[ Page 2775 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 53) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2775

Oral questions

Hiring of computer consultants. Mr. Levi –– 2775

Reduction of sales tax. Mr. Wallace –– 2777

Possible lease of IBM computer. Mr. Levi –– 2777

Additional Workers' Compensation review boards. Ms. Sanford –– 2778

Possible lease of IBM computer. Mr. Barrett –– 2778

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On motion 2.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2779

Mr. Macdonald –– 2780

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2780

Mr. Barrett –– 2781

Mr. Mussallem –– 2782

Mr. Wallace –– 2782

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2784

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2785

Division on Motion 2 –– 2785

Matter of urgent public importance

Development of Systems Corporation without legislative authority. Mr. Levi –– 2781

Mr. Speaker rules –– 2786

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 102.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2787

Hon. Mr. Davis 1 –– 2790

Mr. Gibson –– 2792

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2792

Mr. Skelly –– 2793

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2794

Mr. Lea –– 2794

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2798

Mr. Lauk –– 2800

Mr. Wallace –– 2802

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2804

Mr. King –– 2805

Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 67) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 2806

Privilege

Abuse of question period procedures by Finance minister. Mr. Levi –– 2807

Routine proceedings

The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977 (Bill 68) . Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 2807

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the House today there will be 47 grade 10 students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam. The first group of students is in the House at the present time and at 2:30 the second group will be entering the gallery. The students are accompanied by their teachers, Kirk Templeton and Sue Steeves. Would the House join me in welcoming these very fine young people from Coquitlam?

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, there's a group of students from Nanaimo Senior Secondary today. They spent the morning going through the offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, where they were very well received and where they received a good impression of the staff. They're in the gallery this afternoon. I hope they'll have as good an impression of the members in the House. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the gallery this afternoon is a very distinguished guest, Mr. Robert Fordham, a member of the Legislative Assembly for the state of Victoria in Australia.

Mr. Fordham is a member of the Australian Labour Party, the opposition party, and represents the Legislative Assembly electoral district of Footscray. Mr. Fordham was elected. in 1970, is a member of the joint House committee, a member of the public accounts committee and secretary of the parliamentary Labour Party. I would ask the House to join me in making him welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group who are most interested in the Trident resolution that we've had on the order paper for some months. The group supporting Trident today in the gallery are Rev. Harold Allen, World Federalist Association; Mrs. Ruby Allen, World Federalist Association; Mr. Jim Hermebury, president of the James Bay Residents League; and Mr. Charles Ball, information officer of the James Bay Residents League. I'd ask the House to welcome this group of people.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon from the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen are some very public-minded citizens: Mr. Jim Rheaume, the administrator of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen; Mr. Harold Thompson, the planner for the regional district; Mr. Jack Tait, a rural director of the regional hospital board; Mr. Gordon Butterfield, the alderman of the city of Penticton; and Miss Ann Rasmussen, the administrator of the Penticton and District Retirement Complex, one of the best-operated and best-known retirement centres in the province. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, with us today also we have Mr. and Mrs. Jan and Rita Waenink. Rita is my very able constituency secretary. They've brought with them today her father and mother visiting here from Holland, Mr. and Mrs. Huinink. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 53, Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, once again I would ask leave of the House that question period be delayed until more cabinet ministers can be in the House to answer questions that the opposition may direct to them.

Shall leave be granted?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member knows full well that it is not his prerogative to ask the question: "Shall leave be granted?"

Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Oral questions.

HIRING OF COMPUTER CONSULTANTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Finance: can the minister confirm that up to 70 consultants have been hired at a minimum per them rate of $350 a day to do work in respect to the Systems Corporation and that some of these consultants are Americans from the United States?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that information does not sound correct, but rather than trying to answer the question verbatim, I'll be happy to bring back information for the benefit of the member. I'll take it as notice.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It's a

[ Page 2776 ]

different question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: is it not true that Woods Gordon, who are the consultants for Clarkson Gordon, those great friends of the NDP, are receiving, for 10 or 12 people on the computer programme, per diems ranging from $250 a day up to $650 a day for consultants to work on that programme at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's a question, as you'd know, on the same subject matter.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a totally different company, and surely this is one that the minister knows. He knows all about Woods Gordon.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be on the order paper.

MR. MACDONALD: He knows all about it. He's going to answer; he's a good minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the earlier question, I'll be happy to take that question on notice. I can assure the House that to my knowledge there are no consultants in the project to which the member is referring who are paid as much as $650 per day.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He answered part of the question. He said he can assure the House that....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Could I suggest, before we proceed in the question period, for the benefit of all of the members....

MR. LAUK: Let's not protect the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not protecting anyone, hon. member. I am being fair with all of the members of this House. I suggest that if a question is taken on notice then it should be taken on notice, and that's the end of it.

However, the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) proceeded on what he assured the Speaker was a different subject matter. But it was on the same particular issue.

If the members of the House expect the Chair to be fair with all members, then I suggest it would be entirely proper for the members of the House to reciprocate.

MR. BARRETT: The minister said that to his knowledge none of the consultants is receiving up to $650 per day, and I thank him for that answer.

I would ask the minister further, related to that answer: how many of the consultants are housed at the Harbour Towers? Was there a meeting of 50

consultants this morning at the Harbour Towers and, if so, who paid for the meeting expenses and were meals ordered? Would the minister tell us if he will be attending any of those meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition address himself to one question at a time?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, all of the supplementals apply to the meetings at the Harbour Towers.

MR. SPEAKER: Then they should be asked as supplementals, not as initial questions.

MR. BARRETT: They are supplementals related to the breakfast. They are all supplementary.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, which of those six questions does the member want me to answer? I would suggest, as I said earlier, that, with all respect, a question of that kind of detail should be placed on the order paper. I'd be happy to answer it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister has informed me that no one is making up to $650 a day. How much is the minimum they are making a day if the maximum isn't $650? What is the minimum per day? You're the Minister of Finance; you're in charge of taxpayers' dollars. Tell us how much the minimum is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The original question had to do with housing of people who are hired as consultants in the Harbour Towers, as I recall.

MR. BARRETT: That's a supplemental.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a new question.

Are any of the consultants that the minister has hired related to the Boeing Computer Services and does the minister know a Mr. Norman Song of the Boeing Computer Services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that when a question has been taken on notice, as I suggested not only to himself but the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , that terminates the questions until the answer on the original question comes back if it's on the same subject.

MR. BARRETT: All I'm asking him is to sing about Song!

[ Page 2777 ]

REDUCTION OF

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This is to the Minister of Finance, since the Premier said quite rightly the other day that he couldn't answer for the Minister of Finance: in view of continuing problems with unemployment and the fact that the 7 per cent provincial sales tax restricts the purchase of goods and services by consumers, is the minister giving consideration at this time to reducing the sales tax?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, to that question, it is a matter of government policy.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question which is absolutely factual? With regard to the 7 per cent sales tax, since this is now June 16, does the minister have the figure available for the public regarding the total sales tax revenue received by the government for the fiscal year which ended March 31,1977? If that figure is available, could you tell the House what it is?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the member: that information will be available and tabled in the House with the disclosure of the annual report, which I believe will be available with full financial information sometime around the end of July or middle of August.

MR. WALLACE: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I just didn't hear the minister answer the first part of the question. Is the figure available? Whether you are willing to tell us or not, could you please answer whether it is available? Do you know what the figure is?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the information will be available, as I have indicated. It requires an audited report being supplied and so on.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): This is to the Minister of Finance, following up the question asked by the member for Oak Bay. When the question was asked the other day to the hon. Premier he deferred it to be answer by the Minister of Finance. Obviously, then, it is government policy to allow the Minister of Finance to answer these questions. So as the minister alluded to the Minister of Finance, I would like to reiterate the question: is the Minister of Finance considering recommendations or any consideration in the lowering of the 7 per cent sales tax?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I draw to your attention that it's out of order to repeat a question that has been asked in the same or similar form. The question was already asked by the hon. member for Oak Bay, hon. member.

POSSIBLE LEASE OF IBM COMPUTER

MR. LEVI: This question is to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that the government leased an IBM 3036 computer for $2 million a year without tender on the same day that IBM announced that such a machine was going to be available to the public?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the government leasing the equipment so described. I'm not familiar with that equipment. I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: What's going on here?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't think the member has described the equipment, or any equipment, that I'm familiar with.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Well, you tell us what you're familiar with - $2 million a year!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In other words, you haven't got the right number.

MR. BARRETT: We haven't got the right number, eh?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister started to reply. I think, in fairness, I should have the opportunity to ask him a supplementary.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly!

MR. LEVI: If I might ask a supplementary, I asked if the government leased such a machine because, at the moment, we have not set up the Systems Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or passed the legislation.

MR. LEVI: Or passed the legislation. Presumably, the only people who could lease such a machine are the government, and it would have to come through your department.

MR. BARRETT: Have you done anything? Have you authorized the leasing of a machine? You don't

[ Page 2778 ]

know! Don't you know what's going on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has the floor. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask a question, he should get on his feet in the proper manner.

MR. BARRETT: Am I allowed supplementaries today?

ADDITIONAL WORKERS'

COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARDS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): This question is to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Workers with compensation problems are still waiting for as long as eight or nine months to be heard before a board of review. I'm wondering if the minister will announce within a few days the appointment of an additional board of review or additional boards of review.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Yes.

MS. SANFORD: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, how many boards of review will be appointed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: One more.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how long he anticipates this one additional board of review will take to catch up on the backlog of cases which, I believe, is well over 1,000 at this point.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice because I'm awaiting a report from the administrative chairman of the boards of review as to the present workload and the time within which they anticipate the backlog will be significantly reduced.

MS. SANFORD: I have just one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the time taken to catch up on the backlog will exceed three months, will the minister appoint another board of review?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

POSSIBLE LEASE OF IBM COMPUTER

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has authorized, as Minister of Finance, the leasing of any computers for the projected B.C. Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, there is no Systems Corporation at this stage.

MR. BARRETT: For the projected corporation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Any transactions which have taken place during the course of this government, through the auspices of the Ministry of Finance, have been for that department. It is contemplated that under the legislation, as the member realizes, any systems corporation would assume all of that equipment, all of the personnel, and so on.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, I asked this question: has the minister authorized the leasing of any computer systems, or hardware for computer systems, for the projected B.C. Systems Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Until such time as the legislation organizing the new Systems Corporation has been passed by this Legislature, there is no assumption that can be made.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, is the minister then confirming that no one would have legal authority to lease any computers or hardware for the B.C. Systems Corporation until that legislation is introduced and passed by this House?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Yes or no!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): The Premier's telling you not to answer.

MR. BARRETT: Saved by the bell.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not for long.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, but I recognized the hon. Attorney-General.

MR. LEVI: Well, I was up before he was up. You were looking over there and I was here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I recognized the hon. Attorney-General because he was the first

[ Page 2779 ]

person I saw on his feet. I think that's proper and in keeping with the decorum of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He can raise his point of order at a later stage. Mr. Speaker, I'd as leave....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is, in the standing rules of this House, one opportunity for members to raise a matter of urgent public importance - before standing orders. Now I'm asking that the member be recognized, with his privilege, to do exactly that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I can't presume that it's a matter under standing order 35. I had to recognize the person that I saw on his feet, which happened to be the hon. Attorney-General. If the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard has a matter which is under standing order 35, then by the rules of the House I'll recognize him. But that was not what he said, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: I never had a chance to say anything.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You'll have to wait, Garde.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I wasn't aware, hon. member, that you were about to move a motion under standing order 35, but I have recognized the hon. Attorney-General. I'm prepared to continue on the basis of the decision that I've made to recognize the hon. Attorney-General without prejudicing anything that the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard may wish to raise under standing order 35.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's most satisfactory with the government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave....

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, Garde.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, would you rather me not say that? You're a peculiar fellow, hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you had ruled, as is your right and your duty. It isn't up to whether the government accepts it or not, and that's what I was trying to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: that's not a valid point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We quite understand that, Mr. Member. We're just trying to be co-operative, you see, and if you want to reject that, it's up to you.

Mr. Speaker, I'd very much like to ask leave of the House to proceed to Motion 2 in order that we can provide the necessary time for debate in Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've already suggested to the members of the House that without prejudice I would recognize the hon. Attorney-General on whatever matter it was that he wished to bring before the floor of the House. I've given you that assurance. As soon as this business is disposed in whatever manner the House decides, I'm prepared to recognize the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has given me an indication that he wishes to move a motion under standing order 35.

The hon. Attorney-General has asked leave to move Motion 2. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

On Motion 2.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Speaking to Motion 2 standing in my name on the order paper, Motion 2, for the clarification of the members of the House who were not here during the regime of the former government, is an opportunity to remove the restrictions imposed by the former Premier and the former government during its terms of office on the right of this Legislative Assembly to debate the estimates of the government.

I do not wish to revive the debate that took place during that time. That Premier and that government, through their infamous Act, had carved for themselves a unique position in the history of this Legislature. During that period a government with a tremendous majority but so insecure in office brought restrictions upon this assembly and its right to question the spending of the government. In retrospect - the history of those spending estimates and the history of how those estimates turned out -it's obvious why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. The estimates were not correct.

The right of the Legislature to deal with spending estimates is a right that was hard won for the British parliamentary system, Mr. Speaker. It was

[ Page 2780 ]

unfortunate that this fight for the rights of free speech in our Legislature and under the British parliamentary system, having taken place so long, had to be re-fought again in British Columbia in 1975 during the regime of the New Democratic Party. That fight was fought not only in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, but that fight was fought under the clarion call of "not a dime without debate" before the people of this province. It was fought where these fights are fought where governments have majorities, as they do under the parliamentary system. It was fought out by and with the people of British Columbia. That fight, under that call of "not a dime without debate, " brought that arrogant government to its knees and that government allowed the debate to continue.

However, at that time, even in the recognition that they were wrong and even kneeling and bowing to public opinion during the dying days of that administration, that government still did not bring forth the necessary motion or legislative changes to the rules of this House to make sure that that unfortunate incident and that type of closure could not be repeated again and again in British Columbia.

The motion I bring before this House today will prevent any government - this government or future governments - from repeating that sorry incident that will always characterize the former Barrett New Democratic Party government and their attitudes to democracy and the right of the Legislature to debate the spending of the public purse. That dark spot on the history of this Legislature, a reminder of that government, will be with us and will be there for future governments to guard against in their weakness or arrogance or fear of debate from ever imposing such rules again. ,

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to speak on this motion, but I've listened to some sanctimonious humbug on the part of the Premier that ought to turn the stomach of anybody who knows anything about parliamentary government. Are there time limits in the British House of Commons at Westminster? Of course there are. Are there in every other Legislature in Canada? Of course there are. Did this little Social Credit group acting for selfish privileged interest that would determine that there would be no social democracy in this province defy the rules of parliament? Did they determine to block, obstruct and disregard the laws of parliament? It was an unlawful, destructive opposition with no respect for the rules of parliament.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: The time was extended when we were government. We offered extensions of times....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We offered extensions of time. The time was extended, but this little group ought to go down in shame.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: You say you believe in a parliamentary democracy. Under the rules of that system, you defied those rules and you defied them to protect the special purses on which you rely at election time. Never has a government sat in this province of British Columbia that is more determined to protect the special privileged interests of a few from that gang opposite. And you can be sanctimonious. Sanctimonious humbug - that's what you're talking about.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You will never wipe that incident out.

MR. MACDONALD: Come out into the province and debate your record! You won't get away with that kind of stuff.

MR. BARRETT: Come on television with me and debate it!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any day!

MR. MACDONALD: What we were faced with as a government in trying to bring a measure of social justice to all of the ordinary people of the province of B.C. was organized, unlawful obstruction by a selfish, privileged gang.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I'm glad to take my place in the debate on this motion because I was here in 1974 and 1975. To hear that speech from that first, second or third member for Vancouver East makes me sick. He's the one who talks about sunshine. I'll tell you, we're letting a little sunshine in here today.

Sixteen members over there in that opposition out of 18 stood there and invoked closure on this Legislature in 1974 and 1975. I wish they'd bow their heads in shame again today under this motion. The only two of the NDP who were government who were not involved in that disgraceful episode were the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . All the rest of them sat there and laughed at us and said: "Shut up and go home!" That's what they said.

We stood in committee here while the Chairman of

[ Page 2781 ]

committee said: "Sit down. We're passing through money votes here - $10 million at a clip, and you can't talk about it." I was here. They can't deny that; they said: "Go ahead."

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: That is true. You bet your life. We were here; we know. Just the reason that this government is taking off the limit of debate is right here in this motion.

Why 135 hours? I'll tell you why. That opposition over there has already wasted 135 hours and we aren't half through the debate on estimates. So this government is going to make sure that they can go right ahead and talk some more. They've proved that to this government in this session. They've already used 135 hours. Under their rules, if they were government we'd be all through with estimates right now. Therefore I am very happy to support this motion and take this dark record away from this Legislature forever.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to have a few comments after those sober remarks. One of the things that interests me is the sanctimony of that group over there. When we brought in the limit to hours as every other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth has, the first thing the present Premier did was run for cover out into the bushes. I want to tell the present Premier that if he feels so strongly about this I challenge him to a public television debate about the rules of the House anytime, at any studio. I'm ready to go and confront him and tell the people of this province. If the Premier feels this is so important for every citizen....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh, oh! Take it easy now; you'll get your turn. I know you're a great debater and you want to be part of this.

If the Premier is so concerned about laying the record of democracy straight for the people in this province, then we should certainly do that. We're discussing a motion changing the rules of this House. Who was it that brought in a question period that was never allowed in this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. BARRETT: Who was it that brought in a Chairman of the public accounts committee that was never allowed by Social Credit - a Chairman from the opposition - and they got paid to do that job? Who was it that brought in a full Hansard so that every single word that was said in this House was written down? They blocked it for years, and it was brought in by the New Democratic Party.

I know my friends over there are now in mid-term and grasping for a great political issue. I know they've waited two years for what they think is a dramatic moment to bring this up. I don't want to destroy that great emotional atmosphere that they're able to charge up at this moment.

I was moved by the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , who is known for his scintillating wit. His devastating, penetrating, thoughtful and lengthy analysis during the estimates somehow may have been shortened by the hours. (Laughter.) Because of that, when we were in government we allowed morning sittings at any length at all to accommodate that lengthy spokesperson and his scintillating attacks. Only to my surprise, as I arrived in the morning waiting for that particular member's sensational lengthy attacks on any minister, I find that he rarely participated in estimates at all.

So I find it a little bit difficult to understand why the longest speech he's ever made in his life in this House is related to politics in echoing the words of his Premier when he may be in trouble in the cabinet. How else can he keep 7 o'clock morning cabinet meetings?

It was the 14-hour speeches of the guy from North Peace River who now, after the ability to speak 14 hours at one time, can't recall what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: South Peace.

MR. BARRETT: South Peace, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Leader of the Opposition. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The member for South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The member for North Peace (Hon. Mr. Smith) only spoke seven hours. Perhaps that's why he can recall while the other member can't.

What we have here today is a little bit of political fun, and let's recognize it for that - a little bit of political fun. When the rules didn't suit them they went out and cried all over about it. The Premier used an ill-advised word about cowardice of not coming to the House. I wouldn't use that word to describe his running away from this House, because it's unparliamentary. I know better than that. If he chooses to use unparliamentary words, so be it on his head. But he ran out of this House day after day after day, not doing his duty here. But that's politics. That's politics. Who is around, and not politics, will enable the great democratic system to survive this afternoon of intelligent debate in any event. So I now support this wonderful resolution that will allow us . . .

[ Page 2782 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: ... a new level of communication, a new level of co-operation, a new level of love. And I will be more enthusiastic about supporting it if the Premier will come on television with me and we'll both discuss this and other things in front of the people of British Columbia, or if the Premier would at least have some public meetings to allow people to come and ask him questions as to what's happening to their tax dollars. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House, but I think this House falls to its lowest ebb when hon. members stand here and make jokes about spending public millions, stand here and make jokes of throwing away the billions of dollars of public money with a vote. Not one dime of that money should be spent without a vote, and to stand there and make a joke of that is something I cannot understand.

I was out in the field then; I was home. I was not in this House. I do not know what happened here.

MR. KING: That's pretty obvious.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I tell you this much, Mr. Speaker: I want to tell that fellow for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) ....

MR. LEA: Don't point.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He's always ready to make some smart-alec quips. I want to tell him and I want to tell him now that it's all very well to laugh, but the people in the field are not laughing. The people whose money they took off the backs of the people were not laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm telling you that when the hon. former Attorney-General talks about sanctimonious humbug ... and he is our friend! I have never heard a speech in this House that should be so labelled as sanctimonious and humbug as those few remarks that he made today.

It is regrettable that one parliament can undo what another parliament does - at least a provincial parliament. I believe, and I feel sincerely, that the right of parliament should be removed in this respect. The right of a parliament should be changed and it should be enshrined in the BNA Act that no closure should ever be put on debates involving the spending of public money.

It is all very well to say that we have closure in parliament, but I do not think that that is a right in estimates, that this should be a privilege of this parliament or any parliament. I sincerely regret that an opposition can be so unreasonable and so sanctimonious and to laugh at a time like this in a serious debate on public funds. Oh, it's all right to say: "Oh, oh!" I say to you it's a total disgrace and I'm more ashamed today than I was then.

MR. LEA: You weren't here.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I was somewhere else. I wasn't here, but I was ashamed of you. I tell you this ~much: what's more, the people in British Columbia were ashamed of you. They were ashamed of you. I said before in this House that fear stalked the land, but it never stalked more than this day, and hour by hour and month by month the liberties that we had through the years and the centuries were being eroded by a parliament that would have liked to have been a dictatorship.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: And when they spend millions of dollars of the public funds, millions of dollars, without a word from the opposition, automatically I say that it was the road to dictatorship.

You talk about socialism. That's not socialism; that's the worst kind of arrogance, the worst kind of parliamentary procedure. And to stand here and make jokes of it - that's the part I cannot stand. I cannot stand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) having the gall to rise in this House and laugh it off. I'm telling you that I'm serious and I'm distressed that this House has moved to such a low level.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, let them hear what I say. This opposition has moved to this low level, the low level of making fun of the public funds and making fun of this parliament. I say it is disgraceful and a dark day, indeed, for this House.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this issue, like so many others, is always presented in this chamber in an extremist way that the issue is always completely black or white. There never seems to be any recognition by the two main political forces in this House that there is some reason to look at the issue in a more balanced way.

I support the motion primarily because I recognize, as the Premier pointed out, that there is no higher priority of parliament than the scrutiny of the public purse. Otherwise, we are ignorant of history if we don't recognize and acknowledge that fact. King John, as long ago as how many centuries it was since

[ Page 2783 ]

the day of the Magna Carta, was the first one to feel the effect of that kind of thinking.

I think it's a little unfair of both the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition to insult the public of British Columbia as they have done today with this extremist argument that it is simply just a matter of allowing all the time that anyone wants to take to sit here - if need be, 365 days a year - and debate the affairs of this chamber. We all know that that is not practical. And yet, the image that has come across as I've listened to the debate today is that there is just one single issue. That is, that there should be no time limit whatever on debating estimates.

I wish, in many respects, Mr. Speaker, that that was possible. But sitting in this chamber we all know, and the people of British Columbia know, that that isn't possible. While the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is quite right that it would be an ideal world if there never was any form of closure in debating the spending of public money, we know that the federal House in this country, over a period of many years, has had to develop mechanisms which, inevitably and unavoidably, have brought forward some form or other of closure.

We all know that estimates in the federal House go to committee and that the committees, again for the sheer practical fact that you can't sit forever and discuss issues in a committee, have to go back and report to the federal House. That is a form of closure, whether we like it or not.

I very much support the attempt to make the scrutiny of the public purse in this chamber as wide open and as accessible for as long as possible to the members, but I think that it should be quite obvious to any thinking person in British Columbia and anybody in this chamber that it is just a little extreme to stand up and leave the impression that this is some enormous step forward for mankind and the democratic process of British Columbia and that there will be no limit whatever.

The reason I take particular exception - and I try very hard to recognize that we are in a political arena where each side is trying to win points - is that I think perhaps the two political leaders in this province don't know how often they lose points by overselling their case. The people of British Columbia are not that dumb. Admittedly, they don't seem to be very keen to support what's in the middle, either. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, I'm trying to reflect in my responsibilities in this House at least a great deal of public thinking. Just because that public thinking is not reflected in support for my party, it is not because the thinking lacks a great deal of accuracy as to public mood. The fact is that at election time the public is afraid and frequently ends up voting against the lesser of two evils as they see it in the public arena. That is why both the official opposition and the government in this province frequently make the mistake, in my opinion, of overselling and overstating what basically may be a very valid point of view in the first place.

I say that for the Premier today to present the issue as he did when, in point of fact, he himself, is up to some rather subtle games.... He adjourned this House at his pleasure without giving Any announcement of when we would be back in the House. We previously had a Whip agreement that we, the opposition parties, would not unduly delay a debate to provide an interim supply bill, and we agreed to four months of interim supply; yet the Premier said on hotlines and television shows that: "Well, the House might be back in June but of course, it might be July and it might be any date." Mr. Speaker, I don't think that that kind of behaviour by the Premier gives him any excuse today to come and present himself as some great champion of democracy and respecter of the rights of this chamber.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is some moderate, balanced approach to all the respects in which this House should function, whether it's time on individual speeches or time for debates or time to co-operate ahead of debates, so that at least all parties in the House know what order of business we are to be embarked upon. We should not be told at 11:30 this morning what we will be embarking upon in the chamber at 2:30 this afternoon. If this government is really sincere in trying to provide as much time as is needed to properly scrutinize estimates, I certainly appreciate that thought.

I would appeal to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that his responsibility by no means ends there, with the passing of this motion. There are many other respects in which this chamber could become a more effective, a more sane, a more respected forum for the elected representatives of British Columbia. I've tried to point out some of the ways in which the Premier has fallen short in meeting that particular responsibility. We have been told that this session of the House will go on all year, but we have had no intimation from the Premier, in any approximate sort of way, as to when he envisages the present sitting will end and the fall session will be held.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that we can divorce those kinds of responsibilities of the Premier from this one issue of the length of time to be spent debating estimates. It is all part of the total picture of responsibility for the way in which this Premier leads this province, and leads his party, and sets some kind of example, shows whether he has some modern concept of what provincial parliaments should be doing, how they should be functioning, and how they should be trying to elevate the image of politics in this province.

Perhaps that's all too idealistic an outline of what

[ Page 2784 ]

the Premier should do, but again, Mr. Speaker, if there's one comment that any MLA who takes the trouble to travel this province will find is the most common remark of any citizen when you ask him or her about British Columbia politics, it is the utter disgust and lack of respect for the way in which the Legislature of British Columbia functions. The most common kind of comment that I get is that we all appear to behave like children.

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago you sent us copies of letters which contained the responses of school children when they had visited this chamber earlier on this year. It seems to me that to promote and support the widest possible amount of time for debate of estimates is worthy. I do feel that both sides of the House should not only take a more moderate stance on this particular issue, and each stop trying to appear to be the champion of all the virtues on debate, but also look at some of these other responsibilities, not the least of which is trying to show a measure of respect, not only for each other, but for the system we're involved in, and at least try to recognize these other areas of function in this Legislature, such as the one I quoted today where we're told, literally hours before we meet, what the subject of business will be.

There are many other aspects of modem government and, if you are practical, Mr. Premier, you would recognize that there has to be some kind of limitation on the time utilized in this chamber. To stand up here and suggest that there can be no holds barred, that there need not be any kind of limit at all, and that you do this purely and totally in defence of the democratic process, I think, is just a little hard to take. I would hope that somewhere during this session some debate will afford us the opportunity to get into some of these issues that I've raised, and perhaps the government at that time can come forward with some of the constructive ideas that I've suggested which would make the whole system of politics not only more effective, but also a little more respected among the people of B.C.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of the motion. In doing so, I would like to say that in my not lengthy career in this House I think that I have witnessed this kind of event at least six or seven times, and like a catharsis - in the past, at least - this re-examination of our respective roles in this House has usually been most beneficial to the members and to the conduct of the business of the people of this province.

I think this House has implicit in its rules the opportunity for full democracy because we control our own rules, the process which goes on here, and therefore the extent to which we do our task properly depends upon our abilities, our conscience, and our sense of responsibility. But to place arbitrary limits on what any individual member may conceive as his responsibility is something that no member in this House can accept.

Yes, it's true that we have limits imposed in other jurisdictions, but we have, with great good fortune in this province, only 55 members and not the workload that is seen in other parliaments. I would hope that one day we would achieve that pinnacle when, among 55 citizens of this province, we could adjust our own affairs so that the processes would properly address themselves to the business of the people within appropriate time limits rather than having them spelled out in some rules.

MR. LAUK: And if not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If not, I think it incumbent upon those members who find that they cannot reach such agreement to reconsider the way in which they discharge their responsibilities to themselves, their party and to the people of this province. I think it not insignificant that that particular member would have asked that question across the floor of the House because perhaps he could re-examine some of his conduct and the way in which he discharges his responsibilities here - when he is here.

But let me say, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay that the significance of this motion was implicit in what was said a few moments ago by the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said to the gallery: "We're having a little political fun." That's not why we are here. He said something else during the days of the debate to which the Premier referred, which took place outside of this House and which culminated in action on the part of members of the opposition, including the member for Oak Bay, in resolving what could have been the most difficult period this House has gone through for decades. The member for Oak Bay will remember the corridor discussions and the approaches that were made to government of the day to resolve that issue, and you resolved it.

MR. MACDONALD: We were willing to resolve it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But what did the Leader of the Official Opposition say today? He said: "We granted the Legislature the right to debate." Mr. Speaker, it should not be within the authority, with regard to debating the spending estimates of this province, for any government to "grant" to the opposition at their wish. That's why the offending words are being removed from the standing orders of this House. That casts back to the members their obligation, with their full sense of responsibility, to debate the estimates to such limits as they deem appropriate in discharging their responsibility to the

[ Page 2785 ]

people who have sent them here.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, out of courtesy I waited until the Minister of Labour took his seat, but I couldn't derive from his ambiguous remarks towards me whether he was imputing any improper conduct on the part of myself as a member of this House. If he was....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the files?

MR. LAUK: Would you like to know where they are? You know where they are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Labour did impute improper conduct on my part I would ask him to withdraw.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I imputed no improper conduct to the member for Vancouver Centre. If he considers his conduct improper in this House, then he is the best judge.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, perhaps the histrionics of the first member for Vancouver East, the frivolous way in which the second member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition tried to laugh off what was a very serious situation in this Legislature, and the fact of the emotion that was created over it, are perhaps attempts to take away from what is a very major change in allowing the Legislature - and that is the opposition - the right of full debate and the opportunity for full disclosure from government.

I agree when the Minister of Labour says that the key to the opposition leader's remarks, when you got through the clowning and the comic relief, was the fact that he and that government "granted" them a right to debate in the morning, when they had been brought to their knees, not in this Legislature -because they had a majority - but out in the area of public opinion, which is the only place that fight could have been fought. Now it may be that the member for Oak Bay did not participate in that fight outside the House, and he may have thought that it was irrelevant or the way in which it was fought was not correct. But that was the one way in which he was eventually given the opportunity to have the former Barrett government "grant" him - in their words - the right to full opportunity for debate in this House.

The difficulty with arbitrary time limits, as that member for Oak Bay and others have suggested, is just this: the spending estimates and the conduct of government will vary from year to year. The amount of disclosure and the amount of opportunity for the

Legislature to question will then vary from year to year. So it is my firm believe that the Legislature should always have the full opportunity to question. The ability to impose a time to stop will be upon those members themselves when they feel that they have had full opportunity in the light of the realities of that day's budget and the conduct of that day's government. They can have restraint upon themselves, then, to impose that type of closure upon themselves, but never have it arbitrarily set in advance in rules in this Legislature.

My short experience in this House, and my experience as a British Columbian in watching the House and being a citizen and watching parliament, is that indeed the need for debate will vary from year to year. The importance and the emotion surrounding that debate will vary from year to year as governments, either through complete arrogance or through fear, attempt to bring the type of controls to the House to protect them from the scrutiny that can be placed upon them in that chamber.

MR. KING: Stop repudiating your dad.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Revelstoke can contain himself.

MR. KING: You're repudiating your dad; you're attacking your father.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you can contain yourself.... The member for Revelstoke, who....

MR. KING: Shame on you! You're attacking your dad!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you finished? The members opposite, so ashamed of their participation as part of that government, cannot keep quiet during this serious debate. They have to make frivolous comments.

But I'm hopeful that future governments, governments that follow us.... Perhaps some day if the memory of the former NDP government dims enough and is far enough in the past that people forget, if they ever come to power again they won't feel compelled to use the Barrett government's and that group's conduct in this House as a model for their performance.

I move the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under standing order 35, and ask leave to move adjournment of the

[ Page 2786 ]

House for discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: State the matter, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: The matter is the apparent breaches of the Audit Act in the development of the proposed B. C. Systems Corporation without legislative authority at enormous unauthorized public expense. The daily cost exceeds $25,000 for the hiring of as many as 70 computer consultants, each receiving a per them salary ranging from $350 to $600, plus full office and living expenses. Some of these consultants are not Canadian nationals and all have been retained without legislative approval, either for the expenditures or for their activities.

In addition, also without budgetary or statutory authority as many as a dozen senior executives costing the public purse hundreds of thousands of dollars have been hired, all of which is in violation of both section 18 of the Audit Act and parliamentary tradition because none of the foregoing has received the specific approval of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I've had a brief opportunity to look at the motion proposed by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard with respect to standing order 35.

The first observation that I wish to make - and I will reiterate something that I said on Monday - is that in most jurisdictions it is courtesy when moving a motion under standing order 35, and indeed in our own jurisdiction, to give the Speaker some notice of the intent to move the motion and, indeed, a copy of the subject matter that is to be proposed by the motion. In this case it was not done, as has happened many other times in the House. So I draw to your attention the fact that it is highly irregular to ask for an immediate decision if in fact you have not given the Speaker prior notice.

In this particular instance, the motion which has been presented is not that difficult to deal with because it contravenes the provisions under which a motion would qualify by a number of tests. But in other instances, a motion may very well quality under the rules of our House, and I think it's only fair in those instances that the Speaker be given enough advance notice, if you wish an immediate decision, that I do not have to defer so that it can be studied in great detail.

But, hon. member, in speaking to your motion, the motion does not qualify on a number of grounds, one of which is the first test, and that is that the matter to be debated must be urgent and there must be a prima facie case of urgency in the motion - not that the matter is not important, but there must be a need to debate the matter immediately.

Secondly, any motion or request for motion that contains argument is not admissible, and certainly there are argumentative statements in the motion that you have presented to me.

The third point is that a motion is not admissible where facts or allegations are in dispute. Clearly, by the exchange that took place in question period today, there is some reason to believe that the facts and the allegations are in dispute.

For those three reasons, I must observe that your request for a motion under standing order 35 fails on those three grounds, and I therefore have to advise you that it does not meet the requirements of standing order 35.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the three points raised by Your Honour as relevant, the first is urgency. The urgency is the unlawful expenditure of public money that is continuing from day to day. Nothing could be more. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm asking for reconsideration of the ruling because you drew to our attention three points and there are good answers to all three.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As you well know, there's no debate.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if public money is being spent unlawfully in the province of British Columbia day by day, as of today, that is urgent. Nothing could be more urgent.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. first member for Vancouver East please take his seat? Hon. member, you know the rules of the House as well as any member in this House. The request for a motion must be decided upon according to the rules of this House. I've given you my opinion that the request for the motion does not quality.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Vancouver East was well within his rights standing in the House, because the Speaker had not ruled. The Speaker had advised his opinion. The member for Vancouver East got up and wasn't challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the member was just asking for you to reconsider your opinion, because that's all you gave, Mr. Speaker - your opinion. You had not ruled at that point.

MR. SPEAKER: That is exactly what must take

[ Page 2787 ]

place on a request under standing order 35, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: You have not ruled and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member for Vancouver East continue his discussion with you.

. MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member. I would ask all hon. members to study the rules of the House with respect to a request for a debate under standing order 35. You might refer to May and Beauchesne, the authorities.

It's a matter for the Speaker to decide whether, first of all, the motion is in order or out of order. If it's in order, then the matter goes one further step; that is that you must have not only the consent but the vote of the members of the House before the debate can proceed.

I have indicated to you that under the standing orders of our House and the rules which I am bound by that the request is not one that qualifies under standing order 35, and that ends the matter.

MR. MACDONALD: If the building was burning, could we debate that?

orders of the day.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel the House is entitled to a ruling on the disposition of Bill 25 as it was handled in the previous day's orders of the day.

I draw to the House's attention that the bill did not appear in orders of the day on Wednesday, but on motion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on Wednesday, the bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting. There was no bill on the order paper at that time to be referred.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not arguing that this bill should be dismissed. But I think the House deserves clarification with respect to the normal procedure under which this kind of manoeuvre could be carried out.

As far as the opposition is concerned, we would be quite prepared to give unanimous leave if that should be necessary. But it would appear that it would be very difficult to reactivate the bill, once it has been stricken from orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to your point of order, first of all, you may not have been in the House at the adjournment hour last evening, but when the routine business of the day was finished the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing moved a motion which was passed to recommit the bill. That is in keeping with the orders of our House and also in keeping with Sir Erskine May, 13th edition, page 256:

"To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement or after the close of public business to appoint the order for a subsequent day."

This is what happened last night, hon. member.

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. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to make any announcements or statements prior to our examining the estimates, I would be pleased to yield.

I guess not. Mr. Chairman, the minister's responsibilities in this House and to the government and to the people of this province are very vast. I think it would be a mistake to discuss those vast responsibilities in a hectic forum or jumping all over the ballpark. This afternoon, I would like to discuss matters dealing with transportation in regard to B.C. Ferries and the central and north coasts.

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of canvassing topics that we discussed under the minister's estimates prior to the recess, some 10 or 11 weeks ago, but there have been a number of new developments in the field of transportation. I would like to question the minister on some of these matters.

For example, I think perhaps the most significant announcement was a couple of months ago now when the Premier and the minister announced that they had concluded an agreement with the federal government which would bring to the province of British Columbia a subsidy of some $8 million per year. It's a subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation on the basis that the B.C. ferries are a continuation of Highway 10 1. The minister has stated, Mr. Chairman, that on the basis of this agreement - it was a good agreement - fares would be reduced and all the rest of it. The minister has also said that the province is not necessarily - as I recall his answer in question period - responsible for freight and passenger service for the whole B.C. transportation services.

I've obtained a copy of the agreement between the federal and provincial governments. I have no intention of reading this whole agreement into the record, but I think that I should read paragraph 4 (l) to refresh the minister's memory on what kind of agreement this province did sign with the federal government. I quote from page 2 of the agreement,

[ Page 2788 ]

chapter 1, paragraph 4:

"The province shall assume sole responsibility for the subsidization, as may be required, of ferry and coastal freight and passenger services in the waters of British Columbia, including those services formerly and currently subsidized by Canada, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall assume sole responsibility for all residual subsidies resulting from the cancellation of the subsidy to Northland Navigation, interim subsidy to Coast Ferries Ltd., subsidy to Nootka Sound Services Ltd., subsidy to Coyote Freight Service Ltd., and subsidy to the Ahousat Freight Service Ltd. on the west coast of Vancouver Island, it being further agreed that future provision of subsidy shall be entirely within the discretion of the province."

What this means, Mr. Chairman, is that the province now has full and total responsibility for transportation and freight services on the coast of British Columbia and the federal government has been let off the hook, so to speak.

I may point out to you that the federal government is paying in the neighbourhood of $108 million in subsidies to shipping companies on the east coast of this country. Here in British Columbia we are receiving a piddling $8 million. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give you an example of what that $8 million really means. If that whole $8 million was applied to fare reductions only in the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that would mean that there would only be a reduction of some 50 cents per vehicle or passenger. That would use up the whole $8 million. It was my understanding when the minister announced negotiations were taking place with the federal government that they were negotiating for subsidies for coast transportation as well. So far there's been no announcement, in spite of the fact that the minister and the Premier have said on numerous occasions that there would be an announcement in 10 days, and then 20 days, and then another 10 days. This has been going on for months. There's still no announcement, Mr. Chairman.

An article that appeared in the Vancouver Province on April 25 refers to the people of the central and north coast as "the forgotten people." Right on! There's nothing for the people of the central and north coast. That whole $8 million in my view, should have been used for transportation services on the central and north coast of this province and fare reductions should be subsidized out of the general revenues of this government.

In regard to this contract that was signed with the federal government, I would like to advise the minister that it is very likely the worst agreement that has ever been signed by this province, or by any other province in Canada. It is the worst federal-provincial agreement that has ever been signed by any province in Canada. I suggest the minister get on his horse, get negotiating with Ottawa, and ask for a deal that is at least equal and similar to what the people on the east coast of this country are receiving.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman. A friend of mine recently returned from New Brunswick. While in New Brunswick he had the occasion to travel on a vessel plying between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island similar to the B.C. ferry system vessels plying between Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay. He found there that the federal government is subsidizing one Canadian National-operated ferry to a tune of some $12 million a year, and as a result of that $12 million a year to one vessel, the passenger rate is 65 cents per passenger and $2.50 per vehicle on what I believe to be an 18-mile route similar to our own routes here in British Columbia.

I just can't understand how the minister could have signed such an agreement; I really don't. Once again, that whole $8 million should have gone into subsidies to subsidize transportation services to the central and north coast. And sure there should have been fare reductions, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly we've been calling for fare reductions. As a matter of fact, the fare reductions that you instituted here on B.C. Ferries that came into effect just 16 days ago in my opinion were a farce.

I don't think those fare reductions will do anything to alleviate the economic damage you have done to Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast in my riding. I don't think they'll do much. Furthermore, those fare reductions do not in any way affect the residents of the Sunshine Coast or the Gulf Islands. There were no fare reductions.

Would you believe, Mr. Chairman... ? Mr. Chairman, are you listening? Well, nobody else is. Would you believe, Mr. Chairman, that there were no fare reductions whatsoever for residents of the Sunshine Coast and the Gulf Islands - no fare reductions whatsoever? I'm suggesting now to the minister that he immediately institute 25 per cent fare reductions for the residents of the Sunshine Coast. Why not, Mr. Minister?

You know, Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 weeks, the New Democratic Party transportation committee has visited nearly every major community on the coast of British Columbia - yes, every major community - to find out what the people in these areas required in terms of transportation. What did we find? First of all we found that this government has not at any time consulted the people of the coast of British Columbia on transportation policies. They've consulted with these people after the fact, not before policy statements were made. You know,

[ Page 2789 ]

the people in these communities told us: "You're the first people to come and visit us to see what our needs are, to see what we require."

A short time ago I saw in the press where you announced that some university group is going to do a study into coast transportation problems, Mr. Minister. I want to tell you that in my view that is a cop-out. You are copping out again, Mr. Minister, your government is copping out again, your Premier is copping out again, and that study is a cop-out. There have been studies on top of studies on top of studies. If you require information, I'll be glad to give you all the information I have - reams and reams of it, files full. But very basically, in terms of coastal transportation, people require self-propelled vessels which could be built here in British Columbia, which should be operated by the B.C. Steamship Company or the B.C. Ferry Corporation and provide services for the people living in the central and north coast of this province. Your policies have been an absolute disaster, no question about it.

You know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, some time ago we discussed the possibility of the federal government reclassifying these coastal waters in British Columbia as inland or protected, and I had some communications with the Hon. Otto Lang in Ottawa on this matter. In the most recent communication I have received from the federal minister he tells me:

"No request or proposal to this effect has been received in Transport Canada from the government of British Columbia or any other source, and no change is contemplated in the classification of the waters in question. However, I should mention that in the meantime I have received a request from the Hon. Jack Davis for consideration of a reduction in the crews of certain B.C. ferries. Mr. Davis feels that the manning scales required of the provincial government ships compare unfavourably with those of similar American ferries operating in the same area."

Mr. Minister, my question then is: what ships did you have in mind, how many people are you trying to get rid of, and are you planning to proceed with this proposal? You know, there have been a lot of people laid off from B.C. Ferries one way or another, some by attrition, scheduling changes which have affected employment.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I will get into some of the nitty-gritty of the B.C. ferry system as it pertains to this minister today. For example, a couple of months ago the corporation instituted what they call "the triangle run" on route 3. Mr. Chairman, what that meant was that they took one ferry off route 3 - the Queen of Tsawwassen - put it in mothballs or whatever it's doing at the moment.... By the way, what is that ship doing at the moment, Mr. Minister?

They put the Queen of Nanaimo on alternate trips between Nanaimo and the Queen of Burnaby on route 3 between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay. Fair enough. It wasn't fair enough, really - that meant the loss, I think, of quite a number of jobs in the Gibsons area.

However, when the Queen of Nanaimo and the Queen of Burnaby ply between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay, there is food service, there is news-stand service and a number of other services. However, within the next hour or two when that same vessel is plying between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay, you close down the food service except for sandwiches and coffee and you close down the news-stand. People employed by the B.C. Ferries sit idle; they don't have much to do. I've spoken with many of them in the last couple of weeks.

. What's the reason? Are you afraid of spoiling the people on the Sunshine Coast? Do you think they're going to get spoiled by having food services and news-stand services? The people are there; the food is there. It's utterly ridiculous! So, Mr. Minister, I hope you'll take the time to answer that question. Why did you close down the food service between Horseshoe Bay and Langdale while the crews sit idle and have nothing to do and all the facilities are there? It's utterly ridiculous!

You lowered the fares - what a joke! You lowered the fares for non-residents in some areas two weeks ago and then you immediately increased fares on the buses. So what it amounts to is a very small fare decrease to anyone. One of your board of directors -Graerne Roberts, I think, is the gentleman's name -complained bitterly about this and said he would raise this whole matter during the corporation board of directors' meeting. I assume that he did, and I wonder what the result of that whole thing was.

Are you going to decrease the fares on the ferry further or are you going to decrease the fares on the buses? You're trying to encourage passenger traffic and bus traffic on the ferries - big advertisements that cost a lot of money are on the radio all the time; you know, horse racing and all that stuff - and here you go, increasing fares.

Another item, Mr. Chairman, appeared in one of the local papers just recently where apparently on some vessels you have ripped out seats - about 50 seats or so - and put in coin-operated machines to turn an extra dollar for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What garbage! You know, if you want to have gambling on these vessels, that's okay with me. It wouldn't bother me a bit. Let's take one of these vessels that are now sitting idle, put in the slot machines and the casino tables and the rest of it and anchor it out in the bay and we'll have gambling and leave the B.C. ferries for passengers.

AN HON. MEMBER: We fight against organized

[ Page 2790 ]

crime and he wants gambling in the ferries!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, you want gambling on the ferries. You're the people that put in the slot machines - probably roulette wheels up in the cabins, for all I know. I haven't seen them, but who knows?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you. Excuse me, there's a phone call for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, our rules provide for one speaker at a time, and the member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You want to talk about gambling with the public's money. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? I hope it's a couple of hours because, by gosh, I want to talk about gambling with the public's money and how this government has ripped off the people of this province, taken thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the economy, jobs down the tube.... My gosh, you talk about gambling!

One other item, Mr. Chairman, which I should have mentioned earlier, but which I do want to bring to the minister's attention, was the matter of the freight rate increase for the central and north coast. I didn't mention that area. Now we were told by RivTow and tacitly by the minister when Northland service was trimmed that RivTow and these other companies would provide service at the same cost that was offered by Northland Navigation. Of course, the rates have gone up significantly. There is another headline in the Vancouver Province this time: "RivTow Hikes Freight Rates 32 to 73 Per Cent." Because they have increased these rates, we find now that people will not use that service if they can possibly use something else, and because they are not using this service, Mr. Minister, the shipping companies are reducing services to all of these central and north-coast areas. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, how you hope to overcome that problem.

Yesterday you suggested that some private companies will be going into operation. I'm aware of the upgrading of the coast ferry service, but I'm quite sure, Mr. Minister, that they are not going.... As a matter of fact, I happen to know that they in no way will be replacing the terminated Northland service to the north coast.

I have one other question, Mr. Minister, before I take my seat for the moment. You did say yesterday in answer to a question that the Queen of Surrey will not be going into operation until 1979, I think you said - approximately two years from now. Mr. Minister, could you tell this House when the Queen of Surrey goes into service on what routes it will be employed?

In the meantime, until the Surrey is put into service, Ocean Falls, as you well know, will have a ferry ramp built. I would like to know from you, Mr. Minister, how you plan to service that community and similar communities in the meantime if and when the Queen of Surrey is ever put into service. You're not contemplating selling the Surrey, are you? You're not going to sell that fine vessel. I hope you're not. Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat for the moment and hope the minister will reply.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for MacKenzie raised a number of points. He cast some aspersions on the $8 million a year which we are now receiving to help finance the B.C. Ferry Corporation. This $8 million a year, incidentally, will escalate with the cost of living. That is $8 million a year more than the previous government ever managed to get out of Ottawa for any ferry purpose whatsoever.

Indeed I recall all too vividly the purchase from Sweden of the Queen of Surrey, a day vessel, which cost the British Columbia taxpayers $18 million and which is now tied up because it's so heavy on fuel and requires an extra large staff. It does not carry anything like as many automobiles as ferries built and designed on this coast do. In other words, it was a bad buy.

But in addition - and this is the point I really want to make - this is relative to the former government's relationships with Ottawa. That vessel was bought for a figure in the order of $14 million. The previous government paid close to another $4 million payment back. It budgeted for $14 million; it ended up costing the B.C. taxpayers $18 million. It is now sitting idle at the Deas dock.

Now, $8 million subsidy from Ottawa is an awful lot better than zero. It's an awful lot better than buying vessels we don't need with price tags on them of the order of $18 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

HON. MR. DAVIS: This $8 million-a-year payment amounts really to an about-face on the part of the federal government. The federal government has been saying for years that it is not involved in intra-provincial road or ferry operations, that it does

[ Page 2791 ]

not subsidize movements of vehicles from one point within a province to another point within a province - vehicles on roads or ferries or other vessels - from a point within a province to another point within that province. In other words, movements within a province, in its view, are totally within the competence and indeed within the constitutional responsibilities of that province.

So when the federal government finally signed this $18 million-a-year agreement with the British Columbia government, it in fact reversed a very long-standing policy. On the east coast it excuses its subsidies on the basis that the vessels move either between the United States and provinces in Canada or between provinces. It endeavours in all instances to avoid movements within provinces.

So a precedent has been set here. The federal government has admitted, at least in respect to the west coast of Canada, that it has some financial responsibility for ferry operations here. This is a five-year agreement. It can be terminated at the wish of either party - either the province or the federal government. If there's any clause in that agreement that's offensive to hon. members, I'd certainly like to know about it. Indeed, we would endeavour to make those changes. But as I said before, this is $8 million a year more than we've ever had in the past and it is money which will be put to good effect by the B.C. Ferry Corporation directors and the management of that provincially owned company.

I might also say that $8 million a year is on the same scale as the total subsidy to the Washington State Ferries in Washington state. In other words, the federal government in Canada is subsidizing ferry operations on the west coast in a like manner to the state subsidy to the whole state ferry operation in Washington state. Washington State Ferries carry 50 per cent more people than B.C. Ferries at the moment. They have more vessels. Essentially it is a larger operation. It is subsidized currently to the extent of $8 million a year and that subsidy is of the same order of magnitude as the federal support now being provided to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Our total subsidy to the B.C. Ferries will now be of the order of $44 million: approximately $26 million provincial subsidy on routes which B.C. Ferries has traditionally been plying in this province; another $10 million for new routes which the ferry directors have now authorized, including starting at Tsawwassen and running north through Kelsey Bay, Bella Bella and Ocean Falls to Prince Rupert; and $8 million from the federal government. That totals $44 million. The B.C. Ferry Corporation, in other words, will be subsidized this year to the extent of some $44 million, which is much higher than the $8 million Washington State subsidy, approaching half of the operating cost of B.C. Ferries in this current year 1977-78, which is of the order of $90 million.

The hon. member asked about crew sizes. Our main concern was leaving passengers behind at terminals. The number of passengers that can be carried on any one of our vessels is related to the number of crew on board those vessels. In other words, there have to be enough men and women on the vessel to man the lifeboats, if I can put it that way. So in order to increase the lift-off capacity of our ferries at our terminals, we would like to be able to increase the number of passengers without necessarily increasing the crew numbers at the same time. this is obviously a peak problem, on occasional sailings only. It is not a day-in, day-out, week-in, week-out problem but it is a problem at times and we don't like to leave anyone behind. That's the main reason for that inquiry with the federal government. Of course we do know, for example, the Coho comes across very rough water with a crew of the order of 18; our vessels typically have a crew of 31. So there are comparisons which can be drawn with Washington State Ferries and Black Ball which indicate our crew sizes are adequate for safety and proper manning of vessels.

The hon. member asks about the triangular run on route 3 which is now in effect. It was worked out in close co-operation with a committee of residents on the Sunshine Coast. Indeed, they are largely responsible for this new arrangement. There are now more runs using better vessels and the timing is better, at least as far as the users of that ferry service are concerned. I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this new schedule was worked out in close co-operation with local residents on the Sunshine Coast.

We have had a problem with bus fares. There was disappointment, naturally, that bus fares crossing the Strait of Georgia, including the payment by the bus company to the ferry company, were not reduced the full $1 for each passenger. The passenger fare, as hon. members know, was reduced from $4 to $3. It is complicated mathematics but the discount allowed to the bus companies is 25 per cent. The discount formerly on $4 was $1 ; the discount on $3 is not $1, it is less than $1. That discount gives rise to a problem. In any case, the users of ferries now pay 50 cents less than they did formerly. The Pacific Stage Lines charge, for example, from downtown Vancouver to downtown Victoria for an adult is $5.75, rather than $6.25. A large part of the difference between that 50 cent drop and the $1 drop for normal passengers is a result of the discount arrangements which have been continued on from the past.

The hon. member talks about gambling on the ferries. If he regards those Pong and soccer machines as gambling then he has a different idea of gambling than I do.

Freight rates charged by the private sector on

[ Page 2792 ]

freight moving up the west coast of Canada in privately owned barges and other vessels have been under the scrutiny of the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa. As I recall, RivTow Straits, for example, applied for and were granted a rate increase by the Anti-Inflation Board.

Yes, we have problems of service, particularly in communities like Stewart; perhaps it's a good example. The basic problem at Stewart, at the moment, is that the highway link into Stewart is gradually becoming useful. There is a great deal of money being spent north of Terrace in that connection. Also, Northland Navigation and others are now shipping through Kitimat. They are retaining trucking companies to take freight on from Kitimat, much more quickly and on a regular basis, to Stewart via the developing highway route, and no longer running north by barge. So there is an alternative overland service developing in that case and it does complicate the economics of serving Stewart by water because of this road competition.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says "at a higher price." The main reason why the barges aren't going up to Stewart on a regular basis now is that the road deliveries are undercutting the prices that the towboat companies can offer. Well, that's competition and we like competition, Mr. Chairman. This is why we hope that the private sector will move in as much as possible and announce new services on the coast.

Finally, the hon. member would up with a reference to the Queen of Surrey. It is in mothballs. The Ferry Corporation directors are looking very carefully at reviving its use, possibly beginning in the spring of 1979 when the Island Highway is completed northward to Port Hardy. Based at Port Hardy, it could sail north in daylight hours to Prince Rupert and return the next day, again in daylight hours. It is a day vessel. It does not have overnight accommodation that is adequate. Therefore used in a service of that kind it could help improve the access, at least of tourists and B.C. residents who are interested in seeing the west coast, to the mid- and upper-coast areas and, more particularly, to the Prince Rupert area.

I should perhaps mention a press release which was made today by the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, Charles Gallagher, which does outline the route extensions advocated by the new directors, and now approved by cabinet, which sees the Queen of Prince Rupert based at Tsawwassen and touching Bella Bella, Ocean Falls and Kelsey Bay. It also mentions that feeder services will also be set up in such a way as to provide connections with Namu, Klemtu, Port Simpson, Kincolith, Alice Arm and Stewart, B.C.

I think relevant, also, is the fact that the board of directors of the new corporation is taking a hard look at the possibility of the Queen of Prince Rupert running to Masset, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, on a weekly basis. A new dock, however, will have to be built there, so other arrangements will have to be made in the interim.

Kitimat is not included in this year's fall schedule; however, the Ferry Corporation is very much aware of the need to service the Kitimat and Terrace areas by water. If the private sector is unable to meet these requirements, it will also have to make special arrangements there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few quick follow-up questions.

The last remark of the minister's was very interesting. I guess we've long been advocating that the Queen of Prince Rupert should be based in Vancouver over the winter - no problem there. I would like to know when this service will be starting - probably in October, as I understand it.

I am deeply concerned about the Queen of Surrey, Mr. Chairman. I really think this government will be making a sad mistake if it does not utilize that fine vessel on a Vancouver-north coast route. The present Queen of Prince Rupert should continue to serve out of Kelsey Bay and, ultimately, out of Port Hardy to Prince Rupert and/or Kitimat and possibly Alaska.

I think this government will be making a sad mistake if it sells or keeps the Queen of Prince Rupert in mothballs. It's a fine vessel and it could serve the people of this coast for many, many years. So it's heavy on fuel - possibly that problem could be solved. The fact is that when you measure the cost of fuel against building new vessels or purchasing new vessels somewhere else in the world, I don't think the cost would be that great.

Mr. Chairman, I know some of my colleagues have questions for the minister on this topic so I'll take my seat and thank you for your answers.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up briefly on the remarks the minister made about the freight situation into Stewart. He mentioned that B.C. Ferries will be providing a kind of feeder service to Stewart, Port Simpson and Kincolith, I think.

I wonder if he could give us a bit more detail on this feeder service. In particular, will it relate only to persons or will it relate as well to freight, either heavy or packaged, and/or automobiles? Could he give us a little more detail about that feeder service?

HON. MR. DAVIS: First, Mr. Chairman, in answer

[ Page 2793 ]

to a question from the member for Mackenzie, to put the Queen of Surrey in shape will cost another $2 million to $3 million to meet Canadian Steamship standards, and a similar amount to put in overnight accommodation. So to put it in a condition whereby it could run the full length of the coast - for example, from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert or Terrace - would cost the B.C. Ferry Corporation another $5 million to $6 million. That's on top of the original purchase price of $18 million paid to the Swedish shipbuilders.

The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asks for details of the feeder services. Basically this is the next topic for the directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and while they've met several times on this matter, they don't have a full and complete answer for all of the communities.

First they feel an obligation to serve all the communities previously served by Northland Navigation. They agree that they should move people; they agree that they should move vehicles in the same manner that vehicles are moved by B.C. Ferries across the Strait of Georgia - namely driven on and driven off. The B.C. Ferries so far at least has not engaged stevedores to do stevedoring. In other words, they don't as a matter of course carry drop trailers. But they do take drive-on, drive-off freight traffic, and this service, of course, will be supplied on the Queen of Prince Rupert and other vessels like the Queen of Surrey.

Speaking about freight in smaller and more remote communities, it's necessary to develop a vessel or vessels, say, in the mid-coast area and another perhaps based in Prince Rupert that will be capable of going into those communities and in addition to moving people moving small freight, certainly moving high-value freight, moving it quickly and moving it on a regular scheduled basis.

One of the very real problems on the west coast, however, is leaving some room for the private sector carriers, and the Ferry Corporation is very conscious of the need to define at a very early date exactly what it will carry and what it will not carry to various communities, not only on the mainland but also on the Queen Charlottes.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, hon. member. Just very briefly, the minister said that the Ferry Corporation felt a need to develop these kinds of things very quickly without truing to pin the corporation down too closely. Does the minister mean within a matter of, let's say, a month or two?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, short term and long term. I think that in the short term the corporation will have to engage the services of private operators. In the longer term, of course, it has the option of building one or more specialized vessels and either leasing them out or operating them themselves. The longer-term arrangements, of course, will be more satisfactory than the interim lash-up arrangements they will have to enter into in order to give these people a minimum of service, which is the kind of service they received previously from Northland Navigation.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions here.

The minister talks of the $8 million subsidy from the federal government as if it was a new amount to the province, and in fact it wasn't.

I'm wondering if the minister would care to elaborate on how much of that $8 million provided by the federal government is net new money available to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. As the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) pointed out, on some of the existing runs on the coast which were previously subsidized by the federal government, that subsidy responsibility has now been turned over to the provincial government. He mentioned the Patzko from Fair Harbour to Kyuquot, The Uchuck III on Muchalat Inlet, Nootka Sound, and the service between Tofino and Ahousat. How much in the way of subsidies has the provincial government assumed from the federal responsibility, and how much in terms of-the net amount from the federal government is new money that can be turned over to the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

I'd also like to know how much of that new amount has been absorbed by the fare reduction on the Strait of Georgia runs, Vancouver-to-Tsawwassen, Vancouver-to-Nanaimo. What is the drop in anticipated revenue that is expected by the B.C. Ferry Corporation as a result of the reduction in fares on those runs, say, over the next year? And how much of that drop will be covered by the net subsidy from the federal government? So that's the first question.

The second question is the sale of the Langdale Queen. I'm wondering, if this was put to public tender, how many tenders there were on the Langdale Queen. What was the highest bid? What was the lowest bid? And was the highest bid accepted? If not, why not?

I'm also wondering if there was an appraisal done on the Langdale Queen before it was sold. Was the sale financed or was it a cash sale? Did the government receive cash or did they accept an agreement for sale or some kind of financing provision on it? If so, at what interest rate? I'd be interested to know what the details were of the sale of the Langdale Queen.

Also, I have had a complaint from some of my constituents that when too few cars show up at the

[ Page 2794 ]

ferry terminals, sailings have been cancelled. A specific one that was mentioned yesterday when I was in Gold River was the 3 p.m. sailing on March 29 from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo. There were only five cars at the terminal or something like that. The sailing was cancelled and people who had been at the terminal since 1 or 2 o'clock had to wait almost four hours for the next sailing at roughly 5:30. So how often does this happen? I know that if a licensed air carrier or marine carrier which is licensed to perform a scheduled service cancels that service because of lack of passengers they get a "show cause" order from the CTC saying: "Why did you cancel the service?" If there's no valid reason then there are penalties involved or even a licence could be suspended if it happens too often. I'm wondering how often this happens with the ferry service.

For people who live in the Gold River area and north Vancouver Island area to wait that extra few hours - maybe four hours - at a ferry terminal is a tremendous inconvenience. They end up having to spend money in motels or to stay overnight in Vancouver or something along this line, or on mid-Island, and they're not able to get home, get to jobs or whatever on northern Vancouver Island. A lot of people are very concerned about the cancellation of sailings. That's what I meant, Mr. Minister, when I said it's a gamble sometimes just to pay your fare, because there's no guarantee that you'll get on the ship.

You mentioned that the province lost out on the purchase of the Queen of Surrey. At the time the Queen of Surrey was bought we were extremely short of ships in this province. There had been no new ferries acquired by the previous government for something like 10 years, although they had stretched a few, and they've stretched a few today in the debate here, I think. It's typical of the government. But one of the reasons we were forced to buy the ship was that no long-range planning had been really done by the previous government. We were forced into a position where we had to acquire a ship almost anywhere we could get it and the Queen of Surrey was the best available.

So I'd like the minister to answer at least those three questions: What net amount is available? What amount goes to subsidize the fare reduction? What's the difference between the net subsidy and the total cost of the fare reduction? What are the details of the sale of the Langdale Queen? What about cancellation of ferry sailings?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, first, the net amount of the federal subsidy available to the D.C. Ferry Corporation: the entire amount is being passed through to the Ferry Corporation - the entire $8 million, escalating, according to the cost of living Vancouver. There are several obligations, however, which are carried over - those on the west coast of Vancouver Island which are itemized in the agreement - of the order of $250,000 current outlay. So perhaps I could put it another way: $7.75 million is available this year for other purposes - fare reductions, upper coast services, whatever.

The cost of the fare reduction is difficult to estimate, but it's in the order of $8 million to $10 million. The route extensions to Tsawwassen, to Ocean Falls and so on, because they involve additional mileages, attract to the corporation an additional sum of money from the provincial treasury. That is estimated to be in the order of $10 million. If you total the cost of the fare reduction and take from it the additional moneys available, there is of the order of $8 million, $9 million of $10 million available for improved services on the middle and upper coast.

The Langdale Queen would have cost some $6 million to put in shape again. It's a very old vessel built around 1904 in California. It was decided to sell it instead. It was put on the market; there were half a dozen bids. They ranged from $1 to $52,000. The $52,000 bidder would have taken off the superstructure and used it as a log carrier on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Another group based in Vancouver bid $50,000. Their purpose, among others, is to tie it up in the waterfront at Coal Harbour, Vancouver, and provide a place for retired seamen to gather together and do various things, including operating a machine shop and so on. So having put the matter to the board of directors of B.C. Ferries and finally to the cabinet, it was decided to accept the second bid - the $50,000 bid rather than the $52,000 bid. The company has now tied the vessel up in Coal Harbour and it's being....

MR. SKELLY: Was it cash or financed?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It was $50,000 cash.

On the other question re cancellation of runs, B.C. Ferries never cancel runs for lack of customers. There may have been other reasons for the particular run the hon. member mentioned being cancelled that evening.

MR. LEA: First, I would like to congratulate the government for its appointment of Dr. Hick from Prince Rupert to the Ferry Corporation. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of all people from Prince Rupert, he is a man who puts the interest of the coast and its residents above any personal ambition or political aspects, and I congratulate the government for that appointment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to where we got into all this trouble with coastal transportation, and it goes back some years. But 1973, I think, is the year

[ Page 2795 ]

that we should focus on as the beginning of a lot of our troubles. In that year Northland Navigation did its own study, or at least they concluded their own study in that year and presented their findings and their recommendations to the federal government. It is my understanding that at that time Northland Navigation offered to put $20 million of its own money into docking facilities and vessels. Two new vessels were designed for Northland Navigation, and they put the proposition to the federal government that to increase the effectiveness of their service the two new vessels would be built at their own expense - of course, receiving the subsidy from the federal government that all boatbuilding gets; and they never heard back, The first thing they heard back was that the subsidy was cancelled. Of course, that was after the Acres report.

In 1973 the Acres people working for the federal government also looked at transportation on the central coast and north coast and made certain recommendations to the federal government. The executive summary of the Acres report recommended to the federal government that the type of service that Northland was supplying was the proper kind of service, that it should be upgraded with more modern ships and docking facilities, but it was the kind of service - self-propelled vessels for freight and passengers traveling the coast - to be looking after the needs of small communities along the coast.

What both governments seem to forget is that it isn't only getting freight and passengers from the lower mainland to the north or points along the northern coast and central coast, but there is traffic and freight to be moved between communities in the north. That's one of the main reasons why we should have that kind of service, self-propelled vessels serving those needs with the lift-on, lift-off and drive-on, drive-off facilities. Now everyone on the coast who I talked to - and I've talked to a lot of people, including municipal 'councils, labour councils, people in transportation - agrees that the only kind of service that will be adequate for the coast are self-propelled vessels with lift-on, lift-off, drive-on, drive-off facilities. Everyone agrees on that except the federal government and the provincial government.

It's kind of hard to understand where the provincial and federal governments get their information from to make the kind of decisions that they've made, because the mayor of Masset and his council said that an NDP committee were the first people who had even asked them their opinion. Nobody else had even been around; nobody had been to the coast; nobody had asked them: "What do you need? What are your requirements?" Nobody! Yet here is a recommendation to the federal government, an executive summary of the Acres report, recommending to the federal government that what they desire and what they need is in fact true, or at least in agreement with the Acres people and recommended to the federal government.

I have one question to begin with: did the provincial government know prior to the cancellation of the Northland subsidy that it was going to be cancelled, and how long before did they know, and did they agree to go along with the federal government on that cancellation of subsidy to Northland?

Mr. Chairman, the agreement itself that was signed between Canada and the province of British Columbia, section 4 (l) .... I'd like to read this. It says:

" The province shall assume sole responsibility for the subsidization as may be required of ferry and coastal freight and passenger services in the waters of British Columbia, including those services formerly and currently subsidized by Canada, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall assume sole financial responsibility for all residual subsidies resulting from:

(a) the cancellation of the subsidy to Northland Shipping (1972) Co. Limited;

(b) interim subsidy to Coast Services Limited ...... and on with the smaller ones on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

After that it is my understanding that the Premier told representatives of the regional districts in his office that the provincial government will in no way ever subsidize freight. He also further added that it was his understanding that it was not part of the agreement that the province, according to this document, would take up these responsibilities.

The senior cabinet minister for the federal government, the Hon. Ron Basford, said he agreed with the Premier's interpretation. It seems that we have only one recourse on this document, Mr. Chairman, and that's to take it to the courts for an interpretation of what this document actually means. To a lay person reading it, freight means freight, passengers means passengers, subsidy means subsidy. It's clear. But the Premier and Mr. Basford say that that isn't the intent. Freight isn't freight, subsidy isn't subsidy, service isn't service. How are we going to find out? The people on the coast don't know who to go to.

According to this document, the province has accepted sole financial responsibility for the freight which Canada hitherto had accepted the responsibility for.

Mr. Chairman, the news release that was put out by Mr. Gallagher today talks about a system of trans-shipment from probably two points, as the minister has said - Prince Rupert and one further south. It must be obvious to anyone who's been in transportation that every time there's a

[ Page 2796 ]

trans-shipment it makes it more expensive. Every time you handle it, it becomes more expensive. That's why, Mr. Minister, it doesn't make sense to trans-ship from Kitimat by road into Stewart. Every time you make a trans-shipment it's more expensive.

Everybody knows that the cheapest way to ship freight commodities is by marine transport - by water. Yet the freight rates are so high into the Queen Charlotte Islands that many of the merchants bring their produce in by air because it's cheaper.

In Prince Rupert, where once we had a barge service and where once we had a self-propelled service, we have nothing. A trans-shipment from Kitimat to Prince Rupert makes it more expensive.

The minister mentioned that RivTow had applied to the AIB for a rate increase and it was granted by the AIB. I wonder if the minister is aware of what those rate increases did. The biggest store in Masset, Delmas Co-operative, got their order in from RivTow. Increases were as high as 72 per cent and as low as 30-something per cent, an overall average of 40.1 per cent - an average freight rate increase of over 40 per cent into the Queen Charlotte Islands! That may be acceptable to the AIB; it may be acceptable to both governments. But how could it be acceptable to people who can't afford to pay those kind of massive freight rate increases and can't buy the kinds of things that they've been buying for their family? They are the kind of things that you need on the north coast, like fresh fruits and vegetables, so that there can be some health foods eaten by those residents.

The people on the coast are suffering, Mr Chairman, and I just can't believe that the minister knows about it and is doing nothing. I really believe that the government has no idea what's going on on the coast. You go into Kitimat and you hear talk of putting in new docking facilities at Kitimat for a ferry service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you been up and looked?

MR. LEA: I've been up and looked, Mr. Minister of Labour. I'll tell you something, Mr. Chairman. The NDP took a committee all along this coast to find out exactly what people wanted and what they needed, and they said we're the only people they've seen.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, but you did nothing about it.

MR. LEA: This government and the federal government haven't been up there to see what they want and to see what they need. That's the whole problem, Mr. Chairman. The governments don't know what they need. The decisions are not being made in consultation with residents of the coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: You refused to accept the recommendations of the committee that made the trip.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big deal. Send a committee, make recommendations, and then refuse to carry them out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, no, no, no. The only time we hear speeches from those cabinet ministers is when they're sitting down in their seats talking when members of the opposition are talking. It's the only time they get up and open their mouths.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only time you get up is when you're sitting down.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the transportation on the coast has been completely botched.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're speaking from their seats.

MR. LEA: It was botched from the time the federal government made their first announcement of cancellation of the subsidy to Northland. What there's been ever since is a scrambling by the federal government, trying to save face for a mistake that they made in the first place.

Does the minister believe, along with me and the residents of the coast, that the federal government botched it? What I can't understand, Mr. Chairman, is why the provincial government is trying to help the federal government put salve on their burned fingers. Why? You know, no political party or no government takes on a politically embarrassing situation unto themselves unless there's another reason. Yet the provincial government has taken on a politically embarrassing situation - for what?

You have to ask yourself that, Mr. Chairman: for what? And it's not the only one. The new northwestern rail agreement is another politically embarrassing situation for the government. They've done that also. Why? The answer, Mr. Chairman, I believe, is that the provincial government is so anxious to get northeastern coal off the ground -because they put all their economic eggs in one basket - that they have completely sold out on every other negotiation that they've carried on with the federal government since they've been in office. They've sold out.

Why else would a government, a political party, take on an embarrassing situation that they didn't have to? It just doesn't make sense, unless there's

[ Page 2797 ]

some other motive. What is it?

MR. LAUK: No, that's it.

MR. LEA: It has to be. It has to be that they're so anxious to try and get a few bucks for northeastern coal that they've sold out the residents of the north and central coast. They've sold out to the residents of northwestern British Columbia on a rail agreement and port facilities at Prince Rupert, and the only reason it must be is that they hope to sycophantically get a few more bucks out of Ottawa for northeastern coal. It is the only reason we can think of, or at least that I can think of. If there's another reason I'd like to know it.

Why has the provincial government accepted an embarrassing political situation that's going to cost them money when they didn't have to? Does that make sense? I suggest that no clear-thinking person would think that that makes sense. Yet we have a government that's done just that. It doesn't make sense unless it's politically motivated. That is the only thing that makes any sense. It's politically motivated to try and get some more money for northeastern coal because it's the only thing economically they think they have going for them.

A political party that promised to get the economy moving again, a province that's seen the economy go steadily downhill since they assumed office, a last desperate bid to try and get northeastern coal, or at least an announcement on it before the next election that the federal government's going to come in with them with a few bucks.... And for that people on the coast pay more for their vegetables, their meat, their freight, their passenger service. Why? Why accept an embarrassing situation like that? Everyone on the coast - everyone - knows that the only solution is to put a Northland type of service back into operation - self-propelled vessels with lift-on, lift-off, roll-on, roll-off facilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: And passenger.

MR. LEA: And passenger. Everybody knows it, Mr. Chairman. Everybody from the central coast to the north coast knows it. The member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) knows it; he knows it and hasn't said a thing.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): You make your own damn speech!

MR. LEA: I'm making my own speech, and I don't swear in the House, Mr. Member.

Everybody on the coast knows it. Yet this government and the federal government are going exactly in the opposite direction to what everybody in the transportation field and residents of the coast know is the right direction. Why? The minister, who isn't foreign to economics, knows that trans-shipment of any commodity makes the price rise. He knows that, so there's no point in the minister coming in here pretending he knows nothing about economics. I know he does, and he knows that to be a fact. The federal government botched it, and this government is trying to help them pull their chestnuts out of the fire, if indeed it wasn't chestnuts that got us into the problem in the first place.

It's obvious to me that the decisions that have been made don't make any economic sense; they don't make any social sense. But somewhere they must make some political sense. Does the provincial government have some connection with RivTow, for instance, that we don't know about? We know the federal government has some connection with RivTow that we know about.

We know that there are some old-time Liberals in this new provincial cabinet, Mr. Chairman. Where are those connections? RivTow was going to supply a service commensurate with Northland. They haven't done it and they didn't intend to. Anybody with a lick of sense and experience knows that they couldn't. Yet the federal government went along with it and the provincial government said: "Us too."

The province of British Columbia's own government went along with the botched-up decision-making process of the federal government, and that government over there, Mr. Chairman, knows it. I think the people in this province should know the reason why this government is going along with the botched-up decision-making of the federal government when they know it's incorrect and shouldn't have been done.

Mr. Chairman, if this government spends money on docking facilities and ferry service into new areas without first of all looking after the needs of those communities that were served by Northland and are no longer, then they're making a grievous error. And I don't mean to have trucks loaded with freight going up on the ferries then to be trans-shipped.

Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman? You load a truck up, a trailer. You put it on the ferry at Tsawwassen; you ship it to Prince Rupert. The truck goes off. It goes down to another dock; it's loaded then onto another ship and then transferred over to the Queen Charlottes or Stewart. The minister wants to tell us that that's more economic than having self-propelled vessels on the coast. It just isn't. Everybody knows that.

Or is it, Mr. Chairman, that after they signed that rail agreement, which is also embarrassing to this government, they have to save the seat of Skeena? They have to save the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . They have to give him something. So they're going to promise him something that shouldn't be at this particular point in time. I even heard that the minister thought it would only be

[ Page 2798 ]

about $5 million to build docking facilities at Kitimat. I'd suggest that you're probably looking more closely at between $15 million to $20 million to build those docking facilities at Kitimat. Is that going to be before the people that were served by Northland get a commensurate kind of service put back in place?

The minister today mentioned the press release of Mr. Gallagher. Listening to the minister, it's not quite clear as to whether this government has now said that the Premier and Mr. Basford were wrong in their interpretation of this agreement and that the provincial government now is going to accept its responsibility as it was laid out in this agreement between Canada and the province. A ferry service up the coast providing trans-shipment of goods to the smaller communities will make it more expensive for people in those small communities to live. They will pay more for their freight.

It's uneconomic; it's not socially acceptable. It's just plain stupid, and we have a minister that I'm sure is not stupid. I think he's a minister who does know that kind of economics. I think the decisions that have been made are decisions he must grimace at when he sees and hears them, because they are stupid, stupid decisions. They are decisions that don't make economic or social sense.

Yet they've gone along and accepted those stupid decisions by the federal government as their own, and they've let the federal government go back to Ottawa and say: "Oh, we made stupid decisions, but they aren't ours any longer. Guess what? We signed an agreement with the province and they're so stupid, now they've got 'em!" Why would the province do that? Why would they do it? Why would the province accept as their own decisions that could mean votes against them? It doesn't make sense.

What is the connection between this government and RivTow? Is there a connection? Was the minister being advised by people close to RivTow? Who was the province dealing with when they were talking? Who negotiated this agreement on behalf of the province? What civil servants negotiated this agreement on the $8 million subsidy from the federal government? What civil servants or political appointments negotiated this with the federal government? What political appointments or civil servants from the federal government negotiated on the part of Canada? Did the minister read it before he signed it? I can't believe that he did. I have more faith in that minister to understand written English than to sign an agreement like this.

The federal government was already paying $4 million for subsidies to British Columbia. For a lousy $4 million, in terms of the federal government's budget, they bought themselves a scapegoat - the provincial government. Then the provincial government turns around and says- "Oh, even that previous $4 million, which was going to Northland to supply an adequate service, will not be going towards that any longer. We're going to put it into ferries with trans-shipment of freight so we can ensure to you people that your freight's going to be higher."

AN HON. MEMBER: Bad decision!

MR. LEA: Bad decision is right. It's a stupid decision, but either they're stupid, Mr. Chairman, or there are reasons we don't know about why the province would accept this situation that is politically embarrassing to themselves.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one solution that we know of that will alleviate the passenger-freight problems for the small communities along the coast. That is self-propelled vessels with lift-on, lift-off, roll-on, roll-off facilities. Proper docking facilities and proper stevedoring facilities - it is the only solution. The mayor of Stewart, Mr. McLeod, will tell you that that is the only solution; Mr. Grosse, the mayor of Masset, will tell you that that is the only solution, and Mr. Grosse worked for Northland Navigation before that. He's not saying it has to go to Northland. What he's saying is that that kind of service has to be that kind of service.

Why would this government accept an embarrassing situation on behalf of the federal government to supply a lesser service to British Columbia residents? I believe we have a right to know the answers to those questions. I don't mean "we" over here. I mean everybody in this House and everybody in this province has a right to know why this government has acted in what appears to be such a stupid manner. They've cut down service, made it more expensive and grasped to themselves a political problem that they didn't have to. Why? Who gave the advice? Who negotiated this agreement on behalf of the feds and who negotiated it on behalf of this province? It's an agreement that sells out to the federal government the rights of the people of this province - pure and simple.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to answer the previous speaker I'll defer to the minister.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be brief. The federal government has budgeted for subsidies for ferries in provinces over the years, as it does for other subsidies, on an annual basis. It terminated its subsidies to ferries in Ontario several years ago; in Quebec about two years ago; and Northland Navigation has always been on 12 months' notice that their subsidy would be terminated. Now he asks whether we in the provincial government knew ahead of time whether the subsidy to Northland Navigation would be continued for yet

[ Page 2799 ]

another year. No, we didn't know. But again, there had always been the distinct possibility that it would be terminated. It was hard to know, with successive Ministers of Transport in Ottawa announcing that it would be terminated and then having the item appear yet again for another 12 months in the budget, that it would in fact be cut off in the manner it was. In any case, they did at last cut it off.

The subsidy had been of the order of $1 million a year. It continued to be of that order until around 1973, when it started to escalate. It was perhaps this escalation to a little more than $3 million - that was the most paid to Northland - that finally brought the present Minister of Transport in Ottawa to the point of terminating the subsidy. But there was no advance notice to Northland that was specific that they would not have yet a further renewal. The province certainly had no first-hand knowledge that there would be a termination in October of last year. So Northland was caught by surprise and the province, in some measure, was also caught by surprise. Yes, they were living on borrowed time, perhaps, but they'd always been bailed out at the last minute. They weren't bailed out at the last minute at the end of October, 1976.

Now the hon. member makes a case for self-propelled vessels - lift-on, lift-off-, drive-on, drive-off. We're certainly looking at that kind of vessel. To make a commitment to build one requires a good deal of analysis and the directors of the Ferry Corporation will certainly have to be convinced that it was the right kind of vessel. Perhaps it could be two small vessels of that kind of capability rather than one big one. This kind of decision is being investigated and perhaps will be made. It certainly seems to be the kind of equipment, vessel and service that are needed. So these are among the distinct possibilities that may materialize on the coast in the next year or two.

We have a short-term problem, of course. We don't have the equipment. We have managed to look after the main north-south run with existing equipment. The Queen of Prince Rupert is being better utilized than in the past and, of course, the Queen of Surrey is a possible backup once the road to Port Hardy is completed. So we're able, as far as the long, heavy runs are concerned, to do the job, for the moment at least, with. existing equipment and existing crews. That might include a run over to Masset as well when the dock facilities are built. I should say "if and when the dock facilities are built" because these decisions are decisions finally to be made by the board of directors.

As to docks, we have already been making some arrangements at Tsawwassen to accept the Queen of Prince Rupert. A new dock will be required at Port Hardy in 18 months time. Dock improvements -there's a minimum need to be made at Bella Bella. A new dock is in fact being built by the Ocean Falls

Corporation at Ocean Falls to receive the Queen of Prince Rupert this fall. Some changes are in prospect in Prince Rupert. Those are over and above the possible requirement at Masset. A new dock would certainly be required at Kitimat and the investment would be a large one. We're hoping that the federal government, in addition to building an airstrip at Bella Bella, will help finance, or perhaps totally finance, some of these dock facilities. We're going after them for those facilities. There's nothing in the agreement that speaks about docks or approaches to docks so that's an area in which we can expect assistance immediately. Possibly other provincial departments will help us, including Economic Development, at Port Hardy, and possibly the Ministry of Highways as well.

Freight - what is freight? This government believes that there is still room for the private sector to carry freight, especially large volume bulk freight of the nature of, say, newsprint or fuel - that kind of thing - but the vessels that we will have operating will have some freight capability. Again, on the Queen of Prince Rupert, for example, it's freight that is driven on and driven off. It could conceivably be driven on at Tsawwassen and driven off at Masset in the future, so there will be some freight capability. But I want to reiterate something which I believe the Premier has said, and others have said: we're not going out after freight. We're going to look after people primarily, and their own goods. The relatively few specialized vessels we have will accept whatever can board our vessels without our having to hire stevedores on shore to operate at the terminals.

The hon. members made frequent reference in the past to the Acres study carried out by the federal government. The federal government has never given us permission to publish it. We've seen it. The statistical appendices are available but the report, including its recommendations, has never been released by the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, I imagine you had an opportunity. I'm wondering, really, why when you people were government you didn't do something about this problem. You had the studies and so on. Your committee traveled north after you ceased to be government, which was a little late in the scheme of things.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Northland never supplied, in my opinion, an adequate service on the middle and upper coast. Your government did nothing over and above the Queen of Prince Rupert run, which was set up long before you became government.

[ Page 2800 ]

MR. LEA: It was a federal responsibility. You accepted it.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Anyway, briefly to touch on the northwest rail agreement, the previous government was prepared to accept a maximum contribution from the federal government in respect to that agreement of $117 million. We will be receiving $81 million. We have an agreement with the federal government which involves a pause, and when the pause is over and construction starts again, we will be splitting the expenditure on a 50-50 basis. That's what the master agreement says. Had the previous government's intention of accepting a ceiling of $117 million come to pass, the province would have been exposed to what now looks like an additional expenditure of $139 million. The federal contribution would then have been only $36 million over the present $81 million we are receiving. That's nothing like 50-50. It exposed the province. The master agreement signed by the former NDP government exposed this province to an over-expenditure in excess of $100 million - more than we'll be required to expend under a revived Dease Lake line extension. So it's obvious why we entered into the agreement: we're saving something in excess of $100 million - another $100 million which the previous government would have incurred as an expense to the taxpayers of this province.

The economics are not only simple, they are primitive. We did the only wise thing. We now have the prospect of a 50-50 sharing of the remaining cost of the Dease Lake line which would have been forgiven - given up forever - by the previous government. That was an announcement made in the heat of the last election - that it was going ahead with the agreement as proposed to be amended by the federal Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) just over a year ago.

In other words, I'm saying that the northwest rail agreement has saved the provincial taxpayer something in excess of $100 million.

MR. LAUK: Just following up on the minister's comments on the northwest rail agreement, I can't believe that the minister believes what he is saying here in the committee today. I'm sure he knows that those aren't the facts and yet he stands in this Legislature and repeats utter drivel. That is not what has happened with the pause in the Dease Lake extension. I should point out to the minister - and I ask him to comment on this, seeing he's entered into the debate - that he says the Dease Lake extension will go back under construction. If that is the fact, why did they refer it to a royal commission? Or let's back up one step. Why did they stop construction and say: "Well, the royal commission will give us the indication whether we'll continue or not."? He says they're going to continue anyway.

Mr. Fraine, the chairman of the board, who should know these things, says that the government of Canada would not have given the $81 million had they not stopped construction and abandoned the Dease Lake line. And I've got the transcript of the royal commission hearings when they talked to Mr. Fraine.

On April 5 the minister was at a press conference with the Premier; they were side by side. They were in tandem when the Premier said that this was only a pause and that there were no considerations and no strings attached to that $81 million. We now have found out that that is a lie, that that is not true, or that Mr. Fraine, the chairman of the board of the BCR, has committed perjury before the commission.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I have the transcript here, Garde. Don't look over and whimper. You can't have it both ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you refer to other members in the House by their constituencies, not by their Christian names? Order, please.

MR. LEA: It's obvious that one of them isn't telling the truth.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says: "Say it outside of the House." I've said it to the press gallery outside of the House. Either the Premier of this province is a liar or Mr. Fraine is a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Don't say "Order." One of the two situations exist, and, Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying which one. But you can't have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I have in my possession letters going back to the 1960s from the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and from the present Deputy Minister of Finance, requesting funds from the federal government for among other things these lines: starting with the Fort Nelson line and then subsequently the Dease Lake extension.

The maximum amount ever requested by the previous Social Credit government was $19 million -the maximum amount, and that's it. A few short years later we had them pushed up to $117 million. And in the late fall of 1975 there was an agreement in place that would have brought to the northwest finally a transportation agreement that would not have only created economic development in the

[ Page 2801 ]

area.... It should be noted that the minister in question period the other day mentioned the words "economic justification." He should be reminded, Mr. Chairman, of the history of this country. He should be reminded that no one thought of constructing pulp mills in Prince George before the railway. No one thought seriously about expanding Canada to the Pacific coast before the railway. No one suggested that it was economically justifiable in terms of those days to build the CPR.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can the hon. member show how this relates to vote 102?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate you were not present in the House when the minister raised this question, but he did so. He is the Minister of Transport who attended the press conference where the Premier stated to the public of British Columbia that there were no strings attached to the $81 million from the federal government. Mr. Fraine took an oath before a commission and said that wasn't true.

Now the minister has stated: "No economic justification." I say tell that to the 30 per cent unemployed up in Terrace. I say tell that to the economists in the CNR and the federal government and those who worked in the provincial side negotiating over many years this northwest rail agreement, who talked about the development in Terrace, the port development in Rupert. Yet the biggest and most important vision of the previous Social Credit government was a railway line to the Yukon which would make north-south economics viable in this part of the world, a railway line that if extended through the Yukon would have brought Alaska, the Yukon and British Columbia into the greatest, most powerful economic community in North America. That's the kind of vision that was talked about before in the W.A.C. Bennett administration and in the Barrett administration.

We now have the doom-and-gloom boys in office. We now have those boys who are so frightened of their present responsibility that they're not accepting their present responsibility. I can forgive the Premier's misstatement to the public of British Columbia, his propensity to hide the facts and the truth. I can forgive their mismanagement. One can even withstand a certain amount of bottom-line economics in this province. But what I cannot forgive is their lack of imagination, their complete lack of vision. You know, the government can do nothing worse to the people of this province than to bore them to death. That's what's happening, Rhodes Scholars notwithstanding. The greatest academics in the world can be boring; they can lack vision and imagination. That's what's happened.

The first question I have is: is it government policy that irrespective of the commission's report the Dease Lake line will be constructed? Is that government policy? That's what he said.

Secondly, is Mr. Fraine telling the truth or is the Premier telling the truth about the $81 million? Can the minister comment on that? It's in the transcript that Mr. Fraine stated that the $81 million would only be forthcoming to the government of British Columbia if the Dease Lake line were abandoned. Those are his words, not mine.

When he says that construction will start again on a 50-50 basis, the Minister of Transport and Communications is wrong. I know he would not deliberately mislead the House. The agreement does not say that construction of the Dease Lake line will be on a 50-50 basis; the agreement says that the cost-sharing basis of any continuation of the Dease Lake line will be the subject of further negotiations. That's what the agreement says. You don't have to go through too many years of law school or read too many agreements to see the plain meaning of those words. There is no agreement to share the cost of future construction on Dease Lake - none. What you did was sign an agreement that abandoned the Dease Lake line, abandoned the people of the northwest and indeed the people of this province. That's what you have done. Do you call that a good deal?

Let's cover over, Mr. Chairman, the record of this government and this minister in negotiating a northwest rail agreement. It is a record of ineptitude. I've talked about their lack of vision, now let's get on to skills. It's a record of absolute ineptitude. One year after they were in power and rejected the agreement that the Barrett administration had negotiated - one year - they provided to the railway, according to the sworn testimony before the commissioner, the exact same agreement for approval.

Now if they were so opposed to the northwest rail agreement signed by the Barrett administration, why is it that the same body of civil servants under a different administration provided the same agreement? In a time when there is an economic recession in this province and we need people of vision and courage, it took you one year to come back with the same agreement.

Then things started to really go downhill, Mr. Chairman, because we ended up with the agreement that was announced on April 5, with a Premier who would not tell all of the facts to the public of British Columbia, who was afraid of being embarrassed. Let's get some truth out in this committee; let's start talking about the truth. While the minister is thinking up his answers, I'll be thumbing through my copy of the transcript.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New

[ Page 2802 ]

Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I noticed the dress of one of our members was somewhat different from the rest. I would just like the House to acknowledge that the Chairman is now a year older than he was yesterday. I hope everybody wishes him a happy birthday.

MR. LEA: I guess one day does seem like a year! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't mean your decisions are any more correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your kindness, hon. members.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to change the subject for a moment, if I may. I would particularly like to touch upon the controversy and concern that the consumer has over the generation of electrical power in the province, and particularly the controversy surrounding the Revelstoke Dam, or the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and try to ask a few questions.

As the minister knows, the special appeal that was brought before the committee of cabinet has been heard. I don't wish to indulge in a long debate on whose figures are correct or how the rate structure should be costed out, but I noticed a report on the front page of tonight's Vancouver Sun which reports that: "The committee of cabinet which listened to the appeal on the dam will recommend that work on the project be stopped for three to four years while economic, social and environmental implications of the project are assessed." That is an unofficial report, although it's attributed to one well-informed source. The report states:

"A well-informed source maintains that a special cabinet appeal committee hearing the appeal against the water licence granted Hydro that allowed it to begin work on the dam.... The committee will vote four-to-one against the dam being allowed to proceed at this time."

The report says that:

"The committee will recommend to cabinet that the work be delayed for three or four years while the larger questions of whether or not the dam is justified economically from the energy point of view and environmentally. One cabinet minister feels so strongly on the issue he has said privately he would resign if the cabinet permits the project to go ahead at this time."

MR. LAUK: Is that the Chairman? Good man, that Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just continue to quote for a moment, Mr. Chairman. "It appears there will be strong cabinet consensus for the project to be halted, even though Hydro has already begun work on a $35 million initial phase of the project."

Now whether or not that report is accurate time alone will show, but there are one or two questions that I wish to pose in the light of that real possibility that the cabinet committee will recommend a four-year delay. In the House on February 21 of this year, I questioned the minister regarding this $35.4 million dollar initial project on the Revelstoke Dam. Quite reasonably the minister couldn't give me an immediate answer to my question off the top of his head. But what I wanted to know was: out of that $35 million, what amount of money has been spent or will inevitably be spent regardless of whether the dam is ever built? In other words, certain contractual commitments, I presume, were made and a certain amount of money has been spent on the preliminary work, even though the final decision and approval by the government to build the dam has never been made. So I would like first of all to have some figures on that.

Since this is rather a surprising and yet very reassuring possibility that our democratic processes are still working - namely that when a group of citizens expresses enough concern and goes to the last level of appeal, namely a cabinet committee -perhaps in fact reason can then still prevail. That I find very reassuring, because too often the impression in our community today.... I have to share that impression that many hearings and appeals of one kind or another are very much a matter of form and the government policy will be implemented in a rather relentless and inevitable way.

If tonight's report in The Vancouver Sun is accurate that the cabinet is opposed to proceeding with the Revelstoke Dam, I wonder if the minister himself can tell us to what degree there have been clarifications or decisions made within B.C. Hydro to accept the fact that perhaps the Revelstoke Dam is not required in the immediate future and that there should be some delay - whether it's three years or four years or five years - of a substantial length of time to try and determine whether B.C. Hydro's projected figures for the requirements of electricity in British Columbia had been inflated, and not necessarily intentionally inflated or exaggerated. The fact that now the other evidence has been presented by the three economists who presented evidence to the cabinet committee....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if extended conferences are necessary, perhaps they could be carried on in a whisper or perhaps in the corridors

[ Page 2803 ]

outside. It's just a suggestion. The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: ... that there is now enough evidence....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm interested to have the minister's attention because this is a very crucial issue in the responsibilities of Hydro and in the interests of every consumer who sees the price of hydro going up steadily and quite naturally wants to know if it's avoidable or can be mitigated, in what way and when.

I wonder if the minister is in any position to tell us if all the facts and figures that have been brought before the cabinet committee have now put his ministry in a position to more accurately predict how much of an increased generation of electricity will be required in the next four or five years in British Columbia.

Mr. Bonner wrote to the newspaper the other day and pointed out that the gap between B.C. Hydro projections and B.C. Energy Commission projections had not been as far apart as many had suggested. I can't recall his exact figures, but he claimed that the difference was somewhere between 7 per cent, I think, for the B.C. Energy Commission, and 8.5 per cent for B.C. Hydro. I recall in a former debate in this House figures had been presented showing a much greater gap.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, the crucial thing is to try and find out for the confidence of the consumer in British Columbia is if this government is getting a little closer to being able to determine more accurately the increase in electrical generation that will be required in the several years ahead. This House has voted, with some reservation, immense borrowing power to British Columbia and we've been told - and I think this government has even admitted - that the Revelstoke Dam would cost something in the order of $1 billion. We have just approved borrowing by B.C. Hydro to the extent of another $500 million. The consumer knows very well that when he goes to the bank to borrow money these days, it's expensive, and he knows that this government cannot borrow $1 billion without it costing enormous amounts of money, which are reflected in his hydro rates. He knows, in turn, that his hydro rates have gone up four times in something like the last 22 months. So first of all, would the minister care to comment on the fact that the cabinet committee - and I'm pleased to see that the chairman of that cabinet committee is now in deep conversation with the minister - has decided to recommend against the Revelstoke Dam for a period of four years? I see the chairman of the cabinet committee, the hon. Minister of Labour, shaking his head. I hope he'll allow the Minister of Energy to answer for himself.

The other question which arises from the doubt about proceeding with the dam is the controversy over the rate structure of Hydro and how it is being set. I won't go into great details, Mr. Chairman, but Mr. Bonner, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, from the letters that he has written to the newspaper, is very clearly in disagreement with the policy of the economist who proposed what is, I believe, described as marginal pricing, where you try to relate the charge to the user in terms of the amount of electricity which is used. I understand that about 50 per cent of the users use one-third of B.C. Hydro and yet contribute about 13 per cent of the revenue. I understand that some of the American utilities are already well ahead toward introducing this marginal costing. I wonder if the minister could tell us where that controversy sits at the moment and whether B.C. Hydro is being a little more objective.

Mr. Bonner's response was one of not outright rejection, but in his letters to the newspaper he certainly tried to make it read as though the economists were way off base and that any approach to this marginal costing was a very premature and inadequately researched approach. Yet at the same time, The Vancouver Sun reported just over a week ago at some length a speech by Robert Uhler, who's the executive director of the electric utility rate design study organized by the U.S. utilities and regulatory body. This Mr. Uhler, who seems to be quite an authority on the pricing of utilities, makes it very plain that the marginal costing approach is already established as what he describes as a benchmark and that over the years marginal cost pricing has been practised by electrical utilities and is widely accepted in business decision making.

The third and last point that I want to make at the moment, Mr. Chairman, relates to the sales tax being applied to the new service charge which B.C. Hydro has introduced. There's a very interesting card, Mr. Chairman, which has been sent out with the new Hydro bills explaining - or trying to explain - to the consumer what the service charge is all about. But I want to relate it again to a question that I asked the minister in the Legislature a few weeks ago. The service charge is described on this colourful card that goes with the Hydro bill as being related to part of the fixed cost that's involved in delivering electricity to your home. A year ago the fixed costs were described as being about $16 per residential account for every two-month billing, while the cost of electricity was 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour. This explanatory card explains to the consumer that fixed costs relate to the equipment required to deliver electricity - the poles and the conductors and the service lines and the meters. The calculation regarding the fixed costs was reached by dividing that $16 of fixed costs by 550 and coming up with a figure of 2.9

[ Page 2804 ]

cents per kilowatt hour and adding on 1.7 cents, which is the cost of the electricity for anything beyond 550 kilowatt hours.

The interesting thing in the card which is being sent with the Hydro bill is that - and I'd like to quote it - it says: "Instead it was considered realistic to start separating at least part of the fixed costs into an initial charge, thus reducing the amount that is spread over the first 550 kilowatt hours per billing period." Yet what I was trying to determine in the Legislature in question period on February 24 was whether the consumer can expect at regular intervals to have the service charge increased. I'd like to repeat the question because I said to the minister:

In light of the minister's answer, can the consumer in British Columbia expect that the $3 service charge is subject to the regular escalation in the same manner that Hydro bills have been escalating upwards in the last two years? Will this kind of service charge be subject to the same kind of periodic escalation?" The hon. minister replied:

No, Mr. Speaker, you can't reach that conclusion or make that assumption.

What puzzles me, Mr. Chairman, is that by the very explanatory card which has been sent out with the Hydro bill, the very language that's used there makes it clear that in trying to cover fixed costs this is just the start. They've just moved part way in trying to have a service charge related to fixed costs in providing the consumer with electricity. I'm just a little puzzled to know how it could be that if we're just starting to separate at least part of the fixed costs into an initial charge, would it not automatically follow that later on it's the intention of B.C. Hydro to continue increasing the service charge? If this is a service charge to be based on fixed costs, I know that the consumer's pretty upset about seeing sales tax applied on top of the service charge.

I've made some inquiries, Mr. Chairman, about the application of sales tax and I'm informed that if a service charge is indeed that, namely a service charge, then there should be no sales tax. The Social Services Tax Act says that electricity and telephone are taxable, but B.C. Tel charges sales tax only on the monthly usage of telephone services. They do not charge sales tax on installation services.

This is a very important point to practically every consumer in British Columbia. So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these fixed costs that the minister refers to in B.C. Hydro which are inevitable, whether or not the person's consuming electricity.... If you're away from home for a month and you don't use a single kilowatt of electricity, you still have the poles and the transformers and all the equipment that's needed to provide the electricity, which is a fixed cost, and I can understand that.

But when we talk about a service charge, are we not in fact just using semantics to get around the difficulty so that you can also apply sales tax to what really isn't a service charge at all? I'm wondering if we're not trying to fool the public by calling this a service charge and then adding a little bit of insult to injury by imposing a sales tax on top of that. I've taken some trouble to check with comparable utilities such as B.C. Tel. The fact is that B.C. Tel charges sales tax on the amount of the telephone service you use, but there is no sales tax on installation costs by B.C. Tel. I wonder if perhaps before we adjourn for supper the minister could at least answer these questions.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oak Bay made reference to an article in today's Vancouver Sun. I haven't seen the article; others have. If the quotations which he has taken from it reflect the article, then they are unrecognizable to members of the special appeal committee of cabinet. I'm not a member of that committee. I am a director of B.C. Hydro and therefore am precluded from being a member of that committee. They're taking an independent look at the need for and timing of the Revelstoke Dam. I am told that that special appeal committee has not met since the hearings were concluded, that that committee is awaiting the transcript of the hearing -it will be available in about a week's time - and that the committee doesn't intend to begin its serious and final deliberation in respect to recommendations until then. So there is really no recommendation available from that committee now and won't be for some days' time. I can't comment further on any split or whatever, a so-called split in the committee.

The hon. member asked whether any new advice had been forthcoming from B.C. Hydro as to load growth since they made their application to build the Revelstoke Dam, getting on to a year ago. The answer really is no. The flattening in the load curve which occurred in 1975 has now reverted to the long-run upward trend. Indeed, the annual increase appearing in the annual report of B.C. Hydro just published is of the order of 12 or 13 per cent. They have based their long-run projections on something of the order of 8 or 9 per cent. So there was a catch-up because of the flattening in 197 5. And those who are responsible for forecasting in B.C. Hydro are now saying: "I told you so; we're back on the trend line."

The B.C. Energy Commission has a different forecast, but not widely different from that of B.C. Hydro. So there is really no new information available from that source either as to a different rate of load growth which has developed in the last 12 months or so.

The hon. member has asked about the service charge, so-called, which B.C. Hydro has recently introduced. It should perhaps be called by another name. It is a charge which is designed, in theory at

[ Page 2805 ]

least, to reflect the constant or connecting charges involved in the service. Eventually they hope to have a two-part charge, one reflecting the cost of connecting the customer up and the other being a straight energy-usage charge. Whether or not that charge will change in the future I would certainly hesitate to say. This will be a matter for recommendation from Hydro itself. He suggests that if this is indeed a service charge, it shouldn't bear the 7 per cent provincial sales tax. That's certainly an interesting proposal. It'll help to make Hydro look good by reducing its costs, and hopefully its rates. But that money, if not raised in that way, would presumably have to be raised in other ways by other taxes levied on the people of the province.

Finally, as to rate structures, there has been a good deal of editorial comment - and I think rightly so -in the papers of the province about ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It is difficult for the Chair to understand how questions can be asked and then the answers not be listened to. May we have a little order in the House, please?

HON. MR. DAVIS: ... the desirability, Mr. Chairman, of using what is referred to by economists as marginal pricing as opposed to average pricing. If I can characterize it, average pricing is socialist doctrine and marginal pricing is private enterprise doctrine.

Naturally, I would be inclined to favour marginal pricing wherever possible and practicable. Marginal pricing, at least in economic theory, is costing the last unit in and charging everybody that price. This would be charging everybody the high price of the last unit in and would mean a very substantial rate increase for all users in the province if we were to follow the practice of marginal pricing. If we were to apply marginal pricing to the ferries, the fare for a passenger would be upwards of $15, not $9 as it is now crossing the Strait of Georgia.

There is a big difference, obviously, between a price that is the average cost of running an operation and a price that reflects the cost of adding yet another unit. In theory, marginal pricing is fine, but the politics of moving rapidly from average pricing to marginal pricing is horrendous, and I think that should be obvious to everyone here.

MR. WALLACE: Just very quickly, the minister didn't have a chance to tell me what has already been spent on the Revelstoke Dam. In question period he said he would get me the answer. I gather he may not have it with him right now, but I'd appreciate knowing what we're committed to spending on the Revelstoke Dam whether or not it proceeds.

The other question would just be whether he would consider asking Hydro to consider reviewing the application of the sales tax to the so-called service charge. Or, as he stated, would he rather change the name of the service charge and still impose the financial charge within the confines of Hydro? It seems to me that this 7 per cent sales tax is a big enough problem per se from the point of view of the average consumer and if there were a better way of collecting it, so much to be encouraged. But in this particular case it does seem unfair to apply it on what is called a service charge when it is not done so by other utilities. Does the minister have any intention of making recommendations to Hydro in this regard?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as of this moment I've really no intention of making recommendations along those lines, but I'll look at the hon. member's remarks and certainly bear them in mind at the next meeting that has to do with rates.

Specifically on the question of how much has been spent already or committed already on the Revelstoke Dam, I'll have to get this information again as of this date, but my understanding is that all contracts have cancellation clauses in them and a very small sum of money is actually in jeopardy in this case.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's analysis of the philosophy of what he identified as socialism and private enterprise. I just want to say that it's too bad the minister hadn't been able to differentiate between political philosophies at an earlier stage. He may still be a Liberal.

MR. BARRETT: He still is!

MR. KING: He's not sure what he is. So I don't really take his analysis too seriously.

MR. BARRETT: Where do you tie your boat up now - provincial wharf or federal wharf?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) come to order, please?

MR. LEA: Yes, sir.

MR. KING: I just want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister not tie his boat up below the proposed Revelstoke Dam. That might not be too good a location. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2806 ]

Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier in the minister's estimates and under the discussion of the Hydro borrowing bill, about the importunity, I suppose one would say, of allowing construction work to proceed on the proposed Revelstoke Dam while a cabinet appeal was being heard. The hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has outlined reports that appear in The Vancouver Sun today about the distinct possibility that the cabinet committee considering the appeal may well order a postponement in construction of the dam.

Mr. Chairman, this brings into focus a real problem which I outlined earlier and which was shrugged off by the minister. That is, namely, that the entire community - both the private sector and the municipal council - have been locked into a position of expending large sums of money in preparation for the dam construction. Now when physical work starts on the dam, then obviously the community has to gear up simultaneously to accommodate the influx of workers from the standpoint of providing educational services, health care, recreational facilities and so on, and that indeed has been going on. So I think the minister can see that this kind of speculation which now appears in The Vancouver Sun is extremely disconcerting to the municipality of Revelstoke. They are locked into a position where large sums of capital have already been expended because when the construction of the work started on the dam they had no choice but to proceed with providing the services to those people and incident to that construction work force.

I want to tell the minister that the government should have proceeded with better planning. These questions should have been answered long prior to any work being undertaken on that dam. If the cabinet committee does allow the appeal against the issuance of the water licence, not only will large sums of money have been expended in the community but large amounts of the general taxpayers' money from general revenue in the province will have been expended in terms of the preparation of the groundwork for the physical dam structure itself. I drew this to the attention of the House last spring.

How can the minister justify the borrowing of large sums of money - increasing the borrowing power of this monolith to $4 billion, the actual expenditure of that money on dam construction and preparation - when there remains the distinct possibility that the whole project may be vetoed by his political colleagues? I say this is complete lack of planning. I say it's irresponsibility and fiscal incompetence of the highest order.

Mr. Chairman, there's another dimension that the minister better start thinking about. That is the dimension of liability - suits of libel that may well be directed toward the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, and indeed the government, if the eventuality of dam postponement occurs. At the government's behest and at Hydro's behest, many private firms have invested in community services to support the project, and certainly many municipal expenditures have been undertaken in direct response to the government's advice, and Hydro's, that the project would proceed.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government has no right in law to induce people in the private sector, and municipal councils and regional districts, to undertake the vast outlay of capital funds in response to a commitment by Hydro and by the government that the dam is going to proceed, and then pull the rug out from under them and say: "Well, tough luck. You've expended this money but the dam is not now going to be a reality." It's another example of lack of foresight, lack of planning, fiscal irresponsibility. I don't think it's good enough for the ministers to sit silently and the chairman of committee, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , to sit with a rather perplexed and stunned look on his face and complain about The Vancouver Sun.

This eventually is a distinct possibility, and has been from the outset. This group, Mr. Chairman, of bumbling incompetents has allowed us to proceed to this stage where there is the spectre of a huge financial loss and extreme embarrassment - extreme financial hardship - to many of those community agencies up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you read the licence?

MR. KING: Why don't I read the licence? The licence is conditional, but I want to tell the Minister of Labour....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, I shall, Mr. Attorney-General. I want to tell the Minister of Labour that there was no way the community could hold off until the appeal was consummated, in terms of providing facilities in the community, when actual construction had been allowed to start. If the minister doesn't understand that, why, I fear for the destiny of this province because, after all, the appeal is under his stewardship as chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MINISTERIAL TITLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His

[ Page 2807 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. LEVI: On a question of privilege, this afternoon, during the question period, I attempted to elicit a number of answers from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . During that period he took some of the questions as notice. As I understand it, notice means that he will come back to the House and he will at some time report to us.

Later on this afternoon, I was approached by one of the members of the press gallery who showed me a letter which was written by the acting comptroller-general to the Minister of Finance, dated June 16,1977.

I would like to read it because it's relative. It says: "Dear Mr. Wolfe:

"With reference to your request for information respecting computer consultants, to my knowledge no computer consultants are being paid per them fees in excess of $384.00. Living expenses for non-residents are paid at the rate of $40 to $50 per day, all inclusive."

He then goes on to answer some questions for the minister.

We heard a very eloquent speech this afternoon about the rights of this House from the Premier. But if we go to the trouble of having a question period and then the minister takes it as notice, I don't expect him - and I don't think any member of this House would expect him - to go running out into the corridor and handing the press the answers to the questions.

The other thing is, Mr. Chairman, that I think that as he has started on this particular course, I asked a number of questions this afternoon, many of which are not answered in this letter. Now if he wants to do that, in terms of abusing the privilege of this House -to simply slant it in his direction without completing all of the answers - then I think that's a pretty disgusting situation.

It's my opinion that this is a breach of the privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Contempt of court.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vicious attack - slanting with the press. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I certainly take the matter that you have risen to into consideration and will report back to the House as soon as possible.

MR. LEVI: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, a matter of privilege is not something that can be lightly considered, and it's one that comes before the House infrequently. But whenever it does, I feel that it's the duty of the Speaker to take whatever time is necessary to thoroughly examine it, including the Hansard’s that will be available to all of us.

THE NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

OF NELSON ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977.

Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.