in good shape in terms of gas supplies. We aren't at the moment, and we aren't basically because drilling dropped off sharply. Nevertheless, as a sort of a death-bed repentance, the former government dramatically increased the field price for gas and for crude oil late in 1975 in order to do what others had been doing across the country - in order to get drilling going again.

Subsequently, and beginning with the election of this present government, drilling really did pick up. There is really nothing new in this. The Saskatchewan government, which is an NDP government, raised the prices and, along with Alberta, has for several years now been urging that we move rapidly to the world price. The United Kingdom, with a socialist government, wants every nickel they can get for North Sea oil, not only for export but also for domestic consumption. Clearly many jurisdictions, socialist and otherwise, have been recognizing that they are going to have to pay more for oil, especially in areas where oil costs more to find.

But I do want to make one point very clear. There is a lock-in arrangement, and it was introduced by the previous government. Profits made on old oil in this province, in order to be maximized, are locked into the province and are being recalculated. They are not being taken out of the province; they are being spent on more exploration and development. That government started it and it has been continued.

Incidentally, prices on crude oil now being paid in the Peace River district were prices recommended by commissioners all appointed by the previous government, including Dr. Andy Thompson. They recommended the present field prices for crude oil in the Peace River district of British Columbia.

So I think the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is actually criticizing Dr. Thompson and commissioners he appointed or helped appoint for that price.

MR. MACDONALD: There is one thing that I'm glad the minister and I agree on, and that is that the incentive bonus that the NDP introduced was a good thing. For natural gas we said: "All right, you need another 15 cents. Provided you invest 20 cents of the total price - good." On the old oil it was 75 cents.

But the point I made is that when the present government increased the prices very substantially.... It's true that in natural gas we went from 20 cents to 35 cents with this locked-in provision for the incentive grant, but, by gosh, you went to 65 cents right away. You didn't increase the incentive portion of that; it's still just 15 cents for 20 cents. It's the same with old oil. You've given them another $2. 1 defy you to say that Dr. Thompson recommended that they should both have a royalty reduction and also get the price increase of $2; 1 don't think so.

The government is not even content now with the present price for the producers. In all their speeches they say it's not enough. What a shame; we're not giving our producers as much as the Arabs are getting. So if you go that line, have no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, you're talking about gasoline that is already close to $1 in the northern towns. You're talking about that kind of an imposition on the consumers of British Columbia and Canada.

Sure, our incentive grants were a good thing. But you've not built on that by increasing the incentive grant portion; you've just simply thrown the money away. As I say, $26 million a year for the producers

[ Page 2252 ]

around Fort St. John for the old oil. That's the difference between this party and the party across there.

[Mr. Schroder in the chair. ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Just one point. The hon. first member for Vancouver East mentioned the new and much higher price, for example, of natural gas. He realizes, of course, that now the oil companies have to pay their income tax out of the higher price, whereas formerly they didn't. So a good part of that increase - 20 or 25 cents - is income tax equivalent. So that has to be taken out of his inflated figure.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think if you work it out it's not.... That's where you have to go from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and Mr. Stowe. How much did we owe under that tax arrangement with Ottawa? It started way up at $44 million. When you were trying to say how broke we were, it was $44 million, wasn't it?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We still haven't found out. Ottawa hasn't told us.

MR. MACDONALD: Then it came down to $33 million in one of the budget speeches. Now it's down to $29 million or something, I think.

When you work that out and apply it to gas production in cubic feet, I think you'll find it's not anything like 20 or 25 cents.

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's probably more!

MR. MACDONALD: No, it's not more. I think it's only about 9 or 10 cents. I think you've sold the store.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications certainly knows his ferries.

He does appear to know a great deal about the ferries system and can compare it with other jurisdictions, and certainly comes up with a credible performance. The one thing that he lacks is obviously the ability to intercede with the Premier or whoever gave the direction for those inordinately high rates that we pay for ferry travel in this province.

You can talk about saving the economy by charging on a user-pay with a slight subsidy situation, but, Mr. Chairman, the whole economy of Vancouver Island suffered, as it would predictably suffer. Had they gone a year at a time with a marginal increase for two, three or four years, they could possibly have got away with it. Instead of that, Mr. Chairman -brinkmanship again - they tried to solve all the problems of the world in one fell swoop. But what they finally did was create a bigger problem for the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island than could otherwise have been envisaged.

So, Mr. Chairman, when you ride the ferries these days the morale is not good. I don't think that the minister would recognize that because he's way up in the sky above the ferry system, flying back and forth. I ride the ferries quite often and to the extent that I do, I think I should have seen the minister at some time or another.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I get on the 6:30 a.m. ferry; what do you do?

MR. COCKE: The minister gets on the 6:30 a.m. ferry. The only trouble is the crew never see him. I purposefully asked the crew: "How often have you seen him?" I found one guy who saw him one time.

And the Premier, who comes floating in here on the wings of a jet at about quarter to one every Monday morning, shouldn't talk about anybody coming in at noon. He knows full well that I don't come in here at those kinds of hours.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm here every Sunday night. You're wrong again.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I'm wrong again. Isn't it interesting that that's not the case. Hasn't been the case since you started doing all your skiing, Mr. Premier, and there's no reason why you shouldn't do a lot of skiing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now back to vote 102.

MR. COCKE: You know, it may be one thing that you do well, because you're certainly running this province into the ground. Hopefully you don't run into the kind of snags in skiing that you do in government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Vote 102.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, am I off this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you're off the vote, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Do you know what disturbed me? You'll notice that I dropped the bottom button off my vest and so it just kind of put me off.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't have quite the reason that the Minister of Consumer Services or Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) has.

[ Page 2253 ]

Mr. Chairman, there are a great number of areas which the Minister of Energy is responsible for. One thing I would like to see the Minister of Energy do is stand up and fight the oil companies with respect to t their direction in their own retail outlets and the other retail outlets - that is the independents - in the province of British Columbia. So far we've seen no leadership of government. We saw a timid approach last year. We saw a bill - an amendment to the Energy Act - introduced, and we saw it die on the order paper. Now, Mr. Chairman, that was a bill s which a great many people were cheering about.

Those people were the Automotive Retailers' Association and the service station operators in British Columbia. They were saying: "Hosanna! Maybe there's some hope for us in this province." Mr. Chairman, nothing came of that bill, as you recall. It died on the order paper.

It would seem to me that this government is having great difficulty putting forward legislation. It comes out of the legislative council offices, goes to the minister, goes from there to caucus, it's rejected by caucus, and then it's back to the legislative council office. So it goes. Obviously there's a great deal of trouble in there because the legislation isn't coming forward. We were told there was going to be 100 bills put forward in this session of the Legislature. What have we seen to date? Nothing. Twenty-eight. Just another bill to pay - that's what we've seen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's great with us, Mr. Chairman. You can tell the Premier that I said that. It's fine, as far as we're concerned. We're at the pleasure of the people.

This government, however, isn't at the pleasure of the people. This government is running interference for those large oil companies which have no loyalty, none whatsoever. Their only loyalty is to their own jurisdiction, which is an international jurisdiction.

The Premier mutters but does nothing about it. The Minister of Energy has his hands tied by that Premier; his hands are tied by the one who is so obviously enamored with what he calls "free enterprise." Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you've ever thought of free enterprise when you think in terms of Exxon. Have you ever thought of free enterprise when you think in terms of Royal Dutch Shell, Gulf Oil, British Petroleum, Texaco, Mobil Oil and Standard Oil of California? It would almost seem, because there are half a dozen oil companies in the world, that they would compete with one another and we, as a result, would benefit from that competition. Compete? Have you ever seen any evidence of competition between these oil companies? Not on your life! They share some hotel room in Bermuda or Nassau or someplace and make all their deals.

They're so strong, Mr. Chairman, that even the President of the United States quivers every time they flick the ashes off their cigars. That, Mr. Chairman, is he situation that we're faced with here.

This government here could have done some protecting of the consumer and of the service station operators. They could have done something if they had enacted the bill that they put forward last year. We would have had a much healthier business at the present time. Instead of that, another 55 service stations went down the drain. And why? The champions of free enterprise over there.... After all, that's what these people are - free enterprisers, entrepreneurs! I saw their signs during the last election. They're not going to have signs in your constituency next election, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) .

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they'll have signs.

MR. COCKE: They'll have signs: "For Let."

No, Mr. Chairman, they made a mistake because, you see, they thought that when those people, and that is the present government, were talking about free enterprise they were talking about the little free enterprisers. But that's not what these people meant at all. You backbenchers, you Munchkins, should understand that. You're standing for the wrong people. You're not standing for a government that is interested in small enterprise. We were the people who created a good, viable business community. I asked a free enterpriser today, who owns a large car firm out there in Dewdney: "Mr. Free Enterpriser, I bet you did better in the three years that we were government than you had ever done before and that you will ever do again until we're back in power." He didn't deny it, Mr. Chairman. How could he? It's such an obvious fact.

What has this government done to free enterprise? Their problem is that they look at free enterprise and they think of Exxon, they think of Imperial Oil. They think of all the great big giant monopolies who can look after themselves. They don't think about the little people and they never have. They never will. They don't have that kind of consciousness.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman. Exxon, with a total revenue in 1976 of $52.68 billion and profits of $2.64 billion.... Poor little Imperial Oil, poor little Exxon, need all the help they can get from those people over there. Oh, Mr. Chairman, they shake their heads and they wonder. Why didn't you do it? Didn't you have the courage? No courage.

I feel sorry for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I feel really sorry for your Minister of Energy because obviously he had good

[ Page 2254 ]

intentions. He put forward a piece of legislation and it was obviously stopped by the priority maker, the First, Minister, who sits there making nasty remarks under his breath that I can hear. I don't call you fascist and you shouldn't indicate the opposite to me.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, don't give me that stuff. I can hear that mumbling over there, and I think it's not in place at all. If you have something to say in this debate, through you, Mr. Chairman, get up and say it. Defend yourself.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): We've heard it all before.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's not what you said, or that may have been one of the other things that you said very, very quietly.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we've got to show some leadership. We have to show some leadership. There are people depending on this government, on this Minister of Energy, to save free enterprise, to save the small businessman, not to look with a blind eye at those 55 who went broke in the last short while. Their job is not to let the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) put forward a backbencher's bill that will never be called. If it is called, it will be ignored as the only piece of legislation that has done anything or even proposed to solve the problem for, as I said, the consumer, the dealer and all those who are involved. I suggest to you very strongly that the oil companies don't need anybody out front running for them. I suggest to you very strongly that what we need today in British Columbia is a bill very much like the one that the minister put forward the last time around.

All of us who will listen have been approached by the ARA. All of us in our own communities who will listen have been approached by the small independents or by small retailers of gasoline and oil. We have all been asked to do the same thing. "Give us a reasonable Act of the Legislature that will protect our interests, and give us a further Act of the Legislature that will protect the interests of the people in the north." Transportation prices, they say - making a difference that's absolutely phenomenal.

I had a very interesting trip the other day, Mr. Chairman. As a full-time MLA I feel I have to go up to places like Vernon, places like Kelowna, places like Penticton, where they're not getting very good service, they told me when I was there.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I was in your riding, I guess.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, while the First Minister may ignore what they had to say up there, they're saying the same thing to everybody. "Give us some kind of defence. Give us a bulwark for free enterprise. Give us an act to protect us from those giant octopuses."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Octopi?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Octopoo?

Mr. Chairman, if they really believe in free enterprise, they're going to do it. But leaving it to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) to put forward the only piece of defence, if it would defend them, certainly is not enough. There have been far too many people hurt in this situation.

Mr. Chairman, just before I sit down....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He hates the truth, that man from Delta (Mr. Davidson) - the man with so much to say. Earlier today, Mr. Chairman - and I know I shouldn't bring this to your attention - he got up and posed one of these motherhood questions to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . For that he gets his gold star for the week. Yes, sir, he gets his gold star. Talk to you on the ferry, Mr. Member for Delta.

AN HON. MEMBER: He complains about the food, too.

MR. COCKE: One other thing, I hope that when the minister stands up sometime during this debate, he'll make a definitive statement on nuclear power. I hope that he will indicate that he's entirely opposed to nuclear power until such time as it's absolutely proven that there is some way to dispose of the refuse, the waste, from nuclear power.

Mr. Chairman, there are far too many dangers attached to nuclear power, particularly in British Columbia where we have so many alternatives. It strikes me that we're one jurisdiction that can very safely say we are totally and absolutely opposed to nuclear power until such time as there can be complete safety with this particular form of energy. We would be better, Mr. Chairman, in this world to say nix. We'd be better to reduce our standard of living than to completely annihilate the world ultimately with radiation that can destroy all living things.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the minister will make some sort of a statement along the line that

[ Page 2255 ]

has been proposed by some of the top thinkers in this I particular area. I'm very sad to see that the Governor of the state of Washington, a former official - I believe chairman - of the Atomic Energy Commission, is so strongly disposed towards this kind of energy. I feel it's a mistake. I think that people, regardless of how many PhDs they have, get all tied up with their own sphere of influence and their own terms of reference, and really don't have a good enough understanding of some of the dangers. Proponents become very defensive of positions they took some time ago, but others have not continued on the course. I would hope that we won't, despite the fact that the chairman of Hydro seems to be very disposed to that kind of production of energy.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I could not restrain myself from replying to the nuclear expert who has spoken, and I could not permit myself to sit here and hear our ferry system maligned in such a careless and reckless manner. I want to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, and I tell you now....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: And those who laugh know so very little about the ferry system or the ships, which I take great pride in understanding, which I have watched and have taken a great satisfaction in since their inception.

MR. SKELLY: He flies over them every week.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is the finest ferry system in the world, bar none. Why any members of this House would stand up in their place, without knowledge, and take an opportunity to malign a good system, good crews and good people, I do not understand. Nor for the life of me can I understand what purpose it would obtain, even if it were partly so, and it is not.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Yes, it is.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's a fine system. The ships are the cleanest ships you'll see in any ferry fleet anywhere.

MR. BARBER: That's because they're the emptiest.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Even if you go down to the bottom of the ship, in the engine room, it's beautifully kept, highly maintained and well serviced. They're as good today as the day they were made -every one. Do you call that a bad system?

Hon. members of the opposition, could we save the time of this House and not bat this thing any longer when it's so patently wrong and correct?

MR. BARBER: Wrong and correct?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Wrong and correct.

MR. SKELLY: Very tricky.

MR. BARNES: That's a double negative.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ride those ships perhaps more than any of you here. I have ridden them more than most of you here.

MR. SKELLY: Before you got your plane.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The morale is high, even today, even after three years of NDP mismanagement.

If I have any knowledge, if I have any ability, if I have any little attribute, it certainly must be in business management in knowledge of personnel. Now I have talked to all the people - not all, not every one, but I hardly make a trip that I do not talk to someone.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: My friends, that's the whole system of irresponsibility. I say it with the greatest kindness at my command, but irresponsibility is patent. You cannot help it.

But I want to tell you more. There's maybe, one little area where the ferries are not good. I will admit one thing. The ships are wonderful, the crews are excellent, the morale is high, but for those who like to eat and love their stomachs, the food is terrible, I'll admit. (Laughter.)

Our hon. friends would like to tell you the tourists did not reach Victoria last year because of the cost of the ferries. Well, I want to tell them that is the same story everywhere - in the Okanagan, in British Columbia, everywhere in Canada. Why? One thing is that we had a little bad weather here - very rare -but we did have it last year. But I predict that this year will be the best tourist season that Victoria has ever seen, and I wonder what they are going to say then. I do not know what they will say.

They tell you about the costs. I want to tell you a little story here. This does apply to the vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank goodness.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If you start ruling me out of order, I'll slow down, but you really must allow me to say this. The honourable opposition - these great businessmen - boomed the economy by blowing the treasury. That's the way you make a boom.

[ Page 2256 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's a boom and bust. Now they're doing their best, but they just don't know. They just don't know how.

I'll tell you a story. Why do we get this high cost? Now this is not the whole reason, but it will be sort of the principle and, the base of the reason. I'll tell you why. I'll give you a little story. The honourable great businessmen of the former government decided that they wanted to be nice to everybody. One day it happened that they had a certain new unionization agreement and the minister in charge had to make a fantastic settlement. He said: "They held a gun to my head and I had to settle with them." Then he was asked who gave them the gun. "Well, " he said, "I did, but I didn't think they'd use it on me." That was basically the reason, but the story now.... Of course there was the cost of new ships that we didn't need, and more ships we're building for the run across Burrard Inlet. Boy, if that isn't going to be a loser, I don't know what.

MR. SKELLY: Did you hear that, Hugh?

MR. MUSSALLEM: However, that's not what I'm here to talk about. I'll tell you a little story.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's a loser.

MR. BARBER: Tell that to Hugh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I told Hugh. He can't help it. Hugh had nothing to do with it. I want to tell you, it was too late - he couldn't stop it. The things were being built. He had to carry on. It was past the point of no return.

I'll tell -you a story now. They decided they wanted to be nice to everybody. The ferries would have two crews - one crew, for the benefit of a better word, I'll call the relief crew; the other crew was a standby crew. These were both shore crews. Now do you understand? If someone didn't turn up - a full crew - they would call one of the relief crew, which is properly sensible. That's fine. They were standby.

Now they had another crew which was a standby crew. This was the strangest crew of all. The young lady in our town told me the story which is almost incredible.

MR. SKELLY: Name names!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Her first name is Ingrid.

(Laughter.) The hon. members are laughing. I tell you, I don't want you to think it was a nameless person. This person's name was Ingrid.

She worked on the ferries. She was having coffee in the employees' coffee shop one day. She said: "This is the finest job I ever had in my life. I'm getting $1,000 a month, or a little more." She says: "If I only could have a job where I could stay home and get paid too, that'd be perfect."

Well, her supervisor was sitting a couple of tables away and he said to her: "Ingrid, there is such a job being posted now. Go and look at the poster, and go and apply for the job." She did, and she got the job.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's the truth; that's a fact. There was another crew being established. This crew was the standby crew. They never called them at all except if something happened that they didn't expect.

This girl was home for three months and was called once. It got so boring, the poor girl quit. (Laughter.) Now I know that this is too hard to understand, but I will tell the hon. members here that it would be worth looking into, because it's unbelievable, Mr. Minister. I presume that's been fixed.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It has not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Except there is such a crew. She applied for the job and got it, and in three months' time.... Well, the strange part of it is that it's hard to stay in one place and wait for the phone to ring. She could go away, but only so long as someone was home.

One day the phone rang: "Ingrid, come down. We need you." She wasn't there. Well, what happened? Do you think she was reprimanded? No, she just lost a day's pay, and goes on salary just the same. Mind you, if it was a better job, she would have had an increase in pay.

Now those are the symptoms that cause the troubles in the ferry system. Those are the symptoms that created the cost that we're suffering for today. This was the bad business principle that put us in the trouble we're in.

Now I'm not making a big point of this. It's nothing for you to be concerned about, but I say it in the friendliest way. That's the trouble with the ferry system. It's a fine system; it's a good system, but it costs too much to run. We are locked in with too high

[ Page 2257 ]

an expense factor, that's all. It's that simple.

Let's not talk about it anymore. Let's get on with the business and talk about matters of importance. This House is too expensive to run to fool around with these little matters that you're talking about tonight. Fifty-five members here drawing far too much money - too high salaries, far too high.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't get any support from my own side on that. No, you're all worth the money you're getting. I wish you could get more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 102, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I do tell you now, and I tell you clearly, stop wasting time on the ferries. Let's get on with something else.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the member for Dewdney should be ashamed of himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, he's fabricating the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, let me remind you before you begin that in the good humour of the evening....

MR. BARNES: Oh, it's only for the government side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman! Thank you, I'll be seated. You're getting awfully cantankerous there. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders require that when a point of order is drawn by the Chairman, the member who has the floor is seated. I'm merely reminding the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre. The good humour of the evening has permitted that during the course of the last speech, many interruptions were made. However, we cannot tolerate that kind of an evening, or else business cannot be conducted through the entire evening.

Therefore I would suggest that we resume now the more orderly business procedures that we have become accustomed to in this House. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you bringing me back to order. However, I had hoped I'd have an opportunity to respond to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) who was fabricating the facts, as usual. Fabricating the facts - that's an interesting expression.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The term "fabricating the facts" is hardly permissible, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Well, he has stretched his imagination to the breaking point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member withdraw the term "fabricating"?

MR. BARNES: Of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BARNES: There are many variations on the truth.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the House that we still have standby crews. I'm sure that the member didn't mean to attack those persons who are providing a very important service in the capacity in which they serve. Perhaps he might like to stand later and assure the House and those people who may be reading his remarks later that in no way did he intend to suggest that they were doing an unnecessary job, because I'm sure the minister would have removed them in his cut and in tightening up the budget. They're still there, I'm sure, for a good reason. I would just like to make that observation.

But I have another matter on the ferries that I'd like to just briefly comment on, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications received a letter the middle of last June, I believe, from a group of people in Vancouver who were concerned about the use of ferries for students who had a desire from time to time to visit the Legislature and felt that there was some justification for the government to permit free passage for students particularly, and perhaps even others, who were by virtue of their living situation too removed from the island of Vancouver to attend. I think that in this day and age we should be encouraging people, facilitating their efforts to come to a Legislature, especially if they're coming to make representations. Delegations would like to come over and the costs are quite heavy, to say the least. When they wish to come and participate, to express their democratic views, their rights, I would hope that you would consider the fact that we are on an island and that the costs involved in

[ Page 2258 ]

making the trip are costly, to say the least. And I just hope that we will at least start off by encouraging those people who are studying our system, who would like to feel that democracy doesn't have such a heavy price tag on it, that those persons who are economically unable to barely survive within their own communities could still come to see you, Mr. Minister, or the Premier, or other MLAs, without having to foot such a heavy cost.

I think that if you were to do that you would get the support of all the members of the Legislature. There's no question about it, there is plenty of room on the ferries these days. Even you recognized this when you changed the passenger rates- for the first four days of the week and cut them in half back to $2, which in itself is an interesting decision when you consider that you, being a very responsible administrator, must have had some reason for doing it. I guess what you're saying is that you made some mistakes last June when you raised the rates 100 per cent. In any event, you did cut them back for half of the week.

I think that you still have considerable space that could be promoted for groups of people who are not coming to the Island. Give them an opportunity to come to stimulate the economy perhaps. Those people who had been coming over with modest amounts of money to spend are now keeping that money at home. There have been many comments on this so I won't belabour the point, but it can't be said enough, really, that there was a very gross miscalculation on the part of the government when it did a knee-jerk reaction by trying to recover the costs of operating the ferry fleet by doubling the rates on persons who had really been supporting the economies on all of the islands up and down the coast.

We've heard the minister remark that the revenues are up considerably as a result of that decision, but we know for a fact that while the revenues are up, the traffic is down. And if the traffic is down, where are the economies? Is the government just concerned with the actual expenditures that it makes as far as its commitments to balancing the budget, the costs that are shown on the bottom line? This is an inconsistent philosophy because I don't believe that the government thinks what I'm alluding to right now when I say that it only believes in the bottom line. I think that the government should admit that it made a very serious mistake.

We've had announcements that the Minister of Travel (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will be promoting for the next two or three weeks, with the Royal Hudson travelling down to Washington and Oregon and California to try and stimulate the economy, trying to promote tourism. This is clearly an indirect effect. We don't know, but the speculation is that by doing this she will generate action and there will be a spillover and people will start to come to British Columbia. That logic should have been applied in the case of the ferry system.

What you did there by making your decision was to cut off people who were already coming. Yes, I think so, Mr. Minister. The facts are there. Many speakers before myself this afternoon were ideally more into the statistical information that's available in describing the numbers of private operations that were marginal in the first place and that are now not operating because of bankruptcies. Those in small operations are not operating. I think it's also evident by the fact that the numbers of cars that are on the ferries are way down, at a time when they should at least have maintained their momentum and been consistent with past patterns. So that was a miscalculation.

I think you should go a step further now, and not only admit that it was a mistake to try and economize by raising the rates, but just consider the benefits that were being achieved and derived by various dependent operations. Continue to subsidize the ferries as a natural extension of the highways system and continue the efforts that we were trying to use with the federal government, along with the Premier, in trying to get them to recognize their responsibilities. I agree that the provincial government has to have some relief. But, in the meantime, you shouldn't cut off our own heads to spite our face, because we've hurt ourselves economically by those decisions.

Well, let me leave that. I know you're not going to stand up and make any confessions, but at least respond to the one part where we use the space that we have available now on the ferries to allow people, such as students.... For instance, I understand the university students would like to come over and protest the increases that they will have to pay as far as tuition is concerned. Now they're coming over for one purpose only. They want to come over and meet government and discuss the possibility of alternatives to having the fees increased by some 30 or 40 per cent. I think that's a valid reason to give them free passage. They're not coming over for a holiday; they're coming over to meet government. It's going to be quite a costly tag and I'm sure that there is plenty of space on the ferries. This is what I mean. Let's be flexible in trying to provide services for the people.

Now another matter: I've been pondering this one for quite a long time, Mr. Chairman. It has to do with the definition of motorcycles in the Motor-vehicle Act. I think the time has come for some revisions of the Act, and I would like to suggest a few. I feel that there is a need for a wider range of classifications as far as motorized transportation is concerned. We've more or less assumed that anything with a motor on it - or any type of power other than muscle power -is a vehicle under the definition of vehicle in the

[ Page 2259 ]

Motor-vehicle Act. But this just doesn't seem to sit too well. There was a case of a fellow that was written up in the Victoria Times last June 28. This fellow has an electric motor on a bicycle. It has one-tenth of one horsepower - two little electric motors on each side of the rear wheel of a 10-speed bicycle. It's about one-fifth of a horsepower on a 10-speed; that's hardly that much power. With this rig, the operator can apparently get up to speeds of 10 to 12 miles per hour, on the level. Going downhill, he can get up to about 20 miles per hour; by virtue of the drag of the motor - the armature acts as a brake, so it has a built-in limit on the maximum speed which he can go. I'll just read you a bit of this so you get some idea of what this man went through.

"The question is: when is a bicycle not a bicycle? The answer: when it's equipped with two teeny electric motors.

"Never mind that the motors are only 1/10 horsepower each, or that the bike can do a maximum of 10 to 12 miles per hour on the level and no wind, slower than any self-respecting I 0-speed.

"The provincial motor vehicle department insists that the electric bike belonging to a backroom buff is, in fact, a motorcycle. The motor vehicle branch's view is that anything that is not propelled solely by muscle power is a motor vehicle and comes under their jurisdiction.

"The operator of this bicycle, who is wearing a sports shirt, slacks and a large black crash helmet at the time, was sitting on this odd-looking 10-speed bicycle trying to get through the motor vehicle inspection. He was required to put on standard lights, heavy-duty brakes, special reflectors and required to take our insurance of $50,000 in case he was going to cause some serious damage to somebody by running over them. He had to take out a licence to operate it."

And all the way down the line.

MR. BARBER: How about bumpers?

MR. BARNES: I didn't see anything in here specifically about bumpers but I am sure he must have had to put on some heavy-duty bumpers as well. This is rather an unfortunate situation but nonetheless it's real. What it's doing is discouraging people who are trying to avoid going through what the hon. member for Vancouver East was talking about - the high cost of fuel, the fantastically successful conspiracy by the large oil conglomerates which have made it virtually impossible for most people to operate their cars except for the very, very gravest of essential trips. It is absolutely no fun these days to ride in your car when you're burning liquid gold. They're being discouraged.

I think we've reached a time when we should start to give serious attention to alternative ways of transportation for at least those people who are interested. There is no way that you're going to be encouraged when you spend $68 for a bicycle and I think about $187 for the motor, which was a package that he brought from California someplace. He is still just a little over $250 but then his equipment, insurance, licence and everything were more than double that. So here is a fellow trying to avoid high costs and he's being discouraged by the system.

This is really just a lack of thought. I don't think there is anyone in the motor vehicle branch or anybody in this government who is trying to make it difficult for people who are looking for alternatives. But the thing is we haven't addressed ourselves seriously to the need for alternatives. We probably haven't done the proper research to assess the potential value and the real savings to taxpayers if we were to take some real initiative in accommodating those people who would like to have alternatives to the automobile, especially those who live within a reasonable distance of work in the cities and who would like to avoid paying anywhere from $50 to $150 for parking spaces, like in my riding, downtown in the West End.

It is not uncommon for someone to pay $100 a month for parking. It's not uncommon for people to get downtown, in fact, and not even be able to find a parking place at all. It's certainly not uncommon for them to park their cars out of desperation someplace only to have it towed away to the tune of $25 two blocks away to some kind of a salvage.... I don't know what they call them, but those guys have a pretty good deal going with the poor, desperate automobile operator who hasn't been given any relief or any assistance.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you review standing order 61 (2) relevant to this debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just read for all members standing order 61 (2): "Speeches in committee of the whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We are under 102. Under the practices of the House, during the debate on a minister, the wide-ranging responsibilities of that minister, throughout all of his votes, are usually discussed, and one of the responsibilities of this minister is the motor vehicle branch and that is why the debate has been permitted. Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: To the hon. member - from Vancouver South, I don't know whether he's first or second - I certainly can appreciate the difficulty of one becoming oriented to the complexities of this

[ Page 2260 ]

House. I had to spend some time here myself, and I certainly can appreciate him having the courage to stand up and try to put a little pressure on the second member for Vancouver Centre. But I'll carry on because I think that this kind of debate is perhaps, as the member had assumed, somewhat irregular.

When you think of transportation and communications and energy, you probably don't think of the bicycle that much as being very relevant. In fact, I think most people think of the bicycle as a recreational vehicle, not really as something seriously used in our society for transportation. That's what I'm suggesting - that we get some thrust from the minister. He could begin to show some concern, looking for alternatives to relieve people who are under pressure. In fact, I think if the government showed the initiative, it would more than encourage people because they would think, well, if the government thinks it's a good idea, there has to be a reason. You see, this is the advantage of being in government. People believe that you're trying to do something good for them.

MR. BARBER: Put bicycle paths in.

MR. BARNES: Well, I'll tell you something about bicycle paths. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was commenting about bicycle paths as a start. The thing about bicycle paths in the past - at least the local bicycle paths - has all been that they lead nowhere. They're not really tied in with the transportation system.

Just recently we had the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) make an announcement that he was going to make available to the city of Vancouver $3.5 million to improve the entrance to Stanley Park and the causeway to the First Narrows Bridge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must caution the member now that the debate is ranging a little far off.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps you didn't read the minister's press release, Mr. Chairman, but I'll explain to you why it's very definitely related. One of the main features of that proposal was that a cycle path be designed within it.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, a pedestrian walk and bicycle path. The idea of that was to entice the powers that be in Vancouver - the city council and the parks board and so forth - to think that they were going to get the park rebeautified to improve the situation. But still, they were only looking at it as a recreational consideration. There was no plan to get the cycles all the way across the First Narrows Bridge and on to some system whereby people could seriously consider riding a bicycle safely. There was no suggestion that the bicycles would be included on the Otter and the Beaver, those two new ferries that are going to be coming across. This is what I mean. You're thinking only in traditional ways. I think that we need to begin to look seriously at alternatives.

I don't think this is something that should be taken lightly. I am sure that the Minister of Health is concerned about encouraging people to do what they can to cut down on the possibilities of cardiac arrest. The cycle has a role to play in the health of the people of the province. We encourage people to jog and to stay away from the dinner table every now and then. We try and encourage people to walk instead of ride. You're concerned about their health; you just brought in some legislation on seatbelts. There are a number of things that you seem to be alluding to, wanting to do to improve the lot of humanity and society. Why is there no consideration for the bicycle?

Why can't we reclassify the motorized vehicle? Why can't we allow some room for the cycle within a range of vehicles? Why does it have to be lumped in with motorized vehicles? Just begin to think: well, maybe if we had a system where we could encourage people to use the various alternatives....

We have one-tenth of a horsepower on each side of a cycle. By virtue of lack of information, a lack of regulations, lack of interpretation, the administrator and the people who are operating departments are stuck. They have to say: "Well, I'm sorry, the only thing we can do is treat you like anybody else. We can't do anything for you." I think we have to take the lead and say: "Well, under certain circumstances, maybe anything that can't get any more than 10 miles an hour should be in a different classification." Why have a guy put on a crash helmet and whatever else he's got to get on if he can only get up to 10 miles an hour? You can jog that fast.

Certainly the liability is not on his part. He's not likely to run over anybody and tear them up. It's just ridiculous with the new regulations. It's $75,000 minimum now. At the time this article was written it was $50,000 minimum public liability that you had to have. Now it's $75,000.

I would just like to see the minister consider this. Talk about it with your department and begin to take a look at the possibilities. Get some of the research people that you have, your engineers, to talk about the feasibility of seriously beginning to include cycles on the road. I realize there are cost factors involved, but we've invested in the future before.

I certainly intend to raise the matter with the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in terms of the construction of roads. Why not have a strip along the roads until we can get a bit more money and maybe put in separate cycle paths?

[ Page 2261 ]

There should be educational programmes talking to people about the importance of recognizing people who are attempting to use something other than automobile operators who feel that they are the only ones who have a right to the road.

This is an area that I think is so timely. The cheapest gas you can get now.... I know where it is because I always look for the cheapest place. I haven't burned ethyl.... My sister's name is Ethel. It's spelled differently, but that's the closest I get to ethyl tank. It's too costly. We seem to be sitting pat.

A year ago I think gas was something like 50 cents a gallon or somewhere in that range. It's 85 cents....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It doesn't matter if it's per imperial gallon or U.S. gallon; it's still costly. And it's going up. It's going up so much -now that people have just given up. They just say: "Oh, well, here we go again." But really, when you consider the impact on -the disposable dollar that working people on fixed incomes have, the dollar is shrinking. They are really losing out.

I think that we have to begin to look at transportation in one of two ways, perhaps. First we have to begin to accept that without good transportation systems we're going to have to socialize more of the transportation programmes and ensure that people can get there through rapid transit or something similar. You have to provide transportation, unless you're going to encourage people by giving them some incentive to operate on their own.

The private automobile is a part of our society. It has been a part of our society. It's part of our culture. People look at their cars, in many instances, as a possession of prestige, Mr. Chairman. They look at it as a valuable acquisition, something they can show off and enjoy. Okay, fine. But you know, they have been caught in a trap because the automobile has also become necessary and essential.

They were once thinking: "Well, look. If you want to drive your car you're going to pay." Like the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "If you don't like it, sell it." Let's be honest. Who is he kidding? If the people sold their cars and refused to drive them, the economy would stop. It would be worse than cutting off the ferries, which you did, in effect, by doubling the rates. People are dependent on driving their cars and we charge them fantastic insurance rates. We charge them fantastic energy rates; we charge them fantastic taxes. We charge them fantastically just to buy the car, to drive it and to own it. It's a costly operation and they are subsidizing the public transportation system that is inadequate.

The government should recognize its duty and responsibility. I'm suggesting that they at least give them some alternative. Give them some incentive and some encouragement.

I know the member over there wanted to shut me up a few minutes ago because he thought that what I was saying was irrelevant. But I think it is very apropos and very relevant and very necessary when you consider what is happening to energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: The light is on!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'll be coming back when we get down to the more specific details of this minister's department. I thank you for your good attention.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre for linking energy and transportation. I agree with him that we should have more and more people-oriented transportation available, especially transportation systems that reduce the use of energy.

He asked what young people should do to get from the lower mainland to Victoria to visit the Legislature. They can go from downtown Vancouver to downtown Victoria, weekdays and Saturdays, for $4.25 on the bus. That's $4.25 from downtown Vancouver right to these buildings. That's not a great deal of money. It's roughly the equivalent to an hour's work; it's close to the minimum rate of pay -a little more but not much. For one hour's labour they can be transported by a bus all that way.

They can be more ingenious. They don't need to get on a bus in downtown Vancouver. They can get together in a bus or cars and be delivered at Tsawwassen, walk on the ferries, be picked up by another car on this side. If they don't take the vehicle on the ferry they can get all the way for $1.50. They can get right to these buildings right from the lower mainland area, four days a week and Saturdays. They can do that, so it's $1.50.

It's $4.25 if they're riding a bus all the way, $1.50 if they get themselves somehow to the two terminals. If they come on a bike, the bike is free on the ferries. If by any chance they're over 65 - and this is a new thing with this government - it's free. They can come all the way free. Or if they take the bus.... Say they originate in Coquitlam. It's 35 cents from Coquitlam to the Tsawwassen terminal and free on the ferry. Their only problem is to get from the ferry to downtown Victoria. We still have to make really suitable bus arrangements to have, say, a 35-cent fare from Swartz Bay to downtown Victoria. In other words, it doesn't cost very much for the elderly to get from one point to another - say 70 cents; say $1. Those are incredibly low rates compared to the cost of almost anything else you can think of.

So far as people are concerned - and I'm linking

[ Page 2262 ]

this with the ferries and rates on the ferries for bikes, for the elderly, for students and so on - the price is low. Groups over 15 get 25 per cent off. Handicapped pay a half rate. If there's a group of over 15, there's another 25 per cent off the half rate, so there are special low rates.

The basic point I want to make is that we have tended increasingly to maintain the rate for people and raise it on cars. It's hardware that we are charging, really, in the developing system, and this is as it should be. The energy-using vehicle should pay more and more; people shouldn't be paying basically any more. Our system should favour people and tend to penalize the heavy energy-using vehicles.

Incidentally, on that interesting bicycle with the small horsepower electric motor, I'm told by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport that the licence for a motorcycle is $5. You must have been talking about insurance or something else, but certainly not....

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, that's another department.

MR. BARNES: But what about my proposition?

MR. SKELLY: It's good to hear, Mr. Chairman, that the minister believes in maintaining rates for people on the ferry system and increasing the rate on hardware, particularly hardware that uses energy. I think this side of the House probably supports that principle, but doesn't believe that you can go into it over the short term. It's something that has to be phased in over the long term if you're not going to cause irreparable damage to the economy of Vancouver Island.

After all, the tradition of British Columbia over the years has been based on the motor car. Tourist travel has been based on the motor car. The ferry system itself was based on the use of motor cars, and while I would support - and I think our side would support - any change in transportation policy which changes back to maintaining low rates for people and transporting people on public carriers and eliminates as much as possible the use of the motor vehicle, I think we have to recognize the fact that the motor vehicle has been the traditional mode of transport, unfortunately. A lot of our cities are based on the use of the motor vehicle. Transportation in most of the rural areas of the province is based on the motor vehicle. I think we would have accepted a phasing in of this policy, phasing from motor-vehicle transport to public carriers for people.

It's unfortunate that the government saw fit, in a single year, to double the rates on cars and to double the rates on cars and to double the rates on people on the B.C. Ferries Service. As a consequence of that rapid change in policy, they destroyed the tourist industry on Vancouver Island.

It's always interesting to hear from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . He's the owner of a Cessna Super Skymaster and I know that he enjoys travel on the B.C. ferries whenever he can get out of his plane and get down on the ferries. Generally, though, he flies over to Vancouver Island in his Cessna 337. 1 know it's enjoyable for him to fly over the ferries. It's something to be proud of. I've flown over the ferries on occasion and they're nice-looking ships.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not going to mention the food.

But, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia have always been proud of the ferries. It has only been recently that the ferry authority was politicized, that it has been cited as a focus of political attention, and I think that's unfortunate.

I'd like to bring up a specific case, and that's the case of the Queen of Alberni, which is now owned by Macleod, Young, Weir Leasing (No. 2) Ltd., a company set up as a tax dodge to own that ship and to charter it to the citizens of British Columbia. I'd like to express the disappointment of the residents of Alberni Valley and the citizens of Port Alberni who were not notified on the occasion of the launching of that ship or on the occasion of its inaugural voyage. As a result, they did not have an opportunity to participate in those events, which they felt were quite significant for the people of the Alberni Valley and for the City of Alberni. The city petitioned the provincial government, under the New Democratic Party, to have a ferry named after the city.

They have a proud tradition in Port Alberni - a tradition of work. There are something like 5,000 to 7,000 people in that valley working in the forest industry at any one time. It's one of the major ports on the west coast of Canada. A tremendous amount of the timber and pulp that's shipped out of British Columbia is shipped out of the city of Port Alberni. It's also a port of registry for vessels in Canada - one of the few remaining ports of registry.

They also have a proud tradition of ships named after the city of Port Alberni. HMCS Alberni served with distinction in the North Atlantic during the last war. For this reason, they sought to have a ship named after Port Alberni. They were very proud of the fact that the NDP government announced that one of the new ferries - a working ferry, a truck ferry - would be named after that city. They looked forward to taking part in the launching of the ferry and the inaugural run of the ferry. They were extremely disappointed when there was no celebration surrounding the launching of that ferry. I

[ Page 2263 ]

believe it was launched by the wife of the owner of the shipyard. They were disappointed that they were not allowed to participate in the inaugural run and to recognize the connection between the marine tradition of Port Alberni and the name of the new government ferry. At the time - I think they noticed on television that the ship had been launched and had made its inaugural voyage - they did recognize it by sending a letter to the officers and crew, wishing them the best and the best of fortune for that ship in its career in British Columbia waters.

I would like to know from the minister why the city of Port Alberni was not invited to the launching of that ship, and for what reason the residents of the Alberni Valley were not allowed to participate in the inaugural run of the ship named after their city. Was it the political pettiness and vindictiveness that was all too evident in government at the time that they took over office in British Columbia? I wonder if the minister would stand up and answer the question why the city of Port Alberni was not invited to participate in the launching or in the inaugural run.

I believe the minister is consulting, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Pure guess.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister planning to answer the question?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll try and get an answer.

MR. SKELLY: Okay.

I'd like to discuss another issue, Mr. Chairman. That's the operation of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, and one specific issue relating to the environment and relating to the minister's former portfolio when he was a Liberal and a federal government minister, Mr. Chairman - that is, the McGregor River dam.

The B.C. Hydro and Power Authority has proposed the construction of the McGregor River dam for some years now. The dam that was built on the Peace - the W.A.C. Bennett Dam - is designed to accommodate additional flow from the McGregor River diversion, I believe, adequate to create 292,000 extra kilowatts name-plate generating capacity in the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. That dam was built to accommodate the additional water from the McGregor diversion.

It's interesting that the present federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, has expressed some concern about the construction of the McGregor River diversion dam, and that even planning people in Hydro have expressed some concern about that dam as well. It's unfortunate that the Minister of the Environment for the province of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) hasn't seen fit to express any concern, despite the facts that are available to him in the numerous reports that have been done on the impact of that dam on the fisheries. But I wonder what the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications has to say about the McGregor diversion. What are his feelings about the dam? Has he looked into the various studies that have been done on the impact of the dam on fisheries? Has he done any study of the loss to British Columbia if the salmon industry even drops only 7 per cent, as estimated in the upstream storage report? Has he estimated the loss to the people of British Columbia in terms of jobs and income to the province, as compared to the advantage of the power that will be generated by that dam? I'm wondering if the minister will make any kind of statement on the McGregor dam now? What are his feelings about the dam? Does he feel it's a worthwhile project, and, in his opinion, should Hydro go ahead with that project at the present time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: First, Mr. Chairman, relative to the McGregor dam: the dam on the McGregor River which purportedly would divert water now flowing into the Fraser River system, into the Peace River system. We're fortunate in this province to have a number of alternatives. If, for example, B.C. Hydro were to proceed first with the Revelstoke Dam and then with the Hat Creek coal development to produce electricity - a development, incidentally, which had the support of the previous government - it wouldn't have to make a decision about another major source of electricity for six or eight years. So the hon. member is asking me to state in this House, in effect, a decision that doesn't have to be made for six to eight years.

There are many alternatives to the McGregor, even after the full development of the Revelstoke project and the Hat Creek project. It's not really pertinent to say today: should it go ahead, should it not? There is plenty of opportunity to inquire into its economics, the environmental impact of going ahead or not going ahead with that project, and of alternative projects. So I don't think it's really a pertinent question now.

I certainly agree that all facts should be assembled. They should be made available to the public; there should be a full debate. But that debate needn't be concluded for six to eight years.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to share my sentiments with the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) regarding the ferry service to Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. I share his pride in the ferry service-, I think we have a really top-notch service. I've noticed a lot more friendliness over the last short period of a year or so. In fact, the last time we came over there was a barbershop group from Victoria singing on the boat, and I must say it really added to the atmosphere on

[ Page 2264 ]

the boat. I think they have a pretty fantastic service.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was some of the NDP MLAs.

MR. LLOYD: For the member for Oak Bay to suggest that he's concerned about the cost of campers travelling on the ferry while there are empty hotel rooms.... I'm sorry he's not here tonight because I'd like to hear how he rationalizes that. If a person has a mobile home or a camper, they don't very often use motel rooms anyway.

For him to suggest that we should subsidize the tourist traffic on the ferry to increase the tourist revenue on Vancouver Island, I'd like to remind him that it isn't the only place in British Columbia that enjoys the tourist industry. The interior of the province, the Okanagan and the north all look forward to having their share of the tourist industry, and I think we should have it on a competitive basis. I don't think we should have to subsidize one particular area of the province over another. Certainly the beauty of the island and the Gulf Islands can sell themselves. I don't think they need a particular subsidy.

We keep looking at these subsidies. On the transit subsidy, which the minister is also responsible for through the B, C. Hydro, a lot of the citizens in the north feel they are getting quite badly short-changed. I think the minister has mentioned the cost of travelling from downtown Vancouver over to the island here - the cost of coming across on a ferry. I was talking to a friend of mine in White Rock last weekend, and he can travel to work from White Rock to downtown Vancouver for 70 cents. I'd like to see any comparison between that and anything we can do up north.

In light of the increasing costs of purchasing the buses, of operating the buses, of the labour, in light of the increasing losses that the B.C. Hydro has sustained on its transit operations, I think the people in the rest of the province would like to see this broken apart from Hydro and put under a separate transit authority where all the citizens in the province could share an equal revenue and not be subsidizing it out of their power bill. I'll be pleased to see if we are moving along in that direction.

Certainly we don't have a comparable subsidy in the north, and I rather question if a transit subsidy would ever be as valuable up there as it is down here. Your weather is a lot better through the majority of your season. I can't really see people standing on a street comer waiting for a bus up north when it's 35 below and the wind is blowing, unless you had a lot of shelters built all over. With the increasing cost of the buses and of operating the buses, I rather question if it would be as valuable up there as it is here. Certainly we would like to see our transit system improved in the communities where the older people, the school children and the rest are using them, but as far as a means of getting to work with our scattered work places, I think the automobile is still going to be quite important for some time to come.

However, when we are talking transit subsidies, another branch of this minister's department is the control on the air traffic. This is something that certainly could be upgraded in the interior - better airstrips, better landing communication equipment and better navigation equipment. I think some of the tragic air crashes that we've had in the interior over the last several years clearly point out that we do need updating of these services. I think it's something that the people of the interior will be looking to when they consider these subsidies that are given other areas to other citizens of the lower mainland.

I think there should be more encouragement for some of the smaller airlines to operate their collector routes, to help the main feeder routes that bring the passengers to Vancouver. Unless these main feeder routes can maintain a fairly steady flow of passengers, if their rates increase any more than they are at the present time, I think they're going to be out of reach of the average family, or the average business traveller even. When we have the logistics of travel that we have between the communities in the north and between the north and the south, I think it's very important that the air travel be given specific attention for the interior.

Another area of responsibility of the minister is the broadcast equipment, the satellite stations for radio and TV, particularly in some of the remote, mountainous areas. I'm thinking here of McBride and Valemount in my riding. They can stand upgraded equipment for rebroadcasting into the area. In McBride, after 5 o'clock at night, they have trouble even getting the CBC. I think in this day and age, when we're promoting additional stations in the heavier populated areas, certainly we should be looking at upgrading them if possible in some of the smaller centres.

The municipality of Mackenzie became tired of waiting several years ago, and they were fortunate enough to have some people with the technical expertise in the community. They went ahead and built their own satellite station for TV, and I might say that they did a crackerjack job of it there.

One other area I would like the minister to address himself to is the motor vehicle testing centre that's been requested for the north, for Prince George. It's something that the safety people have been looking for some time. The "Carnage" committee has requested this as one of their requirements to upgrade the safety in the area where we can put as many efforts as we like into other safety programmes. I think a testing centre in our area is long overdue. I

[ Page 2265 ]

would like to know if there is any checking going into doing something along this line at the present time.

MR. SKELLY: Another minister was going to get up to respond.

It's interesting that the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , Mr. Chairman, talked about subsidies to Vancouver Island and the fact that northern and interior people were reluctant to provide those subsidies for Vancouver Island. Yet the subsidy operates the other way as well. A lot of people on Vancouver Island travel in the interior and northern points in this province, a lot of people who would have visited Prince George during the last year. Tourists from Vancouver Island would have crossed to visit his area of the province, except for the high ferry rates which kept them on Vancouver Island.

Now I have no objection to people staying on Vancouver Island - it's a delightful place to live, Mr. Chairman - but I think that subsidies operate both ways. By facilitating traffic from Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen to Victoria and Nanaimo, you're facilitating traffic both ways so that tourists can travel the rest of the province. There should be no attempt on the part of the people in the north and the interior of British Columbia to keep people on Vancouver Island and prevent them from travelling throughout British Columbia and beefing up the tourist industries in places such as Prince George.

So the subsidy operates both ways and not simply the subsidy on the ferries. The member mentioned transit subsidies. People in Vancouver do get a very good ride for 70 cents from White Rock into Vancouver and even from Chilliwack, probably, into Vancouver by now as a result of a programme which was developed by the New Democratic Party under the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) . But that programme doesn't simply apply in Vancouver. Transit systems were set up in Port Alberni, in Kamloops and probably even in Prince George. They were able to take advantage of the transit subsidies.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Downtown Omineca.

MR. SKELLY: I don't think the member has ever been in downtown Omineca since he was elected.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Withdraw!

MR. SKELLY: This is the member who announced the opening of the Sam Goosly mine at the beginning of the session, Mr. Chairman. He announced the opening of the Sam Goosly mine. It's in Hansard, but it ain't open.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Let's get back to the vote, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: We were discussing transit subsidies and the fact that people in the province do subsidize transit throughout the province. Before they did it simply in Vancouver through their B.C. Hydro rates. As a result of a change in policy that was developed under the New Democratic Party, transit is now being provided in other communities throughout the province.

We're also subsidizing a railway company to the tune of something like $69 million this year, according to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . That railway company is going to be losing $69 million and the taxpayers of British Columbia, and especially Vancouver Island, Mr. Chairman, are going to be expected to make up some of the losses on the B.C. Rail system to provide economic development for the interior of the province. So we're cross-subsidizing in this province. No matter which part of British Columbia you come from, you're assisting in the development of the other areas of the province. That's the way it should be and I don't think anybody on Vancouver Island disputes that fact.

Where did the money come from to build highways in the interior of British Columbia? Well, some of it came from Vancouver Island. Where is the money going to come from to build airports in the interior of British Columbia? Talk about the most subsidized form of transportation! Those airports are almost the total responsibility of the taxpayer. The taxpayers provide for the runways, for instrument system, for radio facilities. He's asking for all of these to be developed in the Prince George area and in the northern part of British Columbia. Those facilities come out of the taxpayers' pockets.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Many of those local communities built their own.

MR. SKELLY: Many of those local communities did build their own, Mr. Chairman. Qualicum Beach, for example; Port Alberni is another example. As a pilot, I can tell you; I flew out of some of those strips.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, a capitalist!

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm not a capitalist either, but I am a pilot and the statistics show, Mr. Chairman, that I've even flown into Chilliwack. It's a nice airport. It's a little narrow and the runway is a little difficult sometimes when there is a crosswind blowing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We tried to widen it but you didn't let us.

[ Page 2266 ]

MR. SKELLY: The Chairman says he tried to widen it but we wouldn't let him. Well, when the neighbouring land is farmland, sometimes there are sacrifices you have to make. Pilots have to make that up in skill, I suppose, Mr. Chairman.

I support the development of airports throughout the province. I think that it's an area in which we haven't participated in that much as a provincial government. When you look at the airport development programme of the Saskatchewan department of highways, they provide a certain percentage of the cost of building airports and of providing road access to those airports. Manitoba has two separate programmes, one for northern Manitoba and one for the southern area of the province.

I do support the construction of airports throughout the province and I think that those airports are required for the safety of the 8 per cent of the people who travel by air in British Columbia. I think it is a necessary thing.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It only takes two NDPers to hand" 14 Socreds in any case, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Do your imitation of a Premier. You haven't been too successful at it up to this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's get back to the vote. s

MR. SKELLY: Okay, Mr. Chairman. We on this t side support the construction of airports throughout I northern British Columbia. But it involves a certain amount of taxpayers' subsidies. Much of those tax dollars come from Vancouver Island because a large percentage of the people in this province live on Vancouver Island. So what we are asking is for a little equality. If we subsidize highways in the interior out of our tax money, if we subsidize transit in cities in s the interior out of our tax money on Vancouver Island here, if we subsidize airports in the interior, i then certainly we should expect some subsidy on the k ferry system. It's fair exchange; it's a cross-subsidy in more ways than one. If those people who live on Vancouver Island, for some reason or other, wish to a travel to the interior, whether to visit relatives to see other parts of the province, they would like to have a reasonable ferry rates in order to get across to the t mainland.

It's all one province, Mr. Chairman. I think the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) really wasn't t making much sense when he said that the people of I the interior subsidized that ferry system and that c they don't benefit from it. The tourist industry in that section of the province does benefit from people who travel from Vancouver Island to those areas.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I don't want the House leader to become hasty, Mr. Chairman. I have quite a lot of material that I want to query the minister about, the first being B.C. Hydro, the Premier's favourite topic. I want to outline for the minister a situation which has developed in my own riding which concerns me, and that is Hydro's treatment of people who have been affected and dislocated by dam construction. Many of these are years old. They relate both to the Keenleyside Dam and the Mica Dam at Revelstoke.

One of the things that the Keenleyside Dam did was to back up the reservoir from four miles north of Castlegar right to the doorstep of Revelstoke. Quite aside from all the property that was flooded and quite aside from all the property that was expropriated, many other area residents have been affected by the increased level of the water table resulting from a much, much higher elevation of the reservoir.

Just to give a demonstration of the arrogance of Hydro - which the Premier has talked about curbing and which other cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) have noted needs curbing - I will outline for you a situation with respect to one poor old gentleman who lives just about five miles south of Revelstoke. Mr. Koshman has a small farm and he has farmed there for many, many years. He never had any problem with flooding of his property until a year or so after the Keenleyside Dam backed up the waters of he Arrow Lakes and the Columbia River. Hence the level of the water table increased, developing groundwater in low areas of his fields to the extent where some of his cattle would become bogged down in areas of the graze land that he used. This gentleman sought redress from B.C. Hydro. He did not ask to be expropriated; he did not ask for cash compensation. He asked that Hydro simply haul in some topsoil to level off the low areas of the property. Only about an acre was affected, but it was n a prime and crucial area of his field in terms of the razing.

I took up the case for him, Mr. Chairman. This was one of the incidents I used at the water licence application for the new Revelstoke Canyon Dam. This was one of the instances and examples I used of arrogance and abuse by B.C. Hydro in terms of their treatment of British Columbia citizens affected by am construction.

I outlined Mr. Koshman's attempts over the years obtain redress and satisfaction from Hydro. I pointed out my efforts on his behalf, and the constant runaround which he had received from B.C. Hydro and Power Authority officials, all but accusing

[ Page 2267 ]

the man of lying when the evidence was quite clear that he had been adversely affected by construction of the dam. It was a relatively small matter to bring about satisfaction.

I submitted a brief at that water licence hearing, and I was cross-examined with respect to the contents of my brief by the lawyer for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, a Mrs. Barnett, who, I think, was junior counsel to Mr. Bill Mitchell. Mrs. Barnett commented on statements I had made regarding this man's property and Hydro's arrogance in refusing to recognize their obligation to deliver common justice. She noted that I was not up to date in my information - that in fact, B.C. Hydro was in the process of delivering a commitment to the people south of Revelstoke affected by the increased level of the water table, either to buy them out or to deliver a cash settlement, or some process such as that. But she said agreement was reached. She gave a commitment at that public hearing.

Now I accepted that. That commitment came from legal counsel for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Lo and behold, on January 7 of this year, I received a copy of a letter directed to Mr. Koshman, over the signature Glen A. Schnar, supervisor, reservoir land management for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. I want to read this letter into the record of the House, Mr. Chairman.

"Dear Mr. Koshman:

"Your letter of November 30,1976, has been given to me for reply, and I would advise as follows. I have talked to Mr. Alberton, who has given me a full report on your complaint.

"Environment Canada reported an abnormally wet spring and summer in the Revelstoke area, and this condition has no doubt affected the water table level in your field. After reviewing the information available to me, I am of the opinion that there is no damage to your field as you mentioned. Your request to haul topsoil in would entail a considerable expense, and there appears to be no justification for this action.

(Signed)

Glen A. Schnar, Supervisor,

Reservoir land management."

Mr. Chairman, the reason I draw this to the attention of the House, and to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro particularly, is to demonstrate the degree of arrogance which this Crown corporation has developed over the year, arrogance which has been noted and commented on by the Premier, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and certainly by opposition spokesmen. I point this out, Mr. Chairman, because it's a classic symptom of what I object to so strongly with respect to that monolithic Crown corporation.

There was no offer of any independent assessment, no offer of arbitration for the man's grievance. It was simply an arbitrary dictum from B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that: "We have investigated your claim. We find no culpability or no obligation on our part, and therefore no settlement."

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications if he is satisfied with this approach. I want to ask him if he knows of this method of justice with respect to any other area of human conflict, be it disputes between individuals or disputes between groups in our society.

The basic concept of law, the basic concept of British justice, is that between disputing parties there should be a fair agency for dispensing justice, an impartial agency, but what we have here is an agency with the unusual authority and the unusual power of constructing huge dams at public expense, of expropriating property that may be essential to that project, all in the public interest, and then divesting themselves of any responsibility to the people on the properties that are uprooted and affected adversely by this project. There is no offer of any impartial appraisal, no offer of any independent agency to weight the evidence and to offer an arbitrated settlement. You simply take it or leave it. This is it -no recourse, no redress. They're above the courts, in effect, because obviously, Mr. Chairman, it's unrealistic, impractical and far, far too costly for any individual to go to court over an issue like this. The cost of the court action would far exceed the benefits derived.

That does not alter the fact that citizens adversely affected are entitled to a full measure of justice in our system. What we have here is a monster out of control - an arbitrary monster out of control, Mr. Chairman. I think it's absolutely reprehensible when legal counsel for B.C. Hydro gives an undertaking at a public hearing.... And that's a matter of record. The transcript of that hearing can be obtained and the exchange which I have outlined can be checked. I've given an approximation of the exchange, not a verbatim one, but certainly the gist of it is correct. I think it's scandalous and reprehensible when legal counsel for that agency gives a commitment that people in this area are going to be specifically looked after and have their grievances solved ' and then a letter like this comes out a few short months later refusing any responsibility and arbitrarily dismissing the man's complaint.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm so concerned about this, and the reason that I bring it to the minister's attention and the House's attention now is because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The committee is noisy.

[ Page 2268 ]

MR. KING: It certainly is, Mr. Chairman. I'm having great difficulty making myself heard since I have a low voice.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm concerned and bringing it to the minister's attention is because we in the Columbia River Valley face yet another major dam undertaking. Inevitably there will be dislocation of private property, home values, property values and so on. It's inevitable. It does occur. Inevitably there will be more expropriation of property.

What I want to appeal to the government to do, Mr. Chairman, is to set up a fair system of arbitration when anyone - a community or an individual - feels they have been adversely affected by a public project such as this. I submit that it's a basic and a fundamental denial of common justice to ask that a person so adversely affected go to the very agency which is visiting the injury upon them and beg for justice, cap in hand. I submit that it violates every concept of common justice that this nation stands for. I appeal to the government to set up an independent agency to hear these kinds of complaints, to adjudicate the merit of the relative evidence that comes before them, both from Hydro -which, in effect, is the public - and certainly from the individual aggrieved.

Mr. Chairman, it's not good enough to say that the comptroller of water rights will become the arbitrator and weigh mitigation that Hydro may owe to the city of Revelstoke, or any of its residents, or any of the residents in the unorganized territory surrounding that point.

It's hard to persuade the public and the local citizens that the water comptroller is an independent, impartial arbiter. After all, he's a servant of the provincial government, and the offending agency is a creature of the provincial government. Can local citizens expect impartial treatment under those circumstances? I suggest not.

In light of the comments that the Premier has made that Hydro is becoming an agency that needs more government control, considering the blast that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has taken at that agency, and considering the valid criticism which members of the opposition have registered, I think the time to act is now to set up an independent agency - at no cost to those people who are adversely affected by dam construction - and to guarantee to them a fair system of arbitration.

It would be an agency which hopefully can weigh s the evidence related to the claim being registered, weigh the obligation which Hydro may have, order compensation, and order some package of mitigation.

I think this is basic. If the government expects the t people of British Columbia to take them seriously in t terms of protestations about the arbitrary power of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, I say a all you have to do is act in this way to demonstrate that you are sincere, to demonstrate that you mean what you say regarding concern over Hydro's unusual and arbitrary powers.

I suggest that it's fundamentally wrong to expose any landowner, any property owner to the expense of defending their full entitlement to compensation when property and personal private property is being arbitrarily taken from them by expropriation. They should not have to go to court to obtain true value for their possessions. If public policy demands in the public good that Hydro have their property and private possessions, then the public good should also provide a system of completely free arbitration to the landowner. They should provide him with legal counsel; they should provide him with free appraisal service to obtain true value for the property adversely affected or required through expropriation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the proposition of replacement value should be the criteria used. All up and down the riding which I represent, we've had dozens and dozens - hundreds - of properties expropriated, sometimes far in excess of Hydro's needs. Now we find the spectacle of B.C. Hydro deciding to turn back some of the lands for public sale which they expropriated many years ago far in excess of their needs.

Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, we find that the price they are demanding for this property to sell back to some of the people who they expropriated it from in the first place has appreciated in cost by as much as 2,100 per cent. Now what a sweet deal it is for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. They have the arbitrary power through statute -passed in this House - to seize your property and to offer you a price based on real value rather than relocation costs. They hold that property for a number of years and then decide: "Look, this is in excess of our real needs. We don't need it all. So now we're going to sell some of it back to you."

Those people who had their land arbitrarily taken from them are now being offered repurchase at prices as much as 2,100 per cent in excess of what they were compensated for. Again, is that what this government calls justice? Is that what you believe in as a basic, fundamental justice for the people of British Columbia?

I think this is one of the most scandalous issues facing the whole province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I challenge the government. If you're serious about curbing its powers and bringing some vestige of public confidence to it and some respect, then, my God, isn't it time you started righting some of these fundamental wrongs that are creating tremendous public hostility toward this agency and towards the government? Because I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the agency is a creature of the government. The Minister

[ Page 2269 ]

of Energy, Transport and Communications holds political responsibility. He has the authority, Mr. Chairman, to remedy these ills. He can't divest himself of responsibility for this kind of conduct by Hydro. That's what he's on the board for. He's a minister of the Crown. You have the authority, Mr. Minister, to remedy these ills and to bring justice to these people.

I want the assurance, long before your estimates pass this House, that this problem is going to be recognized and something is going to be done about it before we start another whole round through new dam construction of this kind of classic fundamental injury to people's rights in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I said that there should be a number of principles involved in a better arbitration process, for people adversely affected by Hydro expropriation or by Hydro reservoir effects upon their land. It doesn't have to be flooded completely. If the higher reservoir elevation results in an increased water table, gardens rot because the water rots the roots of the plants. That destroys real value and full appreciation of private property, and it should be recognized and compensated. There should be a number of principles - three - basically involved in a new system of controlling Hydro's authority.

There should be three principles particularly involved in a new and fair equitable expropriation Act in this province. One is that Hydro, in the first instance, should be required to justify expropriation. They are not required to justify expropriation at the moment. They have to come before no agency and justify their need in the public interest for land. They are an agency and a power and a god unto themselves. That's the first requirement that should be involved in a new expropriation provision in the province of British Columbia. It should occur before the Revelstoke Dam is undertaken.

The second principle, Mr. Chairman, is that there should be a free and complete system of arbitration and technical assistance to the landowner whose property is proposed to be acquired. Hydro, at public expense, has a battery of lawyers, hydrologists, soil experts and engineers. How can an individual citizen go up before that kind of an array of expertise? He should be provided with equivalent support to present his case fairly, and it should be provided to him at the public expense.

The third principle, Mr. Chairman, is that the concept of compensation should be based on replacement value. We had problems in the rural valleys where mixed farmers who perhaps worked part of the year and who farmed part-time - a mixed farming kind of operation - perhaps had a large home and a large family. In that particular area and in that particular setting, this large house, which would accommodate perhaps six or eight children, was placed at a real value of about $4,000 or $5,000. But when they're uprooted and the property is flooded and they have to move to a settled area, an organized area, how on earth do you expect them to replace their home at the value that was placed on their property in that previous kind of setting? So I say replacement value must be the criterion and the concept for compensation to people thus affected.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's getting near the witching hour, and I want the minister to think about this overnight and I want the government to think about it overnight.

If the Premier is sincere about his desire to help people adversely affected by this monstrosity out of control, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is sincere, and if the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is sensitive to people's needs, and if he's sensitive to common justice and if he's been listening to his colleagues in cabinet, he had better do something.

We want to know now precisely what you propose to do to bring this whole matter under control. It's a problem all over the province, and it's going to continue until something is basically and fundamentally done to bring about proper government control and a recognition of common justice to the people of this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.