[ Page 2293 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 35) Hon. Mr. Wolfe. Introduction and first reading –– 2293

Oral questions

Condemnation of Land Commission by public servant. Mr. Levi –– 2293

Facilities for treatment of mentally ill children. Mr. Wallace –– 2294

Increased incidence of business bankruptcies. Mr. Barber –– 2295

Provision of Railwest contracts. Mr. King –– 2295

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

On vote 102. Ms. Sanford –– 2317

Mr. Wallace –– 2296 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2318

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2300 Mrs. Wallace –– 2318

Mr. Barrett –– 2302 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2318

Mr. Strongman –– 2304 Mr. Nicolson –– 2318

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2306 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2318

Mr. Lockstead –– 2306 Mr. Cocke –– 2319

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2310 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2320

Mr. Lea –– 2312 Mr. Lockstead –– 2320

Mr. Lockstead –– 2314 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2321

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2315 Mr. Wallace –– 2321

Mr. Skelly –– 2316 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2323

Mrs. Wallace –– 2316 Mr. King –– 2324

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2317

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): In the gallery today is a group of 12 students from Oak Bay Senior Secondary School escorted by Mr. Don Horwood, their coach. These boys brought great pleasure and honour to our city recently when they returned the B.C. senior boys' high school basketball championship to this city for the third time in the last five years. I would ask the members to bid them welcome.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce a lady who has been very active in the W.A. of the Social Credit Party and, more specifically, very, very active in Vancouver South. I would ask the House to make Mrs. Nora Bylander welcome today.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the gallery this afternoon is a group of ladies of whom we, on this side of the House, are very, very proud. They represent the Women's Auxiliary to the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, and I would ask all of the House to make them very welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. , Speaker, this afternoon in the House are newlyweds, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Moore, from North Vancouver, British Columbia. I would like to ask the House to welcome them and sincerely wish Stella and Gordon a very happy life ahead.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today visiting us from the Musqueam Indian band are Chief Delbert Guerin, some counsellors and some other members of the band. I would like the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): In the galleries, today are Mr. and Mrs. Arnie Mellows of Prince George, visiting Victoria with their family. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the Minister of Agriculture's No. I supporter, his wife Sheila, along with Mr. and Mrs. Russell Fox. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

CONDEMNATION OF LAND COMMISSION

BY PUBLIC SERVANT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This is a question to the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see he's been recalled to the House.

Does the minister support the wholesale condemnation of the Land Commission members, environmentalists and the Land Commission legislation by Mr. Stan Jobb, a public servant under the minister's jurisdiction?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, no.

MR. LEVI: As a supplementary, Mr. Chairman, will a review of all the land - that is, the industrial land administered by the Land Commission - now take place, as demanded by Mr. Jobb, who works for you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, to answer that question, I didn't know the Land Commission had any industrial land.

MR. LEVI: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jobb said: "The damn Act has got to change. It's absolutely asinine."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LEVI: My, my, my!

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Well, let me repeat it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Jobb said, and I quote: "That damn Act has to change. It's absolutely asinine." Does the minister agree with Mr. Jobb and will the minister be seeking to have the Act watered down, as demanded by Mr. Jobb?

[ Page 2294 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, it was answered in No. 1.

MR. LEVI: Now that the Land Commission has turned down the application to free up the Lieuwen farmland, will the minister now approach Northwood Pulp to see whether they can obtain part of the 2,000 acres that they have in order to make some land available for the development of the sawmill?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, that decision will be made by an independent board of directors.

FACILITIES FOR TREATMENT

OF MENTALLY ILL CHILDREN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General with regard to the case where a 16-year-old boy, found guilty in the stabbing death of a 10-year-old girl, has had his sentencing adjourned for the sixth time because no treatment facilities are available in British Columbia to treat the boy, can I ask the Attorney-General what initiatives he is taking to provide facilities in British Columbia for the treatment of seriously mentally ill children where long-term psychiatric treatment will be available?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the hon. member, this is a situation that he knows and we all appreciate as being inherited by this government. I would like to assure the hon. member that it is under review and we shall certainly do what we can to see that there are adequate and proper facilities for cases such as these.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since the same lack of facilities resulted in the suicide of a 16-year-old girl in a jail cell in Courtenay on March 17, can the Attorney~General tell us what investigations his department is undertaking in the light of this specific tragedy due to the lack of facilities in Courtenay?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that question, hon. member, I did receive a report this Morning. I've not yet read it myself but I'm certainly prepared to summarize it to you. I don't think these are equivalent circumstances, according to the material that I've received.

My information is that the RCMP picked the girl up on March 16 of 1977. The juvenile was a runaway from a foster home; she admitted to the slashing of tires. The RCMP contacted DHR people, who stated that they had exhausted possible programmes for treating her and suggested that she be kept in custody, pending court appearance. The local probation officer agreed with DHR under the circumstances. A Judge Scow granted permission to have the girl held until her court appearance. She was placed in cells at 5:30 in the afternoon. A matron was on duty there all the time; the girl was checked every 20 minutes. There was not any indication of a problem, and then the unfortunate young lady was found hanging at I o'clock in the morning and pronounced dead at the hospital at 1:25.

An inquest has tentatively been set for May 5. A full report, in greater depth I understand, is coming to the department. .

MR. WALLACE: Since the answer explains the very reason for my question, I wonder if I could ask a further supplementary. The acting executive director for planning and development in the corrections branch stated at the weekend that no long-term psychiatric treatment will be available under pending legislation. Under these circumstances, what specific plans is the minister considering for the long-term management of disturbed juveniles who commit serious offences?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that question, there has already been an announcement about government policy dealing with a three-tiered programme for juveniles. I certainly agree that the illustration he is giving is one that would appear not to be within the confines of that programme. As I say, the other aspect is one that will certainly be under review and, I would tend to think.... I haven't had an opportunity, Mr. Member, to have discussion with my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , about this in specifics, but it could well be that this perhaps is better related there or better related within this department. I would think from a medical standpoint it would be better in the hands of Health.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask finally, then: is the minister's answer to my previous question a recognition that there will be a different approach to the retention in facilities of mentally disturbed juveniles as contrasted with juveniles who show no need of psychiatric treatment but who are breaking the law?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would agree with your premise. I think it's a very valid premise, and I would certainly agree with it. There could well be some of those programmes available today but I am afraid I can't put my fingertips on them. Certainly if there is a need - which there appears to be - -for something specific, I would like to assure the hon. member that he will certainly have my support.

[ Page 2295 ]

INCREASED BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. The regional manager of the bankruptcy division, federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has released statistics which document an 86 per cent increase in business bankruptcies in British Columbia in the first year of Social Credit. Specifically, in the first 12 months of fiscal 1975 the regional manager reports: "The department recorded 197 business bankruptcies in British Columbia. In the first 11 months of fiscal 1976" - under your administration - "the department recorded 397 business bankruptcies in British Columbia." It went from 197 to 397 under Social Credit, an 86 per cent increase.

MR. SPEAKER: State your question, please.

MR. BARBER: My question is this, Mr. Speaker: among, those bankruptcies is that of Oakland Industries in Victoria. Since January, the minister's had on his desk a proposal in which his department and the BCDC got involved to refinance Oakland Industries. They have two weeks left. My question to the minister is: what action has he taken to safeguard the future of 300 jobs at stake in Oakland Industries?

What report can he make to this House and what progress has he made to save that company from ending up in permanent receivership?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the first part of the question was: what action was taken? You asked not only a question, but about two supplementals along with it, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I think you have to realize how long it actually takes a business to go broke; I hope that you will appreciate that those 397 companies that went broke in 1976, of course, started on the road to failure during the three years of the NDP reign.

With regard to Oakland Industries, as you know, the British Columbia Development Corporation is monitoring that situation.

MR. WALLACE: I've heard that song before.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not just sure where it's at, but I hope the member will realize that the swift action by the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and the member for Victoria, working with the Development Corporation and with other offices, was able to certainly do a tremendous amount towards getting that operation back into operation so that they could save the herring season. I'm sure that we will be able to assist them further so that those

300 jobs will be preserved, and that will be without using the taxpayers' money to do so.

PROVISION OF RAILWEST CONTRACTS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the Minister of Economic Development. Last week, the Premier told Railwest employees that the provincial government promised to provide an unlimited subsidy for construction of boxcars, related to the recent loss of federal orders for cars. My question is: can the minister with the jurisdiction over Railwest recall exactly what amount of subsidy was offered by the provincial government and is there any written record of such offers?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think hat question should be directed to the Premier. He's he one who made the commitment and so....

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to redirect the question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's not up to me to redirect it.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Apparently the Minister of Economic Development can't recall the incident. Fine. I direct he question to the Premier regarding the specific amount of the subsidy offered with respect to the federal railcar bid. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the premier can explain at the same time precisely how he Minister of Economic Development could contribute anything to the negotiations in Ottawa when he apparently doesn't know and is not responsible for the area. He's denied responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, I'm sure, was being facetious when he made those remarks about the Minister of Economic Development, who has done a lot of negotiation on behalf of those employees in hat plant to try to pull the former government's chestnuts out of the fire. I think that that minister deserves a lot of credit.

We'll be very interested to see the rationale for building that plant - the long-term railcar market on which it was built - in the hearing that's presently being held in regard to the B.C. Railway. We'll learn how the former president and directors made the decision.

I would say that the offer was made, as I've told this House before, directly to the minister responsible, the Hon. Otto Lang, at a meeting in his office and at which the hon. Jack Davis was in

[ Page 2296 ]

attendance. The offer was made in such a manner so that the order could be secured and not turned down on the basis that the offer wasn't sufficient or that the British Columbia government wasn't prepared to provide sufficient moneys in order to secure an order of the size that the Railwest plant needed.

I'm sure the members of this House do recall that the offer of an order that was tentatively put forward was for only 100 cars. We asked for an order of 500 cars. To secure the order, we suggested we would be prepared to subsidize, to an unlimited degree, enough to make the B.C. Railwest plant competitive at that time, so that the employees could have some security while other options of perhaps other use for the plant could be looked at. It appears the plant cannot survive on the railroad car potential in this country. With three other existing plants that have already had a serious unemployment layoff problem - and have had for some time - that plant must look to other avenues to guarantee to those people who were brought there some continuous employment.

MR. KING: Order!

MR. BENNETT: We don't want to see their future threatened, as they were encouraged to come to that area to work in a plant that may have a very limited future. We're going to expand that future, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to make a mockery out of question period and to make political speeches instead of answering questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: He sent the Minister of Economic Development to Ottawa, and apparently that man doesn't know what subsidy he had the authority to offer. The Premier won't answer the question and the Minister of Economic Development is apparently too stupid to answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, at the conclusion of question period, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan called an hon. minister and a member of this House stupid. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that phrase.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a greater power of recall than the minister, and I withdraw that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Not that type of a withdrawal -an unequivocal withdrawal.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter of withdrawing on a qualified basis, hon. member; it's a matter of unqualified withdrawal, hon. member. It's not a parliamentary term to suggest that a member of the House is stupid, as the hon. member well knows.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll recognize you in a moment, sir. I just say this, hon. member: when you're asked for a withdrawal, in the best tradition of parliament you withdraw without making it a qualified withdrawal. I know it happens too often in this House that members from all sides try to qualify the withdrawal. I don't think it's really in the best parliamentary tradition.

It's not that I wish to lecture the House, but it is a matter that I have to draw to the attention of the House. Qualified withdrawals are not in the best parliamentary tradition, and I would hope that all members would take that into consideration and recall that fact when they're asked by the Chair to withdraw a statement.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think you really heard what was said. If you had, I don't think there would have been the necessity for the lecture in the first place.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. LEA: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan did not call the Minister of Economic Development stupid. He said that he apparently was too stupid to answer the question. There's quite a difference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member did not raise a proper point of order.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few quick questions that I wasn't able to complete last week. I wonder in regard to the ferries if the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May we have a

[ Page 2297 ]

little order in the cabinet benches?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, regarding the problems at the ferry terminals, I am particularly wishing to find out about the Swartz Bay problem.

First of all, there have been statements in the press that the corporation is about to allocate space for rental-car companies at the main terminals. I asked this question in question period some time ago, and I just wondered if the minister has had a chance to obtain the answer. Is it the intention of the Ferry Corporation to have a monopoly system at the ferry terminals for rental-car operations, or will there at least be competition between two companies?

I The statements that have appeared in the press suggest that it's a five-year contract and that the Ferry Corporation is close to awarding such a contract, but it has never been stated in the press reports whether this is to be given to one single company for all the terminals. I personally believe, Mr. Chairman, that a monopoly situation like that is not desirable and that we should try at least to have two competitors providing this service. Has the decision also been made as to whether it is a straight lease proposition, leasing the space at a stated charge, or is the Ferry Corporation intending to acquire a percentage of the profits which will be made from providing that kind of service at ferry terminals?

The third question relates to the whole question of space, particularly at Swartz Bay. There are parking problems already and I wonder how much of the available space will now be taken up by the rental-car operations, presumably to the detriment of travellers who wish to park their vehicle and travel on the ship without their car.

I had a very useful reply from the general manager, Mr. Gallagher, back in November, 1976, when I had written to him at the request of certain constituents regarding the parking problems. I want to express my appreciation of the trouble Mr. Gallagher took to answer my letter and to deal with a particular complaint where a man and his wife missed the ferry because the light at the entrance to the parking lot showed that the parking lot was full when there were all kinds of spaces. By the time this constituent of mine got his car parked somewhere else, they had missed the ferry. This was subsequently proven to be a mechanical problem at the entry to the parking lot, and I don't want to go into that. I want to stick to the much more general area of debating or discussing the parking problems for passengers who decide to park at the terminal and proceed to Vancouver without their vehicle.

One of the points that Mr. Gallagher made in his letter of November 30, was that the ferry operation plans to make modifications. Perhaps I should just quote exactly what Mr. Gallagher said: "Modifications to the terminal to allow buses to drop off passengers close to the boarding area of the ferries. . . ." I presume again, Mr. Chairman, that we're dealing with the intent of the government and the ferry authorities to encourage bus transportation and discourage motor vehicle transportation across Georgia Strait. But I wonder if that is the only change that is pending - namely, modifications to the terminal to take the buses closer to the actual point where the passengers can board the ferries. I wonder whether the minister can give us any idea what I'm modification to the terminal" means.

If you miss the ferry at Swartz Bay and you try to get a cup of coffee at the coffee shop, it's about 20 feet long and two feet wide, and it's just a dreadful facility. So if the terminal facilities are to be further imposed upon or restricted in any way, I just have to question whether the new B.C. Ferry Corporation members really use the ferries themselves very frequently. I was unable to get on a ferry not too long ago and had to spend about an hour or more in the Swartz Bay facilities, and it is just dreadfully inadequate. It's a long, narrow room with one person trying to serve the coffee and the sandwiches and so on. The lineup took ages to be dealt with. I might also say that the litter in the room was just an absolute disgrace. I don't know when anyone of the cleaning personnel had last tidied up that small room, but there were papers lying around and discarded styrofoam cups, and the place was just a disgrace.

So when I read . about modifications to the terminal to make it easier for the buses to let off the passengers, I wonder if the minister can tell us which part of the terminal is going to be modified and if it will in any way affect the already inadequate coffee shop facilities.

I want to ask the question that I've asked so many times before. Is it still considered absolutely essential that the buses go on the ferry in the first place? We've got an example that I might quote at Vancouver airport where the parking is now some distance from the check-in counter, and there are small vehicles which transport passengers back and forth between the parking lot at Vancouver airport and the terminal. It would seem to me that these enormous buses which take passengers to the ferry terminal could allow the passengers to be transferred from the bus to the ship, and turn around and take the passengers back to Victoria who are coming off the incoming ferry.

The other night the minister happened to be on the same ferry that I was on, and I think there were six or seven of these very large buses actually on the ferry. I just wondered why it seems so unacceptable that the buses take the passengers to the ferry and that buses be available at the other end to convey the passengers from Tsawwassen into Vancouver. There may be a good reason, but I think it's an alternative which should be looked at because it seems not

[ Page 2298 ]

entirely rational to take these huge, heavy buses on the ferry. Presumably that means that the ship itself is burning more energy to convey these enormous buses. If the problem is just a matter of getting the foot passenger from the bus onto the ship, I would think that should be quite easy when we consider some of the small vehicles that are now available, such as the ones at the Vancouver airport.

I wonder what the immediate policy is regarding parking at the ferry terminals. Mr. Gallagher in his letter said that since it is policy of the ferries to bring about a greater use of buses and foot passengers, it is not attractive for the ferry system to have to acquire additional land for more parking which in the long run may not be needed. In the short run, the space is only used at peak periods to 100 per cent capacity. I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what plans he has to deal with the parking problems at Swartz Bay in the coming summer months.

I would like to ask whether there are any further plans intended to improve the actual bus service from downtown to the ferry. I discovered to my. amazement the other day that anyone who wants to get on between downtown and the terminal is supposed to phone in an hour ahead and notify the bus system. I know the minister is not responsible for the bus system, but I think this complicates the incentive, if you could call it that, for an individual to want to go by bus. If you live half way out Douglas and you have to phone the bus service an hour before to let them know to be on the lookout for you as you stand at the bus stop, I think in this modern era that just sounds absolutely ridiculous.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The buses only accommodate so many passengers.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Labour makes a valid point. The buses can only accommodate so many passengers and therefore maybe they should have some notification. That's the usual kind of rational observation we get from the Minister of Labour, and I accept it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I use the bus; I know.

MR. WALLACE: But I think, Mr. Chairman, that most of the time, of course, the buses don't leave downtown completely filled except at peak periods. It is something of a disincentive to possible bus travellers to have to put up with that additional nuisance value of phoning in ahead of time and saying that they'll be at Town and Country for the bus that leaves at such and such a time.

Again, in fairness to Mr. Gallagher, he mentioned in his letter to me in November that they were looking at ways in which they could make the bus system function in a more attractive way that would encourage more people to use the bus.

I want to ask just briefly about the contentious role which appears to have emerged for one Graeme Roberts, who appeared on a television interview on the weekend following some of his earlier statements. While we can't accept everything that Graeme Roberts says - in fact, I wonder if we should accept anything, because he had the audacity to say there was no future for the Conservative Party in British Columbia. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: He's been talking to Hugh Curtis.

MR. WALLACE: What can I say after I've said I'm Tory?

At any rate, I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could have some clarification. I am asking this in a fair and sincere way. I am not trying to drive any kind of wedge between Mr. Roberts and the minister. He obviously has a very distinct difference of opinion with the minister, according to his statements. The Premier encouraged Mr. Roberts to stay on as a director and yet Mr. Roberts again made the very same statement on television this weekend: that he personally has looked at the utilization of the ferries, he's looked at the fare structure and all the rest of it, and he is absolutely confident that there should be a rollback of something on the order of maybe $2.50 for cars and $1 for passengers. That's a very substantial reduction in what is now the established fare structure. It is obviously at variance with what the minister himself believes to be reasonable. Thirdly, it concerns me very much, as a representative in the greater Victoria area, to say that if there is some validity in Mr. Roberts' claims and the figures he is putting forward then, indeed, the whole question of tourist traffic and the economy of this greater Victoria area is probably going to be restricted, to some degree, in the coming summer months if the present fare structure is left as it is.

I don't want to take the time of the House, Mr. Chairman, to repeat some of the figures and statistics that I mentioned in the debate last week, but there is certainly a strong feeling by people like Mr. Roberts - and I would certainly quote Mr. Alan Emery, who spoke for the Victoria Chamber of Commerce - that there is a tremendous potential for a great deal of the economy of our greater Victoria area to be revitalized in the spring and summer months of 1977 if some kind of ferry-fare reduction were implemented. Since we have one particular director on the B.C. Ferry Corporation board making such repetitive statements that he has evidence. to indicate the justification for the rollback, and since we have the Premier encouraging him to take this independent position and say his piece about ferry rates, I wonder if the minister could perhaps tell us just exactly where we're at in any current discussions within the ferry

[ Page 2299 ]

system that would make it likely that we could anticipate some reduction in fares on the B.C. ferries, at least prior to the onset of the tourist season.

The other question that this leads me to ask is, of course, the degree to which the directors have some real authority. Mr. Roberts also left a clear impression from his interview on television at the weekend that the directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation are not consulted by the government and they're not kept in touch with the ongoing thinking of the cabinet and, presumably, the minister responsible, while they are trying to perform their duties as directors. I am somewhat paraphrasing what Mr. Roberts said. I don't have the transcript of the programme so I don't wish to exaggerate that particular point. When he was asked about the view he held in the likelihood that federal subsidies would be forthcoming, he was quite blunt in saying that, once again, the directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation are not kept informed about the ongoing negotiations which might bring forth a subsidy, although he - Mr. Roberts - stated some optimism that a federal subsidy would eventually be negotiated.

But, Mr. Chairman, what underlies so many of these questions is the very clear loss of confidence which certainly the people in the greater Victoria area - and I presume from comments from other members, residents from up-Island - have experienced in the past year or so. There is a feeling that the ferries are not being properly managed. The standard of service is low, in such ways as I've mentioned -the coffee shop at the Swartz Bay terminal, just to pick one. Someone who never uses the ferry might say: "Well, what does it really matter whether you've got a pleasant coffee shop or one with adequate space or a clean coffee shop?" But the point is that you quite often have to spend a long time sitting around and waiting there.

I just get a little impatient with people who suggest that because there is at least a coffee shop and some facility where you don't have to stand outside, anything's better than nothing. I just can't buy that argument at all. I think that the ferry system and the service that it's providing - at the terminals in particular - has deteriorated in the last year, even though perhaps the service itself is running regularly. I've no complaint in general terms with the reliability of the time schedule which the ferries seem to manage to maintain.

In fact, I think they should be credited for maintaining the level of reliability for the actual sailing time and arrival times. But these facilities at the terminals, particularly at Swartz Bay, I think should be questioned. If there are to be modifications, as I mentioned earlier, I think we should certainly have some idea what these modifications are to be. But in general, there is a loss of confidence by the people in the greater Victoria area.

The kind of apparent divergence of opinions between the director, Mr. Roberts, and the minister, and the fact that we're not hearing from any other members of the board, leaves me to wonder if in fact that is a big part of the problem - that the other members of the board take the attitude that everything they do in that role as directors should be kept from public view, whereas Mr. Roberts believes that being a member of the board should not prevent him from making public statements.

Now I'm not going to get into that debate per se because I'm not sure what kind of oath of office a person takes when he becomes a director of the B.C. Ferry Corporation or how it compares to other oaths that one takes in assuming certain public positions. Maybe the minister would care to go into that because I also gather from press statements that the minister considers that part of the problem - that Mr. Roberts had leaked information to the public about a modification in fare structure and that he made this knowledge public prior to the official announcement by the minister.

But I think that this matter of confidence is pretty important. Actually, from a political point of view I'm sure the minister knows just how important it really is that all this ongoing public controversy all the time about something as important as the essential communication between the Island and the mainland.... He's well aware of the fact that he should do what he can to clarify some of the doubts that apparently exist and to try to stabilize the relationships within the new board of directors.

But there's every reason to suspect.... In fact, that's not strong enough a word. There's every reason to conclude that Mr. Roberts has some very definite ideas about what should be done by the ferries to reduce fares and that he appears to be at odds certainly with the minister and possibly with the other members of the board.

He stated some optimism about a subsidy. Once again, I would just ask the minister.... As recently as March 2, the minister stated to the House in question period, Mr. Chairman, that we could expect some final answer on the negotiations with the federal government by the end of this month. We are now three days away, and again I'm not pressing for a specific date, but can the minister tell us if there is any reason to have doubts that the negotiations will be concluded successfully?

He had actually stated an earlier date by which he expected a final agreement but I wonder if that's another question he could answer. Just where are we in our negotiations with the federal government, or are we just talking in very general terms without actually getting down to specifics and figures? Does the federal government seem to be cognizant of how very important an issue this is - both to British

[ Page 2300 ]

Columbia, and more particularly, to all the B.C. residents on this Island who depend so much on the ferry system?

I was interested in the statements by the Washington State Ferries that they could raise another $1 million a year if they introduced linen tablecloth dining facilities on the ferries. I notice the minister is smiling, because I think he's just recovered from all the public controversy of closing down the dining room on the B.C. ferries. I don't suspect he's about to open them up again, but I thought I should at least ask a question: if it seems to be economically attractive for Washington State Ferries to consider dining-room facilities on their ferries, is the minister giving any reconsideration to opening dining-rooms on the B.C. ships?

I remember asking the minister last year how closely the government was considering a franchise being made available to a private enterpriser to provide dining services on the ferries. I would have thought that a free-enterprise government, taking the kind of steps that it's taking - let us say providing rental car services at the terminals, leasing out space, enhancing service and making a dollar at the same time - would perhaps have found it very attractive to deal with the catering industry in British Columbia or in Canada for that matter. It seems to me that the company that's entitled CARA in the Vancouver airport does very well serving food at very substantial prices. It would seem to me that the least the government might want to do is to put out a proposed contract, as they're doing with the rental car system, to determine whether free-enterprisers in the catering business would be interested in operating dining rooms on the ferries.

The last question I have, Mr. Chairman - still on the ferry system - is to ask the minister if there has been any change in policy regarding making figures and information readily available to the public. I just want to be assured, as the minister assured me personally when I asked a question in question period, that I should be able to obtain all the figures I want from the ferries and that that same attitude would pertain when anyone, whether it was an MLA or anyone else, was inquiring of the ferry system what the utilization was for the previous months, in terms of passengers and vehicles?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has asked a number of questions and I will endeavour to answer them as concisely as I can. The new directors - six in number - have been asking many of the same questions, and answers to some of these questions have been provided to their satisfaction. Others are questions that we must continue to ask ourselves and we'll deal with them when we have more answers.

As a main policy thrust, at least the ferry management tells us and certainly consultants have told the government over the years, we should endeavour to carry more people and, if we can, fewer vehicles. We won't have to buy as many new ferries and make heavy investments - in other words, raise fares - if we manage to cause more people to travel either on foot or in buses or in larger number in fewer cars. This has to be an objective in the interests of basic transportation which everyone can afford.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Roberts, along with other directors, has asked those kinds of questions. We've had three meetings of the board of directors. A shadow meeting, in the sense that the corporation wasn't properly constituted, was held in December. A lot of background information on the ferries, including many studies, were provided to all directors at that time. There have been two full meetings of the board of directors - one in January, one in February and another one will be held shortly.

Many of these issues have been discussed by the directors, but not too many of the difficult ones to a conclusion as yet, because most of them don't believe that they're sufficiently on top of the situation to make their views known. My position on the board is that of one more director. I'm one of the directors. For the moment I'm acting as chairman, but sooner or later we'll have a full-time chairman and I would see my role, or that of another minister sitting on this board of directors, as one of effectively maintaining a liaison between the corporation, running as independently as possible, and this Legislature.

The hon. member for Oak Bay asked a number of questions about enabling people to travel on the ferries as distinct from vehicles and so on; he focused in on parking, for example, and on layout. The Ferry Corporation is examining very carefully a general concept whereby buses or cars delivering people could come right up to the mouth of the ferry, so to speak, and the cars which we're loading would be held some distance back, conceivably even a couple of miles back, if I can exaggerate a little bit. When a light simply changes, they can flow that couple of miles directly onto the ferry at a good rate of speed. This would encourage more people because they could, in fact, be delivered right to the ferry - to walk on and walk off.

There has been a good deal of discussion about the desirability of buses, in fact, travelling on the ferries. Buses, especially buses that are reasonably full, obviously take far greater advantage of the floor space of the ferries than individual cars do. A bus with 30 people on board might be the length of two or three cars. Those three cars might only be carrying six people. So obviously 30 people on a bus are

[ Page 2301 ]

preferable to six in three cars.

Why do a number of buses go on the ferries? Why do they go all the way? A good many people prefer to go all the way with some feeling of security that they know they're going to get a bus, that they're first on to the ferries in a sense, and they're first off. It's rapid transit, if I can put it that way, from city centre to city centre. It's the best kind of service. If they have any luggage to speak of, they'd rather not carry it off one bus onto the ferries, scramble for another bus carrying their luggage at the other end, and so on. Of course, the buses do carry high-value package goods and so on as well. So there's a case for a limited number of buses, at least, to travel through both ways. Certainly the bus companies seem to prefer that kind of scheduling, even having regard to the time of the driver, who they have to pay on board the ferry, and so on.,

There are plans 'under discussion relative to Swartz Bay whereby -'cars may be able to park at some intermediate point several miles, but not far removed, from the ferries, and buses stop at that point or near that point to pick people up and take them in. Or conceivably - and this is something the board of directors is very interested in - the Ferry Corporation itself owning a few buses, particularly at the Vancouver Island end.... For those who know B.C. Hydro's bus routes well, it's possible to get right out to the Tsawwassen terminal for 35 cents over a very large area of the lower mainland. So there is a bus system in effect on the Vancouver Island end, but again, conceivably, there's some case that could be made for buses that simply stay on the mainland and circulate through the Tsawwassen terminal. But these matters are under active study and certainly go along the lines of carrying more people relative to the number of vehicles carried.

Car rental - I gather that the management of the corporation has invited expressions of interest from the car rental firms. If there's a substantial interest they'll call for tenders. I doubt if it would be an exclusive thing, but Mr. Gallagher tells me that they would expect a percentage of gross as compensation to B.C. Ferries for the use of space at the terminals.

There was reference to a possible federal subsidy. The formula that has been put to the federal government and which they're considering - but they're certainly reluctant to agree to the full amount that we're demanding - is the same formula as is contained in the legislation setting up the corporation. It would see the federal government participating, I'll call it, on a mileage basis. Were they to participate 50-50 with the provincial government they would put up a matching subsidy. The federal government has traditionally looked after scattered communities in the middle and upper coast. This is the main focus of their interest. There's certainly a reluctance on Ottawa's part to be involved in subsidizing all of the routes around the lower mainland - all of the links, for example, between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. This matter is not only being actively pursued, but I'll give the hon. member yet another date. I hope we have a final agreement which can be announced before the middle of next month. Again I want to stress that the federal government isn't about to agree to all of our demands. At least this is the attitude they're striking in these negotiations.

Dining rooms - there have been some inquiries by private corporations as to the space left by closing the dining rooms. Incidentally, there are no dining-room facilities on the new vessels; there are on the older vessels. Inquiries have been made. Some interest has been shown in running them as dining-room facilities. No firm has, however, pursued the matter after getting some of the statistics that they've requested.

Information - the corporation, and certainly the directors, are of the opinion that all the kinds of statistics which have been made available to the public and certainly made available to the members will continue to be made available. I hope that the corporation will be able to produce a quarterly report and that it will be publishing a good deal more information that has been available to the public and certainly to the members than in the past.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one final point I take from the minister's statement. That is that the federal government is not willing to subsidize any of the main links between the mainland and Vancouver Island, despite the fact that we have this very fancy plaque at the foot of Douglas Street which says: "This is Mile 0 of the Trans-Canada Highway." I'm completely at a loss to understand how the federal government out of one side of its mouth can say that the Trans-Canada Highway begins in Victoria at Beacon Hill Park but when we want our share of the Trans-Canada Highway subsidy, they say: "Oh, we're only interested in subsidizing the mid- and northern-coast routes."

Now I may have misunderstood the minister, but I got the impression that the federal government has made it very plain to our government that they will maintain some financial support of these other routes. I'm all in favour of that. If we have to settle for one or the other, I would tend to agree that the mid-coast and northern coasts have not been getting fair play. But, Mr. Chairman, there's a real contradiction involved here that we can have this Mile 0 on the Trans-Canada Highway, starting in Victoria, but it would seem as though the federal government thinks that we should all be able to walk across the water or drive our cars from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen. I wonder if the minister has any optimism at all that we can still persuade the federal government that that's 20 miles of the Trans-Canada

[ Page 2302 ]

Highway that we have to cross by ship.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to mislead the House that there's a possibility that the federal government may participate in respect to a route or routes connecting the mainland and Vancouver Island. I'm not sure of that because the agreement is not yet signed. Also, I would have to point out that the subsidy would be based on miles travelled, and the miles between the north end of Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert are a lot more than the miles across from the mainland. We're negotiating, and we're negotiating hard. We haven't given up on any of these demands as yet.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we're through with counting the cutlery on the B.C. ferries. Perhaps if the minister feels compelled to go into that kind of detail, it may be related to the events of the last week.

I'm surprised that the minister is still there. I mean, how many times can a guy get kicked in the head and still be around? The voters making a decision is fair enough, but when you have a situation last week where the Premier expresses no confidence in the minister in a humiliating sequence of events -frankly a humiliating sequence of events - one wonders....

MR. KING: I agree with the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not prepared to make that judgment, but I wonder on a question of confidence whether or not you can justly expect anybody in the ferry service to have confidence in that minister any more when the Premier has directly interceded in a matter of jurisdiction, a matter of responsibility and a matter of morale and made a decision to bypass the minister, put Mr. Graeme Roberts ahead of the minister and persuaded him to go back on the board. It's not a question of who's right or wrong; it's a question of who's running the show.

I find it an incredible situation that after almost a year and a half of a Social Credit government where the tourist industry has been adversely affected by the decision to double those ferry rates, where morale has been adversely affected....

We've had a sequence of statements and fumbling situations. We've come to the point where a test takes place. They say there won't be any politics in a public corporation, and what is the first level of political interference we find? The first level of political interference is the politics within the cabinet, Mr. Chairman. It's obvious that Mr. Graeme Roberts has more political pull in the cabinet than the minister does.

Now I don't know when Mr. Graeme Roberts left the Conservative Party to join Social Credit, but it obviously must have been before the minister left the Liberals to join Social Credit. Perhaps it's decided on a basis of seniority. I see the minister smiling. You may be smiling indeed, Mr. Minister, but I don't say it in jest. It may be a matter of seniority. Who jumped ship first before they could become an admiral on the new fleet? You think about it: an incredible situation. A cabinet minister who is given the responsibility and is required by law to report to this Legislature on his administrative responsibility delegated to him by the Premier had a difference of opinion with Mr. Graeme Roberts. Mr. Graeme Roberts writes a resignation; the minister accepts it. Then the Premier says: "Oh, hold on here. Come down here to my office, Graeme; we're going to talk about this thing." Where's old poor Jack? Left out in the cold. Now how many times can this minister get kicked in the head? Trudeau did it to him, and that's when he used to be a Liberal.

MR. BARBER: That is why he's now a Socred.

MR. BARRETT: Do you remember when he parked his boat? He knows all about boats. He parked his boat at a federal wharf and got into more trouble over that than anything else he did - his poor little fishing boat. You remember that.

Now we've got this incredible situation where a man who is supposed to have the technical skills, the ability, and, in fact, has the responsibility, is right next to another one of his Liberal colleagues who gets interfered with by another Socred in the cabinet. We have to know publicly: where do you stand in the cabinet based on your political history? We've got to know that. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is clean - he always was a Socred. He never showed any intelligence beyond that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to vote 102, please.

MR. BARRETT: That's true, Mr. Chairman. We have a situation with this minister today reflecting what else happened in the House. Another cabinet minister gets up and is asked the question: "What is the subsidy?" He says: "Don't ask me. It's only my department. Ask the Premier for the details." Now what is going on? How much will you take personally, through you, Mr. Chairman" How much abuse? How many times do you have to get kicked in the head before you finally throw the napkins in. the air, put down your knife and fork, and say you've eaten enough? You've had it shoved in front of you -incredible amounts.

Here's a statement from Mr. Graeme Roberts that attacks you personally, attacks your administration,

[ Page 2303 ]

and attacks the government. It has been quoted all over every newspaper in this province, and you expect the staff and the people in this province to have confidence in you when the Premier doesn't? Not one little squeak, not one little peep, not one little noise about who's running the show. You allow yourselves to be run right over by another used-car dealer, through you, Mr. Chairman. Did they have priorities over Rhodes scholars? An incredible series of events! There are businessmen in the back bench down there who know how to make paint, who know how to slap it around, but they're not involved in whitewash.

MR. KING: Colour your world.

MR. BARRETT: Colour your world. An incredible series of events where there are hungry, competent people in the back benches thirsting for ministerial posts; ex-candidates thirsting for power.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Academy awards don't start for another couple of hours.

MR. BARRETT: Well, my friend, when it comes to awards you are a loser.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you, my good friends over there, what I'm really trying to find out is: who is really running the show? Now all of you people are puppets and Munchkins on strings. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: One guy calls the shot....

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

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to give them time to rehearse their spontaneous interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I interrupt the hon. member? The kind of debate that the hon. member's engaged in is the kind of debate, with great respect, that leads to disorder in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it certainly does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair and continue on vote 102.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you have grasped the point better than anyone else here. It certainly does lead to disorder. We don't know who's running the show, and it is disorder and chaos. I'm reviewing that very situation through your kind and gracious supervision of this disorderly House, Mr. Chairman -on occasions.

Mr. Graeme Roberts said that he didn't like the ferry rates: "He quit because he appeared unable to convey to Davis the urgency of a move to reduce ferry rates. He admitted that being outspoken had already earned him some rebukes from the minister." Now the minister has every obligation and responsibility to rebuke him if he feels that way. That's correct. If you disagree with Graeme Roberts, you tell him to shut up. That's okay. That's your job - you're the boss. But we have an unusual situation where your boss, Mr. Bennett said he had full confidence in Roberts. Now what's going on? You've lost the~ Premier's confidence. What is your next obligation in the British parliamentary system?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Oh, not again.

MR. BARRETT: Not again? No, there's no other party he can switch to. You're right, not again. He can't switch parties. That's correct. Absolutely correct. You've got that part right. The only thing to do is to quit. You've reached the bottom of the barrel. Even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knows where the bottom is politically. I mean, you can't get any lower than the group you joined.

HON. MR. MAIR: You could be a loser.

MR. BARRETT: It's all the way down the level, and certainly he's got a situation where he's confronted with making a decision. So why are we asking all these details? What does any other human being do in a situation where his boss has lost confidence in him and taken somebody below that person and said: "I respect you and have full confidence in you, but about your boss who has reprimanded you, I say nothing"? Don't you feel embarrassed, through you, Mr. Chairman - a little bit embarrassed; a little bit uncomfortable?

And what about the staff and negotiations? How can they have confidence in any decision you make if you know that the Premier will interfere? Talk about political interference! It's not a question of political interference; it's a question of political dictatorship. Everything runs through the Premier's office, and I understand the only step before the Premier's office is Dave Brown, so the press releases go out of there, too. It's humiliating for most people. Most people in this situation would hitch up their trousers and head

[ Page 2304 ]

down and see the boss and say: "Look, who have you got confidence in - me or the other guy?" Are you going to spend your whole afternoon counting cutlery and napkins on the ferries, or are you going to stand up and tell us who's running the show?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It pays better to count the cutlery. It pays better to go after widows and carve up their property! You know that. You've told us that. I've never been a widow chaser.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 102.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, how can I avoid commenting on those interruptions? He may get thumped in his own way some day.

I find it an incredible situation. I want to know what philosophy the minister believes in - politically and administratively. In senior administrative posts, when you've been hired to do a job, or you've been delegated the authority and responsibility to do a job, when your own boss interferes and someone below you gets more recognition and more confidence than you do, what is the administratively responsible thing to do? Quit. Everybody knows that. But he doesn't know that.

I want to tell you something. The employer makes the decision. Your employer was the Premier and he hasn't made any decision. How do you feel over the weekend reading all this about "Bennett Pours Oil on Waters"? "Bennett also suggested Roberts was right in saying Davis was running the ferries as though they were still an arm of government." What an incredible statement! The decision to run it as an arm of government was made in the Premier's office. What do you think an election is all about? The people decide that ultimately, one way or the other. We all know that. The vagaries of that are something we all experience, but in terms of having your own ego crushed, how do people feel down the line below the minister? Are they to go to Mr. Roberts or to the Premier or to you?

MR. LEA: Or to Trudeau?

MR. BARRETT: Have you discussed the untenable situation you've been placed in with the Premier? Here we are in committee of this House. We'd like to know whether or not you have discussed this with the Premier. Who comes first - you or Graeme Roberts?

MR. KING: Graeme said last night on TV that he had an unfortunate personality.

MR. BARRETT: It's got absolutely nothing to do with personality!

MR. LEA: He doesn't have one.

MR. BARRETT: I just don't accept that on the basis of what Mr. Roberts says about the minister's personality. That's totally irrelevant. It's a question of confidence; the Premier has named him the cabinet minister. For better or for worse, that marriage has been solemnized by taking the oath in front of the Lieutenant-Governor. Now we find a situation where the minister has been hampered completely. Most other people would resign. I'm not asking you to do that; that's a decision you have to make yourself. But I am asking you bluntly: how in the world do you expect to carry on with that kind of interference, and that kind of confidence not being shown in you, but shown in Graeme Roberts?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I was sitting here listening to the previous speaker, the third member for Vancouver East, and I was almost shocked to hear him supporting a company that is obviously being managed by a Socred supporter. I think he must have been kicked in the head more often than anyone else he can refer to. In fact, in speaking about the comments he made, it seemed to me that a million people in the province of British Columbia during the last election campaign kicked him in the head, and thank goodness - we got rid of him!

However, it's not usually my role to attack like that so I'll move on to something positive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 102.

MR. LEA: Was that an attack?

MR. STRONGMAN: I would like to speak to the minister with regard to transportation in the province. I would particularly like to talk about transportation between the capital city, Victoria, and Vancouver on the lower mainland, the largest population and commercial centre in the province. One of the things which has always concerned me as a businessman - and as a politician, latterly - is that to travel by ferry from downtown to downtown, from the lower mainland over to Victoria, takes in the order of three and a half hours. That's to go between the downtown areas of either city travelling by ferry. I've used some very conservative figures in attempting to come up with that figure - they indicated 35 minutes travel time, 25-minute wait, two hours on the ferry to travel and unload, and another 30 minutes to downtown. We have a similar situation by air, in that if we are travelling from the international

[ Page 2305 ]

airport in Vancouver over to the airport here in Victoria, there is, likewise, a two-hour timespan between the time you leave the downtown area until you actually arrive in the downtown area of Victoria. It seems to me that in the 20th century, two hours to three and a half hours travel time between two centres merely 60 miles apart really isn't something which any of us should be proud of. I realize that float-plane service has improved this figure substantially but - as most of the people in this House know, and I think most of us have had this happen - it can be interrupted by wind, fog and, especially, darkness. In the winter months, in fact, float-plane service is really only viable for about seven or eight hours a day. Civil servants, businessmen, tourists and even politicians find it expensive in terms of time to travel that few miles - I am using the figure of 60 miles and I believe that's fairly accurate.

Today I'd like to urge the minister to begin a study at once on the feasibility of STOL airports in areas immediately adjacent to the downtown cores of both Victoria and Vancouver. With STOL airports in place travel would be approximately one hour between Victoria and Vancouver I'm using time allotted for travel to the STOL airport at both ends of the run, because the time elapsed between take-off and landing would be in the order of 20 minutes.

Government officials - both the previous government and the one before that - have always sidestepped the issue by saying there just isn't an area in downtown Vancouver to accommodate a STOLport, that there isn't a spot that would be suitable to the people living nearby, and also that the possibility of ' anyone in Vancouver agreeing to one.... It would be almost impossible to get through various pressure groups that would definitely attack it.

I'm here today though to say that there is a spot. Noise pollution is at a minimum. It's environmentally acceptable. Again, I'm talking about Vancouver city at this time. The cost is within reason; I'm talking them again about development cost. It's almost in the centre of the lower mainland, and it's only eight short minutes from downtown Vancouver.

I speak, of course, of the 20 acres of land adjacent to the North Vancouver Burrard terminal. There is now 20 acres of land sitting fallow since the terminal base has been finished. It would only require approximately another six or seven acres to be acquired by the government to allow enough space for a STOLport to be built on that particular site.

I think all of us can envision the possibility of flying from Victoria to North Vancouver taking the Burrard ferry from the foot of Lonsdale, and being right down at Georgia and Hastings within under 10 minutes.

The North Vancouver site is a very interesting one. I surveyed it a couple of weeks ago. Its mean average width is about 700 feet, and the airstrip that's required for a STOLport, as outlined by the de Havilland company, which as most of you know, is very much involved in STOL aircraft, is 300 feet. This would leave something in the order of 400 feet of area for other use.

One of the things that has been talked about, especially on the North Vancouver site, is that the people in that area would like to see a waterfront park. It's my argument that you could put a STOLport, Mr. Chairman, in this particular area and also have use of the waterfront and a waterfront park. I believe that that would be a saleable item to the people in North Vancouver, and it would be, of course, something that all of us would like to see because of the great difficulty in travelling back and forth.

The STOL terminal could be located immediately beside the ferry terminal. The passengers could walk on to the ferry and be downtown in less than 10 minutes, or they could walk to buses. There is a bus terminal involved in that particular ferry terminal that would allow them to travel to any part of the North Shore and to some parts of Burnaby.

I believe that the combination of a STOLport and a harbour-front park in that particular site would be both commercially and aesthetically pleasing. Naturally people in North Vancouver are going to be concerned about noise, and the noise pollution that might evolve around a port of this type. I've chosen the de Havilland aircraft primarily because it is manufactured in Canada. As it turns out, Canadians are world leaders in the development of STOL aircraft.

The Dash-7 is a very quiet plane, compared, say, to jets, or even more quiet than some of the smaller aircraft that all of us are used to seeing. I'm talking about Cessnas and planes of that type.

At no time during either take-off or landing does a Dash-7 noise level exceed 85 decibels. In lay terms, and that was the first thing that came to me when I was reading up on this particular item, what does that mean to a person who isn't knowledgeable about what sound decibels really are? A person 500 feet from the aircraft on take-off - not on landing, but on take-off, which is the height of the noise that's generated by the craft - would hear noise similar to that of a diesel dumptruck at the same distance. The noise footprint - and the footprint is actually the noise level on a chart that shows the area and the effect that the plane would have both on take-off and landing -indicates that from 1,800 feet out no one would hear anything that would be of a level that they could actually retain and realize that there was something noisy or there was a machine running. I'm not saying that that is a distance of 1,800 feet or more away from the flight path of the aircraft. But in even more understandable terms, the Dash-7 noise is 97 per cent

[ Page 2306 ]

less than a contemporary jet.

I also noticed on TV the other day that the Hon. Sam Bawlf, the Minister of Recreation, was quoted as having said that the Ogden Point area was being considered for a STOL port. This particular area to me would be exceptionally functional for an aircraft of this kind and would make good use of an area that would allow aircraft to move in on the city from over the water.

The same situation happens in North Vancouver where we have a situation where the flight path either goes over the water or goes over a very heavily industrialized area. The citizens of that particular tight area in North Vancouver, the one that's just immediately adjacent to both sides of Lonsdale, would find that all of the aircraft sounds would be -I'm trying to think of a word now - without any appreciable noise. I think they would likely find that the actual presence of the aircraft would not be noticeable by most people in the immediate area of the port itself.

In conclusion, I think there is a real need for improved service between the two major cities of British Columbia. This particular system that I'm talking about between the two cities could be a forerunner of a STOL air system for the province. The aircraft is much less expensive than, say, a jet; I think it's something like a third of the cost of a 737, which is a very small jet aircraft. Maintenance and aircraft cost is much lower.

It could eventually expand its service to areas like Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, Prince Rupert and Cranbrook. It could actually double the service at the same amount of cost. This would mean that we could fly two aircraft into an area like Cranbrook that perhaps only has one flight a day into Vancouver for the same cost as PWA is now experiencing to fly a jet aircraft into that area. It would mean that we could start talking in terms of what has occurred in the country of Norway, where they have developed their intercity service with STOL aircraft. The costs, as I say, are lower.

Let us move into transportation in the province that has now been taken off us with the sale of PWA to the Alberta government. I think everyone in this House is concerned about that particular situation. We are all anxiously waiting to see what the final judgment will be. I think that many of us are not too optimistic about the outcome. It's been said to me that there is approximately $35 million lost in revenues in the province of British Columbia.

It's my feeling that if we were to develop a STOL system, using the Victoria and Vancouver areas as the nucleus for the new system, we could eventually take over flights into cities, as I mentioned earlier. We could end up with our own transportation system by air throughout the province. I believe the minister should now take immediate steps to study the possibilities of doing this. To me, the loss of an airline that has now gone to another government is something that everyone in this province is concerned about, and I would ask that we very carefully study the possibilities of STOL ports and the possibilities of taking over routes that are now owned by a government outside of this province, to retain the jobs, profits and capital that should be kept here in this particular province.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the minister consider very carefully the remarks that I've made today. I'll be glad to share some of the data with him.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South, he is very close to the mark insofar as our future transportation needs are concerned. Third-level air carriers can perform a very important role in improving the transportation of people and high-value goods around British Columbia. They're doing a big job now, but they could be helped to do a much better one.

We have commissioned consultants to provide in sequence a good deal of information on this subject. We now have all the statistical data we need in volume 1. Volume 2 will contain recommendations as to routes and possible locations of smaller airstrips that the third-level air carriers could use.

Relative to STOL aircraft - transporting people from Vancouver to Victoria, for example - the federal government has done some work. The province has also done some work; they've looked at alternate sites around Vancouver and at the Ogden Point and Work Point sites in Victoria..

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss this afternoon some of the. problems that we're facing on the central north coast and that we may face on the south coast in regard to coastal transportation.

I checked the Blues very carefully when I got back to Victoria this morning. On Thursday afternoon, my last day in the House, I did ask the minister a number of questions regarding B.C. Ferries. We discussed B.C. Ferries at some length and I did notice that the minister did not answer most of the questions that I've asked him, certainly not satisfactorily. A couple are all right.

I think that before I discuss coastal transportation, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a minute to rephrase some of these questions in the hopes that the minister, when he does have the opportunity to speak again, will answer them. I do know, as well, that the general manager of the Ferry Corporation was not in the House when I posed most of my questions. So perhaps now the general manager will assist him so he may be able to answer these questions.

The first question I had asked the minister to

[ Page 2307 ]

answer was if he was aware of the economic dislocation that he had caused when he increased ferry fares, by double and triple the rates that they were prior to June, 1976. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago one of my colleagues pointed out to me an ad that appeared in The Daily Colonist on Saturday, March 26 - just last Saturday. "Demolition Sale, Prince Charles Motel, 225 Gorge Road, three years old, 40 units, being dismantled." It gives a list of things for sale and how to contact these people.

The fact is that I'm personally aware of six other motel units that have gone broke, to put it bluntly. They blame the horrendous increase in B.C. ferry fares. People just aren't travelling on the ferries. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on how he intends to solve that problem, or does he expect the situation to improve? I'm sure he does, but quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that it will. There might be some increase in traffic this summer, but I don't think it will be significant. People cannot, particularly in this time of depression since the Social Credit Party has come into power - and we are having a depression....

MR. KEMPF: Oh, come on!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We are! There are 120,000 people unemployed and he says: "Come on, Don!" He should go out and talk to those 120,000 people who are unemployed. That's what he should do instead of making smart remarks across the floor of the House, Mr. Chairman. He should go out and talk to the unemployed - that's what he should do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 102, hon. member. I'll try to keep the members from interrupting.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, thank you so much.

I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, that it is causing serious hardship in terms of the Sunshine Coast, the Powell River area, in terms of the tourist industry. So that was one question that wasn't answered. Is the minister going to perhaps decrease fares - bring them down by a third?

I don't see what advantage there is in running these huge vessels back and forth half empty. We're subsidizing empty space when they could be utilized. In fact now, Mr. Chairman, it's cheaper to go as a foot passenger on B.C. ferries and rent a U-Drive in Vancouver for a day than to take your own vehicle over and back to Vancouver from Victoria.

I won't dwell too long on these questions, because I really want to get on to the coastal shipping thing. But I would like to know about the possible sale of some of our vessels to the state of Washington. The minister may have answered this on Friday night; I'm not sure. Did you comment on that, Mr. Minister -the possible sale of the Sunshine Coast Queen to the state of Washington? I'm not sure about the Langdale. It may have been part of the discussions as well that the minister has had with Dixie Lee Ray.

But I'm urging the minister not to sell that vessel. Keep that vessel in the province. We'll need that vessel and, in a few minutes, I'm going to discuss the critical situation we have on our north coast. I don't know, but it may well be that this vessel could be utilized in that area.

I'd like the minister to comment as well on the morale on our B.C. ferries. I spoke at some length about this situation last Thursday. But I would like the minister to comment because that situation exists today; morale has never been worse on the ferries. I notice that the minister did say, when I was discussing some of the terrible food we have on the ferries, or lack of food....

Now I wasn't discussing primarily routes one and two, because at least they have.... It's not dining-room service, but it's cafeteria-style service and you can get something to eat. I was discussing some of the other routes: route six, Saltery Bay-Earls Cove; route three - it's terrible, and it's not the fault of the people on those vessels, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's the fault of this government. There have been thousands of letters of complaint; I have received hundreds myself over the last while. Wherever I go - and I travel these ferries a great deal - people are complaining. I think there's a great deal of room for improvement in that area, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask the minister as well, very quickly, if he has any comment to make in view of a telegram I received from Mr. Otto Lang last Wednesday regarding the reclassification of our waters to inland or protected. Is the minister or someone in his department still negotiating on this matter, or have they dropped negotiations now that Mr. Lang has said "no way"? Well, Mr. Minister, I think I'll leave that for a time and hope you'll consider answering some of these questions.

This morning I returned, along with my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , from a trip to the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Prince Rupert area. We spoke with people from Kitimat and Stewart, and we had meetings with many, many people in those areas, Mr. Chairman. The reason we went out to that area is that we wanted to talk with people first hand about the problems they're facing in regard to coast transportation.

I don't suppose I have to go over the long, sordid history of this whole fiasco; I've done that on several occasions in this House. I'll just recap very briefly so that the people will know that up to October 1,

[ Page 2308 ]

1976, the coast transportation was primarily served by a company called Northland Navigation which was subsidized by the federal government to about $3.2 million per year - for the last year, at any rate.

That subsidy was terminated, and consequently Northland withdrew their service. The people on the coast were left practically without any service -certainly without any meaningful service at all - and many areas were left without passenger service by water whatsoever.

A lot of things happened. I recall that just before Christmas, the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications called a press conference after a lot of flak, because prior to that time the minister had said that he felt there would be no problems in terms of transportation on this coast. But after there was a great deal of flak from communities up and down the coast, the minister and the Premier called a press conference. We were all waiting with bated breath to see what he had to say. What did he say? He sent a telegram to Otto Lang -that was supposed to solve the problem - asking for a subsidy, although RivTow did say they could operate without subsidy and that whole business.

That brings up another topic, Mr. Chairman, before I proceed. I would like to know if during the course of discussions prior to October 3 1 the minister or anyone on his staff had any discussions with the federal government regarding the Northland subsidy. Did the minister or someone from his office in fact tell the federal minister or some senior official of the federal Department of Transport that if the federal government withdrew that subsidy to Northland, there would be no flak from the provincial government?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Minister says there's no truth in that. I hope he's right. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that a senior official of Northland Navigation whom I trust - I have no reason not to trust him - told me when he went back to Ottawa prior to October 3 1,1976, that a senior official of the federal Department of Transport told him that someone in a very high position in the Department of Transport in British Columbia had made this remark in Ottawa. The minister denies it, and I accept the minister's word.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I did go on this trip to the north coast. It was the first leg of several trips; the second leg of our trip will be to the central coast. We will be discussing with regional districts, municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour groups - any interested parties - the problems that they face with coast transportation. The third leg of our tour, as is well known, will be the lower coast, which has somewhat different problems than the mid and upper coasts.

I want to tell that minister, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of answers we've received in this House during question period and at other times about how well things are going in terms of transportation on the central and north coast, there is an emergency situation in some ways up in that area right now. I want to tell you that everybody's angry.

I'd like to give this House an example of how costs have increased. RivTow said they could operate that service without subsidy, which they couldn't. They were subsidized; the Malibu Princess was subsidized.

Which reminds me, Mr. Chairman: the Malibu Princess was on a route between Prince Rupert and Masset for some time, and was heavily subsidized by both the federal and provincial governments. I would like the minister to tell this House what the provincial portion of that subsidy was.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister says no subsidy. Well, did the minister and/or his department or the B.C. Steamship Corporation in anyway subsidize a Lumba Lumba down into Bella Bella or the Bungle Bungle? How much was that subsidy, Mr. Minister? I hope he'll answer it; I'd like to know.

But in terms of the subsidy that was paid to RivTow for the Malibu Princess, I'm told it amounted to $250,000 for the time that it operated. It only carried two passengers. So, Mr. Chairman, that means it cost $125,000 per passenger. That's a pretty expensive boat ride, Mr. Chairman. Nobody would use that service, of course, and they've finally withdrawn it.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Federal tax dollars.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They were federal tax dollars and all British Columbia tax dollars, right -everybody's tax dollars, Mr. Minister. What a waste of money.

That money could at least have subsidized Northland until the provincial government.... You can't evade the responsibility on this, Mr. Minister, because the provincial government now has the means to supply an interim service remedy until long-term solutions are found. You do have vessels, you do have the capability, and you can't blame Ottawa every time you turn around; that's all you're doing. This is your responsibility. You were elected to government to serve the people of this coast and I expect you to do that. Those people whom I met with last weekend for three solid days expect something from you, and not rhetoric. They want action and they want action now.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

[ Page 2309 ]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you something else. We were told by the federal and provincial governments that there would be no increase. RivTow could operate the service without subsidy and there would be no significant increase in costs. From Stewart last Saturday, we were given a list of what the increased costs actually are. You might be interested to know, Mr. Minister, and I don't know if you noticed or not, that RivTow once again is after -I'll read these costs - a federal subsidy, and probably a provincial subsidy. I don't know. Are they asking for a provincial subsidy? They're also asking for an increase in their freight rates of 18 to 25 per cent, well above the guidelines established by the AIB, and they'll likely get it. If they don't get it, they probably won't survive, but they're not providing the service.

Let me read this: from Vancouver to Stewart, there was an 18 per cent increase to send groceries, over and above Northland's 1976 rate; for frozen foods, a 23 per cent increase in freight rates; for cooler goods and milk a 57 per cent increase on freight rates for milk and an 88 per cent increase for goods that have to be sent up in a cooler if they get there. RivTow, by the way, has a bad habit of their coolers going on the blink. The containers are on a barge. There are no mechanics on the barge-, obviously, they are on the tug. So when it breaks down, vegetables and things of that nature all spoil. At least when they were going up on Northland, there was a mechanic there to fix it if something went wrong with their cooling system. So the goods usually arrived in fairly good condition. For meat, fish and poultry, there was a 42 per cent increase over Northland's rates of 1976. Eggs - listen to this one-, you won't believe it - a 239 per cent increase to ship eggs now from Vancouver to Stewart. I can't believe it. I have a lot of other figures here, Mr. Chairman; I won't read them into the record.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that these people we met - mayors, regional district chairman and, in fact, quite a few municipal councillors and regional district people, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, tourist people and tourist bureau staffs, as well as a great number of labour groups, citizens' groups of all kinds - told us a lot. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said they told us a lot. You better believe they told us a lot, but do you know one of the things they said? "You're the first people to come up here and talk to us. You came all the way up here to talk to us, and you're the only ones that are interested. Ottawa's ignoring us. Victoria's ignoring us. In fact, Victoria is trying to evade its responsibilities." They are evading their responsibilities. This government has the capability to provide an interim service to replace Northland. They are not doing it and I'd like the minister to talk about that when he answers.

A short time ago the combined regional districts of Kitimat-Stikine, Skeena-Queen Charlottes, Central Coast and Mount Waddington, formed a transportation committee. This is how serious the situation is. They met in Vancouver approximately two and a half weeks or so ago to see if they could agree on some solution to this problem and to meet with the government. They sent a telegram to the Premier, with a copy to the minister, it says here. I hope I'm correct. Did you receive a copy of the telegram, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, from the combined regional districts? The minster says yes. They haven't received a reply to that telegram. In their telegram, which was sent on March 14, they're requesting:

first, that the premier, the minister of transportation and the minister of economic development meet with the combined committee of these regional districts as soon as possible. secondly, that no decisions on coastal transportation be made without consultation with this combined group. They received no reply. They received an acknowledgement to their telegram, but no reply, no promise of a meeting and no promise of consultation. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister now - and if he likes I've got a copy of the minutes on the telegram - to contact the chairman of this committee, who's also the chairman of the Kitimat-Stikine regional district, Mr. Joe Banyay. He should fire off a telegram this afternoon, set a date, and tell him you'll meet that committee here in Victoria to discuss this transportation problem, because it is serious.

People are leaving the central coast - Ocean Falls - because of lack of transportation; people are leaving the Queen Charlotte Islands. The present barge service has no flexibility. Many of the stops that the Northland Prince and the Skeena Prince used to make in the Queen Charlottes, the Northland can't or won't make. In some cases, some of the larger private companies are providing their own transportation facilities in the interim, but it's not adequate.

Families are leaving the Queen Charlotte Islands, and as I said, Ocean Falls is having a particular problem getting qualified people. The money is good. It's a nice community to live in, but there's no transportation. There were 26 days last year when people couldn't fly in and out of Ocean Falls - no transportation, no water transportation, no alternative service. The year before, 1974, there were 28 days when planes could not fly into Ocean Falls -you've got the Lumba Lumba going in there. Well, let me tell you, the Lumba Lumba was laid up for quite a while and started again about three weeks ago. The Ocean Falls Informer was asked to distribute schedules and let people know about.... It didn't

[ Page 2310 ]

matter really, anyway, because the thing was never really on schedule. They kind of sneak in and out of Ocean Falls and hope they won't get caught. But the editor of the Ocean Falls Informer said: "The demand from our readers for schedules appears to be somewhat underwhelming - one schedule." There was one request for schedules. The're not using that vessel, and it's totally inadequate, Mr. Chairman. Even if they do make connections at Bella Bella for the Prince Rupert, getting slung over the side in a lifeboat is not the way to travel, not in this day and age.

So I hope the minister will discuss some of these matters. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if you are having continuing discussions with the federal government. Has the federal government made an offer to this provincial government? Does that offer include, for example, a subsidy to B.C. Ferries, with the attachment or proviso that the provincial government take over full responsibility for coast transportation? Is that part of the deal? Tell us what those negotiations are. I'm very interested; the people on this coast are interested. We would very much like to know, Mr. Minister, what is happening in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I have quite a number of questions I would continue with and would like to ask the minister on this topic, but I would very much like the minister to consider this: in the first leg of our tour there seemed to be a consensus of some of the people in that area whom we talked to.... I will be, as I said, meeting with people on the central coast and north Island, who are ably represented by our member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and I would like the minister.... It would seem that people would like to see not only the restoration of the service to major communities we had with Northland, but an improvement, which could mean to some of the major ports a roll-on roll-off type of service with some of our ferries.

Everybody realizes and understands that we can't and won't build ferry ramps at every little community. It's just a physical impossibility, and I wouldn't even suggest it. Places like Namu, for example, a major fish cannery where they have 800 or 900 people employed two or three months of the year during the fishing season.... Other than that, there are only six or seven people there, but that's a port. There are other examples where a self-propelled type of vessel could serve an area like that - ports like that - that have passenger capability, have the capability to lift on and lift off heavy freight, such as Northland did. They should have at least a 20,000-lb. lifting capability, Mr. Chairman, and be able to take passengers. In some instances, the barge service is ideal. It's cheaper, and it's adequate for some areas -a very few. To some major ports for bulk items I have no complaint about the barge service.

1 would like the minister to comment. But certainly, before any major decisions are made, I really would advise the minister to consult with the people affected. So I'm going to take my seat now for a few minutes and ask the minister if he'd be good enough to reply, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I'll try and answer some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) .

Northland Navigation, and before it the CNR, and before it again, Union Steamships.... Various corporations have served the outlying communities of the middle coast and upper coast of British Columbia. All of them in varying amounts have received subsidies from the federal government. Like the provincial government, the federal government prepares annual budgets.

My recollection is that as early as 1960 there was discussion about terminating any subsidy to then Northland so, in a sense, the federal subsidy was terminable on 12-months' notice annually, but the members from British Columbia always managed to keep the subsidy continuing. Northland really expected that there would be a continuation of its subsidy again in 1977. The federal government decided once again to terminate, and then in fact did terminate. There was little or no discussion with the provincial government. The termination occurred at the end of October.

When I say "little or no discussion, " we did know what the estimate for the subsidy for Northland Navigation was in the published reports of the federal government. They'd estimated considerably less for expenditure in the last year so we suspected there might be something happening. To reiterate, there was no meaningful discussion. We did ask for clarification from Ottawa. There was no response.

Ottawa did in fact terminate its subsidy to Northland Navigation at the end of October and in the ensuing several weeks we endeavoured to work up some interim arrangement with the federal government whereby some minimum service would be supplied until we could establish a better long-term relationship with the federal government.

Immediately B.C. Ferries began stopping the Queen of Prince Rupert at Bella Bella. That was a new development that occurred really as a result of the termination of the federal subsidy.

Substantially though, the federal government did make various arrangements, including that of chartering the Malibu Princess to run to the Queen Charlottes. The federal government made arrangements with RivTow to operate the Lumba Lumba. We did however, as an interim measure, agree to pay half the cost on the Lumba Lumba. When it broke down before Christmas, and since we had footed the bill up to that point and received no

[ Page 2311 ]

compensation from the federal government, we terminated our payments to RivTow. As far as I know, the federal government is now paying them to continue running that launch three days a week out of Bella Bella and three days a week out of Prince Rupert.

Our longer-term plans, assuming that the federal government agrees to our submissions would be to run between Vancouver Island and ~prince Rupert, hopefully on a more frequent basis than in the past, and always stopping at Bella Bella. We would expect also to provide a first-class service into Ocean Falls. We would provide services into a number of smaller communities and, as the hon. member says, use smaller vessels because they make economic sense. Large vessels arriving at small communities where there are no docks, or where it doesn't make sense to build large docks, would be unwise.

Just as a matter of information, I am told by the general manager of B.C. Ferries that, on the average, the Queen of Prince Rupert has picked up 10 people at Bella Bella coming and going, north and south. That's a measure of its usefulness to date.

We're interested in supplying roll-on, roll-off facilities. We're looking at possibilities such as originating, at least in the wintertime, at Tsawwassen and perhaps going not only to Prince Rupert but also to Kitimat on occasion. We're looking at using the Queen of Surrey, at least in the summertime, running in daylight hours between the north end of Vancouver Island and, say, alternately Prince Rupert and Kitimat. If the province does take over the responsibilities of the federal government in this area, we will improve the service substantially. There will be better vessels. Certainly there will be faster schedules, and many more communities will be served on a more frequent basis.

The nature of the provincial offer to the federal government was outlined in a telegram sent in December to both the Minister of Transport in Ottawa (Hon. Mr. Lang) and to the Prime Minister. It really said to the federal government: "If you will pay us on the order of $15 million a year, we will assume all responsibilities for all salt-water ferries on the British Columbia's west coast." That figure was related to our present subsidy to B.C. Ferries. In effect, we were asking the federal government to match the province on a 50-50 basis on the main routes plied by our ferries, or future main routes that may become economic. So that's the nature of our request to Ottawa. The responses to date have been along the lines of that formula. Now I'm not saying the numbers of dollars that might flow are the same, but I am saying the formula has, generally speaking, been accepted by the federal government.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you expecting to make an announcement shortly?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, I'd rather not comment on that because we're endeavouring to finalize an agreement with Ottawa. I'm trying to explain the nature of the provincial submission to Ottawa and I'm indicating that the federal response is positive, at least in some of these respects.

The hon. member quite rightly talked about someone or various people going to these communities which have been seriously affected by lack of service. Certainly if we enter into an agreement with the federal government, the first thing we will do is appoint an individual - call him a commissioner for lack of a better word - who would go to these various communities and ask for submissions as to the kind of service they would like to see developed along the middle and upper coasts of the province.

The member for Mackenzie also discussed the general level of fares. That is a matter for the directors of the corporation. The directors of the corporation have discussed fares; they did make a submission through me to the provincial cabinet and their submission was accepted. That was for a reduction in passenger fares on certain days of the week on the main routes between the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. That is the extent of the recommendations of the board of directors to date. They will continue to be concerned about fares, along with many other matters.

The hon. member referred to the sale of certain vessels. Two vessels are substantially surplus to our system - the old Langdale Queen. Tenders have been called; bids are in; the directors have asked for further clarification on the bids. They may decide to recommend the sale of the Langdale Queen to a certain bidder. With respect to the Sunshine Coast Queen, I am interested to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie urging us to keep it and the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) urging us to sell it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I missed the speech; I was out of the House.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, he said we should improve Washington State ferries; we should sell our castoffs to them. That's what he was really saying. He was urging that it be used on the Anacortes-Sidney run because there is'some possibility of that run being terminated by Washington State Ferries because they are losing money on it. Again, in this case, tenders have been called; bids are coming in and they will be submitted to the directors for their recommendation. I don't know what the recommendation will be. I think, Mr. Chairman, that covers the main questions that the member has asked.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I have just barely scratched the surface but I won't dwell too long on

[ Page 2312 ]

this topic for the moment. I want to urge the minister and ask him this question. He can't speak for the Premier, but will the minister at least meet soon with the representatives of the four regional districts I described earlier during this debate, Mr. Chairman? It's vital that the minister let these people who are involved on a daily basis with the problems being caused by the lack of transportation services in the mid and central coasts come down here now. Don't appoint a commissioner with the idea that, well, we'll give the commissioner four months, six months, a year, two years to solve the problem while the mid and central coasts are not developed economically.

How can there be economic development on the central coast? Both this provincial government and the federal government say that there is not enough economic development on the coast to warrant a modern transportation system and the type of transportation system that is needed on this coast now. On the other hand, the users say how the heck can there be economic development when we don't have a transportation system? All the studies that I have read, and they're numerous.... The only one I haven't got is the Acres report and I wish the minister would table that report. You've got it. You have the executive summary, Mr. Minister, haven't you?

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Fine, appoint a commissioner or the legislative committee. We have a legislative committee on transportation. Have that committee look at the long-range necessities, the needs, and make long-range plans. Make recommendations to the B.C. Ferry corporation, the B.C. Steamship Corporation and to this government on what the long-term needs of this province may be. But right now I'm suggesting that if we start fooling around with commissioners, legislative committees and spending more time while there is a crisis situation on the mid and central coasts, Mr. Chairman, I believe this minister will not be facing up to his responsibilities.

I would like the minister's assurances that steps will be taken now to help alleviate the problems that face the central and north coast areas of this province. It's one thing to sit in Victoria in a nice, warm, friendly atmosphere in the House and say: "Oh, well, they're not complaining so much any more. Maybe if we leave it long enough it will go away." But I want to tell you from experience - I spent three days this last weekend talking to people in that area - that the needs are real, the problems are real, and there must be solutions offered now.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the position I have found myself in essentially is this:

we're trying to drive a hard bargain with the federal government. Until we get a satisfactory conclusion to that negotiation, we're unwise - at least in the view of a great many people - to be assuming the responsibility ahead of a settlement. Now I think we can get a settlement. It certainly will only be agreed to if it's generally in the public interest, but it also has to be in the interests of the people who live on the middle and upper coast. I'm happy to meet with all those people the moment we've got an agreement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: When will that be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one speaker can speak at a time, hon. member.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We would endeavour also, in addition to meeting with the people most vitally affected here, to send someone who would make an on-the-spot survey that didn't take more than a couple of months at the outside for more detailed recommendations. I also want to assure the hon. member that we have a plan to put substantial capacity into place the moment we've got an agreement with the federal government.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have twice now asked the minister.... He has a plan. That's good. I'm glad to hear that. That's great! But the four regional districts have asked the Premier, this government and this minister, before they make plans, before they finalize anything, to meet with us, the people who are affected. Now the minister says he has a plan and is ready to institute it. What are those plans? What are they? Are we going to have consultation or is the minister just arbitrarily going to implement some plan? Let's hear a little bit about the plan, Mr. Chairman. I'm very curious. I want the minister's assurance that he will meet with these people. Have a confidential meeting - they won't spill the beans. Consult them.

MR. LEA: I don't think the minister quite understands what is going on the central and north coast. I just don't see, Mr. Chairman, how the minister could be talking the way he is if he completely understood. You see, what was happening was that Northland was serving a great many of those communities adequately. It was a self-propelled vessel that served those communities properly. But it wasn't only the water travel itself; it was the facilities for loading and unloading.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: They were adequate in most cases. Sure, everybody likes to see improvements. I'm not saying that the Northland service was the ultimate in

[ Page 2313 ]

service to those communities, but it was an adequate service that supplied the needs of those communities. They didn't like the rates, necessarily, but those rates look pretty good today.

Just to give the minister some idea of what's going on, you see, it's all right to say: "Well, we'll negotiate with Ottawa. We don't want to ruin or hurt our chances of driving a hard bargain so you just wait up there until that sort of thing happens." But what about a fisherman who, a year or two ago, sent his i herring punt over by Northland Navigation for $120? He just sent it again for $607. What about the Haida Indians in Masset who had a load of lumber a year ago at $800? They just got an identical load at $1,900. They can't afford for you to drive the kind of bargain you're talking about. They need the service now. They need to be helped now, because by the time you get around to it there won't be anybody to help. They can't stand the kind of economic crisis they're in. They just can't stand it. Foodstuffs, hardware services.... It's not just a bunch of people up there squawking to hear themselves squawk. They are really in trouble.

I hope the minister does drive a hard bargain with Ottawa because, in my opinion, the present circumstance in which we find ourselves is not the fault of the provincial government but the fault of the federal government. They've got themselves in a bind, Mr. Chairman, that is going to be politically hard for them to get themselves out of. What they did was cancel the adequate service that people are demanding now. The people are demanding the same kind of service that Northland supplied. That's what they're demanding. So how can the federal government turn around and say: "We're now going to put in place exactly the same service that we cancelled just a while ago."? I mean, they'd have political egg all over their face.

We know they're not going to provide a better service - the federal government. They only have one choice: to put in a lesser service and try to pretend it's a greater service. I just hope the provincial government doesn't get sucked into some kind of fool plan that the federal government has in mind to save their own political face. The minister should know,

Mr. Chairman, what kind of games they'll play. He was in their cabinet. He was in their cabinet when the Acres report was commissioned - the report that was sent in to find a way to cancel the subsidy. That's what it was all about, wasn't it? That's right. The minister shakes his head. The Acres report was commissioned to go in there and come back with a report that would do what the federal government wanted to do - cut off the subsidy. But as I understand it, the Acres report acted a little more independently than that and brought in a real report, naming the real problems, and putting in some real recommendations. That's why we haven't seen the light of day of the Acres report since. We won't see it.

I think there is one group, though, that could force that Acres report out of the federal government and into the light of day, and that's the provincial government. If I demand it, or a regional district demands it, or a shipping firm, or a logging firm, or a group of consumers, they're just not going to get that report. But there are so many rumors flying around about the Acres report that if the minister does have it, I think it would be a great help to everybody on the coast to have a look at that report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ask for it?

MR. LEA: Did I ask for it? No, I didn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. Only one member may speak at a time.

MR. LEA: I'm not trying to lay any blame, Mr. Chairman, on this minister. I think that we should have the Acres report, whether we ask for it or you ask for it. I just think that the weight of provincial government should go in to making that report open to the public.

One of the things that is beyond me, as I understand it, and maybe the minister could clear this up - is that the subsidy dollars that were going to Northland were for passenger service. Rut I understand from Northland that they were making money on their passenger service and they were actually losing on their freight, so the whole thing is completely mixed up. But there is only one solution hat can go in there now and be an interim help until long-range solutions are found: there has to be a elf-propelled vessel that will carry some passengers and a great deal of freight to use the facilities and the outings that Northland use. Now I'm sure there must be some ship on the west coast that we could use for hat purpose. It's needed now. Northland are not going to re-enter the picture, as understand it. Even if the subsidy was handed back and doubled, they just can't do it. That's what we understand from Northland - that they can't do it. But there are government docks, there is Northland equipment in terms of forklifts and that sort of thing hat, I'm sure, could.... The people who really know what service should be there are the people who've run it for a lot of years - that's Northland. You know they've had a lot of experiments, a lot of experience. I believe that Northland is truly interested in the service that they ran for a lot of years and in seeing that those communities and those people and those companies are serviced. I believe hat if the provincial government went to Northland and asked for their help for an interim period of time, Northland would try to help them in any way they could with existing facilities that are out there and

[ Page 2314 ]

possibly even one of their vessels, although I don't know whether that's even possible.

There are two vessels needed, really, but even one would be a help. But a self-propelled vessel with roll-on roll-off, lift-on load-off, is really needed at this point. People are suffering real hardship. You know, it's not just a political flurry. People are paying more money than they can afford to pay.

Another example, Mr. Chairman, is Port Simpson and the problems that they're having at the Port Simpson cannery. They got a load of salt in with the freight that was more than the salt, and then it had to be unloaded on the beach. But further to that, all of the produce that they have in there - their frozen fish and other commodities that are ready to be moved and have to be moved - they cannot move. They are absolutely sunk. They just cannot move one bit in any direction the way they are right now, and barge service will just not do because you cannot ship that commodity on the barges - frozen fish.

You know, there are certain commodities, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure the minister is aware, that you cannot ship by barge adequately. The Port Simpson cannery is going to be in a great deal of trouble, and if it is, then it's going to cost somebody some money. I don't know whether we're going to make any savings in the long run by these hard negotiations with Ottawa while we allow this service to deteriorate the way it is. Port Simpson is really in trouble with their cannery unless we can get a self-propelled vessel in there to get their produce out and some of their supplies in.

The logging companies on the Queen Charlotte Islands are not getting adequate service in there. You know, the list goes on as long as your arm and it just isn't something that can wait while a commissioner goes in or while we negotiate with Ottawa. There are British Columbians who are suffering great hardship because of a stupid, stupid move by the federal government, by cancelling the service when they didn't even have another one to take its place. I'm not blaming RivTow in any way for the service they're providing. I just don't believe that they can provide it. They don't have the facilities to provide the service that Northland was providing and the service that's needed. So you can't leave it up to RivTow.

Now RivTow is asking for a subsidy from the federal government. I don't think there is any doubt that we're going to have to treat coastal transportation as a utility. There are going to have to be government dollars, whether it's subsidies to private companies or whether it's a Crown corporation taking over the service. But it's going to have to be treated as a public utility for quite some time to come, I'm sure.

As the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has pointed out, we need the Acres report. I think it would be a great help to everyone to see that Acres report and to see what it contains. Maybe we don't need any more reports; maybe it lays it all out as to what the problems are and what the solutions should be. But the Acres report was done when Northland was there. I wonder what the Acres report would say today if that Northland service hadn't been there.

So it's causing great hardship. The small businesses in Prince Rupert are paying a great deal more money. They have to pass that on to the consumer. Some of the companies at this point are absorbing some of those cost increases in a community-spirited way and not passing it on to the consumers. But they're going to have to begin to do it.

Also, within the next week or two, I believe, RivTow is going to announce a further increase in their rates - from 10 to 40 per cent. At that point, the local merchants are not going to be able to hold on much longer. In Queen Charlotte City, they're selling milk at three cents less than what they're paying for it, because they have to bring it in by air. They are bringing more and more in by air. There is a real hardship. We're not just standing here as partisan politicians talking about this. There's a real hardship for British Columbians on the coast - whether they're Liberals, Conservatives, Socreds or NDPers, it doesn't matter.

They can't wait for the commissioner - I'm using that for lack of a better word also - or long-term solutions with the federal government. They just can't wait. They need it almost as soon as you can get it in. They need it now and they're really suffering. I'm afraid that there are going to be businesses going down the tube.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are now.

MR. LEA: Yes, there are now - but more will be. It is just not a political matter, and I don't think that we, as a province, can treat it as a political matter with Ottawa. We just can't. At least put in a self-propelled service using, hopefully, some of Northland's facilities and some of the government wharfing. The Northland facilities at Prince Rupert are owned by the provincial government, at any rate, and they were leased to Northland at a very reasonable rate. So those facilities are available.

It's just incredible, the hardship that's going on there in terms of the consumers, companies that are trying to produce not services to consumers in the area, but lumber and logs, and those businesses that are producing service goods to people. I just feel that the minister doesn't quite appreciate the situation which we're in. I just don't feel he does.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think now the minister is starting to get a small idea of some of the problems which we're facing in the mid and northern coast, Mr. Chairman. I will be speaking about this again, but

[ Page 2315 ]

1 wish to take this opportunity to draw to the minister's attention, Mr. Chairman, a problem that we may be facing on the southern coast as well.

I'm not talking about B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries; I'm talking about a company called Coast Ferries - owned and operated by Mr. W.A. New. Operating out of Vancouver, they serve some 103 communities between Howe Sound and Rivers Inlet - a small part of the central coast, but primarily serving the lower coast.

A couple of years ago, because of the lack of business and money, Mr. New shut down the operation for some two months until he did receive a little bit of federal aid. The dislocation that was caused when those two vessels and that tug-and-barge service was interrupted, Mr. Chairman, was horrendous.

This is the only means of access those people have in places like Refuge Cove. I have a list of all of the 103 communities served here by that operation, and it's the only communication they have, once again, other than aircraft. On December 6,1976, after lengthy negotiations with the federal government -and I understand there was some contact with the provincial government - Mr. New once again was unable to obtain a subsidy, and he announced that he would be terminating service December 31,1976.

The federal government didn't want another rerun of their mishandling of subsidies, such as happened with Northland Navigation, so they gave Mr. New's company $300,000 to keep them operating for a short period of time.

The problem is this: I spoke to Mr. New again just late last week, and he tells me that in all likelihood he will probably be able to operate this summer. But by the fall, because some people in these remote communities leave and logging camps shut down or they operate intermittently or what not, he is sure that, if there is not some type of subsidy, he will once again have to terminate his operations.

I'm asking the minister now if he is in some way going to assist Mr. New's operation so these 103 communities are not left stranded? Is he going to press the federal government to assist Mr. New so these communities are not left stranded? If he's not going to do any of these things, and Coast Ferries Ltd. terminates its service, then is the minister going to have an alternate plan or are we once again going to go through this thing that we're going through now with the mid-central and north coast? Either there is no transportation at all, there is dislocation of people, or what service there is is poor and expensive. Does the minister have plans to do something for Coast Ferries or a replacement service? If they're not going to do anything, if Coast Ferries goes down the tube, are we going to have a replacement service?

I I'd like a serious answer from the minister on that, and I just don't want the minister to get up and say it's a federal responsibility. Once again, Mr. Minister, this government, in my view, was elected to serve all of the people of British Columbia. This government now has the capability to implement a proper service for the people of this coast and it is not facing up to its responsibility. It is using the people of this coast as pawns in the political games with Ottawa. The people are suffering under this government, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to tell the minister as well that 80 per cent of our shipyard workers are currently unemployed. There are still some federal subsidies for ship building, and Northland Navigation had done a study on the proper kind of vessels that would be required to perform the kind of service on this coast that I've outlined in this House. So the plans are available, and I would like to know if the minister is considering putting some of our shipyard workers back to work.

Why not build a ship or two like the self-propelled vessels with loading capabilities that Northland outlined in their brief of 1974 to the federal and provincial governments of that time? Everybody agrees; anybody who knows the coast and knows anything about shipping knows that was a good plan. It's ironic that had the federal and/or provincial government subsidized Northland for another five years, they would have built two new vessels of the type I've outlined. In that time, they estimated that they would be a self-sustaining company and could operate without a subsidy. That's what they tell us in their brief.

So I wonder if the minister has any comment on these topics that I've just outlined.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly to the hon. member for Mackenzie, relative to the Acres report, the previous government did request the Acres report and was refused. We have managed to get a copy of it. I've read it; I have once again requested that the federal government release it. They've refused. I'm now hoping that I can get from them permission to release what I'll call a statistical resume, or get the statistics out of it anyway, so they're available to those members and others who are really interested in solving the problem of transportation of the middle and upper coast.

The member also referred to the problems being faced by Mr. New and Coast Ferries in the area generally north of Powell River and south of Port Hardy, if I can put it that way. Coast Ferries does serve a number of scattered communities, essentially logging camps, et cetera, which normally are serviced by the logging companies who own the camps. Mr. New did perform this service for some time without federal subsidy, then managed to get certain loans -not an ongoing operating subsidy but loans - over the last year. He now says he can operate during the summer even though he's received these capital loans,

[ Page 2316 ]

but may not be able to operate in the wintertime.

We've been watching this situation carefully and it may be, if the federal government agrees to turn over to British Columbia all of the responsibilities for salt-water ferries on the west coast, that we would have to service this area. We have some ideas in that connection.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): On Thursday evening I asked the minister a question about the launching and the inaugural voyage of the Queen of Alberni. I asked him at that time why the city of Port Alberni wasn't invited to take part in the launching ceremony and the inaugural voyage. He said at that time that he would come back with a reply for me today. I hope the minister has that information.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this government, so far at least, hasn't made a big thing out of the launching of vessels. The previous government spent substantial sums on launchings, including that of the Queen of Coquitlam during the last election. The Queen of Alberni was launched without a name shortly after the last election. She was subsequently named the Queen of Alberni, a name which had been suggested by the previous government, as was the Queen of Cowichan. The municipality will be approached with respect to an appropriate ceremony - call it a commissioning, if you like. But as yet there has been no suitable occasion for this event to take place.

MR. SKELLY: I thought it strange, Mr. Chairman, that the Burrard and the Otter, which were both launched by the present government, were launched with some celebration. I understand there was a bit of a champagne party down at the shipyards. So there has been some ceremony made of launchings since the present government came to office. I think it was an insult on the part of the present government not to involve the city of Port Alberni either in the launching or in the inaugural voyage of that ship. I think that's the way the people of Port Alberni took the incident - that it was an insult to them. They had petitioned for some time to have a ferry named after the city of Port Alberni. It has a long tradition as a port and a long tradition in the marine industry. They took it as an insult that they were not represented at those ceremonies.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, just following along the line of the member for Alberni, I might mention that there were a few people who were a bit concerned about the way the Queen of Cowichan was launched too. Invitations were received the day of the launching, as a matter of fact, by some of the local dignitaries. I read in the paper, of course, that the Queen of Cowichan had been launched. I wanted to speak just briefly about two or three items relative to ferries that have not, as yet, been mentioned.

One is in connection with school children travelling on the ferries. School children coming on tours to Victoria, or going from the Island to the mainland for educational purposes or sports purposes, receive special rates from nearly every other organization which caters to them, other than B.C. Ferries. There is no special rate for school children. When they're coming even to visit the Legislature, when they're travelling for sports events - and very often many of the high school classes from Vancouver Island go to the mainland for various educational endeavours which are specially laid on -they get special benefits, hotel accommodation, special rates from everyone except our own government Crown corporation, the B.C. Ferries. I would certainly ask the minister to investigate that particular facet of the B.C. Ferries rate structure to see whether or not he couldn't make some move to provide free or reduced-cost transportation for school groups travelling for educational or sports purposes.

Another point that I wanted to speak about was the transportation of farm trucks. It's somewhat disconcerting to farmers on Vancouver Island to find that they are paying a higher rate for the same footage than are recreational vehicles. Farmers on Vancouver Island are very often required to go to auction sales or other places on the mainland in the course of the pursuit of their business. It is very unfair, in my opinion and in the opinion ' of the farmers, that they are required to pay this higher rate over and above the rate that is charged to out-of-province tourists or in-province tourists travelling with recreational vehicles. I would ask the minister to have a look at that particular facet of his rate structure.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

The ferry that I want to deal with particularly, Mr. Chairman, is the ferry that travels between Brentwood and Mill Bay. I asked the minister a question regarding this ferry in question period one day and he indicated that a cost survey was being undertaken. I'm wondering whether or not he is really looking at what has gone on with that Mill Bay ferry and what is going on with it now.

In the initial stages, Mr. Chairman, when the rates were first increased, there were no commuter rates allowed on the Mill Bay ferry. As a result of that, when the rates increased it was only a natural thing that many of the people who had used that ferry as a commuter service before found that it was less expensive to drive over the Malahat than it was to use the ferry. Later on, the minister relented and introduced commuter rates. Unfortunately there was

[ Page 2317 ]

no advertising done. Many people are still not aware - many people who used to use that ferry, and people to whom I've spoken - that commuter rates have been reintroduced. There is also the scheduling on the ferry, Mr. Chairman. With an adequate schedule that would accommodate the commuter trade there and an advertising programme to encourage people to use that ferry, I'm sure the rate of use could be regained.

It's interesting to note that for the entire year there has been a loss of some 20,500 units travelling on that ferry - that's exclusive of foot passengers and so on - a 20,000 reduction. Now I'm suggesting that a very great amount of that reflects the commuter fares that have gone off that ferry, the commuters who have ceased to use the ferry. There are still some commuters who are using it, and there is a very grave concern.... I don't know if the minister is aware or not, but there are petitions being circulated presently, and I'm sure they will be coming to his attention very shortly, urging that that Brentwood-Mill Bay ferry route be continued. I've had a great many letters over my desk, and I'm sure that he has too.

My concern is because many of the people who live in the Saanich peninsula commute into my own constituency to various business enterprises there for their employment. This winter was a very mild winter. There was no problem on the Malahat with snow or frost, and very little with fog. But given a year when that kind of winter does not prevail, the ferry is really an essential service to those people if they are going to continue to commute.

Brentwood College is another instance where the teaching staff and some students commute back and forth.

I would urge the minister to consider all factors, not just a dollars-and-cents, hard cold cash report, and to look at the possibilities of extending the service there so it will become a viable enterprise, not just discontinuing it without so much as a very thorough and careful consideration of the need for that ferry.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has asked about school children. The rates for school children travelling in groups of more than 15, and travelling Monday through Thursday, or on Saturdays, across the Strait of George, amount to $1.50 each way. Now that is the same price, the same toll, as is requested for children of the same age regardless whether they're going to school or not. If it is desirable to identify certain groups who travel from the mainland to visit the Legislature, or who go from Vancouver Island to the mainland, I would think it would be better for the Ministry of Education, which knows more intimately what courses are given and what groups merit support, to make an additional subsidy available.

The rates on the ferries are $1.50 each way and, as such, are not exorbitant. I've encountered groups which have paid as much as $11 per student to come from the mainland to Victoria. Their problem really is that they don't examine alternatives. If parents were to bring the children to the ferry terminals on the other side, deliver them at the ferries, if they were to come across on the ferries and school buses, for example, which are idle during the day hours, were to go and pick them up, the cost of delivering them here and sending them back would be very substantially reduced.

Farm vehicles, as such, are not identified. If the farm vehicle has an ordinary motor vehicle licence on it, it pays the same as other vehicles. If it's identified as a commercial vehicle, it pays $1 a foot as other commercial vehicles do. Again, it might be a matter of identification of farm vehicles. The problem then is to ensure that they are, in fact, farm vehicles, that they're operated by farmers.

Our real problem on the ferries is that there are many groups which merit special consideration. But to ensure that, in effect, the driver and the passengers have passports presents a great problem to the ferry administration. It would be better if the support came from a department which was much closer to the scene than to make a general reduction available to a very much wider class of user of the ferry system.

Finally, the Mill Bay ferry - I mentioned on Thursday during the debate that that situation was under review. I can only say that the operating deficit last year was of the order of $100,000, and the main problem now faced by the Ferry Corporation is that the docks at both ends will have to be replaced. In aggregate that might cost something of the order of $600,000.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): The other day I was asking the minister about the North Island Princess and asked if he would give the reasons for transferring that vessel to the Ministry of Highways. I also wondered at that time whether or not the transfer will mean any change in the rates which the residents in the North Island area pay on that particular vessel.

The minister is probably aware that they have a special system worked out whereby they have a B.C. Ferry Corporation card which has their picture on it, enabling them to travel at a reduced rate. In spite of the reduced rate, the rates on that North Island Princess are very, very high. As I pointed out, for people who have to travel from Alert Bay and then on the North Island Princess, and then have to travel on one of the Nanaimo ferries to get to the lower mainland, they find it almost impossible to meet the costs that they would have to put out for a family. I am wondering if the minister might be prepared to

[ Page 2318 ]

answer those questions now with respect to the North Island Princess.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The Kelsey Bay to Beaver Cove route was transferred towards the end of last~ year to the Ministry of Highways. It is no longer operated by the Ferry Corporation. The North Island Princess, in other words, is now operated by the Ministry of Highways. The main reason for this is that Highways is building a highway which will be completed within 18 months to two years to Port Hardy. Already because some people are able to drive through, admittedly over sections of very poor road, the traffic is falling off. It's expected that there will be no requirement for a ferry between Kelsey Bay and Beaver Cove once a first-class highway is available to people travelling to the north end of the island. They will have a highway route; it will be a first-class route. They can travel much more rapidly at their own time and much less expensively, so there may not be a requirement for a Highways ferry to continue after the highway is completed to Port Hardy.

MS. SANFORD: What about the rates?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There won't be special rates if in fact the ferry service is discontinued. They will continue as long as the ferry service survives.

MS. SANFORD: The minister said that the transfer had taken place some time ago. When I phoned over to the Ministry of Highways just last week to get information about the North Island Princess, they told me that the change would take place as of April I this year and that I was to phone the B.C. Ferry Corporation to get the figures as to the number of passengers, cars and all the information that I was seeking at the time. I don't know if there is a mixed jurisdiction at this time, but what I am asking is whether those special commuter rates that now apply will still apply when the actual transfer has been completed as of March 3 1. Was there any recommendation from the B.C. Ferry Corporation that the special rates should stay in place, or in fact if the whole rate structure should be scaled down? That's what should happen.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In reply to the hon. member, the decision to transfer to Highways was made in December. I gather from the general manager of B.C. Ferries that on a very short term basis B.C. Ferries is in fact still administering the ferry, but momentarily it will be taken over and administered by Highways. As to the continuation of the regional discount - the kind we make available to residents of the Sunshine Coast and the Gulf Islands - the hon. member would have to address that question to the Minister of Highways.

MRS. WALLACE: To follow up, Mr. Chairman, on a couple of the answers that the minister gave me previously, relative to his comments on the farm trucks, I would like to point out to the minister that his own department does license trucks as farm trucks, and the distinction would be very easy to make on the ferry because they are actually licensed as farm trucks. It's right on their licence even though they carry a C plate. I would certainly ask him to look into that.

Also I would like to ask him, relative to the Mill Bay-Brentwood ferry, about the financial position of that ferry prior to the increase in rates. I understand that it was fairly solvent prior to the increase in rates.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, relative to the Mill Bay ferry run: in the year 1975-1976, expenditure was $238,908. Revenue was $140,454, for a deficit of $98,454. The deficit is of the order of 40 per cent of the expenditure.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, earlier in the afternoon the minister stated that there had been some reductions in ferry fares which I think were effective March 1 or thereabouts. There wasn't just a hold-the-line or reduction situation that took place; there were in fact some increases in ferry fares which took place at that time. I would like to bring this to the minister's attention. The change in the age for a child was lowered from 14 to I I years. Now the leaving age for school, I think, would have been the rationale before. For years and years it has been the case that children have been considered to be from 6 to 14 years of age. Now it is from 6 to 11. It was formerly 14 years of age and now it's I I years of age.

This means that when travelling during peak periods, a child of 12, 13 or 14 has to pay $4. During off-load periods, he has to pay $2 as opposed to $1. So even here, Mr. Chairman, where there was supposed to be some relief, somebody had to sneak in a little bit of a zinger and try to get a few more bucks out.

I really feel that the former system was well founded. Certainly you could start to consider that when people can get a social insurance number and can start working, even just part-time, or at school-leaving age of IS, they might be considered adults. But I see no justification in this change which, I understand, took place on March 1. Maybe the date is wrong, but I think that's when it occurred. It occurred with these recent changes in ferry fares. I'd like the minister to expound on that a little bit.

I don't know. There's something else I should probably put in a memo. I won't bring it up here.

[ Page 2319 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member, age I I was the cutoff on B.C. Ferries and has been throughout its history right up until last June 1. Age 11 is the cutoff on virtually all public transportation systems in North America. The board of directors, really, decided to revert to a practice which is common everywhere on this continent and had been common in British Columbia up until last June. Age I I has traditionally been the cutoff and was the cutoff during the whole term of the previous government.

MR. NICOLSON: During the whole term of the previous government there was no increase in ferry fares. I would like to submit that that change which was made last june - to at least consider that age group to 14 - was a good move. If we're out of step with the rest of North America, maybe that is a progressive move. I would hope the minister would reconsider and maybe bring this to the attention of the board of directors for their reconsideration.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy has a major responsibility in somehow trying to keep under control that massive enterprise called B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has been discussed in this House many, many times. It's been discussed on the busting out in the province by no less authorities than the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and others, indicating quite clearly that it's a corporation run amok. Well, Mr. Chairman, I won't particularly discuss the lack of social conscience in Hydro around their rate structure today; nor will I discuss their lack of social conscience in their attitude towards people whose property they expropriate. I think all that's common knowledge to everybody in the province - that the corporation has no heart and no soul and for that matter, in my view, is socially irresponsible.

But there are a few faithful hard-working people who worked for Hydro for years and years and years. This group of hard-working people, now called pensioners, are people whom we revere among those pioneers of our province. Many of us in politics indicate that had it not been for them, where would we be now? I suggest that I certainly can't hold the minister particularly at fault on this issue, but I can certainly hold the board of directors and the chairman of Hydro at fault.

Now I'm talking about a situation that occurred not too long ago. Many of you will remember that the Ottawa government had managed a pension plan of their own called the annuity programme for many, many years. That annuity programme paid $100 a month. Remember the days when $100 a month would take care of you at your retirement? It looked rather good. Many of the old employees of Hydro, who are now retired employees of Hydro, had as their first pension plan an annuity programme. That annuity programme became an embarrassment to the federal government because they were only paying something between 2 and 4 per cent on the accumulation of the funds that would eventually provide the $100 a month pension, or whatever you bought, proportionate to the amount of premiums that you paid.

So, Mr. Chairman, many of the original Hydro employees, the original BCR employees and, ultimately, the Hydro employees, have had their pensions improved over the years, as other sectors have had their pensions improved by different boards and different governments with their input into Hydro over the last few years.

Not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, the federal government decided their embarrassment had lasted long enough and they indicated that those people on a $100-a-month pension or something less on the Canada annuity programme would receive more. They said this gratuitously. They needn't have done it but it was an embarrassment because the funds were accumulating at a rate of interest that was totally illogical with the comparison that could have been drawn between that annuity programme and any other. So, Mr. Chairman, the federal government announced and paid to all recipients an increase, and that increase could bring anywhere from a few dollars to $20-some-odd a month on their pension plan. The Hydro employees received that for the first month or two; the Hydro pensioners received that for the first month or two. But then the Hydro directors and their own pension consultants within that soulless, heartless organization decided to take a look at it. So what did they do, Mr. Chairman?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): They pulled a Vander Zalm.

MR. COCKE: They pulled worse than a Vander Zalm, because he didn't give it to them in the first place but Hydro took it away from them once they had it.

MR. BARNES: No! Immoral!

MR. COCKE: Hydro took it away from them, Mr. Chairman, using as the reason clause 14 of their trustee pension agreement. Well, Mr. Chairman, possibly you can rationalize the letter of that particular agreement and say that legally you can do it. Nothing in the world can convince me that morally or ethically you can take that money away from those retired pensioners from B.C. Hydro; nothing can tell me that that money should be taken away from those retired employees of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, they have had a number of

[ Page 2320 ]

opportunities to visit with board members, the board and also the pension committee, and each time the retired employees of Hydro have come away with nothing, nothing, nothing. Now I suspect that if the minister went over to Hydro and laid a heavy message on them about their lack of social conscience, about their being totally arbitrary on this matter, maybe something can happen. Now I know the minister has to be very powerful to do that. So far people have tried to shake up Hydro, including the Premier, and I haven't seen any evidence yet that they've developed any kind of conscience. But, Mr. Chairman, it's about time that somebody moves into that company and tells them at least in some areas: "For heaven's sake, smarten up!"

I suggested to this committee the other day that Hydro should lose its power of expropriation. We took away, or were in the process of taking away, the power of expropriation from the new public works corporation. I suggest that we should do the same with Hydro. But in this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, we should certainly ask Hydro what right they have to pick the pockets of their own retired employees, those defenceless employees.

Now I would like to give some kudos to the union of Hydro workers. They at least have financed the legal work that's been done on behalf of the really retired workers. They didn't have to. They don't have votes any longer; they don't have that great power that they once had. Mr. Chairman, they're being helped but they're not getting out of the situation where they're being bilked out of this money. Twenty dollars a month to a retired employee wherever he's from in our inflated age is a tremendous amount of money. What is it to Hydro? What have they gained? They gained a few dollars in that vast dollar siphon that we have to siphon dollars out of our economy. Mr. Chairman, it won't be noticed over there. We're in the process now of giving Hydro the right to borrow millions and millions and hundreds of millions more dollars. I suggest that we should expect of them the generosity that they received from us.

But no, Mr. Chairman. So far there has only been total intransigence from Hydro, not even considering for one minute that they could do something that would be morally right, providing they can get away with it legally. I agree. I suspect, after having read over the agreement and after having had some other advice, that they're on pretty firm ground legally. But there is absolutely no reason, morally or ethically, that they should get away with robbing their own retired employees.

Mr. Chairman, the question that I have to the minister is: will the minister, in light of this question and in light of the evidence that I've submitted, go to Hydro and demand that they do the right thing? Will the minister go and help Hydro salve their own conscience in this regard? I can expect no less of a minister of the Crown. The Chairman can expect no less from a minister of the Crown. No member of this House can expect anything less from a minister of the Crown. Public policy, Mr. Chairman, is at issue.

If nothing occurs out of this, it will show a total lack of concern in another minister in his attitude toward the people of this province. We never expect any kind of concern from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . If he's here for a thousand years we'll never expect any concern out of that member, but we expect something more out of a minister of the Crown. The member for Omineca can't even debate simple issues with the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on Smithers radio. No, Mr. Chairman, we know what to expect from that member, but we expect more from the Minister of Energy.

I wonder if the minister would give us his attitude with respect to this question.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly look into the matter and if it's substantially as outlined by the hon. member I'll do my best.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. There was a question that I posed to the minister on Thursday, Mr. Chairman, which the minister didn't answer, and I'm a little bit concerned about this matter. It's related to B.C. Ferries again. Actually there are two questions.

The first question involved the Powell River Queen and the Bowen Queen which, I was told, by some means or other were reclassified by regulation in terms of how many crew members they may carry. I understand that the Powell River Queen was formerly required to have eight crew members to maintain the vessel and to man the lifeboats in case of an emergency. Now with reclassification they are only required to have six crew members. I know you haven't laid anybody off; you still have the eight members. But I know there's some concern among the employees on that vessel about this reclassification. This concerns the Bowen Queen as well.

The other concern that I have, Mr. Chairman, is the new schedule regarding Route 3, Langdale to Gibsons. In effect, what is happening there is that the Queen of Tsawwassen is to be taken off that route. Now although it appears there will be an improved schedule, that is because the Queen of Burnaby and the Queen of Nanaimo, on a triangular route, will be stopping at Langdale.

What I am concerned about is not the improved schedule, which is fine - there was lots of room for improvement - but a loss of 28 jobs, somehow or other. I know the people aren't going to be fired, and I understand you're not going to lay them off, but it means that for the people on the spare board, or

[ Page 2321 ]

somewhere down the line, there will be 28 less jobs. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that matter.

I have one other small item - and I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman - although it could be a big item. I would like the minister to comment on the Canadian merchant marine. As I mentioned earlier in , this House, 80 per cent of our shipyard workers are currently unemployed. We have some of the most competent seafaring people in the world here in Canada, and in British Columbia. But there's something new taking place in Canada - at least, it's new to me, Mr. Chairman - and that is the land-bridge concept. This is where shipping companies from Europe, or conversely from Asia, ship their goods, mostly in containers - and this is happening now in the United States - to ports in the United States such as New York. These goods are moved across the continent by train and reloaded on vessels on the Pacific Coast for consignment to Asia, or wherever they're going - Japan, China, wherever. The reverse is also happening.

Canada is going to miss out, Mr. Chairman. I know that to a large extent it's a federal responsibility, but the provincial government has to be involved in this concept. It saves the vessels from the uncertainties of going through the Panama Canal and/or around Cape Horn. This is happening to a greater and greater degree in the United States.

In the United States, Mr. Chairman, they have a law called the Jones Act. This means that goods travelling between ports in the United States must travel on American bottoms. We don't have such a law in Canada. I know the minister's feelings on this; we discussed it at some length last year. But what I'm saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that if Canada and British Columbia miss out on the shipment of goods across this continent, we will be missing out on the opportunity to build a viable merchant marine, and we should have a merchant marine.

Just as an aside, I suspect the reason the multinational oil companies are putting such pressure on the Canadian and the British Columbian government for the Kitimat oil pipeline is not because it's such a good site but because, if the United States ships oil from Alaska to Kitimat, they can then utilize foreign bottoms - ships under flags of convenience. They won't have to pay the high salaries and utilize high-standard vessels that they must utilize in the United States. I suspect this is one of the reasons. It would save millions of dollars to the international oil companies, but it would be of no benefit to Canada whatsoever.

So I wonder if the minister would care to comment on those two or three brief questions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mackenzie asked three questions; I'll try to answer them. First, relative to the Bowen Queen and, I believe, the Powell River Queen, there's no intention of reducing the actual operative complement on those vessels, at least in the foreseeable future. For many years, the legal requirement has been six; in fact, eight are employed. So the employees are showing a concern about a situation which has obtained for a long, long time.

The second question is related to an improvement in service between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay. I'm glad to see that the hon. member has recognized that the service has improved. There is an intention to reduce the total number of employees over time, but again none of them will be laid off. Positions will be found for them elsewhere in the service. No layoffs from now on are contemplated. Indeed, the union contract really protects everyone now employed on the ferries anyway. So there are no layoffs envisaged in the future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Oh, the land-bridge concept -that is, goods being shipped from the Orient by foreign vessels to our ports, and then crossing Canada by rail or truck, but basically by rail. It is possible, as opposed to the U.S., largely because of the Jones Act. In the U.S. they do have the requirement that goods going by water would have to employ U.S. vessels, U.S. labour, U.S. standards, and so on. Therefore rail rates in the U.S. tend to be higher than ours. Competition from water through the Panama does tend to keep our rail rates down, and this is one of the arguments for limiting the Canadian Jones Act to the east coast and the west coast, but not linking the two coasts - if I can put it that way.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, two or three quick questions. I still continue to receive a very substantial amount of mail because of the hardship which Hydro rates are imposing on the elderly. I took the trouble to review the increases that the elderly have been faced with in the last three years, including the rate increase of March 1, just three weeks ago.

The increase was 20 per cent in 1974; 12 per cent in 1975; 12 per cent in 1976; and somewhere between 12 per cent and 15 per cent in 1977. In a period of three years it is just a simple addition of 60 per cent, not taking into account the accumulative compounding effect of these increases. Since we debated some of these problems in an earlier debate, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister can give us any update or any change of heart or change of government policy.

First of all, is there any thought that the government might go along with some discount rate for citizens over 65 for hydro? We've had this very substantial ongoing rate of increase, which is certainly

[ Page 2322 ]

not matched by the consumer price index adjustments to the old-age pension, which is about all that certain pensioners can look forward to. The federal indexing of pensions is peanuts compared to this minimal average increase per year of 15 per cent on an essential service. You've got to heat your home; you've got to burn electricity. There's no way that the elderly citizen on a fixed pension can get around that particular item of cost.

So I wonder if even the $3 service charge might not be applied to the senior citizen over 65. We've talked about the government's concern over Pharmacare and we know that whatever changes made there will not be applied to citizens over 65. I'm wondering whether B.C. Hydro can take this specific essential expenditure into account for senior citizens.

Secondly, I wonder if the minister has any more up-to-date information for us on the concept of some public utilities commission type of body to scrutinize B.C. Hydro and proposed increases. Again, Mr. Chairman, I've no wish to go over all the details of the debate we had earlier on this session, but it was a pretty unanimous feeling on this side of the House that some such body should scrutinize proposals by B.C. Hydro for rate increases. It was felt that the public accounts committee of this Legislature has neither the time nor the expertise to do an adequate job of questioning members of B.C. Hydro when they come before our committee. Since then, our committee has been constituted and has held meetings and I understand that B.C. Hydro representatives will be called before our public accounts committee. But I have to say, reluctantly, that I think it will be a bit of a charade to question members of B.C. Hydro with the limited amount of detailed understanding which most of us have in regard to the financing of these enormous B.C. Hydro projects. The projects are based, for example, on a different rate of predicted demand for electricity. The minister - quite fairly, I must admit - has said already in this House that the gap between the predictions by B.C. Hydro and the predictions by the B.C. Energy Commission has narrowed somewhat. But, Mr. Chairman, how much has that difference narrowed because of public pressure and the questions that many people and members of this opposition have asked? We all know that every percentage difference in the predicted rate of growth for electrical demands represents a fantastic difference in the amount of capital borrowing that would have to be carried out. While I'm somewhat relieved that the B.C. Energy Commission and B.C. Hydro do seem to have come closer in predicting what the increased demand will be, it is still a little bit like the ferry system - the public has lost some confidence in the ability of Hydro to accurately predict what the demand will be. Beyond that, the public is also, I think, deeply concerned that B.C. Hydro seems to have the power and capacity to go its own way, with very limited scrutiny or influence from the government itself. So I wonder if the minister has any news for the House as to when we can expect that some public utilities commission kind of body will not only be created, but be in action.

I just want to ask briefly about the ferry system province-wide. Has the minister taken any proposals to integrate all the ferries in British Columbia to government? I personally feel that there is a glaring conflict of policy in this government - as between the Ministry of Highways - and I'm glad that the minister is in the House and listening very carefully to what I'm about to say.

We have a ferry system called B.C. Ferry Corporation which is running a deficit and receiving a $25 million subsidy and where fares were doubled last year with all the consequences we've repeated in the House. But in other parts of the province, we find that there are all kinds of ferries that are absolutely free. So it seems that in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, it just depends where the stretch of water is. If you happen to be in the riding of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) they built a lovely new ship called the Omineca Princess, and ferry terminals which, together with the ship, cost $4 million, I understand. When the ship was launched in June of last year, the press release said that the ferry will cost $600,000 a year to operate, but the investment will be returned by increased jobs and a strengthened economy. That's all I'm asking for the greater Victoria area - that the ferry service have such a price structure that it strengthens the jobs and the economy on Vancouver Island. Why is there this preferential treatment for the Burns Lake area?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WALLACE: There's just no consistency whatever to the suggestion.... It's more than suggestion; it's government practice. If you happen to live in one part of the country, and the ferries in that part of British Columbia are operated by the Ministry of Highways, you get a free ride.

These are substantial sums of money now. I'm all in favour of creating jobs anywhere in British Columbia. If this ferry service which is free does in fact strengthen the economy and create jobs, I'm just as happy as a clam for the province and for the people in that area. But don't do it at the expense of the economy of Vancouver Island, where you double the other ferry fares and hundreds of thousands of people don't come to the Island. I know we've hammered at this point before, and I never seem to have made any dent in the government's position.

In the annual report which the minister made available just last week, I notice that there are 11

[ Page 2323 ]

Department of Highways' ferries which are listed as providing income. The one that I have just mentioned happens to be the most ironic example of all. The revenue from the ferry on Francois Lake was $60. The reason it was $60 is that the ferry service is free except when it's an emergency, and then the user in an emergency pays $5. A more contradictory, Gilbert-and-Sullivan arrangement I can't imagine. If you want to go across the lake for a pleasant Sunday afternoon trip or whatever, it's free; but if you've got a real emergency and a sick child or an accident victim who has to get the ferry out to go across Francois Lake, there's a $5 charge. I don't imagine the $5 even pays for the cost of getting the ferry detached from its moorings. But anyway, there's this contradiction.

One of the things this government sought to do when it appealed to the voters in December, 1975, was to bring a more businesslike and a more consistent and efficient administration to this province. I would heartily support that goal.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Now that we've got the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) back in the House, I hope he'll realize what preferential treatment the residents of his riding receive when they happen to have to travel by water.

It seems to me that it's something which would bring increased efficiency to the whole question of ferries in this province if this Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications was given the total responsibility for all the ferries. Now he may not want all that responsibility, but it seems to me that it makes a great deal of sense to integrate all ferries to try to have some consistent policy in regard to what the user pays.

Again, I say I have no axe to grind with Omineca or any other part served.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Are they $2 Conservatives or $5 Conservatives? (Laughter.) Well, he interjected, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted him to know that now we've got a two-price system. Just like the two-price system for oil, we've got a two-price system for Conservatives in B.C.

MR. KEMPF: We'll discuss that on the radio station.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister had made any proposals to cabinet that might be a better way to provide a consistent ferry service wherever the user happens to be in British Columbia, or whether there's no intention to change the current system.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the minister responded in question period the other day about the Princess Marguerite, where the B.C. Steamship Company had been given authority to borrow another $3.73 million. I wondered if, first of all, we could know again how that $3.73 million was split up. How much of it, if any, is going towards the subsidy of approximately $1 million lost per annum on operating expenses? How much is going to capital expenditure?

I understand the Princess Marguerite is now to be docked in Seattle at a very excellent new facility which cost several millions of dollars. I'm wondering how much more it is costing to operate the Princess Marguerite as a result of the new terminal in Seattle. If it's possible, I wonder if the minister could mention the projected operating deficit for 1977-1978. There has been a slight fare increase, and I'm wondering if the fare increase was calculated in order to keep the deficit approximately the same.

There's no question that the Princess Marguerite brings a steady flow of tourists to the greater Victoria area in the summer months. We would all be very concerned if there was any possibility at all in any reduction in the service, either in the frequency of the service or the length of the season. The fact that the government has authorized more borrowing would indicate that it very much supports the Princess Marguerite's service. But like everybody in the greater Victoria area, I would like to get the minister's reassurance that it will continue.

I wonder if he could tell us, lastly, whether there's any conscious attempt being made to set up a three-point service between Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver, possibly using the Queen of Surrey as a ship that might participate in that kind of new project. Again, in the summer months, while the Princess Marguerite between Seattle and Victoria is an excellent idea, tourist operators in Victoria have asked me to pursue the possibility of developing or encouraging the government to develop a three-point or triangular route which might use both the Princess Marguerite and the Queen of Surrey, and in fact further enhance the travel to Vancouver Island, not only from Seattle but from Vancouver.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In answer to the questions raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay, I would like to remind him that it was this government which, for the first time, granted free travel on the ferries for the over-6 5 citizens of British Columbia on the presentation of a Pharmacare card. He is really proposing some consideration on a similar basis to be given to senior citizens in respect to Hydro's power rates. As far as I know, no specific consideration is being given to that at the present time. Hydro's basic data-gathering system is related to locations, to homes, to apartments, or to whatever. They would

[ Page 2324 ]

have to know who among their customers were over 65, who were in difficult straits from a financial point of view, and so on. It would be a rather elaborate programme. I don't know of any of that character anywhere in North America, but an alternative approach might be used if this were deemed to be desirable. It's really another department that would make certain grants available to people, who they already identify for other purposes, to offset rising energy costs. I think that would be the easier route to follow and would be more equitable from the point of view of those who are over 65 and are citizens of this province.

With respect to scrutiny of B.C. Hydro - its plans, its rates - the B.C. Energy Commission has been inquiring as to the treatment of, for example, Ontario Hydro, the role of other energy boards, and indeed the government in other provinces, with a view to possible changes, denials of rate increases, changes in expansion plans. That's under review at the present time.

The question of the ferry system being made province-wide - I have one set of numbers which is interesting. The freshwater ferries experienced a decline of 20 per cent last year in their passengers travelling on free ferries and a 21.5 per cent decline in the number of vehicles travelling on free ferries in the interior and northern part of the province.

Parity of treatment the way the hon. member presents it would indicate a recommendation on his part, I assume, of free ferries between Vancouver and Vancouver Island. I can assure the hon. member that this would be bound to result in a demand for a lot more ferries to be built.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't mean that.

HON. MR. DAVIS: So I think we'd reach a position where there would be some difference in treatment.

I think the basic rationale, though, is sound, and that is that people who live in relatively remote places who don't enjoy the full range of government services should be given some preference in respect to the particular services they do in fact receive. We have preferential rates for people who live on the Sunshine Coast, because they don't have the full range of hospitals, school and recreational services. So this is at least a notional offset. Similar consideration applies to people living in the Gulf Islands. They pay lower rates, relatively speaking, to distance travelled because they don't have all the secondary school facilities, hospital services and so on, if they need to travel outside.

Finally, the Marguerite funding is now by the government, whereas formerly it was a mix of funding, including funding by the credit unions. Currently the B.C. Steamship Company has a line of credit to a total of $3.75 million. Some $0.75 million is needed in the coming year, or at 'least so it is estimated, to offset the operating deficit which is anticipated by the directors.

Some study has been given as to the possibility of using the Queen of Surrey on runs between Seattle and Victoria and, indeed, between Seattle and Vancouver on a triangular run including Victoria. The economics are not as favourable as using it on the middle and upper coast.

The vessel had an initial cost of some $18 million, whereas the cost so far of the Marguerite - the capital cost - is in the order of $2 million. So it's a different order of magnitude from an investment point of view. Again, those using both of those vessels on the runs involving Seattle would carry U.S. citizens, say, to the extent of 90 per cent. So there is that consideration that we have a subsidized ferry system in the B.C. Ferries, which basically moves British Columbians. The Marguerite and any other vessel on a triangular run based in Seattle would be moving, say, 90 per cent of people from outside of this province.

MR. WALLACE: Quickly, Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me make myself abundantly plain. I did not suggest that the ferries between Vancouver Island and the mainland should be free. I simply said that there seems to be quite a spread between the rates as applied last year to the Vancouver Island-mainland run, compared to other services which are totally and completely free. But I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that there is no way that there could be any economic reality in a system which conveyed vehicles and individuals between Vancouver Island and the mainland free.

So I agree with that, but I just wonder if I may return just very briefly to the concept of some help to senior citizens on Hydro rates. Would it not be possible that they all get charged the same as everybody else, but when they present the bill to be paid, if they could present their Pharmacare card, would it not be very simple to give them a stated percentage discount for perhaps 5 per cent or whatever, which effectively would reduce the increase which was imposed on the March 1 by, say, 50 per cent? It would seem to me that the card would identify the person and it would save a great deal of the kind of administration that the minister is quite rightly concerned about.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on Thursday evening when the minister's estimates were first up, I made a plea to him regarding B.C. Hydro and their treatment of various people in my own riding. I asked the minister for some comments with respect to possibly curbing Hydro's powers, particular of expropriation. I don't believe the minister has responded at all to the

[ Page 2325 ]

points that I made.

I appreciate that some of my presentation was advocacy rather than eliciting precise information, but I think it's fair to ask.... In light of the Premier's public pronouncements that he feels Hydro has too much power and some of the minister's cabinet colleagues', I would certainly like to know at this particular time when the Revelstoke Dam is very much an issue in my own riding where undoubtedly there are going to be disputes between Hydro and various citizens and groups with respect to property values and perhaps curtailed use of property due to changing water tables and so on....

I particularly read out the letter to the minister last Thursday where counsel for Hydro at the Revelstoke hearing had given a public commitment to satisfy some of the complaints of the people in the immediate area south of Revelstoke. One of the people specifically involved received a letter absolutely cutting him off in a very unceremonious fashion by Hydro. I wonder if the minister intends to look into this. I certainly wish he would.

I have a number of other matters that I wish to raise with respect to the sell-back of land that was expropriated in excess of Hydro's need in the Arrow Lakes area. I'm very concerned that the asking price now for land that is being made available to Arrow Lakes residents is usurious, Mr. Chairman. I think that it's incumbent upon Hydro and upon the government, I believe, to ensure that those people who lost land are being provided with first option to buy it back. That's fair enough, but I think that the increases in the value of that land should be held to nothing more than an interest increase. I think that the kinds of increases which we are seeing - the asking price of Hydro over what they compensated people for - in the area of 2,300 per cent, in some instances, are usurious.

I would certainly like to hear the minister's policy on that. Is one of the areas where the government intends to come to grips with some of the very arbitrary powers that British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has had over the past number of years? I wish the minister would give me the benefit of his views on these matters.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.