[ Page 3091 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Training and working conditions for paramedics. Mr. Cocke –– 3091

Hazardous trolley poles. Mr. Lauk –– 3091

Allegation of energy agreement between Saskatchewan and Ottawa. Mr. Macdonald –– 3092

Assaults on migrant workers. Mr. Leggatt I –– 3092

Responsibility for libels in letters to the editor. Mr. Leggatt –– 3092

Increase in accidents and deaths among B.C. workforce. Ms. Sanford –– 3093

Matter of Privilege

Alleged misrepresentation by Social Credit Party newsletter.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3093

Mr. Skelly –– 3093

Mr. Howard –– 3094

Division on Deputy Speaker's ruling –– 3094

Ministerial Statement

Joint meeting of B.C. and Alberta cabinets.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3094

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

On vote 193 — Minister's office 3094

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual financial statement for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3115

Appendix –– 3115

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask the House to join me in offering congratulations to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who on July 1 was blessed with the occasion of his first grandson, born to his son Kenneth Rafe Mair. The grandson will be the third Kenneth Rafe Mair to be a Canadian, and I know all members of this House will join me in offering congratulations to the minister and best wishes to the mother and father.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today is an old friend — old in terms of the number of years that I have known him — Malcolm Mitchell of Victoria.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome the chairman of School District No. 7, Slocan-New Denver, Ms. Colleen McCrory.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Erik Mahrt from Courtenay, who is here today.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to join me in welcoming my brother and sister-in-law, who are visiting from the fair city of Trail, Ray and Mary King.

Oral Questions

TRAINING AND WORKING
CONDITIONS FOR PARAMEDICS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, despite the announcement about the grandson — and the repetition — I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Eighteen people have just completed a one-year training program for paramedics. Dr. Vertesi has suspended the program indefinitely, prior to graduating these 18 paramedics. In the event that that dispute between Dr. Vertesi and the paramedics is not settled within 30 days, these 18 people will have another year's training to re-qualify. What action has the minister taken to solve the dispute on the paramedic training program? Incidentally, that dispute has been on for some time; I have known about it for six weeks.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago I asked my staff for a report on the entire situation. When I receive that report I will bring back to the House the answer to the member's question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder how long these reports take to surface. Anyway, I'd like to ask the minister another question. Can the minister confirm that approximately 50 overtime shifts have been allocated in a two-week period to over 22 staff in the lower mainland because they lack holiday relief in the emergency health services program?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm it. I can't deny it either.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that paramedics themselves are responsible for supplying their own maps, and that they're not always reimbursed for these expenditures?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I can't confirm it.

MR. COCKE: I am sorry about the way things are going.

At the present time there will be two paramedic teams available in the lower mainland at any one time. Can the minister confirm that greater Seattle, with a smaller population, has four paramedic units per shift? What action has the minister taken to increase the number of paramedic units available to the lower mainland to avoid staff burnout and excessive overtime?

HON. MR. MAIR: I understand that BCTV, for whatever accuracy they may bring to the world of news, said what the member says. I don't know whether that is true. That is why I've sought a report from staff, and when I have that report I will bring the information back to the House.

HAZARDOUS TROLLEY POLES

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Way back on March 27, 1980, I asked a question about trolley poles, and I understand that the first member for Victoria asked a question during estimates. The minister answered that he would do something about it. Less than ten days ago another accident occurred and somebody was injured. These poles are a definite hazard to passengers and bystanders in the streets of the city of Vancouver. Has the minister decided to take immediate action to replace those poles or in some way protect people riding on the buses or standing on the street when these brittle poles break?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is yes.

MR. LAUK: What specific action has the minister decided to take?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The poles are being replaced or repaired. Certainly those that are malfunctioning are being replaced.

MR. LAUK: My instructions are that the poles that are brittle and are being broken are not being replaced. Is this a new program this week?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know where the member gets his instructions. We are continually upgrading them.

MR. LAUK: I get it from people who drive and ride on the buses, I say to the minister. Is there a timetable that the minister cares to inform the House about with respect to replacement of most of these old trolley poles?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is a program of replacement in effect now. Certainly I am sure that they

[ Page 3092 ]

would attend first to those vehicles most in need. It is an ongoing program and the Authority is proceeding as quickly as possible.

ALLEGATION OF ENERGY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SASKATCHEWAN AND OTTAWA

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the outspoken Minister of Municipal Affairs, who made a statement suggesting that the province of Saskatchewan had reached a secret deal with the federal government with respect to oil pricing and natural resources. Would he indicate to the House what evidence he had to support that allegation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, my statement was that the Leader of the Opposition, the New Democratic Party, has said publicly that he would not mind giving up the resource revenues of the province in return for the federal government's nationalizing those industries; and as that appears to be the position of the NDP in British Columbia, I can only assume that the NDP position in Saskatchewan would be similar, unless we heard otherwise. Hopefully we will hear otherwise, but certainly we are familiar with the position of the NDP in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that it was simply an assumption to back up the allegation that the minister did make, that Saskatchewan had reached a secret agreement with Ottawa on this matter, will the minister abjectly apologize to the government of the province of Saskatchewan, who have branded his statement as totally without foundation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the statement was not as suggested by the member for Vancouver East, and I would certainly be pleased to provide the exact information to the member. Again, I certainly would look forward to a statement from the Saskatchewan government as to their position compared to the position of the NDP in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Would the minister kindly agree to receive the official press release of Mr. Romanow, the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan, refuting his statements, for his clipping file? I'll have a copy sent over to him.

ASSAULTS ON MIGRANT WORKERS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It concerns the regrettable incidents that occurred on the Canada Day weekend in Osoyoos. Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether his office has embarked on an investigation into those incidents that occurred around the farm workers from Quebec?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: My speaker, my office has not conducted any investigation, but I've asked the deputy commissioner of the RCMP if he would provide me with a full report of those incidents which occurred at Osoyoos. Whether the people involved are Canadians from some other part of this country or whether they're British Columbians, conduct of that kind is unacceptable. I'll be happy to provide the member and the House with a report. I think that perhaps we should all welcome the apology which has been tendered by the mayor of Osoyoos for such incidents, because such conduct is inappropriate in this province and in Canada.

MR. LEGGATT: I ask the Attorney-General if the present investigation by the RCMP has directed itself to section 281 of the Criminal Code, which is the section dealing with breaches of the peace. It's the hate propaganda section. What I'm asking the Attorney-General is: is he aware that the RCMP is also investigating that particular section in view of the news reports? It would appear from the news reports that that section has been quite seriously violated.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the RCMP in the Osoyoos area are covering all aspects of that particular incident, whether it was a simple breach of the peace in the sense of assaults being committed upon persons, or whether it was motivated by conduct which is proscribed by other sections of the code. I'll be certain to be able to provide the member with a full report.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, could the Attorney-General advise at this point whether any charges have been laid and, if so, what the nature of the charges is?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've no report of any charges being laid at this moment.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the same subject — these incidents at Osoyoos — can the minister advise the House whether the Human Rights Commission has received any complaints with regard to the conduct of the people in that area, and could he also advise whether the Human Rights Commission is embarking upon any investigation of those incidents?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I do not know, as of this moment, whether or not either the commission or the branch has received a complaint. I think the appropriate inquiry, if required, would be handled by the human rights branch which forms part of the ministry, and not the commission. But I will undertake to explore that possibility for the member.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBELS
IN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

MR. LEGGATT: I have a separate question for the Attorney-General. It concerns a 1978 supreme court judgment. It's a case called Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers. The Attorney-General may be familiar with it. The essence of the case was that it placed responsibility for libels in letters to newspaper editors on the editor of the newspaper. That would appear, in any event, to restrict freedom of speech to some extent. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General has decided to take any action to protect freedom of the press and to limit the onus on the editor to ensure the authenticity of the correspondence and place the major responsibility for libels on the writers of the letters to the editor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, specifically, the question as posed by the member deals with a matter of policy and, therefore, to that extent, is out of order. I might say that several provinces have looked at the Armadale

[ Page 3093 ]

decision and it's being dealt with in different ways in different provinces. Some legislation has been prepared and introduced. In other cases the provinces have deferred legislative action at this time, and that's the position of British Columbia.

INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS AND
DEATHS AMONG B.C. WORKFORCE

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the WCB figures, which show that the number of fatalities and injuries in 1979 showed a greater year-on-year increase than at any other time in the 1970s, what action has the minister taken to alleviate the adverse conditions that employees in B.C. have to work under?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the 1979 WCB annual report reveals a dramatic and significant decrease in the number of inspections completed by the board. I'm sure the minister is aware of this. In view of the reported increase in the accidents and deaths occurring in the workforce, has the minister taken steps to increase the number of inspections?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that it is of some concern to the government and that there have been discussions on more than one occasion with the chairman of the board and the commissioners.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer as to what steps he has taken in order to ensure that there is an increase in the number of inspections. He's had discussions, but I don't think he has indicated to the House that there will actually be an increase in the number of inspections this year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: At this time I cannot advise the member whether or not any of the suggestions which have been made in our discussions with the commissioners of the board have taken place.

MS. SANFORD: In view of the minister's statement that his officials are reviewing the $260 million unfunded liability of the WCB, can the minister assure the House of the government's commitment to the long-standing principle that employers will assume the cost of workers' compensation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's a matter of future policy Mr. Speaker. As for the unfunded liability, I appreciate the concern of the member; it's a genuine concern of the government as well. That matter has also been the subject of discussion between myself and members of the board. I'm not really in a position to expand on those discussions at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) raised as a matter of privilege what, in his words, he believed to be "a deliberate misrepresentation by the Social Credit Party caucus newsletter on May 9, 1980, of statements I have made in the Legislature." In support, the hon. member tabled a copy of the said newsletter, together with the Hansard report of March 3, 1980, and cited a reference from the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 153, as follows: "Misrepresentation of members' proceedings. Wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members is an offence of the same character as a libel."

With reference to the prerequisite in allowing such a matter to be raised, Sir Erskine May, in the eighteenth edition, says at page 342: "As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is therefore given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied both that (1) there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and (2) that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity."

In determining whether or not a prima facie case has been made out, I have considered the fact that the Hansard report of March 3, 1980, places the words complained of in quotation marks in recording the speech of the hon. first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). However, I believe the Chair would be delving into the merits of the case if I were to attempt to determine whether or not the purported quotation would expunge any element of witfulness attached to the alleged misrepresentation. The validity of such an answer to a charge of wilful misrepresentation would be for the House, or a committee thereof, to consider, and not the Speaker, according to the authorities.

However, on the second imperative, namely that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity, the Chair must take into consideration the following facts. First, the words in question appeared in Hansard nearly four months ago, and the publication of the newsletter in question is dated May 9, 1980, some seven weeks ago. In support of the rule that a matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business be a subject which has recently arisen, Sir Erskine May cites the following instances at page 343 in the eighteenth edition: "A matter concerning an article in a newspaper published on 6 May was refused precedence because it was not raised until the 14th and a speech reported on a Saturday because it was not raised until the following Tuesday. (3) When provincial newspapers appear in London on the morning of issue, the complaint should be raised on the day of issue." From these examples it is clear that the rule is one of very strict application. If any explanation or reason for delay in raising the matter did exist, the hon. member for Alberni in his statement of the matter gave no such explanation or reason. Accordingly the Chair is compelled to rule that the motion cannot be made without the usual notice required by standing orders of the House.

MR. SKELLY: I'm wondering if it is possible now to make an explanation to the Speaker, as I understand the explanation was made to him privately as to why the newsletter was not brought to my attention before the day I brought it up in the House. In fact, the newsletter was distributed in the mail-boxes of the NDP caucus. I understand it was distributed in a limited way to Social Credit members on the caucus mailing list, but it did not come to my attention, and to the attention of the New Democratic Party side, until it was placed in our mail-boxes the day before I presented the question of privilege to you. I had no opportunity on the day that I received the Social Credit newsletter; my first opportunity — and I believe it was discussed with you before I brought the matter up in the House — to bring it to you was on the following day. I did so at the first opportunity

[ Page 3094 ]

that was open to me: the first opportunity I had had to see the offending newsletter.

I would urge the Speaker to reconsider the decision he has made, in light of the new information. I was under the impression that that information had been conveyed to Mr. Speaker privately, and that he was aware that this was the first opportunity that that had come to our attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be a most unusual course of action for any Speaker to consider additional information once having come down with a particular ruling. On that, hon. member, I must make the ruling firm.

MR. HOWARD: Knowing of the conversation that took place between you and me, Mr. Speaker, I must appeal your decision.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 24

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you clarify to the members of the House as to the nature of requests for information and private conversations with the Speaker. When members come to the Speaker and ask advice as to raising a particular matter, and bring to the attention of the Speaker's office that this is the first time the matter has come to their attention, is it to be presumed now that all such conversations should be recorded so that if there is any question of dispute over the Speaker's advice in private, pertaining to a decision by the Speaker, the matter is recorded?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will consider the points made by the member.

JOINT MEETING OF
B.C. AND ALBERTA CABINETS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement.

This province shares with the great province of Alberta not only an adjacency as the western most part of Canada, but also many matters of unique concern. Therefore, as the Premier of British Columbia, I have previously extended to the Premier of Alberta an invitation for a joint cabinet meeting between the Alberta and British Columbia cabinets to be held in Victoria. That meeting is now arranged for Friday, July 11.

I would point out that this will be a historic meeting, as it will be the first time that the cabinets of the two provinces have met jointly. The location of the cabinet meeting will be Government House in Victoria. It will be a day-long meeting. It is anticipated that there will be 19 cabinet ministers, including the Premier, from Alberta, and 20 from British Columbia. The meeting is the first of two planned, with the second one to be held in Alberta in the fall of 1980. As I have said, the purpose of the meetings will be to discuss matters of mutual interest between the two provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled answers to questions on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wonder if I might have leave to introduce a visitor in the gallery who is just leaving, a former member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The former member for Burnaby-Willingdon is here to check out the activities of the present member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 193: minister's office, $212,089.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I might say that I am happy today and look forward to the debate on the estimates of the ministry. I want to, first of all, pay tribute to all 13,000 staff in the ministry, who work on transportation problems and solutions, whether it be on land, air or water. I think if anything shows their dedication to this service, what happened Monday in the community of Stewart does. They were able to get organized, and while we have lost a large structure in the way of a bridge across the Bay River, cutting off the community of Stewart by land, the senior people and all our people will have transportation restored to that community by noon tomorrow. It means moving a lot of people and a lot of equipment that is not available in that area. I am happy to tell the House that everything is going fine. It is quite likely that they'll have a temporary structure across before noon on Thursday, depending on how things go. They are working around the clock. In any case, that is a short period of time to span a river 300 feet in width and to be able to get back some temporary transportation.

I don't know whether all these people have got here yet or

[ Page 3095 ]

whether they're just coming now, but I'd like to introduce Bob Harvey, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways; assistant deputy in charge of administration, Mr. Al Rhodes; Mr. Charlie Gallagher, general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; Mr. Tom Johnson, assistant deputy minister, highways operations; and Mr. Bob Whitlock, superintendent of the motor-vehicle branch. As I said earlier, with the leadership coming from these fine people and all the people, it is certainly a pleasure to work with dedicated people like this.

In this current year we have a very large, ambitious highway program underway. Whether we complete it or not is always the thing, and right at the moment we are having difficulty because of weather. We can't put pavement down — as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) knows — when it's pouring rain. It is now delayed, and I only hope the weather changes and we can get on with it. We can still carry out the program but we're going to have to have a weather change fairly soon to be able to complete the improvement program prior to winter setting in.

This year our maintenance has increased. The vote for maintenance has increased somewhat to look after inflation and hopefully bring a little better level of maintenance. Maintenance, of course, as you know, looks after the salaries of permanent employees, snow-ploughing in the wintertime and grading and general maintenance in the highway system itself.

This year we have a large capital program and it is in various stages of being carried out. Again, some of our bigger projects are tied up because of the weather conditions.

I know that mention will be made about last year. I didn't intend to make too many remarks about that, but I thought I would make a few remarks about special warrants. I am sure all members of the House will realize that we had a lot of special warrants last year, in excess of $100 million. May I remind the House that we did get an improved transportation system from it. It provided a lot of jobs, and the reason that we went the special warrant course was government policy. As the funds were available some of them were spent on this worthwhile endeavour. That is providing employment and getting a better and safer highway system.

A lot of discussion takes place in the Legislature, and rightly so, regarding the vehicles. As a matter of fact, it seems to me my estimates have come up several times this year, due to the programs we have had referring to Bill 5 and Bill 7 as examples, the budget debate and throne debate. The way I look at it and for what it's worth, we have to keep upgrading our highway system strictly on the basis of vehicle inventory alone.

I would now take a very short time to tell the House what has happened with our vehicle inventory in British Columbia since 1975. The total count of vehicles in 1974 was 1,354,982; in 1979 that had increased to 1,800,486. Across the board, that's a 33 percent increase in vehicles of all descriptions in the province over the five-year period.

I'll break it down just a little further: passenger-wise, motor vehicles increased 27 percent in that five-year period; commercial vehicles is where the big increase has taken place, and in that five-year period commercial vehicle registrations increased a phenomenal 50 percent; motorcycles — the largest increase of all in that five-year period — have increased 84 percent and trailers 30 percent.

Now the reason that I mention this is that it leads to other things. The citizens of British Columbia make decisions about how they want to travel, and there is certainly no indication in the figures that I've just given you that they don't want to travel by automobile. Of course, the reasons are theirs....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Vancouver East hastens to add: "There is no other method." Well, of course there are other methods, but not necessarily the method that you want to see.

But this increase in vehicle traffic puts responsibility on the government — and in this case, this ministry — to try and do something to accommodate them. They're there; they exist. I personally am very concerned about safety programs and we've been stepping those up as well as trying to improve our highway system to cope with the ever-increasing load. I say "try to cope." I don't think we're ever going to have a very definite answer to these programs, but I don't think we can stand still and let these facts of life go by without trying to do something about them.

I might say that there are a lot of things involving safety on our highway system. As you know, the government has a task force commissioned under the Attorney- General's ministry to look into all the driving laws we have and so on, and I believe that task force is going to report their findings shortly. On that task force are different members of the public service, including people from my ministry. So we are concentrating on the driver's side, but the side that I have and that our ministry has been concentrating on lately.... I think we lose track of the fact that there is lots more than the driver involved to what's going on out there in the highway system. I'm specifically referring to the mechanical condition of the vehicles that our citizens are driving — whether they be passenger vehicles, motorcycles, pick-ups or large commercial vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, we've had checks made on mechanical condition. The first checks in, I believe, ten years have been made on the vehicles on our highway system, and they're absolutely shocking and amazing. Around 70 percent of the vehicles that have been checked don't pass the mechanical checks. I know that all members here must be really concerned about that. I guess I should isolate that and say that's on commercial vehicles. We have not yet, but we do intend to start checking private passenger vehicles for the same reason. But we have so far concentrated on the commercial vehicles, and while 70 percent of them don't pass the mechanical laws that we have — which is really what it amounts to.... In one vehicle check where we checked, I believe, 4,000 commercial vehicles, we had 200 which were taken off the road immediately; they weren't fit to be on the road at all.

I suggest to you that not only have we got our safety problem with the individual behind the wheel, but it also exists in the vehicle itself. We're stepping up and intend to keep stepping up the commercial checking of vehicles and, hopefully, to get around to some checking of the private motor vehicles.

I might say that a lot of the vehicles in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island are checked because we have the motor-vehicle testing stations; but the province of British Columbia has never had, and still doesn't have, a motor vehicle testing station beyond Surrey, I believe it is. In other words, there is no motor-vehicle testing station at larger areas in the province — such as Cranbrook, Kamloops, Prince George and Prince Rupert, if you may — and, of course, that

[ Page 3096 ]

area of our province is not immune to having defective vehicles. We're looking at that program, but it's expensive to build large edifices such as motor-vehicle testing stations. I personally think there's another way to do it, and that is by mobile testing. We have a mobile unit doing our commercial vehicle testing now, and it seems to me that if we expand on that we can at least get some checking of vehicles in other parts of the province as well as the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

Another program that our government brought in in 1978 has turned out to be very popular, and that's our Air Transport Assistance Program. That had a value of $26 million placed on it when it was brought in. I'm happy to report to the committee today, Mr. Chairman, that to date we have spent $11 million on this program. It's bringing upgraded air services to parts of our province that didn't have any, or had gravel strips and so on, and we've either upgraded the gravel strips they had, or upgraded the gravel and paved as well.

I would like to make an observation on how this helps in all types of emergencies, if you want to call them that. I can assure you that if we hadn't paved the Stewart airstrip, they'd have been three days longer getting their bridge back — not only for the government aircraft to bring in senior engineers, but also to bring in machinery people to get things organized in a hurry. That's just one small example — and that happened just this week — about the upgrading of local strips.

The thing that I want to push is to keep these strips and further upgrade them. It's all right to blacktop a strip in a remote area, but if you don't have radio and so on.... We want to take our Airvac air ambulance into these areas, and as I see it, as time goes on we will be able to help these communities. We deal with the communities, and they can get modern communications installed in these smaller strips so that good Airvac service can be supplied to the more remote areas of our province; we can upgrade that.

I might say that the government air service has a fine fleet of aircraft and a fine body of pilots. They're flying in British Columbia seven days a week, 24 hours per day, regardless of weather. A great deal of it is on Airvac work. They can now bring a stretcher case from a community like Fort Nelson in the very northern part of British Columbia to higher medical attention in one hour and 35 minutes. I want to congratulate those chaps who get involved with a lot of weather conditions; they provide an excellent service for all areas of the province. With the upgrading of our airstrips, it only means further advancement of that type of service.

In the ministry we have a small, very effective branch called the transport policy analysis branch. I believe it has a staff of six. We want to make it a little bit larger. What they are doing is developing an overall transport policy for the province. As you all know, they are going to start with one area, and they have started with a transport policy analysis for Vancouver Island. When I talk about transport I am talking about all modes, whether it be land, air or water. We're also very concerned, Mr. Chairman, with how the private sector fits into these forthcoming policies. They will be consulted for input on, for example, the Vancouver Island policy, and from there hopefully we can develop something that'll be for the overall good of that area. But their long-term mandate is a transportation policy for the entire province, taking into consideration the private as well as the public sector.

When I'm talking about transportation, I don't want to forget the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'm happy and proud to be the chairman of that fine ferry corporation — the biggest and the best in the world by far, manned by very. competent people all the way through. Yes, we have our problems, but so does everybody else. I think they bring an excellent service to the communities they serve in British Columbia. We have expansion plans for that fine ferry system which I'd be glad to discuss with the committee. Overall, I feel they provide an excellent service at an economic rate.

You all know the provincial taxpayer subsidizes the Ferry Corporation. While I'm on the subject of subsidization, I don't think I should pick on the ferry system, because B.C. Rail, owned by the province of British Columbia, is also subsidized to about the same amount of money as the B.C. Ferry Corporation. And up until recently — and I guess it will continue — so has transit. We all talk about that. If I recall, in the last fiscal year of Hydro, I believe their losses, which were picked up by the treasury, were some $62 million. So what I'm really saying is that yes, the province subsidizes transportation, in all shapes and forms and there's probably nothing wrong with that.

I also have the honour to be the new chairman of the B.C. Steamship Company, which runs the Victoria-Seattle service. I want to emphasize that our government doesn't consider it really a part of our transportation system, because it serves us outside to another country, but it's of great assistance to the tourist business and we have no argument with that. In any case, I just want to make it clear that I'm also responsible for that. I wanted to bring that up in my estimates, because maybe the members from the other side might forget that I had some responsibility there and I just didn't want them to overlook that.

In any case, that's a broad outline with a broad brush. I don't want to take any more valuable committee time talking about the ministry; I think it will come out better in question and answers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all members for listening. I look forward to and invite your questions.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to congratulate the highways minister for showing his concern over the bridge burning in Stewart this past weekend — for myself as well as the residents of Stewart and the many tourists who had to spend a few extra days in Hyder. I would hope this type of cooperation would continue between the hon. minister and myself and the opposition, and if there is any assistance I can offer the minister, I would be pleased to help him on this particular aspect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: First of all, I must apologize to the House, particularly to my own caucus, for being a bit late getting here today. I have no intention of getting rough or kicking the minister in the teeth in the first hour of his estimates — we'll get into that later — but I want to point out that the reason I'm late this morning is because of a situation that we, in this House, had warned you about months and months ago. We had proposed alternate suggestions to your ministry and to your Crown corporations, which have been studiously ignored. That situation is ferry overloads last night and this morning. The only reason I got on the vessel this morning at all is because I happened to be lucky enough to drive a small, economy-sized car; otherwise I wouldn't have made it on that particular vessel.

[ Page 3097 ]

MR. BARBER: You should have taken the jetfoil. No one else does.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could walk on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It would have been faster to walk to Victoria, because wait until you hear this, Mr. Member. What are you doing in the House? I thought it was your turn in the barrel today anyway. Anyway, the next step after I got off that ferry.... It was a little less than two miles from Ryan Road to Highway 1 at the intersection, the main highway to go to Courtenay — as you well know; you've been through there — and there was a traffic jam. It took 40 minutes to go two miles to Courtenay. Between Courtenay and Nanaimo I got behind a camper, which looked to me from the back end to be about 14 feet wide, but I know it couldn't have been, because that's not legal, and about 80 feet long, which I knew it couldn't have been. The fine old gentleman driving this camper was driving at the great speed of at least 25 miles an hour. There's no way you're going to pass on that highway for miles. You know that very well, Mr. Minister. What really put me off was that from the back of this huge trailer was a little plastic hand waving at me for 35 miles. If that didn't make me mad.... Anyway, about three miles from Nanaimo there was another traffic jam. They were backed up for miles going through Nanaimo. I'm just gently explaining to the minister why some of us were a little bit late getting here this afternoon. I did miss a few of your opening remarks.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, we did finally get through Nanaimo. Believe it or not, for the first time since I've been driving this highway, which is almost every weekend, there was another traffic jam in the small community of Duncan. It was another ten minutes getting through that small community. So the situation is bad. As a result of that, I did miss some of your opening remarks. My colleague down the way was kind enough to make notes for me, which I haven't read thoroughly, but I will in a few minutes. I wish to thank my colleague for that.

I did mean to open, first of all, in a kindly way. I want to take this opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member said this is the full text of your remarks. Mr. Minister, we're going to have a very short debate on these estimates. I can see that.

Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me a few minutes of indulgence to tell this House that I had the very pleasant experience this last weekend of attending, at the request of the Williams Lake Stampede committee.... It is now becoming a Canadian-wide function. The minister was there; we enjoyed each other's company. The minister is a good minister; he's very personable, affable and well liked in that community. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the minister is as popular in his riding as he thinks he is. You know, I talked to many hundreds of people up there over the two days I spent there. I would be very much surprised if he were to get more than 80 percent of the vote in the next provincial election; I'd be very surprised indeed. You're not as popular up there as you think, Mr. Minister.

I really wanted to take this opportunity to thank the mayor, the council of the community of Williams Lake and the stampede committee for being very gracious hosts. It was not for me personally, but it indicated that those people had some respect for our caucus and our party. It was very, very much appreciated. I think about the only thing they could complain about concerning my visit to that particular function was when I was chasing the Cariboo Queen around the bull ring. The mayor thought that was going a little too far; and I told him it wouldn't happen again. Other than that, the minister and I did get into a bull-throwing contest. It's a very famous event. It was televised. There were a lot of very prominent politicians involved. You get two chances in this event. I'm almost certain that I outdistanced the minister in the actual throw. You have to throw underhanded. All politicians, they claim in that country, are underhanded, so you have to throw underhanded. I think I outdistanced the minister in the bull-throwing contest. But when it came to being underhanded, he won; this was the word of the judge, not my own, Mr. Chairman. The judge declared it a tie, so we're starting off even in this House today, Mr. Minister. Just for the record, I should tell you that Mr. Erwin Swangard, who the announcer kept referring to as Mr. Erwin Swangard — I was hoping he would stop that; it was embarrassing. Mr. Erwin Swangard did eventually win the bull-throwing contest; and, in my view, rightly so.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's what he said; he said it three times. The first time could have been a mistake; the second time — maybe; but the third time, there was no doubt about it.

While we're into the niceties, over the next several weeks while we're debating these estimates I think the debate from time to time will get hot and heavy. There may even be an election called before debate on these spending estimates is finished, so I had better take this opportunity now to do as I usually do every year. I work reasonably close to and have a lot of contact with senior people within the ministry, and with the minister himself, who is very good about answering correspondence. There's not much action sometimes but he answers his mail, which is very good. It's a lot better than some of his colleagues. Senior people in the ministry — and certainly people at the constituency level within the ministry usually are as helpful as they can be.

One of the interesting things, though, that I've noticed over the last year particularly, and over the last couple of years, is that I'm often told when I go to a local or regional office: "Yes, I do have that particular bit of information, but I can't give it to you. You must get that particular piece of information from the ministry." I don't think — in terms of constituency problems, day-to-day problems.... The minister may wonder why I write him so many letters about problems which I really shouldn't have to bother him with, but I have to do it because I have no other avenue or choice left open to me. It might be a mile or two of side road. I'll go and ask the regional manager: ''Are you going to do something about it, and when?" He'll say: "Look, you have to go to the minister for that information. I'm not allowed to give you that information." That bothers me a great deal.

That order may not have come from in the minister, I don't know. But wherever it comes from, that kind of thing should stop. I believe that all MLAs — and I assume that they will all be taking their turn at getting up and speaking on behalf of their constituents under this particular estimate sometime during the next two or three weeks — were elected to serve their constituents. It must be the prime concern of the people

[ Page 3098 ]

who elected them. I don't think we should have to go, as members of opposition ridings, to the minister or deputy for every little pothole in the riding. I tend to resent that.

Generally speaking, I think — while we're still going on to the nice part of this debate — this particular minister, Mr. Chairman, is generally acknowledged as being one of the better, more personable and more accessible ministers — certainly one of the better politicians — in this House. Just look at the record. So, having said all of those things, it's down to work, Mr. Minister.

It's really difficult to know where to start. There have been so many bungles over one short year. We'll start with the water transportation system, the overexpenditure of the funds, the $115 million in capital projects, the unknown amount in day labour. I don't have those figures precisely, although I have every copy of special warrants and orders-in-council for various projects, at a time when your own Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is saying: "Tighten your belt." You're raising health care to the people of the province, neglecting to bring in legislation as promised and to deal with denticare and people programs. I have never had such a flood of UIC and/or welfare cases, which indicates something to me. I don't think everybody out there is looking for a free handout. Because of inflation people are in serious general financial problems. Yet this government, which has been called the blacktop government — rightfully so....

In fact, the definition of a highway to this government is just a piece of blacktop stretching between two election periods. That's the definition of this government, and that's what we have had with this government over several years.

We know where those priorities are. There are in fact, Mr. Chairman, far more votes in five miles of blacktop than there are in perhaps assisting two or three dozen handicapped people in any given locality or community. So the government knows very well where its priorities are. It's part of the minister's job to do the best job he can. He seems to get money for blacktop. But what happens when it comes to cabinet. Political interference....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Weren't you complaining a little while ago about a lack of highways?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Mackenzie has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That member is complaining. I wish he'd stop complaining; he gets his turn in the barrel tomorrow. If he'll just be quiet and listen to these estimates, we'll try and get through them before Christmas; otherwise we'll be here longer.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

In any event, I think we'll start with the bungle, the big bungle, the real bungle. Mr. Minister, you will have to admit that a bigger foul-up has never in the history of this province existed in water transportation on the coast of British Columbia — never! As a matter of fact, you're not totally responsible. Somehow or other you were overruled in cabinet. You were obviously given bad advice, because I don't think that the things that happened with the Marguerite, jetfoils, Surrey, Queen of the North, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of revenue lost to the people of this province because of those bungles, the inconvenience your ministry caused.... It was caused by cutting off the water transportation service, Mr. Chairman, at the exact same time they closed down a whole community unnecessarily. Can you believe that, Mr. Chairman? Yes, you can. You're nodding, so I know you believe me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We should recap just very briefly. As I said, I'm not sure that the minister is totally responsible. He did take some bad advice. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, he is the minister. He does represent these Crown corporations in cabinet. He is the chairman of the board of those Crown corporations. He is the Minister of Highways, so he must accept the responsibility. It's as simple as that. He got....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, okay. He did get.... He got me all mixed up here. I asked him for a month's leave last week and he only gave me two days. Some Whip!

In any event, I think we ought to go back to the original bungle here. Where did I leave off here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ocean Falls.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we were a little beyond Ocean Falls. Oh, yes. It all started, I think, some time ago. I'm just going to give a brief recap. I won't go over the whole story, which has been raised on numerous occasions in this House, but I do want it on record during the course of these estimates. We'll get into particular highway problems, I assume, a bit later.

The chairman of the board of the B.C. Steamship Company — and it was no secret — wanted a certain vessel. In fact, a colleague of the present Minister of Highways at that time openly and publicly promised that vessel to Mr. Elworthy, then general manager of the B.C. Steamship Company. In my view, he gave some extremely bad advice to the minister and to cabinet. As a result he was forced to resign, and rightfully so. When you gamble you win or lose. You play your cards or get out. In this case his bluff was called; he made a mistake, and that's the end of it.

But the fact is the cabinet, and this minister, who I don't think has spoken up strongly enough in cabinet, allowed the whole process to proceed, which was the abandonment of the Marguerite. It could have sailed for this next year or two with some brief modifications, reasonable in cost compared to the final and total overall costs as the situation developed. The costs would have been practically nothing: a few hundred thousand dollars for holding tanks. That vessel, according to every marine agency that deals with vessel safety, was perfectly capable of sailing between Victoria and Seattle, with a bit of work. The decision was finally made — wrongly, in the view of the majority of people in Victoria, Seattle, and other parts of the coast — to put that vessel into mothballs.

That vessel, by the way, is now — as of last Wednesday or Thursday — sitting at Yarrows. I'm just a bit curious. One of the questions you might consider answering, Mr. Minister, is what storage fees you are paying for the Marguerite to sit in drydock at Yarrows, how long you expect it to be sitting there, and what plans you have for that vessel, which should be sailing today.

To get back to the overview and brief account of the

[ Page 3099 ]

situation as it occurred at the time, a cabinet decision was then made not to put the Queen of Surrey, now called the Queen of the North, on the Victoria-Seattle route. It astonished everyone, because the vessel they did place on that route, the Queen of Prince Rupert, now called the Victoria Princess, had less than half the capacity of the Marguerite, thereby causing great concern and dislocation. We can tell right now, for this year alone, about the drop in the number of tourists coming to Victoria and the effect it's having on the business community in this city. I'm sure my colleague and good friend the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will be discussing this matter at some length during this debate.

The next thing that happened as a result of this very, very bad situation was that they decided to refit the Queen of Prince Rupert, call it the Victoria Princess, and put it on the Victoria run, and put the Queen of Surrey, which is now the Queen of the North.... It had to have extensive refitting at a minimum cost, if you believe the government's figures, of $7.4 million, although I'm told the final figure was much in excess of that. To believe the senior people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation with whom I discussed this, the heavy fuel consumption on that particular vessel was not necessarily suited for that route. Other things could have been done.

In any event, all this is really water under the bridge. It indicates a consistent record of government bungling over the last four and a half to five years, but nevertheless this is one more major bungle. This particular bungle cost the people of this province, according to my figures, a minimum of $21.5 million. It may be more. I am not counting in those figures the losses to the business community and the inconvenience, the lack of economic growth on the central and north coast as a result of this whole sordid mess. All I'm talking about are dollars spent in refits, converting day ferries into night ferries and night ferries into day ferries, reducing capacities, bungling up the reservation systems, people left behind, people coming over in a boat and sending them back by canoe or bus or whatever it is, and situations along this line. I'm not counting those figures. The only figures I'm including here are figures I have received that have come out in committee meetings, in government reports, the government's own figures — that total, overall financial bungle.

We haven't seen the end of it yet, because we don't know what rent the government is receiving for the former Queen of Prince Rupert, now called the Victoria Princess, if any. I don't think the government knows at this point. I don't think the minister knows at this point. Maybe he does; I see him taking a note. Maybe he will give me an answer.

What vessel is going to replace the Queen of Prince Rupert, now called the Victoria Princess, when it is returned to the B.C. Ferry Corporation? We would like to know; certainly the people of Victoria would like to know; I would like to know. Where is that vessel going to go? Is it going to go on the Queen Charlotte run? A vessel that is capable and has been refitted to do certain things and had major revisions done to it has to be refitted again at an unknown cost. Is it $500,000 to refit it next fall to serve the Prince Rupert-Masset route? We don't know. Will it be $5 million? Who knows? Nobody seems to have any figures on that. Perhaps the minister could give us some indication of this particular item.

More than that, there were ways of solving the problems. We are often accused of being a negative opposition, but the fact is that not only in this estimate and in this particular instance.... The majority — I think all — of my colleagues from time to time, when they get up to criticize, question and debate ministry estimates or various bills that appear from time to time before this House, do try to offer alternative and positive suggestions. They are very rarely taken seriously. Why? "Aw, they're in opposition. What do they know?" The fact is that some of us have to deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis.

Another little example; it isn't a big example, because nobody in Vancouver or the lower mainland or the interior of British Columbia cares about route 7. We warned the ministry, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation had petitions, over 5,500 signatures in the final analysis — a significant number of signatures — saying, look, we are going to have nothing but overloads on that particular route this summer unless something is done. We know what the increased traffic is going to be, using ministry figures, corporation figures, not our figures. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely true. This past holiday weekend there were overloads, people waiting for six hours at Earls Cove. Can you imagine sitting for six hours at Earls Cove? There's nothing there.

MR. BARBER: Earl is there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, Earl passed on a few years ago.

In any event, imagine sitting there in a hot car — actually a soggy car, as it turned out — full of howling kids and a nagging wife, and all you want to do is get a little sleep and get back home and back to work, and there you sit.

In fact, Mr. Minister, I was very much tempted to direct all the phone calls that 1, my wife or my poor daughter accepted at my home over the weekend to your office, except I that knew you weren't there.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was in Stewart.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know. That was a good political trip, by the way; going to Stewart was good politics. You have a lot of competent people in the Ministry of Highways, and I'm sure that jetting up to Stewart just raised their morale no end and solved that problem so quickly. As a matter of fact, I'm not knocking you for that, Mr. Minister. If I were the minister I would have done the same thing. But next time you're flying over Earls Cove in your jet, if you could just swoop down to, say, about the 200-foot level and have a quick squint at those 500 cars and 6,000 howling kids that are just sitting in that line-up, it would be much appreciated. Then you could at least get up in this House and say you're familiar with the situation and that you had a personal look at it — however brief — and maybe do something about the problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: We did.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What did you do?

HON. MR. FRASER: We went up and had a look.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If looking at things fixed things, I'd be a millionaire today. That's just a little sidelight. I just thought I'd throw that in. We'll get back to the main problem here in a moment.

I think that, as we advised this government.... It' s the same advice I gave a previous minister of your government and some of it, believe this or not, is the same advice I

[ Page 3100 ]

gave our own minister of transportation some years ago. It turned out that it wasn't bad advice. We should be constructing vessels. I have a great deal of respect for the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation in some ways, but I think the route of building jumbo ferries has got to end somewhere down the line. The terminals can only handle so many of them. That's a fact of life in the present situation. I think we should be looking at smaller, 250-vehicle, fast, 24- to 26-knot vessels.

Somewhere down the line, someday, unless the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) gets his way and we have the fixed link — which we'll never see; everybody knows that's a red herring and we'll never see that in this province — some government and some minister is going to have to have the guts to move part of that ferry terminal out of Horseshoe Bay — from the Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay route — to another location. It's a political hot potato. We tossed that potato around for a while when we were government, but we never really had the chance to work on it. You've had five years now and somewhere down the line a decision is going to have to be made.

I'm not going to suggest any particular location. I don't have to, because I'm not the minister; but I can. I've looked at the problem reasonably well, and I and some of my colleagues have discussed the matter not only with elected people in Richmond, Tsawwassen and out in that area, but also with environmental groups and concerned citizens, people who are concerned about traffic, agricultural land reserves and those kinds of things. There are solutions available. What it takes is guts — standing up in cabinet and saying: "Look, you guys, you're making a bad mistake here. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), for example, who happened to be a member of the committee at one time, knows something about ferries and water transportation, by the way; I'll give him that. But you had other people on that cabinet committee who didn't know up from down — a boat from a canoe from a rowboat from an airplane — and they made the decision and you let them get away with it. Mr. Minister, you should have got up at that cabinet meeting and said, "Look, what you're doing here is wrong," not for your own political purposes, your own prestige, or anything else, but for the people of this province. Unless you were in the community on the central and north coast, had a small business in one of those communities, or were kicked out, laid off, fired and tried to get out with your family, you would never know the serious damage you caused to the people living in those communities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I've just been informed that your time is up. I will give you three more minutes, though, because I did not give you a three-minute warning.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to answer a few questions, I'll yield. Otherwise, I would just like to take this opportunity to intervene so that my colleague can continue with his dissertation.

I'd like to suggest that I had wondered whether or not the minister was going up to Williams Lake this weekend, having been there once myself, and seeing that he has his old habits in terms of the throwing contest. I think what the minister should probably do is go into training a few weeks each year before going up there, if he's going to continue with that kind of activity. It's a very serious athletic enterprise, and I'm sure that the minister wants to come back here a winner one of these times.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Minister, I know it's a bit unusual, but because I was so late.... I do have to get a bit of material together and two or three of my colleagues have indicated their willingness to raise a few matters. I really will be leaving the House. It's not that I'm not interested in what you have to say, but I must go back to my office and pick up a bit of material. So when you see me leaving, it's for two reasons: one, to get material; two, to have a smoke. Okay?

MR. HANSON: I don't want to cover ground that our debate leader is going to be covering, but while we're on what I think is the blind spot in this minister, which is any transportation that relates to salt water.... Blacktop is one thing, but on an island we rely on transportation crossing water. This is where this minister has really fallen down, and I'm sure that our critic is going to be following right through the chronology of all the different events that happened in the B.C. Steamship Company and so on.

I'd like to talk about a couple of things that the minister may perceive as minor, but they're certainly not minor to people who live on an island, and travel the B.C. Ferries on a regular basis. One is the food. I don't know of anyone who's ever commented to me or any member of this House that the food is good. The food is terrible. The food is not nutritious; it is not pleasant; it is poorly thought out....

MR. LEVI: It's horrible Social Credit goulash.

MR. HANSON: The food took a marked deterioration after December 11, 1975.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Oh, don't be so negative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry, hon. members, the second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. HANSON: Back to the gastronomic nightmare on the ferries — it is terrible. In every schoolhouse in British Columbia in grades K to 6 there are charts on the wall with pictures of things that people should eat to be healthy: leafy things, something orange, some little fish, a little poultry, some cheese, some dairy products, some real orange juice. The food is not good, and it really should be corrected. The food is not the responsibility of the crew; the crew are doing their best to provide the service that is required, but B.C. fruits, vegetables and different marine foods that are specific to B.C. could be prepared in a pleasant way and presented within cost guidelines that would make it reasonable. I'm not talking about setting up a fancy restaurant; I'm talking about food where a person could take their family and sit down in a quiet way and have a good nutritious meal that isn't just rubbish that's coming out of a greasy spoon. The crew and the food service people on the ferries are trying their best and they are not happy about it either. I really wish that you would take my comments seriously and think about the nutritional aspects. There are many people who eat regular meals on those ferries — several a week. You know that old veal cutlet is something that is expensive for some people, but there could be things that are nutritious, pleasant and that

[ Page 3101 ]

really could be laid out as a tribute to British Columbia and something that we could be proud of. It's one of the world class trips from the mainland to Vancouver Island. Why should it have that kind of a food service on it which is a tribute to no one?

Staying with the ferry system for a second, there is a growing concern on Vancouver Island that this government does not have a commitment to maintaining and enhancing and streamlining the ferry system, because you have a colleague who sits beside you who keeps resurrecting every so often this fixed link. Now I am in open opposition to the establishment of that fixed link. The calculations that I have done, just on the environmental impact assessment that would have to be done.... I'm not talking about the engineering feasibility studies, but just filling in the gaps on the environmental side to provide answers in areas where we don't have information. We're looking at a minimum there of $3 million for the environmental studies.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Will you table those studies?

MR. HANSON: These are figures that I've come up with, yes.

So we're looking at probably $3 million for the environmental impacts, probably somewhere between $5 million and $10 million for the engineering feasibility studies....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the second member for Victoria has the floor. With respect to tabling, it can only be done in the House, not in committee. We're in committee. The member continues.

MR. HANSON: There are estimates from various academics regarding the socio-economic impacts of a fixed link. Again, we're probably talking about $1 million or $2 million there, so what I'm suggesting to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that that $15 million on studies for a fixed link — the environmental part, the engineering side, the socio-economic side — in a downturn of revenues when we are seeing front-page stories and statements by the Minister of Finance that his colleagues are going to have to tighten their belts.... I'm hoping that you, Mr. Minister, are going to be able to get that other colleague of yours in line and ask him to cease and desist in the frittering away and the wasting of public revenues on these studies.

People do not want a bridge; they do not want a tunnel. The life span of floating bridges in other jurisdictions is 40, 50 or 60 years at the most. It's not a matter of building a floating bridge and then the costs being finished for all time. It requires maintenance. It has a fixed life. It has physical force factors that it would have to contend with far in excess of the Hood Canal Bridge, far in excess of the Tampa Bay Bridge. Oceanographic information that I've been collecting from Pat Bay and from various other people to try and get the information on what sort of studies would be required to build it safely and so on.... It is clearly a project that we cannot support at this time, and I hope that you're going to get that Minister of Universities, Science and Communications under control.

I'd rather see that money put into the Glenshiel Hotel here in Victoria, light rapid transit in Vancouver, light rapid transit here going up the Island to enhance the E&N section. The bus service on Vancouver Island is terrible. It is almost impossible to make a trip from Port Hardy to Victoria in one day. You cannot do it. You have much better bus service with comparable mileage over on the mainland, say, going out into the Fraser Valley. The bus scheduling from Victoria up to Port Hardy and back — if you would take a quick detailed analysis of that bus schedule, it is extremely bad, and I think the money from the Minister of Universities, from the tunnel, could be better spent in some of these other areas to benefit my constituents and other constituents of this Island.

The minister mentioned briefly the subsidy of B.C. Ferry Corporation. Unfortunately this is always a political football that gets resurrected and raised by this government. Most people — the public — do not see a service like a highway between Vancouver and Hope as something that is subsidized. Of course it's subsidized; it's paid for out of general revenue. It just so happens that our highway is across water. It was very good that that plaque that had been put up by a former minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation advising everyone to what extent the ferry system was being subsidized out of general revenue was taken down. It was insulting. It should have been taken down and it was, and that was good. But what I'm saying is that I think we should put that old red herring on the back burner and just let it go away and forget about that idea. What we are interested in is a good, safe, efficient system crossing the maritime environment that we have, that is paid for out of public revenue in the same fashion that a road is paid for out of general revenue in any other land-based transportation link in the province. That just makes sense to me, and I think it should make sense to the government.

There's one point I would like to get up and make more detailed statements on perhaps later on in the estimates, but I'm just going to sort of hold the phone here while my colleague is away. I think that this minister probably is going to go down in history as the champion of overruns. From the time the estimates were debated in the last session until now, do you realize that $119 million of special warrants — orders-in-council, special warrants for highways — came out of cabinet? That was about 28 percent of his total budget.

In a way it's a bit of a farce. What we're involved in here is debating the amount of money that is allocated to a minister to conduct his good works. When we finally sit down and vote yea or nay on X dollars.... As soon as we collectively leave this place — some of us are here all the time — the cabinet meets and they start off on their special warrants. For the fiscal year 1979-80, here's the list: $119,569,075, in addition to the regular estimates, which were $406 million. So it's somewhere around 28 percent. First of all, supplementing vote 213, is highway maintenance, $5 million; vote 214, construction capital, is $25 million; there's another one for $25 million and another for $35 million. There are others for $10 million, $4 million, $2 million, $500,000, $2.8 million, $7.4 million and $1.8 million. That's $119 million. So it's a farce, in a way. We stand here in good faith, and we negotiate. We try to debate and argue the relative merits of the spending priorities of the government.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We're parliamenting, yes. We're trying to convey to the minister what the priorities should be. But in actual fact, as soon as his estimates are passed, then it's

[ Page 3102 ]

freewheeling for an additional — what? I'm betting it's maybe $150 million in special warrants in this next fiscal year.

There's another part — and I have pointed it out to the minister before — and that is the breakdown of the annual report which points out where the money is spent by electoral district. That's an interesting document. There are more roads.... I grant the minister the fact that in his particular riding of Cariboo there are a lot of what they call low-volume roads — dirt roads, single-lane roads, and so on. When special bills are passed.... For example, there was a $5 million special appropriation for Highways, which was passed in the last session. The lion's share of that went into the Cariboo. In actual fact, it is the big-money draw. Out of 48 electoral districts, $40 million went into the Cariboo. Fort George was next, but the Cariboo eats it up. There are many people who feel that the minister's own riding gets very careful attention in highway construction and low-volume roads. In fact, the low-volume roads may be looked after better there than are low-volume roads elsewhere. That was a point I raised before. I see that all that information is in the annual report.

The major points I want to make are that it's of great concern here on Vancouver Island and to my constituents in Victoria that there doesn't appear to be the same commitment to building up and looking after the ferry system — nurturing it along — as should really be the case. Under this minister the maritime transportation system has really fallen into disarray. He may handle the highway side in a different way, but from my own constituency I can only judge that the maritime transportation system is a disaster.

There is a long series of events that took place with the B.C. Steamship Company — the events back and forth between the Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Company. I'm going to talk about that later on.

I would like to see the minister take seriously some proposals to examine the LRT idea for Vancouver Island. The ferry system can only be as good as its capacity not only to convey people across the water, but between the terminals and the areas where they want to go. What I think should be done is that we should be looking at ways of getting people, in a very convenient, comfortable and fast way, out of Victoria, so they don't always have to take their own cars up to the terminal and aboard the ferry. Many senior citizens in my riding find it very difficult on the milk run that goes to the ferry terminal at Swartz Bay to make that long walk, carrying baggage and so on, down those corridors. I get many complaints that it is very difficult for them. If there were some way that that particular milk run could drop people off closer so they could go right up to the ferry and walk aboard, it would be a great help to senior citizens and handicapped people.

We should be looking at every single possible way of making it more desirable to take the ferry and leave your car at home. I think that there's a great place to have buses taken directly aboard the ferries. I think what we need is more buses. The per passenger volume is very desirable with buses. I think we should be looking at many buses to go directly aboard and off at the other end. At the same time a drop-off system where people can conveniently walk aboard would be of great help. I would like the minister to consider that.

So I would briefly like to recap these points again. I would like him to seriously look at the food situation on the ferries. I would like him to get his colleague under control, and not to fritter away capital — public revenue — that could be used to enhance the ferry system on an endless series of studies just to keep engineering consultant firms busy. I don't think that's really a good make-work project for them.

I'm sure it's going to be raised by other members, but I would like some consideration given in these estimates for response on what is the future of the Victoria-Seattle run. What is going to happen in the future? We don't want to be asking questions all through the fall and spring. Is the Victoria Princess running again? Is the Marguerite being refitted? Is the Surrey going on? Are you going to run jetfoils only? Is the Pan Pacific Society going to run jetfoils? Where does the B.C. Steamship Company end and where does the Pan Pacific Society begin? I don't want to ask any of those questions. I just want a commitment from the minister that the Victoria-Seattle run will continue next year, that some thought will be put into it, perhaps to refit the Marguerite, to build another vessel, to bring something in as a stopgap. We would like some answers. It's just too much of a waste of our time and too much insecurity. I think, as a former businessman, you realize that it's of great concern to the business community of Victoria. They don't want to go through that grief again of worrying, signing petitions, having them just pushed aside by an insensitive Premier, after 45,000 names were gathered in a short period of a week or so. So I would just ask the minister for his assurance that the run will continue, that all the mistakes and bungles of the past will be set aside, and that it will be done right for the benefit here of Victoria.

I think that at a later date I would like to talk about BCBC, but I'll leave that at the moment.

Again, the bus service — if the minister and his officials would just please check the bus scheduling that goes from Victoria to Port Hardy and back, you'll see that it is virtually impossible to make connections. It takes too long; it is too costly. The cost of a bus ticket was quoted to me as something on the order of $80. I'll have to check my figures, but I'll come back. The pricing structure of the tickets is, I think, prohibitive. It makes it very inconvenient to take buses, and if we want to get some of the road traffic off the Island Highway — the congestion that has been talked about by other Island MLAs — then we're going to have to look at a good, efficient bus system up and down the Island, meeting the ferries and so on. It has to be done in an integrated, coordinated way. It doesn't make sense to ask people to take the bus and leave their car at home if it's going to take them 12 to 15 hours to get here.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm enjoying this debate, but I'd like to deal with the member that just sat down first, to try to reply to his questions and observations. I'll go from back to front. Regarding the bus operations on Vancouver Island, the government of British Columbia own the majority of the buses, certainly the main bus company, Pacific Coach Lines Ltd., but it doesn't come under my responsibility. It comes under the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I'd appreciate it if he'd refer to it there. But I will say that through the Ferry Corporation we try to coordinate the operation of that now that we have the larger vessel on the run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. We just recently entered into an arrangement with Pacific Coach Lines to look after our passengers getting on and off the Queen of the North, when it's southbound or northbound. That's the only connection 1 have with it, to try to coordinate it with the running of

[ Page 3103 ]

the B.C. Ferries. But it does come under the direct responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Back to the Victoria-Seattle run, called the B.C. Steamship Company Ltd. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that we don't want to leave it until the end as happened before. Instructions have gone to the B.C. Steamship Company and other people affected — B.C. Ferries to some degree — that we want a resolution to our problem, first of all, that the system will run in 1981, but with what? They are working on that and we have asked for a decision by the end of July or early August. We haven't anything to hide. Once that decision is made then it will be put. Hopefully we're all raring to go for the spring season of 1981.

MR. BARBER: Are you prepared to bring the Marguerite back if that's what they recommend?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, we're not prepared to bring the Marguerite back. I'm coming to the Marguerite and my comments on that.

The second member said that he has no confidence in me, and when it comes to marine transportation I think he has called me a landlubber. The Leader of the Opposition said I couldn't take a sailboat across Lac La Hache in my own riding. That is right, because I wouldn't get in a sailboat in the first place.

I enjoy the marine side of the responsibility I have, and I attend all the meetings of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; I don't think I've missed a meeting since I've had the responsibility. I want to give credit to the directors who serve for a very nominal sum at B.C. Ferry Corporation. They all take a great interest for all parts of the province served by that fine service.

I don't know how far to go with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, because I'm coming back up to some operational problems, but we discuss a lot of items as expansion of the service. I've appeared before the Crown corporations reporting committee and given my opinions regarding B.C. Ferries' present operation and future, but there are always things coming on the horizon that are not predicted. I think that we can handle the future of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but I'll get into that a little further.

I want to now go to special warrants. I just want to remind the Legislature that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) mentioned that special warrants amounted to $119,567,075. That is quite correct. They were broken down into various categories. The largest benefactor, if that's what you want to call it, was the highway construction section in the Transportation and Highways ministry, and that was $95 million. There was also assistance to B.C. Rail for the Fort Nelson extension, warrants for B.C. Ferry Corporation, highway maintenance, air services branch, and the motor vehicle branch. By far the largest was $95 million. I just want to say — as chairman; I said it in my opening remarks, but it is government policy — this money and the revenues were good and they were allocated to other ministries as well. In the case of the highway program, they wanted to have it continue to create jobs and get a better highway system. One comment I didn't make: when we talk about highway work and that, 1979 was one of the best construction seasons we've ever had, basically due to the great weather we had. It is reversing itself this year.

I think the underlying factor here, I'd like to say on behalf of the government, is that we were very fortunate to have this money, and this money was created because the economy of this province was in excellent condition. For that reason it was available, and it was spent to upgrade services in the province — not only in this ministry, but in this ministry $119 million was spent. We are not apologizing for it. It was government policy.

I also want to tell the House that I don't think you'll see that happen in the 1980-81 year. We have been debating estimates now, as far as I'm concerned, for four months, and this is a continuation of that and that's great. I specifically refer to Bill 5, Bill 7 and of course the main estimates. If you will add up the total for this ministry with the $119 million classed under special warrants last year and the starting budget and compare that with this year in the green book of estimates plus Bill 5 and Bill 7, you will see a relationship there. What I am telling you is that government policy has changed and we intend to be able to live within the budget that's before you — not just in the estimates book, but also the money contained for this ministry in Bills 5 and 7.

There is a very interesting discussion going on about the fixed link, and I will reiterate government policy on that to my colleague — as I understand government policy on the fixed link. The only thing that's been authorized is a $100,000 study to look into the feasibility of a fixed link. Maybe that will tell us something, but that, I want to repeat, is the only thing that has been authorized by government. The results of that preliminary study will be in shortly, I imagine; but the minister responsible, my colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), should have the details on that.

I want to now deal a bit again with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). He got on to the operational side, and that's good. I don't say that critically. He said that the food service on B.C. Ferries was lousy. Well, I guess everybody's entitled to his opinion, and that's his. I will say this — to leave some food for thought for you: last year the B.C. Ferry Corporation spent $18 million on the purchase of food supplies. So it isn't small business.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't think they made a profit. What I'm indicating is the size of business that we're involved in — and it's been in the annual report, I think. The B.C. Ferry Corporation hauled 11 million people and 4 million vehicles last year. So, you know, it isn't like it was in the old days; we're dealing with way larger volumes and because of this, creating new kinds of problems.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm not criticizing you on the food. I want to tell you this: buffet service has been brought back on some of the runs where we have a stretch vessel that we can get the buffet service on. Some of the vessels we can't because of the areas involved. Another thing that has been done to try to help with the catering for so many people is that for the first time in B.C. Ferries we have a catering boss. He was taken on, I believe, about a year or so ago, and I would hope that would be of assistance. It may be, as you say, that it's been a detriment. I don't really think you meant to say that. I'm saying that, from the management side, they brought in a catering boss to try to get a better organization than they had. It was good, but to try to keep operating....

[ Page 3104 ]

I guess all B.C. Ferries problems are based on too much business, which is a happy thing to have when you're in business; but getting increased business also increases problems. So what I'm saying is that we have 1,500 passengers, say, on a jumbo vessel, and it's on the run 1 hour and 20 minutes, or 40 minutes, or whatever it is, and I suggest to you that that creates difficulties in itself — to be able to feed all those who want to be fed in the short period of time. We are dealing with a lot of people and it creates problems, which we are always trying to deal with on a daily basis, I might say. For the information of the House, I understand that there is a sawoff between what is charged for meals and what we collect from them; there is very little loss or profit from the food end of things. That's my understanding.

The last thing that I have a note on here is the purchase of B.C. food. It is a policy of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to buy B.C. food wherever possible — not only to buy it, but to make it a special on the menus and so on, to promote it.

MR. LEA: Where do they get their mushrooms?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, maybe they're getting the mushrooms from the member's riding of Prince Rupert. I understand you've got quite a field of them on the Queen Charlotte Islands. No, I don't know where. If we're not giving the people any business, write in, and we'll consider your request for supplying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Porcupine pie?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, you get that from the Cariboo, and I'll gladly send you a slice.

MR. BARBER: Quills and all.

HON. MR. FRASER: But I think that pretty well covers the second member for Victoria — it won't cover it, of course, but I did most of the items he brought up.

I want to go back to the comments of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) so things don't get too stale. Again from back to front, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Mackenzie, you made a point in your remarks regarding the ferry terminals. Well, quite frankly, ferry terminals are showing up now as a far bigger problem than any ship problem we have, and again, because of increased traffic. I'll deal with the four main terminals we have: Horseshoe Bay, Departure Bay, Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay — just to give you my version. But Horseshoe Bay is now up to capacity and we can't expand it any further.

We haven't said it yet, but we have to find class C vessels coming into the system in the spring of '81, I think. There has been a delay on that, I'd like to inform the House. Instead of, if I recall, January and March delivery, the shipyards are now promising March and May. But in any case they're coming into the system in 1981 and, as far as I know, they haven't been assigned to a run. But we're going to see, for the first time, jumbos on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run.

Horseshoe Bay is up to capacity. At Departure Bay we have room to manoeuvre for increased capacity. Tsawwassen is pretty well in the same category and Swartz Bay is getting close to capacity, but not the end of the world. We're almost to the end of the world regarding Horseshoe Bay. You're quite right — some decisions have to be made, but there are a lot of ways to go. In the case of Swartz Bay, as an example, we are now, or should be, doing the physical construction to accommodate jumbos. I believe that's going on right now. Horseshoe Bay is definitely the biggest problem.

I don't think it's any secret, Mr. Chairman, that for years — and I've heard the debates in this Legislature — it's been proposed by prior people of responsibility for ferries that we should be looking at Iona — Gabriola. I'd just like to say that I guess those reports are still there, but currently they haven't been dusted off. I don't want to cause any alarm in any way, but those are options. I suggest there are other options, and we are looking at those now, Mr. Chairman. Let's deal with Horseshoe Bay, being the biggest problem, and route 2, the biggest problem we have in the ferry corporation, by far, and expanding the fastest of them all. Thinking back a couple of years, I think that probably this government created that problem for themselves, inasmuch as we got a first-class highway to the north end of Vancouver Island for the first time in the history of British Columbia, but that, again, creates other difficulties in traffic patterns, and that's why route 2 is shooting up so fast. Now the traffic is certainly crossing on route 2 from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay and obviously going to the north end of the Island.

But the big increase in traffic, Mr. Chairman, is coming in commercial traffic, again, as I tried to show you in motor vehicle registrations. By far the biggest increase is commercial. We are now starting to look to relieve the real problems at Horseshoe Bay and find out how much it will relieve by moving the commercial traffic that is bound for points on Vancouver Island — obviously we can't for the Sunshine Coast — out of there and maybe running a Queen of Alberni-type vessel from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo, to Departure Bay. This would relieve a lot of commercial congestion in Horseshoe Bay. Putting on my other hat for a minute — Highways — it would help the congestion of the Upper Levels Highway into Horseshoe Bay, and I don't think it would cause any additional problem by the commercial vehicle coming to Tsawwassen. As I say, we are looking into that. We have to discuss this with industry, such as the trucking people, and we will. It might be a partial solution. I believe the trip will take longer, but we're also short one boat that'll cost us $40 million.

As chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I suggest those decisions have to be made before the end of 1980. Once the decision is made — if it is made — to get a second Queen of Alberni, it takes about two years to build the vessel.

You remarked, Mr. Member, about jumbo construction to end. That is something we are looking at. I believe we have two jumbos now and two more coming into the system next year. We recently found we can take seven of our stretched vessels and make jumbos out of them, so we would go in the pattern that's ahead of us from two now, four next year and eleven as required. Now it is feasible, engineering-wise, to lift seven of the stretched vessels we have and make jumbos out of them. For the information of the committee, going this route we will look after our capacity in the ferry system for at least ten years at a rough estimate of $50 million. That is talking just the seven stretched ships. It is estimated at approximately $7 million each. Some are as low as $4 million to stretch, some are as much as $9 million. That is caused by the fact that some of the vessels have been re-engined and some have not and have to be re-engined. The cost varies with whatever vessel you're talking about. We are

[ Page 3105 ]

looking at all these things now, and I just thought I'd share them with you people.

We are getting back to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and his hang-up about the Sunshine Coast. Yes, we have problems on the Sunshine Coast at times, as we have everywhere in the system, but we cannot.... I guess we can, all right; it would be irresponsible, though, if we had a ferry system that looked after all the peaks of demand we have on the system. We'd have to have double the ships we have. I might say that apart from long weekends the B.C. ferry system is utilized on a year-round basis at 50 percent of its capacity at the present time. I think we should bear that in mind when we talk about extra service and so on. That is a fact; the ferry system keeps the records. Outside of the problems we have on the long weekends in several areas....

I understand that no one had to wait more than one sailing on the Earls Cove-Saltery Bay ferry, which was a wait of an hour and fifteen minutes. On Friday, June 27 — 1 know this member didn't worry about that, because he was in the interior of the province — on the 16:30 sailing to Earls Cove there was a 62-car overload; on the 18:20 sailing there was a 48-car overload. On June 28 there were no overloads. On June 29, on the 15:35 sailing from Earls Cove there was a 1-car overload. On June 30, on the 14:40 sailing to Earls Cove there was a 4-car overload; on the 15:35 sailing to Saltery Bay there was a 2-car overload. On July 1, on the 21:05 sailing from Earls Cove there was a 23-car overload. I know that you have been concerned, the mayor has been concerned and so on, but it isn't quite as bad as it sounds.

I don't think I have the time, nor do I want to go back — but maybe I should — to all the decisions that were made, rightly or wrongly, regarding the changing of ships for the 1980 season. I would just like to make a few observations, though, to clear the air.

Regardless of other statements that were made, Mr. Chairman, in May 1979 the Premier of British Columbia said that the then Queen of Surrey would be put on the run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. I was with the Premier at the time, at the opening of the Port Hardy terminal, when that decision was announced. I think you should put those dates in your mind. That decision was made to get further capacity on the north coast run for the citizens of British Columbia, because it had come to the point then that the very great Queen of Prince Rupert was obviously not looking after the demand, and we had to do something about it. As there was increased capacity, the Premier announced that the Queen of Surrey, which became the Queen of the North, would take the place in 1980. That is what actually happened.

Regarding the Princess Marguerite, the decision was made to not operate that vessel, because we had advice that it was dangerous to operate. It was a government decision, but as one member of the government I support that decision because I can't see how any government can take the risk of putting a vessel out that some people said — I repeat, some people said — was not safe to operate. Other people said it was.

We come to the question: where does the Queen of Prince Rupert fit in? A decision was made to replace the Princess Marguerite with what we now call the Victoria Princess — the ex-Queen of Prince Rupert. That is where the vessel is operating now.

That is all I want to say at this time. I do appreciate the observations that have been made so far.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the answers and for the opportunity to get some of my material together. While I think of it, Mr. Minister, you neglected to answer my question about the cost of storage of the Marguerite — or I missed it — at Yarrows, and future intentions for that particular vessel. If you could just make a note of that, I'd appreciate it.

The House will have noticed that we are dealing with only one aspect of the minister's responsibility. In my view, if we are going to talk about coast transportation we should stay with that awhile, and then get on to highways later. I want the minister to understand that we have not forgotten about highways and other aspects of his responsibilities. I didn't want to be jumping all over the ballpark in the first day of debate.

In any event, during his opening statement the minister did outline to the House the number of responsibilities that he has to assume and that have been given him. Quite frankly, I think that part of the problem within the ministry at the present time — no personal reflection on the minister — is that the responsibilities of that minister are too wide and varied. It is totally impossible for a single human being, involved with the highways responsibilities, chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Company, responsible to this House for, I think, 26 Highways-operated vessels throughout the province.... Part of the reason for the foul-up is probably the fact that the minister has far too much responsibility and is unable to cope with all the matters that he must deal with on a day-to-day basis.

In any event, we were promised some time ago an overall transportation policy for this province. I don't recall the exact dates. I have clippings and things here, but I haven't had the opportunity to go through them. I know that somewhere in the area of at least a year ago, if my memory serves me correctly.... The minister can correct me if I am wrong; I will accept that. I think, in fact, we were promised an overall transportation policy for this province prior to the anticipated debate of the estimates before this Legislature, and we haven't seen that policy. I was wondering if perhaps the minister could indicate to this House what stage that policy study is at and when he might anticipate introducing or tabling in the House that overall transportation policy so we could debate it. We should be debating that policy and examining it in these estimates, which is clearly impossible now. But hopefully we'll have the opportunity at some future date. So if the minister could indicate to us when he intends to table that particular document, and when it may be prepared, it would be much appreciated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think it's probably — I'm not quite clear on this, Mr. Chairman — inappropriate to discuss proceedings that took place during the course of the Crown corporations committee hearings dealing with a number of topics which occurred within the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Those committee hearings went on for some time and at some length. Meetings were cancelled on numerous occasions, for whatever reason, but they were cancelled. I must say that the witnesses who did appear.... Is it in order to discuss this briefly? Quite frankly, I'm not quite clear, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has not filed a report

[ Page 3106 ]

yet. Administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us now, and his responsibility for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, are in order, hon. member. As to that minister's administrative actions in committee, that would be totally relevant as it deals with the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I don't intend to relive and quote from the extensive Hansard, background and research papers that resulted as the outcome of those committee hearings. But there was one general trend that seemed to.... I have to compliment some of the witnesses. They were, in the main, generally candid. The minister himself appeared, without coercion, if you wish to put it that way. He appeared and answered questions, I think at least to the best of his ability. I think that was appreciated by all of us.

However, the general trend throughout the hearings seemed to focus on the management practices of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and political interference within that corporation. My information indicates that while there has been substantial reduction in the workforce within the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the actual management level — people in management — has increased by two and a half times over the last couple of years. I can't substantiate those allegations, these remarks that were made in the committee, but I can tell you this: I do have the opportunity, as I utilize the vessels a great deal not only travelling in and out of my own riding but on many other routes.... It's some cause of great concern that morale within the fleet over the last two or three years has deteriorated to the worst I've ever seen. It seems to be partially.... And it may well be that the misadventure in Active Pass was due to this problem. That has never been cleared up.

As a matter of fact, there was an internal study commissioned by B.C. Ferries, hopefully asked for by the minister or the board of directors, but called for by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That study has never been seen or heard of since, and I wonder if that study is underway and whether the results of that study of management practices are ever going to be tabled in this Legislature. It is an internal study, and quite frankly internal studies are viewed — certainly by the opposition — with some skepticism as to the recommendations that come out of that type of study. The minister will recall that I wrote him a letter — and perhaps also the general manager of the corporation at the time, I'm not, quite sure. But I did ask for an external study, not an internal study. There's not much point in the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) doing a study on the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet); we know before the study starts what the outcome is going to be, and we have a similar situation here. I'm not questioning the integrity of anybody involved in the study, but the public — and certainly the opposition — must question that type of internal study, which has never been made public. Perhaps the minister could comment on where that study is at the present time.

I have one last question while we're still on B.C. Ferries. The minister and the board of directors indicated some time ago that they were looking for and would be considering a full-time chairman of the board of directors to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I recall that the minister, during his appearance before the Crown corporations committee, indicated that they were down to a short list and would soon be naming a permanent chairman to the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I wonder if the minister could now take this opportunity, when he stands up in this place, to reply to some of these questions. How short is the list? You were at six, were you not? Are you down to two or one? If you are down to one, who is it and what is that person's experience? We would be very interested in knowing. I would be interested in knowing, as would the 2,600 employees of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Has Mr. Gallagher applied? Has anybody in the present management of the system applied for that particular post?

What we haven't discussed is fare increases. There has been a marginal fare increase. To be quite honest with the minister, had there been a tremendous public outcry over that particular fare increase I would be the second one to know — the minister would be the first. Quite frankly, there hasn't been that large of an outcry. As people in our party and this side of the House have said for many years, you don't go in and double or triple fares over one year, but everybody understands the inflationary rate. Everything costs more every year. We are up by 8 percent, 10 percent, and 12 percent, depending on the item. So people are, I think, prepared to accept certain fare increases and certain situations. I would like to know from the minister if you are discussing a further fare increase and when that might be implemented. The minister or the general manager did tell us that there would be further fare increases either later this year or next year definitely.

Another very contentious point that I've been through with the corporation senior management people and yourself on a number of occasions — a very sore point particularly in the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast area — is the suggestion that there will be eventual removal of resident commuter cards. I think it's important to people living in these areas that the residential commuter card — preferred rate for certain days of the week — be maintained for the residents living in these areas.... Those vessels in these areas on the coast of British Columbia are our highways. If we're going to raise and increase fares to a level which is unacceptable to the ordinary working people living in those areas, then I would suggest perhaps you should consider putting a toll on the highway into Kelowna. Why not? It is the same principle involved. I would hope that the minister would get up in this Legislature today and assure the residents of the Sunshine Coast — Powell River, Texada Island area, people living in the Gulf Islands.... It is a political decision; none of the board of directors will make the announcement. I hope that he will recommend against the removal of resident commuter cards for these areas and perhaps consider extending that little service to people, if and when we ever get some kind of decent ferry service to the central and north coast.

I have a number of other topics which I wish to discuss. I have raised this every year in the House from day one but I'm going to do it again this year and I'm going to raise it every year, whether on the opposition or the government side. I feel there are certain groups of people, particularly at certain times of the year — everyone within the senior management people of the B.C. highways, people who operate the highways and ferries and are in charge of them and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, will understand and agree with this concept. There are certain groups of people who I feel.... I know there have been some concessions for seniors. Maybe you could go a bit further on that one for starters. I'm talking about certain types of handicapped people who have to go to a major centre, usually Vancouver but sometimes Victoria or other places, for certain types of treatments. They are living

[ Page 3107 ]

on very minimum incomes, and sometimes this government, as you know, Mr. Chairman, has had the habit of not passing on the federal government grants to these people for some length of time, and so what we end up with is people living in a situation on bare minimum, having to travel and pay full fares. So this takes care of the handicapped. I think that with a doctor's written slip these people should be given a special rate on these systems. They're usually travelling during the middle of the week, early morning runs particularly and late night runs, when the ferries are not necessarily overloaded. We usually run into our overloads around the middle of the day and/or around the early evening periods.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hogwash!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Municipal Affairs keeps hollering across the floor: "Hogwash!" Well, if there's anybody in this House who knows about hogs, I think it's that minister over there. You better believe it. We'll get to your estimates, Mr. Minister, if you're still a minister. I know you're running for leader, and I know Bill is shoving you.... You know, one more move, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the left, and you're going to be right out of there. So I'd cool it if I were you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could contain our debate to vote 193.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm trying my best, but these people keep interjecting. I'm trying to get through these estimates today, and it appears I'm going to be here a month. I just can't understand these people.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues on vote 193.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're just briefly, quietly and without a lot of rancour discussing ferries.

There are other groups within the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast and other areas of this province.... We have school groups. I know there is some kind of fare rate with two weeks' notice. You get a group rate and all that. The fact is that that's not good enough. I think that when those Little League groups, soccer teams, Brownies and guides are travelling in groups from point A to point B to participate in community and regional activities, they should have, if not a free rate, at least a very drastically reduced rate. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, you know what that would do for you? Well, maybe not you personally, but for your government? All those little people are going to grow up to be voters someday. You know, it's good politics for you. I know, you're kind of a little bit tight-fisted over there. You talk about your government subsidies, which we're going to get into in a little while, but I don't think it would hurt you politically. You'd be performing a service for a group of people and the communities. I've talked about sports groups and Guides and Brownies, but there are other groups as well. There are cultural groups and theatre groups that travel from Powell River to Comox to Sechelt, you name it. I think a special rate, at least during certain times of the year and on certain days of the week, should be initiated. What else? There are a few other groups here I missed.

Mr. Minister, I do want to get this on record while we are discussing the transportation system of British Columbia. I do want to take a moment out here to generally compliment the hard-working people in the system. I think most of them are conscientious. I think they do the best they can under very difficult circumstances — sometimes extremely difficult circumstances — and I want to compliment those people. There is the occasional exception, but generally I've found that people working in the system, at the toll booths and on the vessels themselves, are very well qualified and very courteous. In any event, onward and upward here.

We haven't discussed, Mr. Chairman, the Highways-operated ferries. As I recall, there are 26 Highways-operated ferries in the province — 14 of them salt water. It's somewhere in that area. The figures may have changed a bit in the last while....

HON. MR. FRASER: They have more ferries than B.C. Ferries.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Right, and it's a big responsibility. I'm going to start off this portion of the debate by saying that when this present minister was appointed as chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Corporation, I, along with many, many other people who depend on transportation services, expected that there would be cohesion between those two major ferry systems of British Columbia. I am extremely disappointed that the end result of all this indicates that there is less cohesion now between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and Highways-operated vessels in terms of trading vessels, in terms of helping each other out in difficult situations; it’s worse now than it was before. I'm going to make this promise to any of our people — any British Columbians — who read this or have the opportunity to hear these remarks: should we become the government again we will plan, with consultation with people up and down the coast, and we will have a cohesive system, trading information and personnel back and forth, and it will not be a competition between two systems. It'll be one good working system; that's what it'll be.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I guess most members of this House are aware that there are a number of free ferries operating in this province in a number of localities, and I'm not necessarily knocking that. We know why those decisions were made years ago, and there were good political reasons — no other reasons — to make those decisions. However, what most members in this House are not aware of is that, would you believe, on some of those free ferries travelling and operating in the interior of this province you can actually buy an edible meal. You can go aboard a free ferry and buy an edible meal. Fantastic! I was just wondering if the minister and perhaps some of his staff, whom I know are watching this debate with great interest, would take this under advisement and perhaps at least provide some of the people on some of the routes on the saltwater section of the Highways-operated ferries with that same consideration.

The B.C. ferry service.... I know the minister explained at some length in committee, but very briefly here this afternoon the problems that are faced.... I'm going to make this House and you, Mr. Chairman, another promise: when we become the government again we're going to improve the dining and food services on those B.C. ferries come hell or high water. I make that promise now. That's a promise we intend to keep, and if we don't keep it, you can

[ Page 3108 ]

chuck us out of office — when we get back in over the next year or so.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, the Premier has returned. You know, Mr. Chairman, they were asking for the Premier at Williams Lake. They had people from as far away as Quesnel, Anahim Lake, Alexis Creek and Bella Coola, and everybody was asking: "Where's the Premier?" Did you answer your letter yet? We're still waiting for an answer. Anyway, Mr. Premier, that's got nothing to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but I just wanted you to know they're looking for you up in Williams Lake. You know, you'd have won that bull-throwing contest. There's no question about it. You would have beat Alec and I all to heck. Anyway, nice to see you back in the House. Come again next week.

In any event, back to water transportation. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, while the minister is making notes, if he could perhaps arrange to bring this House and myself up to date on the situation regarding the promised transportation service from Bella Coola to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella — a linking service that people over there have been asking for for some years. Now I understand the minister was good enough to meet with a delegation from that area not too long ago. I attended that meeting and we had some hope and some reason that.... The minister, in fact, did say the matter was being studied, and so I wondered if perhaps today, particularly since the minister has his staff with him this afternoon, he could bring us up to date on that situation — when we can expect some decent, reasonable service into that particular area. I know that ramps are very expensive, and talking about ramps, it reminds me....

I don't know if the minister is aware of this or not, but it's been brought to my attention that next year on the Powell River-Comox route, which is a Highways-operated ferry, the present vessel, the Sechelt Queen, the one I couldn't get on last night and the one which was overloaded again this morning, has to be replaced. I agree with that. The vessel is old and it's going to be far too costly to upgrade the vessel. I do know that preliminary drawings for a new vessel for that route have been completed some time ago. However, it's my understanding that the ministry is now considering not constructing a new vessel — or perhaps two new 100-vehicle vessels with possible extensions of up to 130 vehicles at some point — for that route.

They are now considering next year placing one of the stretch-jobs on that route — that's the Powell River-Comox route, which is about an hour and 20 minute run. There's terrible food on that thing — good people, but terrible food. In any event, the result of all of this, in terms of dollars — I'm utilizing Ministry of Highways figures here, excluding inflationary factors and overruns and everything at this point, because we're sure going to get into overruns later on in this debate — is that it's going to cost $8.5 million to upgrade these two terminals at Powell River and the one at Little River — Comox — to accommodate one of the stretch vessels, if that's the way his ministry is going. Those vessels are capable of carrying 192 vehicles and I don't know how many passengers, but the fact is it's entirely the wrong vessel for that route. And I understand that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to not give, not loan, but sell one of those stretch vessels for $7.5 million to the Ministry of Highways, which has the same minister as the chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. So right away we have $16 million right off the top, utilizing government figures.

So I wonder if the minister could perhaps confirm this situation, because we do know — projections indicate — that the overall use over a year of one of those stretch vessels on that particular route will only be about 22 percent capacity. What I'm suggesting — another positive suggestion coming from the responsible opposition on this side — is that the preliminary drawings that the ministry indicated they have for the new vessels in the long run would be cheaper, would be better suited to that route, would increase the service to two-hour service rather than the four-hour sailings we now have, except for the summer Friday-Sunday thing which was just initiated on the 20th of this month, and would leave those stretch vessels for other routes. One other route I'm suggesting right now for a stretch vessel, Mr. Chairman, is route 3 from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale where we have severe traffic problems, and it's going to get far, far worse every year.

Last but not least — I've hardly started on my list here — while we're discussing stretch vessels, another question to the minister: is your ministry or is the B.C. Ferry Corporation considering refitting one of the stretched vessels for the Seattle-Victoria route for next year, or are you looking elsewhere in the world for a vessel for that route? I'd appreciate it if the minister could answer that question. I see my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, so I'll take my seat. I know that there are many other members who wish to say a few words, and it doesn't appear that we'll get on highways at all today, but we'll see.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to answer some of the questions that were asked by the member for Mackenzie. Before I do, I'd like to inform the House of an item that I was reminded of when the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was speaking. I'm dealing now with fuel taxes as such that the province and the government of Canada have received, all earned by the highway system in whatever province it is. In the province of British Columbia in 1979 the highway system and the government of British Columbia collected $182,927,000 from the gasoline-diesel taxes on fuel. Something that not too many people know is that through the same gallon or litre you're buying, the government of Canada received from British Columbia motorists $126,474,404, for a total earned by the highway system in taxation provincially and nationally of $309 million. I'd just like to point that out. The cost of operating the highway system in the same year — that is, maintenance and capital — would be about $450 million. But I don't think we should look at the one side, as was mentioned, and not look at the other side. That's the situation with regard to what the second member for Victoria raised earlier.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked what the storage charges are for the Princess Marguerite, which, I believe, is in safekeeping in Burrard Yarrows' yard. I understand the charge is $5,000 a month.

The next question you asked was when the transportation policy of the province of British Columbia would be tabled in the House. Well, I can't answer you on that, but maybe I could address a few remarks to the transport analysis branch. As I said in my opening remarks, we have a very small, fine group there developing transport policy, working with the industry and so on. They are the ones who will help develop a transport policy for the province. Again, as I said, it applies

[ Page 3109 ]

to all fields of transportation — land, air and water. At the present time they are going to initiate two major studies, one of which will be dealing this year with marine transportation; this will be in cooperation with Transport Canada, and it will deal with coastal marine terminal facilities. Hopefully this study will determine where changes and improvements are needed now and in the future for wharves, piers, docks and ferry terminals on the British Columbia coast.

I would like to add here, Mr. Chairman, that I consider the docks and wharves in our province to be in a deplorable condition. They are under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. They are not even modern enough to look after our modern-day transportation. Every time the B.C. Ferries want to go into a new situation, we have to check the dock situation. Of course, there isn't any dock for a roll-on roll-off vessel. We've run into this in several expansions. They have the old-style dock. As a matter of fact, they've even built factory structures on some of them, which really nullifies them as docks — I'm referring to the government of Canada.

In any case, while B.C. Ferries have to expand, we have to face up to the fact that while we might have the boats we haven't got the docks. As an example, we're presently spending $4.7 million — the contract price to build a dock on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Of course, a year or so ago it was the same situation at Port Hardy, to get a new terminal for service to Prince Rupert — and on and on it goes. I don't believe we even have a satisfactory docking situation at Bella Bella; the best one we had was at Ocean Falls. I can assure you that so far we haven't been able to interest Transport Canada or the government of Canada in assisting us with any of our problems. This is a very major issue as far as our government is concerned: the deterioration of dock facilities on the Pacific Coast that are the direct responsibility of the government of Canada.

Getting back to the transport policy analysis branch, it's been announced that they are going do a Vancouver Island transportation study, Again, we're considering all items of transportation to the Island, not just one mode — for example, highway, railway, air and marine transportation serving Vancouver Island. That study is only the first of many that are anticipated from the transport analysis branch.

Regarding the transportation policy analysis — or transportation policy, period — shortly they'll be releasing for public comment a proposed ports policy for the province. So it goes.

What I'm saying is that it will take quite a while to have a comprehensive transportation policy for the whole province, because we're continually dealing with different modes and different areas, and we intend to keep on doing that.

I'm not sure what the member for Mackenzie was referring to when he said there had been an internal study regarding the unfortunate accident that the Queen of Alberni had in August 1979 in Active Pass. I think I should say that all items like that are fully investigated. But a lot of other people are in the act as well, including Transport Canada. Transport Canada did a study of Active Pass in conjunction with the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the transport analysis branch. It's my information that the present Minister of Transport has that report on Active Pass on his desk; it's his report. They recommend some changes that have impact on the operation of B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'm not aware that the report has been made public; it's the responsibility of the Minister of Transport for Canada to release it.

Regarding the B.C. Ferries chairman and board of directors, your remarks are correct. We're still dealing with that, and I'm not prepared to say how long that'll take. I hope not too long. I wouldn't set a time limit on it.

Regarding fare increases in June of this year, you are correct. They were small increases and acceptable to the public. We hope to be able to rationalize future increases in the same way. I don't want to alarm anybody, but there certainly will be fare increases, I would think. Based on inflation alone, and the cost of fuel, there will be increases in the future. Again, I'm not able to tell you when that would be, but fuel increases are really running ahead of inflation. Inflation is 9 percent or 10 percent a year, but fuel is running ahead of that, and that's a big impact. We've just put it into effect, and I think it's a little early to talk about when the next one will be.

The member for Mackenzie said that there is talk of removal of residential commuter cards where the highway system operates. I hope he would help us put out those rumours, because as an example, there was nothing done to them in the last fare increase. There was nothing done or announced. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen in the future, but certainly it was looked at. I would just like to tell the committee that it is very costly to the Ferry Corporation. Again, they did not remove them when they were looking at the overall situation. I just point out to concerned citizens that while they have had a fare increase it didn't affect the commuter cards. There could well be changes, but it didn't happen at that time.

I didn't follow things too closely here, but I'm going to try to deal with special rates for special citizens that are already in place. I would answer the member on this basis. In the B.C. Ferry Corporation senior citizens are free of charge, Monday to Thursday. That's in effect now. For handicapped persons with a companion, one fare is charged where two people are involved. I don't know whether the member is suggesting that we eliminate that fare or not, but certainly handicapped people are now given a consideration. The other one is organized groups such as school groups and so on. I hear that quite often myself. I would point out to the committee that organized groups now get a 20 percent discount. I'm not sure whether the member wants that discount reduced, but the fact is that they are considered now and do get a discount. The other item is about passengers on Pacific Coach Lines; they get a 20 percent discount. These are some of the preferential rates that exist for different types of citizens and groups in the B.C. ferry system.

The member said that he thinks that now that B.C. Ferries, the Highways ferries and the B.C. Steamship Company are under one minister's responsibility, the cooperation is less than it's ever been. I might say that the reason, I'm sure, the government put this under one ministry was that it's a segment of transportation in the province and they wanted to put them together. You say now it is worse than it ever was. You are talking absolute rubbish. We are cooperating on everything we do, whether it be repairs, the deployment of vessels that each one owns and so on. It is well to say we aren't cooperating but my answer to it is "rubbish."

The other question is that you said you'd sure get that going when you became government. I wouldn't work too hard on it, because you never will be government. After three years of socialism the good people of British Columbia will never buy that lollipop again.

MR. SKELLY: Let's have an election and see.

[ Page 3110 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Sure, let's have an election. Hurray, let's go! I think it's time that you had your ego knocked down a little over there. Ever since May 1979 you've tried to act as the government, but you aren't the government. You are the opposition, and I just wanted to remind you of that.

MR. COCKE: You haven't done one single solitary thing, Alec, so sit down.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for New Westminster says there is not one single thing we've done. I don't accept that but I can assure him that there is one thing we haven't done, like he did when he was a minister: run one Crown corporation $190 million in the hole. He has the world record for that. He had exclusive rights to do it, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, perhaps we could get back to vote 193.

HON. MR. FRASER: Meals on Highways ferries — back to the member for Mackenzie. I don't know whether he is inferring they are free or what, but apparently we've got one boat where you can get meals on a Highways ferry. I know that on another ferry we have meals, at least dispensed, on the Comox Sechelt Queen. I've been on that boat myself and they have a nickelodeon dispensing sandwiches. You can get something to eat on that boat.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're hungry enough.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member says you have to be pretty hungry. It could well be.

The member asked about boat service from Bella Bella to Bella Coola. The Highways ministry went in there and we did a study on putting a boat in there to connect those two communities — Bella Coola with Bella Bella. We did a study on it and then I personally said we were not going ahead at this time. Because we went in there and found out that a lot of the citizens there really didn't want it. I didn't see any reason to expend public funds if they didn't want it. To be more specific, I dealt with the Bella Bella Indian band — 1,200 strong — and I did find out in discussion with them that they definitely want to go down to the Big Smoke, as they call it — that is their first choice — which is greater Vancouver. They really didn't even care where Bella Coola was and they implied to me that they wouldn't use the service going from Bella Bella to Bella Coola. As a matter of fact, I met with the band council and they said: "What would we do when we got to Bella Coola? There is no road to go anywhere." I took that as a bit of an insult because we have a 300-mile good road, as you know, from Bella Coola back into the cattle shipping head of British Columbia — Williams Lake — where it connects with Highway 97. I could see there that we would have to expend a fair amount of money and we wouldn't have people using it. I thought we had other priorities. That is where that is at at the present time. It isn't going ahead for that reason. That might be a wrong decision but that is what happened in that case. We again, of course, ran into a dock situation. We had to build docks again to accommodate and so on. That didn't stop it. I personally, like, I'm sure, our senior people, was worried that we'd put the service in and it wouldn't be used.

Regarding the Powell River Sechelt Queen and the replacement of it, you are correct. This boat has to be replaced and will be replaced. But no decisions, I think, have been made so far. No tenders have been called and when they are the replacement will probably take place that way. We've looked at other options, yes — taking stretched vessels and so on from B.C. Ferries. By that I mean they would have to be paid for by the Highways side, as that is a Highways operation. That decision is up in the air as to what we're going to do. Of course, the last thing is build a new boat. That would go to tender to be built in B.C. shipyards if that's the way we go.

As far as dealing with the immediate is concerned, we've just announced extra runs for the existing boat on that run from Powell River to Comox. I appreciate your observations. You want a stretched vessel on Horseshoe Bay-Langdale. I would suggest that that could well be where an existing stretched vessel would go, rather than the jumbo. Again no decision has been made. But that has certainly been discussed, that that would get more capacity on that run there.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to take my place here today to address you. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has been speaking for about two and a half hours in a valiant attempt to be positive, but unfortunately he comes from a negative party. He is involved with a negative syndrome and there is no way that he can be positive. For the edification of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I'd like to translate what he has been saying. I think it is important that this translation take place, because two and a half hours of negative input sometimes is difficult for members of the House to understand as a positive thing. He tried, but being infected with that syndrome it is almost impossible to break out of the shell.

I will endeavour to explain to the minister what the member was saying. He was saying the massive British Columbia Ferry Corporation is doing such an excellent job of managing the ships. "Such a change from when we were government," he is saying. When the whole thing was topsy-turvy, on strike and in trouble, there was no way they could put it back except through the legislation of that government to put the people in British Columbia back to work in 1975. The whole structure of British Columbia — labour and management — was collapsing all over the place. They called this House back late in 1975 to put everybody back to work. What the member was saying to the Minister of Transportation and Highways was this: "I am so glad to see at last a party that has the capability of managing and developing the system in British Columbia — all the systems, but particularly the ships of the B.C. Ferries fleet — in such a way that we have happy ships." That is what he was saying.

I will not go further than that, because it shouldn't have taken two and a half hours of this Legislature's time to say those few words. It could have been done quickly. He made some good suggestions and the minister replied, but it shouldn't have taken so long to say that it's a great fleet doing a great job. With a fleet as large as this, serving the coast of British Columbia so well, it is not possible to be perfect. But as nearly perfect a system could not be found anywhere else. I think the coast of British Columbia is being well and properly served by an excellent and gallant fleet.

I have a problem. I want to move into an area where I know angels would fear to tread. Not fearing too much, I must move in on it. I am moving into the area where a union

[ Page 3111 ]

can, without warning, call a study session and inconvenience the people of British Columbia to the extent that we have been inconvenienced lately. I am sure that any good, responsible union would not want this awesome power. If there is no other way of doing it, legislation must be introduced — not through your ministry, I realize, Mr. Minister — to prevent the occurrence. You see, Mr. Chairman, all ministries dovetail and move together, but somewhere along the line we've been inconvenienced — in my constituency too, where we have two ships, a tremendous inconvenience. What am I to say — that we should not do anything? I cannot say that. I must say to the minister that the public must not be inconvenienced; it is part of his portfolio that it shall not be inconvenienced, and the public was inconvenienced.

In my constituency there are two very excellent ships. One is the T'Lagunna and the other is the Klatawa. The Klatawa has special significance for this Legislature, because sitting in this Legislature at this time is the Deputy Minister of Highways, whose wife christened the Klatawa — a great ship, and a highly respected deputy minister. I will say that that is a fine ship, and it is doing as good a job there as it did in Gabriola Island where it was before.

But here I speak of the inconvenience of the study session. Another matter I bring to your attention now — and it will only take a minute....

Mr. Chairman, don't shake your head at me; I must touch on those subjects, and there is no way I will.... The only way you can do it is by putting me out of here, because I will speak on the subject of inconvenience. It's the minister's duty to see that the public is not inconvenienced, and there is no way you can prevent that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to tell you that the committee is only empowered to discuss vote 193, the vote before us. We cannot discuss legislation — be it past or present — nor can we discuss other bills that might have come to the attention of the House. We are in committee.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no, I'm not sitting down. You see, when the Chairman speaks, the member sits. I sat; now I'm standing again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. The member for Dewdney was correct; he sat down while the Chair was speaking.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's proper parliamentary procedure: when you lecture me I do not stand; I must sit. I wish all members of this House would understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please continue on vote 193.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, of course I will.

I'm speaking about the inconvenience to the public, and I will not get away from this. Further to the inconvenience — and this no longer has to do with that matter — the Klatawa and the T'Lagunna must tie up twice a day for coffee breaks; and one ship, the T'Lagunna ties up for one hour twice each day while the other ship takes a run. This causes a massive backlog of traffic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor management.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, it's not poor management; it's a union requirement that they're entitled to.

What happens at the lunch breaks is this: the men are entitled to half-hour lunch breaks. So what do they do? They tie up the small ship while the larger ship continues to run; and thus, for one hour — giving each crew a half-hour lunch break — it causes big line-ups. Now if it could be contained in the one hour, it would be bad enough. I'd like the ministry to correct that by whatever system they see fit and proper. What happens, as I had the occasion to see for myself only last Thursday, is that the T'Lagunna ties up at 7:30 and the Klatawa takes on the massive backlog of traffic. If it could be confined to the one hour exactly, I would have said it was fine, we have to take some of this; but it was not. It closed at 7:30, and instead of starting up again at 8:30, the T'Lagunna wasn't underway until 9. That's the problem.

I'm not saying that the men are not doing their job. But it's impossible to have a perfect dove-tailing of times, so they lose half an hour. What I'm saying is, if you must tie them up, I suggest that they both be tied up for half an hour. That would be bad enough. But it would be far better still if that were eliminated completely in some way. It could handle the traffic if it were for these miserable tie-ups at lunch time, dinner time and at two coffee breaks.

I want to tell the minister — and he knows — that these two ships carry as much traffic, I believe, as the other fleets combined. A fantastic amount of traffic is handled on these two boats, because they make the trip every 15 minutes. It is a great inconvenience to the public, and I hope the minister takes due note of that and makes correction immediately. I get a lot of complaints — which are justified, when you see one ship tied up and the other one running because of the dinner, lunch and coffee breaks. We must correct that very bad situation. It can be done, it's within his power, and I ask it be done without delay.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll give just a short reply to the member for Dewdney. I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Member, and we will look into the operational end right away. The two ferries operating there.... You are right, business is excellent. I forget what we charge, but I think the charge is nil.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's right.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd just say to the people who are waiting that we've got a dandy highway that goes around too, you know.

I just had a note handed to me, Mr. Chairman. For the committee's information, last year these ferries handled 855,381 vehicles. That's why I said that the Highways ferry system has a few ferries, as well as B.C. Ferries. I would think this is by far the largest capacity of all ferries we have in the ferry system. I further understand that business is so good and the economy of the province is so good that these figures so far this year are running 16 percent ahead of last year, so I guess we're going to hit the one million vehicles mark in 1980. I just wanted to share that happening with the committee.

We will try to cut down somewhat, if we possibly can, on the observations you made.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the member

[ Page 3112 ]

for Dewdney's (Mr. Mussallem's) remarks, I really couldn't let the occasion go by without registering my concern that the member would seek to improve a poorly administered ferry, which he is apparently associated with, at the expense of the workers on that ferry. I think that's rather an unnecessary but all too frequent attack made by government members in this House. He said that was because of union requirements and not because of bad management. Well, for that member's edification, collective agreements are entered into jointly by management and the trade union holding the certification. If the provisions bring about inconvenience to the public, then it is incumbent upon management to think about that before they enter into that collective agreement. For the member to come here — without any support, and just based on loose assumptions, loose statements and allegations which he chooses to make — and say that that legal agreement between the working people and in this case the Highways ministry should be breached.... In effect, he is advocating a breach of the law in this province, because a collective agreement is, in fact, a legal document. I know that the jolly member for Dewdney takes his position, and perhaps this chamber, a little frivolously at times. But I would suggest to him that he think a bit more seriously about the kind of advocacy he comes up with, before uttering those kinds of comments.

There may well be a case for the management of the ferry fleet and the trade union to sit down and determine whether or not any items in their collective agreement inconvenience the public unduly and create hardship. That might be renegotiated and improved upon. Fair enough, but to come in here and advocate that the minister unilaterally alter that collective agreement, which is a private contract, is crassly irresponsible and reveals a bias against working people in this province that I think is shameful for this Legislature. The gentleman talked about study sessions, and once again said: "They can't be tolerated. It's not a management problem, it's a trade union problem. Bring in legislation. Lay the heavy hand on working people who are obviously so frustrated by the style of management that they have taken the unusual action of walking off the job for a brief study session."

I agree that kind of thing is very unfortunate, but as in marriages and other civil law, there are usually two sides to the case. You seldom find one spouse in a marriage arrangement who is totally responsible for all of the problems and ripples that flow from that relationship. Too frequently here we have the Social Credit bias showing in saying management is perfect. When there's a problem that manifests itself, whether it be in a temporary work stoppage or something else, the workers are to blame. "Hammer them. Bring in legislation."

Mr. Chairman, that was not the style of our government when we were in office. Yes, we were prepared to convene the Legislature when it was necessary in the total economic interests of the province. But we made no assumption in any individual case that one party was guilty prior to a full debate and a full scrutiny of the issues in that dispute. That member is advocating that without any scrutiny whatsoever we assume that the workers on that ferry are guilty, and he advocates restricting them further by legislation. I say that's irresponsible. I couldn't let the member get away with that without raising my voice in protest, and without advising him that if that kind of high-handed punitive approach is taken, it will be resisted most strongly by the opposition in this Legislature.

I'm going to have more to say on the ministry's estimates, and I hope that the minister and the members of the opposition may have an interesting and very productive dialogue in terms of the many concerns that we all have regarding adequate transportation systems for this province and improvements where they're necessary. Certainly respecting my riding, I have a great number of issues to discuss with the minister. I would prefer to wait until such time as those main areas of policy which have been under debate all afternoon are completed. At that time I will have many weeks ahead of me to deal with the individual problems that I have in my own riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just going back to the specific problem of the member for Dewdney, I am advised that regarding meal times of the crews of the Highways boats in the Albion area, we do not need to take away the meal period from these crews. There's a very simple answer. We can add relief personnel on the ships and keep them going. I should say to the member for Dewdney that I think we can get on and do that.

MR. BARBER: How many persons used the jetfoil service and the Victoria Princess service in the month of June?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just got those figures today. They are here somewhere; I'll have to find them among these papers.

MR. BARBER: Is the minister looking for the figures now, Mr. Chairman? I could send him my copy, perhaps, but I'm not absolutely sure it's authentic. We usually have to check it from a couple of sources.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old pipeline.

MR. BARBER: Absolutely — one of the best in the whole House; better than some of yours, apparently, judging by how often we find out about your decisions before you appear to know about them yourselves. It's a ruddy sieve over there, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're stealing information.

MR. BARBER: Not at all — gratefully receiving donations, as always. Any good community organizer can tell you how that works.

I wonder as well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) will come to order, please.

MR. BARBER: We have former Socreds who spend all their time piecing together the shredded material.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The estimates, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister might, as well, inform us — because the Premier refused consistently — who attended the meeting held in these buildings in November — I'll have the exact date in a moment — to discuss the

[ Page 3113 ]

proposal by the Premier to create a non-profit society of interested business people to manage the jetfoil service here. As well, could he tell us who those people represented, or purported to represent, when they attended that meeting?

Could the minister further tell us what commitments, if any, were made by the government at that meeting in regard to the capital and lease costs, if any, associated with obtaining the jetfoil from the Boeing corporation? Could the minister advise whether or not a commitment was given to those business people that if the jetfoil should demonstrate a profit within the next year to three years, it was the government's intention, policy and commitment to remove the jetfoil from the quasi-public operation where it currently is held, and instead to place it in the hands of a profit-oriented operation, operated privately in the usual way by some association here in Victoria?

Could the minister further inform us what the current operating losses of the jetfoil are and have been since the inception of that service? I'm particularly concerned about the admitted loss by the government of passenger revenues as the result of — the government would tell us — the volcano or some other factor. We're especially interested in knowing what the revenue losses have been for the jetfoil.

Can the minister advise, as well, whether or not consideration is now being given to re-establishing the fare structure in order that Americans, who pay American dollars numerically equivalent to Canadian dollars, but in exchange value worth more, will now be given an opportunity to feel that they're not being discriminated against in an unfair or unreasonable way by the current fare structure? As the minister will know, the fare structure has been heavily attacked not just in the Canadian press but in the American press. Persons who use that service feel, for demonstrable and fair reasons, that they are being charged more than a Canadian citizen would be for an identical service. It may be that there's a kind of double standard here, which is also prejudicing the success of the trip. That's important.

I wonder if the minister could tell us as well, in regard to the Victoria Princess, what additional maintenance costs have resulted from the determination to go ahead with the schedule of almost two round trips a day that was recently announced by B.C. Steamships.

HON. MR. FRASER: The one that you said was impossible?

MR. BARBER: Well, the reason it's impossible is that the ship is running on the red line, and I'll get to that in a moment. The reason it's running on the red line, speaking as far as the engineering concerns go and not yet the fiscal concerns is that....

HON. MR. FRASER: The captain will be interested to hear that.

MR. BARBER: It's not just the captain who's raised the matter.

The red-line problems in the engine room are such that the crew, as the minister should surely be aware, is concerned that it will not be possible to maintain, against the tide and against the schedule, that vessel on its current schedule. Why is that? Because running on the red all the time the vessel heats up. It uses more oil than it should; it requires more maintenance than it should; it wears down more quickly than it should; it costs more than it should. That is one of the problems and always has been with that particular run. I wonder if the minister has figures yet at hand — I appreciate he may not have them yet as of this date — as to the additional upkeep and repair costs associated with the attempt to run the vessel almost two round trips a day. As the minister knows, it is not quite that schedule. They weren't able to do that precisely.

I have other questions as well in regard to the administration of the jetfoil, but if the minister has answers to these questions I would appreciate them now and then we'll get back to a few more questions of the same nature.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've got to be careful here. I have so many papers I can't sort them all out, but I'll try.

First of all, I don't want to get involved — I don't mind it with the MLAs — in playing the apple and orange game regarding figures with the press. They love it and I don't like it one little bit. I want to make it abundantly clear that the information I had on the Princess Marguerite was that last year in the month of June they transported 35,000 people to Victoria. I understand that for the month of June 1980, the combined jetfoil and Victoria Princess transported 25,000 passengers to and from Seattle and Victoria. There is a fact here that it is down approximately 30 percent. A lot of statements can be made about it but the best one I've heard is that the occupancy in Seattle of all hotels down there is down 30-odd percent. I think we are dealing with a lot of factors here — the American economy, Mount St. Helens and generally the weather. The other part of the answer I have not got.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: If you can keep your colleague quiet like he's supposed to be quiet, first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), this noisy member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)....

I haven't got the breakdown on the jetfoil and the Flying Princess — how many each vessel.... But I could certainly get that, because I know the record is kept.

I was interested in the famous meeting. You want to know who attended the famous meeting. Well, a lot of fine citizens attended that meeting from Victoria....

MR. BARBER: Name one.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Premier of British Columbia was there.

MR. BARBER: No, name a fine citizen.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, everybody in the room was a fine citizen. The room was full. We had a great meeting. A lot of things were discussed. I don't think anything was finalized at that meeting, but I certainly knew from having the honour to be at that meeting that we have a great leader in British Columbia. He told them what the government and people of British Columbia would like to see. He didn't demand anything. We had local citizens there who were concerned. They weren't like the MLAs for Victoria, who just want to tear down anything that happens. They were there to help the tourist industry of Victoria. As I say, we had a very good meeting. My worthy colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phil-

[ Page 3114 ]

lips) was there, and there were others there as well. I don't even know all their names. I could guess at some.

MR. BARBER: There was Brian, Cedric, Tom, John....

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, right. But then you'll want me to sign an affidavit that their last name was so-and-so, and I'm not prepared to do that. I'm not trying to hide anything. They're all fine, upstanding citizens trying to resolve an overall problem, and we, as the government of British Columbia, were trying to help. I'll try to get you a list of who was there, and try to report tomorrow.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sy Kovachich.

HON. MR. FRASER: Come on, I won't get into that one. We had that one in 1974. The then Premier of the province wouldn't tell us who was in his office, and he wouldn't tell us that he put the boots to whoever was in his office.

The answer first of all is that we don't intend to have and haven't got any accurate figures on losses of the jetfoil or the Victoria Princess. I'll try and get them but they would only be for the short period they've operated it. Those can vary for better or for worse; from what you are saying they're going to get worse. Well, I'm an optimist. I hope that doesn't happen.

One other item you brought up here does concern me. It's the last item and then I'll sit down, regarding the fact that that member is even trying to alarm, I think, the travelling public, and that doesn't do much to help tourism in downtown Victoria — and that is that we have an inadequate vessel on the Victoria to Seattle run. It's a very expensive one, and I'm going to ask the senior management of B.C. Ferries, who own that vessel, to give us a report — and maybe we can give it to you tomorrow — regarding excessive oil burning and red lights flashing and that. Quite frankly I don't think the ferry management would allow that to happen on that fine vessel that's served our province since 1965, and we expect it'll serve us for a long time to come.

MR. BARBER: We've been advised by engineering staff aboard the vessel that it frequently runs on the red line in order to make the schedule and in order to beat the tide. If you'll inquire into that I would appreciate it. But that advice is, I think, authentic and I expect that'll be drawn to your attention when you inquire.

The government has admitted that traffic and revenue — revenue to the corporation and revenue to the city of Victoria — is likely down approximately 30 percent this season. Thirty percent, the minister said, on the Victoria-Seattle run.

AN HON. MEMBER: With all the nasty things you say, no wonder!

MR. BARBER: Well, I remember in 1976, when revenues fell off because the government mindlessly and stupidly doubled the ferry rates, the various excuses that were promulgated at that time: the American economy was down, the American bicentennial was on, the bad weather was at hand and, for some reason or another, people just weren't using the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: With guys like you talking they stay at home.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. And everyone knew that four years later Mount St. Helens would explode and they were worried so they would stay home.

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell them it's running on the red line, you tell them....

MR. BARBER: Well, the problem with the government's theories is that they always occur after the fact and after the bungle. You never hear in advance that they're worried about the American economy when they double the rates or when they replace the Marguerite — a perfectly worthwhile vessel — with two completely inadequate vessels that are clearly flopping this season. The government only finds these excuses and offers these explanations after the bungle is irrefutable and proven and well acknowledged by every person, including even the few remaining Social Credit supporters on Vancouver Island.

MR. LEA: All four of them.

MR. BARBER: There are three now: Smith, Curtis and one other.

Why is that? Because the government fundamentally misjudged the nature of the Victoria to Seattle run. The government seemed to believe that it didn't matter whether or not the vessel serving that had any charm or character, any tradition or nostalgia associated with it. The government seemed to believe that if you put on a fast jetfoil it didn't matter much what it cost, nor how the Americans might feel discriminated against because of the problems with the exchange rates, nor whether or not it could fly in the fog, which it can't. When it goes down on the hull it will have to stop at Port Townsend to get additional fuel and that will cause a delay of an additional hour and a half — and all of the other problems associated with jetfoils. The government seemed not to recognize that the particular and historic success of the Seattle-Victoria service lay considerably in the vessel and not the route. It lay considerably in the charm of the service and not the route. The government once again misjudged the public mood and once again blew their own case. They scrapped the Marguerite under demonstrably false pretences. "It's going to sink." It's still floating perfectly well at Burrard Yarrows at a cost of, we now learn, $5,000 a month.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I would like the remark of the first member for Victoria — when he said there was something false when we scrapped the Marguerite — withdrawn. That is not a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member has imputed a falsehood against the minister, will the member please withdraw.

MR. BARBER: What I said was that the government scrapped it under false pretences, on a false premise. Does the minister take offence at that? I make no personal accusation at all.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do.

MR. BARBER: He certainly does? Well, I certainly withdraw it. However, I've said it often elsewhere, and until the government can demonstrate that they reported correctly, and concluded correctly on the basis of the engineers' evaluations which we have seen, then we and the public of Victoria

[ Page 3115 ]

will have no other conclusion to draw than this: you misrepresented the status of the vessel Marguerite; you misjudged the nature of the service; you misapplied government remedies; and you produced yet again another body of error, another bungle in regard to marine transport to Vancouver Island. The minister admitted 20 minutes ago what we've known for some time: the jetfoil and the Princess service are a flop this year. Now, the minister tells us, when admitting that the service is down by 30 percent, that the reason for it can be found in the fact that a volcano exploded and Seattle hotel reservations are also down by 30 percent. The minister's case would be more believable and his defence more credible if it weren't also a fact that border crossings at Blaine and Douglas are up this year. They're up month by month in the way that they always have been every year at this time. The minister's case would be more believable if it weren't for the fact that hotels in Vancouver are absolutely jammed and people can't get in. Apparently the volcano has had no influence there; apparently this government's Victoria-Seattle marine policies have had no effect.

If it were the case that border crossings were down everywhere in this province, then the minister's defence — lame as it is — might be a bit less lame; but the problem is that the only border crossings that are down are all of the ones that have not been the victims of this government's stupid policies regarding the Marguerite and the Victoria- Seattle service. Blaine crossing is up; Douglas crossing is up; the interior crossings are up. According to Canada Customs, every border crossing America to Canada in British Columbia is, as you expect, up this year — except one.

MR. LEA: Which one?

MR. BARBER: That's Victoria to Seattle, here at this harbour and there at Pier 52. That's the result of this government's stupid blundering when they scrapped the Marguerite and shouldn't have. They replaced it with two completely inadequate and demonstrably unpopular vessels. The only border crossing that's down is the one that you killed by killing the Marguerite. If the minister can produce Canada Customs figures to the contrary, we'd be interested to see them. But we know that he can't, because he knows what we know. The only one that's down is the one that has been the victim of your incompetent marine policies when you killed the Marguerite and needn't have and shouldn't have.

I have more questions to ask of the minister, but only alert him to this: we raised many questions during the Premier's estimates in regard to the deal made with business people and the jetfoil. Those questions are a matter of public record and currently appear on the order paper. The minister then responsible, the Premier, said he wouldn't answer any of them because they were up to this minister, whose estimates we are now debating. The minister has been on notice for two months of what those questions are. They can be found in the order paper this very afternoon, but the minister has known for two months what they would be. Hopefully he will come to committee tomorrow prepared to answer all of them, because they're already a matter of public record. We don't have any new ones to ask. We've already asked them of the Premier and the Premier told us that this minister would reply. Well, we look forward to all those replies tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual financial statement of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1980, together with a statement of receipts and disbursements and the report of the auditor-general, Mrs. Morrison.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I rise on a point of order. I realize there probably is no requirement for this, but there were some studies referred to during the debate by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) today and I would assume that in the interests of helping the House understand better the situation to which he was referring he would be tabling those studies and the reports from the academics which he referred to.

MR. HANSON: I'll be tabling my information in due course, There have been studies done within the Ministry of Environment and those figures are accurate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if a member is reading from a document in the House — I think that's what it says — it's supposed to be tabled in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members should be aware of the regulations regarding tabling of documents. For any member not aware, I would be happy to show him the recent citation in private.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I know the members want to help as much as they can. Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

APPENDIX

63 Mr. Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

For each of the fiscal year ends March 31, 1976 and March 31, 1980—

1. How many people were employed, full-time, in the various Provincial Ministries?

[ Page 3116 ]

2. How many people were employed, full-time, in all Provincial Crown Corporations?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. March 31, 1976, 39,139; and March 31, 1980, 39,530. (Due to a change in procedures for the collection of statistical data, a breakdown of full-time and part-time employees is not available for March 31, 1976.)

"2. March 31, 1976, 17,966; and March 31, 1980, 22,032.

66 Mr. Lorimer asked the Hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs the following question:

What was the annual ridership in public transit for the years 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979 in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional District?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

[ Page 3117 ]

69 Mr. Hall to ask the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

1. How many public servants retired and qualified for pension benefits between January 1, 1973, and March 31, 1973, inclusive?

2. How many of the above pensioners or their survivors are still in receipt of benefits today?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. 88.

"2. 88 (some of whom are surviving beneficiaries)."

71 Mr. Levi to ask the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. What salary was paid to George Lenko (a) during the 1979-80 fiscal year and (b) from April 1, 1980, to June 15, 1980?

2. What was the total of expense money collected by George Lenko (a) during the 1979-80 fiscal year and (b) from April 1, 1980, to June 15, 1980?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. (a) George Lenko was paid a salary of $17,491.11 by the Ministry of Human Resources during the fiscal year 1979-80, and (b) George Lenko was paid no salary by the Ministry of Human Resources during the period April 1, 1980, to June 15, 1980.

"2. (a) During the fiscal year 1979-80, George Lenko was paid a total of $3,306.97 in expense money, and (b) George Lenko was paid no expense money during the period from April 1, 1980, to June 15, 1980."