[ Page 2837 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 102.

Mr. Lockstead –– 2837

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2840

Mr. Lank –– 2841

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2846

Mr. Wallace –– 2849

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2853

Mr. Barrett –– 2855

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2855

Mr. Barber –– 2860

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2860

Mr. Macdonald –– 2862

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2863

Mr. Barber –– 2863

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2863

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, in the Legislature later on this morning will be a group of students from the great community of Williams Lake in the Cariboo riding. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant -Governor: a bill intituled Revenue Sharing Act.

Bill 58 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.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

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

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I do have a few more items for the minister's consideration and, hopefully, reply. Some of these items, which I would normally bring up under the various votes, I will discuss now and let the votes go through with kind constraints on my part.

Before I get into these new items and these new matters, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters left over from yesterday which I think I should raise and perhaps bring to the minister's attention.

For example, the minister said in reply to a question I posed yesterday that the federal government does not subsidize vessels except between provinces, or between Canada and the United States, which is not quite the fact, Mr. Chairman. For example, in Newfoundland the federal government is subsidizing freight and passenger services between communities in the province of Newfoundland. There are other examples as well. Anyway, I thought I would draw this to the minister's attention.

Mr. Chairman, in this regard the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday suggested to the minister that we should be building self-propelled vessels to serve this coast, the central and northern coast. Just for the minister's information, I would like to have that minister know that 80 per cent of our shipyard workers in the province of British Columbia are out of work at this time, are unemployed. I see no reason why we cannot be building vessels here in Victoria where some of our 'shipyards are idle. We could be building vessels in Vancouver where shipyards are idle and workers are out of jobs.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says to take it up with Ottawa -this bum deal, this bum contract that the province signed with Ottawa, $8 million. What a sell-out! Mr. Chairman, what a sell-out! Total responsibility for coast transportation now rests with the province.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier interjects. I want to tell you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this province should re-open negotiations with Ottawa immediately and get a fair subsidy, a subsidy equal to what the people on the east coast of this country are receiving at this time, really. It was a cop-out, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, a complete cop-out.

We had service on this coast. When the NDP were the government of this province, we had service on this coast. It was under this government that Northland withdrew its services - under this government, this present government.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You don't know what service is.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Let's have a little order in this place, Mr. Chairman. It started out to be such a nice, quiet Friday morning, and listen to them!

Another bit of advice for the minister, Mr. Chairman: this government and that department particularly have not been consulting with people, no question about it. I won't go through that whole thing again today. But I would like the minister to at least reply why he or his department have not been consulting with people up and down the coast, users of the ferry system. I know that they struck a small committee on the Sunshine Coast, but that committee is not an effective committee. They're consulted after the fact, not before the fact, after schedule changes have been announced, after changes in service have been announced, after people have been laid off the B.C. Ferries service, not before. So in other words, it's a PR job, and if the minister is serious about his portfolio, he should have staff consult with these people prior to decisions being made.

[ Page 2838 ]

One last item on transportation, Mr. Chairman, is the morale on the B.C. Ferries service. I think the minister will agree that morale among employees -well, among all employees, in my view, but especially on B.C. Ferries - is the worst now that it's ever been, ever, even under W.A.C. Even when they went out on strike on one or two occasions under the former Social Credit government, the morale was never as low in the system as it is now. You can tell on the service. There are good people, good employees, but bad administration, Mr. Chairman, bad administration.

Now everybody flies. They don't travel on the ferries; they fly in the fancy jets. Anyway, one more last item, Mr. Chairman, on transportation. Yesterday I asked the minister about the triangle run: why the restaurant? Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister why on the triangle run, that is on route 3, they closed the restaurants on the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale route. They closed the restaurant. The people are there; the employees are sitting there idle. You didn't answer that question yesterday and I'd like to know why the restaurants are closed when the "Burnaby" or the "Nanaimo" are on the Horseshoe Bay-to-Langdale route. Why? The people are there, the food is there, the employees think it's ridiculous; they would just as soon be working. So if you would be good enough to answer that question, I would appreciate it very much.

Another item, Mr. Chairman: last Sunday I had the opportunity to go aboard the "Prince George, " which was sold by this government some time ago. That, Mr. Chairman, was a sad mistake, and I won't go through that whole thing again, but it was a bad mistake on the part of this present government. That is a beautiful vessel, a beautiful vessel, and would have served the needs of the central and north coast in terms of passenger, freight and tourist traffic. I don't expect an answer from the minister on this matter, but I just want the minister to know that that was one of the biggest mistakes this government has made.

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister who is responsible to this Legislature for B.C. Hydro should be made aware, if he's not already aware, of another problem that is happening all over British Columbia. That problem is B.C. Hydro spraying along rights-of-way.

Some time ago, B.C. Hydro notified the Sunshine Coast Regional District in my riding - and I'm sure they do this in every regional district throughout the province - that they intended to carry out a spraying programme using 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T. These are chemicals that we all know are dangerous to human, plant, and animal life.

Mr. Chairman, I have received over 1,000 names on petitions, several hundred individual letters from the Sunshine Coast alone, and several hundred letters from the Powell River area as well, opposing the spraying. Mr. Minister, I sent copies of all the letters and all the petitions to your office, as well as to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , some time ago. I did receive a reply on this matter from the Minister of the Environment. It was a non-reply. He said he is going to talk to somebody. He's going to talk to somebody while the spraying is going on.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate from that minister today a commitment that all spraying of Hydro rights-of-way will be stopped in this province, and in my riding, immediately, until there is further investigation, until there is consultation with the people involved, and until the effects of such a programme are known. We can't have anything less in this Legislature than such a commitment from the minister this morning. I hope the minister is aware of the problem.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): One of them wants to spray everything that moves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit still. (Laughter.)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I guess I could spend a lot of time on this topic, Mr. Chairman. Ordinarily I would ask the minister nicely to reconsider the programme, but I want to tell you right now that in this case, because it is so serious, I'm demanding that the spraying of B.C. Hydro rights-of-way be stopped immediately. I kid you not - it's very serious.

One thing you might look at, Mr. Minister, is that because we have such high unemployment under the Social Credit government in the province today -there are a lot of people out of work - we could clear those rights-of-way and the brush along our highways not by using chemicals, but by having people cut and clear and burn. We could employ our people and inject some funds into the economy - funds that you have extracted from the economy with your horrendous ferry rates, your ICBC rates, and the rest of it.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear! Let the people work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, another item that comes under this minister's jurisdiction is petroleum products pricing in British Columbia. I have on my desk a report that was from the British Columbia Energy Commission that was completed on December 16,1975. I also have before me a great deal of information that I received from the Automobile Retailers Association - the association that represents the independent gasoline station operators in British Columbia.

One of the major recommendations in that report, among a whole lot of other recommendations that I'm sure the minister is aware of, is that we limit

[ Page 2839 ]

self-serve gasoline stations operating in this province. I would like to give the minister a prime example of what happens, particularly in rural areas. We all know that the independent gasoline service station operators - most of them, anyway - have a 30-day clause in their contracts with their parent company, be it Shell, Esso, Standard, or whoever. That parent company can terminate that lease with 30 days' notice. In other words, they can drive that independent operator out of business any time they wish.

What has been happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the large multinational, international oil companies are going into the retail outlet business by setting up self-serves which usually don't employ too many people. In the process, they drive out from four to six to eight independent operators in the immediate area. This means that in an area like Powell River, for example, where you allow self-serves, up to 30 to 40 people can be unemployed because the independents can't meet the competition. When the self-serve first moves into an area like that, it would appear that the public is getting a break on petroleum products by getting their gasoline 8 or 9 cents a gallon cheaper. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, once that major oil company has driven out the independents in the area, they then have a tendency to raise their prices on petroleum products to what the independents were charging in the first place. Furthermore, that means that multinational oil companies then have a monopoly on the product from wellhead to consumer with no controls, as far as I'm aware, in this province whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this government, as it says, is committed to private enterprise. Why should monopolies ' like that be allowed? Certainly they should not be allowed because of the damage they do to the local economies. I hope the minister will bring in legislation soon. I wouldn't mind bringing in a private member's bill, Mr. Chairman, but you know what happens to private members' bills in this House. I think that minister should bring in a bill to protect the independent service station operators, the independent businessmen of this province.

Another item, Mr. Chairman, before I take my seat ... well, I've got a couple more here. Not long ago, after lengthy hearings, the B.C. Telephone Company was granted a rate increase of some 15 per cent in this province. The province, in all fairness, did participate. The New Democratic Party caucus submitted a brief to those hearings as well. I must say in all fairness that our brief was getter than the government's; it was certainly more comprehensive. However, I have to give the government credit - they did try.

We all know that Gen-Tel, which is a foreign-owned multinational operating in numerous countries and based in New York, controls the B.C.

Telephone Company, which is under federal charter. As I recall, it was a Social Credit Party campaign promise to bring that charter home to British Columbia. I would like to know, for example, if the minister is now negotiating with the federal government to have the charter of B.C. Telephone and the jurisdiction brought back to this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to nationalize it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. In any event, as far as I'm aware, Mr. Chairman, the government did not really raise its voice before or after those horrendous rate increases. Service has not been improved. There's going to be about a 30 per cent reduction in the work force of B.C. Tel, because all they've done with this 15 per cent rate increase is increase their profits. They're going to be able to reduce their work force and service will not be improved one little bit. The minister may wish to comment on that, but he probably won't.

I have one last and possibly smaller item, but I don't think this is a smaller item if you're a senior citizen, Mr. Chairman. Under the Motor-vehicle Act senior citizens after a certain age must go for a medical to obtain a driver's licence. The cost of that medical is not paid for by the government or the Medical Association. In other words, the senior citizen has to pay for the cost of that medical himself or herself.

I have had many complaints over the years on this. But I have had a case just recently where a 71-year-old senior citizen had gone for his yearly medical and then two months later - it was a very thorough medical - he was advised by the motor-vehicle branch that he had to go for another medical. So he went back to the same doctor, who didn't even look at him. He just said hello, signed a paper and sent him out of the office, which cost him whatever it costs for a medical - $18 or $20 or whatever - which he had to pay himself. It's not a big item but it's a ridiculous item.

I think the minister should, during the course of this session, bring in an amendment to the Act to change this ridiculous situation. It does affect thousands of senior citizens throughout the province and you know we'll support the amendment on this side. It's a small thing, it's not necessary and I would suggest that any senior citizen who's had a medical within six months need not have to go for another medical, providing he can show proof of having had such a medical. That's really a ridiculous situation. As I said, it's not a major item, I suppose, to us healthy people sitting in here, but it is to the senior citizens affected.

So, Mr. Chairman, with that I'll take my seat and hope for some replies from the minister.

[ Page 2840 ]

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mackenzie has raised several points and I'll endeavour to deal with them in the order that he has raised them.

He says that the federal government is continuing to subsidize movements around the coast of Newfoundland - ferry operations within that province. There is a condition in the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, 1949, which states that Canada must continue to provide certain services forever. It is under the terms of union or of Confederation under which Newfoundland joined Canada that that service is carried on. That is an exception, I agree, to the general rule or the policy which Ottawa is endeavouring to follow - that of not subsidizing ferries within provinces but only ferries that operate across boundaries between provinces or internationally.

The hon. member says that B.C. Ferries is not consulting people. On the Sunshine Coast, a transportation committee was set up by the people of the Sunshine Coast, as the hon. member knows, and B.C. Ferries has been in close contact with that committee. Indeed, the schedules for vessels now running between the Sunshine Coast and Horseshoe Bay were developed in the first instance by that transportation committee. There were a number of good suggestions made by the people there, which have been adopted and put into force.

Similarly, a committee does exist on the Gulf Islands and is being consulted right now in respect to a problem we have - some people are traveling free on the ferries, not simply between islands but also to the mainland. They're declaring one destination and, in fact, taking another. We have a problem of administration there that hopefully, the local citizens' committee can help us solve.

The closing of restaurants on the run between Langdale and Horseshoe Bay - that was a local decision which has since been reversed.

Spraying by B.C. Hydro: as I understand it, it obeys all of the dictates of the Pollution Control Board. I would certainly expect that B.C. Hydro would observe all of the recommendations of the Pollution Control Board as to the nature of the sprays they can use, the practices, the seasons they can spray in and so on.

Limitation of self-serve stations: as such it tends to be a local matter. Within the boundaries of a number of municipalities now the number of self-serve stations that can operate there have certainly been set; a limitation has been set by the local authorities.

B.C. Telephone: shortly after I became minister I raised the matter of provincial jurisdiction with the minister responsible for communications in Ottawa, the Hon. Jeanne Sauve. Ottawa is not inclined to relinquish its control over B.C. Telephone, which is a federally incorporated company, for several reasons, not the least of which is that were they to do this they would also be under considerable pressure to do the same in respect to Bell Telephone of Canada. If Bell Telephone, which serves most of Ontario and virtually all of Quebec, were to become a provincially controlled operation, Ottawa's say in respect to telephone communications - indeed most of the existing communications network which uses telephone facilities - would become in fact provincial and not federal. So where B.C. Tel goes in Ottawa's eyes is where the Bell Telephone Co. will also go.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mrs. Sauve and her advisers did say that they would be prepared to consider an arrangement similar to that which exists in the United States. There, individual states do have jurisdiction over local calls -not long distance calls across boundaries, but local calls. Long distance calling in the United States is federal; local calls are local or state. A Canadian equivalent would see the provinces controlling local calls and the national government controlling long distance calls.

The basic problem there is that virtually all the money is made in long distance calls. Local calls are losers. You would see the locally controlled operations in a deficit position or, alternatively, demanding higher rates because their costs were higher than their incomes. The federally controlled aspects of the telephone operations would be money makers. So there is a financial reason, if I can put it that way, why that wouldn't be a good deal for British Columbia, or for any other province for that matter.

The hon. member's reference to medical checks for drivers' licences: in that connection, we've taken note and we'll see what we can do about it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the replies of the minister and I'm pleased that he's going to follow up this medical thing for senior citizens regarding the motor-vehicle branch,

However, there's one item that the minister skipped over very lightly - and it could well be the most serious item of all the items I raised this morning - and that's the spraying, using 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T and perhaps other types of chemicals, by B.C. Hydro and other government agencies. As well, by the way - and this astounded me when I found out -at least one local school board, for example, is using a dangerous chemical to get rid of bush around schoolgrounds. That's a matter I'll raise at the appropriate time.

Right now I'm talking about B.C. Hydro rights-of-way and the use of these chemicals which I mentioned all over the province: in the Comox Valley

[ Page 2841 ]

and up through the interior, but more immediately -and I'm more acquainted with the areas in my riding of course - the Sunshine Coast and the Powell River areas. I'm asking you, Mr. Minister, in view of the vast public outcry in that area.... It's very unusual for an MLA to get thousands of signatures and hundreds of individual letters on any particular item. When you get literally thousands of signatures and hundreds of individual letters out of a population of some 14,000 people on the Sunshine Coast, there must be a great deal of interest. I want to ask you now, Mr. Minister, that there be no spraying or use of chemicals for the clearing of bush from these rights-of-way on the Sunshine Coast or the Powell River area or anywhere else in my riding, at least until the public has had the opportunity to make their fears known to the government.

Now B.C. Hydro, as we well know, doesn't appear to be responsible to anybody - in fact, it's irresponsible, in my opinion, in many aspects. But if this Legislature means anything at all, Mr. Chairman, and if that minister's going to face his responsibilities, there is no reason in the world why he cannot immediately order, through the appropriate government department, that all spraying on Hydro rights-of-way cease immediately until there has been proper investigation and consultation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important item.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The type of correspondence I receive from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is really almost an insult. I didn't receive any response from you, Mr. Minister, at all about using dangerous chemicals on B.C. Hydro rights-of-way.

HON. MR. DAVIS: That's Environment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, it's not Environment. You are responsible for B.C. Hydro in this Legislature, Mr. Minister, and don't tell me it's Environment. What do we get from the Minister of the Environment - the only response I received, by the way - and what did he say? He said he's going to talk to Mr. Somebody. And don't talk to me about the Pollution Control Act. We all know that that board, that body, just issues licences to pollute. That's what they do; that's all they do. So don't tell me about the Pollution Control Board.

All we want from you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is action - now. I'm deadly serious about this matter, Mr. Chairman. I want the minister to take some action on this matter now. Make a commitment to this House.

MR. KAHL: Settle down, Don.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I haven't got much time; I'm in a hurry.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with this minister is that he's very legalistic about his portfolio. I think that the hon. member for Mackenzie (MR. Lockstead) . has a legitimate complaint. He has expressed the legitimate concerns of the people in his area, and he's sitting beside a very arrogant minister who is not listening to the people of his own constituency insofar as using these chemicals for spraying are concerned.

It's fine to say: "It's not my department; it's the Environment department. I'm in Hydro and I've got to support everything that Bob Bonner does." But you have a higher responsibility as a member of cabinet and as an MLA to provide protection to the public, and at least to conduct a thorough investigation into the complaints of Hydro spraying. It's not a matter of a small interest group raising a complaint; it's a massive public reaction to this kind of spraying that's destroying our environment.

With respect to the role of the multinational oil companies, it goes back a long way in this province. I think that Standard Oil and Shell Oil and so on have now consolidated their economic and, yes, political power in North America to the extent that there's little doubt that they call the shots. The self-serve in the corner neighbourhood is just a surface example or symbol of the power of the multinational cartel. I suppose that the minister didn't realize this when he brought in that bill they never passed. He didn't realize the power of these major oil companies. He thought he'd do something to protect the little operator at the retail level, some of whom have worked all their lives promoting goodwill and business within their community in trying to provide in their own way the service they could to their neighbour.

MR. BARRETT: Little free-enterprisers.

MR. LAUK: That's right. He brought in the bill and, boy, it died rather quickly. It withered on the vine, suffered from the drought, because the minister got the message. You think you're the government of this province? You think you have control over the affairs of this province? Forget it. Duff Pattullo found that out. That great Liberal Premier of British Columbia in the 1930s decided that he would compete with the major oil companies on behalf of' the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia. And the major oil companies did then what they did to us in 1975: they poured their campaign funds into the opposition parties' coffers, and they defeated Duff Pattullo just as surely as they defeated us in 1975.

[ Page 2842 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There was the hon. member for Omineca....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, the first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Skeena was the hon. member for Omineca at one time. He was once a good cabinet minister in the former Social Credit administration - and we know they don't appoint good cabinet ministers now.

MR. BARRETT: No, they don't appoint Social Crediters. He should be a Liberal.

MR. LAUK: That's right. If he was a Liberal or a Tory or something like that, he'd be in the cabinet. But you make a mistake; you're consistent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, could we get back to vote 102?

MR. LAUK: I couldn't make that same charge to you, Mr. Chairman ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get back to vote 102, please?

MR. LAUK: ... as the Tories in your riding well know. But, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the former member for Omineca (Mr. Shelford) , the former minister in the former Social Credit administration, was chairman of a commission that went through this province and determined the stranglehold on this province - and indeed on most of North America - that major oil companies have. They determined that they could charge sometimes a third more for a gallon of gas up north. They determined, through scientific evidence, that there was only a fraction of a penny more for transportation -- if that - to make that gasoline available in the north, yet they were charging a third more per gallon. Those were the kind of manipulations in the 1960s that that distinguished member on the opposite side of this House found.

MR. BARRETT: What are you doing over there, Cyril?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, the Berger commission report has recently been tabled. This is Canada's last chance. The minister, I hope, has read that report.

Mr. Justice Berger said: "I'm not just talking about native rights; I'm not just talking about environment; I'm not just talking about preserving the multi-various Canadian cultures." What he's talking about is: do Canadians make decisions for themselves about their own resources or do the international oil cartels make the decisions for us?

I think those such as Pat Carney - who is erroneously referring to herself as an economist -who say that a handful of native people should not be allowed to hold a knife to the energy jugular on the continent have missed the point.

MR. BARRETT: On the continent - those are our resources.

MR. LAUK: The very major point is this: the multinational oil companies would like nothing better than a continental resource plan for this country and for North America. In other words, what is Canada's belongs to the United States, but what belongs to the United States belongs to the United States. That's the continental resource plan.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. LAUK: It's not a question of us being greedy or sitting on a pile of resources and not sharing them with needy people across the continent. It's a question of providing even more to an insatiable, wasteful American industrial society that has done nothing to conserve its own resources, has depleted its own resources, and now wishes to deplete ours.

Oh, yes, that corner service man is just a symbol, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister is a little bit weak-kneed, and that characterizes a cabinet without backbone that cannot face up to those major oil companies in protecting those people. I have no hope that the minister will act on this issue.

MR. BARRETT: The price of gasoline is over a dollar in some northern communities.

MR. LAUK: The British Columbia Railway, formerly the PGE, was started in this province and it has a chequered history insofar as political interference is concerned. At the turn of the century, and just before the First World War and just after it, there were accusations that Crown ministers in the then Liberal and Tory administrations were on the take - that they dealt in land along the PGE line. We've heard how they. cooked the books under Cec Bennett's regime so that the accountants for so many years were thrown out of the accountants' institute. We found out that the Dease Lake extension pre-engineering was hopelessly inadequate. We find out that it's impossible to run a train along the Fort Nelson line because it is washing out every second

[ Page 2843 ]

week. They have more derailments there than they have trains passing over the track, inconceivable as it is.

MR. BARRETT: Let the Socreds figure it out!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, irrespective of the chequered history of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, or the BCR as it now is, it is the only major economic development tool that this government has in providing British Columbians with the kind of economic development that suits British Columbia -not the CNR and the federal cabinet; not the CPR and not the boys at the Granite Club - and that takes care of British Columbia, its needs and its future.

Oh, we can have the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) running around the countryside complaining about the tariffs and the freight rates and the balance of payments between us and the federal government, but the real issue is positive action on the part of the B.C. government with respect to its railway.

You can say what you want about the decisions made by the Bennett administration, but they never lost sight of the fact that that railway was the key to development of the north. They never lost sight of the fact that that railway - and really alone - could supply the needed development to the regions of the north and provide wealth~ and prosperity to the province as a whole.

The Barrett administration never lost sight of that vision either. We didn't form royal commissions to expose the mistakes of the previous Bennett administration. We didn't run to the press and say: "Look what they did; they cooked the books." We, as quietly and as efficiently as we could under the circumstances, provided the necessary pre-engineering and studies to proceed. Because all of the complaints and all of the stamping and hollering aside, we knew that that railway was the key to economic development.

We didn't take the crass, cynical political attitude that this present administration is taking now. Whatever is expedient and whatever is political, they will do. They will ignore the correct decision and take the politically expedient decision. The correct decision is to get off your aplomb and move to construct that railway to the Yukon and support the thrust for economic development in the north. Don't sit back and cry and whimper and look at the Conference Board of Canada and the Economic Board and this report and that report and say: "Oh, it's world conditions."

The people lining up at the Unemployment Insurance Commission are not really too interested in your Rhodes scholar economic analysis. They want jobs. They want security. Why shouldn't they have that? Why should they just get excuses and bookkeeper-type economy for this government? They need a government with imagination and vision; they need a government that will act and not whimper about conditions.

Again, as I have had little hope for this minister responding in a positive British Columbian way to the multinational oil corporations, I have little hope that he will respond in a British Columbian Way to the development of the BCR and the north of this province. What did he say on June 2,1977, to the Conference Board of Canada?

"There are a number of resources in Canada's northwest and the Peace River district that should be developed. A number of industries can and will be developed there, not just one - not just coal, for example. There's a case for government....

And get this, friends and neighbours. The former federal cabinet minister, who has now infiltrated the British Columbia government, says:

"There are a number of industries that can and will be developed there, not just one - not just coal. There is a case for government - for the federal government - because the region involves two provinces and parts of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It should provide the transportation infrastructure. It should move, as the Hall commission suggests, on rail links through Prince George and Prince Rupert to the west coast."

The Hall commission says that British Columbia doesn't exist, Mr. Chairman. That transportation corridor goes from Alberta to the north,

HON. MR. DAVIS: You haven't read the report.

MR. LAUK: That's what this minister is doing. He is sabotaging British Columbia economic policy. The same as has been seen since 1947; he is sabotaging. I say he is a federal spy.

MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw that remark. I must ask you to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw the words "federal spy" and substitute "he's a weak-kneed British Columbian."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just a straight withdrawal would be in order.

MR. LAUK: That will be sufficient? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

[ Page 2844 ]

MR. LAUK: He goes on to say:

"I agree with the Minister of Transport for Alberta. . . "

I should think so. Dr. Hugh Horner - that's a familiar name.

" - - - that we should have a northwest rail authority. But I would extend it to include parts of northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Let us also be a subsidiary - a special developmental subsidiary - of the CNR."

The CNR - that great friend of British Columbia. Do you remember them? When the forest industry and the mining industry were starving for rail cars in this province, do you remember the CNR? They told us to go and whistle. They're only interested in revenue for their own railway and development for eastern Canada. They want to keep British Columbia the colony of central Canada, And he wants the CNR to control the rail system in B.C. as a subsidiary!

MR. BARRETT: He never came out of the cold.

M R. LAUK: "Here's a task for a government-owned corporation of the traditional kind and with the CNR, as recent experience has proven, Canadians will find it balancing its books in the end." This is a B.C. minister touting the CNR and ignoring the BCR's interest. This is the minister who negotiated the northwest rail agreement, which BCR chairman Mr. Fraine said favoured the CNR. Is it little wonder?

Well, yesterday I attacked The Province. Today I'll read some of its editorials because once in a while they do something right. They talked about BCR losses in profits - June 4,1977. I'll read parts of it. This editorial discusses the idea of this vision of our railway in British Columbia.

"As we've said in these columns before, the ancillary benefits of economic expansion in the areas served by railways in Canada never seem to show up in any cost-benefit study of railway operations. If they were, the railways, including the BCR, might actually be showing a profit." I suggest to you they would.

"It is naive in the extreme to believe that a federal agency like the CN will pay as much attention to B.C.'s needs as the BCR would, even with its debts. Northern British Columbia development as a hope or even as an expectation would mean far less to the CN than the here and now business of prairie grain and potash and so on."

That is exactly the attitude that has been taken consistently in the northwest rail agreements by the CNR.

"But if world mineral, timber and pulp markets were to improve in the next decade, we would not be able to capitalize in the northern storehouse without an adequate railway system. Yet we seem prepared to take the short view, cut the so-called losses of the northern extension of the BCR, and turn the storehouse over to the good graces of the federal government. The north is not an ephemeral dream. The riches are there waiting for the markets which will inevitably develop. The short view may well harm B.C.'s long-term interests, even if it saves a few million dollars now."

The provincial government says the editorial should think again.

MR. BARRETT: It's a good lawyer's trick to mispronounce a word and then charge the client twice for correcting it.

MR. LAUK: Ephemeral.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly continue?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, if you want to be pedantic and an academic elitist, go 'right ahead. You're a snob. You're a snob. I represent ordinary people. I'm not a city slicker like you. I don't know these words. I'm just a country boy, Mr. Chairman, trying to do my best here representing ordinary working families.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member... ?

MR. LAUK: You can sit there all you want being a snob with all of your university degrees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member who represents 'the riding of Vancouver Centre kindly continue?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think we should get him one of Vander Zalm's shovels.

MR. LAUK: Another editorial, June 4,1977.

"There's an almost ironic contradiction in terms when politicians talk about the need for a rational transportation system in Canada while complaining about the extent to which the railways now rely on subsidies. At a conference board meeting in Vancouver, B.C.'s Transport Minister, Jack Davis, for instance, went heavy on the user-pay concept, " - we've heard this before, haven't we? - "meaning that the people who use the railway system should pay the economic price without help of subsidies. The irony is that there wouldn't be any Canada

[ Page 2845 ]

today if that was the concept at the beginning of this nation, or even 20 years ago or 10 years ago."

There wouldn't be a nation today. And this is where the bottom-line economics of this government is leading us.

"Without tariff walls, many of the corporations which support the conference board might not now be in existence.

"These social and political arguments do not obviate a need to make sure subsidy money is used efficiently, but subsidy as a matter of principle is not wrong in those circumstances, and that is something some of the politicians seem hardly to have considered."

You can't have a user-pay philosophy in this society. Canada has never been built on a user-pay philosophy. Certainly you could ask Crump and Sinclair and Lord Strathcona and the CPR, those cigar-smoking, silk top-hat individuals who made a lot of money off the subsidies provided by Canada.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Coal should be user-pay; certainly it should be user-pay where it can be done. You've got a situation there where if you've got the economy for developing a coal resource, then they should pay their way.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. Where you need a catalyst for development, you should not be shy of a subsidy.

MR. BARRETT: Get it back in royalties.

MR. LAUK: You should not be shy of a subsidy. And it's absolute hypocrisy to argue otherwise, in this country particularly. I think it's hypocrisy to argue that in the United States too. I think General Motors received most of their subsidies in the '20s from federal funds, and now they argue free enterprise.

The fact is that governments are always involved, even when they do nothing like this government. When you do nothing, you allow the worst recession in British Columbia's history to take a firm root.

MR. KAHL: Pinko Panco!

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply concerned that the minister has not responded to my charge that either he and the Premier were not telling the truth at a press conference or that Mr. Fraine, under sworn oath, did not tell the truth.

MR. BARRETT: Somebody's lying.

MR. LAUK: It is clear, according to Mr. Fraine's evidence, early in March of 1977, and I'm reading from his evidence at page 2251: "The directors of BCR were informed that the federal government had changed its position" - changed its position, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: The same old lie.

MR. LAUK: The federal government would be agreeable.... He said: "The federal government would be agreeable to a termination of construction of the Dease Lake line and that substantial funds, amounting to $81 million, would be available only if construction was terminated." And on March 10, he supplied the provincial cabinet with a memorandum entitled: "British Columbia Railway proposed abandonment of the Dease Lake extension."

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. LAUK: That was 25 days before the press conference. What was the Premier's answer to a question from the press? This is a transcript of that press conference on April 5:

"Mr. Premier, since you were unable to renegotiate a new deal with the federal government, what kind of considerations did you have to give to Ottawa to get the new agreement?"

"Answer: 'No considerations.'

Shall I repeat Fraine's remarks? He said: "The $81 million would be available only if construction was terminated." That's a flat contradictory statement. Who is telling the truth - the man under oath, a railroader for most of his life, or the Premier, with a well-known propensity?

"Just the normal co-operation between two governments, " says the Premier, "on what would be the fairest deal in building a transportation link." Have you got the transcript there, Mr. Minister? The public, setting aside for the moment the northwest rail agreement, would like to know who is telling the truth. Fraine says that you knew before the press conference that the government in Ottawa said: "You don't get $81 million unless you abandon the Dease Lake extension." You came to a press conference with a pile of hokey, saying: "There were no considerations. This is only a pause and they've agreed in principle to a 50-50 cost-sharing if we continue to construct the line."

You've already agreed to abandon the line. That's why you got the $81 million. That was the quid pro quo. The Dease Lake line has made the CNR nervous since it was talked about in 1969. They could see the Alaska-Yukon wealth being a north-south economic sphere through the BCR and cutting into revenues of the CNR. They have always been worried about that

[ Page 2846 ]

and, boy, did they get bushleaguers when they came across you guys - bought off for $81 million!

British Columbia's heritage sold for a mess of pottage or, if you want to consider the CNR's potash shipments and their lucrative shipments to Prince Rupert, a mess of potash. That's what you've done: you've sold us all down the river. You've got to think in terms of the Yukon and Alaska. You've got to think in terms of that railway link. That's the future of this province.

You're looking at the books now and you've got your bookkeeper's little visor on and you're not looking beyond that, Mr. Chairman. This government has a very narrow view of the future of this province. It's not just a game at the Union Club. There are thousands of people unemployed in this province. There are thousands of people who are raising their families here who want to know if they have a secure economic future in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were unemployed when you were government.

MR. LAUK: The CNR is making the revenues toward a federal Crown corporation, and the CNR has consistently demonstrated that they are only interested in the status quo in terms of economy and transportation in this country. Keep central Canada strong and keep the western provinces as colonies, providing the raw materials and the balance-of-payments transferring, and all the rest of it, keeping our costs high, keeping labour-management in trouble with each other so that they can keep us weak, keeping governments that will sell out to the corporate monopolies in this country and to the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, the best way we can be fair to the federal government is to be fair to ourselves first. "The best partner in Confederation is a strongest partner, " and I'm only quoting W.A.C. Bennett.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I remind you the three-minute light is on?

MR. LAUK: Thank you. I will remind the minister that he has a duty to the public. He can't look legalistically on his department. If he can find some courage, he should demand some redress for those local entrepreneurs - those little -free enterprisers in the service stations - and he should at least answer the question of credibility. Who was telling the truth?

At least clarify it for the public of this province, because if the people of this province can't believe their Premier, they lose confidence in the system. They've got to rely, at least in a formal press conference.... This wasn't an offhand remark. This wasn't in the heat of an exchange. This appears to be a manipulation of the facts. It has to be clarified for the public of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, if the House will allow the Chair the liberty, I would like to introduce Master Peter Smith, who is here today with his father in the gallery. He is only four so he may not be able to stay for too long. Mr. Smith is my landlord while in Victoria.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) referred to a Canada-first approach as opposed to a continental .approach. If there was one thing the previous government did which I can agree with wholeheartedly it is the pricing of natural gas at the border. That is a Canada-first approach and not a continental approach. It's the kind of approach which I think we should always use in our dealings with other countries including, of course, the United States, and that is - in the economic sphere, any way - to price our resources at the full price that the market will bear and not at some lesser price that might, say, reflect our average cost or our lower costs because we have something that's unique to sell.

However, there are many other things they did which are less praiseworthy and in respect to the B.C. Rail they stumbled very badly. In order to cast a little more light on the B.C. Rail situation, I think I might refer, for example, to some correspondence -certainly several agreements which the previous government entered into.

It entered into a master agreement relative to northwest rail in the summer of 1973. In large measure that master agreement reflected earlier negotiations between the previous Social Credit government and Ottawa. The master agreement still stands and is regarded both by the federal government and the province as a very useful instrument for further development in the north. In other words, there is a master agreement. It spells out what rail lines and what ports are to be built or developed and the shares of the costs to be borne by both governments.

MR. LAUK: It's been there since '71.

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, that was an agreement signed by the then Premier and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Barrett, in July, 1973, and by the Hon. Jean Marchand on the part of the federal government. That agreement still stands. It is a master agreement that envisages the building of a rail line, among other things, north from Prince George, through Fort St. James, up through Dease Lake and eventually to the Yukon boundary. So we have a master agreement with Ottawa; we have it today and we had it beginning in July, 1973.

[ Page 2847 ]

MR. LAUK: What's wrong with that agreement? Why don't you uphold it?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is nothing wrong with the agreement. Its existence today indicates that we are engaged in a pause in construction and not in the final and ultimate, termination of the Dease Lake line. There is a master agreement in place today; it was not revoked. What was lacking until a few months ago was a precise financial agreement dealing with rail construction. Because there was no financial agreement - an implementation or a subsidiary agreement in existence - no money changed hands. The federal government didn't build anything of a railway nature in northern British Columbia, nor did it make any payments to British Columbia, which in fact was building a railway north to Dease Lake, because there was no supplementary junior agreement which dealt with finances.

MR. LAUK: What did you get from the federal government? How much?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We've now got the first instalment on what will eventually cost something like $340 million. The first instalment of $81 million is from the federal government.

MR. LAUK: And would you have gotten that had you not stopped construction?

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We will afford you all the time you want to cross-examine the ministers.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, in order to put this whole matter into perspective I'd like to refer to several documents and not make interpretations.

On November 20,1975, the Hon. David Barrett, when he was Premier of this province and during the course of a federal election, wrote a letter to the Hon. Otto Lang saying as follows - and this is in reference to the famous Otto Lang telegram. The then Premier of the province replied: "Thank you for your telegram of October 29, received by Telex that day." In other words, the Lang telegram was October 29.

"As a result of negotiations since that time I'm pleased to say that the government of British Columbia agrees in principle with the points raised in your letter. Like you, I would now wish to proceed to a conclusion of the implementation agreement."

In other words, there wasn't one in existence, but in the heat of an election the previous government was prepared to conclude an implementation agreement. Now what did the Telex from the Hon. Otto Lang say? I'm selecting pieces from it, so I'm prepared to table that Telex - that communication.

MR. LAUK: What's the date of the letter to Lang?

HON. MR. DAVIS: November 20,1975 - that's during the election campaign. The Otto Lang telegram to the Hon. David Barrett, dated October 29,1975, said, among other things:

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REMAINS FIRM IN ITS INTENTION TO PROCEED WITH THE NORTHERN B.C. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMME SET OUT IN THE JULY AGREEMENT

that's July, 1973 -

- AND HAS EMPOWERED ME TO SIGN AN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT ON THE NORTHERN B.C. RAILWAY LINES PORTION OF THE JULY AGREEMENT. THE COURSE OF ACTION I NOW ENVISAGE WE SHOULD FOLLOW SHOULD BE THE SUITABLY MODIFIED JULY AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULE A ATTACHED, TO REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATION AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CABINET AS A CONDITION TO THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT. ONCE THIS IS DONE, IT WOULD THEN BE POSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE APPROPRIATE PAYMENTS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA WITH RESPECT TO WORK DONE ON THE DEASE LAKE LINE.

So first Ottawa recognizes that work has been done by the province; secondly, that it would begin to make payments to British Columbia, assuming the agreement, or the points raised in the Lang Telex, were agreed to by the Premier. Now the then Premier obviously agreed to them later, roughly a month later, in his letter of November 20. Mr. Lang goes on to say:

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THIS LETTER, WHEN AGREED TO BY YOU, WOULD UNEQUIVOCALLY CONSTITUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE JULY AGREEMENT BINDING ON BOTH GOVERNMENTS.

And it raises a number of points about changing the connection of B.C. Rail and the ultimate CN, about CNR running rights. It says:

TO SATISFY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE CN ACCESS TO THE YUKON, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE CN IS GRANTED RUNNING RIGHTS BETWEEN SUSKEENA AND PRINCE GEORGE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TERRACE CONNECTION LINE COMES INTO OPERATION.

It raises some other points which I gather came as something of a surprise to the previous government. The copper traffic which will originate from the Stikine copper deposit area and destined to Prince

[ Page 2848 ]

Rupert on the north coast will be interchanged to the CN at the connection point. And it goes on in substance to say that this must be carried on by the CNR.

FURTHER, ONE OF THE BASIC FACTS THAT HAVE COME OUT SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE JULY AGREEMENT HAS BEEN THAT THE RESOURCES THAT WERE EXPECTED TO MOVE ON THE RAILWAY LINES IN QUESTION ARE NOT COMING ON STREAM AT THE EXPECTED TIMES FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THIS TENDS TO INDICATE THAT THE DATES FOR RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE. CLAUSE 3 (5) OF THE JULY AGREEMENT MUST BE MODIFIED IN SUCH A WAY THAT GREATER FLEXIBILITY EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO LINE CONSTRUCTION.

And of course the earlier dates envisaged by the previous government had been passed by that time. Indeed, it had instituted at least one substantial pause in construction; so pauses in construction of the Dease Lake line aren't confined to the year 1977. The Lang telegram goes on:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED THAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT PAYABLE TO BRITISH COLUMBIA BY CANADA WITH RESPECT TO THE DEASE LAKE LINE WILL BE SET AT $117.5 MILLION.

Now that's $117.5 million regardless of whether the line were to cost $250 million or $300 million or $350 million, and the latter figure now looks more nearly the mark.

So the Hon. Otto Lang was saying that the federal government, alarmed by the escalation of costs of building the Dease Lake line, was putting a cap on its contribution. Of Course, the hon. then Premier agreed that the federal cap should be at $117.5 million. We've got $81 million from the federal government when construction cost $200 million, and we can reopen negotiations when the economics of that northern area look sufficient to warrant a line and get a 50-50 sharing of the remaining costs. So we can pick up, perhaps, another $75 million from the federal government under a further implementation agreement. So clearly our arrangements are much preferable to the ones which the hon. former Premier was prepared to accept, and indeed he did accept in his letter of November 20,1975.

Now I'd like to finally quote from a memorandum prepared by the Deputy Minister of Transport, Mr. Charles Dolphin. I asked him to repeat the kind of advice that he gave the provincial government in the latter part of 1975. In a memorandum to me, dated March 5,1976, it says - and this was the kind of advice your government, the political level, was getting from the senior civil servants, more particularly Mr. Charles Dolphin, the Deputy Minister of Transport, who was very close to the scene and very knowledgeable about this whole matter.... He says, in his memo to me of March 5,1976:

"Mr. Lang's letter of October 29 introduced a number of new proposals into the negotiations on the rail implementation agreement which raised serious problems."

Now serious problems, not just minor little changes.

"The main points and our objections follow:

" (1) Limitation of traffic to points north of Fort St. James. Mr. Lang proposes that only traffic originating north of Fort St. James may be carried on the rail lines under the agreement. Such a limitation was not contemplated in the agreement in principle" - that is the master agreement - "and is not acceptable. It would mean that BCR would be denied the lever of an alternate route and hence a rate ceiling - the transportation, for example, of Sukunka coal to Prince Rupert.

" (2) Running rights for the CNR to and from Prince George. In his telegram Mr. Lang proposes that pending the completion of the CN's Meziadin line, the CN be granted running rights between Prince George and Dease Lake. This is unacceptable inasmuch as the Prince George to Fort St. James portion of the BCR was never part of the agreement, and because no running rights under the agreement were meant to be effective until all lines had been completed. Furthermore, by removing any target date from the completion of the Meziadin line, running rights to Prince George might well diminish the CN's incentive to ever begin its line."

So there are two things. The CNR has privileged running rights under the agreement as outlined in the Lang Telex and as accepted by the former Premier. Secondly, the CN was relieved of any termination date for completion of its line. Now in our agreement of this spring we're not trapped into any of these situations such as the previous Premier would have trapped the B.C. Rail and the people of British Columbia. I'll go on quoting.

"A possible trade-off might involve running rights for BCR on the existing CN line from Prince George to Prince Rupert for the same period. This is not, however, likely to be acceptable to the other side.

" (3) The lump-sum federal payment: the principle of shared financial responsibility in fixed agreed percentages has been basic to the agreement from the outset."

That's the master agreement which still exists; it's basic; it's still there.

"Yet Mr. Lang now insists upon a fixed federal dollar contribution of $117.5 million to the cost of the Dease Lake line. Even with the best of efforts at accurate cost estimates" - the

[ Page 2849 ]

federal figure has been based on a provincial estimate - "this lump-sum demand could result in a cost residue which the province would be entirely responsible for. This would, of course, change the rules of the game in an unacceptable manner.

"A way out of this impasse might be to agree to the $117.5 million as the federal contribution to the Dease Lake line, on the condition, however, that in the final accounting for all four lines of the agreement, the federal government would contribute a total dollar amount exactly equivalent to that which it would have contributed had the agreed portions been adhered to all along."

The final point and criticism he makes - and again, I'm quoting Mr. Dolphin:

" (4) Indian claims: the latest federal draft of the agreement requires British Columbia to acquire and ensure for the CN the quiet enjoyment of all lands required for the right of way for the Meziadin line."

That's the line to be built by the CNR.

"The earlier understanding, which should be returned to, is that each railway, supported by its respective owner government, would be responsible for acquiring its own lands and for settling its own claims. The other government would, of course, be prepared to assist wherever possible, but primary onus should be clear."

Well, that's the substance of the Dolphin letter. Certainly he was voicing those concerns at the time when the previous government decided to accept a $117.5 million cap on a project that could cost at least $340 million. We have got a progress payment of $81 million from the federal government and it is still open.

It's clear in the interim financial agreement that we signed this spring that it is a pause. The word "suspend" is used. There is no wording anywhere in the agreement that says "terminate." There's no reference at all to anything of the nature of an abandonment. It is a suspension; it is a pause. There will be an opportunity to reactivate the construction of the Dease Lake line just as soon as there's a traffic offering which will in any way come near to the line paying for itself.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for going once again through the history of the negotiations of the various agreements. We had a similar debate in the first session of 1976. That's not the point. The point is this. It's the credibility of the Premier and the minister that's in question.

Are you going for coffee, Al? We'll see you later. Okay.

It's the credibility of the Minister of Transport and the Premier of this province. Mr. Fraine suggests that the $81 million has been paid in part and will be paid in total in consideration for termination of construction on the Dease Lake line. Now is that correct or is it not? Did the federal government make the payment of $81 million - $54 million so far - in consideration for termination of the construction of the Dease Lake line? That's a simple question. Would the minister answer that question? Are you prepared to answer that question? Was the amount paid in consideration for the termination?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, not termination:, a pause.

MR. LAUK: You're saying it was paid in consideration for the pause and wouldn't have been paid otherwise. Isn't that correct? It would not have been paid unless you stopped construction - is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there's a joint committee in existence, a provincial committee and a federal committee - two on each side. There are many considerations. The decision to institute a pause was as a result of many considerations. There was no one decisive factor. There is a royal commission sitting. It would seem appropriate that, where issues such as these under consideration with the Dease Lake line still remain to be resolved, a pause be instituted during the term of the sitting of that royal commission. But that was as large a consideration as any.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm following up these questions. I'll only be another couple of minutes. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is seated.

Prior to the terms of reference of that royal commission, Mr. Fraine says that the Ottawa government said: "In consideration of termination of the construction of the line, we'll pay you $81 million." Now you're saying that was part of the consideration to pause during the terms of the royal commission. Are you instituting the suggestion that your discussions with the federal government were that part of the consideration be a royal commission as well? That antedated this statement.

What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, for the minister's consideration, and what I would like him to answer now, before this committee - the public has a right - is did the government of Canada say to you: "We will pay you $81 million only if you stop construction of the Dease Lake line."?

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to touch on another subject - the very important one of energy conservation. I should say that I appreciated reading

[ Page 2850 ]

the statement which the minister made yesterday. I'd like to zero in on one particular element of all this and try and have the minister bring the people of British Columbia up to date. I'm talking about the question of conservation of energy in the form of insulation of residential and commercial buildings. The matter has been raised before because of the blatant discrimination which the federal government has been practising as between the east and west in this country. I think this issue deserves to be highlighted right now because of the tremendous amount of public discussion which - quite rightfully - is going on regarding Confederation and Canadian unity.

I want to read into the record the reply which the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, gave in the House of Commons on April 21,1977, in reply to a question from Mr. Fortin. This is the important part of the answer:

On February 14,1977, the federal government announced an $80 million programme for Nova Scotia of which the federal government will provide $63 million. The key elements in the programme are $33.41 million for a new home insulation grant programme administered by CMHC, supplemented by a $17 million home insulation loan programme to be administered by the province.

There have also been substantial payments made to the other eastern provinces. P.E.I. got $12 million in the month of January, and New Brunswick has also received payments of a much smaller amount. I want to be fair and recognize that Prince Edward Island, for example, generates all its electricity by burning oil, and we know that the price of oil has escalated. Nova Scotia gets two-thirds of its electricity from burning oil and New Brunswick gets one-third, so I'm not overlooking their difficulties.

What I want to try and emphasize, and have the minister comment upon, is that while we all support Confederation in this House, British Columbia is paying twice. We have agreed to the concept of the "have" provinces helping the have-not provinces through equalization payments. We go along with the federal programme to subsidize the cost of oil to people in the east who are more heavily penalized than we are, for the reason I've just mentioned - that electricity depends so intimately on the burning of oil. We go along with all that. But I'm just getting a little sick and tired of western Canada being willing to go a long way to support the concepts of Confederation, and to do it in as fair and co-operative a way as possible, and yet when the federal government brings in a programme to try and conserve energy, it's all right to give all the money to the eastern provinces but the best we can do in British Columbia is for B.C. Hydro to say: "We'll lend you money at 10 percent."

Mr. Chairman, I think that is not fair! It just proves that the divisiveness in this country which persists at the present time is not related just to bilingualism and biculturalism. By golly, it's related to dollars! If the western provinces and the initiatives of successive governments in provinces like Alberta and British Columbia have built these provinces into buoyant economies where we are now regarded as being "have" provinces, and we accept the principle of equalization payments, and we accept many other elements in the Confederation concept to help the poorer provinces, there has to be some point at which we get the same treatment from Ottawa as the eastern provinces.

I don't know whether it is the result of the western provinces making a noise, but I gather that finally, Mr. Gillespie, the federal minister, seems to have recognized that we have a legitimate argument in suggesting that if there should be outright grants to the homeowners in Nova Scotia who are willing to insulate and conserve energy, then there should be grants for western Canadians as well.

I notice in the Hansard of June 7,1977, that Tommy Douglas, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, asked the minister about the outcome of the conference with provincial energy ministers on May 11. Mr. Chairman, I assume that our minister took part in that conference, and this is part of the question which I'm trying to lead up to.

First of all, could the minister give us some background as to what was decided at that important conference on May 11? But more importantly, Mr. Gillespie said on June 7 that within a few days he would be having further discussions with provincial ministers, and I notice that from the Globe and Mail of June 11 it states that: "Mr. Gillespie made a flying visit to the west to discuss the matter with Energy ministers Jack Davis of British Columbia and John Messer of Saskatchewan."

The article goes on to say: "Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau gave Mr. Gillespie a mandate to complete negotiations on the oil price and home insulation programme." So at last it looks as though once the western provinces scream and dance a little bit and present a legitimate argument, the federal government finally slowly responds.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The point that I'd like to make very clearly in this House is: why do the western provinces have to do this screaming and shouting? We're always given the impression in the media that it's Quebec that's doing all the screaming and shouting and that because they have protested the inadequacies of Confederation they have precipitated the kind of crisis that now faces our country. Perhaps we in the west are a little more tolerant or have a longer fuse or take a slower

[ Page 2851 ]

time to explode; I don't know.

But we have, for example, Mr. Chairman, an initiative by Ontario to hold the Destiny Ca nada conference in just over a week's time. Political leaders from all the 10 provinces have been invited, as well as many other important people in Canada who are concerned about Confederation. I just feel that we are losing sight of some of the realities that underlie the crisis we have. I've chosen this - perhaps in the minds of some people - simple but very realistic example, which irritates western Canadians. When some national policy - and nothing could be of greater importance at the national level than the conservation of energy....

Here we have a conservation policy which is sound and makes an enormous amount of sense. For example, Mr. Gillespie himself has said that if insulation were applied in the manner and to the degree that he's proposing, it would save the capital costs of one tar-sand plant somewhere in the next few years. When we realize the cost escalation that's occurred in the development of the tar-sand plants at Fort McMurray, we know that we're talking about enormous sums of money. Insulation can be done relatively cheaply, and it can save the involvement of spending these enormous sums of money in extracting oil from the more expensive sources.

I sometimes feel rather pessimistic. All the most well-motivated efforts of many Canadians to preserve Confederation and to try and build a spirit of unity in this country are doomed if, in fact, the federal government, in a relatively simple, straightforward issue such as this, can't decide in the first place to give fair and equitable treatment to all provinces. Why do they come up with a programme which is unfair? Then, because the western provinces are the ones discriminated against and after a great deal of noise, Mr. Gillespie makes a flying visit to the west to try and calm us down and finally give us in the west a fair share of what is a national programme.

This reminds me of the kind of speech we got from the Prime Minister of this country in Winnipeg not too long ago. He came and started trying to cool us all down a little bit. He looked so sincere and so eloquent on television, saying that he really realized a lot of the problems of western Canada, and yes, we should have fair play and that we were equal members of a partnership, and all the trite phrases we've heard so often. I have to question just how valid that commitment to fair treatment of western Canada is when you look at this kind of unfair management of a national energy conservation policy.

As I say, it's a very straightforward, simple concept which makes a tremendous amount of sense and any intelligent person has to say: "If this is how they handle what is a relatively simple programme, goodness only knows what kinds of problems we can get into in such complicated areas as cost sharing and policies on non-renewable resources and a whole variety of other much more complicated issues." If we can't even get this done fairly and simply and equitably, when it's not at all a complicated idea, then no wonder there are many people across this country and in western Canada wondering just what hope we have in some of these much more complicated issues.

That is the main point I wish to stress. But on the more local level, I wonder, first of all, if the minister could tell us what was accomplished with his meeting with Mr. Gillespie a few days ago, but at the local level.

I wonder if the minister would reconsider the present B.C. Hydro plan to encourage the insulation of homes in British Columbia, because it is somewhat restrictive. In the first place, of course, it is a loan at 10 per cent and not a grant. It may be that the minister's discussions with Mr. Gillespie will lead him to give us good news in that regard.

I notice from the ads that the programme is only for six months, starting April 1. I wonder if that was just to get the programme started, or can the minister announce that it will be an ongoing programme? It seems as though he should be encouraging the conservation of energy on a permanent and ongoing basis and not for six months.

I wonder about the fact that double-glazed windows and storm windows are not covered within the $500 that can be loaned. It would seem to me that we should utilize all ways of conserving energy, not just insulating material. The other element in the programme which causes some people to hesitate is that the loan depends on certain standards of construction being met, and it's meeting these standards which adds to the householders' overall costs of implementing the insulation.

The other area I'd like to touch on as quickly as I can, Mr. Chairman, is the area of the B.C. Ferries. I just want to tell the committee and ask the minister a few questions about the service on the B.C. Ferries between the Island and the mainland. If there is one subject that seems to cause residents of Vancouver Island more concern than any other - perhaps other than inflation, at least - it is the access to the mainland and the service that is provided on the B.C. Ferries.

The rate reduction which the minister announced recently is to be welcomed, but I just have to say that I think it was very regrettable that the government took such a rigid attitude for so long when all the indications were that the increased ferry rates had depressed utilization of the ferries and had a very serious effect on the economy of Vancouver Island. At least the reduction that has been implemented is better than nothing at all, but I still believe that the reduction could have been greater and that there has been a tendency to fail to regard that certain rate

[ Page 2852 ]

increases - whether it's on ferry services or any other kind of services - can be self-defeating when it causes fewer and fewer people to use the service.

I would like to touch on the subject of food service that I have raised in the House before on the ferries. I'm delighted to see Mr. Gallagher in the House, all ears and eyes open, because I've asked about franchising private enterprisers to provide catering services on the ferries. Many people talk to me, both while I'm traveling and at other times, and they feel that the standard of catering service and the quality of food and cooking on the ferries has deteriorated. I know that's a subjective opinion, but I'm just passing on as a representative of many people in British Columbia that that's their opinion.

Mr. Gallagher was quoted in the press just a day or two ago. Well, I don't know that he chose the headline in the Colonist of June 16 or not, but it says "Put up or shut up!" in reference to Mr. Don Bellamy of the Canadian Restaurant Association who had made statements at a conference that he felt private enterprise could do a better job of providing catering services on the ferry.

I'd like to ask some very specific questions, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, at any time has B.C. Ferries actively put out for tender to private caterers any kind of outline of the services on which these private caterers might bid? Has it been done? I know we've talked about it in the House many times. I'm just trying to find out if this is going to be the same kind of ongoing dialogue, for example, that I just mentioned about Confederation where we all talk about it but we go on creating the same underlying reasons for dissension or dissatisfaction. Has the ferry service ever actively solicited bids from private caterers, private catering organizations, to provide service on the ferries?

I would suspect not, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Gallagher in his statements - and I won't take the time to read the whole statement by any means -points out all the conditions which a private organization or private catering company would have to meet. One or two of the items are very puzzling. It says he would "have to employ a present staff with no lay-off of our employees." I would assume that if a caterer took over and perhaps went back to using the dining room, there would be an increased employment; they would need more staff, not less staff.

The statement also says that the catering services must be available from 0530 hours through to 2320 hours each day for 12 months of the year. I don't see anything surprising about that. We know that you have to get there before the ship sails and you have to work after the ship docks, and so on. We all know that. I just feel there is nothing terribly complicated about the concept that maybe - just maybe -somebody else could do a better job than B.C. Ferries is now doing on its own.

Without belabouring that point unduly, has any direct approach been made by the corporation seeking private caterers? If so, what came of that approach? If not, would the minister tell us if any specific initiative is being taken? Is the corporation discussing the possibility with catering companies at this time? Thirdly, if the answer to questions one and two is no, could the minister then tell us whether the concept has been finally discarded as just not being either desirable or feasible?

In the report we had on the ferries in 1976, one of the important elements was the fact that many members of the crew were working overtime. It was stated in the report that if overtime was abandoned there would be jobs for about 400 additional employees. That is over a year ago and I know there have been many changes in the ferry employment conditions.

I'm trying to make the questions simple. Could the minister tell us by what percentage overtime has been reduced in the last year? To what degree would further reduction of overtime be feasible and, if feasible, what number of new jobs could be created? In other words, what is today's situation with regard to overtime and the potential to create more jobs by further reducing overtime?

The minister talked about the size of crew and federal government regulations and the fact that some pedestrians are left at the terminal because only a certain number can be carried in relation to the number of crew. Some time ago the minister was talking about reducing the crew still further if the Strait of Georgia could be designated as inland waters. I wonder if the minister could tell us just where this situation is presently. Are we still negotiating with the federal government to further reduce crew size, or have we reached a stand-off situation?

Related to that question, what about regular B.C. residents in the busy summer months who are encouraged not to take their vehicles because of the heavy demand by tourists and who may well get to the ferry terminal and not be able to travel because of the limited number of crew who, in turn, limit the number of passengers who can be carried? I foresee that many people in British Columbia are going to be very upset this summer because they are going to decide not to take their cars, they get to the terminal, but because there is already a sufficient number of passengers waiting to board the ferry, these B.C. residents, who may well be doing their daily duty, or traveling on business, will probably have a very considerable delay.

I would like the minister to tell us what initiative, if any, the corporation should be taking to alert B.C. residents to the fact that there is a very definite ceiling to the number of foot passengers who can

[ Page 2853 ]

travel on the ferry, and whether, for the summer months, the minister would consider increasing the crew by whatever number in order to accommodate a somewhat increased number of passengers. It would seem to me that while I recognize the philosophy on a winter basis - perhaps we should minimize costs and keep the crew number to a minimum - surely in the summer months it would make equal good sense to increase the crew temporarily. It would provide jobs in the summer months and it would also minimize the risk of regular B.C. travelers having their own travel arrangements, and perhaps their own livelihoods, affected by being unable to get on the ferry.

I also asked some time ago about the car rentals. The minister said that the matter was under consideration. I wonder if he could tell us where that situation is at the present time. Has a contract been signed between the corporation and one or more car rental companies? Could the minister tell us what financial gain is in that arrangement for the corporation? Is the corporation to receive a percentage of gross take, or is it to be a percentage of net profit earned by the car rental companies?

Finally, I have a local question. I would like to know what is the latest situation regarding the Mill Bay ferry. I believe, in some tentative kind of way, the corporation has said the ferry will run until December, but after December it is quite likely the ferry route will be abandoned. The residents in that area, and on the Saanich Peninsula, are very keen that it should be continued. I would like to know if any final decision has been made. Even more importantly, can the minister give us some assurance that before a final decision is made, some real attempt will be made to consult in a realistic way with all the people on the Saanich Peninsula who are concerned about the continuation of the ferry?

I suppose the other question - which I haven't time to get into right now, but perhaps the minister could answer it briefly - is: what measures is the government taking to rationalize the whole ferry system or, in other words, to integrate one system including the ferries presently operated by the Department of Highways, sometimes at considerable cost with no charge to the user? I know this is quite a subject on its own and we haven't time to cover it at the moment, but it is an issue which has received attention in the media. It does seem, again, inequitable that certain people should be traveling completely free on certain ferries operated by the Department of Highways while the users of the B.C. ferry system are paying perhaps not the full user-pay fee, which was agreed. The minister pointed out quite clearly the other day that the subsidy has increased to $44 million. But I wonder if it would not be better and appear more equitable and easier to administer if we could look at one integrated ferry system for the whole of B.C. Could the minister tell us if we're moving in that direction?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the various questions from the hon. member for Oak Bay, I would like first to refer to federal financing of a home insulation programme. The various provincial Energy ministers, other than those from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, put considerable pressure on the federal Energy minister at our last meeting in Ottawa in April. Partly as a result of that pressure, he has subsequently announced that there will be a grant programme which is nationwide. I expect that the details will be released before the end of this month by the Hon. Alastair Gillespie in Ottawa.

He has said that the cost of that programme would be $1.5 billion; that's $1,500 million over a seven-year period. If British Columbia were to get 10 per cent of that amount on a population basis, this would mean $150 million of grants for British Columbia. That's something in excess of $20 million a year of grants for British Columbians to improve the insulation of their homes. That grant programme, which has a few strings attached such as meeting certain basic national building code conditions, would be supplemented, for example, by loan programmes in this province.

Now B.C. Hydro is the first in Canada to launch a house insulation loan programme and I'm sure other utilities in this province will follow suit. We could, in other words, have federal grants available to people. Grants - that's an outright payment of several hundred dollars. The ceiling would be set by the federal government and supplemented by a loan or loans from the utilities if the insulation job required expenditures in excess of the grant. I agree that the Hydro programme, in principle, is a good one. Possibly the pay-back period should be longer - say five years rather than two.

The first attempt of selling the programme has not met with all the success that had been hoped. But with a federal grant programme underway, I would think that people would become much more insulation-minded. They would get several hundred dollars - perhaps as much as $400 - as a grant, and they could then readily apply to Hydro or Inland Gas for a loan to cover the remainder of the expense. Hydro does require that the insulation job be done by a competent firm and they have a list of accredited firms. Otherwise, it's on trust and it would be up to the individual to apply for the loan from the utility, which would be over and above the grant.

They would repay the loan over, say, a five-year period. So it will be comparatively easy for people to reinsulate their homes, or insulate their homes, because many of the older buildings in British Columbia have no insulation at all. I'm talking principally about those that are on the coast, the lower

[ Page 2854 ]

mainland area and Vancouver Island.

There may well be a rush for these federal grants and for these loans. There certainly was in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. If there's a rush, then the federal people are inclined to serve those owning the oldest homes first because the oldest homes are the least likely to be insulated at all.

The hon. member asked about double glazing and so on; that's a little more complicated. But certainly the more modern homes with very large windows need double glazing and perhaps a related programme should be developed in that connection.

The hon. member for Oak Bay asked about catering on the ferries. Yes, there have been attempts over the years to get private enterprise involved in catering. A few firms have actually approached the B.C. Ferries in this connection but in all cases they have backed away. Recently, the general manager of B.C. Ferries responded to a public statement by the chairman of the B.C. Hotel Association saying that private enterprise could do a better job on the ferries. He simply asked him or the membership of that association to come and do the job; they're welcome. It will be interesting to see if we get any response whatsoever.

I think one of the main problems is that the ferries are a year-round operation. They're a 16- or 18-hour-a-day operation. Private enterprise in normal circumstances provides full and fine service at meal times, but doesn't contemplate paying workers in between mealtimes. Of course, on B.C. Ferries we have to employ our staff hour after hour and day after day around the year. So there could be no layoffs and there could be no substitution of people from outside who simply came at certain peak hours when meals were in greater demand. They would have to take on the staff of B.C. Ferries and observe all of the conditions of the union agreement. It will be interesting to see whether there's any response whatsoever. I know there's a good deal of criticism, but I think the general manager's put-up-or-shut-up letter will warrant the careful attention of the private sector.

MR. WALLACE: Has there ever been one private enterprise offer to do it?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There have been offers but once they found out what the conditions were they backed away. These have been offers from, in some cases, very large firms with nation-wide connections.

The hon. member referred to overloads on the ferries. We're beginning to experience overloads again. I think the question of crew size arose as a result of a question posed by the hon. member last year relative to overloads, but bore on crew size. Ever since then there's been some comment abroad, anyway, that B.C. Ferries was intent on further reducing the size of its crews. This is not true. In order to accommodate more passengers, it is necessary to add to the crews because we have a limit, say, of 1,000 passengers for 30 crew. There have to be 30 crew to man the lifeboats, so to speak, and to be able to handle 1,200 people or 1,500 people - and the vessels are perhaps capable of that - we would have to add substantially to the crews for a few peak days or even hours in the year. So overall the view is that the crews are approximately the right size and that unless the federal government will allow us to carry more passengers, the status quo remains.

Car rentals: no contracts have been let as yet. I'll have to take the remaining questions as notice because they're questions of some detail. I could say about the Mill Bay ferry that a consultant was retained and has yet to report to the directors of B.C. Ferries as to the advisability of continuing the Mill Bay-Brentwood run and alternatively what other run or arrangements might be provided in order to compensate for the termination of the Mill Bay-Brentwood ferry operations as they are known now.

Finally, there is the question of the Ministry of Highways ferries. Many of them are free. Those on fresh water in the interior, generally in remote and outlying places, are certainly free. I know that those who use the Strait of George crossing choose this as a point which they feel is inequitable. They would like these people in relatively remote places to pay the full shot, to be at least the same proportion of user pay as they are - perhaps 50 per cent, as in the case of B.C. Ferries.

But if you look at the B.C. ferry system itself, the well-established, heavily traveled routes are the highest percentage of user pay. They should - in pure theory, anyway - pay for themselves. The relatively long routes to outlying places within the B.C. ferry system should not pay for themselves to the same degree because those people don't have high schools, for example, or hospitals. They don't have all the recreational amenities that people in the big cities have.

Within the B.C. ferry system there's a good deal of what is called "cross-subsidization." The busy routes, the mature routes, the routes which should be reasonably economic, come close to paying for them selves. The thinnest routes to distant communities barely pay for themselves at all. If you extrapolate that on out, there's a very strong case for free ferries in the more remote parts of the province. I think that may well continue to be the policy of this government.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to ask a quick question regarding the crew and the question of safety on the ferries. One of the school groups from a school in my riding was touring one of the ferries a

[ Page 2855 ]

week or two ago. In the course of showing them the ship and the liferafts and so on, one of the crew opened a box marked "liferafts" to find that it was empty. Then somewhat shaken, he walked over to another box and opened a second one with "liferafts" marked on the outside, and it was empty. I gather this was some administrative problem which is unusual - I hope it's unusual - but I just wondered if the minister could tell us to what degree that particular incident has been investigated to ensure that in fact it was just one of these very unusual incidental matters, but that the ongoing day-to-day safety on the ferries is assured, because it's certainly a very surprising matter that something as basic to ship safety as liferafts should not be present where they were supposed to be. One can imagine what a panic there would be if there was a need for the liferafts and their containers were found to be empty. I wonder if the minister could comment on that particular incident.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm told that lifeboat drills - If I can refer to them in that way -are carried out at least twice a Week and sometimes as frequently as once a watch. I'd be surprised if there was any real problem here. The general manager tells me that there is always more than enough equipment to look after the numbers of passengers for which our ferries are licensed. Our ferries are capable of carrying more people, physically, but because of the crew limitations the number of passengers has been reduced. I assume, therefore, that the amount of equipment on board is also reduced, so there could be some empty boxes without there being any real problem. If the hon. member would let me know the particulars - the vessel, the sailing and the circumstances - I would certainly follow it up.

I might also answer a question he raised yesterday. I'm told by B.C. Hydro that they have approximately $50 million worth of contracts out now on the Revelstoke Dam. Were the construction of the dam to be terminated, B.C. Hydro's liability would be of the order of $8 million. The $50 million breaks down as $35 million diversion contracts, $12 million bypass road contracts and another $3 million in miscellaneous contracts. Three hundred employees are currently involved; the penalty is $5 million for contractors and $3 million to the city of Revelstoke for work which it has already started. There are, in other words, $50 million of contracts and $8 million of exposure at the present.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in a remark just made by the minister. I understand that the minister has told the Conservative member that because of the reduction in crews you had to reduce the number of allowable passengers on the ferries. That's what he just said. Now the reason they reduced the crews, Mr. Member, is to save money. If you reduce the crews you save money, and if you reduce the number of passengers you reduce the income. However, the object is not to increase the revenue; the object is to reduce the number of costs. So I suggest, taking the minister's logic, that he fire all the crew, shut down the ferries and then he won't have to worry at all.

We have for the first time a public admission by the government of the stupidity of its policy of cutting the crews on the ferries, limiting the number of passengers, and then lamenting to itself that it's not generating enough revenue on the ferries to justify their continuation. The only analogy I can think of, Mr. Leader of the Conservative Party, is the fellow who goes out and shoots his mother, hangs his father, then hires a lawyer with the argument to plead for mercy because he is now an orphan.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an old one, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: I know it's an old one and this government hasn't even learned it yet. Talk about stupidity! It's a public admission by this government that they're actually cutting down the number of passengers they carry to spend money here in Victoria in a depressed economy because they've cut down the number of crew. It was an argument given by the member for Victoria and by other people in chambers of, commerce, denied by the minister at the time, but now quietly made in an admission to this House that they have actually reduced their capability of carrying passengers as a consequence of reducing the crew. Stupid! Then they go out and lament that there are not enough tourists coming on the boat. They actually cut off the number of passengers when the minister himself says that they want to encourage foot passengers. They encourage foot passengers that they can't carry because of their own actions of cutting down the crew. Dumb; stupid; Social Credit - all the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take that back!

MR. BARRETT: Take it back? At least you're one of the originals - you've got one of the Liberals giving you their philosophy. How could you be that way? Do you work at it or does it just come by nature? We have an admission in the House today about something you've denied up to this point: your very act in cutting back the crews has discouraged the number of passengers. For the first time in the history of the ferry service, you're actually cutting back on walk-on passengers. That's pretty dumb, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

[ Page 2856 ]

MR. BARRETT: I would never address the Chair in the terms that I'm addressing the minister, but now that you brought it to my attention, I'll go through the Chair.

Through the Chair....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): In one ear and out the other.

MR. BARRETT: In one ear and out the other is right, Mr.... No, not through the Chair - through the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.

MR. BARRETT: I would never say that about the Chair. Don't get me into trouble!

Mr. Chairman, that's the same minister who when he was a Liberal cabinet minister espoused user-pay service by tying up his own little yacht on a government dock. User-pay - he never paid! No-siree-Bob! Or no-siree-Mr. Chairman!

MR. KAHL: Bob's not here any more.

MR. BARRETT: He tied up his little fishing boat to the federal dock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen foot long!

MR. BARRETT: Seventeen foot long! Any other citizen who owns a 17-foot boat has to pay by the foot - 17 times whatever the charge is - but not you. User-pay my eye, when it comes to you! And you've carried that philosophy into Social Credit. You don't use the ferries any more; you fly. There have not been cabinet ministers on there talking to crews for months. They are disgruntled, unhappy, lonely, and they feel that this government has ignored them. Cabinet ministers on occasion who do show up head up for stateroom No. I and hide.

Why don't you find out what people are saying on the ferries, what crews are saying on the ferries? They're unhappy with you as a government. You've ruined a good ferry service. People who come as tourists from all over North America who come for the enjoyment of that ferry ride to spend their average of $60 a day here in Victoria have found a frustrating experience lining up in the cafeteria waiting for food when they used to go up to the restaurant and enjoy it. Yes, it was subsidized. So are the highways subsidized. You don't have toll bridges on highways any more. The ferries are an extension of the highways. You've blown it and you've admitted today that your own action of cutting back on crews has limited you to the number of passengers you can carry. Why don't you cut off all the crews? Then you can save more money.

It's been stupid. The damage done a year ago by the increase in those ferry fares will never be made up by all the pronouncements about Captain Cook coming back next year. Captain Cook's not coming back, because even he couldn't afford the ferry rates in this province. If he had to pay for his crew, that would be more than the British navy could stand. They'd have to bring back the daily rum ration to get those boys to even face the charges at the toll gate. Captain Cook is a response to that disaster. They've even got the local chamber of commerce downtown saying that if you stay long enough we'll subsidize your trip back. If they stay long enough they won't have any money to get out to the ferry, let alone get across.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) - why he's still a Social Crediter I don't know. He used to fight for gasoline prices. All he's getting is gas. The member is not getting any results. He took off out of the House. I don't blame him. It's too embarrassing for him to stand up in the House and ask that minister to act on northern gasoline prices. Gasoline prices in the rural parts of this province are up over $1 a gallon, and you've done nothing about it.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, talks about self-serve stations. It's been true for some months now that the oil companies have had the ear of that minister. He withdrew the bill that he had last year in this House to protect the small service station operator. He doesn't give a fig about that small free-enterpriser out there. They're going right down the tube. Let the gas companies have their way. Cut back on the ferries. You've destroyed tourism in this province, and the only answer we get back is that Captain Cook is coming around for the second time.

I know what the plot is. When Captain Cook finally arrives in the guise of Alderman Sweeney, he's going to be blamed for causing all the problems for even discovering the province. It was a socialist plot to discover this place in the first place. It's convoluted, twisted thinking by a government that has destroyed the tourist industry by one simple blow - doubling the ferry rates.

There was an ELUC committee study presented to the minister showing that anything over a SO per cent increase in ferry rates would destroy the tourist traffic in the northern part of the Island. When it came out, the Vancouver Province dismissed its conclusions by saying: "Well, it's only a study that Barrett ordered."

I didn't write the study. It was finished after we were out of office. Those bureaucrats who wrote the study are still being employed by you. If they're my hand-picked bureaucrats, why didn't you can them so you could hire more sons-in-law and other relatives of Socred people that you're putting in the pork barrel right across the province? You've got more hacks and flacks hired by this government than any outfit I

[ Page 2857 ]

know. The last one was that guy Plul. Where did I see him? He was in the Vancouver East by-election campaigning against me. I won and so did he. He got hired by Gracie. He was sent to Monaco.... Monaco, is that the... ?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Monaco.

MR. BARRETT: Monaco.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Prince Grace's regime.

MR. BARRETT: Princess Grace's regime. Off he went to Monaco. He fooled around with the roulette wheels and got himself a good job. He came back saying he'd arranged for more members to come to the socialist convention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member ...

MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... I know we are getting a little....

MR. BARRETT: We're on tourism related to the ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're getting a long way off vote 102. Perhaps if you could relate your remarks directly to the office of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications....

MR. BARRETT: My colleague tells me we're right on the mark, and he's impartial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, I find that discussions of the activities of government employees in Monaco are somewhat off the minister's estimates, but perhaps you'll relate them for the sake of the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly. If you've got lost in this tortuous trail of government messing up the tourist industry from Monaco to Nicaragua because of the doubling of the ferries, I haven't lost it and neither has the local businessman here.

He is in charge of energy. He is the one who has caused gasoline prices to go up with no control. How can those members from the north face people up there? How can they do it? I'm thinking especially of that hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) who sits there, no longer a cabinet minister, lonely as a Social Crediter because he's not a Liberal or a Tory and he's not in the cabinet. How can he justify going back up north after seeing no action from that minister? You have my sympathy, Mr. Member for Skeena. It's an embarrassment.

You came down here. You're nodding your head. You know I'm right and you agree with me. You came down here and you found that your voice isn't worth a Social Credit membership. The advice I have for you is to go out today, join the Liberal Party, quit them, join the Tories, run across, and you can end up as being the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Ex-Premier.

MR. BARRETT: That's the route he took. No, he was a Liberal first, then a Tory, then a Socred, and then a cabinet minister.

MR. LOEWEN: The late Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Digger, of all people to start calling me the late Premier, you are the last one! I think that's pretty threatening! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: He's taking your measurements!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that member is running around after me with a tape measure. I think that's pretty threatening!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, if the House would come back to order, we could get back to vote 102.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, having launched into just a few words related to the one comment by the minister, I now want to address some very serious remarks to him.

Mr. Chairman, we have been receiving conflicting statements from the head of B.C. Hydro, and from other spokespersons associated with the energy field in this province, as to this government's intention towards the development of nuclear power. It goes without saying that I have, as a politician and as a citizens of this province, been unalterably opposed to the development of nuclear power plants in this province. During our administration, in the first few months we were privileged to have at our disposal the Rand report commissioned by the California state Legislature on the expansion of nuclear power plants in that state if they continued to go with the current rate of growth.

The Rand people did an extensive study as to California's needs and, in a microcosm, I think California's population growth, social development, and many other experiences, are appropriate to this province - even political experiences, but that's another story.

Nonetheless, the Rand report commissioned by the California state Legislature in 1972 indicated that if they were to continue with the type of growth they

[ Page 2858 ]

were experiencing in the energy field and commitments were continued towards the development of nuclear power, we would find a situation off the coast of California with a major nuclear power plant being required, by the year 2020, every 18 miles along their coast. No one can seriously contemplate that massive development of nuclear power plants, especially in such locations as the San Andreas fault and other unstable geological conditions that exist in that state.

There still persists, in some circles in this province, the idea that there is a need for B.C. Hydro to go nuclear. I remember during the first few months of our administration when I advised people to turn off their lights and cut back on the use of electrical appliances, the newspapers had great fun in editorials saying, "Oh, yes, turn out the lights and blah, blah, blah, blah."

MR. KAHL: You turned the lights off in this province all right, my friend.

MR. BARRETT: It's interesting to note that President Carter now has a special request for the U.S. Department of the Interior to examine the needs to conserve energy around the setting up of federal standards in the United States of low-use house appliances and the move toward increased insulation in homes and buildings in the United States.

I'm not blaming the present minister for the unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves with the initial sale of the first 30 years of downstream benefits from the Columbia River Treaty. The fact is that the people of this province inherited a debt of well over $1 billion, as that minister honestly informed the House. I give him credit for that. That was a major departure from the old Social Credit shell game of not admitting what a disaster that was. This minister has continued the policy of stating honestly how much money it is going to cost us to complete that project. The minister's last figures, given to us and to the public, are well over $1 billion. Having lost that cheap power, and now having the responsibility of paying up to $110 million a year on the user charge alone from B.C. Hydro just to make up the loss on the Columbia River Treaty, the major problem - the fact that we don't have that power recoverable - is forcing us to look at power alternatives.

My predecessor, W.A.C. Bennett, said no to nuclear power. I said no to nuclear power as a government policy. But we've not had an unequivocal continuation of that no under the present administration.

I would like to know from the minister whether or not he's been meeting with people from Candu? Good. I thank the minister for that.

I would like to know whether or not he's authorized meetings, or is aware of any meetings, between the present administration and B.C. Hydro with Candu?

We have had - thankfully it was with the federal government - an eye-opening experience in this country as to the methods used by the Canadian Atomic Energy Commission in its dealings to peddle, not only nuclear technology, but also uranium, throughout the world. We have the federal minister currently saying that if the United States persists in its investigation on price fixing, allegedly instigated at the request of the federal government, it will damage U.S.-Canadian relationships. I find that scandalous on the federal minister's part. If the United States committee is discovering that a certain oil company was ordered to settle for price fixing because of Canadian government policy, then to rattle the sword that any further investigation will affect U.S.-Canadian relationships is an attempt to cover up, and I find that despicable.

But the record of Canadian nuclear sales and the recently revealed facts that people were paid large bonuses for buying Candu products frightened me to the opinion that this government would do anything for a buck out of Ottawa, to the point that they may say that what Argentina got and what other jurisdictions got as a bonus for buying Candu technology, they might try to peddle here in British Columbia. I'm deeply concerned that the shadow of a fast buck going across a bottom-line mentality might force this government into reversing what has been the policy of the previous Social Credit administration and what was the policy of our administration.

One of the happier events as a consequence of President Carter's election in the United States was a redirection of the development of nuclear power in that country. As the minister knows, the President of the United States, who is, by way of experience, very knowledgeable in the nuclear field but also by way of training, has expressed a concern against the development of plutonium power. There are interests in the United States that are pushing the development of plutonium but the President has clearly spelled out - and based part of his own political future in terms of the complicated energy scene in the United States - that he's opposed to the development of plutonium breeder reactors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Well, that's good for Candu.

MR. BARRETT: It's good for the Candu system except for one fact, Mr. Minister, and the fact is that there is a great controversy going on as to the supplies of uranium. When we were in government, I heard arguments by scientists who were related to B.C. Hydro and others that perhaps there's only a 40-year world supply. I've heard other arguments, as

[ Page 2859 ]

presented by the President himself, and I will quote from his speech, that "there may be as much as a 75-year supply. ", Despite the drive in this province in some areas, and in the province of Saskatchewan, to develop potentially new uranium areas, there is a finite supply of uranium. Even if we said that the supply was twice what the President is saying - that is 150 years - the capital costs and capital commitment of gearing our Hydro policy to nuclear development are so massive and they don't give us that kind of guarantee beyond, say, that 150 years, which is doubling the largest expected supply, we will be committed unalterably to reactors in any event.

The minister agrees that the President's position against plutonium is a good position for Canada. But what the minister may not understand - I don't accuse him of that because we haven't entered into a real debate at this point; I'm just stating my position - is that once the commitment is made to uranium, you have to maximize the capital investment that's been made for uranium plants and the fast breeder then becomes a necessity; it's no longer an esoteric request. It does, because any politician 50 years from now is going to have to maximize that existing capital expenditure in the existing plant.

There is no need for this province to contemplate nuclear power - none whatsoever. We have a neighbour in Washington state that is governed by an outspoken advocate of the development of nuclear power. Be that as it may, Governor Dixie Lee Ray is entitled to have that policy. But the border does not stop the effects of any accidents from coming into the province of British Columbia. I appeal directly to this minister to convey to the governor of the state of Washington our concerns about the development of nuclear power and that our concerns parallel the concerns of President Carter in this area.

I'd like to quote from the President's energy message, remembering again and emphasizing that the President speaks not just from advice but from personal experience:

"We now have 63 nuclear power plants producing about 3 per cent of our total energy and about 70 more are licensed for construction in the United States.

"Domestic uranium supplies can support this number of plants for another 75 years. Effective conservation efforts can minimize the shift toward nuclear power. There is no need to enter the plutonium age by licensing or building a fast breeder-reactor such as the proposed demonstration plant at Clench River."

The President, staking out his ground to the United States, has hopefully launched a new level of discussion outside of manifest political difference around this very serious problem of conservation and protection of the environment.

We cannot believe that any nation will accede to the gentlemanly request of another country supplying the technology or the raw materials to not use them in an immoral way. Witness our experience as a nation with India. With the limited technology we provided India, the Indian government under Mrs. Gandhi proceeded to develop atomic weapons out of material and technology that was specifically designed to be limited in use and in thought just to produce power.

It is now known that nations who have the atomic bomb directly related it to the technology that even a university student can simplify into making a suitcase atomic bomb. These nations have pioneered in this mass self-destructive capability: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, China and India. They represent the full spectrum of political philosophy which is proof, indeed, that no matter what party you belong to is no guarantee against you being crazy. There are crazy people who are communists; there are crazy people who are capitalists; there are crazy people who are socialists; and there are crazy people who are just plain crazy without any political identity. But the craziness is evenly spread and the infection is now going further because it includes a number of other administrations whose political colour would be difficult for us to describe.

Including the nations that have the bomb now, these are the nations that have the capability of producing the bomb, either now or within a few years, because of the imported technology from other countries: Argentina, Brazil and Canada. We don't need to make our own bombs, as John Diefenbaker proved; the Americans are going to ram them down our throats anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could just interrupt you.... Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: This is related to the technology of nuclear power plants....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate that the problems of nuclear energy come under this minister's estimates but we are getting a little bit off it when we discuss the distribution of fission material from other countries.

MR. BARRETT: No. The distribution of fission materials has allowed these nations to build bombs. I'm not for one moment suggesting that the government of British Columbia is going to build a nuclear bomb, but in light of the fact that this is the first major session in British Columbia since the Boer War - and the only reason for calling that summer session was the Boer War.... I don't know what may be compelling this government to call a summer session; I hope it's not related to war.

[ Page 2860 ]

Nonetheless, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that anybody, with the proliferation of....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Bore War?

MR. BARRETT: It certainly is, Mr. Minister. It certainly is.

Those nations capable of producing through the technology....

MR. WALLACE: That's B-o-r-e.

MR. BARRETT: Look, just let me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. member, the three minute light is on.

MR. BARRETT: The three minute light is on? Thank you very much. I won't build a bomb in three minutes. I've got time coming to me for penalty time, Mr. Chairman.

The other nations are Israel, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany.

What I would like from the minister is an unequivocal, clear-cut statement that the policy initiated by the former Social Credit administration under W.A.C. Bennett and continued under our administration is indeed the policy of this administration: that the province of British Columbia will not be going nuclear for power generation or any other purposes. That's all I'm really asking the minister.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. leader of the loyal opposition, there's no need for nuclear power in this province. We're just not going to have nuclear power plants, because we've got so many alternatives. We can make that judgment purely on an economic basis, let alone the weapons, the environmental and other considerations which tend also to militate against nuclear power.

I'd like to make only two other comments. One relates to foot passengers left behind on sailings. I'm told that less than I per cent of the sailings would encounter too many passengers to be lifted off at any particular time. So the case for adding additional employees in order to lift off that additional I per cent is very slim indeed. When that situation exists a few times this summer, there will always be a vessel an hour later that they can get on, so the situation isn't anything like as serious as his remarks might perhaps have indicated.

The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the Candu nuclear power project, which Canada has endorsed since World War II. It doesn't necessarily involve the isolation of plutonium. Indeed, its economics have always rested on the fact that raw uranium - as in the state of nature - could be used as the fuel in the reactor, and that when the rods were no longer productive, they'd be filed away without any processing whatsoever in a swimming pool kind of installation with the power plant fence - in other words, no processing, no prospect of leakages and so on which do cause difficulties with most other kinds of nuclear power production.

MR. BARRETT: Just one comment. There's no doubt that the Candu safety measures are stronger than any other approach. But the point that I'm trying to make is that no matter how safe, there's still no test for the lifetime of the radioactivity of that unreprocessed uranium. There's a question, a scientific question, that has to be answered for the politicians first about the reprocessing of that material. But I'm pleased, very frankly, that the minister has said clearly what is so obvious: there is no economic need for this province to go nuclear. We have the options of coal and other potential hydro developments that we can take some time on in making decisions.

The one request that I make to the minister is that I find there is a certain appeal of exotica amongst senior bureaucrats, and that exotica becomes an attraction. As long as the politicians assume their responsibility for the ultimate decision of policy, I have no fear. But I would also respect the decision even being reinforced on occasion to those people who are bureaucrats, in whatever they serve, to understand that government policy is supreme.

There's a temptation for some of these people to go out and start peddling their ideas about exotic development of nuclear power in this province, but there has to be a reminder to those people and the rest of us citizens in this province that that's not government policy. I didn't say Mr. Bonner, but now that you mention his name, he seems to have a quixotic fixation towards nuclear power. I'm pleased that the minister is reassuring me that he does not share that fascination.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Last night I asked a number of questions about the Princess Marguerite service. If the minister recalls them, I needn't repeat them. If he doesn't, I will now and ask them again. Are you prepared to answer them now, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I recall the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) last night giving the very small down side of the Marguerite operation this year. I can tell him that receipts so far this year, or the income side, are up close to 20 per cent. The Marguerite is sailing on time and everyone using her to my knowledge is very high in his praise of B.C. Steamships and the manner in which the Marguerite is serving this area.

[ Page 2861 ]

There have been a few problems relative to the staff. A good part of the problem though can be traced to the AIB rollback of the wage increase that was negotiated.

There have been changes; in order to feed many more people on the Marguerite it was decided to switch to a buffet style and get away from the old-style dining rooms. They were traditional, and while that may have served fewer people in the traditional or almost elitist manner, the buffet service is very well received and many more people are able to dine on the Marguerite this way. There is some food wasted; it's inherent in the buffet style of treatment.

There were some difficulties last year which resulted in several suspensions - at least for a time. I hope they've been overcome. They are, however, of a type that has occurred before on the Marguerite and has occurred in other operations, and I don't see them in any way as indicative of serious problems on the Marguerite.

Two directors of B.C. Steamships receive remuneration in the amount of $200 a day - Messrs. Cook and Oddison. In 1976, four crew members were suspended; three are back at work while one left the service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before I recognize the second member for Victoria, the regular Chairman usually points out about this time that we have only 14 minutes to go in the regular sitting. The chatter from the government back benches and front benches is becoming intolerable. Perhaps I could ask the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Finance to either conduct their business in the hallways or rise on a point.

I have recognized the second member for Victoria, unless you're rising on a point of order. Please proceed with your point of order.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Don't speak out of your seat. You missed one minister. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you're quite well aware, that isn't a point of order. I recognize the second member for Victoria.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, they're easy to miss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is also not a point of order.

MR. BARBER: The minister takes a somewhat more cheery view on staff morale programmes aboard the Marguerite than I do. I suppose that in part that may be because many of the staff of the Marguerite live in my own riding and I hear from them quite often.

Last night I attempted to trace the history of the Marguerite a year ago last spring, to the loss of Mr. McHaffie, its manager, and to his complaints of total non-interest on the part of most members of the board, with the exception of the minister himself, in the operations of the Marguerite. As well, I tried to trace it to the fact that, in my own language at least, spies were hired to stand at cash registers and make sure that people weren't picking from them.

I'm informed that the buffet itself is actually losing money, Mr. Minister, but if you have information that you'd be prepared to table to the contrary, I would respect that. I'm told that in fact it's a money loser this year.

I appreciate the answer that you gave about two of the members of the board receiving $200 per them for their. service on the board, and I expect we'll be looking in public accounts at various of those vouchers.

I did ask another set of questions though, last night, Mr. Chairman, which I'd like to repeat. It's my information that management of B.C. Steamships last year hired three young women to act as tourist counsellors aboard the Marguerite. Their job, reasonably enough, was to stand around, to smile cheerily and attractively at the tourists and to answer their questions about the primary port of call, Victoria.

I'm further informed that it was discovered by the crew aboard the Marguerite that these three young persons who were hired for a very brief period of time turned out to be Americans. They were from Seattle and they had no apparent knowledge at all of the situation up in Canada. They were not citizens, they were not locals, they were not well informed, and from the point of view of most of the crew aboard the Marguerite, they were totally inappropriate choices for that particular position. I'm also informed that at the point when the crew raised substantial objection to this rather strange proposal to hire three American girls from Seattle as tourist counsellors aboard the Marguerite to tell the tourists about Victoria, indeed their jobs were terminated.

I wonder if the minister might confirm or deny that information, and, if confirming it, explain how on earth that kind of thing could have happened. As the minister will be well aware, that has been another of the contributing factors towards seemingly low staff morale aboard the Princess Marguerite. Hopefully, a policy has been enunciated which will make sure that that kind of a mistake is not made again in the future.

Would the minister care to comment about these three young women from Seattle?

[ Page 2862 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any advice I can give the hon. member on that score. I'll endeavour to get the particulars. I must say that this kind of storytelling, searching hard for little irritants - in this case, even according to his information, these people weren't in fact hired -does nothing to help the morale on the Marguerite and certainly does nothing for tourism here in Victoria. I just wonder why he wants to pursue this line of questioning.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants the morale to go down.

MR. BARBER: Simply, Mr. Chairman, because it's my opinion that were the minister more sensitive to those morale problems, as highlighted by those illustrations which I've provided, then indeed more attention might be paid them and the problems resolved more quickly.

The fact is, as Mr. McHaffie pointed out when he resigned from the service of the B.C. Steamship Company, at least at that time, in his opinion, the board was paying no serious attention whatever to the problems aboard the Marguerite or within the corporation. Let me point out again that Mr. McHaffie did say, to his credit and to yours, Mr. Minister, that in your particular case it was not at issue; with the board more generally it certainly was.

Our government, having rescued the Marguerite and having put it into public service where it properly belongs, was tremendously proud of its achievements. We have every intention of seeing it continue. That is, at least in part, why we fought so hard last spring to ensure that you didn't sell it back to private enterprise but rather allowed it to remain in the hands of public enterprise where it had half a chance of being maintained in a proper and effective way.

Our concern is that with the breadth and the magnitude of your own portfolio, the kind of time required for it is time that evidently you might not be able to spend. Fair enough. If you can't spend it personally, we want the board to spend it. If the board isn't doing it properly, we raise that here because we want that service maintained and improved. That's the reason why we raise these points, offer those illustrations, and ask for your solutions to them.

We're extremely concerned in Victoria that the Marguerite, for the tourists who use her, remain a bright, cheery and happy place to be. We need that business. The economy needs those dollars. The volume and the quality of that service, to a very considerable extent, determines the volume and the quality of the tourist economy in Victoria. That's why we're concerned, Mr. Chairman, and I think that's a perfectly legitimate concern.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a short question for the minister, Mr. Chairman. Have you had a management survey ordered for the B.C. Energy Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I require clarification. Do you mean a management survey for operations within the. . . ?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I believe there has been one. I'll have to make inquiries to verify that. I believe there has been a management study, ordered by the commissioners themselves, of the structure, functions and operations of the commission itself, with a view to taking further recommendations as to some reorganization.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I understand too that a consultant has been employed to.... Dick, it's nice to see you. We're in committee; we can be a little informal. I wrote you a letter today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there stamps on it?

MR. MACDONALD: No, it's a frankobollo by the courtesy of the provincial government.

I understand you have ordered a consultant study. Well, there are only 36 people in the B.C. Energy Commission. It's headed by a businessman, Mr. Gish. It seems a little strange that you'd spend money on a consultant's report to see how 36 people are making out. I think I could handle that assignment myself. Will the minister undertake to get the information? Then perhaps in oral questions I might ask you again who the consultants are and how much you are paying for this. Really there have to be places where a management study could be more effectively employed than in the B.C. Energy Commission -unless the thing has gone haywire since we left office and it really has become inefficient. It was a tight, efficient operation when we left.

The other thing I want to ask the minister: the self-serve stations have been driving out the independents; the off companies have been.... When are you going to introduce that legislation - a charter of rights for the service stations? You know, you suspended the other bill. It died on the order paper. In the meantime, a whole lot of independents have disappeared and the oil companies are in charge of the marketing, eh? When are you going to introduce that legislation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We'll be dealing with that legislation this session, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: How long is this session going to be?

[ Page 2863 ]

MR. BARBER: I wonder if you could tell us whether or not you personally were aware that on the day it was scheduled to reduce the B.C. Ferries rates for passengers and vehicles, Pacific Stage Lines was intent on boosting its bus charges for part of that same service from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. Were you personally aware of that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware of it on that day. I was aware of it, however, a few days later when, as a director of B.C. Hydro, that decision was taken by the board of directors of B.C. Hydro.

MR. BARBER: When the decision was taken by B.C. Hydro, Mr. Minister, was it considered that it might look perhaps a little peculiar that on the very same day such a fuss is made about reducing the ferry rates such quiet remarks were heard from B.C. Hydro jacking up the Pacific Stage Lines' prices? Was that a consideration, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly address your remarks through the Chair this time?

MR. BARBER: Through you, Mr. Chairman, does the minister consider it a reasonable procedure for government - on the day that it announces a cutback in the ferry fares, with all the flamboyance and noise it possibly can - to ever so quietly, hardly announce at all an increase in the bus fares on the same service? Does the minister consider that good policy-making? Is he pleased with that decision?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, this matter was considered very carefully, for the reasons the member has outlined, by the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, which also operates Pacific Stage Lines. B.C. Hydro-Pacific Stage Lines gains only a few cents out of this change. The mathematics are complicated, but a 25 per cent reduction on a $4 fare is $1; a 25 per cent reduction on a $3 fare is 75 cents. So, immediately, it is not a transfer of a full $1 amount, but the fare has been reduced by 50 cents, from $6.25 to $5.75.

Vote 102 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment motion, with the leave of the House I would very much like to introduce and ask all members of the House to extend a very cordial welcome to Mr. Dick Vogel, the Deputy Attorney-General appointee, and wish him well in his new career.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, that in changing from David Vickers to Dick Vogel we won't even have to alter the monograms on the towels, which is a factor to take into consideration.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.