[ Page 3119 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Amberley Building Maintenance inquiry. Ms. Sanford –– 3119

Mr. Macdonald –– 3119

Mr. King –– 3119

Constitutionality of Family Relations Act. Mr. Macdonald –– 3119

Mr. Leggatt –– 3120

Voter registration cards. Mr. Passarell –– 3120

Mr. Lauk –– 3120

Environment ministry's policy on correspondence. Mr. Nicolson –– 3121

Downtown Vancouver open-space agreement. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 3121

Matter of Privilege

Alleged remarks by the member for Alberni.

Mr. Hyndman –– 3121

Routine Proceedings

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

Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3122

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Barber

Mr. Davis

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Tabling Documents.

B.C. Housing Management Commission annual report for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3145

THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome my wife Lillian, my daughter Lucia, and a niece from Seattle, Dianne Vandenberg.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming today the Member of Parliament from Ottawa, representing the great federal riding of Skeena, Jim Fulton.

MR. LORIMER: I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming Gord Isfeld, the former editor of the Boundary Road weekly newspaper.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Jack Hardman, director of the Burnaby Art Gallery, and his friend, Mr. Kirk.

MR. HANSON: I would ask the House to join with me today in welcoming two people who are very active in Victoria in the Blanshard Court Community Centre, Miss Lou Jorgensen and Miss Lennie Hoover.

Oral Questions

AMBERLEY BUILDING
MAINTENANCE INQUIRY

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Amberley Building Maintenance has a contract to clean B.C. government office buildings. Amberley has fired eight workers who complained that they were required to work as many as 18 to 20 hours per day at straight time. In view of the flagrant violation of B.C.'s minimum wage orders, has the minister taken steps to ensure that the eight workers get their jobs back, and that they are paid at rates consistent with the law?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am aware of the problem to which the member has referred. I'm making the appropriate inquiry at this time. It was brought to my attention yesterday. Until I receive a detailed report I'm unable to make any comments, suggestions or recommendations. I really can't say anything more.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering if the minister has been in touch with the Board of Industrial Relations on this, in order to hold an inquiry. I realize he's expecting a report. Is this through the Board of Industrial Relations, and will they be holding an inquiry into the business practices of Amberley Building Maintenance in accordance with section 95 of the Employment Standards Act?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not had contact with the Board of Industrial Relations, but I do have a meeting this afternoon at 3 o'clock at which this matter will be discussed.

MS. SANFORD: I just wonder if the minister would advise us who is Preparing the report for him if the Board of Industrial Relations is not doing that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't really think that I'm obligated to answer that question.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, where you have the evidence that employees have been forced to work in plain violation of the Hours of Work Act, are you prepared to show some gumption and refer the matter for prosecution to the Attorney-General's department? I am serious about this. Where you find violations of the labour statutes of this province, shouldn't they be prosecuted just as other people are prosecuted for breaches of the law? Are you prepared to do that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This matter was brought to my attention yesterday. I have advised members opposite that I am meeting with somebody at 3 o'clock today. Before I make any comment I would like to know all the facts on both sides. After that I'll make a decision, but not before.

MR. KING: On a supplementary to the Minister of Labour, the minister had indicated to the House that he had caused an investigation to be made. He then indicated that he was not prepared to reveal who was conducting that investigation, although I would suggest the House is entitled to that kind of information. Since the minister refuses to reveal the identity of that person, has the minister asked for a report from the offending employer?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this. I have advised you that I will be meeting with somebody at 3 o'clock today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will be meeting with someone from the ministry. I want to find all the facts. No doubt there are going to be a number of them which haven't yet been disclosed. After finding those facts, I'll make a decision.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have an oral question to the Attorney-General. In view of the court of appeal's decision which confirms that a Sherman tank has been driven through the government's Family Relations Act legislation, and confirms the failure of this government two years ago to make a constitutional reference of that act to clear the matter up then, as requested by the opposition, and the fact that literally thousands of families and children are now in a state of legal limbo and have to go through the supreme court at great expense, has the Attorney-General made a decision to act and to rewrite that act so that it is constitutional, and bring it back to this Legislature immediately?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, not only is the member's understanding of the decision faulty, but so is his recollection of the premise upon which he poses his question. He could rewrite the legislation from now until kingdom come, but, as the member well knows, he wouldn't overcome the difficulty which exists when a court of appeal has

[ Page 3120 ]

found that certain jurisdiction rests with federally appointed judges, or county and supreme court judges, rather than provincially appointed judges.

I might advise the member, Mr. Speaker, that instructions have been given to seek leave to appeal the opinion expressed by the court of appeal. I might also point out to the member — who should know — that this jurisdiction has been exercised in this province at least since 1962, and in some respects since we joined Confederation, and that similar jurisdiction is exercised in at least six of the other provinces. Therefore the importance of the matter is one which will not even escape him.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, nor will the importance of the matter escape a great many of the families in British Columbia and their children.

The constitutional position of the court of appeal could have been obtained two years ago, and the Attorney-General knows that. Is this minister willing to show some cooperation with the federal government so that this matter can be solved and valid legislation brought back into this House, instead of going along with the Canada-bashing attitude of his colleagues on the government benches?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deny emphatically the suggestion made by the hon. member that people who require relief in the four areas before the court of appeal are being denied relief in this province. When the Polglase case was decided in October 1979, in view of the fact that there were a large number of cases then standing before the family courts in this province, administrative arrangements were made with the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to ensure that all those matters would be dealt with expeditiously and effectively. They have been done so ever since, and they will continue to be handled in that way.

As far as Canada-bashing is concerned, it will be the position of the government during constitutional discussions which will commence in Montreal next Monday, as it has been in the past, that the matter of jurisdiction in family law should be given to the provinces under constitutional readjustments in this country. It's a position in which we are supported by every other province in this land.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question. While the Attorney-General makes light of the fact that the Supreme Court of B.C. can handle these matters and is doing so well and makes that seem very simple, the fact is that there are great delays and far greater expenses for families in that recourse. So I'm asking the Attorney-General this: in view of the bungling of his government with respect to this legislation, will he extend the legal aid plan so that those families who now have to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and encounter those delays at that expense will be assisted by this government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of legal aid are available to those persons who have need. It's not a matter of bungling in any respect. I suppose that the hon. member would like us to rewrite the BNA Act in this House. He knows perfectly well that's not possible.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General knows full well that if he had given jurisdiction to federally appointed judges, as most of the other provinces in Canada have done, he would have solved this matter a long time ago. Can he tell the House why he didn't decide to give jurisdiction to federally appointed judges and avoid all this legal nonsense?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I'm surprised to have that question come from that member, qualified in the law as he is. He should be aware that the supreme and county courts in this province have always had and continue to have that jurisdiction.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Following up what was said by my colleague, is the Attorney-General aware that five years ago the federal government, through its Minister of Justice, whose name was Basford — and still is — agreed with the principle that provincial judges for this jurisdiction could be designated as federal judges by the government of Canada, which would have solved this constitutional morass into which you have plunged so many families in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of which the member speaks. I again say that there has been no bungling with respect to these matters. The courts in this province have always been qualified to make the orders which are required in the four instances which have been before the court of appeal.

VOTER REGISTRATION CARDS

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. The deputy chief electoral officer advises that voter registration cards are available to community groups in packets of 25 — one packet at a time. In view of the right of every qualified citizen to vote at election time it looks like it is coming closer and closer — and in view of the chaotic enumeration procedures at the last election, has the minister decided to remove this bureaucratic obstacle and freely release voter registration cards?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could run that question by me again. I doubt that he can. Is he asking if there is a limitation of 25 registration cards in the mailing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Why didn't he say that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He did.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question. I can say that there is no limitation, to my knowledge, except for indiscriminate requests which may be made. There may be a member sitting opposite who would want to have 2,000 or 3,000 cards at his disposal. I will be glad to look into the matter and report back to the House.

MR. LAUK: To the Provincial Secretary on a supplementary, is he saying that ordinary requests from citizens for such cards may be considered by some civil servant, or by himself, as indiscriminate? Surely he means that that would

[ Page 3121 ]

definitely interfere with the democratic process and disfranchise people. There should be no limitations. The minister should stand up and say there are no limitations.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY'S
POLICY ON CORRESPONDENCE

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister say why he requires of all his departmental staff that all communication, written or verbal, from MLAs should be cleared through the minister's office?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thank the member for the question. I think that the member should know that because members of this House on the opposite side ask the minister questions, it's rather handy if the minister is given notice by his staff of the areas of concern. I have asked that where members opposite — and I understand that it's a policy that was in existence before I became the minister — make inquiries, the minister be advised.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to, by leave, give an answer to an oral question which was asked of me last week.

Leave granted.

DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER
OPEN-SPACE AGREEMENT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The question was asked by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). The February 1974 agreement was not cancelled by the province, as charged by that member. The provincial government originally paid to the city of Vancouver $4.6 million for the purchase of block 71 in the city of Vancouver. The city invested that amount of money. It earned interest of $1.2 million on that money for a total of $5.8 million. When the provincial building, otherwise known as Robson Square, was built in Vancouver, the province also made the decision to produce the civic square, which enhances the city. All installation and operating costs were home by the province of British Columbia, therefore providing the civic square which Vancouver has long desired.

The city of Vancouver made the decision to distribute the $5.8 million in the following ways. They set aside $2.4 million for the art gallery in the city of Vancouver. They used $1.3 million to purchase the property and develop Discovery Park at Burrard and Melville Streets, and the remaining $2.1 million they have allocated to provide public amenities, greenspace and parkland at the waterfront development known as the Pier B-C development or Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre site.

The document to which the member referred was the agreement which was signed in May of this year by the province and the federal government in reference to the trade and convention centre. During the discussions which led to the signing of the agreement, the city of Vancouver requested that the clause the member referred to be included, as recommended by the director of finance and the director of legal services for the city of Vancouver.

It should be noted that the second member for Vancouver Centre chose not to refer to a clause in the February 5, 1974, agreement made by the former NDP administration. Clause 11 reads as follows: "Any portion of the purchase price of lot 71 referred to which remains after the completion of the city's responsibilities included in this agreement would be used by the city for the acquisition and development of downtown open space."

The city has lived up to its agreement. When one considers that $4.6 million which was given to the city by the province has provided a very attractive downtown park, a contribution to the art gallery, and green space and park amenities surrounding the trade and convention centre complex, I think the second member for Vancouver Centre — indeed, all members in this House who are from the city of Vancouver — can feel satisfied that the civic square, which was for many years a promise and a controversy in Vancouver, has been more than fulfilled by the city government, and that it has been helped immeasurably by the provincial government of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Do I have an opportunity to reply?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARNES: Why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: By leave, hon. member. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. HYNDMAN: I rise on a matter of privilege. The matter arises from remarks attributed to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on page A4 of the Vancouver Province, July 3, 1980, in the course of a story headlined "Speaker Accused in Skelly Wrangle." The reported remarks accused Mr. Speaker of partiality in the discharge of his duties. "He has a greater interest in the interests of the government side than he has for the interests of propriety, rules and the fair and decent structure of the Legislature itself....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will table a copy of the article at the conclusion of my remarks. On the authority of May, eighteenth edition, page 148, these remarks would appear to constitute a prima facie breach of the privileges of this House or. alternately, constitute a contempt of this House. I therefore ask Your Honour to consider this matter of privilege which I raise at this earliest opportunity. In the event Your Honour should find a breach of privilege or a contempt, I propose to move that this House finds the hon. member for Skeena guilty of a breach of privilege and in contempt of this House in that he did, on the second day of July, 1980, as reported in the Vancouver Province on July 3, 1980, wrongly reflect on Mr. Speaker by accusations of partiality, impropriety and unfairness in the discharge of his duties as Speaker of this House. In referring this matter of privilege to Your Honour, rather than to a committee of this House, I am guided by the practice of the Commons as reflected in Commons Journals, 1893, page 417, in respect of matters affecting Mr. Speaker, rather than a member.

[ Page 3122 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no debate, hon. members. I will take the matter under advisement, without prejudicing the member's case, and report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We had not nearly completed the debate or the questioning of the minister yesterday and we haven't even started on Highways yet. I do intend to spend the first part of the debate again today discussing certain aspects of water transportation problems on the coast of British Columbia affecting two specific communities, as will some of the other members in our House. I know that many of the members on the government side will be joining in this debate, but if they could confine themselves to this topic and get it out of the way before we delve into the many, many aspects of highways, it would be appreciated.

I am going to start quite mildly because in checking the Blues this morning I find that I wasn't quite satisfied. I know that the minister didn't do this intentionally, because there were so many questions posed yesterday, but he did not quite complete some of the answers to questions we posed yesterday. If the minister would make a note, one of the questions which wasn't answered satisfactorily is what the B.C. Steamship Company will be paying in rental costs for the leasing of the Victoria Princess, the former Queen of Prince Rupert, to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What vessel does the minister intend to replace the Victoria Princess with for the 1981 summer season — if that decision has been made — or what vessels are they looking at? Or are they thinking about purchasing, perhaps, a vessel from some other part of the world or utilizing a vessel that is now in service on another route? If the minister could answer that question it would be appreciated.

While we are discussing that particular route, I know that other members have a great deal to say on this aspect because we know that tourist traffic to this city particularly is down considerably.

I heard the minister this morning on CBC radio blaming the volcano. That is just a little much. We can blame a lot of things. I could blame the volcano for my getting to Victoria late yesterday afternoon. When I went to my banker last Monday I blamed my finances on the volcano, but he didn't accept that answer. So we can't just blame everything that happens here in Victoria on the volcano. We attempt to blame it on "Bungle Bill" and things like that, but the volcano.... That's stretching it a bit.

I am playing the part of a responsible opposition member in putting forward positive suggestions to that government, which they implement and then take credit for. I'd like to give the minister another one. The Marguerite is perfectly capable of sailing. There's no question about it. Canadian Pacific operates a tour vessel from the lower mainland toAlaska that is a year older. It's a sister ship, but a year older than the Marguerite. It is in perfectly good condition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten times the route miles.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's absolutely right.

They have made a decision, and they won't take a second look at a decision once they've made it, as the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, used to do, to his great political advantage. Because they won't take a second look, and there appears to be almost no hope that the Marguerite will be put back on that particular route between Seattle and Victoria, I'm suggesting to the minister: don't scrap that vessel. Don't give it away. Don't let them sink it in the Vancouver harbour. Don't turn it into a museum. That is a ridiculous waste and use of that particular fine, fine vessel.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is this. I'll tell you this right now, for the record. If I ever have anything to say about it directly — and that opportunity may come within the next year or two, hopefully — I would put that vessel on a day route between Victoria, the Gulf Islands, Vancouver or somewhere in that area. It would be extremely popular over the five- or six-month tourist season. You would have to accept reservations months in advance, I kid you not. It would be that popular. It's a good use for that very fine vessel. If you're thinking of selling that particular boat for $50,000, as you did with a previous vessel.... The person you sold it to sold the engines out of it for $54,000 and still had the vessel. That was another bad bungle by this government. Okay, if the minister could discuss that for a minute, I would appreciate it.

I have another positive suggestion. I've raised this in the House before. I do it every year, but I'm going to do it again and probably next year as well. Having visited all of the major and most of the smaller communities on the coast of British Columbia and, in terms of transportation, having discussed with municipal councils, regional districts, chambers of commerce and people in the wholesale-retail transportation business, most people agree with me that what we require on the coast of British Columbia is a type of self propelled vessel with lift-on, lift-off capabilities and passenger capabilities. In fact, right now my research indicates we could use two such vessels at the present time. I would remind the minister that the federal government is responsible for building the type of wharf that could accommodate this type of vessel. When we're talking about ferries and building ferry ramps in small communities, the cost is horrendous. I'm very much aware of that. The minister is as aware as I am that the proposed ferry terminal in Bella Coola, for example.... The studies indicate, as I recall — and the person who knows is sitting right behind you, so I'll accept the nod — that the cost is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.7 million, but I suspect that with inflationary rates and the terrain the contractor would have to work in in that area to build a proper ferry ramp, it would probably end up in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million.

The point I'm making is that to properly service the smaller communities and the inlets on the coast of British Columbia and the cast coast of Vancouver Island and to provide proper transportation services and rational economic growth for these areas, this positive proposal I'm putting forward is, in my view, a good suggestion. Should the opportunity arise, Mr. Chairman, I would make every effort to implement this on the coast of British Columbia.

[ Page 3123 ]

I have one last item on this particular topic. This is what the people of this province who have to live on this coast are asking for. This is the type of service they want. You realize, Mr. Chairman, that at one time, up to five years ago, we had this kind of service on the coast of British Columbia — partially, not fully. We had this type of service on the coast of British Columbia, and it worked reasonably well. Because the federal government would not go along with a subsidy to Northland Navigation at that time, Northland Navigation pulled out. They quit. They threatened they would. They were requesting a $4 million subsidy at that time.

As a result of all this — to make a long boring story into a short boring story — there was a lack of transportation services for some time to many points on the coast, and there still is. I've mentioned Bella Coola — I'll mention that community again — which still has no decent water transportation service since Northland left. One of the results has been that the costs of moving and transporting goods, needed materials, food supplies and normal living supplies have increased tremendously. I won't go through the wealth of figures I have here, because I know the minister has them. In fact, what I received was a copy of comparative costs of water transportation to these coastal communities. The original copies went to the minister's office. In general, costs of transportation of these goods, whatever they may be — foodstuffs primarily, but anything that people need to live — has literally tripled. The minister is aware of this. There's been an inflationary rate. Certain companies attempting to provide a reasonably good service — and I'm not knocking these private companies — perhaps in order to survive, do have a monopoly.

The minister may not be aware that because the community of Prince Rupert has alternative transportation services — railroads, a fairly decent aircraft service, and a highway into the community — the same company.... I won't name it here, because I'm not going to pick on any particular company; there are several involved. On the journey from Vancouver to the north coast, when they're making their regular stop, for example at Bella Bella, the freight rates into Bella Bella are double what they are in Prince Rupert, which is almost twice as far as Bella Bella. The reason is that there's no competition into Bella Bella, but in Prince Rupert there is competition, so they lower their freight rates accordingly. That's not fair. It's one of the reasons I asked the minister yesterday to give us a firm....

Mr. Minister, I hope you're listening to this. You answered this question yesterday, but you said nothing. Your government promised to bring in an overall transportation policy for this province. The question was very clear: is that study in progress, and when can we expect the results of that study to be made public? That's all I'm asking. I don't want to hear all this other gobbledegook about this, that and the other thing. It doesn't mean anything to the people up there, and it sure as heck doesn't mean anything to me. It is a very straightforward question, and I hope the minister will answer it.

While we're discussing these particular topics I want to suggest to the minister that the federal government....

This is what I started on a while ago, but I got off the track a bit. The federal government came across with a subsidy based on a very complicated formula of subsidizing coast transportation services. I've charged in this House before, and I'm charging again today, that the government, in my view, is accepting that federal government subsidy under false pretences. That subsidy is not going directly....

The agreement, of which the minister and I and many of my colleagues and many of my federal colleagues have a copy — I believe it's under section 2 of paragraph 4 — clearly indicates that the provincial government will assume sole responsibility and maintain adequate transportation policies on the coast of British Columbia. Those funds are going into general revenues. I talked to our federal counterparts, Mr. Pépin, and to our unelected representative from British Columbia in the cabinet, Senator Perrault, just three or four weeks ago. They agreed with the concept, and they understand the situation very well. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that those federal funds specifically earmarked for coast transportation problem matters should at least be put in that particular direction.

One last question on that item, if the minister could indicate.... These are my own figures, because I haven't received the precise figures from the government. I'm anticipating that the federal government's subsidy this year — which is a five-year contract, up for renewal for another five years — is going to be about $9.6 million. Perhaps the minister could give us the exact figure, or a reasonable figure, on that amount. I'd like to know — something close, it doesn't have to be right on to the last dime. When we're dealing in hundreds of millions, and sometimes billions, I guess 50 cents one way or the other doesn't matter much, unless you're buying half a pack of smokes.

Mr. Chairman, while we're on the subject of answers to questions that weren't answered satisfactorily, the minister was confused in his answer, I believe. I was reading the Blues this morning. It was not through his fault, because I don't think I phrased the question correctly yesterday about a certain study that I referred to. I wasn't referring to the internal study on the Active Pass disaster; I was referring to an internal study being conducted by the B.C. Ferry Corporation on management practices within that corporation. I don't recall offhand, because I don't have his name here — no, I'd best not get into names — but I know that study, if it's not completed, is nearing completion. I wonder if the general manager of the corporation is on the floor of the House today. Would he be good enough to advise the minister if that study has been completed and if that study will be made public? If it is not going to be made public, I'd like to know the reason why. If he is not going to make it public, I serve notice to the House right now that I will. I really think it's more proper that it should come from the government side, Mr. Chairman. I think that's the route....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, no. We find these things lying around.

Mr. Chairman, I have one more item of a positive nature. I suggested this to the minister in writing and certainly to the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It's an item that makes a great deal of sense and it can be implemented, but perhaps not this year. I can understand, to some extent, your problem with the deployment of vessels on various routes this year. If you had taken my advice earlier, you wouldn't have been in all this trouble, but you didn't. That's fair enough. You're the government and we ain't. I hate to admit that, but that's the way it is these days — just for a little while longer.

I'm going to suggest once again, Mr. Chairman, through

[ Page 3124 ]

you to the minister, that a direct ferry link between Vancouver and the lower mainland, at least Horseshoe Bay to Powell River, makes eminent sense. It would leave the present Powell River Queen serving route 7 on that run year-round over the winter schedule, so that tourists and people having business between those two regional areas and whatever have the option of travelling that way. A direct ferry link utilizing a vessel of the class of the Sidney or Tsawwassen would be a three hour and 15 minute trip each way. I've checked this out very carefully with senior people within your ministry, and it works out quite well. It takes three hours and 15 minutes or seven hours each way, two trips a day. The commercial people in the community and even your chamber of commerce — I should say "your" chamber of commerce, because I think we've got two members on there and you've got 88 — agree with the concept.

What it would do is negate the need for putting a second vessel on route 7 over the busy five-month summer period and relieve the pressure of the traffic congestion we have on that route at the moment. But more than that, if you served decent food and had a reasonable crew on that type of operation, aside from the economic advantages to the commercial people, it would be so popular with the tourists in the summer, Mr. Chairman, you would not believe it. I think a three hour and 15 minute pleasant voyage up one of the most beautiful parts of British Columbia into an area where you have all the types of recreation that you can possibly imagine would be great. I think it would be a great idea.

I should tell the minister that I did take the trouble to check with a couple of the major terminals in Vancouver city. The vessel would not necessarily have to leave from Horseshoe Bay. It could leave from downtown Vancouver for a modest rental fee with one of the private companies at one of those terminals to the ferry terminal in Powell River. It makes absolute sense.

Now the minister's reply will be.... Once again I've discussed this with some senior management people within the corporation and with people on theSunshine Coast. They say that all these people travelling down to the heavily populated area of Powell River through the Sun shine Coast would hurt their businesses. But we did a little bit of a study on that. I don't know if the minister is aware of it. We asked people at the terminal how many of them actually stopped. We found that of people travelling from the populated regional area of Powell River to the terminal at Langdale, only 8 percent stopped en route for any reason — for a pack of smokes, a beer, a meal or whatever. Usually the items they wanted were very small, so it would have very little economic effect on theSun shine Coast itself. So I won't accept that answer, if that is the answer you are going to give me. It would greatly increase the economic opportunities for the business community, and certainly for the residents of that populated regional area of Powell River. I hope the minister will consider that.

We have another question. It was not posed yesterday, so that is the reason I didn't get an answer. We will pose the question today.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're supposed to anticipate these things.

HON. MR. FRASER: I answered the question, but he doesn't accept the answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's nothing too serious, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not serious?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, it's not serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, the minister can handle it then.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was wondering if the minister could indicate to this House the cost of the ferry service from Sandspit to Queen Charlotte — the cost of the terminals and the overall transportation costs, including the construction or redeployment of the vessel.

That pretty well does it on that score. I have received a great deal of correspondence which I was going to go into. I should say that about half the correspondence I have received has been received by the minister or someone in his ministry as well. I suppose it would be wasting the time of this House to read the 400 or 500 pieces of correspondence just relating to water transportation services that I have received within the last eight months. I know that the minister and his staff have received much of this correspondence.

I received an interesting one this morning. I won't read it; I'll just refer to it in a general way. It's not a horrendous problem, but it's the kind of thing that bugs the people who utilize the highways and ferries on the coast of this province. This particular item deals with the actual printing of the schedules. The way it is now on some routes, if you are travelling on a B.C. Ferry Corporation vessel, you can only see a certain portion of the ferry schedules. All the schedules are not printed together. If you must take a B.C. Ferry to make a connecting link with a B.C. Highways–operated ferry, that schedule is, in some cases, not printed on the schedules. It's no big deal. I'm not going to filibuster the House about it for the next three weeks. I've got other things to do that about. What I am saying is, look, rationalize those schedules and accommodate people. After all, the service is there to serve the people of this province, and it's a small thing.

Mr. Chairman, while I've got the floor, I want to discuss a topic I raised under the spending estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is on the board of directors of ICBC. The reply I received at that time from that minister was that while he would look into it, it was sort of a grey area and there was not much he could do about it, and the topic would more properly be raised under the spending estimates of the Minister of Highways and Transportation, so I am going to do it now and see what happens.

This relates — I'd best have the minister's attention — to people who suffer automobile or vehicle damage while boarding or departing a B.C. ferry. I have reams of correspondence on this issue. I've forwarded most of the pertinent correspondence to ICBC, to various management people within the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and one or two of the more serious items to the minister's office. I have received no suitable reply from anyone on this.

Here is what happens, Mr. Chairman. When people have suffered fender-benders, usually not serious accidents, although I have copies here of some quite serious accidents — expensive, but no injuries — ICBC refuses to accept the

[ Page 3125 ]

claim because the incident occurred aboard a B.C. ferry. We have testimony from people from the B.C. Ferry Corporation who happened to be present on the deck at the time. Yet various people in management positions of the corporation will not accept responsibility and say it's an ICBC responsibility. Now your colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for ICBC, has finally agreed that this is a grey area that should be looked at, and we'll have to do something about it. But while you're looking and thinking, and while we have all of this grey stuff hanging around, what happens is that the people who've actually suffered the damage — and I've got one or two really sad cases here of individuals.... In fact, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I have gone personally and looked at the damage and I verify that the incident did occur aboard a B.C. ferry, where no compensation has ever.... Oh, I'm sorry. I'll only be a second. I didn't mean to be this long, actually. All I'm requesting from the minister now — because that's all I can do.... I can't demand and I can't change the regulations. But it involves a lot of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Demand!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My colleague says: "Demand." Okay, I demand that somebody talk to your colleague who represents ICBC in this Legislature and talk to whoever runs the B.C. Ferry Corporation and is ultimately responsible. I don't care how you do it, but somehow these people should be compensated for these vehicle accidents — collisions, fender benders or whatever.

One particular case which really bothered me involved an elderly lady. It was totally not her fault. I personally spoke to the deckhand on this one. She didn't have the financial resources to get the thing fixed properly, and nobody would take responsibility. I personally went to ICBC and the B.C. Ferry Corporation on this one and pleaded her case and got absolutely nowhere with anyone. So this is the kind of thing that happens and it's going to happen again and again. I'm not placing the blame on the.... Because these things happen. It happened to me once — just a slight thing, nothing big. The fact is, occasionally and from time to time there are going to be vehicle accidents aboard the B.C. ferries.

So if the minister, along with his colleagues from ICBC, could work this thing out, perhaps even a bit retroactively, where there is a legitimate case, I certainly would appreciate it and I know the people utilizing the service would.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and the member for Mackenzie. I don't know how long it took to ask those questions, but I'm not going to take as long to answer them. Now I'll try to answer, although I realize they won't suffice, and then I'll try again.

First of all, I'll start from the first of the member's questions and try to attempt to answer. Regarding the leased cost of the Flying Princess, formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert, a committee from B.C. Ferries and B.C. Steamships is working on it, but they haven't arrived at a cost and so there is no reply to that as yet.

Regarding what vessel is going to operate on the.... I think your question concerned the Victoria-Seattle run, B.C. Steamships, 1981. I believe I answered that yesterday and said we were trying to come to a resolution of that by the end of July 1980, so we won't have the problems at the last minute in the spring of 1981. The answer I gave was that we're looking at the ships we have in the fleets and we're looking at a lot of options but, again, no decisions. The senior staff have been told to make recommendations to us, the board of directors, by the end of July, so we can get on and make a decision.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The other thing I want to say is just to remark that in your opinion — and I appreciate that — the Princess Marguerite is capable of operating. Well, of course, there are other people that have different opinions. That's why the Princess Marguerite is not operating. Regarding scrapping the Marguerite, we've never said that we'd scrap the Marguerite. There's been no decision made on that. but one offer has been made by the Premier of the province regarding the Princess Marguerite and the offer was that if a community group wanted to organize it for Victoria, the government would consider donating the vessel as a maritime museum. As far as I'm concerned, they haven't accepted that offer. That's the only type of commitment — if you want to look at disposal of the Marguerite — that I'm aware of, and it hasn't been responded to at this time.

I'll go on to a lift-on, lift-off vessel, regarding the water transport on the Pacific coast, and I have things to tell the committee here. Yes, we, the board of directors of the B.C. Ferries, have looked into this lift-on, lift-off vessel, and what is going on at the present time on that is we're actively looking, with a naval architect process and design, and testing by naval architects, at a class of vessel that will combine passenger and vehicle capacity. We have not yet received the completed approved design, but it is very close.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, to the House and specifically to the member is that we're looking at a vessel that, if I recall the specs, would be roughly a 350-ton vessel. It is not specifically of the type that you are referring to — the lift-on. lift-off type, it's roll-on, roll-off, a smaller variety.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I might need to clarify that, but I would like to emphasize this, regarding the policy of B.C. Ferries: it could well be and probably will be, if we decide to go ahead, built in British Columbia. But we might put that out on a charter to an operator. We might not necessarily operate that ourselves. We could make an arrangement. But again, none of the decisions have been made. I think we are getting fairly close. What I have in mind are areas that are very difficult for us to give transportation to. Hartley Bay is one area that we don't go to at all. We think this vessel would give service to that area that is very difficult to serve, and other smaller communities. We don't intend to replace the Queen of the North at Bella Bella, for example, but the smaller.... And we're looking at that. I think I could safely say, on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that we'll be making a decision along this line when we get the architecture, which is due any day now, to expand the service further and get on with it, make the decisions, and start calling tender calls still in 1980 for this vessel. I don't know how long that'll take. It might be safe to say that if all decisions are made in the affirmative, about a year from now we will probably have this type of service in for the smaller communities.

I'll give my version of the service on the Pacific coast by

[ Page 3126 ]

water. I'll try, and be as accurate as I can from memory, but as the committee are aware, Northland Navigation pulled out in 1976. I've never heard in the province of British Columbia more respect paid a company than was paid them for the service they gave over a long period of time to the citizens of the coast of British Columbia. They got into an argument or a discussion with the government of Canada. You say they were being subsidized $4 million a year. Maybe that's correct, but in any case they couldn't make an agreement and they pulled out because they couldn't operate. They ceased operations. At that point, of course, British Columbia was left with really no reliable service other than isolated runs, as I understand it. Northland certainly gave a lot of service to a lot of places, including the Queen Charlotte Islands. As I say, that was in 1976.

With that happening, our government made an arrangement with the government of Canada to look after the Pacific coast — I would like to emphasize this — at the sole discretion of the province, and it started in 1977 at a value of $8 million per annum. It has an escalator clause in it tied to the cost of living index. I believe it's for Vancouver, but I'm not sure of that. Yes, that money goes into the provincial treasury. That's completely correct, because the funds come from the government of Canada. It goes into the provincial treasury. In the year 1979-1980 the subsidy to the B.C. Ferry Corporation going out of the provincial treasury after all fares were collected was $53 million. So I don't really think you're trying to make a point that we're stealing the $8 million that's coming from Ottawa. What I'm saying is that it does go into the treasury, but out of the treasury $53 million is paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, or was, making a net — if you want to look at it that way — cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia for the operation of B.C. Ferries of $45 million. That's based on the 1979 operating year, and I believe in 1980, if my records are correct, the subsidy from Ottawa will escalate to $9.6 million. I think you wanted to know that, and that's the information I have.

I was trying to deal with the water service on the entire Pacific coast here first. Apart from all the direct costs and the total cost of docks that we have to build, I can deal again with the Queen Charlotte Islands. As I related, they were left with no reliable marine service to the island. I think they had charter service and so on. The decision was made a year ago to expand the service of the B.C. Ferry Corporation from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

I might say that we have 6,000 citizens on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I know there has been a lot of debate for and against ferry service on the Queen Charlotte Islands. But I would say that 80 percent of the 6,000 people on the islands are anxiously awaiting the start of ferry service for those islands.

We have awarded a contract for $4.7 million for the dock to accommodate our boat, which we hope will arrive there in October. The dock is being built at Skidegate. The reason the dock is being built at Skidegate is that marine engineers advised that that was the best place for our larger vessels to go into. There was a lot of controversy, and rightly so — they wanted it to go into Masset, a community with about 3,000 citizens at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. But because of harbours, tides and so on the decision was made, after being advised by the board of directors, that our service would go into Skidegate — and it's well on the way.

Speaking of transportation for the Queen Charlotte Islands, I might say that they are not without transportation.

They have air services, which are very expensive, I might say. Pacific Western Airlines has a regularly scheduled flight into Sandspit from Prince Rupert; I believe it's on a daily basis. That's the way people can get in and out; it's about the only way unless they swim across Hecate Strait. The other service they have in there — I think that the government and B.C. Ferry Corporation didn't forget them — is a tug and barge service. It operates from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and they land at Masset. That's been in operation for some two years. As a matter of fact, the contractor, RivTow Straits, a large company which operates on the Pacific coast, does an excellent job. They haul trucks and cars and loaded trailers. They operate a closed barge, towed by a very powerful tug. Hecate Strait is the worst piece of water in the western world, I understand. They operate this freight service into Masset three times a week; I believe it's reduced to twice a week in the wintertime. If you have a car, you have to take it onto the barge, and it's all chained down for the rough trip across. When it gets to the other side, you have to either swim or get an airplane to catch up with your vehicle.

Speaking now for the Ferries board of directors, the policy decision has not been made as to whether we will eliminate the tug and barge service when we put on our own roll-on, roll-off boat. I would like to add that in October the former Queen of Prince Rupert, now the Victoria Princess, is designated to go into service from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlottes. I'd like to point out to the committee that there's nothing stopping the Queen of the North going there either. I'd like you to think of that: the Queen of the North can also operate. For the information of the committee, they are the only two boats we have that can operate in that difficult water. So we have some options there. The decision made so far is that the Victoria Princess, formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert, when it's through down here, will take over that run in October. But a decision has not been made whether to run the boat on a roll-on, roll-off basis plus the tug and barge.

It is my information that the tug and barge contract.... After the revenues are collected from the cartage of cars and commercial vehicles, the net cost to the B.C. Ferry Corporation for this service from Prince Rupert to Masset on Queen Charlotte Islands is approximately $500,000 a year. So they are getting some service. What I am really saying is that we plan to upgrade it in 1980.

You latterly referred to brochures and schedules and so on and so forth. I have an interesting comment here. I don't know whether it answers your question, but it looks to me like the B.C. Ferry Corporation already has enough brochures and schedules to keep about two pulpmills in operation. It says here that in 1979 they produced and put out 5,750,000 brochures and schedules. That is being increased this year by 150,000 to 5,900,000 — almost six million pieces. We will soon have to buy an extra boat just to haul the brochures.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: With all respect, Alex, that's part of the problem, not the solution.

HON. MR. FRASER: I see.

Regarding the ICBC claims, it appears to me that the runaround by either ICBC or B.C. Ferries....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just tell me you'll look at it.

[ Page 3127 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: We certainly will. Wait a minute, we've already looked at it and there has been one change made. I don't mind informing the committee that the Highways ministry has a claims office and officer and have had for years. They have been looking after the claims of B.C. Ferries. That has changed, effective April 1 of this year. B.C. Ferries, I understand, now have their own claims officer, so that responsibility has been transferred from Highways. Whether this will resolve the claimants' problems, we will have to see. I will just remind the committee that there are accidents on the ferries when they are coming off and going on and so on. In a lot of cases it's not the ferry operation's problem; maybe there's a little problem with some of the drivers. What I am really saying is that all claims aren't going to be satisfied. They try to establish cause and so on and so forth.

The other one I haven't had time to find out about, but I missed it when I was trying to deal with the coast. Just in conclusion of that, we have almost doubled the capacity of the up-coast service. While the opposite side are quick to find fault — and that is good and fine — I wish they'd ask me a question about the Queen of the North, that starter which will almost double the capacity. We are now booked solid on that run and it is turning out to be a very real success story. I understand from some analysis that our B.C. people are really taking advantage of that circular trip. That is to drive up Vancouver Island for the first time ever on a new and decent road through to Port Hardy, get on the Queen of the North and land at Prince Rupert and then take Highway 16 through, if they want, to Alberta. I wanted to emphasize for the benefit of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that they have a decent highway — Highway 16. It is one of our better highways across the province from east to west and from west to east to the Alberta boundary. Then it joins with another good highway at the small community of Prince George. It connects with Highway 97, and you can go north to the Peace River or back down to the great Pacific coast at Vancouver. I highly recommend it. It is a great trip, and if our B.C. citizens haven't taken it they haven't lived yet, and I recommend they take it as soon as they can.

You were suggesting service from downtown Vancouver to Powell River direct, as I understand it. I will have to check with senior staff as to whether they've looked at this or not. I really don't know whether they have. You say you've talked with them, but I know from the board of directors' level that we're not imminently planning to put that type of service on there. I know the member doesn't like to hear this, but I don't want the impression left in the Legislature that we have stood still in trying to improve the service on route 7 on theSunshine Coast.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Last year the B.C. Ferry Corporation stretched the Powell River Queen from a 50-car to a 70-car vessel. It was re-engined, and it didn't at the start perform the way it was planned, but now I understand it's performing excellently. What I'm trying to say is that there has been more capacity put on that run. Sure, it'll have difficulties on long weekends, but I remind the Legislature and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that on an overall yearly basis it's operating at 50 percent of its capacity.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's not a fair comparison and you know it.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's what I got from senior management. I didn't check with the NDP club on the Sunshine Coast or anything — maybe I should. I have to take my advice from the senior people who are paid to do that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on that run, I personally told the superintendent of operations to go to Powell River and try and adjust schedules that conflicted with the local people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You did, and I thank you for it.

HON. MR. FRASER: That happened on my birthday, June 21 — that's why I know that date. I understand that helped somewhat, so we are trying to accommodate....

But the one thing we have on that run that is a concern to the member for that area and to the Ferry Corporation is that because of the booming economy in our province Macmillan Bloedel are spending $500 million, I believe it is, on upgrading their pulpmill at Powell River, and it's adding a lot of extra problems for all our transportation systems. But we're sure glad to see that, as we're the government that generated the climate for this to happen, and we're going to accommodate the increased economic activity to the best of our ability. But it will. as the member knows, drop off a certain amount at the end of 1980 or maybe mid-1981 when the construction is really peaking. I know that with our government the economic activity will keep up and, of course, we're glad to cope with these growing pains that we've really created ourselves.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to be extremely brief. Many of my colleagues are extremely anxious to speak in this debate...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, sit down then.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: ...but I must clarify a point or two. Will the Minister of Dog Housing take his seat and just relax?

First of all, just to correct an impression with the minister, Mr. Chairman, on the stretching of the Queen of Powell River on route 7, that vessel was stretched last year. With that plus a supplementary vessel we still had overloads. This year we have a stretched vessel and no overloads, with two extra sailings daily. The minister was good enough to meet with the municipal council and other representatives from the community. He did adjust the schedule accordingly, and I publicly thank the minister for making those adjustments. However, it is still totally inadequate at the present time. I think most people who travel that route and people in ferry management who know about these things will agree with that.

Just for the minister's own personal knowledge, for example, if the vessel on route 3 from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale is even 10 minutes late there's no way, on some connecting schedules, without breaking your neck and getting picked up by the police for speeding, that you can make that vessel at Earls Cove on route 7. Secondly, that vessel does not run promptly all the time. We had an engine failure on that vessel last week. There's no reason the minister should be aware of it, but you can expect that because of the speed, the capacity and other factors there is going to be the occasional vessel failure on that route. I hope that when that

[ Page 3128 ]

vessel, sometime during the course of summer — and hopefully not a holiday weekend — breaks down for two or three days, you will have a vessel to put in there on an emergency basis.

What I really got up to mention to, you, Mr. Chairman, were two items very quickly. When I was discussing the federal subsidy — I'm very much familiar, as are many people in this House, with the transfer of funds and subsidies to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, subsidies to Highways operated ferries and all that thing — what I was discussing specifically was that it was my understanding from that agreement that the provincial government would take up and provide services to the communities that Northland Navigation and other companies provided services to when that service was terminated.

What I'm saying to you now — and I can give you the names of all the communities right now, if you wish — is that the provincial government, over the last four- to five-year period, has simply not done that, in my view. You know, it's quite obvious when there's no boat coming into your community that the service that was previously being, provided is not being provided. This was the point I was attempting to make.

Last but not least — and I want to leave this with the minister — I would like the minister to go to the government, his own cabinet, and recommend, and bring in a motion on the order paper, that the committee on transportation and highways be convened to look into the sordid and sad state of water transportation in the province of British Columbia today. Let's take a legislative committee in the people of this province. Let's get out in the field after this session is over — around the 24th of next December — and let's get on with that committee work. I would strongly suggest and recommend that the minister convene a legislative committee.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We'll give the mouth of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) one day off; we'll give him Christmas Day off; we'll give his mouth a rest, and we'll convene that committee. We'll look at the water transportation system in this province, which has gone to the dogs since the minister has assumed responsibility and this government has come to power, because there's no way you can have rational economic development on the coast of this province under the present policies of this government.

MR. BARBER: The member for Cariboo is a nice guy and well regarded in the House, but he has an unfortunate and impossible job. He has to carry the can for his own government's incompetent marine transportation policies. The success of those policies is measured by the fact that in the last provincial election in the ten ridings of Vancouver Island, eight of them returned New Democrats — thus the overwhelming popularity of Social Credit marine policies as enunciated clearly by the voters on May 10 of last year. The people of Vancouver Island reject the incompetent policies of Social Credit in regard to marine transport. We reject as well the lame and absurd excuses that have been proffered by this minister and his predecessors.

I have in my life an eight-year-old, Mr. Chairman, and when he gets into trouble from time to time he likes to blame his misfortunes on someone or something else. If, for instance, Dustin knocks something over in the house, he might, if he's in enough trouble, blame it on the cats. If rain comes in his window because he left it open and gets his schoolwork wet, he might blame that on the window itself for magically. popping open. For eight-year-olds it is, I suppose, acceptable, to find some external source to which to attach blame. Social Credit has been doing this, and the minister has been doing it as well. Now I understand why eight-year-olds might, but I don't accept it when governments attempt to.

When this government doubled the ferry rates in 1976 and drove home all the tourists, and hurt small business on Vancouver Island, they blamed the mistake of that policy on the American Bicentennial, and they pretended that they had no notice, for the previous 200 years, that it was coming up and would affect tourist traffic. Nonetheless, they blamed the failure of that particularly stupid and mistaken policy on the American Bicentennial.

When they managed to screw up the legislation involving the Seaboard Life Insurance Co., they blamed that on a teenage clerk. Now that they're in the business of botching the coal deal, they find some means of blaming that on a party which hasn't been in power for five years. Today they blame the volcano for the failure of the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess. They blame the volcano, and they find any other laughable, absurd and insupportable excuse they can for the fact that last fall they made a series of errors — errors of judgment, errors of policy, and errors of politics, as it's turned out, as well.

Now I have some figures regarding revenue losses, which I propose to release to the committee today. The minister received these figures yesterday afternoon. We received them a short time thereafter. We propose to demonstrate in the committee today, Mr. Chairman, that not only has the government lost popularity on Vancouver Island — that's easy enough to prove; not only have they damaged the tourist economy of Vancouver Island — that's easy enough to postulate; but as well, they will be significantly in the hole by the end of the operating fiscal year for the Victoria-to-Seattle run. In a few moments I will be releasing figures which I had hoped the minister might release. But I guess, because of the embarrassment they may imply for his government, he chooses to keep them in his desk.

The government has a very serious problem. It's not simply the fact that Social Credit is giving cry-babies a bad name; they've been doing that for months. Cry-babies will continue to get a bad name under Social Credit until they are responsible and mature enough to own up to their mistakes. Mistake number one: they were persuaded that the Marguerite was not fit for babies and tourists, as John Plul said; was a floating coffin, as the then Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said; and was generally something that no one could be trusted on, even though May Bennett, the mother of the Premier, sailed on it on October 12 of last year, together with the Skillings family. Apparently it wasn't unsafe then, because surely if the vessel were, the mother of the very Premier would have been told to stay off this floating coffin. But no, May Bennett was on the vessel on October 12 of last year.

It should also be pointed out that the Princess Patricia, a duplicate vessel in every aspect except for the fact that it has nearly ten times as many nautical miles on it and is one year older than the Marguerite, is still running this year in service in good condition, because the owners of that vessel chose to look after her properly, chose to pay for the refit and maintenance work and chose to keep the vessel in service. Neither

[ Page 3129 ]

the Pat nor the Marguerite have ever had a significant accident or a collision with another vessel, to the best of my knowledge. Neither of them has ever had a problem meeting the requirements of Lloyd's of London for insurance or the requirements of the American or the Canadian Coast Guard for safety. Nonetheless the Princess Patricia — the sister ship to the Marguerite — with many more nautical miles and effective years of service and one year older, continues in service perfectly safely. But the government would have us believe that the Marguerite was unsafe.

There are only two possible reasons: one, the CPR is running a vessel that they shouldn't; or, two, the government, as usual, is being less than candid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or three, they could be stupid.

MR. BARBER: The third reason: they could be simply stupid. There is some reason to believe that's possible. But let me be kind and say that they were simply ill-advised and misguided. The problem isn't simply that they have further discredited Social Credit on Vancouver Island. They and their solitary friend in the press gallery will continue to see that that goes, as we trust it will, and we will have nine seats out of ten next time. Bye, bye, Hugh Curtis!

The problem isn't simply the political problem faced by this cry-baby coalition that will never accept responsibility for its own mistakes. The problem is further that they don't understand the root or the origin of those mistakes. They don't understand how it came to be that there was a fight in cabinet between the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. They were fighting over who would get the Surrey, and the minister whose estimates we're now debating in committee won. But you see, Mr. Chairman, not only is it difficult to govern when in coalition, it's difficult to cover your tracks after you've had a fight and one side won and the other lost. As the result of the loss, the B.C. Steamship Company spent more than $50,000 to commission drawings for the Queen of Surrey, which was to have been put, according to a promise communicated to Mr. Elworthy, on the Victoria-Seattle run. We'll be getting to that in a few minutes, and I have more vouchers which I propose to table with the committee. I am proud of the fact that my pipeline into your discredited administration is so able and so animated and so authentic that we're able to produce these documents from time to time. I know it annoys the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but he has his own problems in that ministry.

MR. BRUMMET: What does that say for the loyalty of the workers?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sieg heil!

MR. BARBER: The loyalty of the workers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARBER: It has always been the case that discredited and unpopular governments are leaky as sieves, because they command no respect. They win no respect and they gain no respect, because they're incompetent. Thus it is with the marine transport policies. Thus it comes to be that we receive so many documents.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't hire spies. You do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members, please come to order. The first member for Victoria has the floor and he continues.

MR. BARBER: That's right, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

They had a fight in cabinet, and the current minister won, and the Surrey is now the Queen of the North, and it appears to be succeeding, and we're glad for that. Mind you, it could have been put there six years ago when it was purchased for the purpose, and then would have been succeeding for the last six as well as this year, but nonetheless, better late — six years late — than not at all. However, because the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development lost, he was caught in a bind, because he had made a commitment to Mr. Elworthy, late of B.C. Steamships, that they could have the Surrey, and Mr. Elworthy, on the same day that he received this promise from the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, went ahead and commissioned the drawings from Ian Smart. Now we're going to get on in a moment to the question of the duplicate drawings and the strange similarities between the drawings Mr. Smart sold to B.C. Steamships and those he later sold to B.C. Ferries. However, we will have more documents in a moment.

Let me return to the original point, though, which is this: this government, stupidly and wrongly, scuttled the Marguerite. Why they did that is a matter of some conjecture and some amusement, as it turns out. But compounding that original mistake, they then went on to accept the witless advice of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Why was it witless? Because he didn't have his wits about him. If he did, he would surely realize the mess they would get into if they followed his own advice, which was, as chairman of the cabinet committee created by the Premier to reconcile the fight between the two ministers we've named, to find some way out of this latest mess in marine transport policies. So the Minister of Finance came up with a novel proposal. He proposed that they forget about the Marguerite, ignore the counterclaims as to its safety and reliability, put it in mothballs, waste $5,000 a month storing it in mothballs at Burrard-Yarrows, and instead we will give the good people of Seattle and Victoria two replacement vessels — one that was never previously successful on any northwest run in North America, and the second a vessel of half the capacity, lesser speed, lesser draft and lesser ability to deliver the goods.

The Minister of Finance, who shall long be remembered for this particularly foolish piece of advice, thus announced at the end of January of this year that the Marguerite was going no matter what and would be replaced by a jetfoil and the Queen of Prince Rupert. Well, what's happened? Several things have happened. First of all, the new service has been a flop. The minister himself admitted yesterday that it is down 30 percent in passengers so far. I have figures that are almost entirely up to date and indicate that it's 30 percent and slipping. I'll table those in a few minutes, if the minister wishes, and I'll read them shortly. So not only is the new service, by any yardstick, wholly inadequate in comparison with the previously and admirably popular Princess Marguerite, but it's also costing the Crown money every day that it continues to lose passenger revenues.

How did this happen? Because the coalition had a fight. Why did that happen? Because they were never committed to

[ Page 3130 ]

the Princess Marguerite and once again they have taken any stand they possibly could to get rid of another successful New Democratic venture, which the Princess Marguerite certainly was. We expect next year, as my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said yesterday, that they will announce that they are scrapping the Royal Hudson because it's obsolete and replacing it with a Budd car. You see, that's another successful NDP venture that they don't want to be reminded of.

Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance stood up at the end of January of this year and said: "Hello, jetfoil. Hello, Rupert. Bye-bye Marguerite." Well, unfortunately, the result of that has also been bye-bye tourists.

Now we get into the cry-baby routine. You see, a volcano exploded on May 18. The volcano exploded and suddenly the problem doesn't lie with the jetfoil, the Prince Rupert, the stupid decision to get rid of the Marguerite, or the fact that they fundamentally misjudged the nature of the service from Seattle to Victoria, and that's why no one takes the replacement vessels — you botched the service and have replaced the Princess Marguerite with vessels that lack all charm, character, nostalgia and tradition. The government blew it, because they seem to think the purpose of the trip was to get from Seattle to Victoria. Nonsense! The purpose of the trip was the pleasure of the trip and the pleasure taken by the people who enjoyed it. That's why they took an old, slow, charming, absolutely character-ridden vessel called the Princess Marguerite. If they want to get here faster, they'll fly PWA, if they want to get here cheaper they'll drive, and if they want to get here at all, it appears they'll take anything other than the replacement vessels you've offered, because the passenger revenues are down by 30 percent and more.

The people of Seattle apparently will do almost anything to avoid the replacement vessels you've offered. Why is that? Well, because we have some Canada Customs figures which demonstrate it quite clearly. As well, I should point out, we have the word of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).

There's a problem with the government's latest cry-baby excuse. They say that the reason the run is flopping is because tourism is flopping and that's because of the volcano. Unfortunately, the minister did not appear to consult in advance with his colleague, the Minister of Tourism, who tells us that tourism is up everywhere. She tells us that the hotels and motels are full. They have "no vacancy" signs wherever you look. The Minister of Tourism, taking credit for all of this personally, tells us that tourism has never had it so good.

I recall a front-page story in the Vancouver Sun three and a half weeks ago which said that the hotels in Vancouver were so full that they were turning people away 10 and 20 miles distant to find alternative accommodation. When was all of this happening, Mr. Chairman? Why, to and behold, it was after the volcano had exploded.

The problem with the exploding volcano is that the theory explodes when you look at the Canada Customs figures, because you find that at every major border crossing, except one, all the tourist figures are up. What's the one exception?

MR. LEA: Make them guess.

MR. BARBER: My God, do you think we should make him guess? Is it Victoria, or Victoria via Seattle?

MR. LEA: It's not Victoria. It can't be.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'm afraid it is. Do you know Victoria airport, Swartz Bay, Nanaimo, and the Coho, the vessel from Port Angeles, are all up — that's our advice — but the Flying Princess and the Victoria Princess are down, because you goofed. You fundamentally misjudged the nature of the service; you were wrong from day one and your replacement vessels are grossly and provably inadequate.

Now, if the volcano were a real reason why this particular crossing were down in numbers, might not you also assume that all the other crossings afflicted by the volcano would also be down? After all, surely the tourists wouldn't be selective and merely stay away from Seattle-to-Victoria; they would stay away from all of the crossings. Wouldn't you think so? Well, unfortunately for the government's lame excuse-making, Canada Customs contradicts them completely, as does the no doubt soon to be embarrassed Minister of Tourism when her remarks are read into the record.

Mount St. Helens exploded on May 18. Figures provided by Canada Customs show an increase of 26 percent for May auto crossings — the entire month, including after the 18th — over April crossings at the Peace Arch. At the Pacific Highway crossing, often referred to as the Douglas Crossing, there was an increase of 38 percent from May auto crossings by car.

Now let's talk about overnight visitors because those are the kind who are ordinarily found on the former Princess Marguerite and now on the flop service, Seattle to Victoria. When you examine more closely the Canada Customs figures, you also find there is an increase of 20 percent in day and overnight visitors at the Peace Arch, comparing May to April. At the Pacific highway crossing, 37 percent more people came as day or overnight visitors only. We are comparing day visitors at the two principal lower mainland crossings with day visitors here in Victoria coming up from the Seattle run. We will shortly be producing the figures for June, as soon as our research office has finished compiling them. I am advised they contain the very same information, which is no surprise, because every year, thanks to tourism and sunny weather, May auto crossings at all the borders are up and in June they are up again over May. That is how it works except at one crossing this year. Where is that? We have already surprised the minister once. It is the Seattle-Victoria run, the Flying Princess and the Victoria Princess.

Let's talk about how much this is going to cost the people of Victoria. We know that this businesslike government has so far failed to name a price for the lease of the Queen of Prince Rupert. Can you imagine what would have happened if two months into the operation of such a scheme a New Democrat administration had to stand up and admit they hadn't even arranged a lease price yet for the vessel that's now in service? When will they have arranged it? Well, we don't know about that, but I can promise you that it'll likely be announced after the Legislature rises. It will be another totally unnecessary and entirely indefensible charge to the taxpayer. They scrapped the Marguerite and they shouldn't have. Now they are paying $5,000 a month to store the Marguerite out here in Esquimalt for no good purpose when the vessel could be used. They will be paying X thousands of dollars a month to lease the Rupert.

MR. LEA: They have to find out how much they lose before they can set the price.

[ Page 3131 ]

MR. BARBER: No doubt, because you bet the revenue losses aboard the Rupert Victoria to Seattle will be calculated when this government tells B.C. Ferries what the charge is for the lease of that same vessel. One way or another they will try again to cover their tracks. However, we have some figures about revenue losses. Here we go.

As the minister may be aware or will now certainly be made aware, B.C. Steamships keeps a daily report aboard the Victoria Princess. The report makes comparisons of this year's passenger totals and absolute revenue — revenue listed as one-way, return, combination, dining-room, food bar, cafeteria, news-stand, duty free, state rooms and others. B.C. Steamships keeps a very close record of the actual revenues this year and has the nerve to compare them to last year's revenue in a little column right beside it. All I need to do is read it. It is the simplest thing. There is hardly anything to it. They also make comparisons. What they do is compare dates and weekdays in order that you can look at the third Friday in April of last year and the third Friday in April of this year because it is appropriate to compare apples with apples and days of the week with days of the week when you make annual comparisons in the general sense. That is fair. You shouldn't compare Friday the 18th with Monday the 18th in two different years. Fridays clearly have more revenue and more people, or at least they used to travel on that day from Seattle to Victoria. Let's make those comparisons. I have a few days to read into the record. The minister may or may not be shocked.

In 1979 May 18 was a Friday. This year May 16 was the comparable Friday. This year the Victoria Princess, a supposedly adequate replacement vessel, obtained in passenger revenues for tickets only $7,446.35. Last year the Marguerite on the same day of the week: $14,376. Clearly a loss in passenger revenue on that aspect of the trip of $7,000. There were further losses for this day, the 18th of 1979 as compared with the 16th of 1980, both of which were Fridays. This year on the same date the dining-room took in, including the bar; $1,828; last year $3,087. There is a separate bar item because there is a separate bar — this year $1,264, last year $1,840; the cafeteria — this year $413, last year $845; the news-stand — this year $898, last year $1,178; the duty-free shop — this year $728, last year $1,414; state rooms — this year $180, last year $682. The total Victoria Princess revenue, May 16, 1980, for instance — we have others and we will be getting to them in a minute — was $12,759.63. Last year it was $25,209.85. That is less than half. The minister will tell us: "But wait a minute. It's not down 50 percent. It's only down 30 percent. He will shortly produce — maybe even before we do — jetfoil revenue figures. However, we'll get to that in a little while.

Let me talk about another day. This was a Saturday. It was even worse. Last year the Saturday in question was May 19; this year the same Saturday was May 17, comparing as best we can apples with apples and the likely travel dates for tourists. Let me read the gross figures. This year the total passenger revenue for May 17 was $9,300. Last year it was $25,056. How much more can they lose? Well, they managed to lose more that day. All the other passenger revenues totalled $2,577. Last year it was $10,889. Can they lose more? You bet — on all the other days for which we have figures. But on that comparison basis, May 17 of this year compared to May 19 of last year, both Saturdays, the Victoria Princess grossed $11,904.17. The Princess Marguerite grossed $37,794.34. What more proof do people need of the grossly incompetent and totally unbusinesslike abilities of this administration than these figures? They are incompetents, Mr. Chairman; they blew it. They're losing money hand over fist; they're shovelling it out of the back of a jetfoil.

I have more figures, more proof and more evidence. Let's compare the Sunday: May 20 last year and May 18 this year. Again these figures are Victoria Princess compared to Princess Marguerite; they do not include the Flying Princess jetfoil, where the losses have been even greater. We'll get to those losses in a minute. Total passenger revenue on May 18 this year was $7,294 from tickets. Last year it was $18,829. This is a decline of $11,000 in one day in passenger ticket sales alone. However, there was a further loss. This loss is only $5,000; that's when you include the dining room, food, bar, cafeteria, news-stand, duty-free, staterooms and other. On May 18 this year they managed the grand sum of $4,670. Last year, on the same date for the purposes, on the Marguerite it was $9,732. The gross figures: last year on the same relative date the Marguerite brought in $30,152.43; the Victoria Princess brought in $11,965.12.

Do you want more proof of their incompetence? Let me read you a few more figures. I know my colleagues are interested in this. They enjoyed it in caucus, and I think they're enjoying it even more now. Why? It is more evidence of a totally incompetent aptitude on the part of the coalition, which will shortly be tossed out of office.

Let's compare Mondays: May 21, 1979, with May 19 this year. Passenger ticket sales this year were $9,944. Last year they were $16,458. Passenger revenue from other sources this year was $4,058. Last year it was $9,561. This year the total revenue of the Victoria Princess on that date was $14,002. Last year it was $27,649. It is down by half. But the minister will tell us: "Don't worry; the losses on the Flying Princess will make up for the losses on the Victoria Princess." That's their only defence. No matter how they turn the tables, they're still talking about losses. Shortly we are going to be talking about who will pay for those losses: it's the people in the galleries today, the taxpayers of British Columbia, who will have to pay to make up for the stupid and unnecessary mistakes of the coalition.

Let's talk about another day. This is a casual Tuesday, May 22 last year and May 20 this year. Total passenger revenue from ticket sales this year was $6,900. Last year it was $13,300. Revenue from all other sources this year was $4,063. Last year it was $7,794. Total Victoria Princess revenue on this date this year was $11,027. Last year with the Marguerite it was $22,551.

Loss after loss and deficit after deficit is what we can expect from you as long as you are in power, because you don't seem to understand yet the fundamental economic requirements of a successful run from Victoria to Seattle. Because you don't comprehend it, you can’t act correctly; rather you act as you have acted, wasting money on new designs for a ship that B.C. Steamship Company never got, wasting $5,000 a month to store the Marguerite when you could be using it, wasting God knows how much more to calculate the loss on the Victoria Princess and to charge that back to B.C. Ferries when you determine what the lease cost will be.

There has been waste after waste. But the greatest waste and loss is now being suffered by the tourist industry of Victoria, which has to put up with an incompetent govern-

[ Page 3132 ]

ment that has managed to waste 30 percent of the potential tourist revenues that otherwise would have come to the city. You have somehow managed to make the Seattle-Victoria run unpopular. Mr. Chairman, even the CPR couldn't do that, and if ever there was a corporation in this country that could make something unpopular, it was surely the CPR. Well, the Socreds have done them one better. Even the CPR made the Princess Marguerite work almost throughout its whole period, except at the very end when they lost interest, and when, fortunately, Mr. Barrett and the New Democrat administration of the day bought the Princess Marguerite and saved the day for tourism.

I have other figures, which I will be releasing in just a few minutes, which talk about the loss in passengers; they include figures for the jetfoil. Meanwhile, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to answer any of the questions I raised yesterday about the meetings that took place in the fall, about the commitments made regarding a subsidy for the jetfoil, and about the possibility that if the jetfoil turned a profit — which it clearly is not going to at this stage — the jetfoil would itself be turned over to private enterprise so that, the government having paved the way, private enterprise could now make a buck. Yesterday I asked a number of questions about that. I hope the minister has an answer at this time.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was a great discourse there, young man. You did a great job of peddling a lot of nonsense.

Let's talk about losses for a minute. I'm not going to take a loss statement from you or anybody else, I'll tell you that; I'll take it from chartered accountants when the season is over. I'll answer you there right now.

Let's talk about the losses on the famous Victoria-Seattle run. In 1975, $61,700; 1976, $1,073,730; 1977, $561,941; 1978, $274,056 — the Princess Marguerite is what I'm talking about. Don't try to create the impression in here, Mr. Member, that this is the first time this run had losses. Those are the facts from the balance sheets. They're not from a member who probably inveigled the figures that you used here today. They're certainly not from balance sheets by chartered accountants, but these figures are. I'll look at your figures, but I don't accept them until I see a balance sheet from a bona fide accountant. As far as I know, this member hasn't got those qualifications.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I have some information for you. I realize that you don't want the answers, but I'll try to give them to you. Yesterday you continued on with a lot of talk, but you didn't go as long as you did today. I don't know in what sequence these were asked, but I have some answers here.

Yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) mentioned revenue lost to the city of Victoria. I would certainly appreciate it if he would take the time to provide me with some of that information in a factual manner rather than just trying to make an issue of everything. However, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the president of the Victoria Visitors Information Centre stated that it would be better for the tourist industry if they had half the number of people coming here and they stayed twice as long. You don't mention these things.

We have two-thirds of the people coming, and they are staying much longer than ever before — I understand that this is from the tourism side of it. They are eating more in downtown Victoria, and they are using hotels more this year than they ever have before. I am also told by local business people that their business is up as a result of the new scheduling of these ferries that you seem to want to sink and run down as best you can, to the detriment of the community which you represent.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself! Do you know that it is this community service...? You're the member for it, and you're getting up here and deriding the government that is trying to help this community — I emphasize, this community. You should hang your head in shame; there'll be a time and a place that you will, I can assure you. By running down a public service which has been given to your constituents, you're trying to make sure that it doesn't operate any more. It's a great display by a public servant, I might say.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right. You won't get a thank you, I'll tell you, from Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Now for the answers.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right, Alex: when in doubt, smear somebody.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm just stating the facts, Mr. Chairman. I think the member for Skeena is an expert on that; you sure know how to do that.

This member for Victoria is an expert on everything. Yesterday he made statements regarding the operation — engines, fuel lines and so on — and I want to answer that.

MR. BARBER: I didn't say fuel lines, I said oil.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I just want to tell you that I have a letter here from the engineering manager of B.C. Ferries. Again, I'll accept his advice on engineering and on boats any time before I'll ever listen to your verbiage, I can assure you of that. This is what he says in reply to you:

"Re Victoria Princess operation.

"On the Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert run, with calls at Bella Bella, this ship would have almost 48 hours of continuous service exceeding present requirements. The fuel consumption on the northern run would be in excess of 6,000 gallons per day. The present fuel consumption is only 4,700 gallons per day. The ship has never been late due to propulsion problems, only due to waiting for the hydrofoil to dock. On the last run at night, the ship actually only has to run on two out of four engines. The ship's propulsion was completely refitted before coming onto this run, and there is ample time to do routine maintenance. There is no problem with time to fuel the ship, and additionally it is in port all of Tuesday afternoon when all tanks can be brought to maximum capacity if required."

So, Mr. Chairman, to this member: go and take a course in engineering and then you'll know what you're talking about. Until you do, you don't know what you're talking about. My adviser is the boss of engineering.

[ Page 3133 ]

While we're on costs and so on, I think the committee might be interested to know about a few other things. This member wants to smear everything regarding the operations into his own city. I think we should point out a few other things. The Princess Marguerite used a different type of fuel than the Victoria Princess; therefore the consumption has been brought into dollars rather than gallons for a comparison here. The Princess Marguerite cost per day for fuel was $3,400 for one round trip. The Victoria Princess costs $3,900 per day for two round trips.

MR. BARBER: And the Flying Princess?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to do with the Flying Princess, but we own the Princess Marguerite and the Victoria Princess, and therefore I'm telling you that operation. I realize again that you don't want to accept any answers from me, but I want to give our side of it because there isn't only one side. The first member for Victoria gets himself on a pedestal in this House on everything, and his opinion is the only one to be considered. I'm suggesting there is another side, and in this case I'm trying to give that.

MR. BARBER: Now my questions. Who was at the meeting? What was the deal? What were the promises?

HON. MR. FRASER: You're very concerned about that. I'm trying to find some answers for all the rest of the questions you asked yesterday. The question in regard to the meeting was only one of about 50, and I'm not going to answer them all, but here's another one that I want to answer to put the record completely straight, Mr. Chairman. It came from this member again. He asked yesterday regarding the B.C. Steamship Company and the Flying Princess Transportation Corp. fare structures.

He was correct in saying that tickets sold in the U.S. are in U.S. funds compared to the same rate being charged in B.C. In Canadian funds. For the member's information, this has been the case ever since this government initiated the service in 1975. The justification for this action at that time was, I understand, that all terminal facilities and other expenses on the U.S., side were paid in American dollars. You might wish to check back to see how our dollar compared to the American dollar in 1975. You might even find that at that time the discrimination was against our own citizens, because of the variance in dollar value. I fully appreciate the fact that the exchange rate has changed drastically over the years, but possibly the same justification exists in that the companies are still paying their American expenses in American dollars. I am also informed that it is not felt that the exchange rate is an issue at all in the United States, but only one raised here in the House which is further damaging the traffic figures in Victoria. Again it's raised in this House, Mr. Chairman, by the first member for Victoria to further downgrade this service that is trying to help his city of Victoria with additional assistance to tourism.

I want to repeat what I said yesterday. He has a great delight in having his little giggle, but I want to repeat that there are four reasons for a decrease in the traffic: Mount St. Helens is one; the weather is another; the U.S. recession is probably one of the biggest reasons. I notice, Mr. Chairman, when this member talks he never even refers to that. You gladly slid over that one; you didn't want to have that at all. Of course, the last and most important is the adverse publicity generated by that member right over there.

Now dealing again with the figures that he tossed around regarding border crossings. They're as stale as can be. Mr. Chairman, he didn't tell the Legislature that. I have different figures. I can also tell you when they are. I notice you didn't say when your figures were good for.

The first member for Victoria yesterday talked about the passenger count being down on the Seattle to Victoria service; that it was the only border crossing where that was the case.

I'd like to pass along some facts that I'm sure you'll be interested in and I think reflect some of the real conditions that we're faced with. Firstly, on B.C. Ferries' route 1, last year to June 15 we experienced an increase in traffic of 10 percent. This year our projections have not reached what we thought they would and route I experienced only a 2 percent increase over last year. I think that has to be quite indicative of what is happening. I was also informed this morning that at the Douglas crossing in May, traffic coming into our province increased 54 percent over the previous year. But what happened in June, at the same crossing, is quite amazing. The crossings dropped from a 54 percent increase to a 9 percent increase. That is even with all the people travelling to B.C. — you know why, and never mentioned it — to purchase gasoline in the province of British Columbia. That's a condition we haven't had — something unusual to affect border crossings. I'm also informed that Johansen Royal Tours of Seattle have informed the B.C. Ferry Corporation that they have had to cancel tours on the Queen of the North because of tours being cancelled as a result of the Mount St. Helens disaster.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Even closer to Victoria, I was informed this morning that customs in Sidney, at yet another border crossing from the U.S. into our province, reported a decrease in traffic for June this year. The figures that I have been provided with indicate that in June 1979, some 2,562 vehicles and 1,695 foot passengers entered at this crossing. In the same period in 1980, some 2,252 vehicles and 1,375 foot passengers used the same service.

Mr. Chairman, to that member: it's rather misleading to this House to indicate, as you already have, that all traffic to the Island is up except for the Seattle-to-Victoria sailing. Again, I think you should use the right figures. Don't use April and March; try on for size the current figures for May and June, then you might be a little more accurate in your wild statements.

MR. BARBER: Now to answer the questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, you just sit still. I'm still answering your questions. I'm answering your questions from yesterday, and by Tuesday I'll get to all the silly charges you made today. I'm in no hurry.

Mr. Chairman, this is the one that really excites the opposition, and specifically this member. I'll attempt to answer in very detailed fashion.

MR. BARBER: Table it.

[ Page 3134 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I won't table it. I'll read it into the record. Don't you trust that?

MR. BARBER: Then will you table it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I'll consider it. I think it's in the record if I read it. Are you suggesting that there is some way you can seek between this here and the written record? What's the matter with Hansard? You use it all the time.

MR. BARBER: I sure do. I want to make sure you don't accidentally skip a line when you read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Conversations or debate with respect to tabling are not allowed in committee, since we don't table in committee.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thanks very much for your help, Mr. Chairman; that's a great assist. I thought I'd seen that in my rule book, but I haven't read it for a couple of days.

The first member for Victoria asked yesterday who attended the meeting last year to discuss the possibility of jetfoil service for the Victoria to Seattle route. I would like to state that I was one participant among many, and I don't know if a formal list of participants was kept. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't, because it wasn't necessary. They were all honourable, decent people. Why do we have to have everything down? We aren't suspicious socialists; we trust people. When you're a suspicious socialist, you not only want it written down, you want it in affidavit form as well. We don't operate that way.

MR. LEA: We'd even check the signatures.

HON. MR. FRASER: You'd probably even check the people who initialled the affidavit. I doubt that you'd trust them either.

As I said, I was one. It was an informal affair where our Premier and leader of our province discussed the problem of providing additional capacity for the Seattle to Victoria service, and was looking for suggestions from members of the community.

MR. LEA: At large.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Prince Rupert interjects that. I said "from the community." They are honourable and decent citizens of our province. I realize the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) wants to assassinate their character. He is a great past master at that, but I resent him doing that. They are citizens of our province.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, I will accept some of that, but not that. The member suggests that I'm in the business of assassinating the characters of people, businessmen or others. The charge is, of course, false, groundless, an offence to the rules, and must be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) please come to order. If the Minister of Transportation and Highways has said anything unparliamentary, the Chair would ask the minister to withdraw.

HON. MR. FRASER: I certainly will withdraw if I said anything unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. At this point I'd also like to remind all members of our standing orders with respect to relevancy in debate. It is always courteous and within the rules of our House that when we debate, we direct the speech to the question under discussion. The question under discussion is vote 193.

HON. MR. FRASER: Our good Premier and leader was there at the meeting. The meeting was called for the purpose of getting additional service into, the Seattle-Victoria transportation service to help with tourism for the city of Victoria.

You realize, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure the member realizes — that this is a community problem to a large extent. As far as we are concerned, we don't consider it part of our transportation system but more of a tourism generator for Vancouver Island and particularly for the Victoria area.

MR. BARBER: Who was there? That was the question.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was there as the newly appointed member of the B.C. Steamships board. My colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), attended as a member of the board of the same company, which he still is. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) attended as members of a committee struck to delve into the situation revolving around the Seattle to Victoria service. There is quite a difference, where this member has done everything in his power since January to tear down....

He insists on this Negative Nelly attitude that he has about his own riding. Here are two other MLAs from Vancouver Island. They were at this meeting and they were there in the interest of citizens of Vancouver Island and your riding.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Victoria will come to order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because he went on with a diatribe for half an hour and I never moved in my seat, so you can do the same thing while I'm doing the same thing.

MR. BARBER: Who else was there?

HON. MR. FRASER: I indicated to you yesterday that I really didn't know the people who were there other than that they were local people, and I don't know all the local people. I didn't know all the people in that room. Quite frankly, not being a socialist, I didn't ask for their name and have them sign a document and an affidavit. I didn't go that far but, as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that one man whom I have seen once before in my life was there. I think his name is Cedric Steele. I believe he's the hard-working president of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and I believe there were other members of that chamber there but, quite frankly, I don't know who they were. They were interested in the welfare of Victoria from a tourism standpoint and they were

[ Page 3135 ]

trying to help resolve their problem in discussion with government.

MR. LEA: It would be nice if the government knew who they were.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, they were all hard-working, fine citizens of this area. They weren't from Seattle, it is my understanding, or from Ketchikan, Alaska. They were from the city of Victoria. I might also add that to say they represented any one organization would not be correct. You know, I said earlier the chamber of commerce was represented; whether they were there in their capacity as members of that or as individual citizens, I don't know. I want to say on behalf of the government that we appreciated their attendance and their interest.

Mr. Chairman, the overall problem of providing the necessary capacity on the Seattle-Victoria route was discussed. A challenge was issued to this group to investigate and try and come up with some solutions. The result of the meeting was the formation of a non-profit company to enable them to initiate the jetfoil service. Certainly not all the people who attended the meeting are involved in a non-profit company. As a matter of fact, the head of that newly formed group, as far as I know, was not at the meeting. I refer to a gentleman by the name of Pat Crofton. To my knowledge he was not at the meeting. These people who were provided with a challenge and a spirit of community effort met that challenge head on. I think they deserve our appreciation — and they sure have the support of the government of British Columbia — rather than continual complaining about why things were done and so on and so forth. They have done a fine job, in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and they should be congratulated for the fine job they've done.

Mr. Chairman, as for the fiscal position of the company, I can only tell you that the B.C. Steamship Company, for which I am responsible, has agreed to assist this newly formed non-profit company in such matters as the sale of tickets, a combined advertising program and some docking assistance. The Flying Princess Transportation Corp. will be charged accordingly for the services by the B.C. Steamship Company. I might say just in passing that great audited balanced statement that the first member read into the records here.... I don't think this revenue would be on that fine, great statement he made that showed revenues of the boat, That, of course, is what's so lacking in all his observations. He only chooses to use figures and dates that suit his purpose.

Mr. Chairman, the only other involvement that the government or its agencies might have would be through the British Columbia Development Corporation. I have never attended any meeting where these arrangements have been confirmed. Therefore I refer you to my colleague during the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, because it is his responsibility to report to this Legislature for the B.C. Development Corporation. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the B.C. Development Corporation is involved, as they're intended to assist in initiating new ventures and to provide appropriate guidance and advice I hope the Development Corporation has been of great assistance to this good body of citizens in the greater Victoria area who are trying to do something to help themselves.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the minister continues to make lame and absolutely irrelevant comparisons. He tells us for instance that the fuel costs for the Victoria Princess are down slightly in comparison to the fuel costs of the Princess Marguerite. Of course they are. The vessel carries half as many people; it is shorter, smaller, and has a more efficient engine plant. Of course a shorter, smaller, less capacious vessel will use less fuel. So what? What kind of an argument is that? He omits to mention altogether the fact that the jetfoil is an extremely fuel-expensive operation. Working from memory only, although I'll go to my office and get the facts, they use something like 5,000 gallons of jet fuel Seattle to Victoria.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I think we should bring this member to order. He's referring to the jetfoil, which has nothing to do with the government at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the debate is not relevant to the vote in front of us, then the minister's point is well taken. The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER: Yes, but it is relevant, and his point is no point at all. He makes comparisons that stand no test and can withstand no scrutiny. Of course, the Marguerite used slightly more fuel than the Victoria Princess. It's a much bigger vessel that carried a far greater weight, has a greater dead tonnage and carried many more passengers as well.

HON. MR. FRASER: You didn't say that when you were comparing revenues, did you?

MR. BARBER: One of the reasons we were so opposed to your foolishness is because you introduced a ship of such lesser capacity in the first place. However, we'll get to that in a moment.

The minister tells us that the Marguerite lost $61,000 in 1975. That was, we might observe, Mr. Chairman, the last year of a successful administration of that ship by the New Democratic Party. He tells us that in the first full year of Social Credit operation of the ship they lost $1 million. Well, some people might draw a very different conclusion from the one the minister drew. Some of us might think it's further proof of incompetence on the part of that government. The minister might not think so; but if you observe that under the New Democrats it lost $61,000 in its last year, and one full year into Social Credit it lost $1 million, you might wonder whether or not Social Credit hasn't bungled it just one more time.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was the first year a decent set of books were kept.

MR. BARBER: Decent set of books! According to Mr. Elworthy, your own appointee and former friend, the Marguerite was in a position to make half a million dollars this year.

Nonetheless, the minister continues to make further comparisons that don't stand any test whatever. He compares border crossings. With the exception of the one at Sidney — and I'll examine those figures when I ask for them from research; I didn't have them....

HON. MR. FRASER: I think you should.

[ Page 3136 ]

MR. BARBER: I certainly will — I always do — just as I'll examine yours.

With the exception of that one crossing at Sidney, the minister faithfully reports that all the other crossings are up. Part of his defence is: oh, well, some of them aren't up as much as he thought they would be. What kind of a defence is that? The fact remains that not a single border crossing except one has seen losses like this crossing has on that service. The minister himself said yesterday that passengers are down by 30 percent and slipping — Seattle to Victoria.

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't say "and slipping."

MR. BARBER: I said "and slipping." That's absolutely correct. I don't want to do to you what your guys did to Skelly. The minister said they're down by 30 percent. We agree they're down by 30 percent and we further observe that they're slipping. However, that will come out shortly when we get the next brown envelope.

Further, the minister clearly admits that the volcano excuse is lame and insupportable, because if the volcano were going to keep people away on the Seattle-Victoria run by water, it would surely also keep people away on the Seattle-Vancouver run by land, because you know Vancouver is somewhat closer to Seattle than Victoria is. Surely on the basis of those comparisons you might observe that the others were also down significantly. The point is they're not; they're up. Surprise, surprise.

My research office has just reminded me that one of the reasons why the Anacortes run is down was not mentioned by the minister. Why is that? Well, by a vote of the Washington state transportation committee three weeks ago, it was decided that the extra sailing on the Anacortes run would be postponed two months until mid-August. Did you know that, Mr. Minister? The Washington state transportation committee has delayed putting on the extra sailing for the Sidney-Anacortes run this year. That may be the reason why the Sidney border crossing is down. We'll inquire into that and we'll report....

HON. MR. FRASER: I knew you'd find your reason for it, but I don't accept your statement.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'll report to the committee tomorrow. However, the Anacortes ferry crossing is down, because the Anacortes ferries have been cut by half — in a comparison of this year over last year.

Let's continue. The minister says that my colleague, Mr. Hanson, and I never attended the meeting in the Oak Room to discuss the jetfoil. Now why is that? You said we weren't there. You said that you didn't see us there. Well, you would have if you had invited us, but you didn't. We didn't know about it until after, and we never would have known about it unless something hadn't gone wrong in the meeting and someone leaked more Socred secrets to the press. We'll get to that in a moment.

The point is that this government has deliberately excluded all but its political friends from those meetings. Why? Because the meeting was called to solve a problem created by Social Credit. That problem was the foolish and unnecessary decision to scrap the Marguerite. The meeting was held not in a buoyant good spirit, attempting to pile success on success; the meeting was called because the government was in desperate trouble, because 41,000 people signed a petition to keep the Marguerite, and the government's political fortunes were in even worse shape than they ordinarily are, which is pretty dreadful in any case. The meeting was called not to add creatively to tourism a strategy for Vancouver Island, but because the government was in desperate trouble as a result of all of these bungles and errors.

However, even knowing that now and anticipating it then, I can certainly assure the minister that had he bothered to invite the two MLAs from the capital city, we would have attended, recognized most of the faces, taken notes and contributed most charitably to the occurrence.

The minister tells us the jetfoil is going to pay for the use of docking facilities and services and for all of the mistakes, which are now also a matter of public record, in regard to chartering the jetfoil and the Victoria Princess. Therefore, what the minister says is that I should have included that in the revenue count for the Victoria Princess. Fair enough, I do. Now you tell me how much more that will accrue to the Flying Princess as a loss, because either way it's going to be paid. Just because you charge it to one and take it from the other, it doesn't mean that the whole picture is any brighter. To the contrary, the whole picture remains dismal thanks to your government's incompetent marine policies.

The minister also goes on to say, trying to excuse his government's mistakes, that because some people have the guts to fight for the Marguerite, for the tradition and for the success, we are now to blame for the government's failure. What nonsense! What absolute, lamentable, indefensible, unbelievable nonsense from the member for Cariboo. We fought to keep the Marguerite and were proud to do so. We fight now to reintroduce the Marguerite because clearly your remedy is a flop. Why is that? Because you were wrong to begin with and your remedy is getting no better as you go along.

This government is paying $5,000 per month to keep the Marguerite in mothballs. Who does the minister blame that on? Is there any reply for that one? Is the NDP also to blame for that decision? There is $5,000 per month being wasted to keep the Marguerite here in Esquimalt.

AN HON. MEMBERS: How many hours are being wasted in listening to you?

MR. BARBER: Well, you don't have to listen at all. You're free to leave.

However, I would remind the House that we have the word of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) herself that tourism is up and booming. The Minister of Tourism says that border crossings are up. The Minister of Tourism herself says that hotels have never done so well. The Minister of Tourism herself says that the ministry and the economy is in great shape, as far as tourism is concerned. But the Minister of Transportation and Highways says it's all down thanks to the recession, the bad weather, the first member for Victoria, and the volcano.

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't say it was all down.

MR. BARBER: Oh, no, it's not all down. It's only down 30 percent in this area because of your bungles, your foolishness, your mistakes and your indefensible marine policies. That's why it's down.

Apart from asking the minister to resign, which would be a good remedy but not a likely one, I ask the minister if he

[ Page 3137 ]

will not agree to table in the House all of the revenue figures for the jetfoil and the Rupert during their period of use on the Seattle-Victoria run. Will he table, when he receives them...? I appreciate he can't do it yet, because the season isn't over; it's collapsing maybe, but over, no. Will he table those figures when he gets them in this House? We may well still be meeting in October. I wouldn't be surprised at all. If so, I hope he'll table it then. If he does it will be an extremely interesting thing not simply to compare the enormous success of the Princess Marguerite with the dismal failure of the jetfoil and the Queen of Prince Rupert, but it will also be an opportunity to compare the losses to the taxpayers, the $61,000 in the last year of the New Democrat administration, with the losses to the taxpayers in this year of Social Credit on the Victoria-Seattle run.

Later on in the debate I will be talking about the three great favours that were done for the Boeing Co. by Social Credit. I'll talk about the ways in which this government attempted to make, in an artificial way, a jetfoil service profitable by deliberately killing off the only competition the jetfoil might have had: the Princess Marguerite itself. I'll talk about the three great favours done by Social Credit for the Boeing Co., and at that time have further questions of the minister as to his involvement, if any, in the negotiations with Boeing over the last 18 months and in the tremendous pressure that Boeing has brought to bear on Social Credit in order to be able to establish a jetfoil service in its own backyard — the northwest coast of North America.

I raised those questions before in the Premier's estimates. As the committee well knows, the Premier refused to answer all of those questions. I am now raising them again of the minister responsible.

MR. BRUMMET: And again and again.

MR. BARBER: And again until we get answers. That's right.

I want to conclude this particular moment of debate by offering yet another positive New Democrat remedy for a Social Credit bungle. Here goes.

Observing that you have failed to market the voyage, I urge you instead to rethink your entire tourist strategy on Vancouver Island and market the destination. It's perfectly clear that the Victoria Princess has no charm comparable to that of the Marguerite. Clearly, the jetfoil has none either. Clearly, documentedly, by the minister's own admission yesterday, passengers are down by 30 percent. Because the government botched it and misread the fundamental character of the Seattle-Victoria service and the traditional reasons for its former success, it is no longer possible to successfully market the voyage. What we urge you to do instead is to rethink your strategy and market the destination. What we urge you to do is to stop wasting money in other areas of your government and instead commit such funds as may be available now to a massive advertising campaign in the Pacific northwest of the United States of America, which concentrates not on the trip but on the destination, which points out to people the rare beauty and the special charm of Victoria and the special appeal of all of Vancouver Island. If you are prepared to do that, it may be possible for you to regain some of the ground you've lost because of the foolish advice given you by the Minister of Finance, when he said: "Scrap the Marguerite."

If you are prepared to rethink your tourist strategy and market the destination instead of the voyage, it may be possible yet to recover a bit of this year's losses. We offer that and would support that strongly as an initiative proposed by the official opposition. I don't want the minister to continue with his nonsense that somehow — because 41,000 people and this MLA favoured keeping the Marguerite and opposed the replacements — those 41,000 people and this one have become personally responsible for the government's blunders. It's not true. It is not defensible and it is not an adequate justification for a clearly inadequate policy.

The second positive remedy that the New Democratic Party puts forward is that you should, this fall, be prepared to do the refit, do the restoration, spend the moneys available and necessary for the purpose and announce this fall that you will bring the Princess Marguerite back into service next year. You can do it. The vessel is perfectly safe. It is not a floating coffin, John Plul to the contrary.

HON. MR. FRASER: What are your engineering qualifications to make those remarks?

MR. BARBER: Mine are none. I read simply the report that your own government commissioned which said at the bottom of page 4: "Nothing in this report should be construed as suggesting that the vessel is unfit for her present service." That is what your own Edwardson report said. I am not an engineer, but I can read. Who in your group can read? If any of them could read, they would have read the same paragraph in the same report and would have concluded what we did in the same way. The vessel is perfectly safe. The CPR has kept the Princess Patricia safe, workable and apparently profitable. However, this government seemed not to have managed the same trick with its sister ship, one year younger and with far fewer nautical miles on it.

Those are the two positive proposals that we make, but we're not over the debate yet. We have further figures to demonstrate in committee the gross incompetence of this so-called businesslike government and the way in which it has clearly mishandled, from the beginning, the whole issue of the Marguerite and the Seattle to Victoria service. Meanwhile, we make those two positive proposals. Let me restate them so that the minister has no doubt but that they were made in a spirit of good will and cooperation. One, forget marketing the trip because you can't. Market, instead, the destination and do it in a tough and brave and innovative way. You might be able to recoup some of the losses. Two, be prepared to recommission the Marguerite and return her to the service for which she is so admirably suited.

MR. DAVIS: First I want to congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Highways on the way he is handling this debate. He is answering questions promptly and in a straightforward manner. He is giving us a lot of information in an easy-going and. I must say, effective way. Transportation is a big subject, especially in this vast, rugged and economically diverse province of ours. There is always the overlay of federal and. Indeed, international traffic to take into account. British Columbia's ports are the gateway, by sea and by air, to half a continent of resources and industry. Many of these industries are world-scale. We have local needs which must be served in a modern and effective way. Our situation is unique in the geographical sense of mountains and valleys and fjords. Our requirements. given our relatively small population and the ruggedness of our province, are challenging to say the least.

[ Page 3138 ]

The minister tells us that we are developing an overall transportation policy, which in rough outline will cover most, if not all, of the situations which we will encounter here in B.C. and across B.C. between now and the year 2000. That is no mean task. It has to be done. We need a basic philosophy and we need certain guidelines. We need a rational approach to transportation in this province which will stand the test of time.

I am going to be bold. As an ordinary member I can perhaps afford to stick my neck out a bit. I am going to say right off that the key word is competition, and I'm going to plump, essentially, for the user-pay approach; in other words, the user of the transportation service, by and large, pays for the cost of that service. I am going to endeavour to insist that the private sector performs an increasing role in supplying transportation services to British Columbians everywhere.

Competition is the key. It is logical because now we have a number of transportation modes. We have modes on land, on sea or water, and in the air. We have trucks, trains, barges, ships and ferries. We have aircraft of many types. We have the automobile and we have trucks. This is a far cry from the conditions which existed as recently as the turn of the century. Then we were truly in the horse-and-buggy stage, or perhaps the horse stage with the occasional buggy. There was little choice. There were few alternatives. The user really couldn't select between modes of transportation the way we can now. This is one of the main reasons for using the vehicle of competition, the private sector and the marketplace, to distribute the load we place on our transportation industries. The limited choice of 80 years ago has changed dramatically.

Aircraft, be they helicopter or fixed wing, have a flexibility that is truly astounding. They make short work of our mountain ranges, lakes, rivers, inlets and our vast plains to the north and east. They are fast and energy-efficient — often more energy-efficient than a truck or car. In other words, they are the answer to many of our distance problems in B.C. We can go in a straight line from here to there, often, by aircraft when we can't by other modes. They are at one and the same time the leading edge as far as new-area development in this province is concerned and, increasingly, the big-volume carrier of passengers and high-value freight the world over.

This is basically why I believe the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and indeed the entire B.C. cabinet, should take not only a continuing but an even greater interest in the air mode. I am not suggesting that we challenge Ottawa's role in the areas of aeronautics — in other words, technical expertise — or indeed in the area of route allocations and rate or fare approvals, but we as a province should be an active intervener in many of their hearings. We should be very much involved in the airplane business, especially as it affects us here in this province. We should know what routes we want developed and what routes we should give priority to. We should insist, wherever possible, to have competition on those routes, and not all locate them to a single carrier.

In other words, as a provincial administration we should have our own ideas, especially in the areas of smaller aircraft, the so-called third-level carriers — for example, the propeller-driven aircraft of the type of the Twin Otter, the Beaver and so on. We should build airstrips and float-plane terminals. We should improve our air-navigation aids when the federal government won't come up with the money quickly enough. In other words, we should keep on top of the federal Ministry of Transport, especially in the field of aircraft operations. We should be for aircraft and air-support services which can serve as many communities in the province as possible. And we should always encourage competition, especially in the private sector, for point-to-point business in B.C. and business which reaches beyond our provincial boundaries.

I am mightily concerned about the allocation of major air routes internationally, out of and into B.C.'s territory. Ottawa traditionally has favoured Montreal as the gateway to Canada — certainly as the gateway for traffic from the eastern United States and western Europe into central Canada and the west. Toronto, in fact, has had a difficult time getting major carriers to land in Toronto because of federal policy, even though the traffic volume in the Toronto area now is several times that of the Montreal area. We in the west have been starved even more. Carriers like British Airways and Lufthansa would like to fly directly from western Europe to Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver. Air Canada and CP Air flights the other way are now in jeopardy unless and until we work out a quid pro quo for these flights in both directions by carriers of both countries.

The government of British Columbia, historically anyway, has never really effectively interested itself — it certainly has effectively interested itself — in international negotiations of this kind, nor have they been involved even in an observer capacity with over-flights from, say, Chicago through Edmonton to Tokyo, overflights which can take business which otherwise would land in Vancouver if our own airlines or other carriers were employed on routes of our choice. In my view, this involvement by the B.C. government is vital, not only to the development of tourism as an industry in this province, but also to that of aircraft maintenance and other manufacturing, transportation and support services which tend to accumulate around larger airports, such as the Vancouver International Airport will be, and increasingly in other local areas as well.

Eventually we will perhaps manufacture an aircraft type or two. They do in Montreal and Toronto. This is partly because airlines come and go there in considerable volume. We could also be involved in the instrumentation and the kinds of communications which are needed in mountainous and coastal areas such as we have typically here in B.C. Defence contracts could also flow our way.

But we need to become more air-minded as a government. The citizens of the province are. In fact, as bush pilots they were often pioneers in developing new airlines, such as CP Air and Pacific Western Airlines. They carried out operations which are still typical of much of Canada, especially the far north.

This is a different age, Mr. Chairman. Plane types are becoming more varied. Aircraft in general are improving their capabilities in take-off and landing techniques especially; also in cutting fuel costs on routes which traverse large and comparatively unknown sections of the province.

In this connection I would like to say a word about aircraft designed and developed in Canada. I'm referring to the products of deHavilland owned in part by the people of Canada. These aircraft have been built mainly in the Toronto area, and they're designed by Canadians. They perform many difficult transport functions not only in this country but around the world. First there was the Beaver on wheels and

[ Page 3139 ]

on floats; then there was the Otter and later the Twin Otter. Eventually they went to gas turbine engines — more power and less maintenance. Now we have the Dash-7 and, hot off the drawing-board, the Dash-8. These aircraft are all so-called short take off and landing airplanes — STOL airplanes, as they are sometimes called. They can get in and out of confined places; they are quiet in their later versions, and they are exceptionally fuel-efficient. They are ideal for many of our runs in B.C. where the larger longer-range jets can't land, or where the economics of the jets are distorted by short flights at low altitudes and in less than fully loaded conditions.

The province must invest more money in airstrips for smaller aircraft. These should be in downtown Victoria, certainly, and perhaps downtown Vancouver as well. Most of our airports are suitable for Dash-7s and Dash-8s now. We could have direct flights from Victoria to many of the larger centres of the province, involving less elapsed time and with greater convenience to the traveler. True, we would have to build a strip at, say, Work Point in Esquimalt, for example. Ottawa should put up most if not all of the cost; it's a defence base area. But if Ottawa won't, why wait? The economies are considerable. A frequent, fast and thoroughly modern service to many points throughout the province would be welcomed by Vancouver Islanders and mainlanders alike.

Please note, Mr. Chairman, that I have said nothing about the government, either provincial or federal. operating aircraft or owning airlines. I believe that this is essentially a private-sector industry. It's still undergoing many technological changes. It can be more enterprising, more useful to the traveler and to those who would ship high-value freight, than if this industry, even in part, were government-owned and run out of a ministry rather than being allowed to develop and, indeed, occasionally fail on its own. Competition, private enterprise, user-pay — the aircraft industry insofar as possible should be financially self-supporting. Aircraft owners should pay landing fees and other charges which effectively cover government contributions in this area. There would be exceptions in remote areas, of course. But our main airports, including those operating propeller-driven aircraft of some size, should pay their own way from the very beginning.

Referring to new developments, I'd like to make a comparison; some are economic, others are not. The recent deHavilland products are economic on many B.C. routes today. Given STOL airports, they could be competitive with other modes, certainly for distances greater than 300 miles, and across lesser bodies of water. Can I make a specific comparison? It's a comparison, say, between a Dash-7 and the Boeing hydrofoil. Both the Dash-7 on numerous trips and the hydrofoil on fewer trips can carry approximately 750 people a day on return trips from Seattle to Victoria. The big difference is that the Dash-7 is seven to eight times faster. It uses a much smaller crew; it uses a Canadian crew. It costs half as much to buy: in today's Canadian dollars it costs some $7 million versus $16 million Canadian funds for a jetfoil. It uses 40 percent as much fuel as the jetfoil uses to move the same number of people the same number of miles on any day between downtown Seattle and downtown Victoria. One further advantage of the Dash-7 over the jetfoil is that it is a 24-hour-a-day vehicle; it can run at night just as well as it can run in the daytime. Therefore it isn't limited to several trips in the wintertime. It can also fly in most kinds of weather. I doubt if the jetfoil can. I know that the Dash-7 doesn't face a deadhead hazard of the character that the jetfoil does.

So looking ahead, we should encourage private enterprise to fly from Boeing Field in Seattle to a new STOL airstrip in downtown Victoria. That would be one additional service that the privately owned and privately operated Dash-7 type aircraft could supply. It could do much the same job in a faster, more reliable way, day and night, year-round, as and when the services are required. It could certainly do it more cheaply and more efficiently from an energy consumption point of view.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm not criticizing the Minister of Transportation and Highways in his handling of the Marguerite issue. I'm not criticizing the government; it had to do something quickly. They had to do it quickly this spring. But in looking ahead, they should examine the air mode as well. It should look very seriously at the possibility of building a short airstrip either on Work Point, as I've suggested before or, better still, close by the present harbour where the float planes land. I'm referring to the old industrial waterfront lands which are immediately to the north of the present Twin Otter waterlanding area. I would say from Maitland Street to Songhees Road — about a 3,000 foot distance. There's plenty of room on which a Dash-7, Dash-8, or numerous other U.S.-, European- or Japanese-built STOL aircraft could land safely in the future.

They could bring people and high-value freight right downtown. They could serve the public far better than the present jet aircraft modes that land out at Pat Bay. The initial investment in land would no doubt be considerable, but much of it could be sold off at a profit to motels, hotels, small local light industries, etc. Then those tourists and British Columbians who want to get quickly to downtown Victoria, downtown Vancouver or to other parts of the province or Seattle could do so in jig time. They could take flights on STOL-type aircraft owned by the private sector not only to the Vancouver International Airport but to places like Nanaimo, Powell River, Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna and Vernon as well. This modern transport for the businessman and the public servant could save a lot of time with no waiting in intermediate airports. They could get directly to their destination on a relatively fast aircraft which was not unduly large and therefore flew frequently between these many points in the province and provided the kind of service that people in British Columbia need.

Turning to the upper coast, Mr. Chairman, I would see the private sector in the air mode effectively supplementing B.C. Ferries. Our government-owned ferry fleet would remain essentially a large vessel. It would call in at relatively few points and pick up passengers flown in or brought in by small individually owned aircraft, fishboats, tugs or whatever. This is the least-cost way to go. In my view it doesn't make sense to run a big ferry with a crew of 60, 70 or 80 to small centres of population like Stewart, Bella Coola, or even Skidegate on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Many more trips on existing airlines using small aircraft or small boats will look after the transportation needs of small. scattered. Isolated communities more effectively than a large vessel ferry system operating weekly or every second week would do.

Here, Mr. Chairman, I would have us also take a relatively novel approach. It is one which hasn't been explored in

[ Page 3140 ]

any depth here in B.C., and, one which has not really been tested elsewhere in Canada. It's one of giving the local, long-term residents in these isolated communities an annual transportation voucher or grant. It could only be used, however, for transportation purposes. They could use it either to buy air tickets or pay a local entrepreneur to carry them and their goods from point to point or to major centres like Vancouver. The annual per-person payment or voucher would have a current value in the order of $100 a year. It would be the average of all the B.C. government subsidies to all transportation modes in a given year divided by the population of the province. In other words, it's the kind of subsidy that you and I have, whether it's urban transport, B.C. Ferries or highways.

That kind of support would be available to these relatively few people in remote communities which can't be efficiently served by, for example, a large B.C. ferry. In effect they would be per capita allocations to residents in remote communities. They would get it because they don't get any help on the transportation front from Victoria now. If they do get this kind of help, the voucher or grant disappears. If a road is built into their village or town, the voucher or subsidy disappears. The same would be true of a new B.C. Ferries dock, were that constructed. The total number of people who would qualify, at the very outside, would be of the order of 10,000 persons. That includes the current population of the Queen Charlotte Islands. This number would fall as road, ferry and adequate air services to these particular communities were established using government funds. Here I'm thinking in good part of our native Indian communities. I'm talking about an annual outlay — 10,000 people at $100 a head — in the order of $1 million. It's a lot of money, but it's less than the estimated $4 million cost of building a dock at Skidegate on the Queen Charlotte Islands alone; it's far less than the estimated $600 per capita — this is a figure the staff of the Committee on Crown Corporations developed for a big ferry link from Prince Rupert to Skidegate. As far as the the travelling public is concerned, flying may well continue to be the best way to go. It's certainly faster; it's often much more comfortable; it's bound to be more comfortable most days, covering a very rough stretch of water such as Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound, the waters which separate the Queen Charlotte Islands from the mainland.

The picture I'm endeavouring to draw then, Mr. Chairman, is one of certain main-line routes being run effectively and efficiently by B.C. Ferries. These would be supplemented by the private sector, using aircraft, fishboats, tugboats, whatever was the normal travelling mode of the people living in these relatively isolated communities. They could provide their own services; they could be self-starters in this area; they would get the same kind of treatment in subsidy terms as the rest of us; and they would be served much more effectively — almost on an hour-to-hour basis, on a call basis — by these smaller, privately operated vehicles such as float aircraft and small boats.

Another broad area, Mr. Chairman, a massive area really, which falls under the Minister of Transportation and Highways' jurisdiction is motor transport. It's preponderantly a private-sector operation and, as the minister said, including all the taxes which it pays — federal and provincial, fuel and equipment sales taxes — it's largely, if not entirely, user-pay. Trucks, in other words, tend to pay for themselves. The taxpayer gets back in fuel and sales and in other taxes a sum sufficient to pay for the construction and maintenance of our highways, bridges, roads, etc. So we get full value or near to full value for our motor-carrier transport. We in B.C. don't subsidize it on balance or, if we do, we subsidize it in a very modest way.

Our trucks, vans, trailers and other rigs move an increasing volume of goods, locally and regionally, from one part of the province to the other. It's a growth industry, Mr. Chairman. Airlines are typically growing, in terms of passengers carried, at rates of the order of 10 percent a year. The minister tells us that the number of commercial vehicles on our roads and highways in B.C. increased 50 percent over the past five years. Obviously our economy is growing in the very important private-sector area. This is another 10 percent per annum growth; this is the other big growth industry in the province as far as transportation is concerned. Motor carriers as well as aircraft, it would appear, are more and more the carriers of the future in B.C. It indicates that our highways, our roads, our streets, as they're improved, are doing a bigger job for our people. The weights that are now allowed to be carried on our highways have increased; the width of the carriage of the goods vehicles and vans which can move on our highways has increased; they're much bigger operations all round than they were a very few years ago.

Here is an area, however, Mr. Chairman, which needs some surgery from a deregulation point of view. Most of our present Motor Carrier Act was written in the 1930s, when the main objective was to protect the carrier rather than the purchaser of the services the carrier provided — to protect the trucker and the bus operator as distinct from protecting the travelling public and those who wanted goods to be carried in the province and out of the province. The industry has grown up a lot in the meantime; it's now much stronger, better equipped and capable of competing with our other modes — our air modes, our rail modes and our water modes — than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should take steps immediately to deregulate, in part, our motor carrier industry. Let's deregulate it in much the same way as motor carrier transport has been deregulated in the western European countries. There the dictate really is that goods should be able to move freely and competitively from nation to nation across boundaries. That, along with the free movement of people, is tending to make the Economic Community a United States of Europe.

We should deregulate in British Columbia in much the same fashion. Certainly we should do away with rate-setting by a regulatory commission. We should require the trucker and the bus operator to post new prices or new rates, and they should automatically take effect in 30 days. This is the arrangement in Ontario today. It tends to be the arrangement in other provinces, certainly in Alberta. In other words, the carrier wouldn't have to face the difficult problem of continually having to go back before a commission, indicate that his or her fuel prices are rising, equipment costs are going up, salaries and wages are rising, prove this, prove their amount and finally, after some considerable delay and often interventions by competitors, get an increase which may or may not be in time.

We should have these rates well advertised; the users should know what the rates are. As I said, there should be a 30-day waiting period before their introduction. But otherwise the trucking industry should be operating, in effect, in a relatively free market as far as costs and prices are concerned.

[ Page 3141 ]

I would also free the list of prescribed goods which each carrier can transport. They shouldn't be limited to one or two commodities, for example. They should be able to pick up other goods on their return home. They should be able to cut their costs by operating full both ways.

I see that my time is running out. I really want to emphasize — I am repeating — what I believe some of the essentials of an overall transportation policy should be. In one word, it is competition. In a phrase also, it is a greater measure of participation by the private sector. It is also an approach which would see more of our transportation functions, especially the movement of bulkier goods and highly manufactured equipment and so on, on a cost-recovery basis, on a user-pay basis. Subsidize the movement of people if we have to; certainly subsidize their movement in our big cities or even across the Strait of Georgia. But basically endeavour to operate in such a way, and create a regulatory environment which is conducive to greater competition and a more efficient service for our people all around.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his excellent observations. He is a man with all kinds of experience and knowledge, and I greatly appreciate his remarks. We'll see that a copy of his remarks will get to the transport policy people that are doing the work. They are much appreciated.

Just a couple of items on the remarks themselves. Regarding air routes in the province, I find Transport Canada very cooperative. They do ask our opinion now when they are awarding routes to, say, Canadian Pacific, Pacific Western, and so on. While we haven't any authority, as you know, I do appreciate them asking the opinion, and they seem to consider it quite important. So on that we have a little going there now.

Another item that was mentioned by the member was the costs paid by Ottawa. I don't hold any hope out for any type of costs other than what they are supporting now. I've had the pleasure and honour of meeting the new federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Pépin, three times. When the discussion of money comes along, he says that really he's out here to make a loan and that Ottawa hasn't any money and not to ask them for any money for any type of thing. He feels that we're wealthy and we should be loaning them money. So it's not very encouraging to look for any additional financial support in transportation other than what Ottawa is already supplying, specifically the B.C. Ferries subsidy.

On the reference made by the member to the STOL aircraft study, I think that study is going to be released shortly. I would remind the members that that is a Transport Canada or a federal government report, but I believe it's going to be announced shortly.

The last item the member mentioned was the Motor Carrier Commission. Yes, it is the responsibility of this ministry, and I would just like to tell the Legislature that we are getting more complaints daily from citizens of British Columbia regarding the regulation, whether it be the passenger side or the commercial truck operations side. We're starting to take a look at it. I'm not saying at all that we are deregulating what we're now seeing, but we're looking into all aspects of the Motor Carrier Commission, based so far on complaints from citizens and the slowness that it takes to get applications cleared. I don't think it's anything to do with the individuals in the Motor Carrier Commission headquarters in Vancouver; they're overwhelmed with applications for new routes and fare increases, whether it be passenger or freight rates. We're looking at the whole setup in the Motor Carrier Commission. Again, I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

I just want to answer a couple of short questions from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). He wanted to know if I would report to the Legislature regarding the operations of the Victoria Princess and the jetfoil. Certainly we'll report the operations of the B.C. Steamship Company. It's done every year by the minister responsible. I can't recall when that report comes in, but I believe their fiscal year is the calendar year, and whoever the minister is will be tabling that report. But I want to emphasize that we're not reporting anything about the jetfoil, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the operations of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Company. So I want to get it on the record that we will not be reporting on the operations of the jetfoil, because the jetfoil is operated by the private sector and we don't have any requirement to report. I'm sure that company will gladly report, but it is not a responsibility of this government in any shape or form to report on that operation.

MR. COCKE: It's your outfit, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. opposition over there are trying to convince the public that the jetfoil is our operation. I want to assure them that it is not the operation of the B.C. government. We cooperate with them, but it is not in any way our operation. I realize the member for New Westminster wouldn't get that straight, and there are a lot of other people who wouldn't, but I want to make that point abundantly clear.

The last item I have — and I wanted to answer these questions today.... The member for Victoria talked about stepping up advertising, and I appreciate his observations regarding the Seattle-Victoria service. I would answer him that I would gladly look into it, but we have had an extensive advertising campaign on. Maybe we're not doing it right, but in conjunction with Tourism B.C. and the Ministry of Tourism there has been a heavy advertising campaign on and as far as I know it is still ongoing.

The last question that & first member for Victoria asked was what I had to do, as the Minister of Transportation, regarding negotiations with the Boeing Co. on the jetfoil. I had nothing whatsoever to do with those negotiations other than that the Boeing aircraft people contacted my office several times in 1979 to approach, through my office, the B.C. Ferry Corporation to convince them they should have a jetfoil in that corporation. Getting to the details of the jetfoil that is now operated on the Victoria-Seattle run by the private sector, I have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for participating in the debate, and I would like to note that he is one of the few backbenchers from the government side to stand up and participate in democracy as we know it in this House. It appears that if you are going to participate in democracy it is a dirty word.

While I am on my feet and talking about the member, I was quite pleased that he mentioned the Dash-7. He may suggest to this House that it should be located in Work Point Barracks or Macaulay Point, but I feel that if the user should

[ Page 3142 ]

pay for this noisy piece of equipment he should talk, maybe, to the member for Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith) and they can negotiate, as he suggests, that the user pay, and locate that airport in the Uplands Golf Course. Or he can talk to the member for Saanich (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Maybe there are some places around Cadboro Bay where he would like to land it. But they are not going to land that particular plane in the area of Esquimalt. It is not going to be done in Macaulay Point without one hell of a fight from this member. You are going to destroy any community with a plane that will be flying day and night. It's the noisiest noise polluter of an airplane, and you're going to put it right in the community of Esquimalt? Maybe he has a place over in British Properties where he is going to land it. If you're going to fly it, fly it from the Uplands and into British Properties, but don't fly it from Esquimalt. I say that very honestly.

HON. MR. FRASER: You sound like a homer.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Alec.

What I would like to talk about.... I'm happy that the Premier is here. Maybe he has a better memory of who was at the meeting you attended where you discussed the formation of the Flying Princess Transportation Corporation. I know the minister said that it has nothing to do with his ministry. I say that every ad in the paper today that is financed by the B.C. Ferry Corporation includes both the Flying Princess and the Victoria Princess. They are paying for the advertising. It is a joint venture. The organization that is operating the Flying Princess jetfoil is part of that operation.

I would like to read into the record.... Maybe the Premier, now that he is over here, can listen too. Maybe he could refresh your memory, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Were the following people at that meeting? These are the directors of the society known as the Flying Princess Transportation Corporation: Ken King, Harbour Towers; Newell Morrison, 2175 Lansdowne Road, Victoria; Pat Crofton, 4010 Prospect Lake Road, president of the corporation; George Devlin, 1189 Highrock Place; Peter C. Meredith, 2930 Cook Street; John E. Ansell, 3446 Plymouth Road, Victoria — was he at the meeting? Harry Tyson from 1400 Mt. Douglas Cross Road in Victoria, or William S. Eng, from 5228 Old West Saanich Road — were they at the meeting? Or Terry Farmer of 1936 Bowker Road? Or Cedric Steele? I believe Cedric Steele has been confirmed as being at the meeting. What about Reginald F. Mooney of 1235 Johnson Street in Victoria? Or Jim Wong, of 272-200 Granville Street in Vancouver? Were all these people at the meeting? Did all these people, by coincidence, then become directors of a corporation known as the Flying Princess Transportation Corporation?

I feel that if they were at a meeting that you, as the president of the B.C. Steamship Company were at, you have a responsibility to explain how a number of people are working in harness with you, according to the advertising that was put in the paper under the B.C. Steamships, with the two types of ships. And the responsibility must be in your department.

When I was going over this particular incorporation, I thought it was interesting to read some of the wisdom that went into bringing these bylaws in that are going to take some of the money, taxpayers' money, that will go into financing the advertising of the jetfoil. I thought it was interesting — true free enterprise. Section 2 states: "The applicants are individuals of the full age of 21 years." I thought that was quite intelligent, really, that all these people that are going to run it are of the age of 21.

But the interesting part, as you told the first member for Victoria, is that he was not invited to this meeting.

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you against that?

MR. MITCHELL: That we weren't invited? Yes. I say that all the MLAs, not only the one from Oak Bay, not only the one from Saanich, but the two from Victoria and the one from Esquimalt should have also been at that meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw in the hippies from James Bay.

MR. MITCHELL: No, the MLAs that are duly elected representatives of the people of this area should have some input.

HON. MR. FRASER: You just said you didn't want any transportation in Esquimalt.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, will you bring that man to order.

Anyway, maybe we're going to get a report. Maybe we're going to be able, after the next meeting, to report what this corporation does. I believe that if we're going to have any reports, we have to be able to join the organization. Under "Conditions of Membership," section 2 says: "Membership in the corporation shall be limited to persons interested in furthering the objects and purposes of the corporation and whose applications for admission as members have received the approval of the board of directors. "

As a duly elected MLA I am going to make my application. The only thing I'm a little worried about is that section 6 of that same "Conditions of Membership" says.... I can make my application, but it says: "...whose application for admission as members have received the approval of the board of directors." Is that a form of blackball? Do you think they would blackball the elected member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew if he made an application to join? I do.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has assured me that they'll let me on. Will you kind of endorse that, Mr. Minister? Because I believe the second member for Victoria is also going to make an application.

The only thing I'm really worried about is that it says under section 6: "Any member may be required to resign by a vote of the majority of directors in attendance at a meeting of the directors called for such a purpose." When I stand, after attending my meeting and reporting the activities of that meeting.... I am a member and someone should report back to the House. If the Minister of Transportation and Highways will not report to this House on the business of where the taxpayers' money is going to advertise the Flying Princess, then I feel that as the MLA who makes the application, I shall make an application and I will hope to report.

I feel there are a few other sections of this.... We people who are going to finance the corporation should understand what is happening. I thought it was quite interesting as I went down the sections to section 11. I wish the

[ Page 3143 ]

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) were here, because under section 11 it says: "The office of director shall be automatically vacated...." and it has (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Subsection (b) has wording that I haven't heard for years and years. It has gone out of use. I know the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General would support me. Under subsection (b) it says: "The office of director shall be automatically vacated if he is found to be a lunatic or become of unsound mind."

Mr. Chairman, the word "lunatic" has not been used in comparing mental illness for years and years. Here is an organization that is going to take money from the people of British Columbia, and they can't even use the proper explanation for mental illness. They would use a word that is in disgrace. That word for mental illness is in disgrace, and I think any money that goes to an organization that has that in its bylaws should also be in disgrace. I know if I used that in court or in my previous occupation, I would be before the police board. I would be put down. But here is an organization that would use that in their bylaws, and this government will endorse it and subsidize their operations.

It's interesting. We're going to have meetings. This is an organization to run a jetfoil from Victoria to Seattle, and it says: "Meetings." Section 29: "The annual meeting of the members of the corporation shall be held at the head office of the corporation or elsewhere in Canada, as the board of directors may determine" — not British Columbia, but anywhere in Canada. Is this going to be to stop all the members who are going to join so they can't go, and only certain directors or certain chosen few will be able to go to Quebec or anywhere else?

I just wanted to bring this to your attention, Mr. Minister. I hope you really study the bylaws and the letters patent of this organization that you are subsidizing, and I wish you would go through it. When I make my application, I hope you have a good word for me.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a number of issues that I'd like to raise during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I want to leave all of them but one until sometime next week when we get further along in these estimates. The one issue I want to raise, as I've indicated to people in the community of Tahsis that I would raise it today, relates to a particular road situation in that community that has some emergency qualities to it. Let me very quickly, in the time that remains this afternoon, put the case of the people — not just the people, but the village council and also the Tahsis Company — about a particular problem there that the minister can solve should he choose to do so. The problem, unfortunately, has to be solved by next Wednesday or Thursday.

The community of Tahsis contributes to the province somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17 million to $19 million a year in income taxes, both personal and corporate. Apart from the construction of one small bridge, they receive no money from the Ministry of Highways. They do not have any public highways in that community. They have a forest access road and money comes out of the Ministry of Forests for that. There is no money, apart from the bridge, from the Ministry of Highways in that community, despite the phenomenal resources and wealth that is contributed to the province by that community, among many others.

Because the Tahsis Company decided a few years ago to expand its mill operation, the community had to relocate the road, and in having to relocate the main road through the community they decided to upgrade it to proper standard. In doing that they had to do a considerable amount of rock work. The contract was let for that particular project some time ago: unfortunately the mayor of the community at that time also was the contractor who received the contract — I might say it was also the Socred campaign manager in that community in the campaign against me. Nevertheless, that's history now.

There were significant overruns in that particular road project for a variety of reasons, among them the fact that the rock turned out to be pretty rotten, there were a number of slides, and excessive fill was required. The community has excessive financial problems. Is at the limit of its borrowing and has been forced, just prior to the paving stage of road construction, to suspend all operations, because they cannot legally spend any more money in the village of Tahsis because they had reached their spending limits and were ordered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) not to spend any more money. The paving project in that community was let out at $216,000. Because the Tahsis Company, because of its renovations and some work it wanted to do, was doing a fair amount of paving, it was agreed that the paving crew would come in over that 44 miles of gravel logging road into Tahsis and do both jobs together with a couple of other smaller jobs at the same time, saving, as I understand, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000 — this is from Tahsis Company engineers. The $100,000 extra would be required to mobilize the crew and the equipment to come in again for a separate occasion.

The Tahsis Company paving project will finish on Wednesday if the weather holds out; a couple of days longer will be spent for some small projects, and then they will be out. The municipality on June 21 voted to allow the village to borrow another $285,000 to complete that project. Unfortunately, under the Municipal Act there is required a 30-day quashing period, in which time the borrowing authority can be quashed. The village of Tahsis can't pave the road until about the end of July, when the 30 days have expired. By the end of July, it will be three weeks after the paving has been finished for the Tahsis Company, so for the sake of a three week period the community is going to be faced with an extra $100,000, I'm told by the engineers, mobilization cost to bring in the crew at another time.

Keep in mind that this $100,000 extra cost is shared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That's an extra $50,000 that the government's going to have to hand out because of this peculiar set of circumstances in Tahsis.

I began working on this problem, together with the village council, some two or three months ago in meetings with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. and more recently in meetings with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. What I asked for originally was that the road within the village of Tahsis, from the dock to the provincial Highways bridge, be declared an arterial road. That has been done in other communities; 0.7 mile in Zeballos was declared an arterial road. The road in Alert Bay was declared an arterial road so the province could pay for the cost of construction of that roadway. Yet in the community, of Tahsis, a major contributor to the economy of this province, the decision from the ministry is no, we will not declare that particular roadway arterial. We will not therefore contribute to the cost of that road construction.

I'm now asking not for a full declaration of arterial; all

[ Page 3144 ]

I'm asking is for a temporary arterial designation, so the paving company can stay there and do the paving on that particular road while they're there. The cost of paving on that contract right now is $216,000. The cost will increase by 50 percent if they have to do it a month later, or some months later whenever some contractor is available, plus the additional cost of doing it later just from inflation alone. Why can't the ministry, through an order-in-council in the next couple of days — early next week at the latest — declare the road arterial, allow the bid that was put in originally to stand, let the company in there now complete the paving required in that community, and then declassify it and your responsibilities are over again? It seems to me the kind of thing that government should be doing in small communities.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talked earlier about allowances for communities because of the special problems they have in terms of flights. There are other kinds of problems in small communities. A great many of them have been aided by governments both Social Credit and NDP, because there is a recognition that those communities contribute more to our society, more to our economy, than they ever take out. Yet they always get the short end of the stick when it comes to government services. That applies to the full range of government services.

I would hope that the minister, coming from a rural constituency, having been mayor of a medium-sized town, understanding the problems of communities of that size, understanding the problems of contractors and of trying to get another paving crew to come in there later in the year at significant cost, and understanding the fact that the government is going to have to pay 50 percent of that extra cost anyway.... I've worked out the figures; the total extra cost, if the government took on the full extra cost of that paving job, would be in the neighbourhood of $50,000 or $60,000 net.

Please, Mr. Minister. You turned us down in your office. You turned us down by a telegram yesterday to the community. Don't turn us down now.

I'll conclude and leave a few minutes for you to answer my requests. I'll conclude by reading a telegram that you may not have seen yet. It's a telegram to you from Jack Christensen. Jack Christensen is the president of Tahsis Co. Ltd., a man everyone in this House knows. Here's his telegram to you today:

REGARDING THE MAIN ROAD THROUGH THE VILLAGE OF TAHSIS, THE SITUATION IS AS FOLLOWS. ON JUNE 21, 1980, THE VILLAGE OF TAHSIS CONDUCTED AND PASSED A REFERENDUM AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE TO BORROW $285,000 TO COMPLETE THE ROAD. THIS AMOUNT WAS BASED ON A FIRM BID OF $216,000 FOR PAVING, INCLUDING A PRO RATA SHARE OF MOBILIZATION COSTS WITH THE TAHSIS COMPANY. IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S BID FOR PAVING WAS APPROXIMATELY $100,000 BELOW THE NEXT COMPETITIVE BID. THE CONTRACTOR HAS MOBILIZED AND IS NOW IN TAHSIS PROCEEDING WITH THE TAHSIS COMPANY'S WORK. UNLESS HE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE PAVING OF THE ROAD HIS BID TIME LIMIT WILL EXPIRE AND THE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOW PRICE AND SHARED MOBILIZATION COSTS WILL BE LOST. KNOWING THE AMOUNT BY WHICH HE WAS LOW BIDDER, THE CONTRACTOR HAS STATED THAT HIS RE-BID, INCLUDING FULL REMOBILIZATION COSTS, WILL BE IN THE ORDER OF $100,000 MORE. UNDER THE STATUTES COVERING REFERENDA THE VILLAGE CANNOT PROCEED WITH THIS WORK UNTIL 30 WORKING DAYS AFTER JUNE 2 1, I. E. JULY 28. THIS MEANS IN EFFECT NOT ONLY WILL THE $100,000 BE WASTED BUT THE REFERENDUM AUTHORIZATION WILL NOT COVER THE NEW COST OF COMPLETING THE JOB. I MOST URGENTLY REQUEST THAT YOU RECONSIDER FINANCING OF THIS PROJECT THROUGH YOUR MINISTRY.

TAHSIS CO. LTD.
J.V. CHRISTENSEN, PRESIDENT

Now simply on the basis of good fiscal management, please accede to this request, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for North Island, I appreciate the observations he has made regarding the problem with the village of Tahsis. He knows that I have dealt with this. The mayor and council have been in my office, along with the MLA. Quite frankly, the whole thing is a mess. It is not created by the MLA or by this or any other ministry. After I met the mayor and council with you in my office — I believe it was last week — I told them I would let them know in a week. My office wired them yesterday that we would not give them any financial consideration.

There are just a few points that I should make to the member. You know we have a proper highway from Campbell River to Gold River. We just got through spending $2 million on that to upgrade it. Then we have the forest access road from Gold River to Tahsis, but I don't want the House to get any wrong ideas. The forest access road is maintained by Forests with Highways money — not with their money but with Highways money. We're continually getting complaints about their maintenance, but we'll look after that. But it is Highways money that is looking after that maintenance.

The other thing that's happened here, and I'm confused now.... I believe revenue sharing has already gone into this, as far as the province is concerned, to the amount of $213,000. In any event, I'm aware, Mr. Chairman, that we have to make a decision. You gave us until next Wednesday, I gather, and we'll take a second look at this and give you an answer on Monday. You won't have to wait until Wednesday, because I know what paving machines are. We have a lot of them standing idle right now that I'd love to give you, because they can't pave because of the weather.

MR. LEA: And Mount St. Helens.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, sure. Mount St. Helens too.

But we'll take another look at it, Mr. Member, and let you know on Monday.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, because tomorrow there is only a short period of time between when members get here and the House meets, could the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) tell the House what we will be dealing with tomorrow, and perhaps also what we will be dealing with next week?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the query from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard),

[ Page 3145 ]

his Whip will be informed the very first thing in the morning as to what the business will be. We will probably continue with the exciting debate on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the annual report of the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.